This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2014 archives

I saw some corrections on the page of Gábor Máthé (tennis). Thank you for improvements. I hope that you evaluate this person worthy to be on Wikipedia although he is not wide known and celebrated. Even though he is a handicapped person and the neglected port of deaf is supported when we write articles about them. I am pretty beginner in editing Wikipedia so my question is that a correction was posted with this note: "no scoring allowed in prose". Is this an official or an informal rule? Thank you. Koti.hung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koti.hung (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is really official unless it's spelled out in Wikipedia "Policy." However the next step down from universal Policy are Guidelines which are usually brought about by consensus between editors and then written out for people to follow. Tennis articles are part of Project Tennis and has guidelines set up at Tennis Article Guidelines. "Scores should not be added to prose unless strictly necessary (i.e. sets a record). In such cases the tiebreak score is omitted. Just report the round and whether the player won or lost the match, and whom they played." You will find that many articles do not follow this format, but when we find them, we try to fix them. As for his notability and whether he should be on wikipedia... technically we have no listing in our guidelines to include him. But we do have wheelchair tennis and Olympics in the guidelines. The article seemed well sourced so when I saw it I simply used the same thing to cover deaf Olympics. I guess others could disagree. I thought that certainly anyone who wins a Gold Medal at the IOC sanctioned Deaf Olympics must be notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I believe I am responsible for Rafael Nadal 2014 tennis season page, since I am the one who did all the tables and stats on the page. Rafa confirmed for his 2014 schedule Copa Claro in Buenos Aires. Since he was forced to withdraw, I edited his page. If you observe Rafael Nadal 2013 tennis season page, to every tournament Rafa confirmed for his schedule and withdrew, it written was on the schedule table. Now please, don't touch anything of what I put on the page since it is legit. Alva9311 (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Um... no you aren't responsible for that article. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort... no one owns anything, even in their own sandboxes. If I see unsourced info added I remove it if it looks suspicious, and I will "touch" what I see fit. You also added incorrect dates and I fixed them. Please add posts to user talk pages in the future and add four tildes afterwards to sign your post. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

what incorrect information did I added? Alva9311 (talk)

You had the wrong dates for the Australian Open, which I corrected. I inadvertently removed your addition of the tournament Nadal pulled out of. That was my mistake. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to message users since I'm new to Wikipedia, so I figured I'd communicate with you here. You sent me a message about the tournament names that I edited. I believe we have been going back and fourth on this since I keep trying to change them back and I assume you do the same. I understand that you don't want sponsor names placed on the tournaments, but that is the official name of each tournament and I feel they should be represented that way. If you check any of Roger Federer's tennis season pages you will see they are done this way. That was the model I was trying to follow since it seems like a good standard. Also, I see above that you talk about signing your posts. I've edited the majority of the tournament summaries on the 2014 Nadal tennis season page and haven't done that since I don't know how. Should I be doing that? And if yes, how do I go about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.30.69 (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

When you post on a talk page you should finish off your final sentence with a space and then four tildas "~~~~". That will tag your name or IP. Of course it would be best if you signed up here on wikipedia but it's not required. You don't sign edits on actual articles... only sign queries on talk pages. However you should always include a summary of what you edited in the summary box. That lets other editors know what you did or why you did it. This is the exact place to communicate with me, a person's talk page, so you got that exactly right. As for the tournament names, it's not what I want, it's what is required by tennis guidelines. We use the non-sponsored names if possible. If it is an exact article on a particular event, say the "2014 Mutua Madrid Open" then that article will be titled as such. But when writing about a group of tournaments we use the common name used throughout the world, and this has been discussed by many tennis editors and decided upon. Roger Federer's 2014 article, Andy Murray's and Novak Djokovic's are done this way also but many older articles have slipped up and are in the process of being corrected. You can check out our Guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines where you'll see it noted in a couple places that we try to use the non-sponsored name when possible. Welcome to wikipedia and never hesitate to ask me or anyone right on their talk page if you aren't sure about something. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You only check it when it is updated ahead of time, but don't edit it when it is necessary to be applied. Dencod16 (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that I usually don't update the rankings. But your edits are still against wikipedia policy. You have no sources for your edits so they are original research until you have a source. You MUST wait till there is a source. If a player retires they are instantly removed from the rankings so we are not a

WP:Crystal Ball. It's also not a race against other editors in who adds the info the fastest. In 36-48 hours the ATP and WTA will officially update their sources. Fyunck(click) (talk

