User talk:Wolbo/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Decorative flag icons

Hi, my attention has been drawn to this edit, among others, where you appear to be holding out to retain postage-stamp pretty flag icons. Please note that these icons are in most cases purely decorative and serve no informational purpose. In some cases (e.g. Australia/New Zealand) the flag icon is downright ambiguous.

Many editors would be pleased if you toned down your advocacy of these flash of bright colour in contexts where colour is best confined to images. Your efforts would be much appreciated in that area.

Thank you. Tony (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

World number 1 male tennis player rankings

Hello Wolbo, from what objective source or from which accepted consensus do you back up your text/edit, that Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic should be ranked equally World no. 1's for 2013? In case of any dispute - including on this exact page; No.1 male Tennis player - the player that ATP appoints "player of the year" will be the true no. 1. Look at the other years in the ATP era, e.g. 1982 with Connors vs. McEnroe and Connors did not even top the ATP ranking that year! Rafael Nadal won not only the year-end no. 1 in the ATP rankings, he was awarded the ATP "player of the year" and was appointed no. 1 by the Tennis magazine. That the lesser ITF - controversially - named Djokovic World Champion does not alone make Djokovic rank as equal No. 1 for 2013! How is that possible? That is anyway 3 to 1 in favor of Nadal and the ATP - the most important professional Tennis association - conclusively appointing Nadal as the undisputed No. 1 for 2013.

If you want to argue otherwise I would ask you to back up your argument with objective sources, relevant tennis awards, consensus in the Tennis world etc. and refrain from using biased, or even emotional arguments. Statistics is not what you believe or what you would want it to be, it must be what is officially correct. That you include in the text that Nadal lost in round 1 in Wimbledon reveals that you are clearly biased. Only finals in single tournaments are mentioned in all the other years. It is not objectively relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Capricornmanager1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricornmanager1 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Capricornmanager1, thanks for your post. Instead of discussing the merits of Nadal vs. Djokovic here I invite you to join the discussion on this topic at the WP Tennis Talk page where I have also given my opinion. Pending the outcome it would be best and most neutral to leave the 2013 position blank. --Wolbo (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wolbo. Thank you for the invitation. Capricornmanager1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capricornmanager1 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Axios XRF Spectrometer.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

RE:Charles Aeschlimann

Sorry, don't hate the player hate the game . But to compensate you I'm already working on getting +500 characters to get it back to start. Lajbi ^Holla @ me • CP 14:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm back. I do agree you with what you said on the stub/start status and of course it's not a maths equation. And I don't even demand list-like articles (but not pure lists) nor those of minor tournaments' to reach the 1500 limit but for a player bio it's just too simple to push it through with relatively little effort. Today's players have plenty of career coverage while pre-open era players had a "main" life to live and us to tell and tennis was their hobby. Formatting needs to be a must in general I don't want to give out Start statuses just because infobox and external links are added. It's also easier for us to follow the 1500 rule if we ever consider sending our articles to DYK, which currently is the easiest way for an article to reach the Wiki main page. Lajbi ^Holla @ me • CP 18:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Player images

Hello Wolbo, I noticed you have been replacing a lot of images from Myers' 1903 book "Lawn Tennis Home And Abroad" with better quality versions. Thank you for that! I'm a little curious... Did you find those pictures online? Or did you scan them from the book?--Kompakt (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Guten Tag, Kompakt. I scanned them directly from the book (actually have two copies). It's great that a lot of these older books on lawn tennis are available online, and I make frequent use of them, but unfortunately the scan quality of particularly the images is usually not that high. Nevertheless it's of course much better to have these lower quality images than none at all and you did excellent work in uploading so many of them. Keep up the good work. --Wolbo (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I see... and I was wondering where to find these picture online! You're right, the quality of the images from online books is a lot worse than when you scan directly from the book. I assume you have a reprint - or actually two of them :-) It seems to be of very good quality!--Kompakt (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Both of them are original 1903 first editions. One is a bit raggedy and that is the one I use for scanning. Try to be delicate and careful with it to keep the old centenarian intact. --Wolbo (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok... very nice! That does explain the good quality :-) --Kompakt (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your tennis insight needed

If you have the time check out this discussion about a tennis scorecard inventor/umpire. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Had a quick look and I can see some merit in both Joe Decker's and your arguments. What's clear is that the umpiring aspect in itself is not sufficient notability per earlier project discussions but perhaps the handheld computer argument plus the available sources sway it in the keep direction. I'm somewhat on the fence here so I'll let this discussion pass and run its course.--Wolbo (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

IPA long reply

Hi there

I'm happy to see that you are interested in pronounciation guides. It requires some basic linguistics but not as difficult as many may think. First of all there are three categories of languages regarding the basis of pronounciation:

• letter-to-letter : like e.g. Hungarian and Serbian
• syllable-to-syllable : like most of the European languages
• word-to-word : like Chinese

By clicking on any link generated by IPA-xx templates you get redirected to the main pronounciation page with a small summary of how the letters can be converted into IPA-characters. Although in some easier cases there exists a {{convert}} template that automatically does the job for you like in the Gene Mako article. These can be found at the Category:IPA_language_templates#C. Although in e.g. Hungarian one must still know to differentiate between the last letters of the names Bodrogy and Nagy whereas the first is two letters while in the second the ending gy counts as only one.

For every other syllable-based languages it has to be done case-by-case but if you find the syllable within a name/word it gets easy from there. Although I have to admit that e.g. Luxembourgish is still decypherable to me And as for the word-based IPAs (Chinese), like in the Kho Sin-Kie article is quite simple as in Chinese many of these names are really common and frequently used and almost every name has a "meaning" so they are not just proper nouns but substantive nouns as well. Wiktionary has IPA-codes for 70% of its dictionary so it's quite helpful to start from there.

