User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

2016 archives

Martha Davis jr.

Thank you for finding sources. Sometimes I have to be difficult about sources. Sometimes people post stuff they know is true, but can't prove to anybody else. Sometimes people post speculative information, or they even misremember. Sometimes people do vandalism. Without citations, informational changes are speculative. With citations, they are unquestionable fact (depending on the quality of the source).

I appreciate you hunting down two proper citations. That took some effort, but you made the article better. Mburrell (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sofia Open

Hi, I've noticed that you have removed content from the Sofia Open article with the comment we will need to make a new event as this one is long defunct, but you have not created a new article.

In my opinion, making a new article for a tounament, held in the same city, is not right. Do similar examples exist? Maybe you needed to discuss this, before removing content. Regards, gogo3o 08:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo303: Sure we have different articles in the same city. They are completely different tournaments and at different levels. Also, someone really should have discussed before bringing back to life a defunct tournament. The new event is at ATP Sofia Open. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, that will work. Thanks for answering. gogo3o 16:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo303: One other thing of note. While the old event at "Sofia Open" has been around a long time now, the new event at ATP Sofia Open is likely to get extra interest these days. We want our readers to have an easy time finding the articles they want, so what I did was changed the original article, "Sofia Open", to Sofia Open (tennis) and created a disambiguation page that lists the two events at Sofia Open. That should help our readers find these two tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sophia Open

It was on the new articles page and I just reviewed it-meaning no problems. Wgolf (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, never mind. I'd forgotten I had moved the original to "Sofia Open (tennis)" and had to create a new "Sofia Open" as a disambiguation page. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

2017 ATP Season

YOU said: 2021 will also happen. OK, but please note not all ATP tennis events that will happen in 2017 will happen in 2021 most likely. Some of these ATP events have 2-3-4/etc years contracts, which could expire before 2021 comes. What do you think, please? Thanks! Naki (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello?? Naki (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. That deletion discussion ended way back onJan 23... not much more to say. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. My question was right after! on 27th... Please reply, if you can. I am asking here, because the Deletion discussion is over and I can not ask over there. Naki (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what question you would like answered. Do I think we should be making a 2017 article yet... not really. Do I think we should be making 2018, 2019, 2020, etc ATP articles... absolutely not. But per the closing I have been overruled so I moved on. Since the ATP actually put out a tentative schedule for 2017 and 2018 the other editors felt we should have an article. There is no schedule for the years after (and therefor no sources) so I would say no to making articles for later years. Is that what you wanted? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the reply! This is what I more or less wanted - thanks again. :) Naki (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Grand Slam champions 1941-1944

Dear Fyunck,

I notice you mentioned that 1941-1944 were different to '45 in terms of the French Championships.

What was the difference? German occupation? If so, what was the significance?

Just out of my personal curiosity.

Regards, Rovingrobert (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert:. 1941–1944 are not recognized because they were held under German occupation, or at least that is what sources seem to tell us. The 1945 event was not held under German occupation yet still is not recognized. Maybe because all the French men were still fighting the war they decided not to count it? I don't think we've ever found a valid reason for 1945 not counting, but France was pretty much liberated by September 1944 except for a fort or two on the west coast. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Alexandr Dolgopolov

Was Dolgopolov's name formally changed, or just on the ATP register?

If the ATP confirmed the change, it seems more likely that his name was only changed on the register. Any way of making entirely sure? Rovingrobert (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, we have a source listed there that we can't simply throw away. But I say we look for more to confirm. However if he asked for the change, that would be his most common name and it's what we would use in the article. His birth name of course would have to be mentioned. We'll have to do some digging to be sure what the status is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

As a quick check, his personal website uses Alexander Dolgopolov, as does his personal twitter feed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, his website seems to use Alexandr, while his Twitter feed uses Aleksandr. According to his site, as recently as eight months ago he also had a Facebook account named Oleksandr Dolgopolov, Jr., although his name was supposed to have been changed in 2010. Rovingrobert (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

True, however in a personal website and twitter, your name can be changed. I'm not sure you can change your facebook name once you create it. Plus that facebook page says it is unofficial. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. He must have been promoting a fanpage. Rovingrobert (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It also sounds like, from this article, that his relationship with his father had a lot to do with his name change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Fyunck. I'm contacting you as I am unsure who else to contact. Upon seeing that McGeddon's user page redirected to his talk page, I decided to blank out my user page and redirect it to my talk page. This blanked out what was on my talk page. Is there any way I can restore the data? Rovingrobert (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert: are you still having trouble? It looks like your talk page is there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck: yeah, still having trouble. My talk page is there, but it is completely blank. I had numerous conversations (some useful) on that page. Rovingrobert (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher). I took a look at the editing history and the problem might be that the page was moved instead of a redirect being created. I know that might sound confusing since a page move also creates a redirect but it can also wipe out what was there before the move. Now this is just a guess and I could be wrong as I haven't seen anything quite like this before. If you can't figure it out between the two of you the best bet is to ask at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cheers to both of you. MarnetteD|Talk 01:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. If I go to User talk:Rovingrobert, I see conversations that took place since January 2015. From your original welcome to nicknames, etc... what's missing? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's something more to it than that, then the Village pump is the place to ask, where an administrator might be able to restore your entire user page move. But I do see a talk page and it isn't blank. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That link helps F. If you look at this Talk:Rovingrobert you get the blank page that R is seeing. Also, if you click on this User:Rovingrobert you go to that blank page and you will see the "redirect" link in the upper left corner. I think that it is this edit that is the one causing the problems. Since the move was to "Talk:Rovingrobert" instead of "User talk:Rovingrobert" a whole new page has been created. I am still not quite sure how to untangle all of this but maybe you can figure it out from here. I do think that "Talk:Rovingrobert" may have to be deleted but again that is a guess. I hope this helps. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Now I see what you're talking about. I just went and redirected his User page to his correct user talk page, so I'm guessing it will work now. He can either ask an admin to undo the move or perhaps maybe just tag the new creation (Talk:Rovingrobert) with a Db-userreq (in brakets {{}}) at the top to have it deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for redirecting to the correct page F. Rovingrobert you can place {{Db-author}} on the "Talk:Rovingrobert" page and an admin will come along and delete it in due course. It would be a good idea to put something like "I created this page by mistake" in the edit summary. Cheers again to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 03:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to untangle this web. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved. Problemo solved. Rovingrobert (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Top 10 wins tables

Hey @Fyunck(click):, do you know why the tables detailing each player's tally of wins over top ten players disappearing from Wikipedia? I view it as an important statistic in terms of comparing player achievements. One of the only remaining such tables (on the page of a player who never reached the top ten, that is) - is that of Fabrice Santoro. Rovingrobert (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I personally am not a big fan of them but I don't recall removing any. I have removed wins over top 20 as I look at that as bloat. I quickly looked at a couple players; Federer, Hewitt, Berdych... and they all have a record against top 10 players chart. To be honest the Federer chart is overly long and mostly useless... no one cares how many times he beat the No. 8 player in the world. If we look at Santoro, he peaked at No. 17. No one cares if the No. 17 player beat the No. 9 player. To me that's a useless factoid. They would care if he beat anyone in the top 3 or perhaps a former No. 1 player, but that's about it. Maybe that's why some of those charts have disappeared, but I'm not sure. As I said, I don't think I removed any. Which ones have been removed and was there an edit summary as to why? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert: One other thing to consider. Bernard Tomic used to have one of those charts but it looks like it was removed and placed on his career statistic page. A much better place for it imho. Maybe some aren't being removed but rather simply moved? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Career matches - Match winning - Bill Tilden /As an amateur (1912-30)/

Hi Fyunck, you're wrong! This is "Overall tennis records – men's singles" not one period as an amateur 1912-1930 /907–62... 93.60%/. Bill Tilden play 1912-1951 /1388-307... 81,89%)/ At this link you have complete data for Bill Tilden, [1]. At this link you have complete data for Career matches - Match winning - WINS HIGHEST % (AT LEAST 250 MATCHES), [2]. I reduced the to AT LEAST 600 MATCHES. I think it's much relevant for eternal Journal! Thanks, Mihailo Dzevrije — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihailo Dzevrije (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I will have to look at the reliability of the sources. Obviously we wouldn't use match-play results and we may need more sources than just this one website. The tennis hall of fame uses the numbers given, as do all other sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I see absolutely no sources for the site. And a lot of the matches of Tilden's are from match-play which aren't even from tournaments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck, This is All-time tennis records – men's singles, which means all the matches throughout his career. Your source is a newcomer article. and in the newspaper the blank is emphasized that this is only part of his amateur career and I quote: " As an amateur (1912-30), Tilden won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals and had a 907-62 match record—a phenomenal .936 average. ". These second part of his career from 1930-1951 have not taken into account. Also in this text, it says quote: "In 1931, he entered upon a professional playing career..." What do we do with the other 21 years (1931-1951).Whether the other players that we count only the best years of their careers. I'm suggesting that you go to the site THE TENNIS BASE [3], find Bill Tilden and all of its matches and cross-reference to some other sites. No newspaper article in which the call does not give you the right to change the information that is accurate, if not then at least approximately correct. Thanks Mihailo Dzevrije... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihailo Dzevrije (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I went to the site. It has no sources at all so it's difficult to corroborate it's numbers. The other thing is that the charts you are altering are for tournaments and most of Tilden's matches were not tournaments, so they would not count. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fyunck, again. Do you know how they play, professional matches in the past. If you know it should be clear how the matches are counted. Then why are you counting on Rod Laver in 1605 match played and 1248 match wins and he played such a game as Bill Tilden and not only them, but also many others in Pre - open era (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_tennis_rivalries&oldid=681495437) and (https://www.thetennisbase.com//?enlace=records&id=QHSSWPRCQT).