) 10:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

YOu keep claiming one thing and another and act better than everyone else. I edit base on time convenience, You are the one keep who keeps rushing to the rankings section and does nothing. I bet you just look if someone edits it rather than do it yourself. You are not a moderator but a user same as everyone else. You don't contribute anything to tennis, but your bossiness and saying this and that. I expected an updated ranking as of February 24, 2014, even a week after you don't even edit the rankings. Dencod16 (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't act better than anyone else... I simply follow the rules set down here. If you can't do that then you are the problem. 90% of all your edits I don't even see, of the ones I do see 90% look fine to me so of course I do nothing. But those early against-policy edits of yours pop up on my screen when I log in and I simply correct them. Remember that if you follow guidelines and policies there is no problem here at all. What source do you use to get those stats? If you point out the webpage that lists them we can use them, otherwise our many readers will see the rankings you posted, look at the source, and claim they are bogus. We don't want that. Heck I often compromise on this as is. If it's the same day as the rankings come out (PST) and anyone has changed them, I usually let it go. But a day and a half before I don't. What's to stop 3 days before.... 5 days before... 3 weeks before? If we keep it to when it's published at the ATP and WTA websites we have no problems at all, and it can be readily sourced. You can always bring it up at tennis project if you think it's unfair and that we should allow the rankings to be updated unsourced a day or two early. Remember also that administrators/moderators are editors like anyone else. When they get into an "official dispute" amongst parties, yes they carry more weight. But they also edit and get reverted like everyone else around here. It's a team effort to keep sources proper and information flowing. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think these tournaments are significant enough to warrant inclusion in a player's main performance timeline or a separate performance timeline. I've tweaked the article guidelines to make this clear but one editor continues to re-add a timeline with Federer's results at the ATP 250/500 levels. I think this is absolutely unnecessary for the reasons I have mentioned before and because Federer's stats page is already relatively large. What are your thoughts? JayJ47 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually per consensus, they are NEVER to be included in the performance timeline. I'll help out with the reversion and to try and make it clearer to the editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. JayJ47 (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. But a world ranking is like a title isn't it? So wouldn't the capitilization of "World" be warranted in this context? "world No. 1" for example just doesn't look right at all. JayJ47 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't argue with you on what looks better to me. I can only tell you that in looking at MOS grammar around the net that it is world No. 1... it is not considered an all-in-one deal. Just like you could say "ranked No. 1 in the world"... you wouldn't capitalize world. You could also say "world ranked No. 1".. again you wouldn't capitalize "world." So there is really no reason to suddenly capitalize "World No. 1." I forget where it was talked about on wiki where I was told to use "world No. 1"... MOS states right up front that it is always a capital "No. 1" but says nothing about the word "world." The Olympics (and Paralympics) specify "world No. 1" right here in 19.1. I believe the Chicago Manual of Style says the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Note - I first removed what I considered to be more backhanded crap from this editor.
His second attempt was more reasonable in it's tone so I engaged accordingly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in the interests of peace, I will offer a particular apology: It has never been my intent that you should feel "harassed" or "bullied". I wanted, back when there was a dispute between us, only that you would realize that your editing behavior on diacritics was perceived as

Remember also that each of those diffs I debunked or could have. You complained that your posting was cut down by Sandstein... well guess what... mine was too. I notice that a recent editor brought that to the everyone's attention... of course my full post was left out, and so was another of my explanations. I look at that as the "who-you-know" hierarchy of wikipedia. Editors are not judged equally... I've never liked it but I realize that's the way wikipedia works. I'm not sure you will ever get me to believe that your ani accusation was anything other than "he has a different viewpoint than I and must be expunged" or that you simply got bamboozled by a couple of other editors with vendettas against me. But I'm willing to try. I also haven't seen your heavy-handedness used on others since that time period (granted you really haven't edited much) and I still feel you deserved a formal warning to never do that to me or anyone again, but that's all I ever asked for. The extra punishment you got is between you and others that I never really followed and didn't care about. I only reposted in that recent ani because history was starting to get rewritten from the indignation I felt at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was so far back, I'm not certain I recall the particulars with certainty at this point, as to exactly what I saw as the issue, why it seemed an AE or ANI matter. Most complaints about me are for arguing too much and failing to use dispute resolution, certainly not for running to admin noticeboards to complain about others' arguments when the other party feels there's not actually even a dispute. I think I was wondering then why you seemed so hot about that style issue and how far back your activity on the issue went, and upon looking it seemed like a pattern; the older comment that seemed to be to be going after Swedish editors was probably the trigger (and I think you'd have to admit it's hard not to see it as inflammatory). I'd recently been dealing with inveterate violators of the

WP:ARBAA2 case (some of these people were so hell-bent on pushing ethnocentric views about Azerbaijan–Armenia–Turkey disputes that they were even vandalizing cat breed articles that happened to mention Turkey, etc.). I was probably being unusually sensitive to anything that looked like nationalistic editwarring to me, whether it really was or not. Anyway, I agree with you that the culture here has changed, in a censorious direction, and it has much to do with why I've stayed away for so long. On the other hand, I've not seen that it's actually gotten notably worse in the intervening year, which is why I've considered returning, if my dispute with a particular admin is resolved. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib.

01:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall my exact wording anymore either. And I don't recall being specific about Swedish editors either. I do remember saying something about this originally being an English Wikipedia and every language had their own wikipedias. And that as multiple news sources (like cnn) have been telling us over and over, English editors of wikipedia are dropping out at will, while foreign language editors are on the rise. I'm sure that continues to this day and it's why foreign language points of view are becoming more common and it's also why this has become a more international wikipedia then when I joined. But that's not really a viewpoint of mine, it's simply a fact. This is both good and bad imho (as nothing is black and white). It certainly makes us well rounded with many points of view... much better than any other language encyclopedia by far. That's always a good thing. However as the terminology of "consensus" has changed at wikipedia to now being mainly "whoever has the numbers should destroy the minority at all costs" that makes for problems in an Encyclopedia originally based on the English language. Suddenly the things taught in every UK/US/Canada/Australian school first become secondary to other language idiosyncrasies, and then are censored altogether if enough editors think something should be eliminated. There's no in-between now. But as I said, there's nothing I can do about it... that's the way it is here now. My enthusiasm is dampened and I don't create articles like I used to. Anyway, that's where I come from. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is what talk pages are supposed to be for. If you see something that is written, try to understand the others' pov before complaining. If you aren't sure why I wrote something or the meaning... bring it here. Ask me. See if I can explain where I'm coming from to your satisfaction. I always at least try to explain myself when editors come here with queries. We may still not agree but we may understand each others motives. If not, AnI is always a last resort, but at least we tried and no one will wake up not knowing who this other editor is that is bringing action against you. I think I've only banned two editors in 8 years from ever using my talk page again, But that was severe and even with those I tried before doing so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular disagreement with any of that, other than I don't see the use of diacritics as a threat to English in any way. We share an underlying characterset with so many languages, and today no one is dismayed or confused by encountering something like Ramón instead of Ramon. For someone like me, who grew up in a bilingual area, the diacritics are actually very important. There's a huge difference between Moran and Morán, not just in pronunciation but in family cultural background (Irish vs. Hispanic). For people to whom the diacritics don't carry any meaning (e.g. like most Turkish ones to me, because I haven't looked up what they mean yet), it's not a big deal. No one's head explodes when they see a sign for Vietnamese phở, after all.  :-) I agree with you that majoritarianism has produced some editing culture changes here, not all for the better. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 09:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying on this edit. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