Anyway if you need assisstance or find an article that you think I might be interested in just drop me a message. Lajbi ^Holla @ me • CP 13:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

IRC

Hi Wolbo, sorry no one was around to help you on the help IRC room; a majority of the helpers are from America or Europe so there's not many of us around before around midday UTC. I was busy but just saw your message. I don't know that much about tables, but if you go to Help:Tables and Ctrl + F for 'Align' you'll find what appear to be a few examples which do what you need. Hope that helps, Sam Walton (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.--Wolbo (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sports nationality

Sorry for the change. I was only doing it temporarily because of complaints at the tennis infobox RFC. I was trying to show them how easy it was to make a tweak they could live with as opposed to the draconian things a few of them want. If they liked it over the next 24 hours or so I was going to switch it back and bring it up at Tennis Project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, wasn't clear to me that it was intended to be a temporary test. I'm not sure what the best name for this field would be if we elect (or are required) to change it but 'Sports nationality' just strikes me as odd. In my view a sports governing body does not assign an official nationality but rather rules that a sportsperson is eligible to represent a certain country. Also keep in mind that if a field name is chosen with 'nationality' in it the current usage of {{flag}} no longer works properly because it uses the 'country' name (e.g. Great Britain instead of British).--Wolbo (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that the term players compete under Internationally? Great Britain, not UK? Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. Another example: country='Germany' but nationality='German'. If we switch the field name from 'Country' to something containing the word 'Nationality' the way the flag template works (adding the country name) is no longer correct. We could implement the same workaround that we now use for historic flags, namely switching to the {{flagicon}} template and then manually add in this case the nationality ('German,).--Wolbo (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:189.6.219.27

Hi Wolbo the above user has since blanked out more pages and changing and adding un-sourced stats, which have been reverted since your last warning here and also here. I don't know how you block someone but clearly this person is ignoring people, hope your well?--Navops47 (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User has now been blocked.--Wolbo (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Player yearly articles - missed in the guidelines?

By convention and consensus we only have individual yearly articles for players that have won a grand slam tournament (or pro slam). Hence we can have 2013 Novak Djokovic tennis season. Players without this achievement have their stats only in a career statistics section. Somehow that missed getting put in the guidelines... unless I missed it. I would have had you write the sentence but where should it go? Probably under "Article types and recommended practices"? Maybe a section under "Single-year tournament articles" with a title "Single-year player articles" with the proper stipulations? It's long time consensus since the Roger Federer rfc, but I've noticed a few pop up and I want to be able to point to our guidelines. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's currently in our article guidelines and agree it should be. Before we do so it's probably best to run it by the WP:Tennis talk page with a link to previous discussions which resulted in the consensus to limit player tennis season articles to Grand Slam winners only. I think that's a sensible guideline, it's getting a bit out of hand when articles like 2014 Roberto Bautusta-Agut tennis season start to appear. But it would be good to get some feedback to reaffirm this consensus (or not) and work out a proposal for the wording.--Wolbo (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification

Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Albert Einstein". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - DVdm (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't refactor what is signed by me

Wolbo, with this edit, you refactored talk page text that is signed by me. The result is that text I did not write is sitting over my signature. The correct thing to do would have been to propose that change in the discussion section of the RfC. In that particular case, I would have agreed to it and would have made the change myself. It is simply wrong to make it appear that someone has signed something they haven't. Don't do that again. --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

BNA Access

Hey Wolbo, you have a user email waiting with instructions on how to get access to BNA via the Wikipedia Library Partnership, Sadads (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RE:1929 in tennis

Thanks. You were fast as lightning in discovering its existence. I hope we both receive access to BNA archives so we could complete the missing English tournament results. Fingers crossed. Lajbi ^Holla @ me • CP 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Lajbi: Just happened to spot the clearing of your sandbox and figured that could only mean one thing. I actually have BNA access since a couple of days. Any particular English tournament results you're looking for?--Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow. It would be awesome if you could dig up the Welsh, Irish and Scottish main champs results. Unfortunately Tennisz és golf only lists the mens' singles scores. Lajbi ^Holla @ me • CP 15:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much . Lajbi ^Holla @ me • CP 12:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

September 2014

Again? 333-blue (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

GP Championship Series RM

Hi Wolbo hope you are well your input on the Talk:Grand Prix Championship Series#Requested move is needed now that other editors are giving feedback--Navops47 (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian Ayre (tennis)

See this here, and this and subsequent edits. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Need Your Unbiased Input in a Dispute

Hi Wolbo I would appreciate if you have time as your good with accepted sources could you take a look at the discussion I'm involved in on this talk page Template talk:Sri Lankan former states of which there is a dispute and it's been protected by an administrator and give your feedback --Navops47 (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Navops47:, bit busy at the moment but if I find time and feel I can contribute I will try to do so.--Wolbo (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated- The issue is whether the Sinhala Kingdom and Lanka Kingdom are infact fictious names/countries or infact have some grounding as per there inclusion here: Kurukshetra War map to look at is here Mahajanapadas under the section list of shows map of Epic India on the right and these two kingdoms look for Island of Sri Lanka the editor objecting says they did not exist before 541 BCE. many thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

World TeamTennis

Thanks, Wolbo. I'm glad someone is reading the World TeamTennis articles. I signed up as a member of the Tennis WikiProject, and I'll be sure to add the template to my new articles. I read through the material on the project page, and it seems that WTT doesn't exactly fit in. For example, Jimmy Connors was banned from playing the French Open because of his association with WTT. From 1974 to 1978, WTT was significant enough to attract top star players of the game. Yet, the definition of a notable player doesn't include one who played on a WTT championship team. In my opinion, it should - at least for 1974 through 1978. Of course, today's WTT is just a shadow of what is was in the 1970s. In 2014, Daniela Hantuchová and Vera Zvonareva were the only players that come to mind who sacrificed touring to play full-time in WTT. Other big-name full-time players (Andy Roddick and Marian Bartoli) are retired. Roddick is clearly past his most productive years, and Bartoli didn't play any single for Austin; Zvonareva was their regular singles player). Martina Hingis played full-time as well and still demonstrates a high level of skill. It seems the problem with her feet is too much to allow her to tour. A three-week season seems to work out fine. The other big-name players in 2014 WTT (Bryan Brothers, James Blake and Venus Williams) were just part-time. Springfield couldn't even get Blake to play in the Final. San Diego did get the Bryan Brothers to play in the Western Final, but they lost their men's doubles set. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Juan Martín del Potro 2014 tennis season

Hello, I am not an experienced user when someone asks to delete a page. I didn't know that they need to play 25-30 matches at least to have a season page, but the season isn't over yet and it seems he will come back at the Open in Kuala Lumpur, so shouldn't we wait for the end of the year and see how many matches he plays this year? I mean, it's possible for del Potro to play 15-20 matches this season, given that he already played 10. That's all. JoseRodil25 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you rooting for in the finals?

