This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fyunck(click). 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.

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

2017 archives

Familiar activity of Fatality1 (the clone of Aries009)

Hey, Fyunck. Was just wondering whether you noticed some similarities between the edits made at the Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams articles and talk pages by Fatality1 and the user Aries009, who was blocked in December following similar edits at the same pages. This editor's behaviour is appalling, just as the behaviour of Aries009 was – possible sock? Just thought I'd alert you to it, in case you didn't notice the comment that I made at the Sharapova talk page calling him/her out on it. I thought the editor's preceding comment there was enough, but everything that has happened subsequently to that has proven to be even more evidence. I just didn't want to get involved in the other discussions that the editor was involved in, that's all. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not notice that but I'll take a look. Thanks. Between him, Svrodgers, and Thad caldwell, plus your Aries009 mention, we might have a blend that needs to be looked at by an administrator. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: Boy did you call that one correctly. Good eye. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Cheers – I was worried that it was going to go unnoticed, or that people weren't going to see the correlation when they did investigate. Thank you for having a look, though, and later taking action – I'm surprised that this guy hasn't gone down swinging by sending certain editors another email or two! 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The day isn't over. And if there's one sock there's probably more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: And it looks like the floodgates are open for the puppets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think that it would happen again as quickly as it did – it took him a month last time. Looks like this guy just can't help himself. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: Looks like 3 new ones just popped up. User:Samuraijohn, User:Guardianlight, User:Quistis30. Who knows how many more? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I was just about to reply when the reverting started – looks like you missed out! With Widr's help, all three have been blocked, and I put in requests to ensure that our talk pages were protected. Hopefully this guy will eventually take the hint. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow... I did miss out. Darn sleep got in the way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all

Thanks to everyone who does their best to safeguard our talk pages. I know it's an impossible task since the culprits can just pop up with new identities, but what you do is most appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Federer-Nadal rivalry page

I remind you that Wikipedia 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. Having said that, this entry of yours teems with obvious bias in favour of Federer:

Two factors that the Nadal head-to-head advantage is built on include domination on clay and domination during two seasons when Federer was hobbled by illness and injury. The 13–2 record on clay masks the even record of 10–10 on all other surfaces. Also, Nadal's 8–0 advantage in 2008 and 2013, when Federer was clearly hindered by mononucleosis, and severe back injuries distorts a competitive 15–12 record in all other years.

You are obviously trying to diminish Nadal's domination of their head-to-head, with the implication being that their head-to-head would not be so but for "injuries" on Federer's part. Your bias is pitifully obvious. Luckily for you, there are places where you can make excuses for their one-sided rivalry: try one of the many Federer fan-sites out there. Keep your bias out of the articles. State things as they are, not as you think they ought to be or would have been. 132.185.161.122 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write it, and those items are sourced. Surely it could be written with different wording, but to simply remove the fact that Federer was recovering from the affects of mono (which can take years to fully recover from those affects) or that he was injured in 2013 is wrong. It could be balanced with the times that Nadal was also playing hurt as long as it's sourced. But no matter how many anonymous IPs you use, it should not be removed, just tweaked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep your pro-Federer bias out of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:A0C:5700:74FF:16B0:E2D2:A301 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, a new IP for you... cool. Again I didn't write the original sourced item. I simply replaced the unwarranted removal of sourced material. However, if you notice, I did add sourced info on Nadal's behalf to balance out the other sentences. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

How is the removal unwarranted. The entry violates the NPOV by trying to explictly suggesting Nadal has only been able to dominate Federer in seasons when Federer was hampered by injury. Notably 2008 and 2013. The intended effect of that entry is to suggest to the reader that but for mono in 2008 and back injury in 2013, the H2H might not be as it is. Unless, you have a window into an alternate universe wherein that is the case, it should not be in the article. It violates the NPOV. Besides, the mono myth has been debunked: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/609550-roger-federer-and-the-mono-myth-of-2008. Furthermore, Federer himself said he had fully recovered by the time he faced Nadal in 2008: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/roger-federer-if-the-doctors-had-found-out-they-would-have-told-me-not-to-play-819603.html. Curiously, mono didn't stop him thumping Roddick in the QF of the Australian Open 2008. As for 2013, it wasn't like Nadal wasn't mopping the floor with almost everyone else during that season, with the exception of Djokovic. That's sarcasm, by the way. You can find all the sources you want to back up that biased claim, I will continue to remove it and in in the process, I will probably undo any additional changed you make. comments left by 132.185.161.131 16:32, 9 March 2017‎ and 132.185.160.120 16:25, 9 March 2017‎

Look, that is a section added by @Praline97:. It is sourced. It is a fact that Nadal rolled in two seasons when Federer was recovering/injured. This addition gives the data during those two seasons. Sure, Nadal might have won those anyway, but he might not have. We don't know. All we know is Federer was injured, Nadal dominated during those injuries, and Nadal didn't dominate before or after those injuries. It's sourced and should remain. I had even added that Federer beat Nadal on clay when Nadal was injured. It's been there awhile and you should be bringing it up on the Federer–Nadal rivalry talk page if you want to remove it since your removal of this sourced material was challenged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Sure, Nadal might have won those anyway, but he might not have. We don't know." Why then is it in the article? It is quite clear that your aim is to make the reader question the whether Nadal would have won those matches in which they faced each other during 2008 and 2013? You are therefore trying to add a caveat to their skewed rivalry. Therefore, you are in violation of the NPOV rule. Furthermore, even in your source, Federer says he wasn't affected by mono when he came to face Nadal, or did you miss that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.120 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Also why do you keep reiterating that "it is sourced"? Source =/= neutrality. You can find a source for any biased opinion - especially on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.120 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So you just blanket removed the entire paragraph again instead of discussing at the article talk page with @Praline97:? Sourcing matters a LOT. It's informative and I didn't re-add it last time. Someone else reverted your mischief. Plus, at least I have tried to re-word those facts as opposed to simply removing them, and I started talk on the article's talk page. I and others have tweaked it but you blank it. You are just being disruptive. Put this on the article's talk page, not here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

In reference to this edit, (Reverted to revision 763698525 by Mr Stephen (talk): 0's not needed. (TW)) I'd like to refer you to MOS:DECIMAL, 2nd bullet item. While it's possible to write fractional numbers without a leading zero, in general (even outside Wikipedia) it's a bad idea because the decimal point can be missed due to poor scans or simply poor eyesight. The leading zero and resulting spacing disruption make it more obvious there is a decimal fraction. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 21:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: That's very interesting and something I didn't know. I have to say it looks ridiculous and it's not something is see very often in scientific journals and other encyclopedias. However if that's the consensus view on Wikipedia I won't stand in the way. Thanks for pointing it out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits to the Grand Slam tournament performance timelines for Federer, Nadal, Djokovic?

Although you stated that my additions were "against consensus addition per Tennis Project Guidelines", I see nothing in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines which states that additional columns may not be added to those separate Grand Slam-only performance timelines. Can you please show me where this previous discussion / consensus against adding those 4 extra columns is located?

In particular for those 3 players (and for other players with large numbers of Grand Slam W, F, SF, QF), the additional columns provide very useful info in a compact format. This info is not found anywhere else in the article, or even on the extended stats pages like Roger Federer career statistics, etc. And because those extended stats pages combine the Grand Slam table with Masters and surfaces and all that in a single table, it would not even be possible to add the extra columns there. But for players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic who have separate Grand Slam-only performance timelines on their main article, it is possible to add the columns, and it is a very useful addition.

The additional columns which I added are an improvement to those tables, those articles, and to the encyclopedia. That is our goal here, not to be following some supposed guidelines which do not specifically prohibit this, and even if they did advise against this, then the guidelines should be bent or modified to allow real improvements to be made.--Seattle Skier (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Seattle Skier: Those charts shown in the guidelines are pretty firm. We do not add extra columns, tournaments, stats, etc... We use a short form on the main article and a longer form on the career stats articles. This keeps them fairly uniform with each other and makes it easy for readers to go from chart to chart with no surprises. There is nothing against adding that info in prose to those articles, but not in those charts. Sort of like the infobox is limited and what we add, so are the performance charts. No problem if you want to bring it up at the tennis project talk page to make exceptions (which I think are a problem), or change things but I personally think it's too much and that they are almost too wide already. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your additions are simply tallies of what's already there in plain sight, but there are other considerations for uniformity. Do we use colors at the top as you did? Do we bold the wins as you did? Do we use it for every player (where many would simply have a mess of zeros)? Do we make exceptions for certain players and if so what is the cutoff so we don't have editors adding it to every single player? there's a lot that goes into things that we discuss and it's why we put the acceptable charts in the guidelines. We used to have so many problems with all kinds of additions, colors, tournaments, syntax, etc, but we haven't had much at all since we standardized them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You state "There is nothing against adding that info in prose to those articles, but not in those charts", but unfortunately adding all that info to the prose is impossible -- there are 20 separate numbers in those 4 columns, which only make logical sense in a table, where the columns can be summed too. And although they are "simply tallies of what's already there in plain sight", without the tallies, there's no easy way to quickly see from the table that, e.g., Federer is a 14-time Wimbledon quarterfinalist. Or even to see really interesting things, like the fact that all 5 times Nadal made the Wimbledon QF, he also made it all the way to the finals -- obvious from my tallies, but not at all obvious at a glance from the old table.