After looking over your user page, I thought you might be interested in this proposal. MW Biographical lists only individuals who were already deceased as of 1995, so it doesn't cover modern sports figures. But if you use a geography reference for place names and a biographic reference for personal names, as CMOS recommends, it would be logical to consult a widely available sports reference concerning the names of sports figures. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think or what the sources are. It doesn't matter if 100% of English sports biographies spell a player's name without diacritics. It doesn't matter if New Zealand, Canada, UK, USA and Australia spell a tennis player's name without diacritics. We can't mention the player's English spelling anywhere in an article because it has been banned to do so at Wikipedia. Even if sources (including Encyclopedia Britannica) are 100% in favor of an English alphabet spelling, it is censored on Wikipedia unless you can prove the player uses the English alphabetic spelling i.e. within their own personal website or twitter or facebook accounts or signature. I don't really want to get into another RfC where there might be even more censoring applied to other items at Wikipedia. It's disgusting enough for me now to see how far we've debased ourselves in the last 8 years. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You certainly don't seem to be shy about expressing an opinion. But I was hoping that you would read the proposal and respond with some advise, criticism, or whatever. I have already refined it as a result of this discussion. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The "disgusting" sentence is my opinion. The rest is fact from the last RfC. That is how wiki works now. As for your proposal I see a premise problem right off the bat. You wrote "Wikipedia is built on the idea that our article on Foo is based on what the reliable sources have to say about Foo." This is only true to a point. That is how wiki WAS built, but it is not how wiki actually works. Articles these days are made from either/or consensus, regardless of sourcing. If 40 editors demand the sun is blue and 20 editors say the sun is orange, then the article will say the sun is blue. Other than that I still like the go with reliable English sources for spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So you support the GBook search method? Perhaps this approach can be justified for sports figures. But in an area where a widely used and respected reference work exists, why reinvent the wheel? It is quite labor intensive to go through GBooks looking for diacritics, and it is not like Wikipedia editors are particularly good at it. Our style guidelines are based on CMOS, so I assume we want to follow usage in CMOS-compliant material. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't support the GBook only method... it is simply one tool. When I look for sources I look at major newspapers and major magazines. I look at gbooks, I look at Encyclopedias to see how a particular name is represented. I don't look at a manual of style to "guess" how a particular name is written in English. For tennis I also look at how the governing bodies spell the names, how a player signs their own name or if they have English websites that show us how they want their names presented in English. Tennis players also have designated IPIN names where they choose the spelling themselves (with the caveat that they cannot use diacritics). So I look at the whole ball of wax to make a determination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that there has been a misunderstanding. The proposal suggests looking up each name we use individually in a widely available reference of some kind. ESPN Almanac was an extremely popular reference until they stopped publishing a few years ago. That material is now on the ESPN website, available for this purpose. Whatever reference is used, my view is that it should be taken as it is. The style the dictionaries use for historical figures and place names is not necessarily the one most appropriate for sports or popular culture. Merriam-Webster puts macrons on Japanese historical figures, but they would certainly look odd on a pop star. The guideline should explain how copy editors make these decisions, although I'm sure that that won't stop Wikipedians from using other approaches. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I put this discussion on the proposal's talk page. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• I have posted the RFC. Taekwondo Panda (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It's a minor point, but I think the actual guideline you want to be citing is

That is one of the authors many articles I had a prod on for a while. (He also misused the DAB privileges, IE he put it as a DAB when in fact it was just an article). Wgolf (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I just changed some more as well. Wgolf (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... I didn't notice it had been prod'd before, and since it didn't have a WikiProject Tennis category on the talk page it didn't show up on the Tennis Project main page as something to check out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, these articles on Cal State tennis coaches by Aggies14 do show up (despite not being WP:Tennis tagged) on the New and Edited Tennis Articles list. I PRODed one of them (Bob Osborn (Tennis)).--Wolbo (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That I know... it's how I found them. I don't always look there but I always scan the "article alerts" where prods and afd's get logged. Since there was no wikiproject tag on their talk pages the prods didn't show up there. What's funny is all the "table tennis" articles that show up in the new article section that waste my time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, they didn't show up at "Article alerts". I try to scan both lists and mainly browse the New and Edited Tennis Articles list to look out for missing talk pages. The occasional table tennis player does pop up (if they have the word 'tennis' in an article category). I recently switched on the beta Hovercards gadget and it can help to quickly browse the list; in most cases it is no longer needed to click on an article to find out if it is a table tennis or tennis player.--Wolbo (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

One of a Indonesian ref, also the ones that just kill constantly are the Indian politicians-I never know if to put an AFD or not (just the Asian articles are so crazy I don't know what to consider notable in that part of the world)-I also put on stuff like that that I'm not from there so I don't know what to say ha ha. Well good luck editing today! Wgolf (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to start a report-but a user is only posting in the pages he made now that looks possible. Wgolf (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Fyunck(click). You have new messages at MelbourneStar's talk page.
Message added 07:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—

You call that vandalism?? I believe you are the one vandalizing, since this section of the page has always follow that format (As you can see in every other players page- Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Serena Williams, Robin Soderling etc.). Just because you want it that way does not mean it should be. I am going to keep it the way it has always been, since I have been editing this page for more than 4 years, and you just came here, so sorry for you. You are not the owner and you don't have the right to report my work as "vandalism". It is all legit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.81.61 (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

When no summaries are left as to why and when other editors revert with warning I call em as I see em. It's too bad you feel the way you do since it is part of Tennis Project core of guidelines to make sure we put in the tournament non-sponsored name. At least you are being more civil this post here as opposed to when you were 72.50.80.61. Amazed you weren't blocked for that. But whether you are 72.50.80.61 or 72.50.81.61 we include the full tournament name, not just the city. I tried to point this out to you at the article talk page but you seem to ignore these things. Why on earth would you not want the full and correct info put in there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the James Coats (disambiguation) page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

