This 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.

Category:Tennis people from Los Angeles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Virginia Slims of Boston tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo. I wanted to message you personally regarding the Samantha Stosur article. As you have an interest in this article, please consider providing sources before restoring unsourced biographical details, as required by our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yamaguchi先生, thanks for your message. Clearly large parts of the Samantha Stosur article are poorly sourced and in need of improvement. Having said that, none of the content which you have deleted seems contentious enough to require removal per WP:BLPREMOVE. The 'playing style' section may come closest to containing original research and has been tagged for a while. While the verifiability policy allows content removal per WP:UNSOURCED in most cases tagging is a more constructive and helpful approach to improve the article. After all, once content is deleted the opportunity to source it is taken away. I have tagged several sections and if no action is taken will take a stab at it myself. My proposal is to revisit the article in about a month's time and see where it stands.--Wolbo (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Reads- An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist. I have noticed two recent articles you made that links to nonexistent categories. Please create the categories in the future or don't put in the links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

How to switch between editing environments

Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.

Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anthony Wilding you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The article Anthony Wilding you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anthony Wilding for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete; could you please either complete it, or email me if you didn't get it? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping. Please respond if you are still interested in getting access. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wolbo: I'm sorry about my controversial move of list of male tennis players to list of male singles tennis players. I'm sorry for not heeding your advice in the first place. Is there any way this can be undone? If it can, then list of male doubles tennis players should also be merged with the original article.

Rovingrobert, I have given my opinion on this at Talk:List of male singles tennis players.--Wolbo (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

So we've both changed our opinions? Right, okay. Any idea on how many opinions are needed to come to a decision? Rovingrobert (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Has the tournament taking place at the White City Tennis Center/White City Stadium (Sydney) but according to its WP article and this source[1], that tennis venue didn't open till 1922. Is the 1908 and any other pre 1922 articles wrong?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WilliamJE, yes that was wrong. The 1908 and 1919 Australasian Championships were both played in Sydney, but not at the White City Stadium. This has been corrected, thanks for the notification. --Wolbo (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alexandros Jakupović. Since you had some involvement with the Alexandros Jakupović redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, this is Kudoni; I had not noticed, when checking that my citations were still in place, that you had removed them. The Blast from the Past Tennis Forum is a very complete and hard working set of people who have accumulated results from the beginning of tennis. I cannot see why this should not be accepted as it is a complete and readily acceptable source of women's tennis results. I had already put a simplified repeat of my citations back on the document before I realised that they had not simply failed to save, but that they had been removed. Since I had already been asked by another user to make citations, I would be grateful if you did not remove them again. Many thanks Kudoni (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Kudoni

Kudoni, per the WP:USERG content guidelines a self-published and user-generated source such as an internet forum like 'Blast from the Past' is, with some exceptions, not acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. This is mainly because user-generated content sources lack the editorial oversight of reliable sources. In itself this is not a judgment on the quality of these sources, but merely on their suitability as a reliable source for an encyclopedia. I know that 'Blast from the Past' has a number of highly knowledgeable and dedicated tennis fans and moderators, but it doesn't meet the requirement of having a credentialed editorial staff. However, 'Blast from the Past' is increasingly adding the sources of their content to their threads and these sources can be used for Wikipedia, although it is preferable to access the sources directly.--Wolbo (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Virginia Slims of Denver tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you change some championship to championships per common usage. I didn't look that closely but where did you find the common usage of the word for each individual event? I know some events go commonly and correctly by "championship" rather than "championships" so we shouldn't lump them all together. I would think we would have to make sure when to use the "s" and when not to? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The common usage is mainly based on the article titles which, with few exceptions, use the plural form instead of the singular. That certainly applies for 'US Championships', 'Wembley Championships' and 'French Championships'. In general tournaments which consist of multiple events are called 'Championships', although there may be exceptions. The 1877 through 1883 Wimbledon editions only had the men's singles event and were therefore called 'Championship' while from 1884 onward they had at least two events and were called 'Championships'.--Wolbo (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daphne Akhurst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily News. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo,

could I ask you to fix this duplication:

• 2016 Aegon Classic
• 2016 Aegon Classic Birmingham

?

Looking at previous years (since 2009 all were named 20xx Aegon Classic), the one to be picked would be 2016 Aegon Classic.