All these games are the official professional competitions. Please write down what are your sources of information and that is not a news article to which you invite who also denies you. I guess we're all in the interest of truth. Bill Tilden winning and losing per year, there might be a mistake but much smaller than yours:

       YEAR	WON	LOST	%	
	1951	2	1	66,67%	
	1946	22	27	44,90%	
	1945	5	2	71,43%	
	1943	1	1	50,00%	
	1942	0	1	0,00%	
	1941	8	34	19,05%	
	1940	7	5	58,33%	
	1939	23	28	45,10%	
	1938	8	3	72,73%	
	1937	39	17	69,64%	
	1936	46	14	76,67%	
	1935	59	19	75,64%	
	1934	70	41	63,06%	
	1933	38	8	82,61%	
	1932	92	23	80,00%	
	1931	63	16	79,75%	
	1930	120	6	95,24%	
	1929	58	9	86,57%	
	1928	26	5	83,87%	
	1927	100	5	95,24%	
	1926	89	8	91,75%	
	1925	89	1	98,89%	
	1924	67	1	98,53%	
	1923	59	1	98,33%	
	1922	59	5	92,19%	
	1921	31	3	91,18%	
	1920	57	2	96,61%	
	1919	65	4	94,20%	
	1918	42	2	95,45%	
	1917	10	3	76,92%	
	1916	9	4	69,23%	
	1915	10	3	76,92%	
	1914	9	2	81,82%	
	1913	3	2	60,00%	
	1912	2	1	66,67%

If the data agree to 1930, why not along later ...Thanks Mihailo Dzevrije... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihailo Dzevrije (talk • contribs) 23:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember what you are editing... the section is tournaments, not just matches. And your website lists no autotitative sources. Bring it to that talk page, not just my page, so others can discuss the merits. That's all I ask. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Manual of Style question about nbsp

Thanks for your responses to my questions in the WikiProject Tennis talk page. They are helping me gain familiarity with best practices in this area.

I have a question about this edit you made, a few days ago. In the edit summary, you wrote "corrected no. to proper No. and removed overuse of nbsp".

• Re: "no." → "No."
  • I wasn't aware of the suggested usage of the upper-case "N", but have since come across MOS:NUMBERSIGN and can see why this is preferred.
  • Maybe we should we be using the {{Abbr}} template? Though if we did, that would get quite redundant visually. Maybe the first usage in the lead only?
• Re: removal of the nbsp template
  • I added many of these to follow through on the suggestion raised in Wikipedia:Peer_review/Milos_Raonic/archive1
  • The referenced manual of style guideline, MOS:NBSP, seems to be consistent with what I had done. I interpret this to say that any of these variations are desirable:
    • He lost to world No. 1 Roger Federer. → He lost to world No. 1 Roger Federer.
    • He lost to world No.{{nbsp}}1 Roger Federer. → He lost to world No. 1 Roger Federer.
    • He lost to world {{nobr|No. 1}} Roger Federer. → He lost to world No. 1 Roger Federer.

As I change the width of my browser, these all behave as desired (I think).

Could you elaborate a bit on your reasoning to help me understand? Am I misinterpreting the MoS guidelines? Saskoiler (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I can only go by what I was taught here at wikipedia and proper English per universal style guides. In No. 1, No. is always capitalized and is preferred at wikipedia over # sign. If it's written "world No. 1" world is never capitalized.

As for the proper coding, I was taught that first and foremost, lesser is better as far as html bloat. Every tennis article we have is simply written No. 1 with no extra coding to add to page load times. Why on earth would we need to add nbsp? It's no big deal if it wraps imho. We would have to change countless thousands of articles to add that code. It's one thing if it's in an infobox with limited space, but in prose I see no problem with writing No. 1 without any extra coding. I can bring it up at Tennis Project, but until your code addition I had never seen it that way before. Just like those who want to use the letters for "&ndash" instead of just a simple "–" sign. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Understood. For the record, I wasn't debating the use of the capitalized No. at all... just commenting that I wasn't aware of that before. The only issue I was a bit confused on was the nbsp, and your logic is reasonable. Thanks. Saskoiler (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm ZH8000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Basel has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop your childish reaction. ZH8000 (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Basel. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Second warning. ZH8000 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty funny stuff this... hence the reason I asked an administrator to take a looksee. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Djokovic

You are dishonest, you can not tolerate what Djokovic is No. 1. I know it's not easy for you, rooting for Federer who is now 3rd on list. Just, please stop doing this, it is obvious how much you hate Djokovic.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. I'm not sure where this is coming from or why, but please stop the attacking on my talk page and please try and keep things cordial. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Stale Drafts

Some of your userpages have come up in the stale draft category. If not useful anymore you can request deletion yourself:

1. User:Fyunck(click)/Sandbox
2. User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxMarthaDavis
3. User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats
4. User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats1877
5. User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats1895
6. User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTimeline
7. User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTimeline3
8. User:Fyunck(click)/Tennisrefsheet
9. User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/1968fix
10. User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/delpotro
11. User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/sharapova
12. User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/tennis1
13. User:Fyunck(click)/sandbox/tenniscareerchart

Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll double check each one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing non-breaking space

Just want to know why you removed non-breaking spaces in the Svetlana Kuznetsova article. Regards.--Orel787 (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Our standard nomenclature in tennis articles is that it's not needed. Check out almost all the articles from Federer to Djokovic, From Graf to Evert. We don't really use them as it adds extra code and load times. So when I see them I remove them. They are usually only seen in older articles. Plus the Kuznetsova article wasn't even consistent. So In fixing the "world No." issue I simply removed the non-breaking spaces too. Does that answer help? We could discuss it more at the talk page if you like?

Thanks

Mentioning my name here actually sent me a notification, so thanks to you I've been informed of the merge. Very thoughtful of you, so again, thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegowar (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome @Diegowar:. I like the merged template much better, but had you not created the grand slam version to begin with we might never have thought of making a shorter version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

100% agree. I didn't know it was possible to create it like that with a "short" option. Very handy :) ! Diegowar (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Career statistics table cell width

Why have you removed the cell widths? Don't you see that their size become different?--Orel787 (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Which one? I changed some to match other players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean the column widths, that width=35, why have you removed them? The table looks quite ugly now, with different column sizes.--Orel787 (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tomcat7: If you mean Svetlana Kuznetsova career statistics I made it the same as Azarenka's table, but Here is how it's required to be. Also, while the correct term in most instances is runners-up, that is when we are talking about multiple runners, not multiple event tallying. This was talked about pretty recently at wikipedia and I was actually shown to be wrong in thinking it was always runners-up. So I am now correcting them when I make other edits to articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting why does the ATP table has those widths, while the WTA table has not. Also, nowhere it is standing that only this awkward table is correct. Furthermore, no one is using this Davis Cup table, perhaps it was used in the past, but I think some of the points in the guidelines are outdated.--Orel787 (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point with the men's table, so obviously "some" flexibility should be given. The Davis Cup issue needs to be addressed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to self