An editor has restored a sponsor name of this tournament in the title of the article after I had put it in its non sponsored English title based on usage I gleaned from (English language) media. I learned from you that there is a consensus to do things that way. If so then I suggest you do something about this. —Loginnigol (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi F, I noticed you updated

There are even some sources that say Reggie is the one that received the default in 1898, not Lawrence. And I had thought I read other spaulding guides that contradicted the 1906 version. I just checked my copy of L.H. Doherty's 1903 tennis book and found nothing. While we can say for certain that Lawrence won 7 in a row from 00-06, I'm not so sure we can say he won 9 in a row. Hazels Annual says Lawrence won the 1900 Nice event... it also says it was his third win there so that tends to support your version. American lawn Tennis 1899 say it was Reggie who crushed his opponent and H.L. was sickly and on doctors advice not to play. So many books screw up those two player's victories I'm not sure which is correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The American Lawn Tennis 1899 source is interesting although the link doesn't show me the actual text (only the header 'The Riviera Season, 1899'). Can you quote me the relevant part? So far sources are decidedly mixed so whatever version we ultimately decide is most reliable we should probable add a footnote mentioning that sources differ. In the meantime here's a nice bird.--Wolbo (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the actual excerpt text from the book.

• American Lawn Tennis - Official Bulletin of the United States National Lawn Tennis Association
• Volume II – 1899

• THE RIVIERA SEASON, 1899
• by "Charleston"

• "Of the crack players, R. F. Doherty and Count Voss took part in all three tournaments. and carried off most of the prizes. In the finals at Nice, the English champion was seen in phenomenal form, and administered a three-love-set beating to Count Voss, who was by no means playing beyond his reputation, as his handicap play at other tournaments showed. Doherty has seldom been seen to more advantage, and if he keeps up his Riviera form, it is difficult to see who will be able to beat him this summer at home. His younger brother, H.L. Doherty, only played doubles at Monte Carlo, and — as everybody will hear with regret — has doctor's orders not to play any more for some time in singles. It is hoped, however, and pretty certain, that the brothers will be seen together in doubles, as they have to defend innumerable championships."

I also have someone looking up the info in "Lawn Tennis and Croquet and Badminton" of May 1899, to see what it says. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the excerpt, that's certainly a very persuasive source for assigning the 1899 title to Reggie Doherty. I saw the "Lawn Tennis and Croquet and Badminton" query (hence the bird). Mark is certainly a knowledgeable source on this era and seems to have access to the important newspapers and magazines of the time such as 'Lawn Tennis a Badminton', 'The Field' and 'The Bystander'. A while ago I purchased a few yearbinders of LTaB from that period (1905, 1910–1913). They are very interesting to read and really make that era come alive. Unfortunately I just missed out on the 1900 binder.--Wolbo (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah...That's why the bird. The photo said nothing but I'd failed to look at the link wordage. I'm wondering if many almanacs, and books with only lists, just assumed that it was H.L. winning it again when they set their typeface? Two letters and the same last name... all it takes is one major source to screw it up and all the other sources read it and make the same never-ending mistake in their own books. Hazel's Annual and Tennis Archives say the opposite though. I really wish those LTaB owners would scan and upload their old books to some repository so others could research them online. Most of us don't have access to any. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to know what you thought about including Tier I tournaments that are no longer held e.g. Berlin in WTA singles performance timelines. I personally don't think they should but this user disagrees. I propose that we combine them with the existing Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 tournaments like what has been done with the ATP Masters 1000 events such as adding Madrid (hard court results) to the Shanghai event. Your thoughts please? JayJ47 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I "think" we usually have a separate section like with Serena Williams. We have nothing in our guidelines that I can see so it has always been up to the discretion of the editors handling the article to work it out. The Madrid/Shanghai was done this way because the event actually replaced the other. I think the time it is played was also kept pretty closely. These old Tier 1s were all over the place without direct comparison. My own feeble opinion is to keep it as Serena's is done, but maybe others would agree with your style. Bring it up at the project talk page and you might get people to agree with you. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe that you were the one of the audience of Laver and Rosewall.I think you watch so many wonderful match in you life.It is a pity that I miss so many amazing matches and players,including Henin and clijsters.Because I watched the tennis match from 2010.I found that you created so many article about tennis, it is great,thank you.(poor English, never mind.)--Shiouloo (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But I only saw them playing live together once (maybe twice) back in Los Angeles over 40-45 years ago. God was it that long ago... wow. Yes they were amazing but I find that every generation has it's share of amazing matches. I missed the great Gonzales vs Hoad matches and DuPont vs Clapp. We all miss something. I have a feeling over the next 50 years there are going to be some unbelievable matches between players that aren't even born yet. I may miss some of them but you'll have a ringside seat for the roller-coaster. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, I'm well aware that $10,000 ITF tournaments aren't notable in their own right, but when combined with events on the ATP Challenger Tour, they belong together. The

You could well be correct on this but I'm going to let the community judge. I would say absolutely no. One of the problems with including it is what happens if the ITF ever raises it to another level that does warrant inclusion? The results would not be fair to the new winners. It would be like if the Shanghai Masters were somehow pushed to a fifth Major 5 years from now. We wouldn't include the winners of last year's event as a Major winner when making wiki charts. The same here... it's a nothing event as it stands and we don't include them. If all the others editors agree with you to change consensus on this particular tournament I certainly wouldn't stand in the way, but as it is now it's not worthy and gets a down vote from me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess we both have to, either way it goes ;-) I understand what you're saying too, although I see it differently. Even in your example, although we wouldn't call that winner a Grand Slam champion, the tournament as it would have stood previously would still be, or even on account of that, be notable. And as I say, don't worry, I have no interest on creating articles on all $10K tournaments. There's plenty to be getting on with here without needing to have an argument! By the way, have you been watching Wimbledon? Unfortunately that's the only Grand Slam not shown on free-TV in Germany! Jared Preston (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? I would have thought it was free in Germany. It's on here in the US but I would say 90% is not free. The finals will be free but even the semifinals are probably on basic cable ESPN. I pay for something called "Tennis Channel" so I get a few more obscure matches. I love upsets like Serena's but I have soft spot in my heart for Roger Federer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You may have known me a bunch of times. Some of my old tennis work was

