User talk:Wolbo/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

National representation position in our guideline chart

I was looking at quite a few article recently in regards to our guideline position on National representation. I'm not sure who made the original design but we now have it: Grand Slams, Year-end, National representation, Masters 1000. Many articles such as Alexander Zverev career statistics have the National representation after the Masters 1000 events. I was going to fix it and others to our standards but it made me pause and think that perhaps the bottom is a better place for National representation. If you love it where it is then no issue and I'll fix the articles when I see them. If not I can be bold and move it in our guidelines with a statement as such at the Tennis Project, where if someone objects I'll move it right back and discussion can take place. Any thoughts on this? I wasn't sure if it's controversial so I'll plop in a couple of tennis editors I converse with for their good insight: @Sportsfan77777:, @Iffy:, @Navops47:, and @Tvx1:. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I prefer the current layout because
  • (1) it groups the two smallest things -- the YECs and this -- together
  • (2) the table ends on the bottom with a "W–L" row that is a different color than the tournament rows and the label rows, including the "Career statistics" row right below it
  • (3) for players who have actually won Olympic medals, that is more important than any kind of performance in the Masters events, and
  • (4) for WTA players, it would make the chart look more complicated because the two "Masters-level" types of events -- the Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 -- get separate categories, and it would look confusing to sandwich two related categories in-between the YECs and the national representation.
Did you have a reason for wanting to change it? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
It was a thought. Some editors obviously like it towards the bottom and I wanted to make sure that attitudes hadn't changed since the original framers of the chart. My reasons for putting it towards the bottom is that for most players, Davis Cup and Fed Cup will dominate the stats, not a once every four year Olympics. For importance reasons (other than Olympics) it seemed less that Masters 1000 level events. Also, there is a progression downward of tier from GSlam to Year-end, to Masters. And then we have a different animal with a team event that is often perceived as different than the rest. If most here agree with your assessment I'm cool and can simply fix the ones that are being changed or created against our guidelines. I admit I hadn't considered that W-L row of the Masters events. That's a good point. Another thing that I'm sure will crop up soon will be the new 2020 ATP Cup which editors will try and add to the performance chart. We don't add Laver Cup and Hopman Cup (which is coming back), as being smaller events like the 500 and 250 level events. But you just know that some editors will wedge in the brand new ATP Cup when it's over. Anyway, just wanted some input. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Another bigger problem I just noticed. The performance timelines of the ATP and WTA have the "National representation" and "Year-end Championships" reversed. They should be identical. Which is it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Pancho_Gonzales_career_statistics

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps make to sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, including a wikilink to the source article, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hawaii Open tournaments

Template:Hawaii Open tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

1924 Australasian Championships – Women's Singles

Hi. These are some of the results of my research for names you questioned. Additional infos may be found on tennisforum pages.

Jessie Salter - [1], [2].

Violet Mountain -> Violet Mather - [3], [4].

Jessie Keltie -> Jessie Simpson [5], [6], [7].

Gwen Hill -> Gwen Hack - [8], [9], [10], [11].

Helen ("Nell") Thyne (not Thynne and not British) - [12], [13], [14].

E. Johnson (not British) - [15]. It not likely that [that lady would go down under at the age of 50 to play some tennis...

V. M. Howett (maybe British) - you can check spelling in refereces I attached to all 1924 AO doubles pages, [16], [17] and [18].

And articles like this.

Judge yourself the reliability of those sources. Cheers.--Borucic (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinion on dispute?

Hi Wolbo, would you be interested in giving your opinion on a dispute between Fyunck and me on Talk:Kim Clijsters? I think Fyunck is being unreasonable at this point, but you are welcome to take any side and state whatever you would like. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The dispute is over the content in the rivalry section, mainly on the description of the Williams sisters.

  • The original version: [19]
  • A compromise version I wrote: [20]
  • Fyunck's version: here (I'm assuming it's just the current version of the article)

Thank you for your help. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Actually the compromise version I had originally changed it to (and closer to what I felt was best was this here. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Tennis players killed in World War I has been nominated for merging

Category:Tennis players killed in World War I has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 12:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't copy-paste move!

You've been around long enough to know that you shouldn't move pages by cut-and-paste like you did at ITF Berlin Open → European Indoor Championships. See WP:Moving a page. Ask for help from an administrator (WP:RM). Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

World Number One Male Tennis Players

Wolbo, I not who you think you are. I did a massive amount of research in late 2017 and early 2018 to improve the article so that it was consistent for each yaer. The original author had a lot of detail but was inconsistent. NO ONE has objected to the text I added for over year. The editor Funk was in agreement with my work/writing. Please leave this article along. If you do not like it create your own article.