Your questions "Do we use colors at the top as you did? Do we bold the wins as you did?" are not valid concerns, since those are not my arbitrary choices at all -- those colors and bolding are copied EXACTLY from the colors and bolding already used in the existing columns of the table (although all column headings ended up bold anyway). And obviously there's no point in doing this for every player, the WHOLE point is that those 4 columns are useful for players with many Slam W, F, SF, QF only. Editors could be free to add that to any player where it made sense, but if necessary the guidelines could suggest an arbitrary cutoff like at least 10 Slam QF or something.

Also, you did not show me any evidence of prior discussion or consensus against adding these 4 columns to that particular table. So that means that these particular columns may have never been discussed before, right? And so there is no specific consensus against them? Anyway, I feel strongly that this is a positive addition to those tables. I felt strongly enough before adding it, that I spent well over 1 hour of my time on it, figuring out how to add those columns in the best possible way, testing several different variations on the Federer page before saving the edit, and then replicating it on the Nadal, Djokovic pages. And now even more time discussing it with you.

Anyway, to avoid problems, I'll bring it up on the tennis project talk page when I have more time later, to write a proper justification and comparison of why the extra 4 columns are worthwhile. Not enough time to do it right now.--Seattle Skier (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Seattle Skier: I guess it depends on what you mean by "quickly" in how fast you can see how many qf's Federer has at Wimbledon. It takes about 5 seconds to count. As for the colors, we use those colors a lot... but in specific locations. You'll note we don't block color the same colors in the infobox. And we don't have any of those colors at the top of the chart like you put. As for discussion... I can't recall in 10 years that those columns have ever been discussed, so surely they could be since maybe no one thought of it before. That's a good point. Maybe everyone will agree that it's a good idea, that's entirely possible. But maybe they won't like it, or maybe they'll say why stop at qfs, why not 4th round? Or no to qfs and instead stop at sfs. Add it to Federer's stats page and it'll be off the page unless we shrink the fonts. I may even bring it up myself but I'm kinda busy the next 24 hours to right it up. It'll be easy to show the editors how it will look just by using the diffs. I may not like it much, but I'm only one voice. My biggest concern with the addition was that it was something that could affect our standard charts in hundreds of articles (thousands without a cutoff). With that kind of affect, even if I loved it, it needed to be discussed and vetted properly. Good Luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The Motels

No other management is named and this particular management name needs to be removed for several reasons legally. If this is Greg - you know why. I do not need my name, and no other name needs to be attached to her history other than Capitol Records - Her history is her music - Her lawyer can respond if you would like. Fmarseille (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fmarseille: This is not Greg or any relation to him. As for other managers, the article tells that they fired Val Garay. Managers are mentioned and this is public knowledge. It is sourced. I don't have the date it was dissolved or that would be in there. You'll have to deal with wikipedia management if you want something removed. Please handle this on my talk page where all can be public at wikipedia. This conversation off my talk page makes me uncomfortable. The fact your wikiname is Fmarseille and the manager Martha has now is marseilleandcompany makes this a big conflict of interest. This is a public encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Quentin Halys

Take a look at Quentin Halys. I am not really sure what the guidelines for Juniors charts are, but should one even exist? I thought we only use charts of pro tournaments, not juniors. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: I think the can of worms was pretty much forced open with Roger Federer junior years. What we don't condone is jr. performance charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I was just making sure. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestbot question

Is sandbox necessary for test edits to SuggestBot? XNosis (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your sandbox is where you would do all your test editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Teymuraz Gabashvili

A user at Teymuraz Gabashvili has been removing content relating to the Georgian aspect of this Russian player's origin. Not sure if this matters, just thought I'd let you know. Also, in records of matches prior to his name change, shouldn't we be referring to him as Teimuraz Gabashvili? Just wondering, since we recorded Wawrinka's name as Stanislas until he shortened it with the ATP. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters if we include his birthland in the lead. It is mentioned in the infobox and should probably be in his biography. As to how to refer his name in past matches, that's tricky and depends on where it's located. In a large table or biography you would want to be consistent. If you went to the actual draw article "usually" we would see how he spelled it at that time. I don't see in the article that he changed his name... why and shouldn't that be in there someplace with sourcing? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The 'formerly known as' bit used to be in the lead, but said user relegated it to a citation, presumably because it has to do with the player's change of allegiance. Apparently Gabashvili changed his name alongside Dolgopolov. See this website. It seems that his article was created with the 'Teimuraz' spelling, but someone has retroactively changed the spelling in the Wikipedian record of draws. Certainly the official draws of that time use the old spelling. Rovingrobert (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

New charts

I didn't want to lose this if my sandbox gets deleted in the future. Current charts

Result	Date	Category	Tournament	Surface	Opponent	Score
Winner	August 10, 2008	International Series	Los Angeles Open, United States	Hard	Andy Roddick	6–1, 7–6^(7–2)
Runner-up	October 5, 2008	International Series Gold	Japan Open, Japan	Hard	Tomáš Berdych	1–6, 4–6
Winner	January 17, 2009	250 Series	Auckland Open, New Zealand	Hard	Sam Querrey	6–4, 6–4
Winner	August 9, 2009	500 Series	Washington Open, United States (2)	Hard	Andy Roddick	3–6, 7–5, 7–6^(8–6)
Runner-up	August 16, 2009	Masters 1000	Canadian Open, Canada	Hard	Andy Murray	7–6^(7–4), 6–7^(3–7), 1–6
Winner	September 14, 2009	Grand Slam	US Open, United States	Hard	Roger Federer	3–6, 7–6^(7–5), 4–6, 7–6^(7–4), 6–2
Runner-up	November 29, 2009	Tour Finals	ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom	Hard (i)	Nikolay Davydenko	3–6, 4–6

proposed chart

Result	W–L	Date	Tournament	Tier	Surface	Opponent	Score
Win	1–0	Aug 2015	Los Angeles Open, United States	Intl Series	Hard	Andy Roddick	6–1, 7–6^(7–2)
Loss	1–1	Oct 2015	Japan Open, Japan	Intl Series G	Hard	Tomáš Berdych	1–6, 4–6
Win	2–1	Jan 2016	Auckland Open, New Zealand	250 Series	Hard	Sam Querrey	6–4, 6–4
Win	3–1	Aug 2016	Washington Open, United States (2)	500 Series	Hard	Andy Roddick	3–6, 7–5, 7–6^(8–6)
Loss	3–2	Aug 2016	Canadian Open, Canada	Masters 1000	Hard	Andy Murray	7–6^(7–4), 6–7^(3–7), 1–6
Win	4–2	Sep 2016	US Open, United States	Grand Slam	Hard	Roger Federer	3–6, 7–6^(7–5), 4–6, 7–6^(7–4), 6–2
Loss	4–3	Nov 2016	ATP World Tour Finals, United Kingdom	Tour Finals	Hard (i)	Nikolay Davydenko	3–6, 4–6

Differences

Winner/Runner-up changed to Win/Loss
Add W/L column with wins/loss tallied by small script
Day removed in date column, and linked to actual singles/doubles sub page
Add "ns" parameter to front and back of date category to automatically widen the column.
Add "dts" to all date coding to make them sort better.
Category column moved to after tournament column and name changed to Tier (I had also considered Level and Class but thought Tier sounded best)
Color signifying the tier is only placed on Tournament and tier columns
W/L and Score are non-sortable
Standardize abbreviated tier names for use in charts. Grand Slam, Masters 1000, 500 Series, 250 Series, Intl Series, Intl Series G, Tour Finals, Premier M.

You can also notice that even with the inclusion of a new W/L column the new chart is actually less wide than the original.

Questions: In our current chart, the tournaments linked to the formal tournament, not the seasonal event (so US Open not 2016 US Open or 2016 US Open – singles). I notice many charts these days have included multiple variances in the tournament links. Roger Federer career statistics article under ATP career finals starts off one way and uses all three styles by the end. That should not happen! It should be one way if possible. I like the original as that allows us not to link every occurrence of the tournament (only the first mention is linked). Some articles link the tournament to the main US Open article while linking the date to the yearly or singles event. We need to spell out clearly in our guidelines which way is best.

Some of the Tier names get pretty long... should we have a standard abbreviation for things like "Premier Mandatory" to perhaps "Premier M"? Or "International Series Gold" to "International SG"? It could help shorten the width of some of the longer charts.

