User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 11

Personal comment

You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out on to 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 came and went as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... as did the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, Sampras and Federer. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King and Goolagong, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as Navratilova, 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. 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.

Things have changed a lot at this English Wikipedia since I started. Guidelines and policies were not as complete and it was certainly more "English alphabet" oriented. Vandalism and personal attacks happened to be sure but not to the extent it does today. I've been attacked and lied about by one or two editors, with no repercussions because of whom they knew around here. It's a shame but it's sort of the way things work now. Sourced spellings of tennis player names, English spellings found as commonplace in the press, books, organizations, etc, are now banished (expurgated from this Wikipedia). The percentage of English-first speakers has gone down in numbers, and that may have something to do with English spelling being excised. Fun things like the "List of cryptids" article are fully censored (with administrative blessings), even though there is really no difference between those creatures and beasts from Tolkien's world, Harry Potter, and Greek mythology... whose articles are abundant. It is blatant bias but, once again, it's the way things work now.

One of the worst things is, where consensus used to mean trying to work with everyone to find common ground that all can live with (whether minority or majority), it now seems to be an all or nothing, my way or the highway type of decision. Maybe wikipedia is just mirroring the divisiveness of modern politics. I'm not sure, but it's bad in building an encyclopedia.

I tend to be one that weathers these things, but the disappointment simply can't be masked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Best wishes

Best wishes for 2019! Hopefully it will be a good tennis year, both on the courts as well as here on Wikipedia. Who knows, maybe this is the year I finally get used to the new tournament tables. On a side note, I'm pretty sure your latest friend at the 'World number 1 ranked male tennis players' article is another sockpuppet. Fits a pattern. --Wolbo (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wolbo: To you too my wikipedia comrade. I do seem to have a buddy over there. Right now I'm kinda bummed that this may be the last Hopman Cup I get to watch on tv. It has been a favorite of mine for quite a number of years but the new ATP World Cup looks like it will squash the good old HCup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Happy New Year to BOTH of you! And may you watch many great tennis matches! I just watched some more of the Hopman Cup on the monitor of the treadmill at my fitness center a couple of hours ago. Fed. beat the Greek guy in two tiebreakers. Now that he's 37, he's MAYBE almost good enough to go up against Big Pancho when HE was 37. Or even LITTLE Pancho, who was sure another great player at 37. It would be interesting to see a round robin with the three of them and maybe Ellie Vines and Don Budge for good measure. And, I suppose, the Rocket, just to add some spice. I'd go with the old guys, but maybe that's BECAUSE I'm an old guy, and in a couple of days I'll be yet ANOTHER year older! But that sure hasn't improved my lob or drop shots! Hope you and the rest of the tennis people here, like the mysterious Carlos C., have a great 2019! Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Cryptids

You really do need to find better sources then some you are adding. I really am not sure that society or community websites or newspapers are going to meet most peoples criteria for RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Those sources work for most articles. Heck, this is the Sierra Club. A wikipedia notable organization with 3 million members and a 100 million dollar budget. That's more 5x the readers of the daily Los Angeles Times. And it's their national magazine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What is this [1]? Are you looking to get topic banned? Come on. Please revert yourself and don't add content with dodgy sources like these entries. Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: The Sierra Club? Really? A dodgy source? I've never heard of such a thing. It's a very notable organization here on wikipedia with its 3 million subscribers... 5x the number of LA Times readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

For cryptozoology? Not reliable. For their own views? Perfectly good. Reliability is relative to the use. Einstein is reliable for physics. He’s not reliable as source for other topics such as economics though he might have commented on such. Jehochman ^Talk 10:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Well, let's see here. I have been told that cryptozoologists are not reliable for listing cryptids. I have been told that cryptozoology books are not reliable for cryptids. I have been told that cryptozoolgy websites are not reliable for the term cryptid. I have been told that encyclopedia's are not reliable for the term cryptid. So then we go to magazines such as the sierra club... not reliable for the term cryptid. How about newspapers... nope, not reliable for cryptids. Something sucks here! You bet it's reliable per relativity, but with the parameters I keep getting told, it's impossible and that is not right. Whichever one I try to use I get told something else. That's baloney. I have edited here for 13 years and I have NEVER been hemmed in with revolving parameters such as are given to this article. I usually have a lot of fun editing and helping out, but the bullying and lies from one specific editor that have happened to me trying to help out are no longer worth it on that article. Rules get changed on a daily basis over there and I'm not a mind reader to know what the daily password is to sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Compared to all the other articles I work with, I've never seen the ridicule of sourcing like I do at that article. Sierra Club, not reliable, home town newspapers, not reliable, books by cryotozoologists defining cryptids, not reliable. Especially when all that is trying to be shown is that these creatures are called cryptids. Something is wacky over there that I have no idea how to comprehend... no question I am clueless on that topic's special restrictions. I guess it's time to move on as I get shoved out of the area. No big deal I guess but it certainly is perplexing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've had the same thing happen to me. The more I try to reach a reasonable grounding of the rules some of the main advocates behind the obscure guidelines behave like I've insulted them ore something... Sorry that happened to you mate, we might need to find a better way to reach a definitive consensus.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've pretty much had to throw up my hands on it. The more you try to reason or make compromises there, the more one particular editor pours out lies and attacks. And no one seems to care. There are so many articles I enjoy working on and helping out with when asked, that if one series of articles gets censored and bashed by a few knuckleheads... and then condoned because they are a group of friends, then it's just not worth it. A loss for our readers, which is all I care about, but it is what it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thailand Open (Pattaya)/Thailand Open (WTA)

Please check if the article is where it should be. It has been at Thailand Open (WTA) since 2015, but was recently cut&pasted to PTT Pattaya Open, which you then moved to Thailand Open (Pattaya). I've reverted the cut&paste, and the article is now back at Thailand Open (WTA). If Thailand Open (Pattaya) is preferable, an WP:RM/TR might be in order. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed it was a cut and paste, but I do see why the original editor made the move. When you have three events called the Thailand Open, all put on by the WTA (though two of them defunct events), it could confuse the reader when they see Thailand Open (WTA). We try not to use sponsored names for events and his move to PTT Pattaya Open was not in accordance to Tennis Project standards. The event covered many years and it was not always sponsored by PTT. It was however always in the city of Pattaya, hence my move to that name instead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

World Number One Ranked Tennis Players

Can you please block Wolbo from making his deletions? He is going to systematically delete all the useful information I spent hundreds of hours researching and inserting. I just find it reprehensible that he is doing this whereas a year ago he never had any concern when I started doing it. He is cutting out even the level of detail that was in there from the original authors. Winners of all majors; who they defeated; all the stuff I added is a fascinating summary of the male tennis season and why its top 4 players got there ranking. It explains why the number 2 guy was ranked higher than the number 3 guy and often the number 4 guy is close behind the number 3 and won a major or the year-end finals, or was a finalist in maybe 2 of majors. Informed analysis (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what way works best there and I'm not going to get into yours and Wolbos edit war. I do know that when there is an argument over content at wikipedia, if one version has been there awhile, it is the responsibility of the editor who wants to change it to bring it to talk. I was out of town for a couple days so I'll keep an eye on the situation but it's supposed to work as I just said. Someone changes something longstanding...then they get reverted... they should not change it back again and instead should bring it to talk to see what others might think. That's what I know should happen here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Fyunck, you created an archive of the talk page but I noticed that it does not contain talk page comments from the early history of the article. Do you know if there is any way to add these to the current archive? --Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Someone must have deleted and not archived items. I look at it right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything earlier than March of '11 so maybe no one discussed anything? Unless it was a cut and paste move that has a talk page elsewhere? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Strange, I was browsing through the history of the article and somehow landed on an old talk page with discussions from around 2007/2008. There was quite a lot there but I can not for the life of me remember anymore how I got there. Will add a link if I can find it again.--Wolbo (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I was gonna try and do the same but I can't find it either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Found it. It was actually a link in the current archive (see "2. old discussion"). This in turn links to two even older archives.--Wolbo (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I found it at the same time and had and edit conflict. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm in discussion with admin Drmies about the best way to fix it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit comment on Stella Maxwell