I do not know what is wrong with you. You are destroying hundreds of hours of research and writing I did. Much of the info repeats what the original authors had typed in and the information is not obtainable anywhere else anywhere in the world. You cannot find the year-end rankings of certain tennis authorities and experts from the 60s or 70s anywhere now...When I started my periodic re-writing of the article in late 2017 (one year by one year over 4 or 5 months) you never said anything and Funck the other main editor of this page was in agreement. What I prepared is a fascinating summary of the men's years in tennis - how the top 4 or so players did; what they won; who won all the major events and the year-end finals; how those top players did in the big 9 tournaments; in the 70s how they each did on the competing circuits; their records for the year including head to heads; why number 2 is ranked ahead of number 3 and number 3 above number 4. Many years the number 2 ranking was disputed or very close; and then the number 3 ranking might have been close to the number 4; in the 70s the top 1 to 4 were especially close most years. No one has made any deletions in over a year meaning virtally everyone who went to the page liked the information. Hope you are happy.

I came VERY close to reverted that massive delete the day after it was done. I thought it was getting rid of an enormous amount of solid information. I finally decided not to since the delete seemed made by a WP editor, plus, since the detail in same wasn't greatly backed up, with at least one reference. Actually, that person deleted the WRONG heading if one was to be deleted. The heading "Number of times ranked no. one", must be FIFTY TIMES LESS IMPORTANT. Jim Percy (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with bold edits as long as they are sensible. Gutting the core of an article is clearly a step too far. The article is interesting (it is an obvious labor of love) but it also has many issues and from an encyclopedic point of view may be one of the worst articles within the tennis project. It is subjective / opinionated, contains original research as well as out-of-scope content and is poorly defined and poorly sourced. I am all in favor of a drastic overhaul to improve it but this edit threw out the baby with the bathwater. --Wolbo (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

New ITF player identification

Hi Wolbo,

Please accept my invitation to react on this proposal. Perhaps you know other tennis editors on en-wiki, who could react too? It is high time that this issue gets resolved; it is now nine months old.

Cordial greetings, Pommée (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Draw links in season templates

Hi, I saw that you just removed [21] the draw links in Template:1995 WTA Tour, which I added yesterday. I've been going through all the years and adding them, because they aid navigation and also make it obvious which draws still need to be added. I did notice that for a couple of years you recently removed the links from a couple of articles [22], but also that you had created several templates with the links [23] (at least for the grand slams). I just created a template which removes the mess of piped wikilinks and tags needed before, e.g. {{Draw links|1980 French Open|WS=1|WD=1|X=1}}, which I will go back and add to all the templates I've already changed if you agree, or do you not want them at all? Thanks, Somnifuguist (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Somnifuguist, lately I have indeed removed links to the draws from various ATP and WTA year templates. In my view they make the navigation templates convoluted and too busy. I much prefer the cleaner look of just listing the tournaments without the draw links. Also, although we have no statistics on this, I really doubt that many readers would click on the letters (S, D) to go directly to a tournament draw instead of just navigating to the tournament article. Missing draw links can easily be seen on the ATP and WTA year articles. Of course views on this may differ so if you want you can solicit more views on the Tennis project page.--Wolbo (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I'll post there shortly. I'll also finish swapping in the template, so that if consensus is against the links, they can all be removed easily with a regex substitution using AWB. Somnifuguist (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Somnifuguist, please remove your summary of my opinion from your statement on the tennis talk page. I am perfectly capable of giving my opinion. Please stick to your own view or opinion and do not speak for me. --Wolbo (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Done. Sorry. Somnifuguist (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. --Wolbo (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

ITF website

Hi Wolbo,

further good news regarding the ITF website: not only did they re-instate the players' redirects, now they also feature tournament edition redirects! To try it, click this old-style link: 

http://www.itftennis.com/procircuit/tournaments/women's-tournament/info.aspx?tournamentid=1100042035

and you will get the new tournament edition page. Pommée (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Pommée, that's good news, saves a whole lot of update work. Do you know if this was per our (wiki) request? --Wolbo (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I haven't the foggiest... Sounds very much like it. If it was by wiki request, it most probably came from an American wikipedian I guess, who knows a friend of a friend at ITF's. Cheers, Pommée (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Pommée, can you give me an update on the ITF player ID 2020 data item? You mentioned the ITF re-instated the players' redirects so do we still need to update player articles and if so, which ones? --Wolbo (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, en-wiki like nl-wiki uses a template to address the ITF link through wikidata. Your Template:ITF profile uses both the old and the new property, giving precedence to the latter if it exists. As a fortunate (albeit intentionally designed) consequence, player articles need no update.
Shifting the discussion now to the wikidata item: the new property certainly needs to be specified for relatively new players who don't have an old id (or we don't know the old id). For existing players the old link currently works again, but we cannot be sure ITF supports the redirects forever. It seems wise that we gradually specify the new id also for older players. I did the women's top 370 until now, and I will slowly carry on. I noticed other tennis wikipedians like Edoderoo and Openbk (and possibly others) working on it too. If more colleagues chip in, we will get the job done, in the end. With this query (thanks to Edoderoo) one can find players yet in need of the new id. My preference is that the old id-property be not removed from the tennis players' wikidata items. It can be very useful to find an older version of the ITF profile page at Internet Archive, because the versions before say 2019 contain more information than nowadays (e.g. date of birth). Pommée (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the process is fully determined:
  1. Select any wikidata item with P599 but without P8618
  2. Click on the P599 value link
  3. Pick up the URL of the web page where you landed and select the 'middle' part from it with name/number/country
  4. Go back to the wikidata item selected in step 1
  5. Give it a P8618 property with the value determined in step 3
That's all. If anyone would know a programming language containing the necessary primitives to do these operations, the program would be pretty straightforward.
Anyone of the readers of this page? Or anyone who knows someone? Pommée (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

3RR

You're about to violate the 3RR rule.