@Fyunck(click): as mentioned earlier this looks like a sensible compromise proposal which addresses most if not all concerns mentioned in the previous discussions. I have been trying different formats at User:Wolbo/sandbox3 but frankly none are demonstrably better than this one. Few comments. Having just the month and year instead of the full date is something I considered as well because a) the full date is a level of detail that is not really needed in an overview table as it can be found in the tournament edition article. Also it does away with an important shortcoming of our current tables which is that it does not explain anywhere to our readers if the full date is the date the tournament began or ended. As I understand the date of the final is normally used on ATP / WTA level but the ITF tournament date relates to the first day of the tournament. The issue of where the tournament name links to can best be discussed at the current conversation on the project talk page. I don't see the need to make the W/L a small font, having the same font size throughout the table is preferable and worth the few pixels it cost in width (the new format will still be no wider than the current one). It is not a major issue though. We probably do have to come up with a standard way of abbreviation some tournament categories. The current ones shown are not too bad but it becomes problematic with categories like 'ATP Championship Series, Single-Week'. --Wolbo (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wolbo: I did the date as month and year for exactly the reason you mentioned. I did notice one thing though. If you have the date sortable it will not sort properly without a day listing. I don't know why. The current talk of linking is only on a tournament chart, not a player chart that has a date that we can link, so it would be a separate topic within the topic. I guess as long as the key shows something like CSS for Championship series singles-week, we can use it in the tier. Just so long as it's not only color. Are you good with the limited color as opposed to the entire row being a color? I really like the smaller font for W-L because I also think it looks better and separates it better from the date. However, in presenting the chart I can put up a second chart with the W-L in standard size also. I had hoped we could put up a single chart as a united front but even two choices is better than seven choices. Maybe everyone will want the standard font and if so I won't be some lone holdout. Also, any extra thoughts on which columns we present to be sortable? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The date should really be be sortable so we have to look into that before we can propose it. The 'Result' column should probably also be sortable to allow readers to group wins and losses together, for the rest of the columns I would go wth the table as shown above. In terms of linking we should indeed have a standard approach, otherwise it will inevitable confuse our readers. My preference is not set in stone but the most logical and intuitive approach is probably to link the tournament name to the tournament article and link the date to the tournament edition (or edition event). The Grand Slam tables should follow the same approach.-Wolbo (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Do people really sort the date from last to first? Agreed with the linking however, the whole date linked or simply the year? In Grand Slam tables we only do the year because it only shows the year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

These tables are by default sorted on date but once it becomes sorted on another field the only way to return to a chronological order (without refreshing the page) is to make the date field sortable. I would probably link the whole date field instead of just the year. It's easier and still consistent with the Grand Slam table (in both cases the content of the date field is linked). -Wolbo (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wolbo: I think I solved the date issue of sorting month and year, and without the coding of only numbers which makes things more difficult. I used the formatting approved on Template:Dts. I didn't realize that it was perfectly fine to use the date abbreviation where space could be an issue (like our charts). It works with linking and with an abbreviated date makes a much shorter highlighted link than the entire month name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I vaguely remembered the dts template but haven't really used it yet. I'm fine with the month abbreviation but would prefer some whitespace between the date and tournament columns, that's why I have always used the width parameter. I'm not aware of a formatting option to include a standard cell padding, but if there is one that might negate the need for a width parameter. -Wolbo (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Thanks for looking and the advice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wolbo: I used the template {{NS}}, created just for the purpose of adding 3 extra nbsp to a word. It could have been put right after the first date in a table to add 3 extra spaces, but I thought people would forget to do it. I did it by adding it to the front and back of the word "date"... essentially making it a 10 letter word. It needed front and back because otherwise "date" would not be centered. The spacing of the date doesn't bother me like it does you, but if that's what it takes to make a unified chart that you prefer I'll back it 100%. The template is pretty cool in that no parameter listed is set to 3 nbsp. Other wise you could use any number such as {{NS|7}} to make it 7 blank spaces. 06:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)

Re:Please be careful with the markup errors

Hi. In response to a suggestion that you made me about the 1968 Olympics page, I invite you to look to current pages that use tennis brackets, such as 2017 Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters – Singles. In the tennis brackets, you'll notice that every markup is left open in purpose, in order to use less characters in the page. Really. It is not neccessary to close that markups because the corresponding number is already shown bold, even if the markup is left "lazy" open, as you noticed.

With that said, Using left open markups in tennis pages is not wrong, but the current way of doing pages like that. Please consider this opinion seriously, as you are free to look other tennis tournament pages, which -you'll notice too- they feature the same open markups. Thank you for reading and understanding.

Pablito064 (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pablito064: It is absolutely necessary to include closing markup. Those other articles were done wrong and it is never ending to try and fix it. Tennis Project has been chastised for allowing it to continue, so that is going to stop. The most recent complaint is right here. We hope to get a bot to fix the old pages but we are letting the most blatant non-closers know not to do it anymore. Please follow standard wikipedia practice and close all markup. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

WTA 125 Series

I have noticed on various pages that there is an inconsistency in which table WTA 125 events are placed. As a tennis fan myself even I am unsure where they should go. Should they be placed as part of WTA Finals or ITF Finals. I have noticed some players such as Magda Linette have their finals in the WTA section whereas Jelena Jankovic and Peng Shuai have new tables created. Misaki Doi has her finals in her ITF section, Timea Babos also had hers removed from the table but never put in a different location and in some cases they are not recorded at all like Polona Hercog. I thought you might know where they should go as you have much experience in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.233.40 (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was ever formalized by Tennis Project. One thing though.... it is being touted as the womens's equivalent of the men's Challenger tour. By that standard it should never be put in with the WTA tour events. Either it's own table or with the ITF table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing tags

Has there been any progress with a possible bot that can help with the closing of the tags? I see you going back and closing some, but everyone knows that will take forever. There has to be a better solution than doing it all manually. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think there has been no progress, so sadly it's slug along trying to fix 50,000 articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well what damage does this actually do? Adamtt9 (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Per the Village pump it breaks a couple of bots and it may damage some new thing they are rolling out the fall. Plus if anyone adds something to a row it would come out as unwanted bold. And not all world-wide browsers will automatically close bad coding. We are simply lucky that Firefox and Chrome do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

They're rolling something out??? Adamtt9 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

They are always rolling changes out, but 95% of them are behind the scenes that we never actually see (unless they have a bug). Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. I was just making sure that there wasn't any serious damage from unclosed tags since there is pretty much no way to solve this problem. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of things that need fixing in multiple articles that don't have a bot to do it. It just gets done over a long period of time. What was upsetting me is that for every one I fixed, 10 more got made incorrectly. That was unacceptable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well some editors are just plain stubborn. Look here. Removed the warning, but lets see if he actually listens to what it said. And User:Pascr12 has an even better reply. Adamtt9 (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: And yet it looks like you had success on at least one of them. It sure isn't easy but progress is slowly being made. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

But I'm hoping we have more cases like the editor who took the advice after further explanations. I'll have to watch the other editor to see if he continues to keep tags open. Problem is my goal isn't to block anyone, but for the very stubborn editors, it seems like the only solution. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I remember doing the same thing 8 years ago...I left off closing tags. I just assumed it was proper here though I didn't know why they weren't closed. Someone told me on a non-tennis article that I was doing it wrong. Fixing it in tennis articles has been low priority since there are so many things that are visually broken. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know the answer to this, but why wasn't this addressed earlier? Like five or more years earlier. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It was brought up 4 years ago but because it didn't do anything bad visually it was blown off as unimportant. There was some concern that some browsers would have trouble or that open tags in wiki source could cause problems if MediaWiki is changed later, or if the wiki source is copy-pasted to a place where MediaWiki doesn't automatically close them. Can you imagine if they changed mediawiki and it suddenly didn't auto-close that bad bold coding? Tennis articles would be a disaster. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So he was blocked 24 hours for removing closed tags, blocked three days recently for removing closed tags, warned multiple times to close tags, and yet he STILL doesn't close tags. Three newly created singles draw articles, all of them with unclosed tags. I don't even know what to do anymore. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Had you not fixed it I was going to remove the entire content and redirect the article. Right now he has no reason to stop since you keep fixing it for him. He's had plenty of blocks, warnings and pleads from us to understand, and there are others who will recreate his content, and do it properly. I'm tired of fixing his garbage as it takes a lot of time and effort. From now on I look at any bad additions by him as disruptive... since it creates a bunch more work for the rest of us. He won't even answer any dialog as to why he goes against html coding.... he just ignores us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:1994 Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles

Hi, you redirected 1994 Japan Open Tennis Championships – Men's Singles claiming that I had failed to heed your warning about markup errors. However if you look at the dates this page was created before you sent your warning. I will ensure that I won't make similar markup errors in the future, but you can't expect me to respond to a warning I had not yet received. Applesauceable (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Applesauceable: I had thought it was after. I fully apologize, my fault. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Cameron Norrie

I would have liked to contest the speedy deletion of the Cammeron Norrie page only it has already been deleted.

