User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Elliot Page

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

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

A Barnstar For You.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captions for photos

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

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

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

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

ITN recognition for 2021 Australian Open

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

Novak Djokovic

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

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

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

Flagicons

Hi Fyunck,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hayford Peirce

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

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

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

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

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

Naming of Grand Slam tournaments in performance timelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cimetière de Saint-Ouen

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

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

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

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

Alex Olmedo

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

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

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

Sources to back me up –

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

He's Peruvian at the Tennis Hall of Fame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing valid sources from pages

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

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

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

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

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

ATP No. 1 charts

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

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

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

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

Consistent behaviour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What now?

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

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

2021 BNP Paribas Open

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inuit

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

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

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

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

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

Row headers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flag Icon Key

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

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

Rollo

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

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

Lista dos campeões individuais masculinos do Grand Slam

Hello,

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

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

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

Your judgement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Krosero: You are mistaking what ANI is for. They care not one bit for content, compromise, or how an article is written. They will not help tennis historians, old editors, or new editors. That's what we all are for... coming to agreements and compromising. ANI will look at two editors and their behavior towards each other, towards other editors, and breaking of wikipedia rules of conduct. That's pretty much it. They will look at the situation, see if there were 3 reverts on the same article in 24 hours, nasty posts, combative style, or not working well with others. They will look to see if warnings were given and ignored. Then they discuss and come down with blocks, sanctions, or other punishments, and the article will be left in the same place for others to work on. ANI will ignore the actual content as irrelevant to poor wiki behavior. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Understood that they will concentrate on behavior and not content, but two people who can look to outsiders like they are merely mindlessly sniping back and forth at each other can have profoundly different reasons for doing so. Someone who loves fighting and idolizes a tennis player is in it for profoundly different reasons than someone who has a much wider interest in tennis and is provoked by idolization, bias, inaccuracy. Leaving the specifics of these two editors aside, does ANI take into account that there could be very different reasons for two editors' behaviors? To make fair judgments it would seem they have to do so to some degree.

That's my question to you, but frankly, even if ANI is strictly focused on behavior, I will say again, anything is better than the current situation. Any help is preferable to none.Krosero (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not in their shoes, but surely they are not robots. If one can show there is vandalism, and that is why reverts and poor behavior was done, that may make a difference. But it would have to be text-book vandalism... not a content issue. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have read again your remarks overnight, fyunck. To portray yourself as some neutral observer in this is stretching credibility. As you seem so keen to portray me in the same light as tennisedu, you may wish to speak in an ANI against me. If you choose to do so, I will point out the chain of events that led to the editor dispute the other day. How it was you who originally raised the matter of there being too much financial information and how it was you who remained silent in the debate on the talk page that followed when all of us were encouraging more people to speak. You are not blameless in the whole sequence of events of the past year. You intervene, yet rarely at times that would resolve the issues at stake. I would never portray you in the same light as tennisedu, your motivations are entirely different. But I do believe you have played a part in the escalation of this whole situation with him. I understand that an arbitre who has no past knowledge of the situation could not understand the complexities of it and use the application of some rule to ban us both. I will take that risk. I note tennisedu wants resolution to this and so do I. You threatened an ANI. How about you get on and enact it. Because otherwise it just looks like you have used yesterday evening to deliberately fan the flames of an already difficult siuation. I am fed up with your posturing and I want some action. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hence the reason I had already asked someone else to help form the ANI. And you are becoming quite tedious in your continued accusations. You have a nasty habit of attacking and blaming everyone but yourself for the situation you find yourself in. The financial aspect was one item of many that needed trimming from the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean every single mention of money should go. That one section was bloated with it and it was one thing that could be removed that would be considered trivial for an encyclopedia. At an ANI, you defend yourself for your own wrongdoings and how in the future you won't let it happen again. If you go in saying well so-and-so did this and bla-di-blah did that, and this made me mad, and that started things off, and this isn't sourced right.... you will be very disappointed in the outcome. You might be the only one that action is taken against. Several articles have become a childs sandbox fight every single day. At a certain point wikipedia says ENOUGH ALREADY. And your accusatory attitude does not help. For good or bad we all work together and make compromises when we disagree. If all you are going to do is make disparaging remarks about me on my talk page that I suggest you do it elsewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I didnt propose the reduced financial citations, that was Krosero. No one said every single financial mention should go and every single mention did not go. We brought it in line with other articles (I even counted the number of financial references on Nadal's and Federer's pages). That is we, because I know you are absolutely desperate to portray me as one editor involved in an edit war with an editor, but that is blatantly untrue in this instance. Krosero was involved in the edit war as well, a fact he has told you himself. You refused to listen, you continued overnight to post these inaccurate statements about the situation on tennisedu's page. Krosero disagreed with you. Wolbo disagreed with you. You clearly have not listened to what I have said about the ANI. It could well be that they ban us both, I even read the rule on edit-warring and I see that it may be the case. I shall repeat again that I am prepared to take the risk of being banned, I am not scared at all. I will state my case, I will state things as I see them. If it doesnt go my way, then so be it. The one thing I do agree with in your last post is that you intend to stay out of the ANI. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not intend to stay out of an ANI... I will have no say in the outcome though. Your accusations are wearisome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I made no accusations in the last post. I listed a series of facts. If you intend to be involved in the ANI then I will speak about your involvement in the incidents. For what its worth, from what I have read about edit-warring I think it likely I will be banned along with tennisedu, but if you insist on inflaming the situation further by being present, you will merely demean your own reputation further and the same outcome will happen to me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Shaking my head. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh very well. Dont say I didnt warn you. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It will go in one ear and out the other at an ANI behavior investigation. They won't care why or how it got to this point. All they will care about is what you are going to do personally to make it stop. If your answer is "I'm going to do nothing differently as long as Tennisedu makes changes I don't like" or "I'm blaming someone else for why I am acting badly" then it will be a quick ANI. The articles in question will go onwards with different editors working them and making changes in years to come. Working well with other editors, even when you disagree, is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Good luck to you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If they wont care how or why it has got to this point, why will you be involved? If they ask questions, I will give answers. I will do so using my judgement. If you really think I will answer with the statements you list in quotation marks (or the behaviour examples listed in quotations) you really dont know me at all (but then I think that you have made that abundantly clear). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Tennis (Main article)