The fact the references affirm that Wimbledon is more prestigious does not prevent clarifying that it is not a more important tournament than the other grand slam. Anyway, try the topic in Talk, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavideNotta (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Duolingo

Hello Wolbo. It may be worth your while to respond at the edit warring noticeboard. It seems you reverted four times, so it would be logical for an admin to block your account for the 3RR violation. You might avoid this if you will promise to wait for consensus before editing the page again. At the present time there is nothing from you on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @EdJohnston:, thanks for the heads up. Had seen the notification but I'm considering if I want to participate given the behavior by the admin who reported me. Not at all happy with that. For the record, I do not believe my edits constitute a 3RR violation as my first edit was not a revert but a constructive attempt to compromise (I reinstated less than 15% of the disputed content). Also note that the first two editors who started the talk page discussion specifically agreed with my version. Even if my first edit is counted as a revert I did not make four reverts within a period of 24 hours as stated by 3RR (although it was close). My other edits have also been constructive attempts to improve the article and were certainly not attempts at edit-warring. Haven't been blocked in the almost 15 years that I have been active here but it feels like someone is a bit overeager to change that.--Wolbo (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Four reverts in 25 hours is risking a block for edit warring regardless. And the material you restored here is still in the article. You might consider removing that to satisfy the complaint. It is hard to argue a 'constructive attempt to compromise' when you have never used the talk page and no other person has agreed with you that it's a compromise. Trying to be constructive is not listed as a valid exception under WP:3RRNO. I'm a user of Duolingo myself but this is still an edit war. This is your chance to fix the situation and also keep your block-free editing record. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:, thanks for your response. It's confirmed my suspicion that it is indeed futile to respond at ANEW as there is apparently not the slightest willingness to view my edits in a constructive way. It cannot be that WP:AGF is optional for certain admins, but here an admin accuses me of lying (again a "happy first" in 15 years) without consequence. Did you notice by the way he also made four reverts in roughly the same timeframe as I did? Still don't believe that the entirety of my edits at Duolingo comes close to being block-worthy, which doesn't mean I could not have handled certain aspects better. Will try to remember that for a next occasion. Would be a shame to lose my block-free record but in this case if it comes to that I will just shrug it off and will happily continue to edit afterwards.--Wolbo (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, think a warning is a fair outcome.--Wolbo (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable sources

You keep quoting wikipedia policies on sources regarding self-published works, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me that you interpret these rules to ensure that your own personal preferences are allowed as sources and sources you don't like are not. You stated on a talk thread "If we allow Mazak's "book" (and I use the term loosely) we might as well determine the rankings ourselves and that is aside from the question about the encyclopedic merit of judging in 2010 that Gore was the No. 1 ranked player in 1877". These remarks show that you dislike Mazak's book. You do not deem this an acceptable source. Ray Bowers published rankings in 2005 on the 1930s and you do deem this acceptable as a source. I would like an answer to the following questions. How does Ray Bowers qualify as a wikipedia source? How does Robert Geist qualify as a wikipedia source? How does tennisbase qualify as a wikipedia source? If I dont receive satisfactory answers to these questions then I will attempt to override your "authority" and establish a consensus to allow self-published works as sources that you currently seek to deny. Rules must be applied fairly. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

Reply tool

Graph of Reply tool and full-page wikitext edit completion rates
Completion rates for comments made with the Reply tool and full-page wikitext editing. Details and limitations are in this report.

The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.

  • The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
  • It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.

Research notes:

  • As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
  • There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[24]
  • The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[25] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
  • A large A/B test will start soon.[26] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.

New discussion tool

Screenshot of version 1.0 of the New Discussion Tool prototype.

The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[27] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.

Next: Notifications

During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Erwin Helmchen

Hi, I see you have recently created an article on Erwin Helmchen. As this article claims he is the highest goal scorer of all time, can you please add further references, or citations for such a high career goals total? I tried researching myself but could not find anything, and a lot of it was in German. The Wikipedia article does not list basic information such as when he started playing football, when he retired, which clubs he played for and how many titles or honours he won. If it did I could look into further information to back up the goals total and add further references. As such, it is currently not very reliable. It would be great if you could add further information to get the article up to Wikipedia standards. Thanks! Feudonym (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Feudonym, I did not create that article, only the article talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Sincere apologies, I shall direct my query to the correct editor. Feudonym (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
No probs.--Wolbo (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tony Trabert

On 5 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tony Trabert, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Helen of California

It's nice to see some love poured over the Helen Wills biography. I remember doing some article expansion in 2008 after I heard about her from a tour guide showing the Diego Rivera mural at the City Club. I have a photo of that somewhere, but Rivera changed her portrait to be less recognizable, so it's not really necessary for the biography. Anyway, thanks for your attention to detail. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

P Girod = Suzanne Girod?