Thanks. Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Australia at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Norway at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Sweden at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Belgium at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Italy at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Japan at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:France at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Netherlands at the Olympics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Was it ever discussed what the color scheme is for Ladies ITF events? I was looking over Bianca Andreescu and noticed the 125's were done in "silver." When I checked the guidelines I noticed we don't have anything for the ITF events. I've seen you fix many of these and was wondering what our ITF color template was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), the color scheme for that article seems to be the standard used for ITF events and as such (if confirmed) should probably be included in our guidelines. My involvement was mainly with updating the older color scheme for WTA events as well as updating outdated HTML code in these tables to CSS.--Wolbo (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There must be some compromise on older articles (pre-2016) that we can agree to? I tried several solutions, and what looked like a good one on Anna-Lena Friedsam, but you didn't like that one either. I'm not sure where to go but the ball's in your court for some sort of solution for the pre-2016 articles or all the articles if it can satisfy everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It simply can not be that we have one standard for articles up to spring 2016 and one for articles created after that time. That would be nonsensical and an insult to our readers so either we manage to find a common understanding or the issue has to be forced one way or another. Naturally the first should have our strong preference but the viewpoints seem to be pretty divergent.--Wolbo (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've tried multiple table schematics (some worked out with other users), but you reject them out of hand with no compromise suggestion coming from you. Throw some compromise at me like I have for you and maybe we can find common ground. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You know I'd rather ALL the article columns follow the same format and I have tried something like 5 different compromises, some working with other editors. You've rejected them all instantly. I think I've made note of all the compromises at the tennis talk page. I was even going to add another last try to the growing list but I haven't seen you even give it a shot at working the situation out, and that does seem a little unfair. We can usually work out our differences, and we agree on most things... why can't we find a compromise on this since the RfC came right down the middle? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My main objection remains that in this specific instance the article guidelines do NOT reflect project consensus which has been firmly established by years of editing in numerous articles by numerous editors. Therefore it logically follows that the guidelines need to be updated and not the articles. I concede that recently you have put more effort into finding a compromise solution than I have and can imagine that this feels a bit unbalanced. Will try to engage more actively to find a solution while remaining of the opinion that editing consensus is firmly on the side of keeping the No. column. Perhaps a way can be found to keep the No. column while addressing (some of) the objections raised. This can possibly be achieved by proposing alternative formatting schemes for the career finals table.--Wolbo (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well if you keep changing all the 2016 articles I'm going to start changing ALL articles to match approved RfC Guidelines. The RFC confirmed we keep the guidelines as is, that they should be followed, but that longstanding articles do not have consensus to be changed. I had stopped with the pre-2016 grandfathered articles as a truce, but my patience is waning with you recent changes. I've shown you like 5 different alternative charts in the last several months. You haven't liked any and have given us ZERO other options. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk. For all your words on seeking consensus you are the one, and the ONLY one, who is constantly edit warring articles to try to push through your individual point of view against a widely held and longstanding editing consensus. You are now basically on a one-man crusade and your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. Think it through, this is leading nowhere.--Wolbo (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. There are others also conforming these articles. You are the only one reverting them except for some suspicious anon IPs. You were really the only one insisting on the grandfather clause in the finalized RfC. You are alone in this crusade to go against guidelines. Another editor and i even tried to work out a hidden number column. (I forget whom but I can look it up). You rejected both of us! I'm the one putting forth compromises, I'm the one posting about the situation on the project page. You are doing nothing about it at all except reverting. I don't understand why but that's the way it looks to me. Can't you help rather than hinder the situation? At least I'm trying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There are articles on the 2002-2008 tournaments but for some reason they aren't showing in the template. I'm willing to fix it but need to know how.

Another thing- There were Navbox links to this template in both tournaments played in Stockholm and Stuttgart. Click here[2] and here[3] for examples of what I did. I removed those links out of tournament articles because the template is Madrid tournaments only....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That name is not the problem.... it's the link. You cannot change a linked "Evonne Goolagong Cawley" to "Evonne Goolagong." That changes a direct link to an incorrect link. It must be "Evonne Goolagong Cawley|Evonne Goolagong". If this was just one or two of these I would simply change it and let the anon IP know. In fact that is what i did do. The trouble now is I spent two hours fixing and reverting last night all his errors. I'm not going through it every time for hours and hours. The direct link must stay if the name is changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, see what you mean. In this case it could be argued that the player article should be Evonne Goolagong (following her career statistics page) instead of Evonne Goolagong Cawley but I agree that if the article name stands as it is the wikilink should be constructed as Evonne Goolagong for her pre-marriage mentions. --Wolbo (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