I have absolutely been away for a while...but When did we make the main Tennis article "British"? I went to read it for the "Spoken Wikipedia Project"... and I would have to copy-edit the whole thing. It is me? or is there no way this article should be British English? Mjquinn_id (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC) @Mjquinn id: I don't recall it not being British. The British tag was put on in 2015, but it was British before that. The oldest tennis tournament was in the UK in 1874 and it was invented by a British army officer. I see no real problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

User:82.40.135.4

Hey, we have some IP seemingly randomly changing records on quite a scale. Serious damage is being done, pretty quickly... How can we block that activity... they appear so quickly it seems to be a BOT? Mjquinn_id (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: What they are doing is technically wrong, since they have no official source. However from what I can tell they are adding in the Wimbledon wins and losses before the ATP officially does so in about ten days. I'll warn them not to do so, but it's probably a lost cause since their change will be correct in ten days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Guillermo Coria career statistics

The article Guillermo Coria career statistics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced. Player doesn't meet WikiProject Tennis' guidelines for season articles (this is a match-by-match list for years 2003–05, so it fits under "Player tennis season articles" guidelines, not the ones for typical "Player career statistics articles").

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Somnifuguist (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Guillermo Coria career statistics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guillermo Coria career statistics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guillermo Coria career statistics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

—Somnifuguist (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

List of major championship winners in Tennis

Hi how are you ?. this list should really copy the golf model of the same title. Golf lists all the 227 different winners of the 457 majors events that have been played. Tennis can only seem to list players that have won 3 major championships and stop there. Only 150 male tennis players have won a grand slam event out of the 473 that have been played. Can you look into this please and get a complete list of major winners in Tennis to match the golf page please ?. Kind regards 178.167.175.241 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC).