I'm kinda hoping Wozniacki pulls out her first. I give her and Danish fans little hope though. As for the men...wow. I find myself wanting Nishikori to win. Chang has done wonders for his mental game. If he can get his teeth into a few of Cilic's service games, I think he has a reasonable chance. But Cilic played phenomenal today...making Fed look old. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind Wozniacki winning her first GS title but basically only Serena can beat Serena and she deserves to be on par with Evert and Navratilova on 18 GS titles. So, I'm good either way. Right now I'm disappointed with Fed's loss and don't care too much about the men's final. It was probably the last chance the old maestro had to win another GS title. Have some mixed feelings about Cilic given his doping conviction last year but he played awesome and didn't really give Federer a chance. Hopefully Nishikori can dig deep one more time and take the title but Cilic is probably the slight favorite. --Wolbo (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... I find there is a bit of a vacuum of quality in the ladies game these days. With Henin and Clijsters giving away their best years and then retiring early, Serena has free reign. The others can play great for a tournament or two, but overall either their fitness or mental fragility let them down. I'm bummed about Federer too, but I've watch so many declines in the sport through the years that I'm surprised he can still hang in there. He hasn't been the same player since 2007 yet he has still managed to win a lot of tournaments since then. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 WTA Tour Championships to 2014 WTA Finals

Please edit all things about 2014 WTA Tour Championships (to 2014 WTA Finals, have 2014 WTA Tour (*5, 6 or 7), 2015 WTA Finals and Template:2014 WTA Tour). 333-blue (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

All article

Why you had to undo my edit? 333-blue (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

RE:Tennis player biography challenge

Okay, let's do it. One minor restriction though. Let it be a pre-open era player they are more of my interest. Lajbi ^Holla @ me • CP 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Then I have to pick Roman Najuch, although he was a professional so his tournament achievements are somewhat limited. Because once I tried to create the Matejka page, but so few info is circulating out there that I had to give it up. So Najuch for me aaaand for you let's say choose one of the ATA championships winners 1917-1939 from this book (p. 221). As far as I know Ora Washington and Reginald Weir are already created. Lajbi ^Holla @ me • CP 17:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting choice, I am aware of the ATA and know of Ora Washington but beyond that my knowledge is very limited. Will give it a go, hopefully there is enough info to be found.--Wolbo (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lajbi: Made my choice, an interesting player. How are you coming along? --Wolbo (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

A330 page

The A300 page states that it is developed into A330 and A340. Shouldn't it be same for A330 into A350? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uuu100145j (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

External links

Hello!

Please read Wikipedia:External_links#Minimize_the_number_of_links and WP:ELNO.

Thanks in advance,

Poveglia (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. For Serena you can find the links at the top of http://serenawilliams.com/ and for Roger you can find them on his linkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poveglia (talk • contribs) 02:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Poveglia: Hi, I read Wikipedia:External_links#Minimize_the_number_of_links and it seems to justify removing the external link to Federer's Facebook page, as it is prominently linked on his website, but not his Twitter link as that is not directly linked from 'the main page of the official website'.--Wolbo (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it justifies deleting both. Quotes:

"Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances."

"Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.

More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation."

(The emphasis is mine).

Even if the social media accounts were not linked from his official website at all, we would still only link to them if they provide the reader with significant unique content. We are not trying to replace the search function of those social media websites.

Poveglia (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Poveglia: The way I read it this allows Federer's Twitter link as it does 'provide the reader with significant unique content' and is 'not prominently linked from other official websites' i.e. not directly displayed on the home page of Federer's official website. I re-reverted the Serena Williams external Facebook and Twitter links as these are indeed directly displayed on her homepage.--Wolbo (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It says: "Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances"...

This is not an official website. It is a social media account. The website is not owned by Federer. And no, it does not provide significant unique content, and (more importantly) it does not provide an pathway to a location outside the project that is likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. Wikipedia does not attempt to [snip, full quote above] provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Maybe Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Social_networking_websites explains it better (this topic has been debated many many times). We are building an encyclopedia; we are not trying to link to all official social media accounts of all notable people. In certain cases it is possible to use an official social media account as a reliable source, but it is almost never a good idea to use it as an external link. Poveglia (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Usually one link is the optimal amount, but I found an example of the very few limited circumstances where linking to more than one official website is a good idea: The Hooters. The band itself has a website and all five individual members have their own websites. But we are not going to link to all the social media accounts on instagram/google+/twitter/facebook/myspace/linkedin etc. Poveglia (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Federer's most recent tweets:

selfie

Incredible time at the Louis Vuitton Foundation #oneofakind

Everywhere you look its beautiful here.. excited to be back in Paris, 1st match Wednesday #ademain

Yeeeaaahhhh so happy, thanks to everyone for making this week so special for me! #ballboyforlife

Day 3 on clay #done

Claycourt practice #dirtysocks #sliding #grinding

Happy to be back home in Switzerland!

Should I walk across? http://instagram.com/p/uJRbcHgv5x/

Ergo, linking to his twitter does not increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand.

Poveglia (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Exhibitions etc...

Do we have color restrictions guidelines on exhibition tournaments? I like it colorless better, but I just used what was already there at Borg–Connors rivalry because I didn't think we had any consensus to remove it. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): As far as I know we do not have any colors assigned to invitational tournaments or exhibitions and I'm not convinced they need to have a color. That's one reason I removed the background colors for these events. Also, since it is better to split these events of into different tables (as they are not officially recognized by ATP or ITF), as is now done at Borg–Connors rivalry, having one background color for an entire table adds no real informational value. Finally, the blue background for the invitational tournaments was not WCAG compliant. --Wolbo (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Boeing 737 ‎

I undid one of your edits to Boeing 737‎. There's no need to remove a dead link, and it actually should not be removed. There's no requirement for a reference to be available online, so the ref is still valid. I tagged itas a deadlink instead. We may be able to find the same ref elsewhere online, an archived version of the original ref, or a replacement ref. Meters (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Doubt regarding tennis articles assessment

Hello Wolbo! I have recently started to give a more serious help in WikiProject Tennis articles. In the last couple of days, whenever I have time I try to solve some unassessed and unknown-importance articles.

However, I found myself in a dilemma. An article such as this one, 2009 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships – Singles, I have been considering it as list-class, while its mother article (2009 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships) would be given a stub, start or whatever its status would be. But I saw that you did not consider it a list.

Since you are a veteran in this WikiProject, I almost certain your approach is the correct one. Still, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Is there anywhere I can look for further information?