I saw your edit comment (photo is likely a copyright violation), and would like to assure you that the photo is quite OK. It's actually a frame from a Creative Commons Attribution licensed video, published by Love (magazine) on YouTube. You can look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LOVE_(magazine) where numerous similar images have been uploaded by multiple people, and possibly more important, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_review ed by multiple people. So while this video has been removed from YouTube now, you can be confident that it was up and properly licensed at the time the frame was taken. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban: Here was my problem then. That editor had just done the same thing for 2 other articles, and those photos were instantly removed from commons as copyright violations. And if we are talking about the same photo in the description it says "Own work" from Feb 19, 2019, which would be false. This would have been a derivation of another persons video. It's a better picture than what is there now to be sure, and what is there now has all the proper attributes to Love Magazine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood which photo you referred to. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No prob, take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thanks for all your work on the Connors statistics page. I notice that you are very helpfully added colour coding to the level of event that Connors won. I notice that recently the 500 series equivalents (coded in Green have been added). Where I am confused is that on the Connors statistic for 'High category : Grand Prix Super Series (1970–1989), WCT (1968–1989) ' has a total of 49. But in the recently green coded specific events only total 15. Do you know what the total should be? Thanks for all your great work - Tim Tmartin prof (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Championships vs Tournaments

Hi, as mentioned in my edit comment I have always used the term 'Championships' for the Grand Slam finals overview and 'Tournament' for the regular career overview to distinguish between the two. Don't really see a problem with that distinction but if you disagree let's discuss it at the project talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree so we should discuss. All the main entries use Tournaments as does the charts we have at guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

can you block a vandal from the federer nadal rivalry page ?.

he will not listen and keeps adding the walkover match as a win. can you help ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.195.73 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. All you can do is revert obvious vandalism or file a complaint. I will take a look at the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

New Chairman RM too soon

Several people are still hoping the closer of the previous RM will change his mind and revert his close to allow someone else to close it for several reasons noted at the closer's talk page. If that fails, then the next step is probably WP:MR. I think starting a new RM at this time is premature and unhelpful. Can you just remove it, please? --В²C ☎ 23:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally think that is the messier way to go when we have narrowed it down to two choices.? Why go messy when we have an easier path. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

How is it messy if he reverts and someone else closes? How is it messy if a consensus at MR agrees to reverse his close because there was consensus there? Another RM now is guaranteed to be messy. People are already complaining. --В²C ☎ 23:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

An MR is already active! --В²C ☎ 23:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

For crying out loud, you opposed your own RM proposal? And everyone else is !voting for a speedy close. And the MR is open. I speed closed it. You're welcome. --В²C ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

RMs are often opened by those who oppose it. I'm one for the process. Not all are complaining. And for one who is complaining about a poor closure, someone this involved should not be speedy closing it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't happen often and I think it should be prohibited. If you don't support the proposal you're proposing, you're unlikely to present a strong argument for it. It's disruptive. I'm glad you finally saw the light, though it's a bit disappointing it took so many to weigh in before you did. Did you learn anything from this? --В²C ☎ 21:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No. And stop acting so high and mighty about it. I presented a balanced argument between the best two choices so we could come to a decision. Sorry I didn't propose a biased, full of puffery, argument for either term as it sounds like you would have. I leave that kind of cr@ppola to politicians. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting other user's comments.

I presume there was an edit conflict which you did not handle correctly to cause the removal of my comment in this edit of yours. Please be more careful. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 21:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Born2cycle: Strange, actually, all I did was add my edit. It took it with no issue on my end. No idea why yours was removed. Sorry about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ythlev (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How lovely of you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Evonne Goolagong - consecutive titles

You reverted the All-time tennis records – women's singles page with the comment "She won the 1977 event". Do you mean that Goolagong won the December edition of the Australian Open of 1977? Goolagong did not compete at the January edition. I think Mr. Anonymous 2605:6000:EF43:6100:D5B7:57ED:8092:5DAB was right on this point.

Yeah, I don't think she did compete in January, but she did compete in December 1977, and won. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thus she had only three consecutive titles: 1974 1975 1976.Rard 1968 (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the WTA agrees with you, then yes you are correct. She won it 4 consecutive times, sort of non-consecutively. The Tennis Hall of Fame says she won four straight Australian Open Singles titles (1974-77). It's a weird year when you have two of the exact same event and she's giving birth during the first version. The Australian Open itself claims she won it four consecutive times, as does The Guardian. Like I said it's strange when that particular year had five majors instead of four. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Joan Hartigan has a similar result as Goolagong. She won the Australian three times in a row of the events she attended: 1933, 1934 and 1936. She did not compete in 1935. But this meaning of "consecutive" is not what the section "Consecutive titles per event" is about. Rard 1968 (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you are correct. She won 3 consecutive titles non-consecutively. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

vandal on the Federer-Nadal rivalry page

Hi I would like you to block a vandal from the above page please. They are making harmful edits to the above page. the account was only created yesterday and has only made edits on this topic and keeps removing info. the IP is 49.207.56.28 can you block them if they vandalise the page again please ?. Regards 80.233.89.228 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have that power, as I edit just like you do. I will take a looksee to see what the issue is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

if vandalism continues they can be blocked though right ?. I remember this happened before. regards 80.233.89.228 (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If an administrator looks into it and deems it blockworthy, then yes. But usually the first step is a temporary IP stop of editing that article, which unfortunately would include all IPs including you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Laver cup results on atp tour site are added in error

If you look at it the atp has only added some results for players and not for others. They have included two singles matches for rafa and one for roger a win even though he played two singles matches in 2017 why is the second match not included ?. Federer also played a singles a singles match against krygios in 2018 and this is not included at all. btw the Laver cup was a non sanctioned event in 17 and 18. this seems to be an error I would not add them until all singles matches are included. check it out for yourself btw 92.251.195.215 (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that those are the only discrepancies in the ATP totals? There are many through the years. Many missing scores. Those results are simply the best we have easy access to. The ATP, very slowly, has been recognizing scores from before the ATP even existed, and we use those totals in our wikipedia records. If we find a source that contradicts the ATP, we add it but include the extra source. Almost all the time the ITF and ATP agree, but not always. The Laver Cup and Hopman Cup were sanctioned events by the ITF, but the ATP has always been iffy on whether scores are included. We use what they have unless they tell us otherwise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually went through Federer's ATP results since 98 season per season to get the totals. the discrepancy was in 2017 with one win was added from the Laver Cup singles even though he has played in more than one singles match in the event and the others are not included in his totals. is that right ?. The other thing that proves this win should not be added is, Federer won his 1,200 match win against Monfils and the ATP made a big thing about the milestone, if the 2017 Laver cup win is counted that would have put Federer on 1,201 wins with the Monfils match can you explain that please ?. Regards 178.167.238.7 (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that Monfils win was a big deal back then, but the ATP is constantly updating and changing their totals. Every 6 months Borg and Connors totals get changed. You can email the ATP and see if they will remove that 2017 Laver Cup, or perhaps add all the Laver Cups. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