Every single male player who won one is shown at List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. There have been 473 singles events for men but the one time winners don't need to be listed. They are already in the main chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why don't they need to be listed that is your opinion ?. If so it is a lazy one. That is absolute nonsense, golf uses the same chart. Then below Golf lists all 227 major winners from Jack Nicklaus on top with 18 major wins all the way down to the man on the bottom of the pile the recent US Open champion Jon Rahm on one major in 227th place. and only 83 of those have won two or more majors, so that is a lot of one time major winners and they are all listed. Is there a sense of it taking up too much time to add them ?. Which is the wrong attitude every grand slam winner in tennis should be listed like in golf ok ?. Kind Regards 89.204.235.16 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

In the Champions list section, which starts with Federer on 20 and ends with wawrinka on 3. It does not even mention 2 time grand slam champions like Lleyton Hewitt. An absolute disgrace this table should be completed fully like in the golf.there are only 150 different winners. 89.204.235.16 (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As it is your opinion to include every one-time winner. It is what it is and i didn't make the rules. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve WTA Poland Open

Hello, Fyunck(click),

Thank you for creating WTA Poland Open.

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

This article needs more sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Whiteguru (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Pablo Carreño

The ATP website contains many errors in the Spanish language: – Why doesn't the ATP call Rafael Nadal "Rafael Nadal Parera" or why doesn't Carlos Alcaraz call him "Carlos Alcaraz Garfia"? Why does the ATP give some Spanish tennis players their second surname and others not, what is the pattern?

It is an ATP error that many Spanish tennis players are called on their lists by their second surname (such as Pablo Carreño), because in Spain it is not used (except for official documents) and because the tennis players themselves on their social networks or They do not use them in their advertising brands either: for example, in the case of Pablo Carreño:

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/pablocarreno91
• Joma sponsor: https://www.joma-sport.com/es/sponsor/pablo-carreno

– In Spain or in the world of tennis no one calls Pablo Carreño as "Pablo Carreño Busta", or Roberto Bautista as "Roberto Bautista Agut", or Alejandro Davidovich as "Alejandro Davidovich Fokina". It's stupid. There are many errors on the ATP website, such as that "Albert Ramos" is called "Albert Ramos-Vinolas", when it does not have a hyphen because it is NOT a compound surname (they are two different surnames, Ramos and Viñolas), and also in "Vinolas" the letter "n" should be "ñ" ("Viñolas"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ramos_Vi%C3%B1olas --Carzonzillo (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Carzonzillo: The ATP calls the player the name they register with. Every tennis plus must register with the ITF to receive their ITN number. If they don't they can not play any event. Pablo Carreño Busta registered with that name with the ITF and can change it if he likes. He has not changed it. The French Open uses Busta right here. So does Tennis.com magazine. So does the UK newspaper The Guardian. So does ESPN. And even the Olympics adds the Busta. So you are incorrect in saying the world of tennis doesn't use Pablo Carreño Busta. It's used everywhere. All he has to do for the ATP or ITF is register a new name for himself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks...etc

My absolute apologies for my revert on Jimmy Connors...(The diff window is just too small sometimes...)
BTW, can you weigh in on the Tennis/WorkGroups discussion? I really think it would help people to target a smaller group of stubs. I am even working on a BOT (per User:Wolbo) to tag all pages with a certain stub, category or token in pagename... ANY feedback would be great... – Mjquinn_id (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: No problems. I just happened to notice it and didn't want that IP to be mad at you. To be honest, while the players names might be mentioned, I think the years they won should not be in a Jimmy Connors article. I'll look at the discussion. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Why so nervous, bro? End-of-season-updates End-of-season-updates 23:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I say sorry. End-of-season-updates End-of-season-updates 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Emma Raducanu

Hi. I removed the flag per WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: And I put it back per WP:INFOBOXFLAG. This is done in every single tennis bio and F! racing bio. Long longstanding consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi "Long longstanding consensus" – is there a previous discussion about this? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

That would have to be dug up from 10–12 years ago. But it was one of the reason that line was put in. Heck, the line about undue prominence was put in by a single editor with no discussion at all. By the time we noticed it, it was tough to remove. F1 racing also had huge issues. But tennis in the press heavily uses the icons. The four major championships use the icons. The governing bodies use the icons. You must have a representative nation to even play. So we use them at Wikipedia for 10s of thousands of bios. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinese written language

By the way, Chinese isn't "spelled". Posters5 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh boy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

