User talk:Fyunck(click)

You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out onto the court to play each other; to have heard the applause, to have heard dead silence from the crowd as a point was in progress. The years have come and gone as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, and Sampras... and now the space age materials and all-court players such as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King, Goolagong, and Navratilova, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as Graf and Williams. Service has changed from having to keep one foot on the ground or just getting the ball in play, to players who can fire a dart that only high speed cameras can behold. The four majors have changed in my lifetime from three grass courts and one clay court, to one grass court, two acrylic courts, and one clay court. The courts have also been changed in the last 20 years to be closer to the same speed; Wimbledon slowed down and the French Open sped up. The balls have also been slowed down and with all those changes the tougher-to-master net game has disappeared but the multi-surface champions have blossomed.

Of course I wasn't there in the 1920's when tennis truly went international and the ILTF wrote into their bylaws that no Major championship could claim to be a "world championship" or that the language of tennis would be "for ever in English", but the repercussions of those early days, and binding together of adversarial organizations, laid the groundwork for what we have today. The sport is special to me and it always will be. As we venture into the unknown of pandemics and crowdless stadiums lets applaud how far we've come since Spencer Gore won the first Wimbledon Championships back in 1877. We'll get through this with flying colors, and not just tennis. We'll mourn our great losses but eventually move on like juggernaut. Tennis looks like it's in good hands with the youngest generation of players ready to grab the brass ring from the seats of their steads, but the legends are still hoping they get some splinters from reaching out too quickly. Cheers.

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,368		Eskimo (talk)	Add sources
19,661		Stephen Curry (talk)	Add sources
6,337		Carmelo Anthony (talk)	Add sources
227		Dan Evans (tennis) (talk)	Add sources
1,065		Masha and the Bear (talk)	Add sources
23		Rafael Osuna (talk)	Add sources
126		1987 Meerut communal riots (talk)	Cleanup
7		Shatsk National Natural Park (talk)	Cleanup
5		2019 Qatar Total Open – Singles (talk)	Cleanup
3		Marcel Vacherot (talk)	Expand
117		Dominic Thiem career statistics (talk)	Expand
6		2020 WTA Elite Trophy (talk)	Expand
31		Commonwealth School (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
112		World number 1 ranked male tennis players (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
88		Backhand (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
16		Raw animal food diets (talk)	Merge
239		Québécois people (talk)	Merge
161		Ukrainian War of Independence (talk)	Merge
1,114		Dunblane massacre (talk)	Wikify
2		1990 Volvo Tennis Los Angeles – Doubles (talk)	Wikify
121		The Stinky & Dirty Show (talk)	Wikify
4		Antoon Leenaars (talk)	Orphan
3		Denis Kostrzhevskiy (talk)	Orphan
3		Manifesto to the Ukrainian people with ultimate demands to the Ukrainian Rada (talk)	Orphan
20		Zane Khan (talk)	Stub
12		H. Briggs (talk)	Stub
4		Laurent Riboulet (talk)	Stub
81		Indian 5-rupee note (talk)	Stub
6		Paul Aymé (talk)	Stub
194		WTA 1000 tournaments (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Prize money wta players

Hello Fyunck(click), i found the additional information "femal" next to both Kerber's and S. Williams' overall carer earnings in their info-boxes, whereas there is no such information on Kvitovás earnings in her info-box (the top men don't have the lable "male", either). Is that correct? Do you know any WP-rules on that issue? Either way (keeping or deleating the additional information "female"), I'd argue for a consistent use. Thanks and greetings, --LH7605 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@LH7605: I guess it's one of those things that some editors include and some don't. I'm pretty sure there is nothing at Tennis Project either way. To me, it's understood they are separate organizations with separate totals and we need neither "female" nor "male" in the sentence. I agree with consistent use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that there is nothing at Tennis Project on thtat matter. It seems like someone already deleated most of the "female"-lables and for consistency reasons, as well as for logical reasons (agree with you that it's clear that WTA and ATP are separate organisations with seperate totals), I deleated the remaining lables.--LH7605 (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Pro at Cleveland

Fyunck, you are right, we should reconcile the number of Gonzales' acknowledged U.S. Pro wins with the number of actual U.S. Pro wins...there appears to be only one officially sanctioned Gonzales' U.S. Pro Championship win, and that was in L.A. in 1954.

Here is the link to the Wiki article on the U.S. Pro, and in note (b) is summarized the problem with Cleveland, which was, in fact, the authorized U.S. Pro in 1950, but not thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Pro_Tennis_Championships

Footnote [9] gives the source from the USPLTA website "Renowned players grace USPTA Championships" which explains that the organization did not authorize U.S. Pro events after 1951, when the U.S. Pro was held at Forest Hills. The only exception to this was 1954 at L.A.

The successor event to Forest Hills 1951 was the U.S. Pro at L.A. Tennis Club, referenced in the L.A. Times on this Wiki page. Segura was deemed to be the defending champion from 1951.

It's complicated, to say the least. But Gonzales at the time used the term "National Professional Championships", not quite the same thing as "U.S. Pro", and I do not doubt that Gonzales was aware of the distinction.Tennisedu (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tennisedu:Sanctioned means nothing. Per historians/sources today this is the list of U.S. Pro Tennis Championships. Gonzales won 8. He also won a Cleveland event in 1954 and 1964 that were not the US Pro Championships. It's the same sort of thing with the two events "U.S. National Indoor Championships" and "Memphis Open." At times those two events overlapped and at other times both were in existence. We just need to be careful like we did with Borg and Connors that we don't give credit for the same event twice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was a little more messy than that. Cleveland was the USPLTA-sanctioned U.S. Pro in 1950, and the USPLTA gave the Cleveland promoter the Benrus Cup that year to award to the winner, Segura. And the USPLTA gave the Benrus Cup to the Cleveland promoter to use again for 1951 for the expected U.S. Pro event for 1951. However, Kramer and Riggs managed to rent Forest Hills in 1951 (Kramer had lost to Segura on the Cleveland clay in 1950) and the USPLTA switched recognition for the U.S. Pro to the Forest Hills event. Segura won the Forest Hills event, but Segura still believed that Cleveland was the rightful 1951 U.S. Pro (won by Kovacs, who received the Benrus Cup for winning at Cleveland).

The USPLTA did not sanction a 1952 U.S. Pro, and the Cleveland promoter petitioned the USPLTA to use the "U.S. Pro" billing for the 1952 Cleveland event...but the USPLTA refused the request. Cleveland then retained the billing of "Cleveland International Professional Championships" which had been used in 1951, when the U.S. Pro title had been moved to Forest Hills. Also, Cleveland billed itself as the "International Pro" in 1953, when Gonzales won over Budge.

Now, we can understand the claim in the L.A. Times for 1954, which citation I gave you. The article claims that Segura, as winner of the 1951 U.S. Pro, was the "defending champion" of the USPLTA-approved 1954 L.A. U.S. Pro, carried over from that Forest Hills event, in other words, there had been NO U.S. Pro event since that time. And that is confirmed by the newspaper coverage of the 1952 and 1953 Cleveland events, which used the term "International Pro" as billed for the Cleveland.

So when did the Cleveland start getting called "U.S. Pro"? It appears not before the mid 1960's, or perhaps even after the Cleveland event was no longer being held. In other words, it is not history, but appears to be an anachronistic usage deriving from a history rewrite.

As far as I can see in the histories, USPLTA had the authority to sanction the U.S. Pro, and Kramer had obtained that approval for both of his events, the 1951 U.S. Pro at Forest Hills, and the 1954 U.S. Pro at L.A., which was also a Kramer event. It is entirely possible that Kramer also got USPLTA permission for the use of the U.S. Pro billing for the 1963 Forest Hills event, although that is based on Kramer's history of 1951 and 1954, and his mention of getting USPLTA approval for Forest Hills in the final day press coverage of the 1959 Forest Hills TOC. Tennisedu (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tennisedu:Please learn to indent properly and to sign your text with four tildas at the "end" of your text, not at the beginning. Otherwise it's harder to follow. I indented your last post for you here and moved your signature. Thanks. A lot of tennis is after-the-fact. The Grand Slam tournaments have retroactive acknowledgement back to the 20s and 30s. Heck in 1920 there were five international Major championships, not four. But history and usage change things. The same with the US Pro. Historically, tennis tournaments have often been a bit fuzzy about when they started and ended, and they sometimes move to new places and retain the same name. Or restart in the same place under a new name and management. Perfection is not possible with this sport. But we can't give players more credit for wins just because an event has two names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I would like to see the tournament which we label as "U.S. Pro" actually make some credible claim to that name at the time it is actually played, and not decades later. Especially if we are claiming that it is a major tournament, and that is another sore point for Cleveland, the fields were very weak in some years.Tennisedu (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The fields were weak in all the Major pro events in some years. That was the nature of the Pro events. Small fields and variable draws. And we aren't claiming they were major events, sources given are claiming it was one of the three major pro events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but those sources were written years after-the-fact, and really have no more status than what we could write today, they were not official statements by anyone connected with the management of these purported U.S. Pros. Sometimes it may be better to just acknowledge, as the USPLTA does on their history, that "in some years the U.S. Pro was not held", just as in some years the French Pro "was not held", or in some years the Wembley Pro "was not held". I think that is better than scouring the landscape looking for something to fill the gap. In 1942 the U.S. Open golf tournament was won by Ben Hogan, but he did not get credit for it, the title was withdrawn just before the tournament was played, due to wartime. Now, some golf historians believe that Hogan should get credit for this U.S. Open because all the golfers were there ready to play the U.S. Open, and it was a very prestigious event. But there is no acknowledgement of this win as an official U.S. Open victory in Hogan's record. We could say that Hogan certainly deserved to get a win registered for this win, but it does not appear on his official record.

That may be a similar situation with these Cleveland events, everyone wants them to be acknowledged as U.S. Pro wins, and so that is what happened in the 1960's, the Cleveland event was reinvented in tennis histories. Well, each to his own, but it doesn't register on my radar as a major. Kramer, for some reason, did not supply his top field of players to Cleveland to make that a credible major.Tennisedu (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Postcript: Fyunck, sorry, my indents are still not working properly, I will keep working on my technique.Tennisedu (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea about the golf situation, but the Pro tennis situation was an entirely different beast than the tennis authorities today. It doesn't exist anymore and the entire landscape was a lot of fighting and scrambling for dollars. per today there was nothing "official" about any of it and hence the reason the ATP doesn't even act like it existed. And the fields for some of the current Open Era majors has been just as depleted in the 1970s because of other infighting, yet those are still considered Grand Slam tournaments. Field strength is only one indicator value. My own thoughts might be totally different than what we have sourced but my own thoughts mean absolutely zero here on wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Errors by purpose

There is a user 188.105.94.86 that always do errors by purpose, never explane why he done this. I'm alluding on changing US$ to $ without explanation (he always do this), resized font of ITF / WTA 125K table, without explanation, not responding to messages that i left on his talk page (he also didn't respond before). I'm just wondering, just you so into these guidliness things, do you think it's ok that he do it , and maybe i'm wrong, I don't know anymore, but I think it's fair if you correcting me for mistakes, to do also with him. Also reverting some of my edits without explanation. So, if you are intresting, some of pages where it happened:

• Iga Świątek (1 undid revision without explanation)
• Veronika Kudermetova (no undid revision, but he was told before about resize and dollar sign)
• Lauren Davis (2 undid revision without explanation)
• Fanny Stollár (no undid revision, but also told before)

Thanks. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Now, see it also on Maria Sakkari (you can see on his last edit, what he made - removing "career total", removing bold for year-end ranking, full form of american dollar sign, resize of tables. - - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at it. The US$ thing I have no idea what is wikipedia consensus. I'm not sure if we have a guideline on legend font size, but all other tables should be at 100%. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The guy who has begun with those undid revisions (since Sep 2018) is: JamesAndersoon - see f.e. Fanny Stollár, Lauren Davis... - 188.105.94.86 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You used to change things without explanation, and you was told before to not do this, but you ignore, that's why your edits were reverted. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennis format question (related to Kayla Day)

Hey so I had a general question about the performance timelines. Does Kayla's timeline go above the ITF tournaments since they are ITF tournaments, which is like minor leagues? I was under the impression that the timelines go towards the bottom, like for Caroline Dolehide. Also saw the format of putting timelines towards the bottom here Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Format. Appreciate your assistance. michfan2123 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Michfan2123: There is no guideline at all as to placement, just a strict guideline as to content. We were discussing this the other day at tennis project that some of us feel there is no more important chart as our performance timelines. They are the single most informative bit of information and they are the same for all articles. I have been putting them right at the top of the career statistics to show them off for our readers as opposed to having them buried in the middle of other less important charts such as low-level ITF events. If a player has a career statistics secondary article we use a small Grand Slam tournament only chart on the main page, at the top of the career stats. Does that help at all? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Makes sense, thanks. michfan2123 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources For Claim

Hi. Regarding this edit, and a few others you've made, I believe that I mentioned that the US Open is not a WTA event. You replied that it's "part of the WTA schedule." Just because something is on your schedule does not mean that you own it.