See.BLUE_DOG^TN 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this was always assumed. I hope to see ya floating around here from time to time editing tennis...not so much with the sermons or bothering TRM. He's one of the really good ones around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot believe that people did not suspect it, when I created the 2013 Bob and Mike Bryan tennis season. How did a non-tennis editor have that acumen? I may be back in a couple of years or never, but under a different pseudonym. God, I love this place, where you can edit, free of divulging your real name.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluedogtn. I am gone now for quite a while, and you are right The Rambling Man is a great editor.BLUE_DOG^TN 22:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I see you reverted my edits on tennis players articles ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Why did you do that? Did you even bother to read

There is nothing about that flag "guideline" that insists that there be no flgas, and it is Tennis Project Longstanding Consensus that they remain. Guidelines are NOT official... Policy is official. This has been discussed many time at Tennis Project. I was going to leave you a note but since you replied here there is no need. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide me some links to that longstanding consensus? Vanjagenije (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig through all the posts but most can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Also there was a resent discussion at MOS and this very subject brought up by football articles use of flags. You'll also find that every tennis player article uses the flag. Take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Your input concerning a repeated incident by another user at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be appreciated. Cheers. LRD NO (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, what seems to be the problem? It's not as if I'm removing any of the flags that few can identify. I merely added some details on the face of the page with which to identify the flags/countries. You summarily revert me without a word of explanation nor a message on my talk page... :-( -- Ohc ^¡digame! 21:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, I should have left a summary. Since other editors had said why in their reverts I assumed mine was understood. I personally am not against the flagathlete icon at the top box, but not throughout the draw. It actually makes it harder to read the draw and that's always my number one concern. The other is we discussed this recently at Tennis Project and couldn't reach a decision on flagathlete in charts. There was discussion of simply adding {{Flag key}} at the page bottom. There was discussion the the 3 letter code adds nothing. The full name would be great but way way to big for most charts. It was a long discussion. To simply just start changing something that works perfectly well does not fly well in the face of those previous discussions. I can bring it up again on whether flagkeys or flagathlete or stay the same is the way to go. I like it the way it is, I can live with flagathlete everywhere except the draws sheets, where a key might be better such as at

1988 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles. Fyunck(click) (talk

) 22:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would apologise, but I only saw the previous editor's revert after posting m message to you. It seems that Wimbledon isn't a "country-based tournament", and the flagwaving is inappropriate and so the use of flags may actually be in violation of

MOS:FLAG. My preference would be to remove them because they plaster the page with pretty colours that don't mean anything to the majority of readers... A single set of flags in the "Seeds" section seems sufficient. Like this -- Ohc ^¡digame!

22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, it's my fault, I should have left a summary on the first reversion. It is not against MOS at all. Preference, consensus and longstanding use demands they stay. Using flags only for the seeds doesn't convey the flags for the non-seeds. Also, no country no playing at Wimbledon. The tournaments and the governing bodies use these flags everywhere so they are part of the fabric of the international sport. You can't even play if you don't register with a nationality. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll have noticed I cleaned out some of the repeated flags in some articles, and now the table should be easier to read. I'll go through and do the same with the rest in due course. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything more yet. I'll bring up this "adjustment" at the project and see what everyone thinks. It's not just up to me and you. I have no real problems with it either way though I'm thinking that for esthetic value and the fact that the quarterfinal draw is the first thing seen, that maybe that quarterfinal chart should also contain the flags in the first column. As I said it's not up to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, I'm not happy with your actions. We discussed this at some length a month ago in regards to the

Here is the way I see it. From our own guidelines, Jr majors winners are notable and we put the jr draw in with the major. Ladies ITF events of $10,000 and $25,000 are not notable. period. Now in our last talk page discussion the page was merged because the tournament was not notable. CERTAINLY if the event is not notable, the individual draws are even less notable. That was mentioned in the last discussion. I think the itf ladies versions should just get a passing mention that they exist, but for the sake of compromise I was not going to argue with a merger that had winners listed. But to have links to draws to a non-notable event is going too far without a change in our rules. Bring it up at the project talk page to see what others think. Maybe they'll agree with you to change our guidelines. If not, those draws will be nominated for deletion as non-notable under our guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I opened up a discussion about it at our Tennis Project talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi F, looking for some more input on the RM to change the name of the

That's three times in less than two months. You think he deserves one more chance? Nyth83 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not my place to block anyone. If an admin sees it, I'm sure he'll do what's prim and proper. The thing is this year only it is called the WTA Finals, but for quite awhile it's been the WTA Tour Championships and consensus has been to use the name that encompasses the tournament. Who knows what it will be called in the future. Maybe consensus at tennis project would decide with him, but until he brings it to discussion it should stay where it is. The other thing that bothers me is he's been editing only since August 2014 and I begin to wonder if he could be a past blocked editor raising his head again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have never requested a block. This guy is rather persistent though. He also moved CiCi Bellis at least twice and was warned about that also. He seems to be a fairly active editor but I have not reviewed his editing to see what his value is. Don't care that much. Nyth83 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is 2014, we use "WTA Finals" in the article, so please do not move the template back to "

I'm not sure who "we" is...it's just you from what I can see. I will continue to use it until consensus says otherwise. The long used name has been WTA Tour Championships... much longer than WTA Finals. You will likely be blocked if you continue to move pages without consensus. If you think it should be moved please bring it to the proper talk page as I suggested. There we can address your concerns and make a decision on whether to move it or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. 333-blue (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, may you give me one single reason why this incredibly (bad looking) HUGE table is better than this I made? TheLightBlue (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I keep our readers in mind, and I'm one of them. It's harder for me to see the smaller type you used since I'm not as young as I used to be. Sometimes slightly smaller fonts can't be helped to keep the table from running off the page, but in this case it was not needed. The dates in number format are far harder to quickly decipher... month names work better. The dates don't have to be two rows as I put them, they can certainly be a single row. But they should be in the form of "7 Nov 2014" or possibly "7 November 2014" (not sure we need the year since it's a 2014 table). That's much easier to quickly decipher when running your eyes over the events. The colors you used are not consensus Tennis Project colors... they cannot stay. I mentioned these things on the article talk page by the way. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm posting here to follow up on the recent