What unconstructive edits? They're sourced and meant to improve the article's quality. Give me a break. Posters5 (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Posters5: They are awful and there are far more sources that say Ian than Ion. And the Chinese stuff will NEVER fly by consensus. Convince on the talk page before adding again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and those source are all wrong. Try searching "Bromley Ian Raducanu". Nothing appears. Try searching "Bromley Ion Raducanu". Voila! Posters5 (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Per a family friend of the Raducanu's, He used both Ion or Ioan, but eventually took the name Ian. So you never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

Hello, please be aware that there was a 'cite error' produced in the notelist section following your deletion of the 'Elite Titles Sweep' achievement at Novak Djokovic. Please rectify this if possible be re-adding the note which was previously present. You may add it at the '61 Elite tournaments won (Big Titles)' achievement so that there are no future questions or misunderstandings. If you wish to update the information simply add 'and the Olympics' to the note. Here is an updated supporting reference: https://www.atptour.com/en/news/djokovic-wimbledon-2021-big-titles-update. Thank you and kind regards Docholliday11 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Docholliday11: I fixed it by removing the offending statements. The Big Titles include the Olympics (which has sources to back that up), and which he has never won. The cite errors should be fixed now. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That is fine, but may you please help readd the important note about 'Big Titles' to the notelist. You may add it at the '61 Elite tournaments won (Big Titles)' achievement so that there are no future questions or misunderstandings. If you wish to update the information simply add 'and the Olympics' to the note. Here is an updated supporting reference: https://www.atptour.com/en/news/djokovic-wimbledon-2021-big-titles-update As well, your most recent edit caused a shift between the 'Event' and 'Since' category within the records. Please better review your edits for errors before and after posting. Docholliday11 (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If you want the alpha note added you'll have to do it. I don't usually add "notes" and I keep messing it up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Docholliday11: Tried again... it looks correct to me now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Thank you for your efforts to rectify the situation. I would try myself if I knew the proper syntax. You seem to be almost there, but there still seems to be a problem when trying to open the supporting reference (an error on the page shows up). I think you may have added an extra '8' following the word 'update' in the source URL. The correct URL is 'https://www.atptour.com/en/news/djokovic-wimbledon-2021-big-titles-update' instead of 'https://www.atptour.com/en/news/djokovic-wimbledon-2021-big-titles-update8'. I tried to fix it, but my preview is showing a problem. Can you please give it a try, and see if that works. Also. I believe the link date might need to be updated from 20 August 2018. Thank you Docholliday11 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I attempted to fix the URL on my own, and it seems to have went through without errors. Thank you again for your help Docholliday11 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, I'm 81.177.3.8. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Tenerife Ladies Open (tennis). Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 81.177.3.8 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@81.177.3.8: I removed the info because it was incorrect. The article topic is notable but the wrong info was placed there. If Abraham Lincoln redirects to George Washington you remove the redirect quickly. Abraham Lincoln is still a valid article. We have tennis pages that get redirected to the wrong place with that redirect. If it went to a blank page someone may have already created the correct info, but because of a mistake they haven't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I just changed the articles to stubs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries, in addition to rfd, boldly retargeting or expanding into an article is fine, and I see you have done the latter, in the future just bear in mind that blanking is almost always the wrong answer. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Need help with a template edit

Hey, there. I submitted to the appropriate talk page a request for a template edit help. Did not know how to make the change explained in the discussion I started 3 days ago. Yet still no answer. What gives? Did I submit the question to the wrong talk page/place? Was my request wrongfully formulated? Would mean a lot to me if you helped me. Thanks, Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: In looking at past template help, some of them took two weeks to answer. I'm guessing the two different template names go to the same template? The Olympics says "Infobox tennis tournament event" while Roger Cup says "TennisEvents". Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) The thing is the olympic infobox redirects to the regular Infobox tennis tournament event. I was trying to make an example of one template which had what I wanted, which the Olympics' one didn't. For example, when you click on the men's draw, it opens the draw normally, but the draw in the infobox draw (men's block) itself isn't bolded with black font color and unlinked, instead it is linked and font color is blue. Which makes a loop of constantly clicking on it and it not displaying on which draw you are currently on. Yes, the name of the article is indicative, but understand what I am trying to have changed here. Somnifiguist had taken the iniative on submitting requests of testcases in 2 different templates' sandboxes earlier this year, during the 2nd- and 3rd slam's duration, but supposedly they changed accounts to Kuniyo, not sure if it really is the same user/editor. And I do now have the proper knowledge to test this level of programing on my own nor the time to learn it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Emma Raducanu