Right now, no sources in the article confirm this is the same person. Both sources only say Mme Girod. Do you have a source they are the same person? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I see more links and corrected one. No issues. Great find. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
What about using her full birth and death date (8 July 1871 - 20 October 1926) as published in Le Figaro? There is also a public domain painting of her we might use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Had just added it, thanks, but had accidently put the dates in a reference instead of the lead. Corrected.--Wolbo (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The combination of the sources make it pretty clear that P. Girod is in fact Suzanne Girod. Gallica last week posted several 'new' and very interesting images of tennis players from 1904 and 1905 including Katie Gillou and Suzanne Girod. It was certainly exciting to see her full name mentioned in the image info and that in turn led to the other sources. Searching on her full name also brought me to the article written by Mark Ryan who, credit to him, had already figured this out half a year ago and that provided good corroboration. It is kinda cool that well over a century afterwards we can still discover new info. Always keep looking. --Wolbo (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
If you look carefully at the image (using the zoom function on Gallica) I think you can even see the glove on her playing hand.--Wolbo (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Plus her husband's name beginning with a P pretty much clinched it. She died fairly young and he live to be a pretty old fart at 89. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Impasse in our tennis history group (Hoad pages)

Regarding the dispute and impasse most recently flared up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lew_Hoad#Overuse_and_Repetition_of_Information_from_Newswire_Sources

What would you say, Wolbo, to this proposal: each editor on the Lew Hoad page agrees to limit himself to one revert, for each change to the bio. If, for example, I remove the claim that Hoad made $140,000 in 1957, tennisedu is free to restore it. At that point any other editor can agree with either of us, and revert or restore as he sees fit. That can be the end of it, since everyone is limited to 1 revert. But of course other users can step in, and revert, or say, "this needs more discussion." And all would abide by this. If two users revert each other once, and no one else steps in, then that's it -- no further change is made, and the page stays as it was before the two users reverted each other.

I see several advantages to this. No single user can revert others endlessly; no pair of users can revert each other endlessly. Minority views can be preserved, so long as they're reasonable, because anyone is free to say, "let's keep this material". But views that persuade no one to say, "let's keep it," can be effectively weeded out.

This is something that I think will effectively and fairly break the years-long impasse we've been having on all Hoad-related pages.

You're the first I'm reaching out to with this idea. If it's a non-starter for you, that'll be the end of it. If you want to discuss it further, I'll bring it to others. Krosero (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Krosero, it is commendable that you are proposing this and I understand why you are doing it but I do not believe it will work. It is not feasible to set specific behavioral guidelines on a specific article or even project. Editor guidelines are by definition applicable to wiki as a whole and it would not be possible to maintain a deviation from that for a particular article. Also, it does not address the central problem which is persistently biased, and therefore disruptive, editing.--Wolbo (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Getting close to an ANI with the two tennis editors

I'm a hairs breath away from asking ANI for an interaction ban or topic ban on one or both of our two tennis editors. I have just warned both of potential consequences because I am sick and tired of the back and forth on 1945-1967 professional articles. If it has to be done, and their back and forth needs to be looked at over the last year by administrators at ANI, I would ask a favor and have you help formulate things. I think you are better at it than I am, but more importantly, you are less involved than I am with a couple of the articles that are particularly battleground central. I hope it doesn't come to anything, but something to keep in mind. I know some might have sent this by wiki-email, but I like everything in the open so we have no surprises. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