Thanks for your time! Greetings, SOAD KoRn (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@SOAD KoRn: Hi SOAD KoRn, we can always use some more hands to assess the WikiProject Tennis articles so thanks for the help. Assessing tennis articles is not the most glamorous or fun part of editing but in my view it is useful to have an overview of the quality and importance of all our tennis articles so we have an idea how we are doing and it can help to focus our efforts. Regarding your question on the 2009 Hall of Fame Tennis Championships – Singles article, I can see why you would consider it a list-class. The article, like most of its kind, has a very small lede with almost no text and appears visually similar to a list. I normally rate these articles as 'stub' (sometimes 'start') because ultimately a tennis draw is not the same as a list like e.g. List of open era tennis records or List of Davis Cup champions. These tennis draws articles should really have a better lede that puts them into proper context so they can be read as standalone articles. The other option would be to integrate them in the tournament article. There has been some discussion about that once or twice but not enough to reach a consensus. For more info on lists you can have a look at the Manual of Style on lists. Hope that helps. --Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Player yearly articles - how do we handle this?

You added the agreed upon lines "Can only be created for players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title, onward from the year of their first title and provided they played at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during any year(s) without a Grand Slam tournament title." But it adds a certain new problem I see. Most of the "yearly" articles are done continuously throughout the year, meaning we don't know if they'll play 25 matches and have a top 5 ranking until the end of the year. But by then the article will be almost complete. Take for instance the article 2014 Victoria Azarenka tennis season. She won a 2 Majors and was in 2 Major finals in 2012, 2013. In 2014 she started the year ranked No. 2 but only played in 24 matches so I assume this article should be removed even though it's only 1 year removed from winning a Major? It fails Tennis Project criteria, but 24 matches is close to 25 matches. But now we have started a new article 2015 Victoria Azarenka tennis season. Here she "may" play 25 matches but she starts the year ranked poorly at No. 31. Again her ranking "may" climb to top 5 but I'm doubting it. Do we let it continue and delete it once we see it will fail or do we delete it now and let creator MasterMind5991 keep it in his sandbox, only to revive it if needed? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It could be a Yogi Berra quote: "Every solution creates a new problem." I'm aware that at the beginning of each year new player season articles are created and this particular aspect has not really been brought up during the recent discussions. I don't think the 25 matches requirement should prevent these articles from being created because under normal circumstances this number will easily be reached. If a player is injured during the year and doesn't reach 25 matches the article becomes eligible for deletion, as happened with the 2014 Del Porto season article. It's a bit harsh to delete the 2014 Victoria Azarenka tennis season article for falling just one match short of the 25 matches requirement but the line has to be drawn somewhere and it can justifiably be said that the requirements work in this case as her 2014 season was indeed not notable. The 2015 Victoria Azarenka tennis season article should in my view not be created at this time because she does not have a top 5 ranking. It can be created if and when she reaches the top 5 (or wins a Grand Slam tournament). For the same reason 2015 season articles should not now be created for V. Williams, Stosur or Murray, but can be created for S. Williams, Sharapova, Kvitova, Ivanovic, Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and Wawrinka. The guideline still has to go through WP:NSPORT but right now this is what the consensus looks like.--Wolbo (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That was the other thing I was going to ask. It's not clear but I assumed when we are talking about a player reaching top 5, that all that has to happen is they need to reach No. 5 sometime during the season. They don't need to have it at years end. Correct? You might want to tweak the wording to make sure that's clear to all editors. Otherwise as MasterMind5991 pointed out to me, Serena's 2011 season would also have to be scrapped. She started out in January at No. 4 (her previous year end ranking), but when she actually played her first match she was ranked No. 25. She ended the year ranked No. 12 and played in exactly 25 matches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. That is why it is phrased "during any year(s)" instead of "at the end of any year(s).--Wolbo (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Year End #1

Hello. On the "List of WTA number 1 ranked players" article, I had edited the year end #1 section to remove the year end #1 of 2014 and Serena Williams' 4 years to 3 year end #1's because the year has not ended yet. You seem to have reverted it back and called it a "disruptive edit." My edit was not meant to be disruptive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be some inconsistency going on in regards to the stats after the WTA season is over and I was hoping you could help. I had been explicitly directed on Project Tennis to NOT post date tallies for both Serena Williams' consecutive and total weeks at #1 because the year has not ended. The justification for this was that post dating is not allowed because the player could retire, pass away, etc. "We cannot tell the future" I was told. In addition, it was stated that ITF events continue and can affect the rankings. I cited press releases from the WTA stating Serena Williams as being 1- Year End #1 2- Accumulated 221 Total weeks and 3- 198 Consecutive weeks at #1 back in November after the finals. This documentation did not seem to matter to certain folks involved in Project Tennis who stated that the tallies must reflect the date listed on the WTA Rankings page even though the WTA already stated this as "fact."

So my question is this... why do we not post date #1 tallies stated by the WTA to be fact, while post Year End #1 stats before the year is complete? If the Year End #1 data (stated by WTA to be true) is allowed to be listed in the article before the year is over (in essence post-dating), why are the Year End Total and Consecutive tallies (also stated by the WTA to be true) not post dated?

Here are the links to the information. http://www.wtatennis.com/press-center AND http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/1026_Williams_Errani_Vinci_Year_End_No1s.pdf Thanks so very much.Kube8 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Tokyo WCT and Tokyo Indoor

Hi Wolbo, I'm following you and I have seen this article. Is this tournament an edition of this one? Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matlab1985, I don't believe it is. The first edition of the Tokyo Indoor, also known as the Seiko World Super Tennis, was held in 1978 (confirmed in Barret's World of Tennis 1979 yearbook) and was part of the Grand Prix circuit. The 1974 Tokyo WCT event was a World Championship Tennis tournament and was, at least that year, held outdoor (see reference to 'heavy wind' in this NYT article). All those different Tokyo tournaments can be rather confusing.--Wolbo (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar (also)