It's looking like the hammered-out Tennis Project Guidelines don't mean anything. I'm beginning to wonder if I should be trying to make sure colors, scoring notation, consensus charts, yearly player articles, player notability, ranking changes before the ATP makes it official, etc.. conform to our consensus guidelines. It may not really be worth my while to fix these things anymore. I'm usually the bad guy to say to folks that it's not what we agreed to at our Project. But that's always been ok with me as the project was always there in backing me up if it got funky and I could always point to our hard-fought guidelines. I'm not sure that's the case anymore, and that's troubling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, it's just a typical content issue that's in the WP:BRD cycle. In this case it is the result of a difference between established guidelines and established practice. As you mentioned, the two need to be in sync, otherwise there is not much purpose in having project guidelines. Usually that means we change the non-compliant articles to follow the guidelines. That is the logical way of working, certainly if the guidelines have the backing of proper discussion and consensus. However, if a widely established practise leads to a de-facto consensus that differs from the guidelines, it may be the guidelines that need updating. I don't see a problem with that, it's a normal and natural way for guidelines to evolve.--Wolbo (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it does make me worry. After agreeing to our guidelines you and one or two others have created and changed many articles against it. That's tough to handle for me. People follow your lead, and with your not following it from the beginning it makes it tough on me now. If I put it to an RfC you know how it goes at tennis Rfc's. We get about 6 people if we're lucky. And it could very well go that it's split 50/50 on whether we change our guidelines to add the column... in which case we would not add the column to articles. Or it could go 4-3 in favor of changing our guidelines to add the column where again it may not change. I was seriously considering this. But right now I was just quite disappointed in you. Looking at your edits I'm not sure you ever tried to comply on this issue. But I'm biased as I think the column makes the chart worse... and numbering runner-ups really sets my teeth on edge. So I sit back for a day and think about it. Sorry but that's how I feel right this minute. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Went back through the project talk archives to find when this particular topic of the No. column was discussed (and agreed upon) and all I can find was this discussion in late 2013 (at the very end of a lengthy and productive discussion that started on the topic of flags and MOS guidelines). If I'm not missing something, if that is all there is, it cannot possibly be the basis of any claim that the absence of the No. column is a 'hammered-out' consensus guideline. It is not even a wafer-thin consensus and certainly doesn't trump the de-facto consensus based on a well-established and long-held practice of adding the No. column to the career finals tables. You state that people 'follow my lead' but I was never 'in the lead' on this. Take the Roger Federer career statistics article, it has had the No. column in it from the very beginning 7 years (!) ago. I have no idea why you have chosen to start tilting at this particular windmill now (what happened to "...there are lots of things about wikipedia that are silly and I don't agree with. I learn live with it and save my energy for bigger things."?) but if you really want to pursue it then the only proper way is to start a discussion or a RfC on it at the project talk page and try to get as many editors involved as possible.--Wolbo (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What I found was that the number column was to be talked about later since it was split 2-2. The charts that are up there now have been tough hammered-out charts. It was tough to get them where they are as everyone has had different things they wanted. That's what I meant. The number column was to be talked about as a later issue, but I guess it never came up. I've tried to make some charts as our model but some of them get reverted. So I guess an RfC is what we'll do. I'll work on the wording today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's probably the best way forward. Certainly better than silly edit-warring.--Wolbo (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been done... there is an rfc at the Tennis Project talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We probably need to contact a group of editors and invite them to participate in the discussion (obviously with a neutrally worded message).--Wolbo (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't know whom without it being biased one way or the other. Maybe people from outside of tennis editing? Of course it'll be up here for a couple weeks so editors may pop their heads in anyway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wolbo:You might be right about contacting more folks since we have only one editor joining so far. I'll trust your judgement as to whom and with a neutral message. I was thinking that a couple tennis fan administrators might like to weigh in (User:PrimeHunter and User:The Rambling Man). I have no idea what they'd say but they were instrumental in helping build the guidelines to begin with and they've always had good insight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

List of male tennis players

Hello @Fyunck(click):. Some time back, I split the list of male tennis players into two articles. I moved the original article to list of male singles tennis players, and created the new article list of male doubles tennis players. I have found these decisions to be disastrous, as the list of doubles players now attracts less attention and has been hopelessly neglected. Also, it would be nice to just have a handy list of significant players in singles and doubles, as was the case before. I have filed list of male doubles tennis players for deletion. Would you be able to help me revert the singles list? Rovingrobert (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2016‎ (UTC)

@Rovingrobert: What did you have in mind. They are HUGE articles. You shouldn't have tried to delete the doubles, it should be that you want to merge the doubles into the singles and just use a redirect back to the singles. That is what happens whenever we split articles. Even a simple thing like splitting a main article like Andre Agassi into Andre Agassi & Andre Agassi career statistics. The main page gets 10x the editing. It's why we should only split if absolutely necessary. I was thinking those two articles are so huge that it might be better to keep them split up. But I see what you mean by it's being neglected. I'm guessing it would be best to go back to the original chart from 2015 and then add any new players? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I've removed the deletion notice from the doubles page. I'm not sure how to redirect this into the singles. However, there is consensus that the two need to be merged from those who have hitherto weighed in on the debate. As for going back to the original chart on the singles page, yes, I would agree. Rovingrobert (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert: So, In essence, the article should be moved back to its original title, the original chart should be brought back, the original chart should be updated with any new players added from both the singles and doubles articles, and the doubles article should be cleared and redirected to the singles article. I'm guessing that's the full plan?

@Fyunck(click): Yes, that is correct. Rovingrobert (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I've added a 'merge to' and 'merge from' tag to the top of each respective article. I assume others can work out the full plan by putting two and two together. I've also added both articles to the 'requested moves' page.

Feel free to sign your name in support of this merger at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_male_singles_tennis_players#Merger_.282016.29 Rovingrobert (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. I just wanted to gauge your interest in the above link. I figured that you would want to express your opinion at the discussion page. If you're not interested, just let me know and I won't pester you any further. Rovingrobert (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Usage of tennis guidelines on ATP players with limited experience

Hello! I understand the guidelines for veteran players, but I don't understand how this makes sense for younger players with limited tour experience. The guideline page is mostly useful for veteran ATP players. For junior players and teenagers (such as Zverev), very little of the page is insightful, as these players have yet to achieve many significant results or accumulate experience at ATP Masters and Grand Slam events, etc. that would usually go into the general ATP Performance Timeline (e.g. For these players, junior timelines would still be relevant). What is your take on improving the guideline page to better account for younger players? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

For the most part, junior players are not notable and don't have articles. We decided that performance charts are a special thing to be used only in the most prestigious events... Majors, Masters 1000, Year End Championships and Olympics. That keep them from getting bogged down. What was wanted was that instead of charts, a players jr history is better if we can fill it up with prose and links to their titles. They are such insignificant events (unless won) that the charts aren't needed. We don't allow 500 series or 250 series charts either. You'll note that Zerev does have a Junior Grand Slam finals chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America

Hi Fyunck, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 04:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for merging everything in to this article, I would love to of helped in someway however when it comes to writing anything I'm completely and utterly useless so thank you again for creating it - Very much appreciated :), Thanks for all your contributions here too :) Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Diacritics in article titles

Hi Fyunck, what would you say the criteria are as to whether or not the diacritics in a player's name are included in the article title? Would it be how the player has registered it on the ATP (if this differs to their birth name, i.e. Novak Djokovic instead of Đoković), and then whether or not English is the main language of their playing country? I have noticed that some players' articles are titled with respect to the diacritics in their names (e.g. Tomáš Berdych) and some are not (Milos Raonic, for example). Rovingrobert (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

How it should be and how it is are two different things at Wikipedia. For the vast majority of players who aren't world famous the rule around here is the English version of their name does not exist and is not allowed to even be mentioned in an article. Sourcing makes no difference. We use the spelling in their native land. But there are a couple exceptions. Djokovic is plastered over every news cast, every billboard, plus his own websites. That seems to be a key. If you can show through the player's own facebook, twitter, and webpage that they prefer their name spelled in English letters, you may get consensus. That is what has happened with several players including Novak Djokovic. Raonic is a case that he lives in Canada since the age of three and plays for Canada. That's about as English as it gets and they don't use the foreign letters in Canada. That's why his name has stayed put. Tomáš Berdych was born in Czech Republic and plays for Czech Republic, even if he no longer lives there. So we use what the Czech Republic uses. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sure, that explains it perfectly. I must admit it is kind of weird that foreign names of those living in English countries are spelt one way but pronounced another. It's hard to wrap my head around the fact that Milos Raonic would be pronounced "Miloss Raonik" if it were an English name, but is actually pronounced "Milosh Raonich" since it is foreign, yet is spelt the same. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've confused myself even further now. How is it that Bernard Tomic's page says that his name should be pronounced "Tomik" rather than "Tomich", while Raonic's page can say "Raonich"? Is it something to do with how the players themselves pronounce their name? Rovingrobert (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert:You have to remember that the English language is extremely versatile. A person can spell their name Kwa and pronounce it Zippy. That's why we don't really use or need diacritical marks. If a player, take Ana Ivanovic for example, can be shown that in English she spells her last name Ivanovic rather than with a foreign diacritic, then that's what we use. But it has to be shown she herself doesn't use the diacritic in English. So we look to personal websites, twitter, facebook, signatures etc... places where they could use diacritics or other foreign letters if they wanted to. Djokovic and Ivanovic do not. As for Raonic and Tomic it probably does have to do with how they pronounce their names. I have a polish family name of Kołodziej running through my aunts uncles and cousins. My cousins pronounce it differently than my aunt who pronounces it differently than other parts of the family. So it wouldn't surprise at all if Raonic and Tomic pronounce their endings differently. They live on different continents. My family lives within 50 miles of each other and aren't the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Upon further research, yes, the pronunciation 'Tomik' was prescribed by Bernard himself. Once source close to Tomic actually says that he wanted to sound "less ethnic, more Australian". My family probably has a similar story to yours. I have the Polish surname Cuch, which seems to derive from the word for chain, łańcuch. Rovingrobert (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert:Just what are you trying to contact the ATP and ITF about? We probably have already gotten answers you want. I'd join in on your talk page but I do not interact with that editor in any way at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Really, I just wanted to know their official stance(s) on the issue of diacritics. It's not something that appears to be written anywhere in their online collection(s) of policies. It doesn't really matter, but there is no consensus for the issue on Wikipedia - which is why some articles have diacritics and some don't, even for players who live in Europe, which means that not all biographies follow the same style. Hmm, I guess you guys have a conflict of interest. I do my best to remain neutral with regard to online character flaws because it would really get too tiring otherwise. Rovingrobert (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert:Conflicts of interest, flaws and disagreements I deal with all the time... it's way way way more than that. But aside from that, I can tell you exactly what the ITF and ATP policy is. To play professional tennis you MUST register your name with the ITF and receive your IPIN number. As a player, you get to choose how to spell your your name and this will be shown on the ATP and ITF website. However, your name must be anglicized. They forbid any å â ñ é ö or any other letter which is not part of the English alphabet. Part of the ITF bylaws say the language must be "forever in English." If you don't complete the IPIN ID you can't compete in ITF Junior Circuit, ITF Pro Circuit, or ITF NEC Wheelchair Tennis Tour tournaments. It's sort of like California and Canada... you can't get any official documents if you use diacritics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that sucks. If players could choose whether or not to use diacritics, we might get some more insight on their preference... After all, how their name is spelt on social media can be inconclusive since their account may be externally managed. I don't know, it's fairly complicated. Rovingrobert (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It is, which is why the debates have been so contentious. But I tend to leave the diacritic stuff alone these days unless I'm asked about it, or someone tries to do something really wonky against consensus, so I think I'll pass on anything more. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for rehashing this, but I've noticed that the WTA does use diacritics. Does this have anything to do with web formatting - i.e. unadorned ASCII? Rovingrobert (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