As to stating that the article concerned does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject - this is rubbish. I would have thought it is quite clear that a tennis player who is ranked 6th in Britain and is in the top 250 in the world is obviously important and warrants a Wikipedia page and the article states these facts. The article is in the standard format for tennis players and lists all the tennis finals he has competed in, with links, which include all those he has won to gain the points in order to obtain his current ranking. There are links on his page to his pages in ATP and ITF as well as an external news service. - Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ânes-pur-sàng: We use the Wikiproject Tennis standard found at our Guidelines. Per that he isn't close to qualifying yet. We look for: Is a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame... has he competed at Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup... has he competed in the main draw of a Grand Slam, Tour Finals, Masters 1000, 500 series, or 250 series. If those haven't happened then he is usually a lesser quality pro player or one that simply hasn't accomplished much yet. The article in question had already recently been deleted yet was created again. You can always bring it to the tennis project talk page and convince the editors that he is a special case that meets GNG. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Court

You have performed four reverts in 24 hours: [1][2][3][4]. You will have to undo your most recent revert. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be pointless as I will remove the restored edit and, like Fyunck, ask you to contribute to the talkpage discussion and not make such edits while debate is ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The issue is that Fyunck should have waited for you to remove the restoration (or asked you or me to remove it) not done it themselves. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford: One of those I did was a rewrite, with sources left in. And one section has the facts wrong in a bio of a living person. That cannot stay. It is out of context since it was comparing race relations in the United States with Apartheid in South Africa, saying that the US was even worse. That was conveniently left out of the addition. We also have conflicting dates on that source as to whether it was 53 years ago or 47 years ago. And that's not withstanding the fact that it is trivial to the encyclopidia. I will try to be more careful in my approach, however the standard wikipedia approach to things is be bold in your new additions, but if those new additions are challenged you don't re-add, you bring it to talk to work things out. That was also not happening. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Challenger articles

Before we go ahead and delete all of these, I think we should have a discussion on the wikiproject if separate articles for Challengers are necessary. I saw that you linked an AfD but it didn't have that much participation. We should try and get greater consensus first, and then we can move on from there. Adamtt9 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: Except that these were just created. I didn't get rid of old articles... these were brand new. There are some who feel that ALL the minor league challenger articles are non-notable. At least we got it to keep the info in one challenger article. Don't create any new articles this way and we can discuss at Tennis Project, bearing in mind that it might require including many outside the project for better perspective. I was trying to avoid that by simply making them all as one article as I was worried they could all get crushed out of existence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): What is wrong with them as separate articles? I see you claim that the tournaments may be non-notable, but there are plenty of sources out there. And there are draw articles from other sports for events which are probably even less notable than the Challengers. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: We have a barely notable tournament... but I do think it's notable. However, we do not split articles just to split them. We would much rather have a nicely full article rather than three tiny articles. the draws in themselves are not notable... just the event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Just out of curiosity, what makes the ATP World tour draw articles any different? They have the same length as any Challenger draw article. And why has this all of a sudden come up now. There has been three separate articles for each Challenger all the way back to 2009. And most of them were created way back then also. Why has this become a problem now? Adamtt9 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there have been discussions about sports notability these days (and it's not just tennis). However there has been talk in the past about why we need separate draws articles for all events, not just Challenger tournaments. With minor league events being especially scrutinized. Challenger draws usually contain many players that aren't notable (or probably shouldn't be notable on wikipedia). Why we need the draws listed instead of just winners is iffy. Why we would need the draws listed in separate articles when the main seasonal article is really tiny is a head-scratcher for me (and obviously others). Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, but then why are they there? As I said, there are Challenger draws dating back to 2009 and there has never been a problem. What makes you think that it is a problem now? I have been creating them since last year and even got autopatrolled pretty much through them, and the only problem admins ever had with the draws was the lack of sources, which honestly was just me being lazy. I feel like the AfD that just took place was a one-time thing, not really a realization that there are hundreds of Challenger draws out there. Adamtt9 (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct... it was a one time thing. I happen to agree with it as you read. And the reason those two items were deleted pretty much hold for all the Challenger level draws. I did bring it up for discussion on the project page as you suggested so perhaps everyone will agree it's a one time deletion thing to be ignored. I shall leave the item be unless this deletion thing happens again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:LST

You seem to be mixing up Template:Tennis performance timeline with WP:LST. The template hasn't been deployed yet; I have enough honor to not jump the gun. We are simply transcluding parts of the tables in the career stats articles into the main article, so there is no need to duplicate the contents of the tables. Edits the career stats article will automatically be propagated in the main article. I believe by you invoking "no consensus" you actually meant just you yourself, not the whole community, don't agree with it for whatever reason. If I were you, I would start a discussion on respective article's talk page instead of reverting it twice; I already suggested this in my edit summary. I would suggest you read what WP:LST is, which, again, I invoked in my edit summary. And your comment on new editors is exactly the point: if they don't know how to edit it, they shouldn't. Chinissai (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chinissai: Maybe I'm missing something. I used to go to the article (we'll say Federer) and I could edit the information... no problem. Now you tell me that as long as the stats are correct on Federer's career stat article then they will be correct on the Federer main page article. One big problem glared at me immediately. The parameters of the table on the main page of Federer were out of whack. This can be because on the main page, because of prose, photos, etc, we need to make things a different size. The old version was the correct size, the transcluded version was not. The transcluded version adds an extra Grand Slam tournaments row that really isn't needed since nothing else in in the chart, but that is no big deal. But we need a way to make the whole chart look the way it did before. Font size, spacing, width. How do we do that? Is it something that can be added before the new transclusion template? If so, great. As long as it's understood that the main article and career stats articles may need different properties to work well, then I'm onboard. But changing the look on all these articles IS a big deal and very noticeable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your desire to make things different when they should be the same. Both tables contains the same number of columns, so they should have the same width and the same font size. If you are having trouble with the table in the main article, then you must also be having trouble with the table in the stats article. Then, please fix the stats article to what you want, and you will also get what you want in the main article. Chinissai (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your need to have everything as a cookie cutter mold. Different players NEED to have different size charts based on other items in the article. And large charts on a stats page don't always work the same on a main page, just because you cut the size down. It might also need other tweaks. We need that flexibility. I have no idea why that isn't sinking in. You are creating these things, is it that hard to ask for how we can maintain some flexibility? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Flexibility remains. Size can be adjusted like this:

