User talk:Qwerty284651/Archive 1

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Qwerty284651! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|HiLo48}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Tennis title winners

The wording you removed is pretty much required. Articles were getting tagged by administration because they lacked even the sport that was being played. The lead should state the exact event that was won, and the sport that was played. And the order is always done with most important fact first... not last years winner. The Grand Slam singles events have been fixed through the years but minor events are lagging in their correction. Please help the Tennis Project fix events. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

All-time tennis records revert

You just add Bill Johnston to the list of those who won 6 non-consecutive majors streak. I only see 5 in a row. Where's the 6th? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Fyunck(click) (talk) for pointing it out. Had to double check on his wikipedia page to make sure he had made 5, not 6 non-consecutive finals. All the best. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Lendl Golden Masters

Hi

While I appreciate your edits, the one you made to the Golden Masters table on the Open Era records page is not correct. The feat is about winning the 9 ATP Masters and that's why it belongs to the ATP Masters subsection, even when you follow the link in the table, it takes you to the list which has only Djokovic's name. Before 1990 there were a bunch of Super tournaments and I don't think anyone won them all and even if it happened, it's still not a Golden Masters. You wouldn't find it even in Lendl's main article. Best. --ForzaUV (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, for being specific on the matter why Lendl should not be included in the list. However, his overall Masters records far exceed anyone else's in the pre-1990 Era. Here is a linkto a discussion that talks about just that. Oh, yeah, and one more thing. How would you incorporate Lendl'e "Masters stats" in the Open era list. Should it be in its own section, or what? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 French Open, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Tennis at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Please do not change the infobox of this article. This is an Olympic event and as per WP:OLYMPICS, Infobox Olympic event shall be used. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Tennis at the 2020 Summer Olympics. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Tables got all skewed

Your edit at List of Grand Slam men's singles champions hammered the tables badly. That needs to be fixed if you re-add. And the color legend you made would not be able to be seen by someone visually impaired. Perhaps a symbol could also be added? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

USA Hard triple

15:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi It is seen that you undid my addition in the "Triples" considering that they IW-MI-CI are not back-to-back master tournaments. The triple is named "USA Hard Triple" ....They are back to back tournaments held in one specific country (USA). There is no other triple parallel to this. ....Federer is the only player to achieve this triple back-to-back (skipped Canada masters in 2005) ....For Hard X Clay X Indoors triple, the tournaments mentioned are not exactly back-to-back but specifically back-to-back with the achievement. USA hard triple is also in line with this. ....The fact that this triple is very hard (Indian wells of draw size92, Miami of draw size 92 and Cincinnati of 56 size are really big masters in one country) .... This would be a unique achievement held by only one person in the history so far is also worth mentioning record.

Hope you agree on this and add this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.62.5 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It says back-to-back tournaments aka consecutive tournaments, ignoring the country-based factor. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Now U have added Nadal's 2013 MI-Canada-Cincy. As Nadal did not win MI, we talked about Federer IW-MI-Cincy in 2005. Do u mean u want to add Nadal's IW-Canada-Cincy in 2013. You may add this as well. But Canada-Cincy is already there in quadruple. Hence, not added.

Further, Djokovic's 2011 Canada Masters is appearing in Season Middle triple and IW-MI-Canada hardcourt triple. What do you think of it ??Krmohan (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Krmohan: Yes, you are correct. Nadal's never won Miami. Fed's IW-Miami-Cincy is okay with me. I am okay with Djokovic's successive streak appearing in 2 separate triples in the same season. It's weird that you named it "Season middle" triple. But, hey, that's your choice. That is all I have for now. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Out of 9 maters series tournaments, they are 4th to 6th, so season middle. No one achieved season end triple. I just have one comment..The comment of North America tournaments should be there at the top (Hardcourt triple*) as all four are in NAmerica (not only Federer's IW-MI-Cincy). Otherwise, I am ok with yr wording...Thx.. Krmohan (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Background color