If you are going to claim that the Slams are ATP and WTA events, please provide reliable sources which explicitly state so. Otherwise, your scheduling argument could be labeled original thought. I've added some reliable sources to the Grand Slam article which explicitly state that the Slams are not owned by the ATP or WTA. Therefore, Grand Slam titles should not be labeled ATP or WTA titles (see Roger Federer). This is not about "splitting hairs" or being antagonist, it's simply about Wikipedia policy. -- James26 (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The four majors are part of the ATP and WTA tours. They also give 2000 ranking points. They don't own them, but by agreement they are part of the tour. And there is no wikipedia policy saying otherwise. If you want to change how we do things please bring it to Tennis Project talk. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

". . .by agreement they are part of the tour."

What exactly does this mean? How does this pertain to editing? Is there some formal agreement in place to list ATP titles and WTA titles as Slam titles on Wikipedia? Please link me to it. I wasn't aware. The Roger Federer article clearly makes a distiction between "ATP Tour" and "Grand Slam."

According to policy, claims added to articles, especially about living persons, have to be verfied. Unless you can verify that her US Open title is "a WTA title," that claim does not belong in the article, and discussion is not required to remove it. Please source your claim. -- James26 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, the infobox uses just a short WTA instead of WTA Tour... same as ITF instead of ITF Tour. Otherwise the Grand Slamd tournaments would go under ITF in the infobox... they don't. We simply use WTA to mean events sponsored by the WTA or ATP tours. In the infobox we shorten it to WTA or ATP. It's that simple. The WTA and ATP total the Grand Slam events and give points just like they do all their other events. The WTA website says she has 3 titles... that includes the US Open, Canadian Open, and Indian Wells Open. Argue with them. If you want to change how we do things then please bring it up on the Tennis Project talk page and get others to agree with you. I don't think you'll find any at all. And Federers article simply says 103 titles. We do not list his ITF titles as it's so trivial so we don't have to say ATP titles. If Andreescu wins a couple more WTA titles the 125k challenger and ITF titles will be removed from the infobox as also being trivial. It's what we do at Tennis Project. It's pretty obvious you aren't retired as your talk page says. Perhaps you should change that? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is supposed to respect Wikipedia policy. Purposely adding something incorrect to an article, especially about a living person, is not respecting policy. Also, I did not see a consensus on Project Tennis to explicitly list Slam titles as WTA or ATP titles.

The WTA site may incorrectly call it a Grand Slam title, but I've cited other reliable sources which contradict this. Again, purposely adding something incorrect to an article is not proper. -- James26 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I've done my best to explain things to you, but it doesn't work. I'm done here since you won't follow through with bringing it to tennis project talk. And you brought some frivolous claim to ani. My goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You explained it to me just fine. I simply disagree with purposely including something false in the article. It's either a fact or it's not. Note: the ANI wasn't meant as an attack. Just trying to resolve the matter, as I'm short on free time. -- James26 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolving Dispute

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. James26 (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL... and they wouldn't accept it. Bring it to Tennis Project Talk as I said. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: March 2020

I don't really have time for this now. I've taken it to another notice board for assistance. I asked before: Provide me a link to this "long-standing consensus" that specifically states that Slam titles shall be listed as WTA titles. Do that, and I'm fine with leaving it be. -- James26 (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus is just that. Tennis Project has used this formula on countless articles. Another overkill source was added to the infobox also. You need to convince others at Tennis Project talk that your new longer way works better and so far that hasn't happened. You can't just keep reverting everyone or you will certainly get blocked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

James, I have no dog in this hunt (except being interested in tennis and being a longtime contributor) so I don't really care one way or another what you and Fyunck end up with. But I just wanted to second what Fyunck says above -- make too many reverts and you will sooner or later get yourself blocked. Best to work out a consensus with the other people at the Tennis Project and then go along with whatever is decided. Whether it's what you yourself would have preferred or not. That's the way of Wikipedia, and, as they say about City Hall, at some point you can't fight it. Cheers! Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian Wells 2020

Many of media outlets said that the 2020 Indian Wells has already been cancelled as it was truly confirmed on March 8, 2020; as several websites shown being linked up:

• Indian Wells cancelled due to concerns about the coronavirus outbreak
• Coronavirus spread: Coronavirus spread: Indian Wells cancelled because of concerns
• Coronavirus spread: Indian Wells cancelled because of concerns
• Tennis in turmoil after Indian Wells cancelled due to coronavirus fears
• Olympic torch to be lit without spectators; Indian Wells tennis canceled over coronavirus
• Indian Wells Tennis Tournament Becomes First Major U.S. Sporting Event Canceled In Wake Of Coronavirus

Stated on the links above, 2020 Indian Wells is cancelled and wait till next year. ApprenticeFan work 02:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@ApprenticeFan: Per the tournament itself, "We are prepared to hold the tournament on another date and will explore options." So we need to wait and see before we start changing all articles to say canceled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

Can you tell me what's your problem, dude? Removing Russia/Kazahstan from Elena Rybakina page (in Performance timeline table - but Navratilova and Gavrilova should have this???). Removing separately ITF reference??? Don't you think it's better for people to have faster access to draw of some tournament, rather than saying oh we sourced from this site. You remove Premier Mandatory/Premier 5 performances from Kurumi Nara that I edited, why??? I really don't understand what problem you have with me, but dude, you have serious problems. You don't care about most articles being such a mess. I guess you don't have other job except distroying my edits. - James Andersoon

p.s. and talking about "ugly" row (ofcourse for you) with source reference on performance timeline, then tell me why ex. 2020 WTA Finals have it??????

A couple of things. Wikipedia has a problem with flag icons. We allow them for players, not places. Russia/Kazahstan is fine, the flags are not. Remove them if you see them. Thanks. And there is no need to fill the charts with reference after reference if it is esentially from the same source. A single link works better. But making any new rows or columns would require tennis project approval for sure. And i have no problem with you at all. I only have issues with changing are charts will-nilly with no approval. Following rules goes a long way and if someone points it out then you should be willing to accept rather than forcing your way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you don't answer me, then why these pages have this? WTA Finals has it every year. That's the reason why I said you have something against me. I think it's really unfear, if you say something is ruled; that why noone arguing about that on WTA Final page or Daria Gavrilova. It's not something that happened two days ago. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon:I guess i don't understand. Russia/Kazahstan is still there. What else is missing? But really? You look around and find a flag error on Martina Navratilova's article and assume two wrongs must make a right? Di you happen to notice Martina Navratilova career statistics does not have that flag error? Did you happen to search the edit history on Navratilova's article and see it never had those flags except someone slipped it in on 28 July 2018‎. Sorry, but we miss things. Two other things. The 2020 WTA finals is not the same as the player performance charts. It's a different chart entirely. Someone decided it was better to have it on the bottom for that year (the other WTA finals years don't have that row). That chart also has formatting html errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Remember what JamesAndersoon yesterday said to me (- isn't it just the way he is editing here ?): "vandalism is when you want on purpose to change some things against guidliness, cuz you don't like it. US$ link could be here, but it's not nessecary. In that case we have it. If you don't like, move on, and edit other things. Just because you think something is excess, that it should be removed? There are so many things that need correction. so 'be of benefit' and do something good." - 188.105.94.86 (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@188.105.94.86: Yes, I wrote it, but what Fyunck has with that? And what bad I said? It's obvious than you can't do whatever you want. Not only you, everyone. Don't undrstand your point? Ofcourse it's vandalism when you remove stuffs cuz you don't like it. I also don't like something, but keep it, cuz it needs to be there. Maybe not for me, but for others. Thing with US$ link is that something like 2 or 3 months you didn't say a single word why you want to remove it, just like some other stuffs. I saw you changing ex. Australian Open, Australia to Australia, Melbourne cuz you like it more that way. I told you to try to find consesus, but you never respond. Fyunck also warned you a couple of times. I really don't have problems with don't having US$ link, even if I like it more with link. Point is that you can't do it on your own, without explanation and consesus. Everytime I made something that is against guidlines, I was told to correct it, and I did it. In past I had some arguing about this with Fyunck and others, but in the end I understand my mistake and go on. I don't understand your obsession to follow every step I take, even to go on User page's talk to respond to my post that don't have anything with you. p.s. Sorry Fyunck, some users don't have regard. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

And you now go to Petra Martic's page and do things against guidliness (that was told so many times before not to do) and you come here to say that I'm vandal? I'm confused (read it ironicly). - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You also done it on Monica Puig career statistics. Sorry Fyuck cuz I write it here, but he wants answers. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon:@188.105.94.86:While I'd rather you two talk this out on your own talk pages, if you can solve anything here or come to some compromise here, that's fine too. But if it's only going to be back and forth kicking & yelling, please do it somewhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Totally agree! But he mentioned me here for doing vandalism, so I was forced to respond. That's why I say sorry to you. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking to collaborate on tennis articles

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Honda Sports Awards and the award winners.

When I started work on this about a month ago, 14 of the 40 Award winners for volleyball did not have an article. I've created at least start class articles for each of them.

I'm now planning to turn to tennis. The good news is that more of the 38 winners have an article; only nine are missing:

I see that you are an active participant in the tennis project. I'm hoping to convince you to collaborate on creating the articles for these 97 players.

• 1977 Kathy Mueller

* 1981 Anna Fernandez (Update, just found this one)

• 1984 Lisa Spain
• 1998 Marissa Catlin
• 2005 Zuzana Zemenova
• 2008 Amanda McDowell
• 2010 Laura Vallverdu

* 2015 Robin Anderson Update, found another one

• 2019 Estela Perez-Somarriba

If you are interested, my plan would be to start barebones drafts, either in draft space or user subpages, then work on them together until we think they are ready for prime time. Any interest?

(I also note that Michfan2123 has identified an interest in " mainly focused on American female players," so I will reach out, but that editor hasn't been active in a month, so I don't know whether that will work.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: To be honest, I'm not sure the stance at Tennis Project on winning the Honda Sports Award. It does not pass and Tennis Project notability guidelines, but I'm sure the winners pass Wikipedia GNG guidelines. The award is not just for tennis ability but also the ideals of team contribution, scholastic endeavor, school and community involvement and those personal characteristics as stated in the philosophy of the NCAA... I'm not sure it is in the scope of Tennis Project. There are players that have won professional tournaments that are not notable per Tennis Project Guidelines because while professional they are the minor leagues. Even junior players have to win a junior Grand Slam event or be ranked in the world top 3 to get an article with Tennis Project tagged on the talk page.