Tournament	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	SR	W–L	Win %
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	Q1	3R	3R	4R	4R	W	SF	W	W	SF	F	W	SF	SF	SF	SF	3R	SF	W	W	4R	SF	A	6 / 21	102–15	87%
French Open	A	1R	4R	QF	1R	1R	3R	SF	F	F	F	W	QF	F	SF	QF	4R	QF	A	A	A	SF	A	4R	1 / 19	73–17	81%
Wimbledon	A	1R	1R	QF	1R	W	W	W	W	W	F	W	QF	QF	W	2R	F	F	SF	W	QF	F	NH^*	QF	8 / 22	105–14	88%
US Open	A	Q2	3R	4R	4R	4R	W	W	W	W	W	F	SF	SF	QF	4R	SF	F	A	QF	4R	QF	A	A	5 / 19	89–14	86%
Win–loss	0–0	0–2	7–4	13–4	6–4	13–3	22–1	24–2	27–1	26–1	24–3	26–2	20–3	20–4	19–3	13–4	19–4	18–4	10–2	18–1	14–2	18–4	5–1	7–1	20 / 81	369–60	86%
Year-end championships
ATP Finals	DNQ				SF	W	W	F	W	W	RR	SF	W	W	F	SF	F	F	DNQ	SF	SF	SF	A	DNQ	6 / 17	59–17	78%
National representation
Olympic Games	NH		4th	NH			2R	NH			QF	NH			S	NH			A	NH				A	0 / 4	13–5	72%
Davis Cup	A	QF	1R	QF	1R	SF	QF	PO	PO	PO	PO	PO	A	PO	1R	A	W	PO	A	A	A	A	A	A	1 / 8	40–8	83%
ATP Tour Masters 1000
Indian Wells Open	A	A	Q1	1R	3R	2R	W	W	W	2R	SF	SF	3R	SF	W	QF	F	F	A	W	F	F	NH^*	A	5 / 18	66–13	84%
Miami Open	A	1R	2R	QF	F	QF	3R	W	W	4R	QF	SF	4R	SF	3R	A	QF	A	A	W	2R	W	NH^*	A	4 / 18	56–14	80%
Monte-Carlo Masters	A	1R	1R	QF	2R	A	A	QF	F	F	F	3R	A	QF	A	A	F	3R	QF	A	A	A	NH^*	A	0 / 13	30–13	70%
Madrid Open¹	A	A	1R	1R	W	3R	W	W	A	W	F	W	F	SF	W	3R	A	2R	A	A	A	QF	NH^*	A	6 / 15	49–9	84%
Italian Open	A	A	1R	3R	1R	F	2R	A	F	3R	QF	SF	2R	3R	SF	F	2R	F	3R	A	A	QF	A	A	0 / 17	34–16	68%
Canadian Open	A	A	1R	A	1R	SF	W	A	W	F	2R	QF	F	3R	A	A	F	A	A	F	A	A	NH^*	A	2 / 12	35–10	78%
Cincinnati Open	A	A	1R	A	1R	2R	1R	W	2R	W	3R	W	W	QF	W	QF	W	W	A	A	F	3R	A	A	7 / 17	47–10	82%
Shanghai Masters²	A	A	2R	2R	QF	SF	A	A	W	F	SF	A	F	A	SF	3R	W	2R	A	W	SF	QF	NH^*		3 / 15	41–12	77%
Paris Masters	A	A	1R	2R	QF	QF	A	A	A	3R	QF	2R	SF	W	A	SF	QF	3R	A	A	SF	A	A	A	1 / 13	23–11	68%
Win–loss	0–0	0–2	2–8	8–7	18–8	21–8	20–3	27–1	34–3	26–7	22–8	24–6	22–7	22–7	23–3	14–6	28–6	16–6	3–2	20–1	14–5	17–4	0–0	0–0	28 / 138	381–108	78%
Career statistics
	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	SR	W–L	Win %
Tournaments³	3	14	28	21	25	23	17	15	17	16	19	15	18	16	17	17	17	17	7	12	13	14	1	5	Career total: 367
Titles	0	0	0	1	3	7	11	11	12	8	4	4	5	4	6	1	5	6	0	7	4	4	0	0	Career total: 103
Finals	0	0	2	3	5	9	11	12	16	12	8	7	9	6	10	3	11	11	1	8	7	6	0	0	Career total: 157
Hard W–L	2–1	7–6	24–16	21–9	30–11	46–11	46–4	50–1	59–2	44–6	34–10	36–10	47–7	46–7	41–7	28–11	56–7	39–6	8–2	42–4	38–8	33–7	5–1	1–1	71 / 220	783–155	83%
Grass W–L	0–0	0–2	2–3	9–3	5–3	12–0	12–0	12–0	12–0	6–0	11–1	7–0	8–2	6–1	15–2	5–1	9–1	11–1	10–3	12–1	12–2	11–1	0–0	5–2	19 / 48	192–29	87%
Clay W–L	0–1	0–5	3–7	9–5	12–4	15–4	16–2	15–2	16–3	16–3	21–4	18–2	10–4	12–4	15–3	12–5	8–4	13–4	3–2	0–0	0–0	9–2	0–0	3–1	11 / 80	226–71	76%
Carpet W–L	0–1	6–4	7–4	10–4	11–4	5–2	0–0	4–1	5–0	2–0	0–0	discontinued													2 / 19	50–20	71%
Outdoor W–L	0–1	1–10	15–20	28–13	34–15	55–13	63–5	66–3	75–5	52–6	54–12	55–8	48–12	48–12	60–8	34–12	56–10	51–9	21–7	44–4	34–7	45–8	5–1	9–4	77 / 281	953–205	82%
Indoor W–L	2–2	12–7	21–10	21–8	24–7	23–4	11–1	15–1	17–0	16–3	12–3	6–4	17–1	16–0	11–4	11–5	17–2	12–2	0–0	10–1	16–3	8–2	0–0	0–0	26 / 86	298–70	81%
Overall W–L⁴	2–3	13–17	36–30	49–21	58–22	78–17	74–6	81–4	92–5	68–9	66–15	61–12	65–13	64–12	71–12	45–17	73–12	63–11	21–7	54–5	50–10	53–10	5–1	9–4	103 / 367	1251–275	82%
Win (%)	40%	43%	55%	70%	73%	82%	93%	95%	95%	88%	81%	84%	83%	84%	86%	73%	86%	85%	75%	92%	83%	84%	83%	69%	82%
Year-end ranking	301	64	29	13	6	2	1	1	1	1	2	1	2	3	2	6	2	3	16	2	3	3	5	16	$ 130,594,339

Note: Federer received fourth-round walkovers at the US Open (2004 and 2012) and the Wimbledon Championships (2007), and a second-round walkover at the Australian Open (2012), these are not counted as wins, also Federer withdrew before the fourth round of the 2021 French Open.

¹ Held as Hamburg Masters (outdoor clay) until 2008, Madrid Masters (outdoor clay) 2009 – present.
² Held as Stuttgart Masters (indoor hard) until 2001, Madrid Masters (indoor hard) from 2002 to 2008, and Shanghai Masters (outdoor hard) 2009 – present.
³ Including appearances in Grand Slam, ATP Tour main draw matches, and Summer Olympics.
⁴ Including matches in Grand Slam, ATP Tour events, Summer Olympics, Davis Cup and Laver Cup.
^* not held due to COVID-19 pandemic.

T v x1 20:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: That's good. We might also need the cell spacing narrowed as with the original small chart. The new small chart has way too much air. Will that parameter also work because the year columns need no extra spacing? However, as I look, the stats chart was filled with width statements that made the chart so wide they had to make the font size 84%. Since we always strive for 100% font size unless someone's career is really long like Federer's, I fixed his career chart to 95% font size. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I have been talking to another editor and he made me realize something. The width statements in the huge career stats charts are there because because some of those stats make the columns very unequal in size. Our Tennis Guidelines use the width statements in those large charts. However our same Tennis Guidelines do not use the width statements in the smaller Grand Slam charts... that leads to too much air and is not needed. So we need to be able to remove or override the width statement from the small charts. Can this be done? Also, I think your font size change is only working on the key, not the chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I think we are getting somewhere. Looks like we have a few things in contention:

Per Praline97, we need fixed column width so that some columns aren't too narrow for a player's bad season. (although I am having a hard time understanding why not having one would be making his worst seasons the biggest)
Per Fyunck(click), we don't need a fixed column width when win-loss isn't part of the table. (although I did not see where that conversation took place; I assume it was off-wiki or I was looking at a wrong user; pointers to that conversation will be helpful)

Well, good news is that we can get both birds with the template (not LST). The template knows what to display, so it can leave off column widths when career numbers aren't displayed. No need for humans to code this manually (except me, who need to tell the template to do that).

Before I go off implementing this, I want to make sure this is what we want. I propose that instead of having fixed column widths, the template specifies the minimum column width so that no season is not smaller than desired. I don't think requiring all columns to be the same size is the way to go; it simply wastes a bunch of space as we see in the career stats article. It might also be possible to shrink the padding around "dense" cells so that we can avoid compensating with column widths. Again, the template will be able to figure this out automatically; no need to do it manually.

One thing to note: unless explained in prose in the guideline, I couldn't possibly know that some hardcoded wiki source code, or lack of one, is to be taken seriously. I am talking about the lack of column widths in the short table. This is why explanations in the guideline are needed to accommodate the coding of the chart. I hope you understand that I am bound to miss these, so please take time to explain them, or at least point them out, when I appear to miss them.

I believe we are heading in the right direction. I would also like to thank Tvx1 for helping to make this work for all of us. Not everything will be solved at once, but with a bunch of examples in template subpages that are at risk of being deleted, we can flush out things we need to fix one at a time. I hope the template will have all the answers in the end. Chinissai (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I never have conversations off-wiki. I think it was through summary explanations. I'm not sure what the minimum width would be set to. The only templates I saw so far were of the style that didn't look like the charts we have today... they had those strange extra columns. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Then I have been talking to another editor is misleading! You simply read an edit summary and didn't talk to anybody! We can figure out the minimum width from the average or median number of letters in the cell, or even from a more sophisticated algorithm that average editors don't need to understand (e.g., players mostly in Challenger Tours don't need columns too wide). Again, please focus on one issue at a time, or at least keep conversations on other issues separate from this. That will help us all. Chinissai (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chinissai: If you have running commentaries in summaries they can act the same way, especially if all I say is thanks on the editors talk page. But don't lecture me on crap like that. And when we are talking about those templates, the width is of little concern as long as that extra column remains. That's a no go for me no matter if the cell width is 0 or 100 pixels. As far as LST is concerned, it can certainly work and save data error if we can make the columns adjustable. So I'm for that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it is best to be specific when we can, especially when involving a third party. I had to go look where your talk might have happened. Glad to hear I was looking at the right place. Even though you don't really care about column widths, other editors do, so I will also need to listen to them when implementing the template. Remember, everybody else has equal voice too, and whether issues are big or small in your view, the time I need to deal with each of them implementation-wise need not be proportional to their importance to you. So, please give me time to deal with them. If you are not interested in continuing the discussion on table widths, I think we are done here. Chinissai (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chinissai: It's not that I don't care, there are just bigger issues. I care that my wife buys me the right shirt size... I don't care what size it is if I'm dead. The columns may need to be wider when in a large table and have no width at all when in a smaller table. The font size may need the same consideration. It was shown that the font size can be overridden but that it doesn't work if you also use LST for the performance key. The key needs to be left out. Maybe if you left it out of the equation the width statement would also work to override? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Anna Wilding's self serving addition to the Anthony Wilding page