What is their email address ?. my point is you can't add these results for rafa and not for other players ?. yesterday's win was quoted as his 950th on tour I think we should remove this win and loss until we get information from the ATP. We can't just add for one player right ?. regards 92.251.227.95 (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the only source we have is the ATP results, but we could also put in a footnote explaining the situation. However, since in May the Laver Cup became an officially sanctioned ATP Tour event, I expect all the previous editions to shortly find their way into ATP records.Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Stuggart Open Tennis

a User keeps splitting up the finals section in the above tournament. He has broken the tournament table up into two sections one is Clay Court finals and the other is Grass Court finals. I do not think there is any need to split the table in two. It was fine before with a colspan column used to point out the Clay and Grass court eras, it also kept all the finals in one grid. can you have a look at this please ?. Regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, see WP:DTT.Tvx1 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: You're going to have to be more specific. We have no tables that split into two tables just because of a surface change. And from what i did see, that is specifically referring to column headers. We don't use column headers in that way. From conversations with readers with assisted devices, they have no issues in the least. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Avoiding_column_headers_in_the_middle_of_the_table. When I made my edits, the table DID have column headers spanning the entire width of that table. The above users just kept blanket revering, refusing to accept that the issue and the guideline exist. And I'm apparently not the only user this overly aggressive editor has clashed heads with. Well your edit has not appeared to find a solution that keeps table wide mid-table cells without the issues, it doesn't quite follow the guidelines on table captions.Tvx1 19:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Gotcha. I did see you removed those bad headers and an anon kept blanket reverting. He is wrong in doing that. But my edit was standard Project Tennis and is no different than what you did include in your own edit with "Information unavailable 1916–1948 ". The article you are citing is not a guideline or policy, and it was never vetted as such. Where I see a lot of misuse of mid-table headers is in player performance timelines, especially under the "career statistics" section. I have removed countless "!" headers from those charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Grand Slam Titles and the French Open

Hi how are you ?. I am doing a bit of work on the Tennis Grand Slams and I want to double check something with you. Am I right in saying that the French Open is not considered a grand slam event prior to 1925 ?. So all the events prior to that date do not count as majors is that correct ?. Regards 178.167.196.130 (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi some players as listed as grand slam winners on their pages prior to 1925 and some are not. this is very confusing, should these events be added or removed please ?. Regards 178.167.196.130 (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The wording has to be careful. Which ever players you are talking about, prior to 1925, they are French Championship winners, but they are not Grand Slam tournament winners. So we would say the great Suzanne Lenglen won six French Championships, but only two of those were Grand Slam tournaments/Majors. Prior to 1924 the ILTF had listed another three tournaments as Majors; World Covered Court Championships, World Hard Court Championships, and Wimbledon. Sometimes those are included in player bio totals, but it should be crystal clear what tournaments are being included. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really because the other two tournaments you mentioned are not included in grand slam major wins either ?. I have never seen them listed. So am I right in saying there has only been 89 French Open grand slams in mens singles is that right ?178.167.196.130 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

Depending on the source they are sometimes included, especially the World Hard Court Championships. Our article at Tennis male players statistics has the very first chart with those titles included for the old-time players Major totals. But yes, only 89 men's French Championships are considered Majors as of 2019. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I did check on one article you edited, H. Briggs. Instead of removing the chart you could have simply re-titled it to "French Championship finals" instead of "Grand Slam finals." That might be the better option since it was a big event in France at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Pro Slam 1967

Hi Fyunk just found this slightly contradictory news article from ABC News Australia its says the Pro Slam of 1967 was achieved by winning the Wimbledon Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro and French Pro read here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-27/rafa-nadal-novak-djokovic-australian-open-mens-final-live/10754522.--Navops47 (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Link doesnt seem to be working ill try again https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-27/rafa-nadal-novak-djokovic-australian-open-mens-final-live/10754522 .--Navops47 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Navops47: Yeah, I recall reading that a couple times. As amateur tennis crumbled under the weight of every player joining the pro ranks, Wimbledon finally has a on-off tourney for pros on it's hallowed grass. Laver won all four events that year. Or just like the Tournament of Champions was sometimes the biggest event for pros. And in the 70s-80s papers were writing that only Wimbledon, US Open, and French Open were majors... that Australia was a second rate event. I guess there will always be anomalies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

TennisFan] Just to reiterate the obvious and most important point of this discussion, Laver himself was completely unaware of winning anything in 1967 called the Pro GS, it was something which did not exist in the pro world of 1967. Laver gave a list of "important" events which he won that year, but it did not correspond to anything like the Pro GS, a frivolous concoction which was manufactured much later, and bears no relationship to reality. Cheers.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Wimbledon 1970

Hi Fyunck, if you read the Sports Illustrated articles from that era on Rosewall, it discusses his trouble with hay fever at Wimbledon, which caused his upset losses at Wimbledon in 1968 and 1969. He apparently found some steroid injection treatment for the 1970 Wimbledon and had better results on the court that year, but if you take a look at the 1970 Wimbledon final match available on Youtube, you will see that Rosewall is essentially dragging himself around the court from the beginning, is well below form (especially compared to his more animated gait at Forest Hills that year), and is frequently pulling out a handkerchief to blow his nose throughout the match. That is a sure sign of very active hay fever. That alone explains Rosewall's loss here against a player whom he beat on all other occasions that season.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to look for sources. I assume it's true but we need some exact sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I just read two things that said he "ALWAYS" suffered from Hay Fever; that he always had a hanky hanging out of his pocket. If that's the case, the 1970 Wimbledon final is the norm for him. Graf was always at her worst at Wimbledon too because of her allergies. Another article says he tried cortisone for relief for the first time in 1971. Grass events always brought it out. A quoted Rosewall said of Wimbledon, "I lost the first two because I was too young and lost the last two because I was too old." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

TennisFan] He always suffered from hay fever at Wimbledon, but not at Forest Hills, take a look at the video clips from that 1970 Forest Hills, he shows no signs of pulling out his hanky, as he does throughout the 1970 Wimbledon Youtube record. So it was 1971 that he started getting cortisone injections at Wimbledon, very interesting. That explains his good showing in 1974.64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hoad ranking

Fyunck, I really think that some perspective should be brought to bear on that strange television rating, showing Hoad at #19, Gonzales at #22. If you think that it is important to point out that Hoad ranked #19, then it should also be pointed out that Hoad ranked above other greats such as Kramer and Gonzales.