See what you mean, and yes, it is all getting very tiring. I have tried my best to be patient and assume good faith and be nice to newcomers but so far it does not seem to solve the matter. As much as I dislike bringing an editor to ANI with a request for a block (it would be a failure of collaboration) it may be soon become the only option left. It cannot go on like this. The edit warring on Lew Hoad on 8 June was a clear violation of WP:3RR by both editors and could have resulted in a block. However, as I mentioned above, to me the core problem lies with the persistent POV editing by one editor on Lew Hoad and related articles. This in turn invokes reactions from the other editor. It is cause and effect. These reactions are sometimes too combative and violate WP:AGF but they are also understandable and are in my view mostly necessary to prevent the Hoad article and others from becoming POV trainwrecks. I'm willing to give this a bit more time, perhaps some stronger messaging will have an effect, but if that also fails ANI is the likely next step. All this bickering makes me miss Rollo even more. --Wolbo (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Very very sad about Rollo. He was a rock at TF and made sure all was sourced. I'm not saying someone might be more at at fault or less at fault here. I'm saying two editors in particular cannot work together over more than a year. I was also involved, and it died down for a bit. I stay away and the flames are roaring. Administrators will decide who is at fault and they can plead their cases to those administrators, not me. But I am tired of the wall of edits on multiple articles. The last 900 edits on Hoad says a lot. The last 500 Pancho Gonzales edits show the same. And the talk page language has had to be retracted a couple of times because of hostility. There is a long pattern here or simmering... not just a week or a month. Again, I may harbor my own view of who is more at fault, but the only other recourse is the lock several pages and only allow administrators to edit them. By putting out non-binding warnings I've let everyone know it's ok to be mad at me for doing so... I'll take that ridicule. But it will soon be out of everyone's hands if administrators look over the last year of editing. Posts that were redacted will resurface in the dispute. Warnings placed on talk pages will come back to haunt. Now, if everyone feels it's all Tennisedu, then by all means report him and get him alone blocked. My issue is the back and forth MUST STOP. It is not good for our 1000s of readers. Me bringing this up to you is because I value your judgement and fairness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been witnessing these problems for years and I saw no escalation by tennishistory since I returned to regular editing last month. There's been a recent escalation, but that began because I was away for a few months and tennisedu attempted to remove all my financial information from the Hoad page, which was one of the most disruptive things that he has ever attempted. I reverted him and then returned to regular editing. What he did with the financial information in the last few months is an all-time low for him in dishonest, inaccurate editing. I merely restored all my material, without doing anything to his. Then you said that there was a lot of bloat on the Hoad page, and you mentioned financial information particularly. Only then did tennishistory1877 began to take out some of tennisedu's bloated/incorrect/biased information (his pruning was supported entirely by Wolbo), and then I joined the pruning, which resulted in a heated debate the last two weeks or so which is bringing everything to a head. But tennishistory1877 by himself did not escalate things, that began when tennisedu unilaterally removed all of my edits. Even then tennishistory1877 didn't do anything to escalate, until you spoke about bloat, and he then began removing some of tennisedu's bias material, an effort which I joined, and which wolbo has since joined a little bit (he's added some pruning without reversing any pruning that we've done).
That is the sequence of events as I can attest and anyone can check it against the history of posts.
I am centrally involved in this fracas and cannot be left out. It has long been my observation that tennisedu's obsessive and biased editing is the central issue causing all this consternation, and I as a longtime student of tennis history I can attest that tennishistory1877's edits have all been knowledgeable and no more biased than any normal editor, including myself; tennisedu's bias is not even comparable and I will attest to that in any arbitration.
If tennishistory1877 is called to an arbitration then I should be too -- I've tried to restrain myself but you will notice that I did a lot of revert-warring myself in the recent dispute. Krosero (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually, if they were called to arbitration, you would also be able to post your thoughts in defense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fyunck, you are using a past dispute between you and I to try and frame this as being two editors feuding with each other behaving equally badly. This is frankly, absurd, and says a lot more about you than it does about tennisedu or I. I am not at all worried about an ANI. In fact I say bring it on. Lets have the ANI. I have spent over a year dealing with tennisedu. I have prevented many times his biased edits from entering pages and I have done it because I care about the accuracy of tennis history pages. Its not only Wolbo and krosero who disagree with you on this. I could name countless number of people on the forum that tennisedu posts on who would testify to his antagonistic behaviour and bias. He regularly has his posts on the forum removed because they contain inaccurate information. I hate dealing with the guy but will not stop preventing him pursuing his agenda on wikipedia. If you use all your pent vitriol towards me in the ANI and speak against me at the ANI, then, who knows, it may sway the "jury" to ban us both. But this is much more preferable to me than the current situation, which involves me giving up my time dealing with tennisedu, which is an odious thankless task. I want him banned and if that means sacrificing my own editing privileges then so be it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking that of me. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Really fyunck, you playing the injured party after what you have written on here this evening beggars belief. Describing me preventing tennisedu's bias from entering articles as "back and forth" and framing it as a longrunning dispute between two equally badly behaved editors stretches credibility to the limit. I should actually be furious with you, but I am not. In fact I should thank you for suggesting the ANI. Finally some action taken against this guy. I want this ANI with tennisedu and me. I hope it will result in tennisedu being banned and if I go with him for preventing his bias then so be it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I would like this ANI. No more empty threats and posturing, fyunck. But if you speak against me in the ANI, I will also point out the sequence of events that led to it. I will explain how you were the one who raised the issue of too much financial information and how you remained silent in the debate that followed when all of us were asking more people to become involved. You said on your talk page "And my staying away was no accident as I grew tired of the sandbox squabble" so I know you saw what went on. I will also explain why I believe your interventions in debates never come at times that would help resolve them. If I had received the same support from you this past year that I receieved from Krosero recently, then I believe the situation of tennisedu could have been managed a lot more effectively, because you certainly have time to wade into debates when it suits you. I would never compare you to tennisedu, but I do believe you have played a significant part in the events of this past year. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want to lock horns with Fyunck(click) please do so on his talk page. For the record I do not agree with your last post nor do I think it has any relevance for a potential ANI case.--Wolbo (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
It does have relevance to an ANI case if fyunck speaks at that case. I have spoken to fyunck on his talk page. These are my views and they are views I have held for a long time. Wolbo, I have always respected your own interventions in the matter of me and tennisedu. Although I would wish you would intervene more often than you do, I understand that editors are volunteers and that you edit across the full spectrum of tennis history. The main problem is there simply arent enough editors on the Hoad page. Krosero posted a very interesting newspaper article the other day describing how wikipedia pages with a lot of active editors are very accurate, but how problems occur with articles with few editors. Which is why I think it is important for all editors (fyunck in this instance) who edit on minority pages to think very carefully about how they intervene, when they intervene and the outcomes they seek by doing so. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
We've tried internal warnings countless times in the past few years and the patterns always repeat, maybe after abating for a short period, but they always resurface. So it seems obvious to me that left to our devices, the patterns will repeat. Warnings, even warnings of possible official action, have been given repeatedly in the past, so what is different now? I have said that tennisedu is the root of the problems here, but whatever our disagreements on what the patterns may be, we all have seen the patterns resurfacing consistently; and we've just seen them reach an alltime low, as I'm sure we'd all agree. We need help, and tennishistory1877, tennisedu, and I have all now asked for some kind of official arbitration or action to take place. Krosero (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Wolbo, I am a little confused about this ANI. You seem to be the person involved in putting it together if I read the comments above correctly. Is it going ahead or not? Because if it isnt then I intend to propose a full page lock for the Hoad page. Tennisedu has already said he wants page protection for the Hoad page and so do I. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
A page lock will not happen. Sure, that can work briefly for like a week, but all other editors must be able to work on the article. Right now the ANI is just a warning of what will happen, but administrators are watching. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I want action on this. The time has long passed for warnings. I want this resolved once and for all. I was looking into this earlier and certainly from what it says on this page, this would be the ideal reponse to the situation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Edit_fully-protected It states the lock must be agreed by consensus on talk first, then the tag placed on the page to alert administrators. Then the page is locked. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sifan Hassan Ethiopian/Oromo/Dutch