All that said, these awards are notable, and the winner would meet GNG so some editors at Tennis Project, who are great at stubs, may want to help at creation. Editors like @Tamolyn:, or @WTC7812: might want to take a crack at it. I would not tag the player's talk pages with a WikiProject Tennis banner unless the player also meets Tennis Project guidelines in some manner. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I'm fine with the Tennis Project deciding who is eligible for a Wikiproject Tennis banner. That's not my area of interest. I have also steered away from debating what confers auto inclusion - I've always felt that if there isn't enough material to support an article, then what's the point of an article? If there is enough material, then automatic standards aren't needed.

My main area of interest is women's basketball, so I have limited familiarity with the "status" of awards in other sports. In wbb, the top award is the Wade, and perhaps the Wooden Award, with the Naismith and AP POY close behind. The Honda Sports Award is probably in the next tier, but ahead of USBWA and some others. I can't imagine a women's basketball player winning the Honda Sports Award and not deserving an article. Maybe that's the case in other sports. I recently saw an AfD denied simply because the subject was a Honda Sports Award winner, although I don't recall which sport. It may be the case that the award ranks differently in different sports, but I'm not sure why this matters. I brought up the Award to explain how I am choosing the articles to work on; I am not making any presumption that the recipients are worthy of an article without consideration of gng, or whether they ought to have, or not have some banner on the talk page. I'm happy to leave those decisions to editors who are close to the sport.

When it comes to women's basketball, I am very familiar with the types of sources that cover college and pro activities, but when it comes to other sports, I know very little about the pro leagues, what's important or where to find it, so I was hoping to work on generic material, and collaborate with someone who knows more about the professional sources, as well as the intricacies of the infoboxes.

I've made some progress on User:Sphilbrick/Kathy_Mueller_Rohan, a bit challenging because she predates much of the internet. I've barely touched her pro career, and don't know how to look up some of the usual info in the infobox. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Usually the best place to look for those items is the WTA or ITF websites. On the ITF site I found Kathy Mueller. She tried to qualify for a couple big tournaments and never made it. I see no minor league record. On the main WTA tour at the WTA nothing comes up either. However records are much sketchier at that time, and maybe some newspaper articles would turn up a tournament or two. If she played on the WTA tour (or its equvilent back then) Tennis project would certainly want a banner on the talk page. Right now it looks like she won the Honda award and went on to some other business. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), Yeah, I figure if her best pro ranking was 150, she probably didn't win anything notable. I'll try those sites on some of the other players, who may have had more significant post college careers. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

ITF Challenger names for WTA players

On Kamilla Rakhimova page you said that is probably best to put Challenger name instead of ITF + tournament's city name? I think it will be bit diffucult to do that cuz a lot of tournament don't contain name of city in tournament's title. Some of examples:

• Zed Tennis Open - ITF Cairo, Egypt
• Bredeney Ladies Open - ITF Essen, Germany
• Torneig Internacional de Tennis Femení Solgironès - ITF La Bisbal d'Empordà, Spain
• Al Habtoor Tennis Challenge - ITF Dubai, UAE and etc ...

What's your opinion on that? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Some of these are a tough call. On one side, we really don't need the city name if there is a tournament name. Just the tournament name and country is fine like we would do with Canadian Open, Bavarian Championships, Italian Open, German Open, Swiss Indoors, US Open, etc... If readers really want to know the details of the city they can go to the link. However a name like "Torneig Internacional de Tennis Femení Solgironès" is ridiculous. All that title says is International tennis tournament for females sponsored by Solgirones. We absolutely frown upon sponsored names if we have any kind of an alternative, and the ITF page calls it the ITF La Bisbal d'Empordà. The Al Habtoor Tennis Challenge hs the same sponsor problem but the entire area its played in is actually called Al Habtoor City. Bredeney is the name of the tennis club it's played at so no problem there. These are very tough calls I would agree with you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Yes, understand you. A bit tricky, but it must be look individualy. Definitely, it can't be same rule for all ITF tournaments. Thanks! - - JamesAndersoon (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably true. A general philosophy but case by case. And if someone puts up a stink I just move on and work on hundreds of other things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Header vs bgcolor=efefef

You also told me before that "!" is bad html. Should that mean that also row with years should also be with bgcolor=efefef instead of "!"? If this is case, then it should be changed in Tennis Project Guidlines? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: "!" is header html meant for the top of tables. It is exactly what we should use for that top row of years. It's in the middle of tables that it breaks wikipedia accessibility guidelines as it's only supposed to be used for the first row of years. And some screen readers for the blind don't do well when it's in the middle of a table. We got hit with that many years ago by the accessibility hounds and fixed most issues. I think our tennis project charts are up to date on that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Rolland Garros French Open

Hello Fyunck(click). I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Rolland Garros French Open, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: may be useful; users may query official name, plus does not apply as it is a result of a good-faith page move. Thank you. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 06:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Rolland Garros French Open" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rolland Garros French Open. Since you had some involvement with the Rolland Garros French Open redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Agathoclea: Very strange non deletion though since the Rolland is misspelled and it would never be placed at Rolland Garros French Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Subjective Rankings in Pro Tennis

Fyunck, I noticed that Laver's ranking was removed from the lead in the Lew Hoad article, you mentioned that subjective rankings are inappropriate in a lead. I notice that many other bio articles for tennis pros have subjective statements and subjective ratings/rankings in leads. Should those also be removed?Tennisedu (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I presume that subjective ratings/rankings in a lead could be moved into the body of the article, assuming that the same material is not already inside the body of the article.Tennisedu (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The usually discussions have tried to keep the very subjective all-time rankings to a legacy section of prose. And in prose it should have a year attached because we find former players or historians change their minds on greatness all the time. This is not a policy, just consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood. Well, then no objection if I follow the consensus and do some relocating of puff/subjective ratings/rankings from the leads of some tennis players into the bodies of the articles?Tennisedu (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

You'll note his No. 1 ranking is in the lead. And with many sources in prose I think general consensus was mixed on saying "one of the greatest players of all-time." But I think even that is better left in a legacy section. So no complaints from me on moving missed players stuff to prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ilie Năstase's playing career

His career section looks like a mess. Can you work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.103.69 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Not very specific but it looks like someone is working on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ashley Cooper (tennis)

On 23 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ashley Cooper (tennis), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Quinn is back

Got pretty bored during "Covid-19"; wanted you to know I am back working my way through the project "Cleanup" listing; still mostly references, categories and templates. You might be one of the only ones that cares anymore. Saw your note (Dec 2019); yeah, we all get tired of it. I have been away for a bit; promised myself that I would give up on it...but boredom leads to "looking around", which leads to "Who butchered this page", which leads to me probably kicking myself...but once more into the breach! Mjquinn_id (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hélène Prévost

Hi Fyunck(click), I don't understand why you have reverted all of my edits regarding Hélène Prévost? You wrote "you cant use a wiki as a source. The Olympics and ITF use Hélène Prévost". Olympedia is not a wiki, it is a research site headed by Bill Mallon, an individual who has won the Olympic order for his work in Olympic history. Only a very small number of researchers can edit it, not the general public. Furthermore, the data for Olympedia will eventually be used as the official IOC data, so effectively the Olympics will no longer be using Hélène, they use Yvonne. So it's just the ITF, but contemporary sources that refer to her first name (admittedly not common), list her as Yvonne rather than Hélène. This is why Wikipedia and the ITF lacked her biographical details (birth, death etc.) previously; there is/was no "Hélène Prévost". There is/was only Yvonne, and that's why information on her was unavailable previously. Canadian Paul 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with the revert back to Hélène. One of the criteria for making an undiscussed move is that it seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. Given the conflicting sources and uncertainty I don't think this criteria was met. In these cases WP:RM is a better process to discuss the merits of the move. The outcome may still be a move to Yvonne.--Wolbo (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, to be fair, I've done dozens, if not hundreds, of Olympian moves and people almost never care. In this case, however, it has been challenged, so fair enough, RM should be done. But it's always good to discuss with the user first too. In any case, I'll make the RM sometime soon. I'm in no rush. Canadian Paul 04:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: I looked at the site before reverting, and there are some disturbing attributes. First of all, even in the research notes there is some question as to the validity of Helene or Yvonne. Next, right at the top right of the page it gives links to search for, and one of them is wikipedia. That's not really what you want to see in a reliable source. Other things are Getty photo sources uses Helene. We also have contemporary tennis guides using Helene Prevost. The International Tennis Federation uses Helene Prevost. We have books such as Women in Sport the Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine using Helene. I had checked the Olympiandatabase.com and it used Helene. Olympic.org uses Helene. We have Great Britain Olympics also using Helene. Not as compelling but a tennis historian Mark Ryan also uses Helene. Now it could be that her name is Yvonne Helene Provost since there is a lot we don't know about tennis in that time period. But with so many sources using Helene Prevost, one Olympedia has some serious explaining to do into why it is changing the name. I know there is some evidence that Helene is really Yvonne, based on Yvonne being married to Boppe (who tried to murder her), but we aren't 100% sure of that. If it is truly going to be the main source for the Olympics then we can do a note saying the the official Olympics database uses Yvonne. If because of the switch to Olympedia, most of the other sources also change from the longstanding use of Helene, it seems to me that's when the article should change to Yvonne with Helene as the footnote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

As suggested, I have placed a move request at Talk:Hélène Prévost. I think the bots take care of the rest these days... Canadian Paul 04:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The bots should. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Howdy. I haven't been around the 'diacritics' stuff, as much as I used to (due to the sour taste it puts in my mouth), but I noticed at the RMs Ana Ivanovic, Maja Milinkovic & Raul Julia, that the same individual is still pushing his pro-diacritics usage agenda (which includes 'mass creating' French-based bios & immediately moving them to diacritics titles). After all this time, somethings never change. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Tennis article bloat

Thanks for agreeing to make 4 or 5 months of my life a complete waste - spent 20 or more hours a week on the article in parts of 2018 and you agreed with my changes before and as I was making them. Look back at the article in 2010 - it always had all the details that are now being deleted but they were inconsistent between the years - I made all the years consistent, which yes, in some cases meant adding info to get some years up to the detail of others.Informed analysis (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Informed analysis: You know, bring it up at tennis project. The info is great but as an article gets longer and longer it becomes harder and harder to discern why No. 1 and No. 2 got to be No. 1 and No. 2. Maybe a different article with those facts would be good for the pros, but this article is already gigantic and when a tiny section claims Laver is 1 and Rosewall is 2, that tiny box needs to say what Laver and Rosewall won and lost and that gets crushed if you also have 5 other players wins and losses. I actually like reading about all the big events you put in there but most readers will not, and many editors here did not, and we need to cater to the general populous. That's why we should consider a different article for that. All your work is still there in the history. It would almost be better suited to a place like was done for 1990 in tennis. Then in the boxes at World number 1 ranked male tennis players you could simply add a link to the article that has all the info instead of cramming it all into a tiny box. Any thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Milos Raonic article

Hello! Thank you for your message! What part of my edits did not conform to Wikipedia's standards? I stated clearly true facts! Thank you, Tennis Lover (2604:3D08:6F7F:F020:98B:4F22:B26E:A111 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC))

@2604:3D08:6F7F:F020:98B:4F22:B26E:A111:When you put in the following:

"Which really goes to show how unsuccessful male Canadian tennis players have been. Luckily, players like Bianca Andreescu have redeemed Canadian tennis on the women's side at least. Daniel Nestor was better than Milos Raonic at singles because he was able to beat a world number one in singles, something Raonic never accomplished."