For the most part the WTA does not use diacritics. They have used it in some place names and in players with spanish accents like "Carla Suárez Navarro." But for the most part they don't. Someone like WTA's Donna Vekic is spelled with foreign letters only here on wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

True, but for that matter, her own website uses foreign letters in her name. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

But almost all English sources do not, and we are an English wikipedia that is supposed to be based on English sources or at least the most used sourcing. You'll also note the copyright on her own website is under Donna Vekic, and her personal facebook, twitter and instagram accounts do not use diacritics. Another crazy one to check is Jelena Jankovic. She even signs her own name without diacritics. I'm not sure what you are asking. We could go round and round on this issue and I won't change my mind that alternate English spellings should be at least mentioned in every bio. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. But I find English transliterations quite intuitive; not so much the other way around. Rovingrobert (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

About this discussion

Hi, Fyunck(click), before I proceed to ping some other wikiProjects about the suggested change, I'd like to ask a few more questions to make sure everything's clear. [I'm constructing some examples and questions right now, please hold, I'll post here again shortly, thanks] — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, the bottom line is to get it right... we're in no hurry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We won't act until we have a consensus, don't worry. :) You are proposing a change to {{FlagIOCmedalist}}, which currently generates 2 lines (the second line which contains the country and code). For consistency, this will involve simultaneous changes to FlagIOC2medalist, FlagPASOmedalist, FlagCGFmedalist, FlagSEAGFmedalist, and possibly Flagmedalist. I'm sure you will have no objections to that, right? Changing only FlagIOC2medalist will more than likely cause some uproar.

May you look at each example here and let me know how you feel about changing the output on each of these pages? Just for context (not 100% sure why there are different templates for different locations, but we'll abide):

• FlagIOCmedalist is specifically Olympics-related, containing international codes. (used in 1634 locations)
  • Ex. Cycling at the 2004 Summer Olympics
  • or Diving at the 2004 Summer Olympics
• FlagIOC2medalist seems international, but looks to be used on Asian games articles. (used in 848 locations)
  • Ex. Chess at the 2006 Asian Games
• FlagPASOmedalist (Pan-American): Taekwondo at the 2011 Pan American Games
• FlagCGFmedalist (Commonwealth): Squash at the 2006 Commonwealth Games
• FlagSEAGFmedalist (Southeast Asia): Karate at the 2007 Southeast Asian Games
• Flagmedalist is used on a few taekwondo / wrestling articles. Its format looks slightly different.
  • Ex. 2013 World Taekwondo Championships – Men's flyweight

For articles in WikiProject Olympics, I believe you should only be using FlagIOCmedalist. Is your request limited to these templates, which are used for medalists, or does it also include the team templates, such as {{FlagIOCteam}} and {{Flag PASO team}}? Some good team examples:

• FlagIOCteam example: Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics
• Flag PASO team example: 1983 Pan American Games (the medal count section)

Thanks, let me know. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 02:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: My personal opinion is I would also include the team templates as well, since they have the same exact problem. But all these templates makes it a massive change that maybe we need more people giving the ok for instead of just 5 of us. I only occasionally edit the Olympic articles unless they are tennis related. Perhaps you need to set up an official RfC so that we give the best Olympic editors time to see what's happening? Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that changing "team" templates makes no sense, because removing the 3-letter code will make it equivalent to the "generic" templates, i.e. {{FlagIOCteam}} would equal {{FlagIOC}}. The usage of {{FlagIOC}} vs {{FlagIOCteam}} should be a different discussion. I think the reason "team" templates exist is because FlagIOC represents the country, whereas FlagIOCteam (with the code) stands for the athletes behind this unity that is represented with a certain flag, which can also be expressed in Olympic-terms, i.e. with a code. This was something "by design" a long time ago, and I can't see a deprecation of "team" templates going anywhere. Hope that explanation is acceptable. Wikipedia is generally not welcome to change, especially if it ain't really broke, you know what I mean? I'm continuing the discussion back here. :) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 06:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, changes are live. I wanted to point out Tennis at the 2012 Summer Olympics. The wildcard section probably doesn't need to invoke the 2-line medalist template. If Sportsfan 1234 changed that section, it might not have been necessary because they're not medalists...? Something to discuss in an MOS probably. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 22:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang:I just noticed that. Thanks for all your help and insight. It sure went smoother than I would have expected thanks to everyone working together. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WTA Morocco

It's good idea to move it but then you might as well do it right (it's never called Morocco Open but Grand Prix (Grand Prix du Maroc).Loginnigol (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Loginnigol:Actually I made sure I sourced websites that showed it is called the Morocco Open. Do you think it is more often called the "Morocco Grand Prix" in English? My cursory search said that is the men's event, and I didn't want to confuse things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Too similar user name

If User:Fyunch*(click) is not a new alternate account for you then you might want to consider having them change their name, as I think it is too close to yours to be acceptable. By the way, I've always thought that your username was particularly well-chosen for those of us who recognize it. Meters (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Meters:It's not me. What's funny is the term is actually spelled Fyunch as opposed to my Fyunck... but I miss-typed it when I signed up years ago. I didn't notice for awhile and by then it had already stuck. Is there really some guideline about similar names on wikipedia? I mean I see names like Fred K or Fred J or Fred Kay. I'm afraid to ask what this new editor did as I see he is blocked. @Bishonen:Did he edit in an area I usually edit in? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

He never had a chance to edit. He was reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention by someone else at the same time I left you your message, and was immediately blocked. It may have been a good faith account but often names which are very similar to existing names of well-known editors are created so as to either hide their edits behind what seems to be a known editor, or to embarrass the editor with bad edits that seem to be done by the well-known editor. The policy on this is WP:IMPERSONATOR. Meters (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He didn't edit at all; I found it through a report at WP:UAA by RickinBaltimore, and simply blocked it as an impostor. I suppose he had editing plans, but I dunno. (BTW I'm not one of the people who recognize your name.) Bishonen | talk 21:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC).

You rang? I saw the name pop up under recent changes, and I recognized the rather distinct name that Fyunck has, so I reported as misleading. There's been a recent slate of vandals that have been creating very similar usernames to existing editors, then vandalizing, so it was there better safe than sorry approach, not to mention there is WP:IMPERSONATOR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for keeping your eyes opened. With the IP vandalism I often revert I guess I should simply look at this as a badge of honor that one of them dislikes me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bishonen Mediator caste of three-armed Motie aliens in Larry Niven's The Mote in God's Eye and The Gripping Hand. Meters (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't fond of the Gripping Hand, but then sequels that are written much later tend to be disappointing (such as Tehanu). Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[B makes a tremendous effort to disguise her SF ignorance.] Well, I've read… uuh… Ringworld. Well, most of it. My son made me. I actually remember the Puppeteers! Bishonen | talk 21:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC).