I do not understand why you think that ranking in relative terms is unimportant..without providing some context for Hoad's 19th place, in particular his relative ranking with his contemporaries, the ranking for Hoad is without meaning. Could you explain that?64.229.32.48 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Sorry, but I think that the Hoad ranking is the only thing that really matters in a Hoad article. The link is there, so if people want to see how he ranks compared to others they have only to click and compare. I wouldn't even have it in the article. I'm not sure what the rankers (or is that wankers) were judging on, but most of the rankings from that tv show are a total mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

[TennisFan] Why not simply remove that reference? I am happy to do it, given the confusion and controversy which has been engendered by that ranking. I am not sure who could have added that ranking. If you have no objections, I will delete the ranking from this article. 64.229.32.48 (talk)TennisFan —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone else might care, but you'd have to remove it to find out. I have no problem with removal. Wikipedia guidelines are to add an edit summary, and be bold in your edit... ONCE! If there is an objection then you'll have to bring it to talk to convince other editors as to why it should be removed. By the way you should always sign the end of your posts with a blank space and then four tildas ( ~~~~) Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be removed immediately. It is certainly the most ridiculous ranking I have ever seen. If it is based solely on amateur records, then I imagine that Tilden would be #1, which would actually make SOME sense. On the other hand, it would also probably put Emerson at #2 or #3, and Sedgman at #3 or #4, because both of them had fantastic amateur records. Emerson had a good record as a pro, and Sedge had a VERY good record as a pro. But Emmo was never in the same ballpark as Hoad, Gorgo, or Kramer. Sedge was in the same ballpark but just a SHADE behind them. So, PLEASE remove all references to this strange, strange ranking. Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hayford Peirce: I've seen many ridiculous rankings through the years. And how do we know it took no professional records into account? It's not in the Wikepedia article. And maybe Tilden wouldn't be number one since Helen Wills utter dominance is unmatched. Hoad missed many top 10 lists even in the 1960s. His number 19 ranking doesn't bother me as much as who is ranked above him. The trouble is, one person's ridiculousness is another's dream lineup. Once pandoras box is open to allow one person's rankings, it's tough to start limiting them without looking like a hypocrite. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I saw somewhere in this, or a linked thread, that the Tennis Channel's rankings were based solely upon amateur rankings. Maybe I missed something or misunderstood it. As you say, Helen Wills is unmatched. And one person's opinion is just that -- but I DO think that a ranking such as the one from the Tennis Channel that is SO out of sync with just about every other ranking you and I have ever seen, should either be FULLY explicated or just ignored. If someone wants to go the FIRST route, I won't argue. But even so you'll have a hard time convincing me that Hoadie, Gorgo, and Big Jake were never better than about #20 in all-time ranking. Could be, but I'm skeptical. Cheers, however, for continuing this dialog. Hayford Peirce (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hayford Peirce: Remember, the women were ranked alongside the men. No other poll I ever saw did that. But let's look at a sampling of the men. Let's say you grabbed the names of the greatest singles players of each generation and simply threw them into a bowl. You'd probably have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic... Sampras, Borg... Laver, Rosewall, Emerson...Gonzales, Kramer... Vines, Perry, Budge... Tilden, Cochet. Right there you have 15 names. Unless you start looking at doubles, Hoad's totals of Grand Slam tournaments, Pro Slams, Tours, etc have a hard time matching the above players. His Davis Cup play was great so you can't dismiss it. Otherwise he made lots of finals but usually lost to the best of his day. But let's say he was the next one on the men's list behind those others. That's 16th.

I said there were 15 so far. There are probably a similar number of women players, so another 15. If you shuffled up those 30 and randomly pulled them out, then it's not inconceivable that Hoad winds up a very respectable 31st. Instead he winds up 19th. When you look at it in that perspective, 140 years and hundreds of top tier players, 19th for Hoad may be too high on my own list of men and women. You do need some sort of results other than runner-up. It's very subjective, and with the women added (apples and oranges) it really makes it tough. I'll tell you one thing though. It's never put in these terms but if we are talking greatest of all-time as far as singles, doubles, advancement of the sport, ambassador, etc... the only face that would belong on Mt Rushmore would be Billie Jean King. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

An interesting argument, and food for thought. I would substitute Sedge for Emmo, however, he achieved far more as a pro. And as for Mt. Rushmore, I think you could argue that Big Bill did as much or more than Billie Jean. At least it could *argued*, and I doubt if it could be for anyone else. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows the two gigantic problems with Tilden and monuments. Because of those issues, he couldn't even get a historical marker at Philadelphia’s Germantown Cricket Club, which is his home court. I don't doubt it keeps him way down on many lists because of the questions that would surface. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But he must have been one heckuva player if he could still beat Don Budge occasionally when he was in his late forties. My old tennis coach Ray Casey, who once extended Tilden to three sets in a two-out-of three, told me that his only weakness was his overhead and that someone like Kenny Rosewall (or Riggs, I suppose) would have exploited that.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's hard enough to find any players who can hold their own in their early 40s or late 30s. What were his reasons for not playing Wimbledon from 1922-1926? Or the WHCC other than 1921? Monetary reasons? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Monetary, I think. He was making too much money as an amateur in the States to be bothered. And, I would say, he, and most other Americans of the time, considered the U.S. championships to be at least as prestigeous or even more so. I suppose we could find more precise info in DeFord's book. Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Lake Calhoun

Im sorry that you dont like the fact that im trying to tell the truth on this webpage as the name on it is incorrect and untill the minnesota supreme court rules for the name change it is still called lake calhoun and the locals in the area still refer to it as such so i dont appreciate some out of town people trying to tell me what the name of the lake in my city is called so untill it is legally changed by law your webpage is invalid and lies to the readers and is a disgrace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Willmac13: The truth or non-truth doesn't matter. Sources and Wikipedia consensus does. Per previous debate and consensus it should not be changed. You can bring it up on the talk page and use any evidence to change peoples minds, because that's how it's done here. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck: If the truth doesn't matter then what is the point of this website? just to confuse and lie to people? if this website isn't about telling the truth on subjects such as this then it has no purpose to even exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

That's the way it works in encyclopedias. I know 100% truthful things about particular musicians, because they told me personal things. There are no sources for it so it absolutely won't be written here. On the talk page you present your information, other editors present theirs, and the group decides what is best for the article. That's what I suggest is done here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Many years ago, when WP was new, and I was a new editor, I tried to put in stuff that Robert A. Heinlein had told me. I fought and fought and fought with other editors who kept taking it out. After a while I *finally* up, but it graveled me for years that I couldn't use it. Finally I said to myself, "The hell with it, either I do it the WP way or I don't do it at all." As Heinlein himself put it at the end of The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress: "You can't fight City Hall." Sad but true. When Larry Sanger founded Citizendium to get around some of the WP restrictions, I tried the same thing over there. *HE*, at least, found a work-around for me to use to get the info in, but it was never in the main article itself.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

So we aren't out here seeking to be as truthful and honest as possible? well then should i just assume that all pages are biased then? and if so then what is the point of this website other then being a propaganda machine? no wonder most most places wont let you use wikipedia as a source for things its all biased good to know that thats the goal of the editors and administrators here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmac13 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat correct. We aren't here to be truthful, we are here to add information to an encyclopedia that is based on factual sourcing. No factual sourcing, then no adding of material no matter how truthful. And certainly you should never use Wikipedia as a source... no school or university would ever allow a source from a place that allows anonymous IPs and regular joes to make edits. We try to be diligent in sources but all you have to do is look at any politically charged article and you will see horrendous bias everywhere. Anyway, this is not a forum page or blog. If you have something valuable to add within Wikipedia rules, then welcome to editing. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia rules then it's best you edit elsewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick response regarding your edit/revert on Talk:Kiev/naming

Honestly, I have no issue with your reverting my edit. The odd thing with it existing is that it contradicts the message above it:

"This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev. Please take all discussion of the name here, reserving the regular talkpage for other matters. I hope that this division will benefit both the regular talkpage and the name discussion itself. Happy editing. Bishonen"

...as well as this message that appears on Talk:Kiev (well, Talk:Kiev/naming/old discussion list as well at this point):

"A special subpage has been created for discussing the name of the article, Talk:Kiev/naming. Please take all naming discussion there!"