Just wanted to say thankyou for the barnstar. YellowStahh (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I'd also pose a question as to whether 1974 US Pro Championships and 1975 US Pro Championships should be moved to 1974 U.S. Pro Championships and 1975 U.S. Pro Championships to match the naming style of the other associated articles. YellowStahh (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have moved these two tournaments to achieve a better naming consistency with the other editions. Sources often differ on the spelling of these tournaments (between US and U.S.). Neither version is wrong and in those cases it is indeed better to stick to the one spelling version that is the most frequent in reliable sources.--Wolbo (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns/Archive. It was filed by Neelix and archived for lack of evidence. Nellix has recently received warnings on his talk page for inappropriate admin actions, such as WP:INVOLVED. See Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant and Pray tell where he blocked a newbie editor without warning. He was told about about WP:OWN and asked for an explanation for this edit.[1] He immediately retired, though maybe he is taking a wikibreak as suggested. I don't know Neelix. Just responding to your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. EChastain (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm 333-blue. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 1977 German Open (tennis), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. 333-blue 07:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not review the article, I created it and it was auto-patrolled. I'm a bit puzzled why you left this message stating you 'unreviewed' it without explaining why you did so. But perhaps I should not be puzzled and just add this to the growing list of incomprehensible edits you have made since your arrival.--Wolbo (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Convert to the usual draw

I was wondering for article such as 1999 U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships – Singles, should I convert the draw down to the regular format for draws such as 2015 Aircel Chennai Open – Singles, without the 32 Entry template? YellowStahh (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Rvt, spam, there are many other reliable sources available

Dear Wolbo how are you? First of all, I would like to contact you regarding some issues in the tennis history. Secondly, I would like to ask you if you found any problem with the reference link which I displayed at Don Budge's age. I appreciate your time! Mrandrew16 (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Akron tournaments

Template:Virginia Slims of Akron tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William 21:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten

• Good day , Wolbo .

Is there a possibility to block all unregistered members from editing this article ? Quite frankly : I'm too sick and tired of all the trolls and clueless youngsters who trash it with false info , made-up "facts" and descriptions of scenes from ridiculous and sensational movies like "Crash Of The Century" , which has extremely little with reality to do ? It's not even funny !

Best Regards

NaturalHeaven1979 (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @NaturalHeaven1979: if a page is the subject of frequent vandalism you can request page protection (or semi-protection) at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Wolbo (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

US National Indoor tournament

I have a thought about what we should do with the U.S. National Indoor Tennis Championships event. From all that I can see this tournament is officially dead as of 2014. The rights were purchased and Memphis organizers buried the name that had been around since 1898. Their website no longer talks about the event prior to 1976. BUT... the Memphis Open has been around since '75/'76 and that's what the official website goes by. Heck in 75 and 76 Memphis had a different winner than the US Indoor Championship and that isn't being shown. I'm thinking we end this event at 2014, but turn the Memphis Open (tennis) redirect into a full article starting from it's inception in 1975. Yes, 95% of it will be on the national indoor page as well, but at least '75 and '76 will have the actual Memphis champions and 2015 will have Nishikori winning Memphis. Plus for each year forward all will now be well. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and did some of the changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a tricky but interesting issue. Have been a bit busy but will get back to you shortly.--Wolbo (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Superscript in tennis scoring

Re: this edit, is superscript really the standard/accepted format for denoting tiebreak points when writing scores on a single line? I've seen superscripts when scores are written in tabular format, like:

Player A   7^8 6^4 4
Player B   6^6 7^7 6

But inline as: "Player B def. Player A 6-7 (6-8), 7-6 (7-4), 6-4" (with minor variations, i.e. not explicitly writing the tiebreak winner's points, but not with any formatting change). I can't find any official reference, and most of the major official sites use tabular scoring, but one website that uses inline scores has everything in plain text: [2]. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fru1tbat: the tiebreak score format in superscript is the Tennis Project consensus per the article guidelines, WP:TENSCR.--Wolbo (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing me to that. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But when talking about actual tennis scoring, and explaining it to editors, it should be left in the natural notation. That's what they'll see in newspapers and tv, not a supercript version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I now understand why the scoring is different in this particular article and I'm fine with that although it may be somewhat confusing to readers, like it was to me, who compare the scoring format on this page with the format used in all our other articles.--Wolbo (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

1973 USLTA Indoor Circuit

Hi, Wolbo. I'm reading this page (1973 USLTA Indoor Circuit) and I have founded an article ([3]) that talks about 14 (13+1) tournaments of this circuit and not "only" 10 ones. May you search this information on your Barrett's manual? Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well spotted, I had 13 tournaments in the infobox but only 10 in the article. The three missing tournaments have been added. Two of them, Jackson and Washington, can also be found in the ATP tournament archive.--Wolbo (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wolbo, I wanna ask you: Did this tournaments give ATP Points for the weekly ATP ranking or not? Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure is the only answer I can give you. Despite having Barrett's World of Tennis yearbooks at my disposal it is often unclear to me how the ATP points were calculated during the 70s. In contrast to the Grand Prix circuits the yearbooks give little or no info on how the ATP points for the players were calculated during these years and which specific tournaments were included in a player's points total. I'm still looking for a good, reliable on source on that. The '74 yearbook (on the year 1973), for example, does include an ATP points ranking table and in it lists the players, their total points as well as the number of tournaments they played but does not identify the tournaments and only mentions that the ranking is based on "performances in recognised tournaments". --Wolbo (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lottie Dod

Beste Wolbo,

bedankt voor Lottie Dod! Proficiat, je hebt het Nederlands nog niet verleerd .

Ik ben zo vrij geweest, het artikel enigszins te redigeren (en de niet-werkende link naar de HoF te repareren).

Als er nog meer zijn, waar dit vandaan kwam, dan zou ik dat zeker toejuichen.

Groetjes, Vinkje83 (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vinkje83, you're welcome (I'll stay in English as we are at en.wikipedia). It was my small contribution to International Women's Day and Wiki Women's Launch (see [article]). Also added an article stub on Blanche Bingley. I'm not frequently present on the Dutch wiki so still have to get used to its article conventions and peculiarities. Feel free to improve any articles where possible.--Wolbo (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Great! I'll take care of Blanche Bingley. If you create any more tennis players in the future, don't worry about the "article conventions and peculiarities". Just give notice of the new article on my Dutch talk page, and I will see to it. Thanks again for your nice initiative. Vinkje83 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 World Allround Speed Skating Championships

Hi Wolbo, I see you're updating 2015 World Allround Speed Skating Championships. However, did you know all the results are already on the sub pages 2015 World Allround Speed Skating Championships – Men and 2015 World Allround Speed Skating Championships – Women)? (Maybe I can save you some work that is already done :)) Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Je suis Charlie) 15:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you know that there is an article for the results (even linked from the article)? So, no need to put them into the main article. Kante4 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saw Sander's post right now. Kante4 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ATP World Tour Records article scope change

Hi Wolbo hope you are well? I see you haven't had chance to reply to your suggested scope change please share your thoughts on comments given at this point regards --Navops47 (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Wolbo, I reverted your edit on List of the world's busiest airports by passenger traffic by mistake. I've realized my error and undone my edit. Sorry about the confusion. -Zanhe (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Zanhe: no problem.--Wolbo (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

About adding links on Überlingen mid-air collision and Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751

Sir, you've removed my links from the external links i want to assure you that those links contains official archives many viwers want to download complete archives and verify it so in association with link owner i set them into the related post.