That whole thing could be construed as mischief by some. Let's assume it was an honest mistake. It is total opinion by you to place it there. It must be backed up by credible sources just like any other encyclopedia or magazine, and those sources must be present in the article. This is not a blog where opinion counts for anything. We need to see those sentences in writing in another published source. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Frank Dancevic Articles

Hello! I can see that you and someone else removed an edit because it was deemed to be trivia. I can see why you said this. Why are facts that are "trivial" not allowed though? Is there a place on Wikipedia for them instead?

@HELLOLET'SEDIT: No there isn't. This is not a blog or tabloid that you find in a supermarket. This is the foremost encyclopedia in the world. You wouldn't find that stuff in Encyclopedia Britannica either. Just because we have a source for Serena Williams shoe size, it is not worthy of Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Serena Williams article

I don't want to engage in edit warring, but I have read all three citations of the Serene William "However, there is a sizable percentage of people who disagree" sentence and all of them exclusively cite the US 2018 open and nothing else. Accordingly, there's no reason whatsoever to revert my edit. Here are the three citations for you convenience. [1] [2] [3] GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@GreenFrogsGoRibbit: Those were probably just three chosen of many. You can find some similar things with the 2015 Clijsters incident. 2018 was simply a culmination of multiple instances for some people. We can always add more but usually three is sufficient. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense though. We make a sentence and we follow it up with three citations. The idea being that sentence will be affirmed through the sources. If there are additional citations that prove your point (that Serena is not a role model for reasons not related to the 2018 US Cup), then it should be included. In some instances, we have a sentence with 10-20 citations following it and that's generally understood to be okay. As it stands, the three citations all affirm my edit. They simply do not cite anything else. I've read all three sources at least twice and couldn't find anything else being mentioned. Wikipedia is suppose to say what the sources say, not anything else (or at least that is what I was told). GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I added a 4th that questions her status. You are correct that the three chosen to show she is not a role model put a big circle around the 2018 US Open and nowhere else. I'll dig up a few more that expand it to a cumulation of Grand Slam tournament controversies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks for keeping me in the loop! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I do not find that the current sentence is supported by the citations, particularly the phrase "a sizable percentage of people". Simply listing some incidents she was involved in is not in any way the same as claiming that "a sizable percentage of people" disagree that she is a role model. I do not see any survey in these articles which show this or any mention of any percentage, let alone a sizeable percentage (which is in itself a weasel term). Given the strict BLP policy this should either be directly supported by a reliable citation or be rephrased.--Wolbo (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wolbo: I think it's more of a counter balance to the equally problematic "have largely been a positive influence on young girls and boys who see Williams as a role model and an ambassador of tennis." It might be better to say "some look at Williams as a role model and ambassador to tennis, and some do not." Then a couple of both sources to that. That might make things a lot more palatable, don't you think? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please update your edit, adding the actual links to Wiki projects that have been informed about t discussion

Could you please update your edit, adding the actual links to Wiki projects that have been informed about the Kyiv discussion? Specifically in this edit [1] you said the names of the projects (Former countries, Russia, Military history) to which you added links to the talk:Kyiv#Related articles discussion, but you forgot to add the actual links where those wiki project discussions are located (and some users might not be able to find those wiki projects easily). In other words, could you please update your edit, adding the following links: wt:Milhist, wt:WPFC, and wt:Russia? Thank you,--67.175.201.50 (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No one is going to those projects from talk:Kyiv... There is no conversation going on at those projects. They are coming to talk:Kyiv from those projects. It's not needed but I'll do so anyways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2020 French Open – Day-by-day summaries

Hello, Fyunck(click),

Thank you for creating 2020 French Open – Day-by-day summaries.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This has been tagged for several concerns.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at Talk:2020 French Open#Article changes.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This should have been changes after a conclusion of US Open article(s). ApprenticeFan work 07:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, we aren't a ticker-tape repository. If something is only supposition it should be in a draft page, not an article. But even if we are to retain them, those charts should be at the bottom of the singles or doubles articles, not the 2020 US Open article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - additions and removals

Good to see you noticed I was fixing tennisedu blatant errors, in both directions (deleting info no longer relevant due to the reduced scope but ensure the info at the current scope is there). Personally, I find it quite idiotic that he had those errors and then erased my changes without even looking at why I made them. Basically what I just did now is what I did 2 years ago (added info to the highest level that some years already had)Informed analysis (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Informed analysis (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I still think we need a yearly article to cover all the events, but he went too far in this removal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can talk a wee bit of sense into the other guy - the fact is if he is being consistent he will delete Connor's No 3 mention in 1977 which would be moronic - all the events he won should be listed in that column, but by his logic they would be deletedInformed analysis (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Day-by-day summaries for Grand Slam

Hi is there a discussion that I missed? IIRC these articles were only created after the tournament finished. – 333-blue at 01:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@333-blue:There were some discussions about the four majors yearly articles being almost unreadable. A couple administrators concurred and I had to admit they were pretty bad. Someone took the onus upon themselves to rewrite a 2020 article and put many items into the draw pages (where they work better). As for the day-by-day articles, nothing was concrete, but you are asking the wrong person about when to move them. I have always been of the opinion that any subject that deserves a standalone article after the tournament has no business ever being buried in another article. It should always be standalone from the start. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Ouch. Yeah, I have read the discussion in September, and I don't think there was really a consensus. I agree that draw pages are unnecessarily long these days. – 333-blue at 11:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Iga Świątek

I will just remove the respelling now cause I don't want the readers to get the wrong idea. You are completely mistaken about the pronunciation. Please don't revert, could you? I don't have time now, but I'll open a discussion about this on the talk page later today. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: There's been a discussion for days and days already. And I'm not mistaken because we have it from her own mouth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have it from her own mouth. We have it from her own mouth that's her last name is prounced "SHFYON-tek". ;-) I can understand that you hear it differently. Because you interpret what you hear through your own language experience/background. But just look at the IPA transcription and try to find an [i] there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I asked for help at the Polish wikiproject: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland#Iga Świątek. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is an English Wikipedia. As a source we have her own mouth and a US Open article that says it is pronounced Shvee-On-tek. You are going to need other sources that actually contradict this... not a spelling guide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Olmedo's Nationality

I have recently made an edit which got undone on the Grand Slam champions, Australian Open winners and US Open winners pages regarding Olmedo's nationality. He is already listed as a Peruvian on the Wimbledon winner's page. While he did represent the U.S. in Davis Cup as he was living in the U.S. at the time and Peru didn't have a Davis Cup team, most of my sources seem to back up him playing as a Peruvian in individual competition. Looking in The Bud Collins History of Tennis book, on the Wimbledon website, the tennis base and grand slam history websites as well as numerous other sources 1 2 3. He is even referred to as a Peruvian competitor on a Britsh Pathé video clip of the 1959 final between him and Laver 4.--Xc4TNS (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xc4TNS:Wimbledon is post writing his history. The Australian Open still keeps it as what it was back in the 50s.... American. he could not play Davis Cup unless he played and continued to play for the United States. His entry forms and newspapers said as much. I can't help it it if today, Wimbledon decides they want to be politically correct and say he was Peruvian. That's as an amateur. Once he turned pro and could no longer play Davis Cup I'm not sure how his nationality was treated, so I did not revert the pro changes you made (though they could be wrong). Stock photos from 1959 hosted at Alamy say USA. When the Open Era started he again played for the United States and the ITF still uses USA. The Library of Congress has contemporary photos that say Peruvian-born US tennis player. When The Guardian published their list of Wimbledon winners in 2011, Olmedo was listed as USA. His draw sheet for the US Open in 1968 was USA. His draw sheet for the French Open in 1969 was also USA. We also have "The Encyclopedia of Tennis: 100 Years of great Players and Events" by Max Robertson, on page 295 calling Olmedo a USA player in its glossary of players (it does call him Peruvian-born). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): What confuses me is the conflicting sources. He was still a Peruvian citizen at the time. While that may not apply to what country a competitor plays for, tennis is ultimately an individual sport if you don’t count Davis Cup. Lendl stopped playing for Czechoslovakia in Davis Cup past 1985 but never played as an American until he received citizenship in 1992. It’s not just a case of Wimbledon changing records. Bud Collins' History of Tennis book from 2016 lists him as Peruvian as well as The Tennis Base. Either way, having conflicting information is somewhat confusing. --Xc4TNS (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Xc4TNS:I agree tennis is confusing at times. Navratilova played for the US long before she became a citizen. From 1975-1981 she played for the US while not a US citizen. There a a heap of controversy at the time with Olmedo playing for the US Davis Cup. Tennis is individual that is true, but you can't play at Wimbledon without a country recognizing you. You can't just go there and say I represent no country and be able to play. The ITF has you sign a detailed bio with how you want your name spelled and what country you represent. Davis Cup was Huge at the time. Players skipped majors so they weren't tired for their Davis Cup round. Players would not turn pro because it would mean no Davis Cup. Since he had lived in the US a certain amount of time Olmedo was allowed to play Davis Cup and represent the United States and my guess it came with the baggage of having to represent the US at all other event also. Officially he did so. What I don't know is when he turned pro, and could no longer play Davis Cup, did he change and start representing Peru. I don't know the answer to that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We know the answer to that, when Olmedo turned pro he represented Peru in pro international competitions. The major pro international event was the Kramer Cup and Olmedo represented Peru.Tennisedu (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Elliot Page

Please do not think that your opinions are not appreciated, it's quite the opposite. But trangerder topics are very sensitive for a lot of people, you certainly understand why. I don't know why this happened but hate against trans people increased exponentially over the last years. Everywhere on the internet, whenever transpeople are mentioned a lot of bigoted ppl come rushing to say things like: "you're not a real women, you're a man and you'll always be a man." Take Ben Shapiro, for example. Seeing things like that (and the example above is far from being the worst one, trust me) break my heart and I can understand why ppl try so hard (and sometimes even aggressively) to avoiding mentioning their past gender and any reference to that gender. \\ I am strongly against censorship, and I oppose erasing relevant info from the article. but from where I see it, it is not a question of censorship but of emphasis: the information can still be found in a more specialized section of the article. - Daveout(talk) 22:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Daveout:Thanks. My only concern here is I try and make this encyclopedia better and worthy of an encyclopedia. I can't be bothered with everyone's hangups or nothing would ever be done or improved upon. To me I simply saw and article of an actor I like with a gaping hole in the lead. I thought that was a disservice to our readers so I tried to fix it. If consensus feels otherwise so be it. That has happened in some tennis articles so I move on rather quickly to try and fix other pages. God knows there is plenty to do without worrying about any single article being less than it deserves. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You.