...I removed that message since it seemed to be newer than the conflicting statements, but I have no desire to "push" to reimplement it since I thought removing that was cleanup work. So, I suppose all this info I'm providing you is essentially an "FYI". Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I understand, but I don't think it does contradict. It's one thing to discuss, it's quite another to make a formal move request. I actually think it helps to make the formal move requests on the main talk page rather than a subpage. More eyes, more fair. Formal requests only happen about once a year and most of the stuff on the subpage is the same garbage month after month... just complaining from native Ukrainians that it should move. I realize you were just cleaning things up, but that notice has been there for 10 years and I think it was added by a regular who forgot to log in. In that time length, consensus is implied. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sure enough, almost 10 years! (Took me a bit to find that diff.) I saw edits from an IP recently, so I thought it was a recent edit; turns out they were different IPs. Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Steel1943: No prob. You can bring it up at talk... maybe a majority wants that tag removed and they would prefer all RMs be on the naming page. I may personally think that it's better to have an official RM at the main talk page, but I'm cool with whatever the majority wants. It's not really a big deal. Cheers and thanks for tightening up the archive pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ash Barty

You reverted my edit to Ash Barty's article stating that inserting her nickname into her full name is "Not where you would put this, plus Ash is just a common shortening of Ashleigh". However, there appears to be inconsistencies regarding this topic. The likes of Rafael Nadal's and Alexander Zverev's articles both have their nicknames inserted into their full name as I did with Ash Barty. So if it's truly not the place to insert nicknames, this should be changed for all pages including the two named – "Rafa" and "Sascha" should be removed. In Nadal's case, Rafa is just a common shortening of Rafael and yet continues to be an accepted edit on his article. Again, an inconsistency. TurboGUY (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@TurboGUY: Those are also incorrect placements per Wikipedia MOS, but especially so for common renderings. If the name is Frederick, Fred is a common expected rendering. Same with Ash for Asleigh. Not so with Sascha. See the recent discussion about Cori Gauff article. It can also make a difference if a nickname is by far the more common way to see a person's name. But then the article itself would be titled that way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it depends entirely on the circumstances, and that you're never going to have a 100% consistent approach to it. We do indeed have "Rafa" in the Nadal article, but he is NOT always known as Rafa. On the other hand, we have John Albert "Jack" Kramer in the Kramer article, but he was ALWAYS called Jack, never John or Johnnie. But then we have William Tatem Tilden II (February 10, 1893 – June 5, 1953), nicknamed "Big Bill," was an American male tennis player, in which (in MY opinion) "Bill" should be in the "William (Bill) Tatem Tilden II" part. And then we have Ricardo Alonso González (May 9, 1928 – July 3, 1995), usually known as Pancho Gonzales, as well as the slightly different Francisco Olegario Segura (June 20, 1921 – November 18, 2017), better known as Pancho "Segoo" Segura.... In the case of Barty, is she, like Jack Kramer, USUALLY called Ash, or not? That could be the deciding factor. Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hayford Peirce: Wikipedia MOS was explained to me by an administration thusly:

If a player is far and away known by his nickname, his article should be at that nickname, even though it's not his given name. So looking at the article Jack Kramer, that's what was done. If and only if that is the case the first line of the lead should be bolded and say John Albert "Jack" Kramer. If the article is not under the nickname then the nickname should not be in quotes and should be separated from the given name, as was done with Cori Gauff.

MOS tells us: If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial; the quotation marks are not put in lead-section boldface. Tennis Example: Bunny Austin has: Henry Wilfred "Bunny" Austin. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the very clear explanation. Do you think it can be applied consistently across, say, just the *tennis* articles in WP? I suppose so, if someone as conscientious as YOU, wants to be involved with many of these articles. Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's singles

Dear Fyunck! I was very surprised to experience my edit was not constructive and had been reverted. I don't think that if you indicated the two finalists without any score (maybe the box for the score can be marked as yellow), it would cause any confusion. On the contrary, at least it does not seem that the page was not actualized for a year. However, if this is the wikipedia policy, I follow the rules, but honestly I am not the supporter of this, and it makes sense to reconsider this policy in the near future. At least on the teahouse-chat base. Thank You! Mrandrew16

@Mrandrew16: You have to understand that this time of year we have all types of vandalism to tennis article, especially people trying to put their favorites in purposely incorrect positions on charts. By the way, I'm not the one who reverted your edit. That said, I should have worded your talk page much better. It sounds like this was an accidental bad placement on your part and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. My bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

...on how to deal with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: Maybe I'm reading MOS:BOLDAVOID wrong, but from what I see the term Men's Singles should not be bolded, and I'm not sure the term needs to be there. Per the Mississippi example in BOLDAVOID, natural English can also be used (unbolded). The sentence in question already contains the words "singles final". It's pretty obvious he's a man but I guess you could add "men's" to the term "singles final", but I'm not 100% sure it's needed. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the anon is ignoring the desirability of context, which I think is important - we can't assume that everyone reading this understands what men's singles are or knows that the tournament comprises several different competitions. Deb (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I have now asked for semi page protection on the mens and womens articles. I hate wikipedia during major tournaments, and we go through this again in five weeks at the US Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Deb (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Kerber loss to Lucky loser

@Fyunk(click): I think this article from WTA website should be added to 2019 Wimbledon Women's Singles, but I can't edit it. I saw that you recently edited & thought you could put it there. The article notes that Kerber is 1st defending champ in Open Era to lose to a Lucky Loser. https://www.wtatennis.com/news/wta-rankings-update-2019-halep-returns-top-5-gauff-soars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:484:C580:246F:6C06:CDE6:725F:2A30 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Interesting find so I added it with a source. Thanks for finding that and letting me know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

kiev naming

Hello at Talk:Kiev/naming, I give an argument that Kiev is no more a Russian name than Jennifer is a Welsh or Cornish name. Do you feel this is valid or are there better examples? I thought of this I know Jennifer has roots in cornish and Welsh, just as some say that Kiev has roots in Russian, but what I am saying is that Kiev is no more a transliteration of Russian no more than jennifer is a translation/translitoration of a Cornish or Welsh name. Do you feel there are better examples? thanks. 38.111.120.74 (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, darn wifi issues. Anyway, people like Roman Spinner on the talk kiev naming page state that Kiev is a Russian transliteration for the capital of The Ukraine, however this is not the case. I am stating that Kiev is no more a Russian name than Jennifer is a Welsh or Cornish name.