@Fyunck(click) I was the one who removed the link to her defunct charity and the unnecessary inclusion of herself in the article. Apologies if this is the wrong place to contact you, I couldn't figure out how to send a private message. Where is the best place to debate the change of mine that you reverted? Should I make a new subheading in the talk-page of the main article? I know it's not your job to answer these kind of questions but I've never had a contested edit and you seem to have an interest in this particular one so maybe you can guide me :) Thanks. McSteez2 (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2017‎ (UTC)

@McSteez2: Actually you did right to bring it here to my attention. We can discuss here or on the article talk page. No private talking. Also, always end your discussion with 4 tildas (~~~~) so your signature and date are appended to your discussion. As for addition it seemed perfectly relevant. I agree that there is no real reason to include her name so I removed it. Plus there was nothing written as to who she was anyway. The Foundation was/is real and registered, though it appears to be (understandably) on hiatus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in books

Hey Fyunck, not sure if you're aware, but you've been credited in at least four published books as a co-contributor to Wikipedia articles! [5] [6] [7] [8] Rovingrobert (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hilarious :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Republishers and User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books. Some publishers make thousands of "books" with Wikipedia articles, and list the contributors from the page history to satisfy our license. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: The first one had me fooled for an original book. Boy am I gullible. Rovingrobert (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Doubles rankings

Just thought I'd open up a can of worms. I've noticed a number of career statistics pages for tennis players where top 10 wins in doubles are included. I've made it my practice to use both the individual and joint doubles rankings to determine who is a top 10 player. However, editors at some articles have begun using only the individual rankings. I know it's a fairly trivial matter, but what are your thoughts? Rovingrobert (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Tennis - finals

In my opinion, there is nothing better with the new charts you are proposing. In order to add a tournament category section in those charts which were not there since you brought them in recently at some players' charts, the sense of date section is being lost as you shrinked it to only a month and year (so for those who don't know what the date is, as wiki says if you want correct information: A calendar date is a reference to a particular day represented within a calendar system). So for me, since you are that persistent in your wish to add category section, then go on and keep ruining Wikipedia, you are free now to discolor all finals as they are coloured to point on which category the final is. And again, I mean, does the chart really has to have two informations about one thing, i.e category with being already coloured in those, and that we lose because of it one more information?

And that w-l section is of course just the minor problem comparing to all the other mentioned things which are certainly the problem of new chart which you want to bring in.

And yes, I know this message is of informal character, but because I brought emotions in writting it, i.e anger because you just think that Wikipedia has to change the way you only want, and to change from something it was for the whole time as well. And also there is no justified reason for doing so except your personal wish to add that category section.

So in my opinion, although as I can see you don't care for anyone's, it can only pass if you manage not to ruin date section. If you manage it, then congratulations, because you then got what you wanted without ruining something all the way. Xperiaray610 (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xperiaray610: They are not proposed charts. They are the consensus charts based on months and months of debate at Tennis project. They were the unanimous choice. The category/tier has been part of the charts for years and years. The date has also been talked about many times. And yes... color CAN NOT be what determines a category. The sight impaired may not be able to discern the color and programs will not read out the color. It must have a column to show the category. The W/L was also a compromise that all agreed to. The old No. column was never ever supposed to be there. It was never in the guidelines at all. A debate last year was about 60/40 against adding a No. column. But there were many upset (self included) at the dueling charts created. Several of us worked out a compromise of creating the W/L column but making it palatable for everyone. Again it was unanimous. There was no opposition at all. We asked for any kind of input because I wanted to make sure it was a team effort, so you saying I don't care about anyone elses opinion is a load of hogwash. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): So do you feel it's ok to call it still 'date' when it's not date? And please qoute me who except Pliskova and now Kerber has a category section at the moment, because you said "The category/tier has been part of the charts for years and years"? As I can see, none of the biggest stars (Serena, Maria etc.) have category section in their charts. Xperiaray610 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xperiaray610: It is a date, just without the day. However that date must be linked to the actual draw so our readers can have more info at their fingertips. As for who else.... check out players such as Roger Federer career statistics and Milos Raonic career statistics. New players are created with the tier... many old players just haven't gotten around to changing as it is low priority and a lot of work. I just happened to have the time and I put the work in the Kerber stat article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Ok, apology to you because it looked for me as this whole thing was just only your work but not the project of many out there, so of course it had to be on your personal wishes in that first case. But now as I look at Kerber's new chart, I ask, if date has to be shrinked, why is problem to add a day so it look like this: 1 Jan 2017? It only takes two or three characters (including space of course) depending on if a number of the day single-digit or two-digit. And again about category section, I really think that it hasn't been there like you first said for years and years. I would say that it was the earliest introduced last year. If it was like you said, every 'new player' would already have it. Instead, there is only few with that. Xperiaray610 (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xperiaray610: In discussion it was multifold. In the other charts above we only have a year... not even a month... so the day seemed overkill. We wanted a month at least so it would sort better. When editors added the day it was all over the map as to which day... the start of the event, the end of the event, the day of the final, which time zone for the day. Events prior to the open era we often don't even have an exact day, but we usually can find the month. I asked everyone if they would prefer the full date or just a month and year, and month/year was the choice. If you can get the others to agree with you it can go back to day/month/year or with your suggestion of abbreviating the month. As for the category column, it has been required and in the guidelines since November 2013... almost 4 years. That was the time period that blind readers told us they had trouble with the old charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

New Charts

The new charts are great, great to see the number column kept and movement of the category column, all and all they look much better. But can I ask why was it decided to limit the background colour to only the tournament and category section. It doesn't look good at all. It would have been much better to keep each row one colour. I know many experienced contributors were involved in the changes but was there any specific reason for that particular change? Keep up the great work you do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.202.57 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It had just come up from time to time, especially at some "featured article grilling" by non-tennis editors. I think some were asking why the date and score were colored in when it wasn't really needed. So when we argued back and forth about the update and compromised on the W/L column, we looked at everything... including limiting the color to the two columns that had to have it. I wasn't sure if it should include the surface, but I felt the date, W/L, and score columns looked better as white. Everyone seemed to like it and we discussed it for months before getting the ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Need an opinion

What do you think of this new article, Marta Paigina? Adamtt9 (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adamtt9: What I think and what our guidelines tell us don't always mesh. :) But in this case they are in agreement. This player has no business having an article. Losing in the first round of qualifying is not notable. I prod'd it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to see if we were on the same page. I saw no WTA appearance but she had a pretty good amount of ITF titles, so I just wanted a second opinion. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adamtt9:But all those titles were at so low a level as to be meaningless. It is possible that winning an endless amount of itsy bitsy events could lead to GNG, but there is no sourcing to tell us that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Record"

I think this is ridiculous. I can't revert this person anymore, but I actually want to know if I'm incorrect in finding this to be too trivial to be listed. — Anakimi_talk 05:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anakimi: LOL...only player to win 2 majors at the age of 35.... pretty darned trivial, but more importantly, not totally true. Bill Tilden won the 29 US Open and 30 Wimbledon at the age of 37 (within a year of each other). The 11 finals at a single Grand Slam event are also not a record... only a record for men. Both Court and Navratilova played in 12 finals at a single major. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

He's added it back again, and posted some rubbish on my talk page to go with it. I have asked him to take it up with you, or ideally on the Fed talk page; just a head's up for what might be coming your way. — Anakimi_lambaste 17:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova performance timeline

Glad you liked my edit there, because it's really bad to see when something in those performance timelines switch to a new row. Turns out that I found good solution to save tournament names but not to make it too wide.

Speaking of all these performances, would you like to make in Tennis Project as a correct look that Premier Mandatory & 5 tournaments be together in timelines instead of being two separated categories? Because, I mean it's really better to follow how someone's form went through the year in right order, because we have clear examples like in 2015 when Muguruza won China Open and reached final at Wuhan Open, but if PM & 5 are separated we can't see automatically how good she was in that period just when we're "flying" over her timeline. There is really a no big difference for players in terms of going for title at those events, except first round byes for top eight seeds at P5. As I know they just split them in two different categories to make players obligatory at least for those PM as they are, because they used to miss randomly those tournaments when it was all Tier I a lot, so it was difficult to make all top players be at same event, always someone was missing. Then there was only one which was obligatory, and that was Miami Open. However what you think about it? Xperiaray610 (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xperiaray610: Yeah, that column really gets abused with city names rather than tournament names as in our guidelines. Once I saw you shortened it but kept the balance intact I gave a thumbs up. I had never given a thought to mixing the premier 5 and mandatory events together, though they are colored the same in the career finals charts. I had figured why not keep them apart but you bring up a good point in that they are basically the same and it would keep the flow of the year intact. Let me think about it but I'm leaning your way at present. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

article for withdrawal not ending win streak

I was hoping to find an old article that stated if Nadal had withdrawn in the middle of an event during his long clay win streak of 10 years ago then it wouldn't have counted as ending the streak. I recall a link to that article on a talkpage here sometime ago. Do you know about that? I'd like to add it as a ref on the records pages, but several google queries have turned up empty. -Testpored (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Tennis Players career finals

Why oh why are you changing career finals from Winners and Runner-up to Win Loss it looks absolutely pathetic in the new format and makes no sense. It looks stupid?. regards 92.251.140.44 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@92.251.140.44: Because that is our consensus guideline for charts. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really help it looks stupid. Why change it what was wrong with the way it was ?. For a start you are using bad grammar it should be 'Won and Lost' not 'Win and Loss' what is the thinking behind it please ?, Regards 178.167.219.81 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks great. In tennis it's usually referred to as wins and losses. She got a win, she received a loss. I don't really want to go into something that took months and months of discussion before consensus was reached. This is what was decided. Here's where I sent the other person, consensus guideline for charts Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your vote on the Rivalry!