True... the article name is subjective. She played under both names and is still married as far as I know. Usually the player is listed under the name she played under longest and she played under Cawley longer than just Goolagong. And this anon IP is also changing player's names after they got married, with no notion of when they got married. I was digging up newspapers to determine when the marriage took place so the articles were accurate, but after the 30th error by this guy (with revolving IPs) it starts to get hard to tell that any of his facts are correct at all. Some of his changed links go to disambiguation pages too. He needs to stop and learn how to change things instead of mass producing 100s of errors that need to be fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Wolbo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits on English wikipedia.The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts.Keep up the good work!

you can added this template to your user page.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

- CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 12:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo did you see the owner of the tennisbase.com Gabriel Garcias interview on Canal+ Espana here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wtQKU1vOGE discussing his website on this sports channel discussing the site stats I don't speak Spanish maybe you do? Canal+ part of the Canal+ Group media conglomerate.--Navops47 (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and all the best for the festive season.--Navops47 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Navops47, best wishes to you as well !.--Wolbo (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a quick question. Me and another editor are in disagreement in regards to listing qualifiers in yearly articles. For example, at 2017 Bangkok Challenger, he wants to list the qualifiers in alphabetical order while I have them listed in qualifier order. Is there an actual designated way of doing it or does it really matter? Adamtt9 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Should I take this as you have no idea???? Adamtt9 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that you are talking with Frietjes and trying to get everything on one line, but I must say that it looks weird on two different lines. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ideally the navigation element (arrow + year) always appears on the same line as the tournament name; that takes up the least space and looks neat and tidy. However, we have numerous tournaments whose names are so long that both navigations (previous, next) do not fit on the same line and the result of that looks in my view more untidy and 'weird' than a two line solution. With these kind of visual changes it is often useful to give it some time to see if you get used to it. We can easily switch it back if needed. I will create a topic on this on the tennis project page to get more feedback. --Wolbo (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw that nowrap was mentioned as another option and that it would make the box wider. Would that be a better solution to the problem. And of course I can get used to the new look, I just noticed the difference today and it took me a while to find out what happened. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And why does it wrap to a new line in 2016 Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia for example, but not on the singles draw article 2016 Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia – Singles. I know they are different templates, but can't they be formatted so that the name of the tournament fits on one line in both cases. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably a caching issue, maybe because the infobox used an old template name (now updated). The downside of the nowrap option is that the width of the infobox is in that case at the mercy of the length of the tournament name and can become very (too) wide as 2016 Internazionali di Tennis del Friuli Venezia Giulia – Singles clearly shows.--Wolbo (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit day anniversary!
Best wishes, Chris Troutman (talk) (01:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

Dear Wolbo/Archive 3,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wolbo,

Please participate in nl:Overleg:Brigette Cuypers.

Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing from your extensive knowledge.

Vinkje83 (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The content you have reverted is editorially biased. It is the opinion of the contributor. It is a conclusion that he/she had reached. He/she IS NOT presenting the opinion of an external third party source. He/she IS presenting an opinion and using third party sources to back them up. As I told him/her, he or she is basically positing an argument and using findings and commentary to support it. The section cannot be saved because there are no professional tennis commentators out there on record that argue that mono and back injury influenced Federer's losses to Nadal in 2008 and 2013 respectively. That is why I keep removing the entire section. The entire section is the opinion of the contributor - and the contributor ALONE. So, please remove it. This is Wikipedia, not a Federer fan club website. You might also be interested in this article vis-a-vis that page: http://www.latestnigeriannews.com/news/1621848/federernadal-rivalry-illustrates-perfectly-the-subjective-nature-of-wikipedia.html. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.96.200 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi the User:Liquid_foundation who wrote the article in the bleacher report in the link you have provided was investigated as a WP:Sock puppetry case and banned see talkpage here: User talk:Liquid foundation.--Navops47 (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question as to why Fyunck his being allowed to editorialise on the Federer-Nadal Rivalry page. I see he's been doing it since 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.194.128 (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