I'm not spamming just adding some useful archives.

I think you will now allow adding this and I made you clear about this Thanks . — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerkyRabbit (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@PerkyRabbit:, your additions of multiple links to the same website are a clear example of spamming and that needs to stop. All (or almost all) of the aviation articles to which these spam links have been added already have one (or more) links to an official aviation accident report, often in the form of a readily-accessible pdf document. The speed with which you have added these spam links makes clear you have not looked at the content of these articles in any necessary detail in order to determine if a report is already available or if your external link is even applicable. The website you link to provides no (additional) value to our readers beyond what is already available. --Wolbo (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wolbo: did you chcked that though Tittle is same but each link contains different documents which is related to the article. My main focus is to share the document not spamming if we want to focus site then we will do seo but in Wikipedia we re just sharing data from a storage site. I think you will re back those links thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerkyRabbit (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice the medal template conversation?

There is talk about doing a little streamlining of the Olympic medal template. It does affect many tennis players, though it seems like only a small degree to me. I made some comments on the talk page but perhaps you feel stronger about what works best and can offer better insight than me. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the discussion. Don't have a very strong preference but a solution that reduces line-wrapping seems preferable.--Wolbo (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wembley Professional Championships Draws

Hi, Wolbo. I found in a old newspaper ([4]) an info about the 1966 Wembley Professional Championships. It talks about some matches where Robert Haillet defeated Roger Becker 6-3 6-0, and Kurt Nielsen defeated Jean Claude Molinari 6-2 6-2. In our template che first column is filled by the first round matches: that's wrong because the 2 matches in newspaper are clearly the first round ones.--Matlab1985 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Matlab1985:, thanks for the quick response. The newspaper article is a nice find. I can solve this one for you thanks to a copy of Joe McCauley's The History of Professional Tennis which I received just last week. The article is actually correct. The two matches mentioned in the newspaper are also correct but, according to the tournament details in McCauley's book (p. 243), they were preliminary matches, preceding the first round. It is perhaps a strange draw as they could have chosen to have three first round matches instead of two preliminary matches followed by two first round matches. My best guess, and it is no more than that, is that they wanted to give both Laver and Rosewall a bye in the first round and therefore elected to have only two first round matches instead of three. I will add a note about the preliminary matches.--Wolbo (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

OTD edits

Hi, please make sure that when you add new items to OTD pages, to move the ones you replaced back into the hidden staging area so that they can be used again in later years. Thanks, —howcheng {chat} 02:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Howcheng: noted. Newbie mistake but it might be worthwhile making this a clearer part of the instructions. Now it is fairly hidden and is prefaced with 'Admins'. --Wolbo (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it's in the "How to make suggestions for listings" section (item 2). Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 19:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

1971 Grand Prix (tennis) and Brussels

Hi Wolbo. I wanna ask you about the 1971 Brussels tournament. I found an article ([5]) it talks about a $13,000 tennis tournament, are you sure this one is a Group B tournament (1971 Grand Prix (tennis))? The prize money is very few for this category. Unfortunately I haven't the Barrett's books, can you control this information. Thanks.--Matlab1985 (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Matlab1985, I (re)checked and it is indeed mentioned as a B group tournament in Barrett's World of Tennis '72 (p.143). The prize money seems low but then again the winner of the 1971 Grand Prix tour (Stan Smith) only received $25,000 for his efforts. --Wolbo (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship FAC

Thanks for advising me of the FAC nom, which I will look at as promised, although it may me take a few days. I've moved your message on my talkpage to the foot, to help me remember it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Wolbo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing categories

Hi Wolbo, read this: User talk:Wwikix#Removing categories. Wwikix (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi Wolbo, I've filed a sockpuppet investigation regarding the recent POV pushers on airport lists and other articles. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood‎. Feel free to add your comment. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Why use CHN flagicon for Hong Kong?

It is common to use for things related to Hong Kong instead of CHN one, like those lists in Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg.S03311251 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo

Thank you for your excellent work on the tennis articles. :)

Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good work

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Great work on getting 1877 Wimbledon Championship to Featured status. Congratulations! Shudde ^talk 23:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Fact that Nadal beat Federer on all surfaces is Significant

I'm asking politely, stop trying to remove this from the article.

The fact that Nadal beat Federer on all Slam surfaces, while Federer beat Nadal on one is probably the most important aspect of the rivalry beyond the straight-up record.

Just because you don't like that FACT doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the page.

Your behavior makes it seem like you are trying to manipulate factual information toward your own designs. --Liquid foundation (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please cease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquid foundation (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand how critical that fact is, then you should not be editing this page. Why can't you just stick to the Federer page as opposed to manipulating this page so that it does the least possible damage to Federer. Jeez, I mean the guy had his chance on court. He couldn't do it. The results are what they are, and they are by an overwhelming margin in Nadal's favor.

At least admit what you are doing to yourself, if you won't to the world. --Liquid foundation (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Template editor

Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

• All template-protected pages
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! KrakatoaKatie 22:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Tennisforum sources

I see you removing sources from tennisforum and I'm not sure I 100% agree with that. You've tagged things with WP:USERG but that guideline says largely unacceptable, not never unacceptable. The guideline also states an exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff. Rollo oversees the databases. We certainly can't use the info in BLP unless it's also tagged with a source on tennisforum, but for scores and draws I would venture to say that most of pre-1960 wikipedia wouldn't exist with the experts on tennisforum uploading the data from old books and guides that only they have access too. I've had to have editors there look up book info for me. It will never be labeled as such, but the draw and score info at tennisforum.com is more reliable than the ATP/ITF/or WTA websites. Those are official yet chalked full of errors. exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff. Also, the site name is tennisforum.com but that doesn't mean everything in it is a forum. There are moderated massive databases (like "Blast From The Past").