SF is not for everyone User:Bishonen. Ringworld is typical SF but not what I consider the best. User:Meters may disagree but when I get asked what a person should read to see if they like classic SF, I usually mention 4 books. The Mote in Gods Eye, The Deathworld Trilogy (that has the character I most love to hate), Inherit the Stars, Lest Darkness Fall. They can be a bit dated but the story-telling is grand, and other than Mote they aren't very long. If you don't like those then SF just might not be your cup of tea. All the best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change the spelling of your username see WP:RENAME. You contributions and user pages will be moved to the new name but existing talk page signatures will remain as is. Meters (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I know I can change it, but I'm known this way in the tennis circles and I'm fine with it now. I'm just a Motie with a twist of lemon. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving sources

Dear sir, is there any mandate that sources used as references for articles be archived? I have noticed a number of broken links in tennis articles of late. Rovingrobert (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mandate? I don't think any mandate. If I notice a dead source I try to find another that will work. If I can't then I look to internet archives to link to an old archived copy. You might find what you need at Wikipedia:Link rot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm ZH8000. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:ZH8000 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not threat me! ZH8000 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was found to be uncivil, I was just trying to help. But I won't mention it again on your talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Accidental Reversion

Hey there, looks like I accidentally reverted you yesterday over at cryptozoology. Sorry about that! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries. The world of CZ's is a strange one to be sure. I look at it differently than some. Mythology, astrology, cryptozoology, heck even religion. None based on scientific fact or analysis. But they all exist and should be covered, as long as it's plainly marked that they aren't scientific in any way whatsoever. We don't only cover the scientific method here at wikipedia. We cover politics also... nothing is crazier than that. ;-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Tennistz engages with disruptive editing on French Open 2016

I have reverted 2016 French Open without properly undiscussed over the WTA rankings with seeds as of May 16th 2016. There, I made a report on the warned user in Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tennistz reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: ). If you want to join the discussion, give a comment. There, the user makes totally disrupting as the seeds are truly official. ApprenticeFan ^work 14:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Note to self, the link above has been archived. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@ApprenticeFan:I was following his antics yesterday. One thing makes me hesitate... no sourcing for the seeding. I did a look at the official French Open site and saw no seed listings. Nor at the WTA site. An administrator has no way to tell who is correct without iron-clad sources. I thought the French Open based it on the rankings from the Monday prior to the tournament start after the removal of injured players? Those rankings haven't been officially released yet. That happens on May 16 some time. Can you produce an official seed source so I could compare? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Uploading a photo to an infobox

Dear F, I wanted to upload an image to a player's infobox, but I'm not sure how to do it (or how image copyright really works). Rovingrobert (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert:To be honest it is not exceptionally easy. If you took the pic yourself, with your own camera, it's easiest to upload. You must give away the rights to the photo forever... someone could use it commercially in a calendar. If it's a photo you found it has to be specially marked as public domain or creative commons. Many pics are found that way on flickr.com and uploaded to wikimedia.com where everyone can use it. Or there are already many pics deposited at wikimedia that you can search through. The details are long but you can find out a lot at the wikimedia faq page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Conduct of another user

Hi, I noticed that you recently interacted with ZH8000. So did I, and I found their contributions and method of interaction with others questionable at best. I'm considering whether to initiate a discussion with them about this, and if need be, a community discussion. Would you be interested in participating in these discussions? Regards,  Sandstein  17:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

He has a certain inflexibility and gruff style that could really be worked on in this "wikipedia "team" environment. I'll help in any way I can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Pre-updating tennis stats

OK thanks, but we Asian time is Monday now,the website will update soon I think.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Chinyen Lu: Possibly... but usually they don't update in the middle of a tournament. They will likely wait to update till June 6. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I see, I foget this is a Grand Slam tournament.Thanks.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bob Hewitt

He was born on Dubbo. Have your pick of source. Also

• ATP.
• http://www.thenewage.co.za/ex-tennis-star-bob-hewitt-loses-s-africa-rape-appeal/
• http://citizen.co.za/afp_feed_article/ex-tennis-star-bob-hewitt-jailed-for-rape-in-s-africa/

Oalexander (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oalexander: Interesting. The ATP used to say Sydney and the ITF still says Sydney. Some of the sources you said to check do not say he was born in Dubbo, they say he grew up in Dubbo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The ATP has probably updated their information for good reason. He was born in Dubbo. he was based in Sydney before he moved on. Amongst others, when the ABC, Australia's national broadcaster, says he was born there, he is. The material from RSA is apparently based on information disseminated in context of the court case. I would appreciate if we could close this case now. Or do you want to drive this ad ridiculum??? Tx. Oalexander (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oalexander: I would put Dubbo, but because there are multiple other sources that say otherwise, I would certainly add a source for Dubbo... otherwise other editors who search the ITF and multiple other news sources will wind up changing it back to Sydney. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

His father father was baker in Dubbo. In the late fifties they sold up to go to Sydney. This about is it. Can you please at least on odd occasions respect other people too???. The Wikipedia process these days is well beyond. Tx. Oalexander (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Oalexander: I respect your arguments which is why I said we should use Dubbo as long as it is properly sourced so others won't change it back to Sydney. Linking to two of your sources should do the trick. What I don't respect is your snotty attitude here on my talk page from someone with 19 listed edits under their belt. If you don't know how to source it properly I can do it for you, but you need to take that chip of your shoulder pronto. I haven't interacted with you before and you certainly don't make me want to interact with you in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Ozinho garbage

Münafikun all verses Ozinho (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who you are or your purpose for writing religious Quran garbage on my talk page, but keep it in English and keep it to wikipedia purposes.... and knock off any more vandalism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

The term doesn't "fit well". It's a term from a pseudoscience on par with flat earth theory. It isn't used in academia and per WP:UNDUE we don't promote pseudoscience. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of science or not science, folklore or not folklore. That term, or cryptozoology, is a dictionary fact and is used to describe the creature. Of course it's fantasy... probably a big eel someone saw one day... but that term for the study of and search for animals and especially legendary animals (as Sasquatch), is factually used and should remain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's total bullshit. Cryptozoology is a fringe pseudoscience primarily existing on the internet. Folklorists study folklore, no matter its manifestation. We don't hand geology articles over to flat earth theorists and it's the same for anything else. Stick to the reliable sources and academics in the field, please. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, to each his own I guess. Whether it's the mythology of Apollo and Hercules, or cryptids such as Bigfoot or the Yeti or Nessie, the terms exist. We also don't hand over geology articles to geologists... everyone is free to edit as long as a source can be found. To be honest I found academics in their field to often be the most obtuse and nasty editors on wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're pushing terminology from pseudoscience, such as cryptid, you can expect a negative response. We don't use terminology from a pseudoscience unless we're specifically talking about that pseudoscience. Mythology is another topic handled by folklorists (and philologists). We do need a section in the article on how cryptozoologists have employed the topic but it needs to be relegated to its own section. Otherwise we stick to the reliable sources—academics. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We, obviously does not include some. You have two editors (one an administrator) that disagree with you on this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, if you wanted to a giant image of a penis on the article, that wouldn't make it right. We have policies against pseudoscience taking over an article for a reason: WP:UNDUE. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah wait, I remember you now—you're that goofball ranting against climate change on the cryptozoology talk page. No wonder you're pushing so hard for the word "cryptid" on the article space, lol. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What? Look if you want to discuss things, my talk page is always open. If you want to rant and complain about your penis size then take it elsewhere. I don't have time for ridiculousness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Anna-Lena Friedsam

Yet, you still employ the colour scheme? For the ITF results, it's ridiculous just using "ITF" – don't you agree? I really don't want to throw stones in your path, but you should at least add the prize money amounts of the tournaments. It might not be missed with the men because you can mention whether it's an ITF Futures or a Challenger event – but with the women, they're already separated into different categories/tables. And as I've thought before when I read the discussion, the sequential numbers may not work so well for the ATP results, but just because they don't there, it doesn't mean they're no good for the female players. I find them extremely useful for counting up the total numbers (as do the anonymous users who are doing most of the results work on the player bios). So what are we going to do? Jared Preston (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jared Preston:You know, if the header says all the following events are ITF events... I think I'm going to agree with you. It would be unneeded. However there are ITF events that have different levels. Color can NOT be the only way to show something. The men often have charts that include futures and challengers so they must be delineated. If they are WTA events then they must have categories and colors per our guidelines. Colorblind readers cannot see colors properly. I remove the numbers from all new players I find since that column is against our guidelines, runner up counting being especially silly. Anonymous users also use the term "outcome" rather than "result"... another guideline error. I fix that too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

note - I just fixed the simple ITF category and gave it a dollar number so it isn't just color. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