38.111.120.74 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Tennis again

Could I ask what this edit is for? It perpetuates the idea that the articles about the singles competitions deals only with the draw, when we've previously discussed that there should be a proper written summary/introduction included. Deb (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: Well, when I looked it seemed far too long up at the top compared to what we had been writing. Two things. 1) This link is already in the article way at the bottom under "Champions" and linked under its full name, so it's not like it's gone 2) There was only one reason we also added it to the top... heaps of readers were complaining that the only reason they came to the article was so they could see the mens and womens singles draws and nothing else. They had trouble finding them while wading through everything else. I thought about that and realized I was the same way... nothing was more important than seeing those two draws. Since that's what readers wanted we discussed it and gave them an easy way to find those two things. If anything I would refine it further and add a #draw to the links to go directly to the draw. Anyway that was my reasoning for changing it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Did they really only want to know about the draw? I really don't think that's what the encyclopedia is here for. And I think it's misleading to suggest that we have articles that are only about the draw. Deb (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: For the most part yes, especially with ongoing events. There is a lot of information in our tournament articles and I would wager that far and away, when a reader (and I include myself) wants to know what happened in say...the 1989 Wimbledon ladies singles event... They want to know who won and who lost, and they want to see the full draw. I'd bet 90% of searches look for just that. They want to know it was Graf vs Navratilova, with Graf winning in three sets, and they want to see a visual draw just like they do on ESPN. They could care less about the seeding and they probably read only the first sentence or two of the lead. The full information is there for those who want it, but most won't want it.

Lets look at the 1989 Wimbledon Championships article. While that prize money info is great, I'll bet it's rare for anyone to really look at. If it was at the bottom we'd have the champions list, the seeding list, and then the prize money. That's probably correct as far as in order of importance. Flash forward to our 2017 Wimbledon Championships article to see what we do 30 years later. That Champions list is buried! The most important info of the event is hard to find and we were getting complaints, especially since most readers only care about mens and womens singles. And moving the stuff around is a big undertaking with lots of complaining. We could tweak the wording and make the links direct by saying:

Further information on singles draws at: Men's Singles draw and Women's Singles draw

I'd hate to remove the word draw but I guess we could make it:

Further information on singles draws at: Men's Singles and Women's Singles

Anyway, that's how I see things as far as helping our readers. One thing that maybe could be done is to remove the further topic help and move up the info in the main body. We could limit the table of contents (which has gotten so bloated) and have what people really want right at their fingertips. Like this version here. To be honest, the infobox has gotten ridiculous also. Per MOS "The purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose." The smaller infobox would dump the kids and exhibitions and look like this. But that would probably start a riot of complaints here. Just a thought. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the second alternative is better, but I still find it hard to believe that this is the only thing people want to know about the individual competitions, not once they are over, anyway. If it were, there are other websites that can tell them equally well; we're not a sports news site. I think a draw can be of a different level of importance in different sports. Clearly in some US sports it's vital, and in football competitions like the F.A.Cup it's quite critical, but even in an article like 2018–19 FA Cup, the summary of results comes before the draw. At Wimbledon, you know beforehand that the seeded players will be in a certain position in the draw. Or do you mean something different by the word "draw"? "Who beat whom" and "who played whom" are two different things. Deb (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: I'm not sure I would say it's the only thing readers look at, but it's what they come for. And those seeded players positions are right there to see in the draw bracket too. When I say draw I am specifically talking about the full bracket and its results. And have you tried to easily find this equally-well info on other websites? When you have your hand-held device most people have an imdb app, a news app, a weather app, a wikipedia app. They don't have wimbledon apps, and tennisbase apps, and tennisforum apps. It's easiest to goto wikipedia. And if you goto the wimbledon site and want to look up individual years you have to go to the archives. From there you choose which discipline, and then it shows what else.... the draws/scores and pretty much nothing else. And it's not that easy to even find the archives to begin with but they focus on draws because it's highly important and more visually tactile. You can see what happened without any prose. Anyway, I hate discussing too much without the entire tennis project able to see the discussion as I'm only a tiny cog in the mechanism, but the reason that further info was put at the top of articles was because of complaints that readers couldn't easily find the mens and womens singles draw brackets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that reasoning - but bear in mind that all information is supposed to be referenced, so we shouldn't actually be including the results before they have been published by a reliable source. "I saw it on TV" is not a guarantee of the result being correct. I would propose that we put the kind of protection on articles about current tournaments that I have put on the Women's Singles, i.e. any changes made by new and unregistered users have to be reviewed. That would slow down the determination of casual users to be first to update the score. I'll make that proposal on the Tennis project. Deb (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

disruptive accusations

Please explain to me the accusations by you and an Alabama-based user (dermise I think) of me being disruptive? Thanks Nahom

I will try this once and only once. The Kiev talk page is for specific sourced reasons for page improvement. Not to bait someone into answering questions.... questions that have been asked and answered hundreds of time before in past archives. It is not a forum. If you have something brand spanking new and sourced to add that could change minds, then great. We just had a lengthy move discussion about the same topic that was overwhelming in its finality. We don't need the same things drudged up again and again so soon. It is detrimental and disruptive to do so. I tried to explain that to you in summaries and on my talk page. If you still don't understand the overkill you were creating then I suggest you talk to the administrator who closed it again and to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I hope that clears things up, but if not I can't help. Also if someone deletes something you wrote from their personal talk page, DO NOT RE-ADD IT. Signing off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Navratilova first Grand slam

When she won her first GS, Martina was not a US citizen yet, and be corollary she was still a Czech national (despite the illegal removal of her citizenship by the government at the time). Ninel (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ninel:That flag is not for citizenship, it is for the country she represents in international play. And you must have a country backing you or you can't play. For all of her majors she represented the USA. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Which draw template is preferable?

Hello again, you seemed pretty experienced regarding tennis articles, so could you help me decide which template is preferable of the two compared in User:Calbow/sandbox?. I'm currently adding qualification draws for Australian Open men's singles, and all the years made before I started (1998-2019) use the less compact template, but don't have any byes, unlike the earlier years I'm adding. Should I in your opinion be consistent with them, or use the compact template that shows byes better? Thanks, Calbow (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That kind of call is always tough and I usually search our Guideline draws for the best way to handle it. When it comes to compactness I would turn to my betters and see if perhaps @Wolbo: could better answer the query. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I ended getting a template made that combines both, i.e. non-compact and shows byes properly. Calbow (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicknames.