We always want to use the actual sources if at all possible, and must if we are writing the prose in a BLP. But for usual scores and draws if tennisforum is all we have, I have no problem as long as it's not an opinion. I always try to find old newspapers to corroborate their databases if possible, but there are times it's tough to do. It's also why our own tennis project's Grand Slam Project lists the site as a source for old draws. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), I agree that the word 'largely' appears to allow some wiggle room but I'm not convinced that it applies in this case. This is not a question of expertise, we both know that the "Blast From The Past" section on tennisforum.com is home to a few very knowledgeable editors on tennis history (most other sections of the forum are pretty useless). The forum is moderated and you make an interesting point about the editorial-like role of Rollo but to me it does not quite meet the requirement of "originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff". The threshold of "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications" is also not met. Expert, yes, but not established and published. The central issue for me is verifiability. The forum uses many sources, some of which we do not have access to, but most of their content and data is not explicitly and specifically sourced and we are therefore unable to verify its reliability and accuracy. Sometimes more specific sources are mentioned but in those cases we should probably use those in our citations instead of the forum. There is also the minor issue of circular referencing (WP:CIRC) that we need to take into account.--Wolbo (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually that is the best thing to do. If they quote sources, use those as our citations, not tennisforum.com. I would say Rollo is a "member of the site's editorial staff" but unknown about credentialed. However, just because we don't have access to legitimate sources doesn't make those sources bad. We just have to have someone else look them up in those official sources. I had to ask several editors who were adding details to please add the sources at the top of their lists so that other who looked in future years would know where they came from. Alas, as you said many did not add the sources (but some did). The trouble is, we know (For A Fact) that the ATP and ITF websites are not reliable for their info from pre-1973. They are sometimes dead wrong or leave half the info missing. Yet editors here add the stuff they find there and everyone accepts it as fact, when you and I know it's wrong. Editors at wikipedia say, since that's what they have, that's what we put and you can't change it. That's not right either. pre-1973 tennis data is just not that easy to come by so we have to take a blend of sources. If something doesn't look right from data at tennisforums.com then it our obligation to ask the author there for their source. We aren't supposed to source everything, just things that are likely to be challenged (unless it's a bio of a living person). Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Bjorn Borg born in Stockholm

RE your revision of Bjorn Borg (tennis player) Yes a lot of international pages ignorantly say Sodertalje as birthplace. However it was central Stockholm. Not a big deal, but there you are. See more about this on Talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bj%C3%B6rn_Borg#Born_in_Stockholm.2C_not_S.C3.B6dert.C3.A4lje.21

Best wishes, good luck with your tennis projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.88.110 (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Philippine international tennis tournaments

Template:Philippine international tennis tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

1973 WTA Tour

For the section at the end of this wiki article, where the tallies of tournament wins by player are recorded, Evonne Goolagong is absent from the list. It would appear she should be listed 2nd or 3rd since she had 7 singles victories, 5 doubles and 1 mixed doubles title during the year. The formatting is so complex, I don't know how to add this information, but perhaps someone more familiar with the page can include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.50.204.9 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Had a look and it seems the 'Titles won by player' table only shows the Virginia Slims circuit tournaments (as well as the Grand Slam tournaments and the year-end championships). Since Evonne Goolagong participated in the Grand Prix circuit and did not compete in any of the Virginia Slims tournaments she is not listed. Why the table does not show any Grand Prix or other tournament is not clear, perhaps the article started of as an overview of the Virginia Slims tournaments and the Grand Prix tournaments were added later. Nevertheless, since the article deals with all tournaments that year it logically follows that the statistical information section should reflect that. In other words the table needs to be completely updated. --Wolbo (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's a nonsense that she (and others) are omitted. However, an experienced editor needs to make the page edits as the format is far too complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B040:AFE2:8806:D205:1507:215E (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines

We've been asked by the Admins to go back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and continue the discussion. I have started a new thread here [Mos:Bio 2.1.2 Changed names] so we can deal specifically with the main sticking point. Would love to have your input. Also, I think we should try try to bring in more editors than the 4 currently participating - do we do an RFC or is there an easier way? Thank You. Tennisvine (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

How is it controversial changing the men's tennis players article to only encompass singles?

Wolbo, all of the other Wikipedia articles on tennis statistics have a singles and doubles equivalent (NOT together) - right down to the title winnings and Grand Slam winners pages. Rovingrobert (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

1927 Australian Open Women's Double final score

I was working on the GS finals table on the Sylvia Lance Harper bio page and noticed a potential problem. The score for the 1927 Australian Open Women's Double final is 3-6, 3-6 - but at the Australian Open sites results archive [6] there is no score listed, just a checkmark indicating the winner. The same score listed on Sylvia's page is also on other associated pages, 1927 Australian Championships, List of Australian Open women's doubles champions but with no reference to verify. Do you know of a reliable source where this score can be verified? I ask here because I see you've done a lot of work on her page. Thank You Tennisvine (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you the right person to ask for this type of question, or is there another page where I should make this type of inquiry?. Thanks in advance for your help. Tennisvine (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ref added.--Wolbo (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

1979 Milan Indoor

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1979 Milan Indoor, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wiki.ask2.org/wiki/1980_Milan_Indoor.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Victor Pecci

The stamp in the article clearly states "Paraguay" with large red letters. It also appears in the catalogue of Paraguayan postage stamps as a part of the series towards 1987 philately exhibition in Cologne. No matter what is printed with a fine font, this stamp is most definitely not Portuguese. --Deinocheirus (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Deinocheirus, upon reflection your assessment is probably correct. The mere fact that the stamp mentions "Paraguay" does in itself not mean it is a Paraguayan stamp. It could well be a Portuguese stamp dealing with Paraguay as a subject, or, more likely in this case, a stamp on 1988 Olympic competitors which mentions the nationality of the player. In my assessment the footer mark "Lito. Nacional-Porto-Portugal" meant it was issued in Portugal and therefore a Portuguese stamp. However, apart from the link you mention I found stamps from other countries (e.g. Nicaragua) that have the same mark and it seems to indicate a stamp that was designed and/or printed in Portugal (Porto) but not (necessarily) Portuguese.--Wolbo (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Hollywood tournaments

Template:Virginia Slims of Hollywood tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Detroit tournaments

Template:Virginia Slims of Detroit tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Brabant revolution

Firstly, thanks for your recent edits on the Brabant Revolution and related pages! Second, I don't suppose you'd have something to add to the Battle of Falmagne article? I created the stub, but couldn't find any WP:RS to expand it. Anything you could do there would be much appreciated! —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Brigade Piron, you're welcome. On this day brought me to the Brabant Revolution and you have done excellent work to get that article to GA level. With a bit more finetuning it could certainly become a featured article. Incidentally, Hendrik van der Noot was my very first wiki article, created way back in 2007! Must admit that my interest in this part of history vastly exceeds my knowledge of it. I do have a few sources on Dutch history, including Blom (2001) and have found a number of online sources that broadly cover Southern Netherlands/Austrian Netherlands, Joseph II, 1750–1800. Will keep an eye out for any info regarding the Battle of Falmagne. --Wolbo (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Virginia Slims of Columbus tournaments

Template:Virginia Slims of Columbus tournaments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox height

I notice that the infobox at Bjørg Eva Jensen is showing an error for "height". This edit changed the first of these to the second.

