User talk:Fyunck(click)

You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out on to the court to play each other; to have heard the applause, to have heard dead silence from the crowd as a point was in progress. The years came and went as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... as did the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, Sampras and Federer. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King and Goolagong, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as Navratilova, Graf and Williams. Service has changed from having to keep one foot on the ground or just getting the ball in play, to players who can fire a dart that only high speed cameras can behold. Of course I wasn't there in the 1920's when tennis truly went international and the ILTF wrote into their bylaws that no Major championship could claim to be a "world championship" or that the language of tennis would be "for ever in English." But the repercussions of those early days, and binding together of adversarial organizations, laid the groundwork for what we have today. The sport is special to me and it always will be.

When I started editing at the English Wikipedia 7 or 8 years ago things were much much different. Guidelines and policies were not as complete and it was certainly more "English alphabet" oriented; other language Wikipedias were being formed to cover their own spellings and foibles. Vandalism and personal attacks happened to be sure but not to the extent it does today. Item placement was based much more on common use, sourcing and verifiability, rather than a consensus of opinion and how we would like things to be. We reported what we saw and read rather than making our own truth that would get picked up by Google and become a self-fulfilling factoid. It was source, source, source... verify not truth. The wiki world has changed. Maybe it's newer younger editors and their own world viewpoints, maybe it's that the percentage of English-first speakers has gone down in numbers. I'm not sure. But something has made this a less pleasing place to edit.

Over the last year I've been attacked and lied about by one or two editors... nothing has happened through my pleas. It wears on one but by ignoring things most of the time, I've been able to muddle through. When it gets to be too much I call them on it, but nothing is ever done. I know others read what is written and I know that they ignore it. This includes many administrators. Again maybe this is the way things work here now... who you know seems to be very important. But again, while not as enthused as I once was, I still fight vandalism and add items to established pages, while occasionally creating new player bios. But now I see that no matter how well sourced an item is, Wikipedia is looking to allow censorship of established player names. Amazingly, English spellings found as commonplace in the press, books, organizations, etc... are not just being systematically moved into the far corners of an article (that had already been done over the last couple years), but now these spellings are potentially being banished from Wikipedia forever, as if they never existed or are never used. Literally expurgated from this Wikipedia. And this with many administrators blessings. I have to say it hurts to see it go the way of New York soft drinks. It's not like we have storage limitations. Encyclopedia Britannica will often make sure multiple spellings are present so as to give their readers full information. I can't even comprehend how censoring could happen, but it has... here of all places.

This will require a re-evaluation as to what I can really offer to this encyclopedia and what enjoyment it can offer me. Sadly the environment I see now does not appear to be going in a direction that is pleasing to my typing efforts, and fighting off character attacks is certainly wearing me down... at least in an enjoyment capacity. Where consensus used to mean trying to work with everyone to find common ground that all can live with (whether minority or majority), it now seems to be an all or nothing, my way or the highway type of decision. FYI, no need to ping me on my own talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Archive box collapsible

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
59		The Biggest Loser (season 12) (talk)	Add sources
76		The Biggest Loser (season 11) (talk)	Add sources
42		The Biggest Loser (season 9) (talk)	Add sources
52		Bhumanyu (talk)	Add sources
11,445		Serena Williams (talk)	Add sources
57		2016 Roger Federer tennis season (talk)	Add sources
3,760		2017 French Open – Men's Doubles (talk)	Cleanup
567		Cumans (talk)	Cleanup
55		Cloud Control (talk)	Cleanup
2,713		Sierra Leone (talk)	Expand
326		Ajla Tomljanović (talk)	Expand
2,958		Qing dynasty (talk)	Expand
78		The Biggest Loser (season 16) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
41		Lob (tennis) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
67		Drop shot (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
71		Constitution of Myanmar (talk)	Merge
116		Sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (talk)	Merge
623		Environmental Performance Index (talk)	Merge
71		Vania King (talk)	Wikify
126		Masaaki Hatsumi (talk)	Wikify
22		Cara Castronuova (talk)	Wikify
2		Death of Aung Kyaw Naing (talk)	Orphan
2		Květa Peschke career statistics (talk)	Orphan
18		Johanna Larsson career statistics (talk)	Orphan
4		Patricia Kú Flores (talk)	Stub
38		Paula Badosa Gibert (talk)	Stub
29		Kim Lyons (talk)	Stub
13		Karen Barritza (talk)	Stub
10		Macedonia at the 2016 Summer Olympics (talk)	Stub
18		Tereza Mrdeža (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Familiar activity of Fatality1 (the clone of Aries009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you all

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

Federer-Nadal rivalry page

I remind you that Wikipedia all encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Having said that, this entry of yours teems with obvious bias in favour of Federer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha Centauri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Motels

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

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

Quentin Halys

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

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

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

Suggestbot question

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

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

Re: Teymuraz Gabashvili

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

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

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

New charts

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

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

proposed chart

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

Differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Sexting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sexting. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:Please be careful with the markup errors

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

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

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

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

WTA 125 Series

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

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

Closing tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Cameron Norrie

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reactions to the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Margaret Court

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

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

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

Please comment on Talk:New Zealand Barbarians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Zealand Barbarians. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Challenger articles

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

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

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

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

@Fyunck(click): Just out of curiosity, what makes the ATP World tour draw articles any different? They have the same length as any Challenger draw article. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:LST

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