We also have the WTA 125K series that we've talked about before. They are tournaments organised by the WTA, but in the stats boxes of the players at wtatennis.com, they are lumped in with the number of ITF wins – meaning they should be kept separate. One idea I've had before is to just make one whole table, but my other idea was about listing finals altogether. I get the feeling that you don't like seeing runner-up results at all. I can understand this, but I don't feel so strong about it. Do you think they should be removed completely? Now, together with User:Keroks, we both edit heavily on articles related to the ITF Women's Circuit and in the coming years we will have things to deal with like new prize money categories (which were discussed earlier this year, I think) – but the reason why I'm asking a lot of questions is because I do a lot of results work on bios too, and don't want to nark you or any other colleague, but I do need some dialogue over these issues (and I think there are more which I may have to come back later with as well). Jared Preston (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jared Preston:I do like a separate ITF and WTA charts. I like a separate Majors chart. The 125k is a bit a tricky as you mentioned. It is an ITF event but it is also called a women's challenger event by many sources. If we lump mens challengers and futures together I see no reason why the women's 125k and ITF events should be lumped together also. We have to Tennis Project guideline on that particular subject. We do have a guideline that the No. column is not included. However we had recent discussion about adding it at Tennis Project that went nowhere. More did not want it, but it was pretty much a wash. For me, I don't like it as it's really trivial to know what Nadals 27th win was. I absolutely hate numbering runner-ups! I suggested some compromises such as putting a small number in the win column for every 20 wins (none for losses) to help out with counting. That also went nowhere. So the guidelines stayed where they are. But for wikipedia access guidelines we can't use only color to delineate something. We have to use symbols to go along with the color or, as was decided years ago, to use a separate column to help out the sight-challenged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I had a fiddle around with the ITF finals section at Anna-Lena Friedsam. Would you accept that? Or at least that it doesn't go against any guideline? I think I could live with that. Jared Preston (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Image?

Excuse me.What a hell lousy image you change back.：）--Chinyen Lu (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Which image?

This is better image [4]? What are you want?--Soundwaweserb (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Soundwaweserb: That would be fine. I wish he was looking the other way though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Some questions on Thiago Monteiro's page

First of all, I would like to thank you for the warm welcome! Much appreciated!
I noticed that you removed the Junior Grand Slam tables from Thiago Monteiro's page. Well, I couldn't find the table guideline you cited, so can show me what was wrong with it? Also, any other recommendations about my editions on Thiago Monteiro's page?

Thanks again! OneTennisEditor (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@OneTennisEditor: If you go to our guideline page, right above the WTA performance chart, you will see 4 bullets. Bullet 1 says we do not add jr charts, either incorporated or separate. Those performance charts are only for Majors and top tier events. As for the article, I'm not sure which additions are yours but it looks fine. Someone (or you) will eventually go through and remove all the scoring in prose since that's also in the guidelines. We usually just say they won in two sets or they lost in straight sets. Then we add the appropriate source. No need for the score unless it set some sort of amazing record. Welcome again to the tennis madhouse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"We do not use sponsored names"

This seems to disagree with WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME. Where is the consensus dictating this? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: The consensus would be at Tennis Project Guidelines. The problem is that sponsored names change every couple years while the underlying name continues eternally. When making charts of player victories over a 10 year period, new readers wouldn't know that a player actually won the same event instead of 5 different events. All they'd see is: she won the Citi Open, the Legg Mason Tennis Classic, the Sovran Bank Classic, the Newsweek Tennis Classic, and the Washington Star International. When in truth they won the Washington Open 3x. Some events are even worse. And it is very natural and common to call it the Washington Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Fyunck(click) Vinkje83 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi Fyunck hope you well? I need you advice, you may or may not be aware that I have started drafting pre-open era tour seasons in my sandboxes found here User:Navops47/sandbox I would like some constructive feed back as to which layout I should follow 1877 to 1881 I have done a sort table mainly because I am not the fastest on the block and as these are mostly defunct tournies now do we need to have the in depth coverage up to QF stage like the 1882 sandbox version that I was building-upon however the latter option is very time consuming for me but stays in line with the tour season layout's from 1970. I came across a full tennis season article on Italian wikipedia here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornei_di_tennis_maschili_nel_1877 however they have chosen to reference http://tennisarchives.com/ in compiling their articles is this okay? I have been adding sources such as books and newspapers etc but how much do I need to put in for each season? Apart from what I have mentioned can I use and reference other tennis data repositories e.g. tennisabstract. tennisdatabase tennisdb and so on. Also you will notice I have done a draft full tennis season based on the Italian one also in my sandbox they have tournaments that ran each season that were independent outside the main organizers is this true? I would appreciate if you have time to have a look and get back to me when your ready with any feedback before I go on any further many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, always tricky with old tournaments and seasons. The best sources are always newspapers and Ditson/Spalding guides... some of which are online. Not finding those, fallback is websites like tennisarchives.com, thetennisbase.com, and www.tennisforum.com. tennis forum is moderated by Rollo and uses info from the Ditson/Spaulding guides. It's women only but there is also menstennisforums.com. I'll look at what you have later today or tomorrow as I have a full plate this evening. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that appreciated.--Navops47 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit gone wrong

Hi Fyunck, I think something must have gone wrong with this edit, since many updates from the past 2 months or so (e.g., Djokovic went from 732 to 713 match wins) seem to have been accidentally lost. Maybe you can look into it to see if part of your edit needs to be restored. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right. If I recall, all I wanted to do was correct that one chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did you people made such tough rules for tennis while showing leniency towards other sports?

In other sports playing for clubs makes them notable. In tennis even taking part in Junior grand slam events and winning matches don't make them notable. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rainbow Archer: Actually most people think our rules for tennis notability are too lenient. The main tour for the gals is the WTA. Anyone who simply plays a WTA match is notable, singles or doubles. Simply play a match and you're in. These are really the only events that get tv coverage. Then you have the minor leagues... the ITF events $35,000 to $125,000. "Win" one of these minor league events and you're in. Winning a few matches of minor league tennis doesn't do it. The women also have Federation Cup.... play a match and you're in...again either singles or doubles. You don't need to win. The minor-minor league of the ITF, $10,000 and $25,000 events, are not notable even if you win. There are just bazillions of these events with no coverage. Olympics.... if you're on a team, once again it's automatic notability.

Then we turn to the children playing tennis.... the junior league. Even the best of these rarely do anything in the pros. By consensus we felt that if a junior wins one of the jr grand slam events they should be notable. We also felt that if they are a top 3 jr, they should also be notable. These are children who rank below the WTA, below the minor league ITF, and below the minor-minor league $25,000 ITF. Now of course, rarely, a jr gets so much major press as to meet wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (GNG). For that you have to convince others that you have a truly special case. It happens from time to time, especially from countries that really have no great tennis players, and their country's press writes reams and reams of articles. I hope that helps in understanding what we tried to do at the Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many articles about cricketers who have played only in Ranji trophy and county cricket. They have notability according to Wikiproject Cricket. If you google some of those names of players created by Lugnuts, you will get very few results compared to the tennis star articles created by me, who have played at international junior level. Those local cricketers never played at international level. And other than ESPN there is no third party independent source. --Rainbow Archer (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rainbow Archer: I know nothing about cricket and notability, so you'd have to ask their project as to why players with zero press coverage (other than ESPN scores) would be notable. However I see under 19 youth cricket players are not notable. Their guidelines state that a player 1) must be in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level 2) has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, or 3) has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above since 2007 as a player or umpire. American baseball minor league players are not notable per their project guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

That is the thing. If they have played highest domestic level, but zero international match still they have notability. And their page has only one source of ESPN. Now if you nominate them for AFD, then the page will be kept as it meets Cricket notability standards. But the tennis players who have played in Grand Slam junior level and also have sufficient press coverage are not notable according to the standards of WP:NTENNIS. Now, you can see why I don't like this. According to WP:GNG my pages are more notable than those domestic cricketers, but according to different standards of Cricket and tennis, their pages will be kept as notable, while my pages will be deleted. Rainbow Archer (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rainbow Archer: Not quite. You are talking children's level tennis, not highest domestic level. These children aren't getting paid. This is less than college level sports. It really is low-level. But if they win one of those big 4 children's level championships we include them because they might get a tiny bit of world press. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tatsuma Ito

Hey Fyunck, I appreciate you calling me out on my page move of Tatsuma Itō. I 100% believe that we should be accountable here on Wikipedia, rather than having the power to pull conjecture out of thin air. The issue with Ito is that Asian sources will usually only publish names written in their alphabet(s). As a modest Japanese student myself, what is happening here is that his surname is literally spelt either Itou or Itoo. One of the pitch accents that the Japanese use is ō, which reflects an elongated 'o' sound. Ō replaces 'oo' or 'ou'. I don't mind spelling his name Itō or Itou, but I feel like Ito loses a bit of the meaning. Rovingrobert (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rovingrobert: The thing is, it doesn't matter what we think here at wikipedia. Sourcing not truth is our motto, and we stand by it. If we can show that he prefers to spell it Itō, that's one thing. But all the sources I see spell it Ito. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And then I see publishers like the Japan Times also spell it Ito. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That being the case, perhaps the title of the article Yūichi Sugita needs to be rethought too. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked on the talk page if someone can find how he spells it in English. I have at least seen some twitter and facebook posts from others that spell it Yūichi, but those same posts spell Tatsuma's name Ito, and his facebook page looks like it's Ito also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If it's any help, this Olympics source gives his name as Yūichi. Rovingrobert (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Except I'm not sure what that source is other than an aussie google search, and that source also makes mistakes on other players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Olympic medalists in tennis