• height = {{convert|1.75|m|ftin|abbr=on}}
• height = {{height|m=1.75m}} ("1.75m" should be "1.75")

I'm not sure, but I think people are using convert directly these days, so the first is preferred. At any rate, height calls convert to do the work so convert is always used, and the documentation at Template:Infobox speed skater says to use the docs at Template:Infobox sportsperson, and that shows convert. I thought I'd raise this here for your consideration—I maintain convert and don't have an opinion about what goes in the infoboxes, so please fix it however you think it should be. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Plural of runner-up

Yes, I did mess up the capitalization in that edit and a few others, all corrected.

I've researched “runner-ups” versus “runners-up” and it seems clear that the second is correct, and in rare cases M-W where both are deemed acceptable, the second is preferred.

For reasons I cannot fully explain, this error is more prevalent in tennis articles than others.

If you search Wikipedia articles for runners-up, you will get about 38,000 entries. For runner-ups, about 2000, many of which are tennis.

Can you point me to some discussion where it was concluded that the wrong term is preferred in tennis articles?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

See this link

The hyphenate runner-up contains a noun and an adverb/preposition. Only nouns can be pluralized. Since it is still hyphenated, the parts maintain their grammatical value.

Collins Dictionary

Word forms: plural runners-up

Using English

The phrase in your resume was correct. Runners-up is just the plural of runner-up. You can use it when there is more than one runner-up.

I haven't yet found a site which suggests runner-ups is preferred. I do see that Wiktionary lists both, but, of course, that isn't a reliable source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion implies the subject has been debated extensively.

However, a search for “runner-ups tennis” in Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk spaces doesn't reveal much. When challenged, link was provided but there's nothing there, and my cursory review of the history revealed nothing useful. The discussion implies that an editor named Zaxem made a case, but that editor is a blocked sockpuppet. I have not found the case.

I will hold off a bit awaiting your response, but so far, it looks like there is a penchant in tennis articles to use the wrong term. I think it should be corrected.

Note this FA review where it is clearly stated:

As noted above, "runner-ups" is not a real word, should be "runners-up" (as it originally was, in fact)--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I have no issue with correcting the term if what we now use is wrong. I vaguely recall from memory that there were prior discussions on the proper use of the plural term within the tennis project around 2012–2013 but, like you, could only find the brief discussion from 2008. The sources you present in support of the 'runners-up' spelling, instead of 'runner-ups', are convincing although, as you mentioned, Webster allows both versions. While I'm fairly comfortable with the English language I'm not a native speaker and on this issue will gladly defer to those who are. Do note that we have many thousands of tennis player articles so this will be a massive update action. I will notify the tennis project of this update action.--Wolbo (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

I am working on them.

Notifying someone – resuming Wikiproject Tennis – is probably a good idea, I should have done it myself.

I'm guessing you found the same thing I did – more than one person saying it was all discussed and settled some time ago, but no evidence of those discussions.

There may be fewer than you think, although more than enough to keep me busy for a bit.

I did a quick search and got 2003 hits.

I am working through the list, and trying hard not to get mindless. For example, I have found, in addition to “runner-ups” also “runner ups”, Runner Ups”, “runner– ups” (n-dash). My first dozen missed the capitalization, but I caught that, not before you saw one, and I am now preserving case.

I am using AWB which also does other fixes. In one article it wanted to change “Widley” to “Widely” but I saw it am did not let it happen. I am mildly worried I will zone out and miss something. I suspect you have many tennis articles on your watchlist, so if you see any errors, please point them out and I will be happy to fix them. In fact, I would prefer fixing them to you just correcting them, in case I need to watch for systematic errors.

Most of the corrections I have made so far at tennis article, and at least one badminton (which makes sense) plus a few others.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to draw your attention to The plural of runner-up, in which you are mentioned.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Wolbo, you've been mentioned at ANI . Feel free to contribute to the discussion as it's about you. Thanks! KoshVorlon 16:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Tony Wilding

Respected Wolbo Sir.

As i mentioned in my edit summary,i am not editing articles which do not make any sense,i am editing articles which make sense,i want the people of New Zealand to know that they too have a good amount of history in Tennis,and i want them to know it in the summary of Tony Wilding,you yourself tell me,what wrong have i done,have i vandalised any information,and how can you call them disruptive when i have given information of truth and knowledge,so please stop putting false claims on a man like me,who has done no wrong,like you said,i will bring this notice to the Administrators,and we will see who is right and who is wrong according to the Adminstrators.

With Regards Anonymous.

103.242.191.126, since you have chosen to go the route of WP:AN I will also respond there, regarding process and conduct, but in terms of content you would be advised to familiarize yourself with the guidelines on the Lead section of an article at WP:LEAD. It clearly states that the lead should "summarize the most important points" of an article. Your addition to the lead is not in compliance with the guideline because that information is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and can thus not be "summarized" in an article lead. Your argument that you include the content in the lead because you want "the people of New Zealand to know that they too have a good amount of history in Tennis" is largely illogical because the article itself, which I have worked on considerably to expand and improve, already achieves the purpose of explaining Wilding's significance, not just to New Zealand but to our global readership, and it does so regardless of your addition. Note that your content addition has not been removed from the article but has merely been improved (as Drmies also notes at WP:AN it was severely lacking in grammar and punctuation), with the most important aspect remaining in the lead (which will also need to be added to the body) and the remainder added as a footnote. Finally, the facts you mention require a citation from a reliable source to back them up which you did not provide. --Wolbo (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)