At User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox I wrote out a possible proposal for a new chart. Is there something you don't like? I was just going to do this as a show of hands, not a formal RFC. I would ping some of our more prolific editors to comment with no idea if they'll like it or not. If it's a snowball we could implement it, or if not we can always do a formal RFC. Right now I also have the date reversed chart there but I would only include one of the charts in the proposal on the Tennis project page. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): will provide some detailed feedback shortly but on first glance it looks like a sensible approach. --Wolbo (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): commented at your sandbox. I personally like the adjusted coloring scheme, it looks fresher, but it would be a shame if the entire proposal is voted down because some editors do not like that particular aspect of it. To prevent that from happening it would be best to present it as a separate line-item. --Wolbo (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to see if everyone liked it with you and me as a united front. I figured maybe if they all thought that the two of us could agree on a chart it might be a really good one. I've been trying to listen to what others have been saying over the last year and some of the "good page" talking has mentioned the no need for the color going all the way across. Some had actually been created with separate colors for the different surfaces, but in my own experimenting it looked messier and really wasn't needed. Any thoughts on what columns to make sortable or not? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): it's fine to present all aspects in one proposal but in my view that should not result in an all-or-nothing proposal. In other words if one or two aspects do not get consensus we can and should still move forward with those aspects that do have consensus support. The core element of the recent discussions was the numbering of the wins and losses and my concern is that if we make it an all-or-nothing proposal the failure to get consensus on another aspect, e.g. the coloring scheme, the result would be that we go back to square one on the numbering issue. That is something I would like to avoid. Your thoughts?. --Wolbo (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with your assessment. I just thought that together we might carry a lot of weight so I wanted to show the before chart and the after chart, and list all the changes made and a brief why the changes were made. If you and I gave it thumbs up, and if pretty much everyone agreed (which is usually about 10 editors), we could incorporate it. If too many aspects were challenged we'd have to have a more thorough discussion and formal RfC to get to consensus. But yeah, perhaps everyone wants it to remain "category" and for that column and to remain right after the date. Perhaps they all want the day along with the month and year. Perhaps more don't want a No. column at all. I just thought that if you and I could agree on a single chart it might go long way to getting it done (considering they know we have disagreed on this chart in the past). I don't want a 60/40 split in favor of the change. If that happens I want to find some new compromise to appease the 40%, because unless most are on-board it'll take a long time to change all the current charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please remove edit made by anonymous user (IP address: 197.229.170.35) on the 30/03/2017.