I'm trying to figure out which AfD discussion an untitled thread at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 25 is about. After opening the log page, search for/use find feature for the phrase, "Player in question does not meet notability requirements as outlined here. Does not meet any of the six possible criteria." Notice how there's no header or article linked. Since you participated to the thread, what article/AfD discussion does this pertain to? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Never mind, I found it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Petrick. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad you found it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Rankings. I have read the guidelines that state rankings should be updated every week after the WTA does... and rightfully so. In the event of a grand slam, they are post-dated... also completely reasonable. In my view, year end rankings tabulation is the same as post dating for a grand slam. There will be no more tennis played and no changes in the point distribution until 2015. The weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 tallies can therefore be post dated. There is no guideline or policy on wiki regarding what happens once the season is over. Furthermore, wikipedia has no right to trump what has already stated and directed by the WTA. I have cited the press release by the WTA regarding year end #1 and the tallies for Serena Williams. Please review: http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/1026_Williams_Errani_Vinci_Year_End_No1s.pdf This article clearly states that Serena Williams is year end #1, and has 221 total weeks and 97 consecutive weeks. (I dispute 97 weeks, but that's another issue) There really isn't any argument here. Again... it has already by stated by the WTA. It is fact. It is done. It is history. Fyunck(click), you keep citing reasons why this might not actually happen. They are all baseless, far reaching scenarios that are extremely unlikely. Point is...when the WTA has stated something as fact, it is not your job or the job of Wikipedia to overrule them in the event of a highly unlikely and nearly impossible scenario such as a player asking to be removed from the rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kube8 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The WTA also has a ranking page stated as FACT. Do we disregard that? We cannot look 8 weeks ahead and know who will or who might retire. We do not post date the Grand Slams either. We wait to see what the official rankings are at the official WTA rankings site. I see you have not self reverted as asked so I will be reporting you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As a note - I have brought this up at Tennis Project to discuss. I doesn't excuse you continuing to revert multiple editors against consensus, but there are some valid points about bookkeeping and conflicting WTA sources. I also tried to talk on your own talk page, prior to any official warnings. The result was, you deleted it. Self-revert yourself at both articles and join in the conversation. If you're blocked, we'll hold it open for you to express your point of view. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's cold man. This guy has some valid points and a cited source. Then he discusses it on your page and you report him... lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonn56 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Two things. 1) I discussed it on his page first... it was deleted. And 2) if you are Kube8 evading a block and impersonating someone else to post here, that's really, really bad at wikipedia. Really bad! Come clean, apologize and move on, because administrators will find out, and you'll be blocked for an extended period. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

For my future reference I wrote this reply on Kube8's talk page when he was upset I reported him:

Kube8 was blocked 72 hours and then blocked an extra week for the sock puppetry. When that ended he vandalized my talk page with a personal attack Diff Here. I simply deleted it but what's kinda funny is I had asked days before for his block to be lifted early... that maybe he's a good wikipedian at heart who would behave himself from now on and that he simply made some mistakes. The administrator didn't head my plea, and now I see why. I look at this situation as closed and done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for memorializing my actions for your reference. Though many of my statements were harsh, I stand by some of the points I made. My actions were not to be excused and for that I apologize. I was irritated and was not knowledgeable of the wiki rules and regulations. But please don't pretend you didn't play a part. Revert for revert for revert for revert for a nice and convenient report to silence me. It's very easy to work a system you're extremely familiar with to your benefit. All that being said and done. You do good work and I do good work. Let's be honest with ourselves and move on to continue to work on the things we care about. Kube8 (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You know something... your whoa is me crap is wearing very thin. It was ALL YOU for getting blocked after multiple warnings. ALL YOU. And your backhanded slap of blame with an added "move on" and "work on things we care about" I don't really believe until I see it. Actions speak louder than words and so far I've seen revert violations where you were warned, which you ignored and then were blocked... you vandalizing my talk page with a sockpuppet where you were warned to apologize to the wiki administration before they extended your block, which you ignored and were blocked longer... and after the block was lifted you vandalized my talk page again where another editor had to revert it. Had I reported you for the last one you might have been blocked for another month. But I didn't report you. I have bent over backwards trying to tell you things so you don't get blocked and yet you haven't listened and you won't drop the blame game. Once you realize it is your fault alone that you got in this mess, things might go smoothly and people can move on. I move on with editors all the time. I have mentioned many times you made some good points and you do some good work and I have brought that up on article talk pages and administrator talk pages. That has never been in question. It also has nothing to do with why you were blocked. You were blocked multiple times for multiple infractions after multiple warnings. That is 100% on you. I have no problem moving on but my eyes are wide open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So... if you want to talk about how you can correct your errors, no problem. If you want to talk about post dating, no problem (though it might be better to post that at the conversation at Tennis Project). If you want to know about what you can or shouldn't do at wikipedia, I can help some or lead you to others better able to answer your queries. If you have a question on wiki Project Tennis Guidelines, again I can try to help. But if all you want to do is try and lay blame on others for your own mistakes, then I'd prefer you do it elsewhere than my talkpage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I just apologized and admitted my part and wrongdoing, but again... I'm being reprimanded... lol. I already know what I did, but you don't seem to want to admit your part in it. That's fine. I have been following tennis for my entire life and recently became interested in updating tennis info on wiki as I found a lot of errors and things weren't being updated promptly. I'll let my 2 years or so worth of edits on both those pages speak for itself. Believe that. I'll also let the other conflicts you've had on your page and elsewhere speak for itself. CiaoKube8 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My "part in it" is that I caught you and reported you. That's it. Go whine somewhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

true to form. peaceKube8 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So you moved to close the RFC on the use of Flag icons in sports articles. I wonder how we now move on from this? Do we change the wording of