Wikipedia is all about the person and their info. Why is nicknames that this person uses not allowed? Every time I add one it's deleted. Also, why does is matter how there name is registered on ITF? This is a Wikipedia page not an ITF page. Further more there name on there official Twitter page and Instagram uses their nickname and not there birth name. So ITF takes precidence over their own Twitter or Instagram page? Further if you look up Colleen "CoCo" Vandeweghe Wikipedia page her nickname is in quotations and no one is deleting that nickname. Princeofearth (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Princeofearth: I explained all that earlier on your talk page. I'll do so again. To play professional tennis you MUST register the name you want to play under. No exceptions. So far she has chosen Cori Gauff. She can always change it, but she hasn't yet. CoCo Vandeweghe has done so at the ITF. Now, as to how nicknames are handled at Wikipedia. If the article is titled with the nickname, such as CoCo Vandeweghe's article, then the real name is shown in the lead with the nickname in parentheses (if it's unusual) such as Colleen "CoCo" Vandeweghe. If the article is titled with the real name, then the nickname (if it's unusual, not shortened) is shown afterwards with a separate phrase such as "also known as Coco Gauff." If Cori Gauff decides to change her name to Coco or perhaps if the article gets changed to Coco Gauff because of more and more usage, then we have a totally different situation and we will re-look at the phrasing. There was just a discussion on what name to put the article at and "Cori Gauff" won out. I didn't make these rules at Wikipedia. More can be found at WP:NICKUSE, and MOS:LEGALNAME. I hope that helps a bit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@fyunck(click) I read the link you sent me on Wikipedia regarding the use of nicknames and that link has been superseded by this link. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Pseudonyms,_stage_names,_nicknames,_hypocorisms,_and_common_names

Scroll down to where it says nicknames and you will see where it says that if the person is known by a nickname either in place of their legal name or along with their legal name then their nickname should be between double quotation marks like this example. Cori "Coco" Gauff (Born.....). It states this right there on the Wikipedia link I just pasted above. According to that I had her nickname in the proper format and you deleted my changes. Same goes for my edits to Jessica Pegula. As for common use of their nicknames on the internet, both of them have their official Twitter pages and Instagram pages listed only with their nicknames and several articles refer to them by their nicknames also! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofearth (talk • contribs) 01:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Princeofearth: Again... that's when the article is placed at the nickname. If the article name was Coco Gauff, then it would be appropriate. But it's not.. the article is titled Cori Gauff. Jessica Pegula is a different story completely. "Jessie" is a common shortening of Jessica so it will never be put in quotes in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) The Wikipedia page about nicknames makes no mention of whether or not the article name uses their nickname or their legal name to differentiate if the nickname appears in quotations or not. Where on the Wikipedia page does it mention what you have said?? Jess is an abbreviated form of Jessica. Jessie is not a common abbreviation of Jessica. It's more of a nickname because it totally changes the name by adding 2 letters. I have copied and pasted the Wikipedia page regarding how to use nicknames below.

Per Wikipedia's own instructions.

If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism[d] of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial; the quotation marks are not put in lead-section boldface. Example:

Bunny Berigan has: Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan.

A nickname can eventually become a professional alias, even the most common name for a person. Such a case loses the quotation marks, other than in the subject's lead section if introducing the nickname in mid-name. If the monicker is dominant (in general or in a particular context) it can often be used in other articles without further elaboration. Example:

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeofearth (talk • contribs) 03:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Princeofearth: Those examples show exactly what I was telling you. The Magic Johnson article is at Magic, as is Bunny Berigan at Bunny. Coco is at Cori. Look, I'm not going through this anymore on what we do at wikipedia. I have tried to help you out and be specific on the issue because you are a new user. This was even explained by administration in the Cori Gauff archives if you had thought to look. If you are appreciative of the effort, then fine. If you aren't appreciative, then fine. But I'm done explaining so I suggest you move on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You can't reason with a troll -- it's a fool's errand. For some reason, though, you seem to attract them in spades. You must have special pheromones. Cheers! Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL. I don't know, they are a new user seemingly with limited English comprehension. Maybe a kid. I tried, I reported them to administration, and will move on. I hate passing the buck to administration if I can help solve it, but that wasn't the case here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

You have far more patience than I! But that's why you're a more valued contributor! To put it into tennis terms, you are more of a Ken Rosewall or Lew Hoad, while I am more of a Pancho Gonzales or John McEnroe, hehe. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Since I sometimes have back pain I'll have to be Hoad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, sorry to hear that! I've only had it a couple of times in my life, knock on wood, and it's terrible when I do have it. How he (and others) ever managed to play tennis with it is hard to understand. Hope you never have any again! Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Live WTA rankings

Hi! I have noticed you have removed the Live WTA rankings update from Naomi Osaka. Is there some rule against using live ranking updates? I also notice that Naomi Osaka's ranking has been updated these days with the ranking from yesterday after losing the match with Belinda Bencic, so I wonder why a further update after Svitolina Konta match not be accepted?--185.53.197.61 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@185.53.197.61:We use the actual real rankings from the WTA/ATP. They are the ones who rank so that's what we use. They never update rankings in the middle of an event, but otherwise they do it on Monday mornings. That's when we update. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The answer is only partially satisfying. I think that since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, with possibilities of fast updating as its name (Wiki) indicates, not maintaining a quick updating (by Live WTA ranking or some other source like TV News reports, etc) gives a misleading impression of slowness/outdateness, which I'd say is unacceptable. The mentioned slowness would have been acceptable many decades ago when written newspapers had a large market share in media, in the infancy era of internet, especially when the World Wide Web had not appeared. In the present times such delay is not to be accepted.--185.53.197.61 (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@185.53.197.61: There are two problems with that. One, their rankings do not change instantly. They only change on Mondays. Updating it before would be inaccurate in that sense. And two, we are not a crystal ball and things can actually change. If a player retires their ranking will be immediately removed and all other players rankings will move accordingly. Drug suspensions can have the same affect. Any other ranking site other than the WTA/ATP/ITF is not official, it would be an unofficial projection. Plus when people start updating before then often the number of weeks they are ranked gets all skewed up by the next person who edits. That is why it makes the most sense to go with the official results. It's easier for everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirection

Hi, it appears that you tried to create a redirect at 2018 Zhengzhou Open, but didn't do it correctly. I've fixed it now. For future reference, the correct redirect syntax is:

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

You can check redirects with the Preview button before saving them. If you have created a working redirect, the preview will show the name of the target page alongside a bent arrow (or "Redirect to:" label in text mode). Smjg (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a late night oops. Thanks. By the way you should always sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who's leaving me a message. I fixed your post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW I normally do remember to sign my posts, but just slipped up on this occasion. Thanks. — Smjg (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk page discussion closing task-force

Hi, do you belong to 'Talk page discussion closing task-force' that has authority to close discussion before a week has passed? I checked your user-rights, and failed to see you among the aforementioned task-force. Given that, it seems like your repeated closing of discussion on Talk:Kiev/naming is disruptive and goes again WP:Talk page guidelines quote Closing a discussion means summarizing the results, and identifying any consensus that has been achieved. A general rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this.. Asking also for advice from @Roman Spinner:, given that I apologized to him in that discussion diff and he was not even able to respond to it. I absolutely, did not want to be the cause of other uses behaving WP:non-civilly towards him (which unfortunately happened) and feel that I own it to Roman Spinner to apologize and for him to respond (which he didnt' get a chance, since you closed the discussion within minutes of the last comment).--Piznajko (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Piznajko: This was a continuation of the same balderdash that was just closed and archived. When a brand spanking new discussion opens that is likely to bring forth all new ideas, certainly it should run its course. When pretty much the same thing and same people keep arguing the same tired points that all the recent rms discussed, it's more like trolling for a fight. That is something that is not in wikipedias interest. Even an administrator complained of the same "re-litigating." When I see the same thing happening again I tend to close it. If you want to remove the close be my guest, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's closed again soon thereafter by an administrator, because it's really getting ridiculous. All I can say is please be careful in picking the same fight there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck(click) I appreciate your advice, and I value your contribution: I can see that you are genuinely good-faithed editor and your recent comments on that talk page speak positively of you and show that you strive to be constructive, that you're truly WP:HERE to bring encyclopedic & academic discussion that is within WP:Civility guidelines (which unfortunately cannot be said of the majority of contributors on the Talk:Kiev/naming discussion for the last 10 years - 99% of editors on that TP are WP:NOTTHERE to bring encyclopedic & academic discussion that would help clarify which usage is now common within English language, but instead have warmongering mentality and strive to WIKIHOUND and force out any editors who disagree with them (the recent case of the User:Vigilante Girl - is the prime example of that uncivil behaviour, which has led to a potentially exceptional contributor self-expulsion from the project, but there had been dozens if not hundreds of cases like of that in the last 10 years, affecting both newbie-Wikieditors and established ones with years-and-year of exceptional wikiediting history) .