I've messaged three others who have made edits to the article over the years and asked them to vote. Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Last ever World rankings by Tennis Magazine (France) for the year 2015

Hello. Can't remember the comments, TM (Tennis Magazine) made then for its last world rankings ever : TM favoured Slam events this is why I remember they ranked Gasquet instead of Berdych as world #8 in 2015 since Richard had reached the semis at Wimby (win over Wawrinka) and the quarters at the USO while Berdych's record in Grand Slam tourneys was less impressive. 2015 World Rankings by TM (Top 9) : 1 Djokovic, 2 Federer, 3 Wawrinka, 4 Murray, 5 Nadal, 6 Nishikori, 7 Ferrer, 8 Gasquet, 9 Berdych. Carlo Colussi (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam related tennis records

Would you care to check the format? It seems OK from this end --Loginnigol 23:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Loginnigol:I didn't look at any added content, but the formatting looks to be corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That's it - thanks!--Loginnigol 01:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Karoly Mazak's book now on Amazon

Hi Fyunk hope you are keeping well? we have not spoken in quite a while decided to take a break from tennis editing I was finding it challenging :) he laughs. I am sure you may know at this point but the above author has now had his book published by Amazon here, I received an email from him this morning noting that I had purchased from him and would I mind giving it a review any way all the best.--Navops47 (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I had made a mental note of it previously... but of course forgot anyway. Thanks for the reminder. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

who is the greatest male grass court player

I noticed your reply on the Federer talk section when I wanted to say he is the GOAT male grass courter, and you said one of the best, do you think Sampras is the best male grass courter he won 7 in 8 years never lost final etc , the reason why I wanted to add Federer as the best was because john McEnroe said he was but maybe it is still subjective, in my view Federer is as he has won 8 times at Wimbledon and been in a record 11 finals then Sampras then borg but that is only view so leave it out of Wikipedia. Amy foster (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Amy foster: It doesn't matter at all what I think at Wikipedia, it only matter what all the verifiable sources say. At best we could use "he is regarded by some as the best grass court player in history." But so is Sampras, so is Laver, so are others. Don Budge was 52–5 on grass in Majors, Sampras 63–7, Federer 91–11. And that's in Majors. In all grass court events Tony Wilding was 246-33, Bill Tildon 454–44, and Federer is 164–24. Federer won 64 matches in a row on grass, but Doherty won 75 in a row. I never throw around Greatest of all-time in anything because the history of tennis is filled with sensational players and sensational records. "One of the greatest" is what I'd use in my book, but I know the press likes to sensationalize things to sell newspapers and they always think the current era is best. I just don't buy into that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you.

	The Tennis Barnstar
	For your leading role in improving tennis coverage on Wikipedia, I'd like to express my gratitude on behalf of the many readers who benefit from your long-term efforts. I hope I'm worthy to award you the barnstar you designed yourself. Gap9551 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Well thank you... I'd forgotten about this tennis project barnstar. I find your own efforts equally gratifying and helpful to the readers, which after all, is why we're here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, about and edit on Maria Sharapova page

Hello. I notice you do a lot of tennis wikipedia page editing, so I hope it's ok to ask you this question? I made and edit on Maria Sharapova's page here https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Maria_Sharapova&diff=805446454&oldid=805424471 that was argued by a regular that edits that page who said the edit was not neutral or constructive. While Maria does say she favors Russian citizenship over US, it is sourced material of her saying this (I provided the source material of her stating this.) Since she is the one stating that (and being backed by a source of her stating this), wouldn't it not be in violation of any neutral rules on wikipedia? Also, in her information box, I'd like for it to read Citizenship = Russia in her far right information box column. You can see and example of this on Jim Carreys information box here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jim_Carrey. When I go to add the code line "|citizenship = Russia" it doesn't register it or show up. I must be doing something wrong. Can you please help when you get some free time? Thank you. Baskineddy (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Baskineddy: At Wikipedia this would be a content dispute. How it is supposed to work is you would make a bold addition to the article with proper sourcing. Then an editor could remove the addition with a reason why left behind in the edit summary. You would not re-add it, but instead open up a discussion on the article talk page and try and get your point of view across to that editor and other editors. They may agree with you, completely disagree or perhaps make changes and placement of the addition. That's how it's supposed to work.

On citizenship in the infobox, that is not a parameter that is included. We have residence and we have the country the player represents. Actual citizenship was not deemed important enough in tennis to include in a tennis related infobox. The country she represents in international sports was what we went with. That would need to be discussed at Wikiproject Tennis. It is stated in the body of the article that she was born in Russia.

For what its worth, here's my advice on the situation. You should not have been left with a "did not appear constructive" message on your talk page. It looked like a good faith edit on your part. The reverting of your addition should have had an edit summary as to why it was reverted, but I would also have reverted it. As for the content itself, I do not think it should be in the lead of the article, and in fact, it is already in the article under her personal life section. Maybe you missed that? It is more neutrally worded there and it is the proper placement. Your wording made it sound like she prefers her Russian citizenship over her US citizenship... well she doesn't have US citizenship. For most players this would be a bit trivial for an encyclopedia. Many players train or live somewhere where they aren't citizens... like Monaco where the taxes are lower. We don't add to their bios that they aren't going to change citizenship from Swedish to French just because they now live there... it's trivial. Sharapova, being an international superstar with tons of article space and bio material, gets treated a bit differently at Wikipedia. Rightfully so. In fact enough so that her citizenship was not considered trivial and has it's own section in the article. But not in the lead. I'd leave this one the way it is and work on something else to improve the encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Longwood bowl/tournament Eastern championships

Hi Fyunck I am shortly going to draft this article I accidentally deleted my Wright & Ditson guides looking at tennis archives it has Longwood listed as the Eastern Championships here is this correct? and has noting to do with this tournament Eastern Grass Court Championships. Longwood was played outdoor on grass courts correct?--Navops47 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Navops47: No way was the Eastern Grass Court Championships the same as Longwood. EGC was played in Rye New York and Longwood was played at the Longwood Cricket Club in Boston and later Chestnut Hill, MA. Longwood was played on outdoor grass courts. You should be able to find many of the ladies results at tennisforum.com under blast from the past. Maybe the confusion is that Longwood also hosted other tennis events? I think Longwood also had a US National Indoor Championships, Eastern National Doubles, Davis Cup and U.S. Pro, Fed Cup. But I Longwood Bowl was it's own entity and it ended in the 1940s. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing Talk:T-Mobile Arena

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Re this edit: Legobot removed it because more than thirty days had elapsed since the RfC was initiated, which was at 21:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC). As things stand, Legobot will revert you when it next runs, most probably at 01:01. 11 November 2017 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Possibly, but sometimes it takes longer than 30 days, and no administrator has closed it yet. I also just added it to the geography group, hoping to get a little more input before it officially closes. We'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Legobot doesn't care if it's been formally closed (admin or otherwise); all it looks at is the time elapsed since the RfC was started. In fact, Legobot rarely removes a {{rfc}} from a closed RfC, for the simple reason that closure normally involves manually removing that template if it was still present. As I expected, Legobot did indeed revert that edit and three others that you made, but at 02:01 and not when I predicted. If you feel that formal closure is warranted, please request it at WP:AN/RFC, but when doing so, consider the "pool ball" paragraphs at the top of the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please also note that the RfC listing pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography are bot-built: if you make your own edits to them, as here, Legobot will simply rebuild the page again, overwriting (and thus reverting) your changes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Two things. 1) While it leans towards making it Las Vegas, the arguments on both sides are reasonable so pool ball 2 would be the fit... which would mean asking for a formal closure. 2) What happens if I start a new rfc under the old section? I would rather more editors look at it to weigh in. We're in no hurry except I guess that an RfC has a set time limit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want an extension of time, the thing to do is to reinstate the {{rfc}} template and also give a new timestamp to the opening statement. I wouldn't remove the existing timestamp, instead I would insert a dated comment; so this