	The Tennis Barnstar
	For contributing to Djokovic–Federer rivalry, I give you this barnstar. Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Olmedo/Segura - copied from User talk:2A00:23C5:2503:4301:710F:A08B:98F6:169A so as not to lose the conversation

What we know is that as amateurs, they played for the United States. Olmedo even played Davis Cup for the United States. In their original draws they are listed as playing for the United States. What we don't know is when they were playing on pro circuit, what country they were listed under. It may have varied depending on location. Amateurs...USA. Pro...maybe USA maybe Ecuador or Peru. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC) many years after 1958

We know the citizenship dates when they acquired U.S. citizenship, which is what the flags represent. Olmedo many years after 1958, Segura 1991. We know that Segura played for Ecuador in the pro Kramer Cup in the early 1960's, there is no doubt about that. Presumably Segura represented Ecuador in the Davis Cup as an amateur, and did not play on the U.S. Davis Cup team. Segura acquired U.S. citizenship in 1991. Olmedo played for Peru in the Kramer Cup professional series in the early 1960's, not the U.S. team. Olmedo played for the U.S. Davis Cup team in 1958 as a U.S. resident with Peruvian citizenship, which was allowed by the rules of that time. Tennisedu (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tennisedu: Actually, no flags represent citizenship at all... for any tennis player. That is very specific. It represents the sports nationality the player played under during their careers. Original draws at majors usually tell us these things as does Davis/Fed Cup. Olmedo played for the US as an amateur, there is no doubt about that. Segura played for the US at the 1946 French Championships. It's what they played under as a professional that we don't always know. The promoters may have changed things depending on the location. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We know that Segura and Olmedo plyed for Ecuador and Peru in the Kramer Cup competitions from 1961 through 1963......that was their nationality of choice. I believe that Segura played Davis Cup for Ecuador. Olmedo was permitted to play Davis Cup for US because Peru had no Davis Cup team, otherwise he would have had to play Davis Cup for Peru.Tennisedu (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

So what we would tend to do is show Segura as playing for Ecuador as a pro and USA as an amateur. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tennisedu: @Fyunck(click):There ultimately needs to be a common consensus as to what country these guys played for. There are multiple contradictions on draws and other articles that show different nationalities. Some Wimbledon draws still show Olmedo and Segura as playing for Peru and Ecuador as amateurs. If we are suggesting that Olmedo and Segura played for their native countries as pros or the U.S. as amateurs then please don't undo edits. As for Segura as an amateur, I'm still rather unsure whether he did play for the U.S. Unlike Olmedo he never played for the U.S. in Davis Cup and both the ATP and ITF list him as an Ecuadorian competitor. Either way, if we are coming to a common consensus that they played for the U.S. as amateurs and for Peru and Ecuador as pros then keep it as such unless there are multiple sources that suggest otherwise. Due to the fact this was a while back it is slightly difficult to say as they may have been recorded depending on where they played as already mentioned. --Xc4TNS (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't change back any of the pro events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no question that Segura and Olmedo represented their countries of citizenship (Ecuador and Peru) as both amateurs and pros whenever there was a team fielded by their nations. If there was no Davis Cup team, as in 1958 for Peru, then Olmedo could play for U.S. But if Peru had fielded a DC team in 1958, Olmedo would have been required to represent Peru, not U.S. So there is no question about representation here. The flags are not a choice for us. They must reflect the citizenship and Davis Cup requirements.Tennisedu (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is no question that Segura and Olmedo played under the US flag as amateurs per the contemporary printed draws. The four majors also listed them as USA, not Ecuador and Peru. Australian Open still lists per original. And original French draws There may have been some events where that differed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, all of the contemporary press reports of those events show Segura representing Ecuador, including the American press accounts, so there is no doubt about this issue. Segura was reigning U.S. Indoor and collegiate champion, so perhaps that caused some confusion by foreign officials. But he was never associated with the US Davis Cup squad or any other US tennis team, and no American tennis association listed him as a member or a player to whom they gave support. Segura played for University of Miami, but that was not a US national representation.Tennisedu (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

As a pro, Segura represented Ecuador, especially in the Kramer Cup, the ,major international pro competition in the 1961 to 1963 era.Tennisedu (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/259421100/

Segura's nationality listed as Ecuador at Wimbledon 1947. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Checked the U.S. draws in Bill Talbert's Tennis Observed (1967). In 1941 and 1942 it lists Segura under the foreign seedings. In 1943 no seeding is given, but in 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947 Segura is listed under the U.S. seedings. In these years the U.S. Championships used two seeding lists: U.S. and foreign. The U.S. draw articles for these years do not properly reflect that--Wolbo (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the pro events. We had decided for the pros he represented Ecuador. But for the Amateur draws he is usually listed as USA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Many references to Segura playing for Ecuador throughout his amateur career. LA Times, September 1947 Segura listed as Ecuador for US championships (also listed as Ecuador in this event in many other newspapers). https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/381340703/

"Segura ruled the intercollegiate courts in the United States the past three years while a student at Miami, Fla., University and is the No. 3 player in this country's present rankings, but he is no longer in school and, as a native of Guayaquil, Ecuador, is not eligible for the Davis Cup team. "Unfortunately, we do not have a Davis Cup team In Ecuador," he said. "I wish we did have."" - Cincinnati Enquirer, 18 March 1946 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/103453384

Although listed in US rankings and resident in US in the 1940s, Segura did not have US nationality. Segura became a US citizen in 1991. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

He did. But he is listed at the French Championships as USA. Remember, citizenship has nothing to do with what nation you play for.... there are other factors that determine it. Davis Cup has different stipulations than Wimbledon, and Wimbledon may have different stipulations than the Australian Championships. Segura certainly played more for Ecuador, and Olmedo more for the USA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Segura listed as Ecuador at 1946 French championships (the only time he played the French championships men's singles). https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/259421602/ Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The French Championships themselves list him in the draw as USA. Wimbledon lists him as USA in 1968. Newspapers will always say things like "the Ecuadorian" player Pancho Segura won his opening match today... that doesn't mean that's what he registered as. He represented both the USA and Ecuador. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The 1946 French championships newspaper link is a list of results. "FRENCH LAWN TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIPS Results in the French lawn tennis championships yesterday were : Men's Singles. P. Segura (Ecuador) beat G. Paish..." etc. You keep quoting modern sources, which may well list him by his later nationality. I deal mainly with contemporary sources. Wimbledon 1968 he is listed as Ecuador https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/434598421 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually no since you are listing newspapers not the actual event with the actual draw. I assume Wimbledon has those records and bases their draws on them. Wimbledon lists him as Ecuador in some earlier contests, but later as USA. It depended on Segura and USA tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, you have not shown us a link to the ORIGINALS, but only to recent compilations which reflect information of recent vintage. We have no idea what the origin of this information is, it could be much later than 1946 and the citizenships added as of 2012. If you want to see what was in the original draw, you have to look at the Paris newspapers from 1946. The 1946 account of the US Indoor title says that Segura took the title OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY to Ecuador. That proves that Segura had no relationship with official US tennis authorities. His American ranking was a reflection of his residence in the US, not representation.Tennisedu (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm guessing the original handwritten draws are locked up at Wimbledon and the French Open. The newspapers aren't original draws either. It's often the press putting down what they think is correct. Those official organizations list Ecuador in some earlier events so they didn't just use USA because it was 2012 as you say. They used USA because the player used USA at that time. The press and the events are at odds right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, the point remains.....you have not even SEEN the draws, you are just assuming that this material from 2012 reflects the draws. Of course the newspapers of the day in 1946 would know how the players were listed, it was right on the boards at the tournament, and the reporters wrote what that information was. For 2012, who knows what system was used. The same for Wimbledon and U.S.....we need to know how the players were referenced on those occasions, and that was clear from the reports at the time. I showed and highlighted the clear information from the 1946 US Indoor championship, where it stated that the title had gone OUT OF THE COUNTRY, which is an unambiguous reference to Segura being a representative of Ecudor. No "if's" "and's" or "but's" about it.Tennisedu (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously that works for the US Indoor at the time. But funny thing about those ifs and buts... I can read one paper that says a winning streak has reached 60 and another that says it has reached 40. Those ifs and buts when it comes to the press can lead one on all kinds of adventures. Of course I am assuming that Wimbledon and the French Open archives got it right. You are assuming the newspapers got it right. That's the nature of the beast. I am simply saying we have conflicting data and to simply dismiss some and keep others is akin to original research. We usually state the sources we have and leave it to our readers. By the way, would you please nest your replies properly... use one extra colon only. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldnt assume that because the data comes from an official source that it is necessarily correct and neither would I assume the official drawsheets were all kept a long time ago. For instance, Talbert in Tennis Observed states in the 1940 US draw Frank Parker beat P. Maguire 6-3,6-1,7-5 in his first match. But the newspaper results of that day state Parker beat Segura by that score (along with the other results in that round). So this would mean Segura entered the US championships mens singles in 1940. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/370347189/ Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, the USTA website lists Segura and Olmedo as "foreign players resident in the U.S.", so that is how they were viewed by the US tennis authorities at the time. That should settle this discussion.Tennisedu (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Huge difference between the two players... huge, so no it doesn't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, a "foreign player" does not play under the U.S. flag, but under the flag of some other country. So that is a huge "yes, that settles it". And Segura stated that he was not eligible to play Davis Cup for the U.S. as an amateur, so that ends the discussion for him. Olmedo is asterisked as a "foreign player" by the USTA for 1958, although I notice that for 1959 Olmedo has no asterisk. Curious, but I am not sure what it means. By the way, the USTA is the final authority on these matters, so I think that we should go with what they say here.Tennisedu (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added the American flagicon to Olmedo's name for 1959 tournaments, because it appears that the USTA listed Olmedo as an American player for 1959 only, not in 1958. Tennisedu (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ian Fleming on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Captions for photos

Fyunck, I have removed first names from the photo captions in the Hoad, Rosewall and other articles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/CaptionsTennisedu (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tennisedu:You are reading that section incorrectly because I can't find it. It is often unnecessary to use the full name of the subject, but not others in a picture. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, it is there in the examples. I gave you the reference above. It is unnecessary to use any first names for the subject in photo captions, the full name is in the header of the info box. Other names do not need a multiplicity of first names, one is enough to establish the first names.Tennisedu (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tennisedu:No problem with the subject, though there is no actual rule that forbids it either. Plenty of high quality articles occasionally use a full name even if it's the article subject. But you had removed first names from those who were not the article subject. As long as the first photo has the full name of the non-subject it's ok to only use the last name from then onward in photos. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Australian Open

On 21 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Australian Open, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic

Hi Fyunck, I don’t think the sources are bad or fringe. However the new content wording could be improved I agree. Just not flat out wiped out as it’s examples of his positive attitude to other players. Especially considering the tense atmosphere of the region. There are probably parts like “ Croatia progressed to the final of the competition and finished runners-up to the champions, France.” That can be trimmed out as it’s going a bit far out of scope. I’ll remove that. I also trimmed some overly large quotes to shorter ones that give the gist. The quote in large about liking the team was way overkill and the paragraph already implies that so I trimmed rhat out as well. I think the section is better now. Not sire if you want to keep the content dispute box? CheersOyMosby (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby:I don't think we need quotes at all on sports teams a player likes. Croatia competition results have no bearing at all on the tennis article and should be scrapped. I don't think the sources are bad or fringe either but we have good sources on Serena Williams shoe size but we do not put that in. What's next, Novak's favorite dart player? I'm not a fan of a favorite team section as they have a tendency to look silly and be non-encyclopedic. What I see right now is way over the top, so yes the template should stay. My complaint is already on the Djokovic talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

His favorite football clubs are listed as well. That was never remived. Most of the new content is about the relations between him and Modric. I had removed a lot of the quotes as I mentioned before. I don’t think Serena’s shoe size is the same as Djokovic bringing ethnic respect and unity in a heated region and getting flack for it. The section is about sportsmanship and sports conduct. Again I considerably trimmed down what rhe user added. But to remove it all? The section is small to begin with, surely it’s not an issue? It is mentioned once that he supported Croatia’s team in the World Cup. Not sure if you saw my latest version. Please let me know how we can further improve it. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Flagicons

Hi Fyunck,

I was looking through the lists of past winners of the Grand Slam tournaments and I noticed a lot of old historical flags being used alongside the winners' names. You said that "by consensus", the flagicons alongside the players' names should be from the actual time period. Whose "consensus" opinion would that be? It's certainly not an opinion that I would share. I'd ask you to reconsider the purpose for including those flagicons.