Because they're now in the child category Category:Olympic gold medalists for the United States in tennis. It's redundant having them in two places, I think. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Any time. By the by, there will be similar categories for silver and bronze medalists eventually. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Kvitova career statistics

Hi Fyunck, isnt it a custom for Olympic bronze medallists to have that bronze medal match under the finals section? Azarenka, Zvonareva, Molik. Why not we just stick to what has been set? Thank you. Silaslej (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No it's not custom in a Finals section. In an Olympic section it's perfect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Then maybe you should edit Azarenka's, Zvonareva's, Molik's and Seles' as well? Silaslej (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Zvonareva's, Molik's and Seles. Azarenka's was done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, maybe you can do the same what you did with Azarenka and Kvitova for the previous bronze medallists men and women? Or not things will look messy then. Thanks. Silaslej (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on the misfits as we speak. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Fyunck, just wanna highlight that every bronze medallist since reintroduction of tennis in 1988 has their bronze match under finals page. So I think it best we just stick to that :) Silaslej (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Errors happen, just like almost all of them are under the incorrect heading of "major finals" when they aren't majors. And most of them are the wrong color. All we can do is fix them when we see them. I'll try to get to them all tonight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay no worries then. But its gonna be redundant to have two Olympic sections espexailly for those who won gold/silver and bronze, if you get what I mean. The men's medallists as well Silaslej (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but I've also had to correct editors from putting 4th round and 3rd round olympic losses in the finals sections. And remember, we already have grand slam finals listed in the finals section, and then more grand slam finals listed in the career finals sections. Same with year-end championships. So redundancy is very common with stats. But if it's a finals section, then it should only be finals listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Silaslej (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Kayla Day

I worked so hard on this article. Now everybody told me that she is not notable. Now after the AFD, someone else created the article Kayla Day. You people are responsible for this. The way you people were commenting, as if she will be notable after one year.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Day

All my energy spend on this was lost User:Rainbow Archer/Kayla Day. I created the article first not sportsfan. If he would have created this after six months, then it would have been okay for me. But, few weeks after AFD is not.

I am very much pissed off, with this AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Day.

Also pinging others who voted delete @Johnpacklambert: and others who were involved in this discussion @Robert McClenon:, @Mkdw:.

My article was moved from mainspace to userspace after AFD. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man:. One of those things. She was not notable but was put in user space in case she became notable. She did by getting into the main draw of the US Open. You can complain to an administrator but sometimes this happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Complain against whom? I can't complain against Sportsfan. You edit Tennis articles for a long time. I didn't knew much about these Tennis guidelines. Because of that AFD comments, I was sure that she won't meet notability for few months. This is cheating and wastage of my time. I spent so much to find sources when the article was taken to AFD. I didn't want to create the article so soon after AFd as then these Administrators will warn me of disruptive editing. Under what policy, sportsfan's article will be deleted? Marvellous Spider-Man 05:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: I have no idea as I've not run into this before. Does your article have more info than the one out there now? If so, can't you simply add to it? This isn't a contest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The AFD was closed on 10th August, and sportsfan created it on 16th August. The article was not harming the encyclopaedia as she was covered in non-tennis news sites. I also linked her professional career page. In new page patrol, I see many non-notable article which are not nominated for deletion. Why can't you people search those pages instead of doing AFDs for aticles sourced from third party independent reliable sources? And instead of sportsfan, if I would have created it on 16th August, then you and your friends would have tagged it as speedy deletion under G4. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: You know I've been pretty patient with you and your rant. Here's the basics... she was not notable when you created the article. You could have looked at our guidelines but you didn't. It was deleted because she was a nobody. Had you created it again on August 11 it would have been speedy deleted. Had you created it on August 16 with a proper source that said she was just given a space at the US Open, all would have been fine. I don't have a clue what "you and your friends" means. Tennis Project members get updates on all newly created tennis articles, which we evaluate accordingly. I check them every couple of days. Now, if you have something constructive to add to the article, by all means do so. But if all you want to do is complain, please take it to some administrator because i don't know what else to tell you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: I also suggest you read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mkdw^talk 15:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Monica Puig

Hi Fyunck(click), I've declined your CSD nomination for Monica Puig for now. Since the page has had a diacritic for 6 years, and the interwiki links do as well, I think it's worth a discussion. Consider starting a {{requested move}} discussion (i.e. {{subst:Requested move|Monica Puig|reason=Specify reason, like sources, webistes}} on the article's talk. Hope that's all right, thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: No problem at all. If you'd done it and someone reverted it, I'd have started a discussion anyways. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Indianapolis Tennis Championships

added links pointing to James Blake, Paul Goldstein and Todd Perry

2016 Andy Murray tennis season

added a link pointing to Kevin Anderson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nima Roshan

Can you check whether meets WP:NTENNIS ? --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not that I can see. He won some minor league futures in doubles, but won no Challenger events. Per the ATP site, he was in no main draws in singles or doubles. Per Tennis project he is not notable at all. It had already been proposed for deletion so I just nominated the article for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sebastian Korda

You proposed a page on Sebastian Korda for deletion. Korda won under-18 US championships at the age of 16, which is quite notable, but I have also found this notability guideline. Wikipedia is moving in the direction when information is not judged on its correctness but according to some arbitrary notability. I see this both sad and stupid but will not object against deletion. Koristka (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Koristka: Most editors have felt that we are way too lenient in our notability of tennis players. You are the opposite but we devised our criteria at WP:NTENNIS and WikiProject Tennis to take many variables into account. For the children players (juniors) if they achieve a top 3 rating or win one of the 4 Grand Slam jr events, they are automatically notable. That's it as far as tennis project is concerned. Now certainly a very few others may meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria, and we have no problem with that either. Remember, most pro players aren't notable. For the ATP tour all players are notable... every single one in a main draw. In the minor league Challenger pro tour a player must win a title to become notable. In the minor-minor league Pro ITF a player is not notable even if they win a title. These are all professional. College players are not notable. Finally we get to the children, the juniors. They are not notable either but we agreed by consensus to include them if they are top 3 or win a Grand Slam jr event. That seems more than fair to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. I will keep him in my sandbox and reinstate him when he wins something or starts playing ATP tour. Thanks. Koristka (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Koristka: That's actually a pretty good idea. There is a reasonable chance he'll win on the Challenger tour or get a main draw slot at any ATP tour event (Main draw not qualifiers). And also remember it covers doubles as well. Doubles and Singles have the same criteria for notability. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jurabek Karimov restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#In_ictu_oculi

I listed you as involved party, so I invite you to discussion about In ictu oculi at ArbCom. --George Ho (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Bed time and I'm out of town till Sunday. Not sure I would want to get involved as no matter what he does, and how many times he does it, and how many times I complain to administrators, nothing ever changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This request for arbitration has been declined by the Committee (and withdrawn by the filer). For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Question on Columbus Day

Wondered about one of yours here. Would appreciate a little detail. Too major an edit/removal for me to work through all of it right now at least. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Good response -- and mine to it -- at Talk:Columbus Day#Major edit/removal without explanation. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Vietnam F7 Futures

I see you tagged 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis), 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) – Doubles and 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) – Singles and the PROD got removed in all threes cases. For now I have declined the speedy at 2016 Vietnam F7 Futures (tennis) as it would seem to make a good disambiguation to the other two. I think your best bet would be to send all three to one AfD. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Bloodofox prose removal at List of Cryptids

Did you even bother to check the talk page before you told me to go to the talk page and mass-revert all the *sourced* additions and removal of pseudoscientific blather? [5]. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Absolutely. There was no discussion... only your post. And I added a section describing what went on with the merge. I can certainly add direct quotes into the article from sources on the word "Cryptid" being used in encyclopedias, newspapers, and dictionaries. But the section will then be much longer if I do it that way. It seems a shorter more general sentence about it is better. But if that's what you want I can accommodate the longer quoted section. Some of your sentence structure is better in the opening paragraph but it was intertwined with mass removal and sourced info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In other words you ignored the talk page and decided it was time to edit war. As for cryptid, find a reliable secondary source claiming that cryptid has entered common usage and we can add it. In the mean time, this is classic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and it needs to go. I refuse to edit war with you but I'm also not shutting up about it any time soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Not ignored... I saw no consensus to change things that drastically, and certainly no reason at all to remove the sourced sentence. It was at that point that you chose to edit-war. As for the syntheses that bothers you, as I said, I will instead put it in verbatim so as not to confuse you. It may be three times as long but there will be no doubt as to the exact meaning. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it's impossible for me to edit war. I revert once per 24 hours, goofball. As for "confuse you"—lol, are you trying to bait me? Get a hobby. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Patently Ridiculous Edit