According to MOS:Ethnicity birthplaces or previous nationalities should not be included in lead. Ethnicity is permitted under contexts where it is notable. Hence I am arguing for inclusion of her Oromo ethnicity. Read talk page for further info. I'd appreciate if you edited saying "Oromo-Dutch".

I am coming from the following edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037624212 Leyncho (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Query

Hi Wolbo. I am hoping you may be able to answer a query I have. You have been a wikipedia editor much longer than me and have extensive knowledge of wikipedia rules. The question I have is specifically concerning a type of article. It has seemed to me that wikipedia does not produce opinion piece articles. For instance, we dont have "Greatest forehands of all time". I saw fyunck remove an article "Greatest matches of all time". This seems in line with my experience of using wikipedia. The world number one rankings page seems something of an anomaly. Currently there editors choose a number one. Whilst in many years listed this may produce a good result, in a few it doesnt. If wikipedia were a magazine, this sort of article would look like a good article. But wikipedia isn't a magazine. It's an encyclopedia. Is it that any article is OK on wikipedia providing enough people agree to creating it?, does an article need to fulfil certain set criteria? Because I can not think of an article like this one that currently exists. It seems to me that it comes under the category "original research". I see this tag is already on the page. Maybe you can clarify this issue for me. Best wishes. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tennishistory1877, there is really only one main requirement for a wiki article and that is that the subject must be sufficiently notable i.e. "the topic of an article must have already been the subject of publication in reliable, secondary, entirely independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail". If that requirement is met an article can be created. Of course some topics lend themselves more for a wiki article than others and topics which are by their very nature entirely subjective, such as "Greatest matches of all time", are not really suitable for an encyclopedia. An article on world number one rankings is perfectly fine in terms of notability but the way this article has developed over time has in my view been problematic which is why I added the original research tag to it. About three or four years ago the article had very few references to reliable sources. It was unclear what the objective basis for many of these rankings were and they seemed to be at least partially based on subjective opinions from editors. This has certainly improved but has not yet been solved completely so work remains to be done. Also on other issues which I have mentioned previously on the article talk page. In my opinion the single best action we can take to improve the article is to remove the No. 2 rankings (which are after all not the topic of the article and are even more heavily based on original research) and replace this, for the pre-open era, with separate ranking lists for the amateurs and the pros. This would be a) more in line with the article scope, b) much easier to reliably source and c) it would get rid of the apples (amateurs) and oranges (pros) comparison for which very few reliable sources exist. It would also be more informative for our readers to show that different No. 1 rankings coexisted. I proposed this before but it did not get enough traction. However, I saw other editors including Fyunck(click) also make this suggestion recently so perhaps now is a good time to discuss it further and see if a consensus can be reached.--Wolbo (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree on the Amateur and pro world No. 1's. It would help solve a lot of confusion for our readers since more books and newspapers would talk about No. 1 amateurs pre-1968 rather than the pros. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wolbo. Thanks for the reply. That has clarified a lot of issues. I agree with you about the no. 2 ranking. This should be removed in my view. I am afraid I cant agree about the amateur and pro divide post-1948, because the incoming amateur always lost the world series, so in my view the top amateur was provably worse than the top pro. In the 1960s the top amateur often wasnt in the top 3. In the 1930s there could (and maybe should) be separate amateur and pro lists. I have spent quite some time on this page trying to remove editorial bias as much as possible and have found many sources too. I feel this list improves all the time and I feel there could be a system developed for sources pre-1973. I think there always will be some editorial bias, but I have tried to minimize this in my editing. A systematic approach to the whole article would minimize the rows I think. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Peng Shuai