Hi again,
I just want to explain why I did what I did. I really do not think the color is necessary. Are you simply committed to doing that for all of the draw in the other years of the tournament and all the other Masters/1000 tournaments? The standard is to just highlight the runner-up and champion. The color for ALL eliminated contestants is highly unnecessary. The tournament also officially ends in less than 24 hours, so this is overboard and you would have to change everything back right after. You also reverted the changes already made to the article that reflects all updates, such as the score lines in the "champions" section and the remaining seeded players' statuses. I have tentatively reverted back the changes. Best, Tunestoons (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Tunestoons I don't care what you did. Just don't remove certain layout stuff on a wikipage because it looks better. Eliminated players have always been highlighted red during the duration of any tournament wikipage with a rankings table for both singles draws. The finalist and winner, if seeded, are then the only ones being highlighted in the page. See doubles sections for example. And besides, this has always been the case and the practice for Masters and Grand Slam tournaments for years. You can't just go around and change things, because something looks better and expect it stay they way you want. There are things that can be changed, but certain norms should stay unchanged, as they are. Word of advice: if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. I'll let you have it. No hard feelings; I was just here to discuss. Tunestoons (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. No hard feelings here. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy on List of Grand Slam men's singles champions

You said on this revert that there's no redundancy. But when I see the "Two Slam" subsection there are three distinct times where it's stated that the Channel Slam consists of the French Open-Wimbledom double: On the legend at the very stat of the subsection, on the respective table's header and on a note right beside the header. How can they no be considered to be redundant to each other? ABC paulista (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Gave your comment some thought and you are right. The statement is repeating itself. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit but then change it yourself?

You reverted my edit on the List of WTA number 1 ranked tennis players page with a comment about why you disagree with my edit. But your comment seems to support my edit. You then made another edit to basically undo your revision of my edit. Am I missing something? If you made a mistake by reverting my edit by accident, shouldn't you just revert your mistake with a follow-up comment saying basically oops my mistake? I am new so I may not know common practices. Thank you. DropShot244 (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@DropShot244: Basically, I want the no. 1 singles players by decade to stay as a subsection within the Singles section, not be its own section sandwiched between the Singles and Doubles sections. That's the long and short of it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly what my edit on November 8 did; it made it a subsection within Singles section. Read my comment. You then reverted it to make it its own section sandwiched between Singles and Doubles. Then you made the same edit I did, to make it part of Singles again. Do you follow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DropShot244 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I reverted it back to normal, but did not comment the revert back. I got confused. Everything is as it should be. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 2021 WTA Finals – Doubles. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Issuing level 2 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with 2021 WTA Finals – Singles. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Different Masters Titles