We need to add her parents names Ion and Renee. The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) lists her parents names as "Ion" and "Renee" [1]. This is a credible source. We should also add that both of her parents work in finance. [2][3][4] 2a02:2f08:4dff:ffff::50f:6df1 (talk) 19:25 20 September 2021 (UTC)

And there are even more sources that say Ian and Renee, and a family friend that says he now uses Ian. Because there are several different sources that use different things it is best to leave the name of her parents out as other have suggested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The LTA is a reliable source. The press in the UK calls him "Ian" to make it sound more English per Romanian sources. [5] [6] 2a02:2f08:4dff:ffff::50f:6df1 (talk) 20:09 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposals announcement

@Fyunck(click): Hey, there. I just wanted to let you know I have opened two Merger proposal discussions for List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players and Tennis_Masters_Series_records_and_statistics. I invite you to share your opinion on the Mergers. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

ATP & ITF champion to replace ATP & ITF player of the year

As you know, I am aware of ATP Player of the year, ITF World Champion and ATP YE Points leader are three different elements. Instead of bashing ITF as ITF player of the year, I have changed it to ATP Champion and ITF Champion simply. ATP Champion is basically Player of the year rather than ATP Points leader. There is no ITF Player of the year as it is just bashing ITF as one of the editors mentioned in the talk change. Revert those changes unless you have any improvisation in the page.Krmohan (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Krmohan: It should be ITF champion and ATP Player of the Year, that way you don't have "basically" anything... you have the fact. But again, that whole section is being replaced soon anyway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Why are you overreacting like this?

Hi, why are you overreacting like this? I'm a very reasonable person and I'm happy to discuss the POV template and everything, but you act like there's some vandalism going on and the encyclopedia is in danger? Let's just have a reasoned debate without templating and reporting. Mvbaron (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron: I'm pretty reasonable too. The article was long at June 20th for 2022 in the infobox. Someone recently changed it to June 19 2022 and before i fixed it someone else further changed it to simply the same date every year. I've edited the article before and it was on my watch list. I simply changed it back to the long term edit of June 20, just like it says and is sourced in prose. I was reverted twice so I wasn't going to change it again. I simply put a template up while discussing since readers will now be confused by the two sets of info created by a pov edit. And it was being discussed. You removed the pov template and I wasn't going to revert it, I simply told you about wikipedia policy and that you should put the template back. You refused with a non-friendly summary. I reported you. That's it. All I wanted was for that template to remain during discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

But why? The POV template isn't even the right one to use there, also why do you want a POV template there in the first place? The discussion is clearly going on, and a template is just not adding anything useful to it - rather it has a chilling effect imo. From Template:POV: Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. None of that is present at Talk:Juneteenth#Juneteenth_on_June_20. The template isn't justified in my opinion, so let's just go back to the talk page and discuss the actual details?

But like I said, I'm happy to put the template back if you can tell my why it should be there (i.e. why this is true here: Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view.) -- Best, Mvbaron (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron: If you can think of a better template I'm all ears. Dubious info doesn't have a full article template. I could have simply put [dubious – discuss] on the date in the infobox if you think it would be better, but that template should be put back per wikipedia rules. It is very clearly spelled out in the template "Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met." No conditions had changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely: When to remove: It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. A date has nothing to do with neutrality... Mvbaron (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron: You still haven't said what template to use in place of pov. Right now the article is in error with two sets of data. It was actually sourced with the 20th info, now it's not sourced because of an editor's pov. It was being discussed and unless you can tell me a better template to use, it should be put back. One thing though... I'm about to turn in for the night and then work tomorrow, so if you want me to rescind the report it needs to be in the next 30 minutes or so, otherwise it'll be 11 hours till I check back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I just added the dubious template, have a look, I think it's better and also points to the talk page. The report has zero chance of going through anyways :D but have a good night, I think the dubious template is a good compromise. Cheers -- Mvbaron (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. But you never know what happens with administrator reports. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