Hello, I see that you are really into tennis, but please understand that online content originating from China is under strict censorship and "reliable sources" are often removed by the authority. The edit in question originates from the person's own social media post, which has since been deleted. Moreover, it is an ongoing development and I believe it is important that people visiting this page have free access. It is also quite likely that others will want to add more information on the page in the near future as it develops. I understand your concern regarding accuracy, however by strictly applying such rules you are only siding with the authority. Wikipedia should be a place for open information, not censorship. I see that you have removed the content a few times, so I would like to ask you to refrain from doing so, at least in the near future. Thank you. MichaelKim0407 (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi MichaelKim0407, this is not about censorship. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable and that requires that a reliable source needs to be added to any content that can be challenged. For biographies of living persons this requirement means that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion", see WP:BLPSOURCES. As no source was available I therefore removed the content. You have now added a source and although I can not fully judge if it is reliable I will for now not delete the content and wait to see if more sources become available.--Wolbo (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi, even though you were not acting with the intention of censorship, you played a part in it by removing content that are "sub-standard". The information you were removing concerns social justice under an authoritarian regime. Even if you think something is not up to standard, you do not have to be the one removing it. Thank you. MichaelKim0407 (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits

@Wolbo: please stop reverting my edits. I don't see no reason why they should be reverted. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Qwerty284651, I explained it in the edit summary. Tournament edition articles do not require a main article link to the tournament article, we do not have that for any such article. A link from a tournament edition article to the tournament article can be done via a wikilink in the lead and it is also always available in the infobox.--Wolbo (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Wolbo Yes, but many other articles have it and it is much easier for newcomers, be it editors or readers, to click on the main template linking to the main article, rather than navigating their way through the infobox at first. Just saying. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
We do have main article links from tournament edition event articles to the tournament edition article because they belong to a distinct and single event in time but as far as I know we do not have that anywhere from the tournament edition article to the tournament article and I do not see a need for it. If you think it is a good idea you can propose it on the tennis project talk page to see what other editors think. Bear in mind this would involve updating, in my rough estimate, probably more than 7,500 articles.--Wolbo (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Link to source

Hi. I notice you asked if my source for Le soir January 1956 has a weblink. This is from the Belgian newspapers website KBR. It requires a login to view (registering is free). The weblink is https://www.belgicapress.be/pageview.php?adv=1&all_q=Gonzales%20segura&any_q=&exact_q=&none_q=&from_d=1956-01-26&to_d=&per_lang=&per=&sig=JB838&lang=FR&per_type=0

The weblink appears blank if the user is not logged in. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. Good find, have added the link to the article.--Wolbo (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mandraketennis (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Mandraketennis indef blocked shortly after starting discussion at the Admin noticeboard. David notMD (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Davis Cup

The Davis Cup refer to teams as national teams. What is you're opinion of that? --Ruling party (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Special day

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, Isro! (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

1887–1891 US Open mixed doubles results

Hi, in this edit you removed the 1888–1891 results from List of US Open mixed doubles champions. List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions has 1887–1891 listed without even a note however, and Joseph Sill Clark Sr. has Template:US Open mixed doubles champions on his article, despite it not listing the year he unofficially won in. Mabel Cahill has "not official" in her infobox next to the result from that period, but Clark has no such note. These inconsistencies should be addressed - would it be best to re-add the 1887–1891 results to List of US Open mixed doubles champions and Template:US Open mixed doubles champions with a note that they were unofficial, and add notes to List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions and Joseph Sill Clark Sr's infobox, or remove the results entirely from everywhere? Letcord (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No response, so I don't expect to be reverted when I re-add those results (with a note). Letcord (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Letcord, as always we need to go with whatever the reliable sources indicate. In this case both the US Open website as well as Bud Collins' encyclopedia list the U.S. Mixed doubles as starting in 1892. Unless we can find better sources to indicate otherwise we should follow that. Unofficial champions should not be listed.--Wolbo (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
While there is a logic to that, the WWII-era Tornoi de France champions, who are also not officially recognized, are listed at List of French Open men's singles champions. Likewise for the 1968 US Championships mixed doubles champions. I think listing these unofficial champions with a note is the best option in all these cases to give readers the most complete picture. Letcord (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree, each case can be different and should be judged on its own merits but in ALL cases they need to be supported by reliable sources. As the article currently stands there are no sources supporting pre-1892 mixed doubles champions and they should therefore not be listed. It would perhaps be an option to mention it in a sentence in the lead but also in that case reliable sources are required.--Wolbo (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I've added contemporary newspaper citations for each of those years' events. Letcord (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for other participation at ANI

Hi Wolbo, we've had a request for other voices knowledgeable about pro tennis history, and about our pro tennis Wiki pages, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tennisedu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krosero (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2TeamBracket-Tennis5

Template:2TeamBracket-Tennis5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Wolbo!

Happy New Year!