Hi @Qwerty284651 As you know, ATP Masters evolved since 1990. Over the years, there have been significant changes/differences in these events in terms of organization (sets played, schedule, draw size, duration, tournament, location, surfaces, indoor/outdoor). Some events are mandatory. These are stabilized from 2009 only. I agree that Different Masters titles are unique/particular to the ATP Masters Series History. All the data is verifiable and relevant as how these are organized and player stats are core to the article. These are raised by more than one editor in the last few weeks and the topic was also discussed in the talk page and lasted several weeks under USA Hard triple @krmohan. I do not recommend removing this without further discussions. There are many trivia details at the end in "Statistics" which may not be relevant (like seeds, QFs). Tennis is mostly about titles and this article truly deserve different Masters titles, as they tell about how the Masters organized in nine slots unlike Grand Slams. One should respect how ATP organizes Masters in a unique way unlike Slams. It was all different when we talk about events and tournaments. As per wikipedia policy, these kind of verifiable data which has significance to the article must be kept. There is a news that 5 Masters will be changed to 12-day events in future. So changes are part and parcel of ATP Masters Series. My submission is that one has to accept it and capture them in the history of stats and player records. Looking forward to your reading. Cheers223.226.82.42 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
In fact, I recommend to improve the Different Masters titles subject and also I feel that there should be something in the beginning of the article regarding ATP Masters records and particularities. When we are capturing the stats and records from 1990, it is worth adding to the article. Some unnecessary information may be removed at the end. It is a suggestion to improve the article. I am open to your views...223.226.82.42 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, 223.226.82.42. As much as I would like to give you a response to your inquiry, I don't think this is the place for it. Perhaps, the Masters records talk page is more appropriate so that other editors, active on the page, can weigh in on the matter, not just you and I. What do you say? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed..122.162.198.233 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Qwerty284651 You have reverted again. I have explained to all editors and responded in the talk page. Without looking into the details, how every editors reverting it. There are other editors who have supported my views. This data is about different Masters titles and verifiable from wikipedia. The reasons you gave for reverting as "redundant", "it is about career golden masters", "already covered in miscellaneous tournaments", "no consensus view" is all absurd and given explanation. Please revert on your own...122.162.198.233 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit, ForzaUV did, by restoring my version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
497		Anett Kontaveit (talk)	Add sources
8		Tom Pettitt (talk)	Add sources
4		Russ Adams (tennis photographer) (talk)	Add sources
219		2021 Miami Open (talk)	Add sources
21		Eurocard Open (talk)	Add sources
170		Mark McCormack (talk)	Add sources
13		Ronald Holmberg (talk)	Cleanup
44		W. Ian Lipkin (talk)	Cleanup
165		WTA Premier tournaments (talk)	Cleanup
539		COVID-19 pandemic in Shanghai (talk)	Expand
6		2012 in tennis (talk)	Expand
13		Tennis at the Pan American Games (talk)	Expand
46		Drop shot (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,441		Parliamentary republic (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
684		Batangas (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,126		Democratic backsliding (talk)	Merge
12		Object theory (talk)	Merge
591		Symbol of Chaos (talk)	Merge
35		2022 Adelaide International 1 – Women's singles (talk)	Wikify
10		2019 French Open – Men's doubles (talk)	Wikify
32,147		Karim Benzema (talk)	Wikify
33		Doping in tennis (talk)	Orphan
2		Anastasia Atanesyan (talk)	Orphan
2		Bayt Radm (talk)	Orphan
15		Ivanna Yastremska (talk)	Stub
444		Katarina Zavatska (talk)	Stub
45		Linda Nosková (talk)	Stub
9		Elena Malõgina (talk)	Stub
122		Desirae Krawczyk (talk)	Stub
23		Lucia Bronzetti (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Your common.css

Hi, I notice that you have made two edits to User:Qwerty284651/common.css; they have probably broken it, because there are now unpaired braces and other misplaced text. To fix it, replace the entire page content with this:

@import url("https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SMcCandlish/lint.css&action=raw&bcache=1&maxage=86400&ctype=text/css");
a[title="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_alerts"] {
    color: white;
    background: red;
    font-size: 150%;
}

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Redrose64. Much appreciated. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Could you help me with LinHint because it worked the first 3 days I used it and it stopped thereafter. I tried various ways to restart but to no avail. Any suggestions? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players

Hello, how are you? We're having a conflict on this page, but I'm sure I'm correct in the information. The consecutive week numbers as number 1 for each tennis player are correct, but the period is not correct.

1-Ivan Lendl had 157 weeks as Number 1 in his 7th time and 80 weeks in his 8th time.

2-Pete Sampras had 102 weeks as Number 1 in his 5th time.

3-Djokovic had 122 weeks as Number 1 in his 3rd time as number 1, 86 weeks in his 5th time, 53 weeks in his 1st time and 52 weeks in his 4th time.

4-John McEnroe had 58 weeks as Number 1 in his 4th time and 53 weeks in his 13th time.

5-Rafael Nadal had 56 weeks as Number 1 in his 2nd time.

6-Andre Agassi had 52 weeks as Number 1 in his 4th time.

NOTE: My source is topic "ATP No. 1 ranked singles players" on the same page.