Why are the flags there in the first place? Answer: so the reader can easily identify, at a glance, the nationality of the players.

So how is it being helpful for the reader to display these past South African flags from 1928 and 1912?

Likewise, the German players from 1920 to 1940. In whose interest does it serve to display the flag of the German Empire or Nazi Germany alongside their name? They were German players. They were not Nazis. Those might've been the national flags of that time, but people today do not associate all Germans with those flags.

These lists are of previous Grand Slam tournament winners. That should be the focus. But instead you've made it a history lesson of nations' past flags. Why? You've even got past incarnations of flags from Italy, Mexico, Romania, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, USA, etc... That is ludicrous. It's the definition of anal-retentive.

Aside from the Olympics and the team events such as the Federation & Davis Cups, tennis is an individual sport. There are no national anthems played before or after the matches. There are no flags flying before, after or during the games. The nationality of players is incidental. Quibbling over the historical accuracy of flags seems rather pointless.

I wasn't trying to change history, but simply to make the pages more useful and "readable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.49.187 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If the vast majority of readers nowadays associate South African people with this flag: , then wouldn't it make sense to use this emoji alongside all South African players' names? Nobody cares about the old flags. The vast majority of readers wouldn't even know what those flags were, so it's completely and utterly self-defeating to use them. Instead of easily conveying useful information, you are confusing the casual reader.

It's a different matter for past players from Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union because those were different nations.

Anyway, that's my two cents on the subject. I hope you can come to your senses. But I won't hold my breath because I know from past experience how inflexible the Gatekeepers of Wikipedia can be when it comes to their own domain.

@60.224.49.187: I said it was longstanding consensus. All tennis project charts use this formulation for flags. All of them. I believe auto racing does the same. You can't just change them all to something you like better. This is something you should bring up at the Tennis Project talk page if you want to try and convince editors to change every wikipedia article that has flags. Also, it is an individual sport but you must have the backing of a nation to play in international events. You can't just pick one out of a hat. Every tournament uses flags to represent a player, not just Davis Cup or Olympics. And while you might not think it helps to show the difference between the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, East and West Germany, and just Germany... others seem to think it helps. Probably why the Olympic pages do the same thing at Lists of Olympic medalists and 1904 Summer Olympics. And note the different Italian flags at List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners. This is not a tennis issue, this is a wikipedia issue you are trying to undo here. It won't be easy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hayford Peirce

Hi, did you know that Hayford Peirce died last November? --Wolbo (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not.... thanks for letting me know. :-( Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I had wondered if that might be the case, as he commented on several pro tour threads in the early part of last year but had not in recent times, plus I knew he was an older gentleman. If that is the case he has died, R.I.P. Hayford. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

More or less found out by accident yesterday when I read he had been blocked at Citizendium where he was the treasurer. Made me wonder what had happened. He wasn't around here much in the last years but he was one of the early wiki tennis editors and made valuable contributions. He created quite a few articles, including some of the ones we are arguing about lately. Tragic demise. --Wolbo (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting information Wolbo. I created a lot of tennis player pages before I started editing the main pro player pages, but I am a relative newcomer and was not around in the early days. It's always interesting to hear about editors in years gone by and their contributions. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Naming of Grand Slam tournaments in performance timelines

Regarding the tournament names, I see that it's standard to use "Wimbledon", but my impression is that was decided primarily for the Open Era charts. To my knowledge, standardizing the pre-Open Era tournament names hasn't been discussed. At present, it doesn't seem standardized. Some articles use the full names while others leave out "Championships" in general. My interpretation was that if it's okay to drop "Championships" from Wimbledon, it should be okay to drop it from any of the majors with "Championships" in the name. It already also seems standard to do that for all of the Pro Championships (like in the Rod Laver article, for instance). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, it would be inconsistent to only drop "Championships" from one tournament in a given chart when they all have that name. To keep consistency, either they should all include "Championships", or none of them should. I'd prefer the latter in the interest of keeping the chart more compact, and to stick to the usual convention of abbreviating Wimbledon. This issue doesn't come up with Open Era articles because the rest of the tournaments are just named "Open". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not inconsistent to follow common naming of tournaments. The International Tennis Hall of Fame for example uses French Championships, Wimbledon and the U.S. Championships for the pre-open era events, just like we do. But like many things its usage is not completely standardized and I also see for example Wimbledon Championships and U.S. National Championships used in articles.--Wolbo (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a common naming of tournaments (but feel free to try to prove me wrong...). Where are you getting the Hall of Fame common names from? On their website, they seem pretty inconsistent. The U.S. National Championships goes by a whole bunch of names in their Grand Slam results sections. (For Bill Tilden, it's the "US Open". For Molla Mallory, it's "US Nationals". For Don Budge, it's the "U.S. Championships". That doesn't seem intentional either.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it from the Helen Wills page and Suzanne Lenglen but it does seem, based on your examples, that they are not very consistent in their usage. That's quite sloppy, in fact.--Wolbo (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I think they could do a better job. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777:The Guidelines don't say anything about open or pre-open events. It is there to tell us not to abbreviate. An alternative non-sponsored name that is a wee bit shorter is one thing but to just say French, Australian, and U.S. isn't correct and isn't common at all. Calling it simply Wimbledon is far more common than any other term in use in the world. U.S. Nationals does get used on occasion, and I have no issue if that's what is preferred. So if it was Australian Championships, French Championships, Wimbledon, and U.S. Nationals, it can certainly work. My objection was mainly on putting in only French, Australian, and U.S.... or even worse French Ch., Australian Ch., Wimbledon Ch., and U.S. Ch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviating as "French, Australian, and U.S." is already the norm in many pre-Open Era articles. It certainly makes sense from an abbreviation standpoint. Even in terms of what these tournaments are called, people do regularly abbreviate the Australian Open and the Australian Championships as "the Australian" and the French Open and French Championships as "the French". There is no need to write out something like the 33-character "World Covered Court Championships", which is a full 24 characters longer than "Wimbledon". The issue is the same for tournaments like the "U.S. Pro Championships" or the "Wembley Pro Championships", and we always abbreviate these as "U.S. Pro" and "Wembley Pro" in charts as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I would rephrase that. They are not "already the norm." Many of those charts are quite old and have never been updated to current standards. There are a lot of things wrong with the old charts. Some use sponsored names, some use Championship, some have improper column names, etc. And I can't say I have never seen the press or books call it "The Australian." And another thing... books and tennis players often call it the "Wembley Pro" or "Wembley Pro Championships." But they don't call it the Wembley P. or the Wembley Ch. There is simply no reason to abbreviate it this chart in this encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Fyunck on this.--Wolbo (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"1925 French Championships – Mixed Doubles" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1925 French Championships – Mixed Doubles. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 14#Tennis Grand Slam event redirects until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Somnifuguist (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Romani people in Hungary on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment, and at Talk:Timothée Chalamet on a "Biographies" request for comment, and at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Cimetière de Saint-Ouen

Hi, I'm a bit confused by your revert. While Cimetière de Saint-Ouen is outside the borders of Paris proper (e.g. old city walls/the modern Périphérique), it's obviously in part of greater Paris - not least as it's only just on the other side of the formal border. Saying that it's 'near Paris' is misleading as a result. Is there a better term that can be used here? Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Here's the way I looked at it. I went to the wikipedia article on Saint-Ouen Cemetery. It specifically says near Paris so that article would need to be changed also. I then went to the given source where it gives an address as Saint-Ouen, Departement de Seine-Saint-Denis, Île-de-France, France. That also is not Paris. It's probably like the Las Vegas Strip which is not and never has been in Las Vegas. It's Las Vegas to everyone... even the Hockey arena's own address is Las Vegas, but wikipedia insists that it is technically Paradise Nevada and that's what we use. "Near" Paris sounds like the best option but I'm open to wording that is different. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Paris metropolitan area appears to be the proper term for greater Paris, so I'll tweak it to that - it lacks a degree of magic though! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hartley Sawyer on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Alex Olmedo

Please explain to me how Peru's flag is "incorrect" when the accompanying citation you restored literally links to the Wimbledon website referring to him as Peruvian?

He was even originally listed as Peruvian on the page for years, until user:Don Lope randomly changed it in 2009. Even more absurdly, the same user, when involved in a dispute over British Isles/Great Britain flags, stated "I have made this change following the list of champions published on the Wimbledon website... I'm only following the sources here." He literally did the exact opposite with Olmedo, ignoring the sources and applying his own interpretation of Olmedo's citizenship. And what you're now doing is defending that arbitrary and incorrect edit just because it happened a long time ago. An erroneous statement doesn't become true if you wait long enough.

If Olmedo had ever won the US Nationals then maybe the USTA would have listed him as American. But "if if if" doesn't exist. Olmedo's Davis Cup participation is utterly irrelevent to his individual achievements, especially given the controversy over the fact that he pointedly refused to apply for citizenship while playing for the USA.

Sources to back me up --

He's Peruvian on Wimbledon's website (And as a contrast, Jaroslav Drobny's multiple citizenships are listed).

He's Peruvian at the Tennis Hall of Fame.

I have Bud Collins Encyclopedia of Tennis open in front of me. I'll give you three guesses what country the author attributes him to in his write-up for 1959. Hint: it starts with a "P". (Collins also notes in the bio section at the end that Olmedo didn't become a US citizen until 1999.

Britannica? The encyclopedia Wikipedia likes to compare itself to lists him as Peruvian for his Australian win and his Wimbledon win.

"Mr. Olmedo and Brazilian Maria Bueno, who won the women’s championship the next day, became the first South Americans to win individual titles at Wimbledon." (from his Washington Post obituary)

"Tennis star who was the first South American singles champion at Wimbledon" (His Times obituary)

I can find *one* source that calls him American: the Australian Open's online Roll of Honour. But that hardly repudiates the abundance of contradictory reliable sources I've already cited.

TL;DR: I'm dying to read your lucid and concise explanation of why the Peruvian flag is "incorrect". If you're unable to come up with one, then I'd recommend a self-revert.