Should the location of T-Mobile Area, and by extrapolation the new NHL hockey team ([[Vegas Golden Knights]]), say "Las Vegas, Nevada" instead of "Paradise, Nevada?" [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 21:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

would become

{{rfc|soc|econ|rfcid=F03CAFB}}
Should the location of T-Mobile Area, and by extrapolation the new NHL hockey team ([[Vegas Golden Knights]]), say "Las Vegas, Nevada" instead of "Paradise, Nevada?" Extended for thirty days by ~~~~, originally started by [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] ([[User talk:Fyunck(click)|talk]]) 21:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Provided that you have given the appropriate parameters to the reinstated {{rfc}} template, not necessarily by reverting the last Legobot edit to Talk:T-Mobile Arena, Legobot will handle all relisting at pages such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your insight into the workings of an RfC. All these years and I had never attempted to extend an RfC. Live and learn. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It works. Notwithstanding further amendments, Legobot will remove that {{rfc}} at or after 11:01, 12 December 2017. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Premature ranking updates

Hello. Thanks for reverting premature ranking updates in tennis articles. It is a thankless job and a never-ending battle. But isn't it a good idea to send a message to those ignorant editors, too? In my experience, it sometimes helps. Not always, of course. :-) Sometimes I have to warn them multiple times. Or they stop doing it after my message, but then, several months later, they start doing it again. Or they keep arguing that tennis rankings are not released by the ATP, but by live-tennis.eu, which is the official and ultimate source for tennis rankings, and nothing (not even admins or blocks) can convince them they are wrong. And most of them are just anonymous IP addresses that make a single edit and then disappear forever. And I'm not saying that my warnings are the best, I'm sure the wording could be improved. But still, I think it helps. For example, when Adammikhail was not warned his edit, he restored it just a couple of hours later.

Anyway, for me, these persistent premature ranking updates, presenting the future as history ("he achieved his career-high ranking the day after tomorrow") are the most frustrating thing in tennis-related articles. Sometimes (like when we expect a new world No. 1), the only option is (semi)protecting the page, with ignorant anonymous IP addresses vastly outnumbering experienced editors who constantly risk being blocked for doing the right thing because of the 3RR. Thankfully, there will be no ranking updates during the off-season. And I've been thinking about this for a long time: is there anything that could mitigate this problem? This may be the time to do something about it. Like making this much more prominent in WP:TENNIS. The "Update world rankings beginning from Mondays, and only when the new weekly ATP and WTA rankings are published (do not pre-calculate them)" sentence is buried quite deep in the article guidelines. It should be much more visible and clear. It could also be included in the infobox template somehow. The infoboxes could even be separated from the articles, to make them more challenging to edit for inexperienced editors. The templates could even warn users with a big "Attention editors!" message when they edit them (see an example). Many people still ignore all warnings, of course. But it's better than nothing. Some wilder suggestions might even include bots that could check every ranking change. Like, is the current/highest ranking date correct? It could only be a Monday. If it's not a Monday, reject the edit (many people insist that the rankings get updated live on Wednesday, Thursday etc.) Even if it's a Monday, it could be a future date. Yes, even the official ATP rankings occasionally get updated on Sunday (or even Saturday?), a couple of hours ahead of time, but generally, the bot could reject dates that are set too much in the future, or it could even check the official ATP rankings somehow to see if the edit is correct. Or the updates could just be made automatically by the bot. But I realize these last few suggestions are a bit too ambitious and probably not viable. Still, I feel something should be done and it could perhaps be discussed somewhere. Suggestions are welcome. We could also ask live-tennis.eu (an anonymous fansite that cannot be used as a source for anything) to place a prominent warning on their page that they have nothing to do with the ATP and their live calculations are not official tennis rankings. Many people don't get it.

Sorry for making it so long and thanks for listening. :-) — J. M. (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to let the editors know of their mistake. Usually with anon IPs I just revert it. With registered users, depending on my time, I just revert it, give a summary as to why, or leave a note on their page. It just depends on my day and how many times I notice them make the same error. I think most of the time the rankings are not updated on wikipedia until Sunday afternoon PST which is close enough for me to ignore it, but anytime before that I revert what I see. We can't simply say "Mondays" because I have seen with my own eyes several instances where the WTA has updated their rankings on Sunday morning. My basis response is to tell people to wait till the WTA and ATP websites have done their updates. You can always bring this up at the Tennis Project talk page, but I doubt most editors will put this high on their list of priorities to respond. I brought it up at Tennis Project a couple years ago asking everyone if they wanted me to keep reverting premature updates, being that it's thankless and no one else really wanted to do it. The answer was a resounding yes for me to take on the burden. Some help, but many have their own field of expertise within tennis and continue to do what they do best. I'm sort of a jack of all trades and dip my toe into everything. Maybe the template could use a tweak to make it more imposing. I'll take a look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry to hear that it is not a priority for the Tennis Project. From my experience, I would probably consider it the No. 1 problem, the most awkward and desperate issue tennis-related articles have been facing the last couple of years. The number of ignorant anonymous IP editors who violate fundamental Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP is often unbearable (which makes it extremely unfair and nearly impossible for honest editors who abide by the rules to do anything).

For the Sunday updates — sure, I've seen them, too. But even if they release them ahead of time, I think the date is always set to Monday. Like, when the next ranking update is scheduled to Monday 20 November and they release it on Sunday 19 November, the date on the page still says 20 November. It's just an early release (as all tournaments for the week are over), but it still officially takes effect on 20 November. So when someone changes the date in the infobox to 19 November (or 16, 17, 18 November or whatever), I think it can be safely rejected (and perhaps even automatically, or at least there could be a warning/confirmation). But I have no idea whether it's technically possible, I'm not familiar with these things.

Anyway, thanks for your willingness to take a look. There will be no ranking updates for the next couple of weeks, so I might perhaps try to suggest or even make some changes in WP:TENNIS, too...—J. M. (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fyunck(click). 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)

various articles about tennis players

Your recent editing history at various articles about tennis players shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 a dead end, you can 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 your 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... there is an editor mass-removing terms for many players. I reverted as many as I could find. This has been mentioned by me and an administrator on the person's talk page. He deleted it. He's welcome to discuss it at Tennis Project where he may change minds about the difference between Jr players, Amateur players, Professional players, etc, but he isn't supposed to remove things without discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see you reverted him also. He actually does a lot of good work other than a few problem areas. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You had reached 3 reverts on at least one article, and I did not want you to get blocked for edit-warring.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:Thank you very much. I still try to live up to the prize. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

French Tennis Magazine Player of the Year Awards

Hi, I think you are a tennis moderator although I could be mistaken. Can you create a page about the French Tennis Magazine Player of Year winners over the years. I think it is an important magazine which I have had subscription to a long time and its choices of Player of Year annually, deserves its own page. I am new on wikipedia and am not sure how to do such a thing, thanks. Yatestwile (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yatestwile: I think you are correct that it could use it's own article, though they stopped with their year-end rankings a year or so ago. I'm no moderator, just a member of Wikipedia Tennis Project trying to help with tennis articles. I can certainly create an article for the rankings but for one thing... I have no source for all the year-end rankings they have given through the years. We must have a source we can link to so readers can confirm they are correct. Without a source for the info we can't include it. Do you have a non-wikipedia source that lists them all in one spot? Also, when you leave a message always end it with a space and 4 tildas (~~~~) so we know who left the message. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

When in Tennis do you say Loss ?.

The correct grammar is that a player Lost a match. You never use the term loss. Why didn't you just leave it at Winner's and Runner-up finishes ?. It was much better 31.200.189.64 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Because tennis project guidelines are very clear. It is consensus that we use win and loss. But we cannot say loss when a player does not lose... it's rare in a final but walkover seemed the best choice. However if runnerup stops the issue you have with walkover, I have no problem with that as a compromise. If you want more than that then you'll have to bring it to tennis project and try to convince everyone that they are wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Runner-up is ok for the walkover. My point is Winner's and Runners-up finishes should not have being replaced by Won Loss, you don't Loss a final. Proper grammar would be Lost in the final instead actually. 178.167.187.194 (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are... are you related to the other anonymous IP? And no, tennis records are about wins and losses. A player has a win or a loss. When newspapers talk about tennis records they talk about how many wins and losses a player has, or their win/loss record. Anyway, that's the way it is so that's what I follow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. When counting finals of any sport. The finals are counted as Winner and Runner-up not win loss as you put it. That just does not look right. You are either the Winner or Runner-up in a final look at the ATP Tour official site. They deal in Titles and Finalist 178.167.200.82 (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is the same person....Not in tennis. The column is for wins and losses, that's what is used in the sport and it's what we at Tennis Project agreed to by consensus. I'm not going to re-argue what we all decided awhile ago. It's what we use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Laver Cup

Why did you remove Laver Cup from Federer's infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151kbar151 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it is not a valid parameter for tennis infoboxes. It was discussed and rejected as a tournament worthy of the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)