God be with you. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by João Fernandes Santos (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@João Fernandes Santos the applied streaks in brackets are redundant, therefore they don't belong there. P.S. Don't forget to sign your comments using ~~~~ Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Qwerty. On the same topic, I noticed you keep adding the rank column to the consecutive table but it doesn't work in this instance because the players names are not unique in the list. In other words, is Connors ranked second or seventh? I don't really see any value added from that column so please leave it as it is. Keep it up. ForzaUV (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

List of WTA number 1 ranked singles tennis players

Hello, how are you? We're having a conflict on this page, but I'm sure I'm correct in the information. The consecutive week numbers as number 1 for each tennis player are correct, but the period is not correct.

1-Serena Williams had 186 weeks as Number 1 in her 6th time, 57 weeks in her 8st time and 49 weeks in her 5th time.

2-Martina Navratilova had 156 weeks as Number 1 in her 7th time and 90 weeks in her 9th time.

3-Chris Evert had 113 weeks as Number 1 in her 2nd time as number 1 and 76 weeks in her 2nd time.

4-Ashleigh Barty had 110 weeks as Number 1 in her 2nd time.

5-Steffi Graf had 94 weeks as Number 1 in her 7t time and 87 weeks in her 4th time.

6-Monica Seles had 91 weeks as Number 1 in her 3rd time and 64 weeks in her 4th time.

7-Martina Hingis had 73 weeks as Number 1 in her 5th time.

8-Justine Henin had 61 weeks as Number 1 in her 4th time.

9-Caroline Wozniacki had 49 weeks as Number 1 in her 2nd time.

10-Simona Halep had 48 weeks as Number 1 in her 2nd time.

11-Lindsay Davenport had 44 weeks as Number 1 in his 6th time.

NOTE: My source is topic "WTA No. 1 ranked singles players" on the same page.

God be with you. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by João Fernandes Santos (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

List of ATP number 1 ranked doubles tennis players

Hello, how are you? We're having a conflict on this page, but I'm sure I'm correct in the information. The consecutive week numbers as number 1 for each tennis player are correct, but the period is not correct.

1-Mike Bryan had 163 weeks as Number 1 in his 12th time, 90 weeks in his 11th time, 64 weeks in his 3rd time, 64 weeks in his 4th time and 52 weeks in his 13th time.

1-Bob Bryan had 140 weeks as Number 1 in his 13th time, 90 weeks in his 11th time, 64 weeks in his 3rd time and 64 weeks in his 4th time.

3-John McEnroe had 108 weeks as Number 1 in his 4th time as number 1 and 97 weeks in his 1st time.

4-Todd Woodbridge had 125 weeks as Number 1 in his 7th time.

5-Frew McMillan had 80 weeks as Number 1 in his 3rd time.

6-Mark Woodforde had 52 weeks as Number 1 in his 3rd time.

7-Anders Järryd had 47 weeks as Number 1 in his 9th time.

8-Jacco Eltingh had 44 weeks as Number 1 in his 4th time.

9-Nicolas Mahut had 38 weeks as Number 1 in his 2nd time.

NOTE: My source is topic "ATP No. 1 ranked doubles players" on the same page.

God be with you. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by João Fernandes Santos (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The note I've just added

Hi Qwerty again. I see you removed the third note I've just added in the article, was it a mistake or you thought it was unnecessary? ForzaUV (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @ForzaUV There was an edit conflict between your and my last edit "Fixed footnote." The efn was covid, not covid19..the latter, you converted from {{dagger}} to a note, was undefined. If that's what you meant. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to 1991 Monte Carlo Open – Doubles, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