You know very well that I will not reopen that discussion after it was closed, merely from self-preservation perspective: a number of English WP admins (who are - let's call it "interested" - in Ukrainian topics) will mostly likely block me for an unspecified period if I do - they've been dying to do it for a while now (as is evident from their recent messages on my TP) and I would hate to willingly give them any pretext for that and empower them to do so via the usual admin WP:Gaming the system route. In conclusion: as you can see, I cannot reopen the discussion you've archived without you-know-who admins blocking me, so that's exactly why I came to your TP in good faith to ask YOU to unclose it yourself and let R. Spinner at least a chance to respond to my apology --Piznajko (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Piznajko: My thoughts are this. I will unclose it since you think I overstepped my bounds. But know this, there have been far far more unwavering, un-knowledgeable editors demanding that Kiev be changed to Kyiv. And the anon IPs are usually the worst. They must get attracted by some Ukraine newspaper about Wikipedia. They don't read the archives where their same arguments have all been shot down and they bring up the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... etc... That is very disruptive and starts arguments and then I see multiple editors being blocked. I hate to see that happen. R Spinner should be replying to that kind of stuff on Your Talk page... not on a Kiev talk page. And you should be writing that stuff on his talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Width

I am wondering why we have to add width limitations to the performance timeline table. Everything was okay without the extra style="width:35px", but once they are limited, the some columns are automactically wrapped, like:

• 3 /
  57
• 34–
  13

etc.

instead of 3 / 57, 34–13 OVVL (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@OVVL: They have been part of Wikipedia Project Tennis Guidelines since before I was here. I'm thinking they wanted uniform widths for the performance table years since it looks much better. The smaller table years columns have no width statements at all (although the years have no links in the example). Since both are shown it's possible both are ok to use, but nothing wider unless approved by the Tennis Project. The tables were tested on English versions of Firefox, Explorer, Chrome, Edge, and a couple other browsers as well and it has always worked well. Perhaps you have your Chrome browser has it's language region set to Ukrainian? You can bring it up at Tennis Project talk and see if others would agree to widen it to 40, but players who have been on the tour a long time like Federer already have overwide tables. And a different language region browser might need to be set to 45 to work well. There are too many language regions to appease everyone so I'm guessing that English browser versions are the defacto standard. I'm not really partial except in following whatever our Guidelines tell us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene

why did you revert my edits? the part i moved is a nonsensical fringe theory of an obscure scholar, shouldn't be in the lead section. please change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.10.144 (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@99.238.10.144: It probably got caught up in the vandalism sweep for the IP address. I suggest you sign up for a free account before that IP address gets blocked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tennis Guidlines

Hey!
I saw that you one of few people that really take care about tennis guidlines, but I have a question. I follow things that are made in guidliness, but I usually meet people that want to change some things that is not as it is in guidliness. They made arguments like "it's better, I like it this way" etc. that for me is kinda ok, but in the same time I want every page to have same rules. Reason why I change some titles like "Malaysian Open, Malaysia" to "Malaysian Open, Kuala Lumpur", cuz I have problems with some people that say it ridiculous to say ex. Malaysian Open, Malaysia etc. Same things with other stuffs, background color of some cell, width of columns, not include prize money in last cell (but in guidliness it should be) etc. Reason why I wrote you this is that I want to ask you, is there some way to stop people from doing this or everyone should do want they want? I don't have problem with every oppinion, but if on one page is Malaysia Open, Malaysia, it should be on EVERY page, or if there is bold text for total amount of tournament played, then it should be. I really don't want to spend my time "fighting" with some "people" or better say "users". I'm really against vandalism, but it's pointless if everyone can done whatever they want to the infinity. Note: I don't refer to anyone specifically, I'm talking in general. Thanks for your answer :)
JamesAndersoon (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I run into the same things, and I really don't have an answer for you on how to stop it. I do my best to follow the guidelines and from there to follow what has been common consensus. Tennis Project deemed cities as unnecessarily trivial, especially since we have links if you need more detail. It keeps the tables narrower and tighter, plus gives the charts a uniform look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

One thing... please don't change essential Tennis Project Guidelines. These were were worked out by many debates. Sure, if a tournament name changes, or their is a syntax error, be bold and help out. But changing parameters, etc would require much input from others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Order in performance timelines

Hey!
Why you changed the order of "Year-end championships" and "National representation" on Anastasija Sevastova page? In Tennis guidliness it said first National Representation, then Year-end championships. But I see that on ATP Performance timelines it's opposite. Is it some mistake?. Cheers
JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: Interesting... I hadn't noticed that the women's chart is different than the men's. That's an error but not sure which way is more proper. I'll bring it up at Tennis Project so the charts can be consistent. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall Win-Loss

Can you tell me where you find information about correct score of Win-Loss for some player? Talking about ATP players, I found that information on their official site, but what about WTA players? So far, I used to count number of w/l manually, but it takes a lot of time. And if there is not a information about w/l score, can you tell me what are all included for that "Overal Win-Loss"? Ex. Somewhere I find that Fed Cup's results are included, somewhere not. And if Fed Cup's result are included, is it means all matches at fed cup tour, or only on world group, play-off maybe? Thanks for the answer.
JamesAndersoon 18:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@JamesAndersoon: That is something I don't usually add to player charts, so I'm not sure where the info is being gathered. Usually the ATP and WTA tours include Davis and Fed Cups in all their info, so those sites numbers should include them if you add them up. TheTennisBase.com also has all those results but it's fee based. When I glance at a player like Bianca Andreescu, our chart has her at 137-48. Her WTA website overview has the exact same number right up front. So does ESPN. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Yeah, I understand it, but ex. if Bianca Andreescu has 137-48 record, it has to be together with ITF, cuz she is so young so it's impossible that she already played 48 tournaments. However, thanks for you answer, so as answer on another page that I posted :)

I guess it's adding by hand because of WTA errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Simona Halep pending request

Hey! Today, I edited something on Simona Halep's main page, and meet we something I never seen before - pending changes. I have question, if it prevented us from vandals, then why not more pages have that? Then edits will have more sense, otherwise, it's really messy. What do U think? :) Cheers. JamesAndersoon talk 17:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Sally Jaye 2008.jpg

The file File:Sally Jaye 2008.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well F. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.