I marked this edit as answered to remove it from the queue, as the edit has been reverted. Altamel (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:2TeamBracket-Tennis3-ChallengeRound has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henri Cochet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kaiser matias, thanks for picking up the GA review of this important tennis player from the pre-WWII era. As a disclosure, Lajbi is the main contributor to this article but he is no longer active since September 2014. This GAN is partially intended as a tribute to his fine work within the tennis wikiproject. I am however familiar with the subject and have made several edits to the article and should therefore be able to address any points raised.--Wolbo (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll keep a watch on the article, so just let me know via the review page when you're all finished, and I'll take a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Henri Cochet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henri Cochet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I covered everything but it always helps to have an extra pair of eyes. User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/newguidelines. This would be a direct replacement to what we have now. I had to tweak some wording, and I wanted it to be as crystal clear as possible. Also, the old wording simply said to make certain changes for doubles but I simply said to myself, screw it, let's make a doubles and WTA chart so there could be no confusion. If you think wording could be better go ahead and fix it or let me know. I want it to be easy as pie to understand for any newbies. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing I wasn't sure of was the standard Tier abbreviation we use for the year end finals. Is it "Tour Finals" for both? Or is it "ATP Finals" and "WTA Finals?" As long as it's consistent I don't care, I just want to get it right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Virginia Slims of New England tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I write ebooks and the next one I'm working on involves tennis. There are a couple of general tennis questions I have about how a woman would start a career in pro tennis. Could you please help me? We can do the questions and answers by email. Let me know and thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Please help me understand the logic in this: The key to the tables clearly states "Records in bold indicate peer-less achievements." What is the sense in bold-facing the words "Stands alone" instead of the record itself (which is supposed to be bold-faced per the associated table key)? One would imagine that the words "Stands alone" quite explicitly convey that it is peer-less, so where is the logic in redundantly bold-facing those words and not the actual record? To make my point clear, we are counterintuitively (in context of the key to the table), and redundantly emphasizing the incorrect column. In addition, I wonder if you find it as amusing as I do in citing MOS:NOBOLD, and then going on to ignore it in literally the same table. — Anakimi_talk   21:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Anakimi, in my view the tennis project suffers from a lot of unnecessary bolding that is counter to the instructions of MOS:NOBOLD, specifically the part "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text". The argument can be made that a table is not article text but tables are not mentioned as any of the instances where bolding is appropriate per MOS:NOBOLD and in this case its use is clearly for emphasis. So frankly no bolding should be used for either the record itself or for the text "Stands alone". Historically most tennis player articles have used bolding for both and the situation of only bolding "Stands alone" is somehwat of a half-way compromise but you are correct in pointing out that this is not entirely consistent with either the key or the guideline. --Wolbo (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've seen you working on many tennis articles over the years, and you also made some edits to the Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry article. There are some people who want to delete it for reasons that elude me. Some of us are now voting to Keep or Delete at the bottom of the main discussion of this at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gonzales%E2%80%93Rosewall_rivalry. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at this discussion and then add your own vote to the bottom. Many thanks, and all the best! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I've submitted a request for your account to be upgraded to Publisher's Extra. Should be upgraded in about 48hrs if not let me know.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wolbo. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wolbo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wolbo. AfC submissions Random submission ~5 weeks 1,383 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi if you have any issues regrading your belief that ranking lists did not exist then then discuss it first on the articles talk page without removing a reliable published a source it is also incorrect to claim your edit summary to that rankings did not exist then as a justification for removing, then how do explain just this example Lawn Tennis, Worlds Best Players, Norman Brookes in Second Place 1913. --Navops47 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Navops47, I am well aware that world rankings started in 1913 but they did not exist before that time and the articles in question should therefore not state that they did. That would be incorrect and misleading to our readers. I have corrected the Norman Brookes ranking from a non-existent No. 1 in 1907 to a No. 2 in 1913 per A. Wallis Myers.--Wolbo (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I disagree adding a claim requires that you verify it from a reliable published source (published) in this case this book source here https://www.amazon.com/The Concise History of Tennis by Karoly Mazak (Author) and with due respect neither you nor I are NOT qualified tennis historians with a Phd to make that judgement call therefore you should not be removing it either unless of course you are published. I would also suggest that you need to discuss further in regards to this article World number 1 ranked male tennis players for start and possible WP Tennis Project.--Navops47 (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Esmee Visser, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Kindly point me to that consensus. How that would be in agreement with INFOBOXFLAG is a mystery; moreover, we don't do this for other athletes. The only time that tennis players represent their countries is in the Olympics and the Davis Cup. Track athletes, for instance, get their little flag in a separate medal box reserved for Olympics and other such competitions. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is longstanding consensus and has been discussed. Those flags are used in most sources for the individual tennis players, just as in auto racing. I think the Indy Car racing topic was the last major discussion on the issue. I've also had to revert your flag removals here at wikipedia. The players do in a sense represent their countries since in order to play they MUST be backed by a country. They can't register without that backing. It is also why MOS has the line

"the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport."

I'm not sure why you suddenly feel the need to remove them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear here--"in a sense" is vague, and "representations" is not; my above paraphrase of the guideline puts the lie to that vagueness. Being "backed" by a country (whatever that means--remember that the Olympics allows athletes without statehood) doesn't mean you represent a country; it means you have a passport. That's all. And I don't "suddenly" feel that need, Fyunck--I've felt that need for years; I just don't go looking for those kindergarten-decorated articles voluntarily. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well whatever the vagueness is for you, it has been settled for years with tennis and auto-racing articles, so please leave them be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure every editor has his/her particular dislikes about certain aspects of Wikipedia. I have them as well but they are not a valid reason to make edits that go against longstanding project consensus and that are explicitly allowed under MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Tennis without a doubt qualifies as a sport where "national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality".--Wolbo (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo,

do you remember where you found Catherine Suire's birthplace Tananarive, Madagascar?

Kind regards, Vinkje83 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vinkje83, it can be found in the WTA Media / Player Guides, e.g. 1994 WTA Tour Media Guide (p.262).--Wolbo (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me guess: available on paper only? Vinkje83 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's be happy it is at least available on paper, otherwise it would not be available at all. This kind of standard bio info should of course be available on the WTA website but unfortunately it isn't. Anyway, here is a screenshot from the 1994 WTA Tour Media Guide.--Wolbo (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I am happy that someone within my reach possesses these priceless papers. Thanks for collecting them. And thanks for sharing the information. Groetjes, Vinkje83 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I do not know whether you like all the more detailed information I am adding to the supporting information column of the yearly 1 and 2 player lists, but I think it is valuable information.