This edit is just ridiculous. You're seriously demanding that this redirect goes to a list rather than the page that contains its etymology and history? Well, I guess obstruction is the goal, after all, right? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You're just not getting this. Cryptid was merged into "List of cryptids" for a reason. To make that the defacto place to go for most everything cryptid related. If anything the term could be expanded there and shortened at "cryptozoology." And the "List of cryptids" should probably be changed to simply "Cryptids." This is what we are supposed to be working towards, not the elimination of the list article. It would actually be best if the list article had expanded prose if possible. We don't want this stuff scattered all over wikipedia. For the most part these two articles should be able to handle everything except for the most famous cryptids, which already have their own articles. It's certainly not science but it's not much different than tv shows, greek gods, drummers, and ping pong players. Let's work together to make these articles better, not eliminate them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If you really want to work together, you're going to need to drop the pro-pseudoscience standpoint and stick with reliable, secondary sources. There's good reason this stuff was banished from academia and it wasn't because there was some conspiracy of people in robes who decided it one day.

Cryptozoology now contains far more regarding the term and concept than the list or the old cryptid article ever did. With the exception of the dubious, apologetic classification system proposed by a cryptozoologist over at list of cryptids, almost none of the merge remains. And that's for good reason: most of it was terribly referenced nonsense. Since then cryptozoology was rewritten entirely from scratch. Now, if you wanted to just redirect the list to cryptozoology and focus on further expanding that article, I could get behind that and we could work together. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's beginning to seem like we're reaching consensus that the list just isn't doing anyone any good and our efforts would be better spent at expanding the cryptozoology article. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well you're going to have to stop your crusade to eliminate the topic from wikipedia, by chopping and redirecting things you know will be controversial. It's viable even if it's not science. I'm pro article not pro-pseudoscience. I hate synchronized swimming but I'm not going to banish a topic just because I don't like it. We are not reaching consensus... I think there is easily enough for the two articles. There were three articles and I listened to the arguments before agreeing that two would be better. One would not be. Plus, while the term cryptids may have been invented by cryptozoology, it has gone well beyond that now and deserves it's own article and list. We just have to try and figure out the best balance for the list. Two whole articles out of millions isn't something to get upset about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Without a reliable secondary source, you're going to need to drop this stuff about cryptid being in use beyond cryptozoology. That's your primary problem right there. Find one and we can talk—otherwise that's going absolutely nowhere.

Second, the comparison between synchronized swimming and cryptozoology is nonsense. Seriously, if you want to work together, drop the bullshit and have an academic secondary source in hand when you edit. Otherwise, you'll continue to waste your time while I continue to improve the site's articles with reliable, secondary sources by experts in their respective fields.

Third, nobody is banishing anything. Pseudoscience has a place on the site. It is, however, contained by a variety of topics so it doesn't consume the site's articles (WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:UNDUE). This isn't Flat Earth-opedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Then it's going nowhere. It's used in dictionaries, ENCYCLOPEDIAS, NEWSPAPERS, etc... If you don't like those then I can't help you. When synchronized swimming aricles are created we don't use academic sources. That's ridiculous. We don't with crypto stuff either. I'm not wasting my time if my time is spent making sure information is not expurgated by editors with an agenda. And remember "The question of whether source material is secondary or primary should not become a focal point for edit warring." And "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources may all be appropriately used." It really depends on each topic, and if a better secondary source is found that should be used in place of primary and tertiary sources. Proper classification of sources can be complex so knock it off, stay on topic, and try to help rather than excise. I don't see this conversation here going anywhere with your attitude and intransigence. I felt two articles would be better than the three we had, but I strongly feel that two articles are entirely appropriate here and i doubt that will change. [User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the anti-academic sentiment rears its head again. Yeah, when it comes to pseudoscience, we use secondary, academic sources to discuss it. We stick to etic voice, not emic. This is basic Wikipedia stuff. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the snotty attitude is back in full force. We almost always means "you" in the context of the term cryptid. I'll have to remember to tell the editors of Gilligan's Island and The Simpsons articles what sources they can and can't use. That'll go over well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess if you could compare the television show article sources to articles on pseudoscience, maybe. Sounds like you need a refresher on applicable policies: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Do yourself a favor and read up. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I look at them with the same whimsy and entertainment value. And as I read those "guidelines" I see it is you who are really misinterpreting them, as you've been doing to many of my posts. You seem to be taking the subject matter way too seriously. It's not like we are inserting fringe studies into a mainstream science article like Zoology. There your points would be well taken. To put cryptids on the same level as reptiles, and vertebrates, and physiology is crazy. And you have to make sure that people who read the articles know that. But knowing that, it is perfectly acceptable to have articles on the subject. Of course we have to make sure we don't put legitimate science categories on the bottom of the article. But I have a fun time reading about some of these weird creatures and the so-called experts who try to track them down, just as I do finding out how many times Maxwell Smart used his shoe-phone. I didn't even know these article existed until recently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Red links

Is it ok for categories to be red links, if there are half a dozen people who belong in them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:C4F6:EC95:CBDC:1268 (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, usually you would also make the category article, so they wouldn't remain red links. However, in the recent case, the category was deleted. When a category is deleted you don't make more red links to the deleted category. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that the category was deleted. Why would it be deleted? It is just like all the parallel categories. And there are many people in the category? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:8D67:B3F5:940A:E55C (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, we have many other red links I see and it is ok for them to be red links with no requirement that you make the red link black. It lets others join you in improving things when we have red links in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:8D67:B3F5:940A:E55C (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You just can't create any category you want. First off you are an anonymous IP so I'm not sure what category we are talking about.. it would be best if you got an official wikipedia ID. If we are talking about Category:Competitors at the 1965 Maccabiah Games then I'm not that one who deleted it. There's a big red banner across the category that says you should not be recreating this category unless you first contact the administrator who deleted it. That would be administrator @RHaworth:. I don't know the history as to why it was deleted, I only know it was deleted and you should not be creating links to a deleted article. Red links should only be created if there is a really good chance that it will no longer be a red link in the future. But that is the guy you want to contact about the reason it was deleted. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I can't see any red banner at all. But I can see a link that says if the page was deleted, click here. And clicking there, I find the reason for the deletion. But that reason did not apply when you deleted it. The reson was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Competitors_at_the_1965_Maccabiah_Games that there was nothing in the category. It was empty. C1: Empty category is what the deleter said. But then you deleted the category when it had a number of people in it. I guess I still dont understand why given that the old reason was fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:8D67:B3F5:940A:E55C (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The red banner is there. But I see your point. If the only reason the category was deleted was because it was empty, and you were attempting to fill that deleted category, then I see no reason why that category can't be brought back to life. Remember, I did not delete the category... someone else did and it was never re-created. So you made links to a non-existent, deleted category. It first needs to be recreated, which i shall do right now. I shall revert my reversions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That is very wonderful of you. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:E016:A700:529:FBEE:FB4C:3E12 (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No prob. I originally did what I thought was the right thing to do and you convinced me to revert myself and to create the category. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

New Player Articles

Hey. I have been going through the 2015 and 2016 ATP World Tour articles and creating player articles for players who played in the main draw of a tournament and might get to the Davis Cup later on. I just have a question on notability when it comes to the Davis Cup. I know that WP:Tennis says that you just have to participate in the Davis Cup, but does it have to be in the World Group or can it be anyone? For example, is an article for Alexander Cozbinov (from Moldova) necessary when all he is notable for is participating in the Davis Cup at a lower stage? Or should he get an article because it still counts as Davis Cup participation? Adamtt9 (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we ever went into that detail. If I was writing the section, I would have said the main World Group (the best 16), not a play-in group. However I think most around here just use any type of Davis Cup match as the qualification. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

tennis and compromise
... you were recipient no. 1054 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Tennis Base owner interviewed on Canal+ Sports TV Channel Espana

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

I did not... I don't really speak Spanish. Sounds pretty cool though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Wish you all the best for the festive season--Navops47 (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too Navops47. Let's hope for peace, health, happiness... oh yeah, and most importantly a great new tennis season. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Hi, I can see that you have deleted my post on the list of islamist terrorist attacks. The attack 2016 in Berlin on a Christmas market was an ISIS action. They stated to stay behind it. So while we do not know the culprit, we definitely know it's an islamist attack. --Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Élisée P. Bruneau: Do you realize how many times the Islamist extremists make claims that aren't true! On these things we wait until an official authority tells us it was an Islamist extremist doing the terrorism. Right now it could have been a disgruntled employee of that trucking company for all we know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14