It didn't require a formal close but someone did it anyway in the landslide "in favor" !vote. My suggestion was pretty clear in the wording change the RfC allows us to do, but some of those in favor wanted so much more that I was disillusioned to keep trying. I can always link to the RfC when people try removing sports flags from articles. I personally think that Wiki MOS is supposed to be very general... it simply cannot cover every contingency, which is why we have WikiProjects. Flag icons may be used in the main body or infobox to show the sporting nationality of athletes who are members of Olympic teams, other national sports teams, or who compete in elite/professional sports at the highest level that is international in nature is something the RfC allows to be written into the MOS right now. Then if I were starting a new RfC for specifics I would also include something along the lines of bladeboys suggestion that The relevance and notability of nationality to sports people or teams is derived from local consensus within the relevant wikiprojects. If you want to add the former to the MOS article I'll back you in case it gets reverted. If you'd rather I add it, that can be done also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So it has been two months now and literally nothing has changed despite the consensus. I really don't like that such an overwhelming consensus is not put in good practice. We should be really making the the agreed changes to the guideline, shouldn't we? Tvx1 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys, the problem is that the RfC was not formulated properly and did not ask specific questions about specific uses of flag icons in the context of sporting nationality. Please email me offline. Let's start a discussion about strategy for proposing concrete changes. I would like to have a fully formulated plan before revealing the language of an RfC. I have wanted to tackle this for two or three years, but everyone on the movers' needs to be in agreement beforehand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I gave that place my best. I came up with what absolutely can be placed in the MOS based on what everyone agreed on. Yes, the RfC was formulated weirdly so that there would be lots of overlap, but it snowballed in one direction and it was easy to see what the "minimum" consensus was. Bickering then ensued as those that wanted EVERYTHING would not bow to consensus, so instead they got NOTHING written into MOS. As far as I'm concerned that RfC is the law of the land and it's what I link to when there is a question from new editors. Could it be tweaked further? of course. But I'm good with what we have now from it. It took a lot of time on my part and those who wanted "my way or the highway" got what they deserved. Plenty of things on Wikipedia that are the law of the land don't get put into MOS... such as the complete censoring of English spellings of peoples names no matter the sourcing. That is just in RfC form, not in MOS, but it's what Wikipedia follows. Same for flags now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't want to cause any conflict here. What bickering are you on about? I really remember a near-unanimous agreement in support of the flags. I agree with the changes you have proposed above and I think the should be implemented ASAP. These combined with the removal of some opinion-based language presented as fact from the

WP:INFOBOXFLAG section. If a new RFC is preferred to propose specific changes, like Dirtlawyer1 mentioned, I will support that as well. Tvx1 (talk

) 01:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck, we were stuck with the language of Walter Gorlitz and DH[something] in a straw poll and RfC of their formulation, and, yes, you labored to clarify the malformed RfC. Neither specifically amended the applicable provisions of MOS:ICON, but, yes, the RfC did express overwhelming support for the limited use of flag icons to express sporting nationality for athletes in international competition. That leaves supporters of the limited use flag icons in a somewhat stronger position than we were before, but one or more of the original proponents of the 2007 MOS:ICON changes will never accept any changes to MOS in the absence of a specific RfC to amend MOS:ICON. It remains a Mexican standoff, much as it has for the last 7+ years. I can rant about how the original changes were proposed and adopted in 2007, but I would rather do that offline where I might speak more bluntly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you know until you try? This RfC was very very clear in a minimum amount of change. That should be implemented without another RfC. Then we can fine tune with another RfC to see if other items will pass or not. I also kind of hate to do things offline... too many shady things have happened to others I've known (probably me too but I couldn't prove it) where editors gang up together to hammer someone. I like things out in the open for all to see so no monkeyshines happen. Tvx1, it was turning into congress for me. Overwhelming support but support was in the form of group A, B and C. I wanted to change the MOS immediately to the parts that A,B and C agreed with. That way we'd get the ball rolling, and them have another RfC or two to see if we could come to consensus on the things we disagreed with. A, B and C all wanted their way or the highway. At that point I lost interest and I now use the RfC as the basis for flags as opposed to MOS be changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I still agree that the changes you mentioned above are supported by the consensus. So make them already. If they get contested, refer to the consensus. We have a consensus sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator and editors are expected to observe

WT:MOSICON. Tvx1 (talk

) 17:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, if you are not confident enough about your changes, you can always ask the uninvolved user who closed the discussion whether your changes conform with the consensus they established. Tvx1 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your case, though Azarenka played just 24 matches this year due to injuries and the like it's very close. I also wonder how many matches Serena Williams played in 2011 when from my knowledge she only played from Eastbourne to the US Open inclusive and had her ranking drop to 175 following Wimbledon. At least she made an impressive comeback from that 14-year ranking low.

As we all know, Victoria Azarenka will start 2015 ranked 31st and a poor showing at the Brisbane International and Australian Open (where she will be defending runner-up and quarter-final points respectively) combined could see her drop out of the top 50. She won't do a Serena Williams (by saying this I am referring to her 2011 comeback when she finished that year ranked 12th after being 175th) and return to the top 10 in an instant, though she will have the opportunity to gain hundreds (and potentially thousands) of rankings points in 2015.

Just wait and see what happens from your discussion with Wolbo.