You must see all the terse discussions that 3 of us are having about moving Vilas's ranking higher, especially for 1977. The Min76 just keeps going on and on and on saying the same things even though Fuynck and I have addressed most of his points. It would be useful if you voiced on opinion on this matter. Informed analysis (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep an eye on brand new editor User:Zerilous. His edit is odd to me quoting wikipedia guidelines in his first edit. Maybe nothing or at least I hope so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

You seem interested in the Dutch speed skating team at the 2018 Olympics so I thought I could give you this tip: the personal bests of Lotte van Beek are available on the Dutch version of Wikipedia, if you want to add a board on the English version like you did for Esmee Visser (thanks by the way)!

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Prix Super Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Fleming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_8AI9E4v0clWe405&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how ((infobox ship)) is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted the changes made to Sloan Stevens? Some were required since the term Grand Slam was not capitalized and didn't have the term tournament or event after the wording. A very few changes were not required. I had posted this previously at Talk:Sloane Stephens in the GA review. Did you want me to remove the non-required changes? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My revert was done because you unnecessarily changed several mentions of the term "Grand Slam" to "major" instead of adding "title" or "tournament" to disambiguate the term where needed.--Wolbo (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wolbo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo, there's probably an error in the Wimbledon players archive. Scheurleer didn't play in 1926 after loosing a leg in 1922. The 1926 Scheurleer was probably Gerard Willy Scheurleer born in 1907. I've already sent an Email to the AELTC. Cattivi (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo, I have been working on improving the article on Kim Clijsters to get to GA/FA status, and I've been struggling to find freely available photos of her. Many of the ones uploaded to the Commons have dubious or unusable licenses. Do you have suggestions for places to look? I noticed you brought up the Dutch Photo Archive on your talk page awhile back, and was wondering if there was something similar for Belgium? Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sportsfan77777, no, not that I am aware of. I see the article currently has 10 images, if these are all properly licensed that is actually pretty good for an article. Certainly if you compare it to the period 1970–1995 which is a really difficult period to get good public domain images from. The articles of many great players from that era (Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Sampras) have just a few contemporary images, if at all.--Wolbo (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I think it is fine for the article requirements, and also relative to other players from around that time. I was just hoping to find some more variety. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo hope your well please can you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis Section 5.--Navops47 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Roger Waters shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo, I am planning on nominating Kim Clijsters as an FAC once it passes its GA review (hopefully in the next day or so). Since you are the only active editor with a Tennis FA, I was wondering if you could comment on the FAC. Thank you, Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sportsfan77777, that FA feels like ages ago. Was a lot of work but also lot of fun to do. If I can find some time I will have a look at the Clijsters article. Had a quick peek and it looks pretty good in terms of structure and sourcing. Might be worthwhile to do a peer review before going to FAC.--Wolbo (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I am willing to try jumping to FAC in hopes of making it a TFA by June 8th. The worst case is they suggest doing a peer review instead, and then I would have plenty of time to get the article promoted by June 8th of next year. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo, I'm editing the article 1973 US Open – Men's Doubles created by you. You cited the sources by John Barrett. I cited the sources by ITF, ATP and New York Times. There are several conflicts of sources, could you check which one was written on the book by John Barrett? 1. ITF and New York Times said that the partner of Rod Laver is Ken Rosewall but ATP said that the partner is Roy Emerson. 2. ITF and ATP said that the Quarterfinal score of Tom Okker and Marty Riessen was 5-7, 7-6, 7-6 but your version was 5-7, 7-5, 7-5. 3. ITF and ATP said that the Quarterfinal score of Tom Gorman (tennis) and Raúl Ramírez was 6-1, 7-6 but New York Times was 6-4, 7-6. Thank youPE fans (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

PE fans, Barrett's World of Tennis '74 also has Rosewall as Laver's partner. Pretty sure the ATP website has this one wrong.--Wolbo (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! How about the quarterfinal scores? PE fans (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Okker / Riessen was a typo should be 7–6, 7–6. Gorman / Ramírez is listed as 6–1, 7–6 by Barrett. --Wolbo (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo, I notice that you've added a reference to 1973 US Open – Mixed Doubles. Could you check what was the final score of 1973 US Open – Mixed Doubles on your reference? The ITF said that score for the first set was 6-3 but New York Times said that it was 6-4. PE fans (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