Olmedo is complex depending on the year he played. He represented the United States in 1958 and 1959. His draw sheets said as much back then. Wimbledon retroactively changed theirs. Per the United States Tennis Association, Olmedo was an American player (not Foreign) in 1958 and 1959. So some sources back you up but many do not. Remember, citizenship isn't the same thing as what nation you are representing in an international tournament. Olmedo probably agreed to play under the US flag in 1958 and 1959 so could play on the US Davis Cup team. We'll probably never know exactly why. But this was discussed multiple times. When he turned pro, Olmedo switched to Peru. You can always bring it up on the "List of Australian Open men's singles champions" talk page and see if tennis editors agree with your changes. Maybe they will go against the USTA and Australian Open sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"for the actual year, we usually give the exact name of the event"

So by your logic, 2019 Canadian Open (tennis) should be moved to 2019 Rogers Cup? Or 2021 Canadian Open (tennis) to "2021 National Bank Open"? Your WikiProject's guidelines state for tournaments to "try to avoid the indication of sponsorship in the title and focus on the commonly accepted/known name of the tournament (which generally refers to the place where it's held or a famous person that it is named after, though sometimes it is inevitable)", though it does not provide any specific guidance on individual instances of a tournament. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: It is true, but what has been done by longstanding consensus is that the actual year of the event we use the actual name. When talking about the tournament as a whole we use a non sponsored name because those sponsored names change every few years. Rogers Cup does not encompass all years of the event. To be honest, considering pretty much every other tournament we have, I'm surprised the 2019 event is not at 2019 Rogers Cup. The guidelines were for the "Canadian Open" tennis event, not for a single year. We call it the Miami Open, but for individual years you will see Miami Open, Sony Open, Sony Ericsson Open, Lipton Championships, etc. Same with the Indian Wells Masters where 2021 was the BNP Paribas Open, but has also been Pacific Life Open, Newsweek Champions Cup, etc. While I helped set up the non-sponsored full event name when it was voted on, the individual yearly events just sort of happened if I recall correctly. To the point it tends to be longstanding consensus now. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diane Evers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris O'Neil.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing valid sources from pages

Please do not remove valid sources from the world number one ranked male tennis players page and change the ranking to your own personal preference. If you think Laver and Rosewall should be ranked equally for 1964 then please find sources to back up your claim. Thank you. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: There are sources and it was longstanding. You need to prove otherwise if you want to change things. Forcing a change without consensus is not the way to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If there are sources you should add them. I have (for the moment) proved Rosewall was no. 1 by adding sources to show this. To alter back you should add sources listing Laver as no. 1 (as you have mentioned these sources you should have no problem finding them). You need to be careful to behave consistently. You warned an editor that another page may be removed because it was original research, yet you changed the world number one ranking page, removing a valid source, to put your own personal view. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: The Hall of Fame is already there. Um... you are the one who changed this article, not me. I simply changed it back to longstanding consensus. I'll put in Tennis.com, The govt of Australia's official portrait gallery, and World Tennis Magazine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed the article because I added sources to it. That is how the page works!!! Please do add the sources you mention and while you are there, you can alter the page to show Laver and Rosewall were joint number one in 1964. Be sure to alter the tables at the bottom of the page also (you didnt last time). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mahfuz Anam on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

ATP No. 1 charts

Hi Fyunck, hope you're doing well man. As for the charts, I really don't understand why you removed them. They're nice to have on the page and I don't think they're trivial at all. Many tennis-related pages are bloated with trivia and I'm trying my best to fix and cleanup as much as possible. The ATP No. 1 page though is not one them, it's clean with focused info and the charts makes it well-illustrated in my opinion. So could you please restore them? I really don't want to start a petty edit war over this. Thank you. --ForzaUV (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV: Bring it up on the "List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players" talk page or even the "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis" page. You could be correct that they are vital and important charts and others will agree with you. The more I look at them the more I don't like them. The "No. 1 leaders timeline" is just a backwards rendition of the Weeks at number 1 leaders. No new info at all, just a chart we don't need. The table is much better. The next chart, No. 1 leaders' weeks milestones by age, is not intuitive and is hard to understand. It also could be achieved by another column in the "Weeks at No. 1 leaders" table. It's just extra trivia and I really see no use for them at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Well, I brought up a while ago the one table/two table format to the take page and you and I agreed the one table is the better option, but the page still has the two tables from what I see. Can it be changed now per talk page or what? And should I make a survey for the charts? --ForzaUV (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV: It can never hurt. Asking other editors for opinions always keeps you on the high road. My opinion loses in discussions as much as it wins, but I'm usually ok with that. As for one or two tables, in looking at opinions and the survey it looks like more people wanted two tables, so that's how I'd leave it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Consistent behaviour

Tennisedu made alterations to long-standing data on the world number one ranked tennis players, backed by sources. His edits remained on the page. I have added multiple sources to the page and made alterations to the page and you have reverted them (reacted with anger even). This is not consistent behaviour from you and looks very like you have an agenda. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: I do have an agenda. It's follow longstanding consensus and talk about things BEFORE CHANGING. I looked at 1960 and 1961 before your edit and you completely changed them. You brought it up on the talk page that we should maybe look at it and I agreed. But to simply change it is unacceptable, and unlike you. Discuss discuss discuss before you make a major change like who was number one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not simply change it. I added multiple sources to back up the changes. Wikipedia relies on sources to function well, you should know that. I have given you the opportunity to argue on the talk page and I will listen to your arguments, but frankly I can not see that you can construct a meaningful case. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: If someone doesn't agree you can't add it back without discussion. Put the sources you found back. If they are legitimate sources we have no issue. But don't change the data and rankings until it's discussed. And don't expect rapid-fire hourly responses... some take a couple days to research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. And research from you is very welcome indeed. I am looking forward in particular to how you will explain how the world champion for 1961 is not a joint number 1 that year. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Your snide remarks are not welcome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It wasnt intended to sound snide, though I accept the remarks can be read that way. I am genuinely looking forward to reading your argument, though I do think you have a tough task. The more I think about it, the more I favour a simple listing on the left column of the pre-open era rankings number ranking page, listing number of sources for each player. This removes all editorial judgement. It would also remove the need for the original research tag. Pre-1913 sources (although some have limited scope) would be merely listed and numbers given, with no judgement made on who was number one. It is the editorial judgement that opens the page to ridicule, when it should be about the sources. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: I never said my looking into things would wind up being different than you but you don't change things that big without disussion. I don't go in with any expectations... I just look at evidence. The first thing that came out was the published book "The Pros" which states that Rosewall was number 1 from 1960-1964. "The Concise History of Tennis" has Gonzales and Rosewall co-ranked number 1 both years, and the "The Professional Tennis Archive" pretty much does the same by leaving 60-61 up in the air. I'll look at some newspapers next. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Professional Tennis Archive was very careful in the wording of 1960 and 1961 so it could never itself be used as a source in the argument one way or another for 1960 and 1961. The results are in the book, so the reader can make up their own mind. The book presents results and information and its purpose is not to list rankings. Rankings require much research and many sources to cover the issue fairly (as we have seen) and to do the issue justice (in fact the rankings require a whole book devoted to the issue such as Mazak's). McCauley covers the issue of rankings very briefly just listing a few selective ranking sources and leaves many out and I dislike this approach. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nor did I put it in the article as a source. I read the results and I can see why it was left to the imagination. Plus rankings can always be a gray area. But readers of magazines and newspapers and books pretty much demand it. If you don't give it, people don't read it. It's not that writers like Geist and Myers and Bowers and Tingay, are better at judging players than others... it's that they have a pen in their hand and are will to stick their necks out to possible ridicule and give their opinion. And since they are not attached to the player like Kramer was, their opinions carry a lot a weight. If their call is a good one then papers like the London Times, NY Times, and Sydney Herald report it with no complaints. Other papers follow. If a conclusion is poor then you start seeing papers all over the map, and modern rankings also start taking a harder look (like they have in 1977). Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I am very different to Geist, Bowers, Myers and Tingay. They are either newspaper journalists or operate in a "newspaper journalistic way", for want of a better term. I have no ambition to be a newspaper journalist and no ambition to be some famous tennis figure. But I do have a very strong ambition to share the results of the old pro tour and for people to know about the exploits of these players. I come to believe more and more that a good historian (and I believe there are precious few of them) is merely a good finder and assembler. A good historian finds information, in some instances selects which information to use (this is where judgement comes in) and assembles the information. One person I think would make a very good author is my friend krosero. I respect him more than I do many modern historians. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That is true, but like I told Mazak, if your stuff doesn't get published, no one will ever care. No will will look at you as a good, poor, or great historian because you aren't a squeaky wheel. If your books are all data, and no one will publish it because it wont sell, then it's as if you don't exist to the tennis world. We can't see your expertise and use it. Sure we can read the self-published works but if we mention them to Wikipedia or magazines they look at it as no more than someone flipping burgers and expressing an opinion. Your expertise is only good for your own satisfactions, and no one elses. If this was 1961 there really wasn't self publishing. So we'd still have the Geists, Bowers, Myers, and Tingays for tennis and your writings would never have seen paper except as notes in a file cabinet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Doesnt get published"? I think you are talking about being published by a publishing house. Actually Geist and McCauley were both self-published writers. Geist's prominence is largely due to the fact he was friendly with Bud Collins, McCauley's because he wrote articles for World Tennis magazine. "Your expertise is only good for your own satisfactions, and no one elses." As far as wikipedia is concerned, this statement may be true but wikipedia is not everything (maybe you think it is, as you are such a prolific wikipedia editor). A major tennis magazine has published a review. "If your books are all data, and no one will publish it because it wont sell". If the intention of the book is to provide a huge amount of data, then that is what the book is (and I can tell you there are a sizeable amount of people who are interested in bulk data). If the intention of the book is to sell a huge volume of copies and for the author to make a name for themselves, then the author writes a biography of Roger Federer and leaves the old pro tour alone. I am quite happy for the likes of Tingay and Myers to be quoted for their opinions on the sport, they were tennis journalists, that was their job to give opinions. That is not my aim, as I explained to you in the previous message. I accept this maybe unusual in this day and age where everyone wants to be famous. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed all the 1960 and 1961 thread. Absolutely impossible to have a proper debate with tennisedu and I dont want others embroiled in that. I call a lie a lie. As far as I am concerned, the points I raised still remain. You have not listed enough citations for 1960 to make your case for Rosewall. In 1961 there are multiple citations for Gonzales, the world champion. I am not impressed, but I will rest my case. But I have removed my challenge and will not be altering the ranking. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You can't remove others posts... only they can do that. I can close the thread if you want so no more comments can be made. If @Tennisedu:, and @Wolbo: says they want their posts removed, I suppose we could eliminate the entire thread. But everyone would have to agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes please close the thread and ensure no more comments are made and if possible ask the editors to remove their comments in order to remove the thread entirely. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Some guy just replied on there after you closed it for comments. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I just explained the situation to them. For what it's worth I thought there was a chance '61 might get co-ranked. I don't agree, but others might have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It would have been impossible to have the discussion needed to change the ranking. You should seriously think about trying to find some citations for Rosewall in 1960 to back up your case, because at the moment the article leaves you open for a lot of criticism. I would have no issue with co-ranking him if citations were added (2 or 3 more would do). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What now?

What is the situation now? What needs to be done?Tennisedu (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tennisedu: Three more sources for Rosewall in 1960. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 BNP Paribas Open

Hello and sorry for your misunderstanding response. The Indian Wells tournament has announced that is rescheduled for October 2021 and being published by several sources:

• https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/31478329/2021-bnp-paribas-open-indian-wells-rescheduled-october (ESPN)
• https://www.desertsun.com/story/sports/tennis/bnp/2021/05/20/bnp-paribas-open-indian-wells-tournament-rescheduled-october/4110940001/ (The Desert Sun)
• https://www.yourbasin.com/sports/indian-wells-tennis-returns-to-california-desert-in-october/ (Your Basin)
• https://sports.nbcsports.com/2021/05/20/indian-wells-returns-to-calendar-in-october/?shared=email&msg=fail (NBC Sports)
• https://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/12312209/bnp-paribas-open-2021-indian-wells-handed-october-date (Sky Sports)
• https://www.reuters.com/article/tennis-indianwells/tennis-postponed-indian-wells-tournament-to-be-held-in-october-idUSL3N2N73Z1 (Reuters)
• https://www.latimes.com/espanol/deportes/articulo/2021-05-20/bnp-paribas-open-en-indian-wells-regresara-despues-de-mas-de-dos-anos-de-ausencia (Los Angeles Times) (in Spanish)

My laptop is getting crazy and the sources above are truly confirmed on the postponed Indian Wells tournament. ApprenticeWiki work 06:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@ApprenticeFan: But it's just semantics. It was canceled per a heap of other sources including the sources that were already there. We should keep a 2020 article and a 2021 article. Otherwise, if it was really postponed, then the actual 2021 tournament would be postponed till 2022. Plenty of sources say it was canceled in 2020 and the 2021 version in march was postponed. It should at the very least be talked about before we move the article and any others like it. It's the same with the 2020/2021 Canadian Open. There should be two articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): The sources from above are true. The postponed 2021 tournament, originally scheduled for March, is rescheduled to October and the 2022 edition will be on its usual March schedule. 2021 and 2022 tournaments are separate editions, 47th (men)/32nd (women) in 2021 (originally slated for 2020) and 48th (men)/33rd (women) in 2022, unless the cancelled 2020 edition does not count. Make the cancelled 2020 event and planned 2021 event are separate articles, like those in cancelled 2020 and upcoming 2021 Wimbledon events. Wait for the official autumn/fall schedule by June 21 that would include Indian Wells. ApprenticeWiki work 10:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

https://bnpparibasopen.com/news/bnp-paribas-open-to-return-in-october-2021/ BNP Paribas Open tournament website states tournament will be held in Indian Wells in October 2021. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand the March '21 event has been postponed till Oct '21. But the '20 event simply didn't exist... it was canceled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at User talk:DoctorTexan/sandbox/Michael Moates on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Inuit

Did you look at the source given for ""Inuit" is not accepted as a term for the Yupik and Chukchi, and "Eskimo" is the only term that applies across the Yupik, Chukchi, Iñupiat, and Inuit peoples."? It is from 2011 and only available as an Web Archive page. The source is outdated and no longer applies. It has been replaced by this which indicates that Inuit is now accepted. So saying Inuit is not accepted is wrong.