It looks like in 2011 Serena played exactly 25 matches and since she started the year at No. 4 she would just squeak in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps had Azarenka played (and/or won) just one more match this year then she would have also snuck in as well.

talk

) 04:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

True, which is why I'm not all that concerned with her 2014 year. If someone nominated it for deletion I have no idea how I might vote, but I'm not nominating it since it's a borderline thing. But 2015 is another story and it popping up on our Tennis Project page is what brought the two Azarenka seasons to my attention. The 2015 season needs to be tabled imho until such time as it warrants inclusion. You could have it in your sandbox and let others know so they could help work on it if they like, but they'd need to know it may never come close to passing muster. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

tennis and compromise
Thank you for quality articles on tennis, starting lists such as

awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well thank you much. I don't think I've ever looked at my first "official" posting before. I have certainly not always been on my best behavior here, but I do try, and I do strive towards compromise. TRM helped me with the "big picture" during several times of crisis that I won't forget. Happy editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fyunck, in scrolling through your talk page today, I was pleased to discover that we are both "precious!" Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Which is good as long as Gollum isn't around. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that you reverted my edits of Andrea Petkovic, and I appreciate the fact that you explained your reverts. I thought that I understood how walkovers are counted in Wikipedia, but I haven't (a) done an exhaustive systematic study of this, nor (b) found a discussion (or a policy enunciated) about how walkovers are to be counted in Wikipedia. If you know of the latter (a discussion or policy), please let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to do item (a), and discuss further with you, if appropriate. Thanks Free2brag (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I could be wrong on some of this also. My understanding, and what I've seen on many articles is walkovers are neither wins nor losses. If I recall Djokovic's and Federer's and Borg's totals do not include walkovers. The ATP does not count them and I just checked and the ITF uses O's instead of W's or L's. I was actually shocked when you said the WTA counts them in their totals because I have seen news posts from them saying otherwise. Low and behold when I checked out Petkovic (and a few others) on the WTA site they do indeed count them as wins and losses in totals. Strange, and that could be an error, but it's what they're going with. The ATP has come out publicly many times (especially during Djokovic's winning streak) and said walkovers count for nothing in totals. So we either have to base all the ladies only on the WTA way of doing things, and use the ITF rules and ATP for the guys, or simply use the ITF for all our articles. I would use the ITF way for all of them but there could be many that agree with what you had done. Maybe bring it up at project tennis talk and see what others say? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; you and I are basically on the same page. I'm quite sure that I know the source of most of the confusion: the "STATS" given by the WTA for a player's YTD and CAREER match record treat walkovers the same way as men's tennis does (the walkover does not count as a win for the person who benefits from the walkover, and the walkover does not count as a loss for the person who withdrew). However, in the WTA's "GRAND SLAM HISTORY" tables, they do the opposite, and this is also how many women's tennis articles in Wikipedia treat walkovers. Thus, if a Wikipedia editor uses the YTD and the CAREER match record from the WTA "OVERALL STATS" table as a source for thee overall statistics, and uses the "GRAND SLAM HISTORY" tables as a source for the Grand Slam statistics, there is a contradiction within Wikipedia, just as their is within the WTA. Maybe we should just live with that contradiction, and maybe we should correct it. But correcting it might border on Wikipedia editors doing original research; it certainly would entail a lot of work. So, I wholeheartedly agree: we should bring it up at project tennis talk. I'm not free to get into a discussion right now. But could try to come up with a good example of the "contradiction" and raise the question there, in a few weeks. Thanks Free2brag (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Since it was confusing to me, I brought it up at the Tennis Project talk page yesterday. So far the thoughts are to keep wikipedia consistent, plus the fact the ITF governs the Grand Slam Tournaments anyways. So if the ITF, the ATP and the WTA rules seem to state no counting of walkovers, and "part" of the WTA website contradicts, we should probably go with the majority of the governing bodies. There are lots of thing that require tons of work here, but things get done gradually. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the "consensus and recent RfC" that says to ignore

Sure. Consensus might be tough because it's been done over years and years and years in every Tennis article. It's what the Tennis Project oversees. The recent RfC is easy and it's (right here). The only thing that wasn't done was to change the actual wording in MOS yet. Also it never ignored MOS. As per WP:INFOBOXFLAG they are used for international sports recognition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems to be a problem with the infobox. The label for the field is misleading, as "Country" normally implies place of birth or residence when used in BLPs. I'll take this up at the template's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess it could say nationality but it's what the project has always used. I may need to bring it up at Tennis Project for discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The field is |country_represented= so the label should reflect that. The field contents in Andy Murray is [[Great Britain Davis Cup team|Great Britain]]. Last time I checked "Great Britain Davis Cup team" was not a nationality. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No but the Olympics and the ITF look at his nationality as Great Britain... as does Wimbledon and the US Open. Nothing but "Nationality." I guess the original guideline creators thought "Country" was different enough from the norm to work for tennis bios. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Fyunck, Mark Merklein is notable as a college athlete, maybe, maybe not as a professional tennis player. He is currently an assistant coach at the University of Florida. Should we replace the current generic infobox with Infobox tennis player, or should we use Infobox college coach? Let me know what you think. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... first he is absolutely notable for tennis having played in Davis Cup and having played and winning matches at the French Open and US Open. Reaching No. 37 in doubles is no small feat. Generic is kind of stinky for him so it should either be college coach or tennis player for the infobox. No problem that I can see for the tennis infobox. I guess it depends on what he is more notable for and I don't really know his qualification for notability as a coach. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Fyunck. It sounds like this article has significant coverage gaps in the subject's pro career, and absolutely should use the tennis infobox rather than the college coach infobox. If you would be willing to take charge of replacing and completing the infobox, I would grateful. Also, if you could provide a rough outline (in the article) of his Davis Cup and pro tournament highlights, I would gladly fill out the article with text and footnoted sources. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just did some. Spotty updating for me during the holidays. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Thanks, Fyunck, for adding the tennis infobox. The tournaments results table, etc., you added give me a road map for expanding the text regarding Merklein's pr career. Best wishes for your holidays! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I was so surprised to see your screen name. That book is forty years old. I've got to be the only person in the world that would recognize that. -dwgillman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwgillman (talk • contribs) 05:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is... with today's technology, could they make a movie out of it? Or would it be too cerebral and slow for today's audiences? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.