PE fans, Barrett's World of Tennis '74 has 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! PE fans (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@PE fans: The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune both say the score was 6–4, 3–6, 7–6. In fact several other newspapers show the same first set score of 6–4, so I'm wondering if Barrets has a typo? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I've changed it to 6-4, 3-6, 7-6. Could you add references to the article 1973 US Open – Mixed Doubles? Thank you! PE fans (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Checked it with Bud Collins' encyclopedia and he also has 6-3. Given the weight of the sources I have reverted the score back to 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Would probably be best to add a note that some newspapers have the score as 6–4.--Wolbo (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually can't find a single newspaper at the time that had it 6-3. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Could well be a newswire report (AP, UPI) that gets copied across the newspapers. Of course Barrett and Collins can make a typo, have seen several over the years, but if the ITF, Barrett and Collins all have the same score than we should give that more weight than scores listed in general newspapers.--Wolbo (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

It could but each article was written differently. Also the very highly regarded book, The Encyclopedia of Tennis, 100 years of Great Players and Events, by Max Robertson and Jack Kramer also has it listed as 6–4. I would agree with your weight statement, but it is perplexing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree on the reliability of that source (a knowledgeable editor on a tennisforum, whom you also know, once mentioned he has never been able to discover an error in that book). That again makes it trickier to judge which score is correct. Since we have to choose one score and add a note on the other we might as wel keep it like this and add Robertson to the note. Anyway, PE fans, welcome to the wondrous world of comparing sources that do not agree with each other.--Wolbo (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

US Open website has 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

If Robertson has excellent reputation, then I prefer to choose 6-4. I think the sources written in 1973 are more reliable than the sources written in 2019. So Robertson (1974)>Barrett (1973)=Newspapers (1973)>ITF (2019)=US open websites (2019). PE fans (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You forget that Bud Collins History of Tennis also has 6–3, so Collins/Barrett/ITF are at odds with Robertson and 1973 Newspapers. Wolbo is correct that news services often get the same AP/UPI feed of the score. I wish I could find an Australian source that talks about it or Owen Davidson. I'm fine with the easily linkable 6–3 score as long as it's clear the score is debatable. Someone could also write the US Open and ask about the score. If they came back as 6–4 we could switch the footnote around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I already mentioned above that the US Open website lists the score as 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I missed that post but found the link on my own. It's 6–3 with footnotes to the discrepancies. God I wish you'd archive this talk page... it's really slow to scroll to the bottom to post anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I was recommended by a friend, Gertjan, to reach out and ask you for the March 8, 1982 WTA Rankings? By chance, might you have those or another resource that I can try?

Thank you!

Diana — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.165.98 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Wolbo, the Gertjan mentioned above, that is me; in case you wondered. May I recommend her to you? Thanks. Pommée (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi both, the ranking sources I have are almost all end-of-year rankings. Have some weekly rankings from magazines but not for this date unfortunately. The WTA website does have weekly rankings for players but that only goes back to 1983 so it is not possible to derive it from that angle. Perhaps you can can ask around on the Blast from the Past forum at www.tennisforum.com or contact the forum moderator (Rollo). --Wolbo (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Around that time the WTA was changing ranking systems. Also, while March 8, 1982 was a Monday, that was no big deal back then. Computer rankings often came out on Wednesdays or Fridays and the WTA went ranking by ranking with the International women's ranking system. There was an Avon computer ranking for the top 10 for March 8, 1982, but that's for the Avon Tour. It was:

• 1. Martina Navratilova 1075
• 2. Andrea Jaeger 865
• 3. Barbara Potter 585
• 4. Bettina Bunge 422.5
• 5. Anne Smith 360
• 6. Wendy Turnbull 345
• 7. Sylvia Hanika 305
• 8. Mima Jausovec & Pam Shriver 200
• 10.Chris Evert Lloyd 150