WTA Finals yearly naming fashion dilemma

Hey, there @Fyunck(click):. I have been editing the List of finals tables for singles and doubles recently and tried to find a common name for the YEC for a given period, similar to what the ATP Finals table has: Masters Grand Prix and ATP World Tour Championships, for instance, and did add some names above the years, like Virginia Slims and WTA Tour Championships, on the WTA Finals page, but I am not sure, whether the years or even the names themselves are correct. I don't know if I should keep the names or remove them if incorrect. I was wondering if you could take a gander and shared your opinion on the matter. Your help would be much appreciated. Cheers, Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: I'll take a look in some of my books but another good source is what the newspapers called them at the time. I can check a few old articles tomorrow to see how close the terms you have listed are. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I looked into the latest articles on WTA Finals official site and other recent tennis-related cites, such as: Tennis Now, and an article where it mention it as women's Masters Cup, but could not come up with any concrete evidence to back up my claim. Only the names on the Infoboxes were any sort of clue, so I went with that. We'll see. Thanks for looking into it. Hopefully something useful surfaces. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651:The first thing I'm seeing is that every single newspaper around US, Australia, and UK, called it the Virginia Slims Championships from 1990 thru 1994. In 1995 they were calling it the WTA Tour Championships, but in 1996 they called it the Chase Championships. I'm thinking the delineations aren't the same as the ATP... simply a question of who sponsored them a particular year. But it looks like the years that are separated in the chart are wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) So, what do you suggest there needs to be done? Do I revert the edits in the chart like it was before without any categorization or do I change the names and years of the separation per sponsorship to fit accuracy? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651:I'm not sure. Maybe @Wolbo: has a suggestion? I guess since 1990-1996 appears to be wrong in the titles (as are obviously the individual event titles), you might want to put it back and keep discussing so we can at least pinpoint the year of the sponsor changes. I only looked at 1990-1996 and when that looked very different than the chart I stopped looking any further. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) Okay, removed the name categorization in the main event page. Here is the list of the WTA Finals sponsors. All we can do now is wait for Wolbo's response. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, available reliable sources for the 1990–1994 period clearly show that the official and common name was Virginia Slims Championships so I have renamed the articles accordingly. Agree with Fyunck that the naming for the WTA championships was largely based on sponsorship.--Wolbo (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mandraketennis (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Mandraketennis indef blocked shortly after starting discussion at the Admin noticeboard. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Do I wish I had been a bit softer on my first run-in... yes I do. I don't always catch brand new editors amongst the crowd and my speech should have been cheerier and more upbeat in reverting, with a couple of links to possible copyright violations and trivial additions. Sorry about that. However, since then the belligerence and ridiculous snowball-close deletion requests (there were multiple articles) have grown far out of proportion from this editor. This likely led to his indefinite block on Nov 15 2021. I'm not sure what he was thinking but adding this notice to myself, David notMD, Adamtt9, and Wolbo, was not his finest hour. I actually hope he comes back and decides to take advice and work with editors instead of against. We need passionate tennis editors, but we also need those who work well with others and then edit within the framework that Wikipedia grants us. Disagreements happen, and sometimes they get a bit heated, but then you move on and find new articles to work on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A classic timewaster, posting walls of incoherent text and completely unable to admit they might be wrong (writing "Mission Accomplished" on snowball speedy keeps about sums it up). Nothing to atone for on your part. Sod25 (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Chicago Fall Tennis Classic moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Chicago Fall Tennis Classic, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Courmayeur Ladies Open moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Courmayeur Ladies Open, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Courmayeur Ladies Open

Hello, Fyunck(click),

If you disagree with an article you have created being moved to Draft space, please move it back yourself. Do not cut & paste the content of the draft article back into a main space page. Right now, we have two versions of this article, one in main space and one in Draft space, with 2 different page histories which is not ideal. You have the right to object to a move to Draft space so, please, in the future, just move your article back, do not cut and paste and create a new, second article. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: I actually didn't think about that when I recreated it. Usually I create an article in my sandbox which may or may not have others helping me and I post it when it's ready and have an administrator delete my sandbox. Thrown into my draft (I didn't create the original article title) I guess I just assumed it would work the same way. Sorry about that. As I think about it I have no idea why it was draftified to begin with. Could you please merge the histories of the two versions. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 F. MarnetteD|Talk 15:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Merry Christmas. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14