The IP is pushing a POV that people should not be offended by the word Eskimo because it doesn't mean what people think it means. However, people are offended no matter what it originally meant. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I read every single source for that section, and it is not concrete...it is fuzzy and ambiguous at best. Having say "it was" or not having it say many or some, misleads our readers imho. Your last source is only one source of many. Saying Inuit is accepted is not true. Some accept it, some do not. I actually know someone who hates the term Inuit being applied to herself more than the term Eskimo. I changed it more to be in line with the sourcing. I'm not sure the best way to word it... you're better at that than I am, but it is not black and white. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My own kids don't care either way. I've rewritten it indicate the date Kaplan wrote it. I didn't realise that I had removed the word "many" which should have been in. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: I'm cool with those changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Row headers

Man, what are you doing? Why is it "poor" html to use rwo headers when they are even on WP:MOS? I can find them all over Wikipedia even on Featured lists, List of World Heritage in Danger, List of England national football team hat-tricks, List of men's major championships winning golfers. What's going on here? --ForzaUV (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV: I just had posted at the same time on your talk page. Sorry for the confusion, but I've been told two different things here. Using "scope" it may be ok but I asked for clarification. When not using the term "scope" we were hammered for poor html by WP|Accessibility when we used an exclamation point mid table. It was really hard on certain screen readers and gave bold when we didn't want it, and made an unusual grey color to cells. Scope may be different and I asked here at wikipedia for clarification. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, tbh those last few reverts felt annoying because I made it clear in the edit summery the changes were per WP:MOS but you didn't bother to check before reverting. I understand now why you thought it was poor and I'm glad it's become clear to you there was nothing wrong with it, thanks to people on WP:Accessibility. However, I'm gonna disagree with you on using style="background:transparent". If we're gonna make header cells with plainrowheaders to keep them unbolded AND with background:transparent to wipe out the grey background then what's the point of the header cells at all? We might as well keep them as data cells. I'm gonna stick with how it's designed to work by default, plainrowheaders is fine but definitely not the background:transparent. They grey background gives tables a cleaner look anyways and tables are easier to read with them than without. I'll work on them tomorrow. Cheers. --ForzaUV (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the background grey makes them uglier. The accessibility says the fact it is header makes it read differently in a screen reader so issues with the grey there. You should bring up a talk page discussion if you want to change the color of it. I plopped it on the talk page to see what others would like. Till then I put it back to the way it was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ha? I'm not the one who wants to change the color of it, it's you. I just want them to be like they're designed to be. ForzaUV (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the charts were transparent to begin with. You changed the coding which wasn't absolutely necessary, and created grey shading and bold. The bold you took care of but not the grey shading. That needs to be discussed since there was an objection to your change. You didn't start a discussion as is required, so I started one for you. And after that you reverted again. That can get you blocked so please don't do that. Perhaps other project members will join in the discussion and agree with you. I'm ok with things if that happens since I'm on losing and winning sides of discussions all the time. But it must go through the process if someone objects to changes and I object to at least two of your changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:International Ice Hockey Federation on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Flag Icon Key

Hi. I remember you told me the icons key is required but I can find it only on a very few draws pages so how about we get rid of it and ask a template editor to add the flags list at the end the of Draw Key (sandbox edit here), would that be a good idea? It would be applied to all tennis draws pages and there would be no need for that little ugly box D= ForzaUV (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV: It's not required. It's sort of instead of. When we show a list of flags in an article, on first use we are supposed to show the full name of what that flag is. Remember some don't have mouseover and the three-letter combos are often rather cryptic. To get around that we can use a collapsed list of flags. Originally many articles used the "flag" template the first use, and then "flagicon" the rest of the time. Many didn't like that look. How we actually handle it is certainly up for debate, just so long as our readers have some sort of access to what the flag is. Your draw key suggestion looks great to me! I would highly endorse that change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Rollo

Very sad news. --Wolbo (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that is really sad news. Crapola... his oversight really made Tennis Forum legit. I trusted the site more than I trusted most tennis books because he double checked so many sources. He will be missed by all who knew him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rainbow flag (LGBT) on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Lista dos campeões individuais masculinos do Grand Slam

Hello,

Any tennis player who wins 4 or more consecutive titles will make the Grand Slam off the calendar. So the topic "Non-calendar year Grand Slam" is unnecessary, because it is repetitive with the topic "Most consecutive titles". In fact, it's bizarre to see that Don Budge did the grand slam in 1938 correctly and that he did an off-the-calendar grand slam in 1937-1938. How did he do a grand slam correctly and off the calendar in 1938?

And in the topic "Carrer slam", I think it's interesting to put whether this tennis player won an Olympic medal. In this case, put that Agassi (1996) and Nadal (2008) were gold, Federer was silver (2012) and that Djokovic was bronze (2008), because there are 2 records called Carrer Gold Slam and Golden Grand Slam.

Olympics are not Grand Slam tournaments, so the separate stats do not belong on the article. Only those that complete a Grand Slam. Budge did not do a non-calendar Grand Slam in 1938... he a non-calendar Grand Slam overlapping 1937/38. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Your judgement

To frame the recent issues on the Lew Hoad page as an editor dispute is stretching credibility to the very limit. You should be thanking krosero and I for taking a firm response against some of the worst behaviour I have ever witnessed on wikipedia. You were nowhere to be seen during this time. The editor we were in dispute with has a long history of bias and disruption and has been warned for point of view editing and pointy edits many times by many editors. I have wasted many hours of my time dealing with this editor and preventing his bias from entering wikipedia pages. I hate dealing with the guy, but I will not allow someone to ramraid bias onto wikipedia. Not only have I dealt with this editor for more than a year (often on my own), now I am being warned by you, when you should be saying "sorry, I wasn't available to stop the behaviour of this editor the other day. Thank you for taking the time to do so". Your message on my talk page says a lot more about your judgement than it does about the two editors you mention. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: I'm trying not to be the judge and jury. However in the last year I have had to warn you of disparaging remarks more than once, and you making it seem like it is all one sided is part of the issue. I guess you should have no worries at all if I bring it to ANI and show the kind of posts I've seen for the last year from both of you. Good luck with that. And my staying away was no accident as I grew tired of the sandbox squabble. If you are 100% in the right, then you have no worries about an ANI being brought forth, and all the thunder by administrators would fall on one editor alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already witness Wolbo warn tennisedu today for his editing and he explained to krosero about the longstanding problems with tennisedu. krosero has criticised your decision to warn me on Wolbo's talk page. Your behaviour is motivated by my past dispute with you, as you have clearly shown in your last response. If you think this ANI is some sort of threat, I am not at all worried. In fact I say bring it on. The worst that can happen is both tennisedu and I are banned (which would actually be a relief to me as I spend most of my time stopping his biased edits) and the best case scenario is that tennisedu is banned alone and I will become very inactive. But either is preferable to continuing to deal with tennisedu. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said on Wolbos talk page, I have no issues with everyone being mad at me. It comes with the territory so no hard feelings on my part. But one way or another this back and forth editing and reverting will stop, even if administrators have to be called in to do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You keep referring to it as back and forth. I am preventing a biased editor ramraiding their views against consensus onto wikipedia. You seem to be suggesting it is wikipedia practice to allow a biased editor to ramraid their views against consensus onto wikipedia, as by stopping him you are warning me of a possible ban. Let me ask you a question. Where is the moderation on these pages? I am getting very tired of dealing with this guy and it needs firm and daily moderation to prevent him. Please read the following https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Or is it that rules are laid out and no one enforces them? Because at the moment it seems to be falling largely on my shoulders and its about time someone else took on the job. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877: There is no moderator. If you feel someone is causing issues or edit warring, it is up to you to bring it to an administrator's attention before it gets out of hand. You can check out possible remedies at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If others agree with you they will join in and help get things resolved. What happens all too often though is one person is far more on the wrong side, no dispute resolution is started, edit reverts fly back and forth, someone reports to ANI with no warning like I gave, and both parties get hammered by administration. Rarely would you see a simple warning like I gave to both of you. Why? Because I hate doing it! I hate seeing editors hammered! You know what I see a lot of? Both parties get blocked or topic banned. One party then doesn't log in and makes an edit against the block or topic ban. Then they get blocked for years! I do not want that to happen to either of you. Both of you have too much knowledge to share that benefits all our great tennis articles. Tennis Project needs you both and it's worth it to me to have you both around and mad at me then to have you not editing. Maybe not everyone at Wikipedia looks at it like that, but I do. Look at it another way. If you go through the dispute process, and it fails, you have that on your resume that you were trying... that you asked for help. Then if it gets to this point, administrators look at things and say that one of you was trying their best to avoid a mess. Just my two cents. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Tennisedu has some knowledge but all of it counts for nothing because he uses it to promote one player. The knowledge he put on the Hoad article in 2019-20 only reads as well as it does because other editors (largely me) have prevented all his other biased comments on there. It has taken a lot of work. He even thanked me for making him a better editor not long ago. The problem is he enjoys conflict. I dont, but I will engage in conflict rather than let him get his biased way. I have added virtually all of what I want to add to wikipedia. "Tennis Project needs you both and it's worth it to me to have you both around and mad at me then to have you not editing." That is not true, because both of us have made our contributions. Tennisedu ran out of anything useful to say some time ago, I made my substantial updates to pages last year and now I spend my time preventing his bias from entering articles. I want to move on from wikipedia now but I cant as long as he continues to edit. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no need to put off the ANI, no reason to wait further. We have been saying for a few years now that the situation is unsustainable: wolbo called it unsustainable in one of his many NPOV warnings to tennisedu shortly after he joined Wiki (on his old anonymous page); tennishistory1877 and I have been saying it's unsustainable since then as well. Warnings have been given by the dozens now. And it did not get better. I finally grew exhausted of the situation and took time off, in which time tennisedu got even more reckless with the financial data he was putting into the Hoad bio, and attempted even to remove all of my info. Fyunck, you want to keep editors on these pages, but you're losing them now, and you're going to lose them in the future. I'm not going to stay here forever. Good tennis historians won't come near these pages to edit them. We obviously need help, and we're willing to take any lumps from ANI for our own behavior, as they see fit. But we need help, and if ANI can come up with a solution that both stops the fights and prevents all these tennis pages from continue to violate NPOV as they do now, then all will be fine. I see no reason to wait. Krosero (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)