These are not test edits, I am making the doubles draw subpage for Monte Carlo 1991. Where is the harm in that? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Forget about the merge, that edit is not published yet, we'll see how it goes in a few days. Do you still have an objection to the current version which has the champions at the bottom? Let me know. ForzaUV (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV Experiment in your sandbox, not the page itself. No need to spam the page's history with layout changes. That comes after a decision has been made to merge or not. And THEN will we discuss and experiment, section, table layout and whatnot. Okay? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I only made a couple of big edits and self-reverted the merged article until a decision is made but then you reverted all the tweaks I did to the table and sections which were already there. For now there is nothing wrong with the article. If you still have an issue with it in its current state let me know what it is so we can sort it out now. After that we'll cleanup the merge discussions. ForzaUV (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The Golden Masters sweep is not as important as title tally tables and having a simple section link from the 9/9 in the singles and doubles tables is sufficient. That, and the fact that you removed the 9 tourney's location map bugs me. That and those singles and doubles which Letcord expanded because in their logic to implement the same layout across all yearly tennis articles, instead of the truncated S – D as before. I tried talking them out of it, but with 1-on-1 it's a stalemate, one prefers one layout, the other prefers another, and you can't reach a consensus thusly, you know? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The map is bad and extremely unnecessary. I mean all the cities, countries and their flags are already linked in the table, if anyone is interested in the geographic locations of the cities as well he can click those links as see them. If you could see the map on a desktop screen you'd see how ugly and huge it is, taking a lot of space in the center, I doubt many would miss it. While I agree with you that the Golden Maters is not as important as the the title tally, I don't see why we can't include both of them as it is now since they're the most significant masters records what most readers are interested in. As I told you the only reason it was not there in the first place was me not wanting to list the singles without the doubles. I actually find it more relevant than the Big 4 section, that section should be removed imo. S – D was also my doing but I understand why Letcord changed them, I don't mind it but I see why you don't like it much. On desktop screens they look fine but doesn't look that good on mobile I have to admit but maybe you can make the first column unwraped? In my recent edit I unbolded the Single-Double, though it looked better that way. ForzaUV (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

they're the most significant masters records what most readers are interested in. how would we know what most readers are interested in? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

See what tennis fans usually discuss in message boards when the topic is about the masters series. Anyways, if you feel so strong about it, we can start a discussion about the GM and the Big 4 sections. I'm for the GM but not the Big 4, you probably fine with Big 4 but don't want the GM, others might want both included or removed, what do you think? ForzaUV (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV: And where can I find these message boards? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There are like 4 big ones as far as I know TF, MTF, TTW, r/Tennis. They're filled with trolls and fanboys but you get to discuss actual tennis from time to time. There are also other ones if you speak languages other than English. ForzaUV (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I had no idea about these forum-like sites. Thanks a bunch, @ForzaUV. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Big 4 can go to its corresponding page. Don't care about it. GM...I'd rather see it be wikilinked than actually be there. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV What did you do with the Big 4 section and the map? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have an objection regarding the singles - doubles or S -D. I would like them removed, presuming you are the one who added them originally, for consistency with Grand Prix Super Series. And to avoid clutter with vertical scrolling for mobile users, both editors and readers alike. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought you don't mind the big 4 section removed? Restore it if you feel like it but I don't see how it's still relevant after the merger. I'm not sure about the map, I still think it's unnecessary and why would you think the Masters article should be consistent with the Grand Prix Super Series article? The links to the event draws are definitely usefull. ForzaUV (talk)

I would, in that case, prefer if you reverted them back to S-D, please. I know it's Letcord who expanded them, but for the same reason I explained above, I would like to have them at least truncated if you are so adamant about keeping them. As for the map, I have other plans for it. You gave me an idea; you'll see. The Big 4 section should have been moved to the Big 3 page, unless you have done that already.

S–D or Single–Double both are fine with me, really. After I complete linking all the draws, I'll do two versions one with S–D, and one with Singles–Double and let Fyucnk and other editors decide. There is a whole section about the dominance of the Big Four at the Masters series. Maybe you can make a similar map to the one on the Grand Slam article when you have time? I find that one fine actually. ForzaUV (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There is current discussion about S - D at the Masters page as you've already noticed. According to your answer it's all the same, whether it's S - D or Singles - Doubles, right? I will move the deleted Big 4 Masters section from the Masters article to the Big 4 page. The map's color contrast is pretty simple. Plain generic background with wikilinked main events, based on article's scope. Pretty simple design. Good basis to start from. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)