Best I could find. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

So funny. I was in the process of removing that same useless round-robin info from the Hoad article but ran into your edit conflict. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo. The Lew Hoad article currently has Hoad defeating Gonzalez 7-3 on their British Isles tour of '61, but that tour has now been fully documented and the correct tally is 6-4. The full results are published at Tennis Base and in a new book, The Professional Tennis Archive, whose author found some of the missing scores for that tour. Would there be any problem in using that as a Wiki source? It is a self-published book (as was McCauley), but its scores for that tour have been accepted at Tennis Base and the book itself was accepted recently at the Newport Tennis Library. I contributed some research to it as well. In any case, these sources, plus two additional newspapers from '61 which I can cite, agree on the 6-4 tally, so I can cite 4 sources in all on that Hoad page.Krosero (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Krosero the book that you mention, The Professional Tennis Archive, is as you indicate a self-published book. By and large self-published sources are understandably disqualified for use as a source for Wikipedia articles (see WP:SELFPUBLISH). As the policy mentions "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field.". The policy indicates that the only exception is when the author is an established expert on the subject matter. Note that it is NOT sufficient to be an expert on the subject matter, you need to be established as such by reliable, independent publications. In my view McCauley meets this criteria due to his work for World Tennis magazine. Unless or until it can be demonstrated that the author of The Professional Tennis Archive is an established expert on the subject of the history of (professional) tennis the book can not be used as a source. For the same reason personal websites (where the publisher and author are the same) are also not acceptable as a reliable source. This may apply to several tennis websites that contain data / statistics on tennis matches including Tennis Base. For the Lew Hoad article you can of course cite newspapers.--Wolbo (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you have contributed to the book or the Tennis Base website please be aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines and particularly WP:SELFCITE.--Wolbo (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wolbo, how does this information not relate to Mickey Mantles' baseball earnings? I am mystified.64.229.32.48 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

I checked the source (PDF file) which you mentioned and could not find any reference to Mantle, Mays or their salaries. Also your citation did not include a page number.--Wolbo (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have another one.64.229.32.48 (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)TennisFan

Actually it is not OK to add a claim to an article with a reference that does not in any way support the claim. It is problematic editing and it is not the first time it has happened. Editors need to be able to trust that any references added to an article accurately support the claim that is made. Please be more careful in this regard.--Wolbo (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have re-added the salary info on Mantle and Mays as a note and with a reference to an article on the SABR website containing that information.--Wolbo (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I wrote it because there are often confusions with the different months of the US editions (original) and of the UK editions. The latter were published a month later therefore with a different month indicated on the cover and the imprint. Consequently the photo on the cover identifies better and more surely the right monthly magazine. Carlo Colussi (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

tennis circuit
Thank you, tennis player with knowledge of European languages, for quality articles on tennis matches and players such as 1877 Wimbledon Championship[, 1974 World Championship Tennis circuit and Nell Truman, for gnomish project work like tags, page moves and "updated infobox and lede", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1267 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Rod Laver, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to ask you about the source of the year which the ATP applied said name change, if there is any, which could be helpful in cleaning up the ATP Tour 250 Series page. Most of the sources I find so far are either really conflicting information (e.g. the ITF tournament page, of which they didn't use the name "International Series" until 2004), leads to dead links (like the old ATP Tennis website), or just plain not useful. The only other somewhat useful source I found was a wikimedia commons picture of the timeline of ATP tournaments (see here [4]), which is of course, unreferenced.--Ui56k (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ui56k: I noticed this and found a source talking about the upcoming 2000 tennis season.

The Cincinnati Enquirer, 10 Dec 1999 page 33

title - "Revamped tour gives ATP new name, tennis new marketing hope".

It tells of all the name changes of Mercedes Super 9 Series > Tennis Masters Series. ATP Tour World Championship > Tennis Masters Cup. And "Another group of 60 tournaments will be called the International Series." All top players were required to play the 4 majors and the 9 Tennis Masters Series. Players were also required to play 5 International Series events. That commons chart is wrong! I see sources of sports calendars that show "ATP World Series" in Los Angeles from 26 July - 1 Aug, 1999. The source is The Observer (London). I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Your sources inspired me to search for old newspaper article databases, and I found a Statesman (New Delhi) article and a Daily Mail article, both issued in the week of 15 February 1999. The Statesman one mentioned the Gold Flake Open in April 2019, whereas Daily Mail was reporting a Henman match in Rotterdam. Both articles used the World/Championship Series name, so I think we can safely confirm that the year of rebranding was 2000! Thanks for helping to find the sources in the first place! --Ui56k (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Why is the page Chris Evert's Grand Slam history not merged into Chris Evert's main page? This is a question of consistency. Not a single tennis player has a "Grand Slam history" page. Instead, they have year-by-year paragraphs detailing their career in their main page. There is absolutely no reason in my mind why Chris Evert should be different. I would be grateful for an explanation. Thank you. Best regards NicolasJz (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

On 11 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Andrés Gimeno, 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)