Wolbo,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Minimum requirements for WP:VERIFY for new pages

Hey there, Wolbo. Regarding tennis tournament draw pages, I was wondering, whether 2 draw links pass WP:VERIFY to avoid the dreaded {{Single source}} tag as in my case here. I would otherwise add another primary topic, for e.g., list of Chicago's doubles winners but I am not sure, whether that would pass as a sufficient second citation.

I am asking this, because I will be creating all the missing WTA 1000 tournament draws (1990-present), 30 more to be exact, and I want to be sure, whether the aforementioned link example would be okay to be used for all soon-to-be created articles as 2 different sources instead of just 1, which would then just revert back to the {{single source}} tag being added regardless. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Qwerty284651, I think removing the tag in this case is fine as the article has two distinct sources. It could be argued that since the WTA source is not independent there is only one independent source but it is a bit of a stretch to tag the article for that. Nevertheless, it wouldn't hurt to add another reliable source. For tournament edition articles I often use use the World of Tennis almanacks (up to 2000) and/or newspaper articles from e.g. Newspapers.com. See for instance 1972 Tanglewood International Tennis Classic. Your article looks fine but could do with a bit more context in the lead. Many tournament event pages lack sufficient context in the lead. It should at least be clear to the reader that it concerns an event of a tennis tournament. See MOS:LEAD. Examples of tennis edition event articles with a bit more context in the lead are 1987 CA-TennisTrophy – Doubles and 1999 Direct Line International Championships – Doubles. I would be careful with adding websites like www.grandslamhistory.com as a source because it is often not clear if they qualify as a reliable source. See in this case also WP:SELFPUB. We should take care to only add sources that are clearly reliable even if that makes the process of adding sources a bit more cumbersome and time consuming. Good luck with the rest of the articles.--Wolbo (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Wolbo, would it be appropriate to put {{Ameritech Cup tournaments}} navbox in the singles and doubles pages of 1990 Virginia Slims of Chicago, which contains links to the yearly articles of the event, but not to the draws themselves. Frankly, there aren't any draws page navboxes for non-slam tournaments. Hopefully, this along with a better lead would improve the article and help raise its class to C and higher. Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)ts.
I sometimes see these tournament navboxes added to the events (singles, doubles) articles as well. Don't think that is ideal because a reader would probably expect to go to the event / draw articles from there. Why not create specfic event navboxes like we have for the Grand Slams, e.g. {{Wimbledon men's singles drawsheets}}? Only issue is that the navbox title would still have to link to the tournament article as there are no specific singles and doubles articles for non-Grand Slam tournaments. You can also add {{1990 WTA Tour}} as it contains links (S,D) to the event / draw articles.--Wolbo (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The non-slam navs could have in the first group links to each year an event took place, 2nd group'd be S/D draws for each year, title would be the neutral non-yearly article. I've already been adding the {{YEAR ATP/WTA Tour Tour}} where applicable. Qwerty284651 (talk) Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Not sure how you see this, but would keep the tournament edition navboxes and the tournament edition event navboxes separate. You could create a draft version and put it up for discussion and review on the project talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Not need to start a discussion on the project's talk page, just follow the slam-related navs design and implement it to future non-slam events' navs. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Open 13

What I can't figure out is why does it default to Open 13 (tennis)? Nothing in the article says to do that. It must be some internal lua command someone put in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I notice that now. Odd, as I do not see any '(tennis)' link in the template. Will have a look to try and figure this out or else ask one of the template experts.--Wolbo (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know why if you talk to a template expert. There must be a list someplace that the template uses, so it would be nice to be able to see it in case we need updates. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Had a response from Frietjes. Not sure what would be better, delete the redirect or add a parameter. Don't see this issue often.--Wolbo (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Robin Drysdale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robin Drysdale, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Drysdale until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Mayotte for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Mayotte, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Mayotte until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

1975 WTA Tour - 1975 Toray Sillook Open

Please help me understand the reason for the reversal of the article. The 1975 Toray Silloook Open is not part of the WTA Tour, so it is therefore a "Non-tour Event", correct?

However, the 1975 WTA Tour article is listing "Non-tour Event" tournaments (currently 15). Why can't you include another "Non-tour event"? Rafaelfdc (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Rafaelfdc, the reason I removed it is because, as you state, the tournament was not part of the WTA Tour that year, i.e. it was not part of either the Virginia Slims or Grand Prix circuit or of any other component of the WTA Tour. The category 'Non-Tour Events' should in my view not be part of the article as it directly conflicts with the scope and title of the article. These non-tour events have already been removed from most men's and women's year tour articles but some WTA year articles still contain them and should be cleaned-up.--Wolbo (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing WCT tournaments

Hi mate I am in the middle of drafting Cliff Richey's career finals and came across a couple of WCT tournaments missing that he won one I have added to the Volvo International page as it was founded as the WCT Bretton Woods result have been cited, but not added to the WCT 1972 tour page. The other is the Lakeway WCT also called the CBS Classic which he won in 1974 here: Its not showing on WCT Circuit 1974. Also Laver won in 1975 but it was not part of the WCT tour then possible Grand Prix? Navops47 (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wolbo/Archive_4&oldid=1216901306"