You know, I've been fortunate in my life to have witnessed Laver and Rosewall walk out onto 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 have come and gone as did the antics of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe... the stoic determinations of players like Borg, Evert, and Sampras... and now the space age materials and all-court players such as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. Between submitting articles to tennis magazines, I've watched the ladies game move from lithe of foot players like King, Goolagong, and Navratilova, to athletic powerhouses, using hi-tech equipment, such as 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. The four majors have changed in my lifetime from three grass courts and one clay court, to one grass court, two acrylic courts, and one clay court. The courts have also been changed in the last 20 years to be closer to the same speed; Wimbledon slowed down and the French Open sped up. The balls have also been slowed down and with all those changes the tougher-to-master net game has disappeared but the multi-surface champions have blossomed.
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. As we venture into the unknown of pandemics and crowdless stadiums lets applaud how far we've come since Spencer Gore won the first Wimbledon Championships back in 1877. We'll get through this with flying colors, and not just tennis. We'll mourn our great losses but eventually move on like juggernaut. Tennis looks like it's in good hands with the youngest generation of players ready to grab the brass ring from the seats of their steads, but the legends are still hoping they get some splinters from reaching out too quickly. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk)
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.
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!
Hi there, I have a question asking you about a description of nationality in Lachlan Lewer, a user write it he is an Australian pair skater who currently competes for the United States. I think it's strangeness because his identity is American pair skater and represent U.S now, a formerly identity should write it in here? Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you. But it seems that that guys did not agree, he write it ' Australian pair skater who currently competes for the United States '. I think it's strangeness and no one will wrote it like this. Oh... I see your change. It's more better. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are interchangeable. I prefer United States since that's the term they would use internationally when they compete. It would be United States flag not American flag. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true but this is NOT an American citizen. As far as we know he has not even applied for US citizenship. He lives in the US and plays for the United States, whose governing body is the United States Figure Skating. That's why I feel United States is a better fit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have a question asking you about my edit. It seems have some grammer problems and I want to improve it.
Edit: In January 2025, Malinin complete the 2025 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. He scored 114.08, take a lead in the short program. In the free skate, he attempted and landed all six types of seven quads, success finish in quad flip, quad axel, two quad lutzes and quad salchow, but fell on quad loop and earned 219.23 points, bringing his total score to 333.31 and securing his third consecutive national titles.
Since we've seen on Talk:Mount McKinley that the supposedWP:COMMONNAME beats out the official name as the title of an article, we might as well make it consistent across the board. You might want to !vote on a similar discussion on Talk:Kuwohi to rename that article back to Clingman's Dome, as the latter remains the common name.
At least it would make this website appear to have a shred of integrity by not being so blatantly hypocritical (Though bear in mind that an RM to rename Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg for WP:COMMONNAME reasons a few days ago failed because, of course, "the official name should be the title" - a complete reversal of logic, to the surprise of nobody).
This is the correct version of the edit I tried to type in the other day in the lede there: "Several states commemorate "President's Day" as "Washington–Lincoln Day"; these include Montana, Colorado,[1] Utah, Minnesota and Ohio."[2]ErnestKrause (talk)
@ErnestKrause: While this version is correct I'm not sure it's lead-worthy. The very next section is titled "Official state holidays" and it says the exact same thing along with five other iterations. Why only include the four states that use Lincoln and Washington in the lead? Most states do not use that reference. Also, you should always end your talk page posts with four tildas ~~~~ which adds your signature. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Is there any specific reason why United Cup stats shouldn't be put in Iga's performance timeline? I was inspired by sites such as Coco Gauff career statistics / Jasmine Paolini career statistics. 31.60.69.198 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cocos shouldn't have them either. Consensus has determined what high level events go in the performance timelines and its very specific in our guidelines. You wont see laver cup or 500 level tournaments. And you wont see United Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on the Denali move. You're right about the Denali monogram comprising other topics, and I should've foreseen that and taken it into account. Normally, my response would have been to acknowledge that at the discussion and redo the query in a different way to address it, but by the time I got there, it was closed, so too late now. As a starting point, I would've rewritten your follow-up query like this to better show the post-2014 steep rise, but it still isn't there yet as 'Mount Denali' is so much rarer as a moniker for the mountain than just 'Denali' so we are back to square one again. But if (when?) this move request comes back again, maybe we can pick up where we left off, instead of starting from zero again. Just wanted to acknowledge your comment; at least we have one person out there watching the data, without which it seems like it's all just people voting their preference, which counts (or at least, should count) for nothing. Thanks again, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Thanks. I agree that Mount Denali is much more rarely used so it might skew it the opposite way. Using Denali/McKinley was my other option (and much more fair) but I think you correctly analyzed my point that the ngrams/trends simply cannot be used in this case. It would be great if the name was "Mount Denali" like we do Mount Everest or Mount Kilimanjaro, but it isn't. Then the google searches would be more accurate. Since it's not it is very difficult to determine a common name or trend, which was my point. This whole thing is a quagmire of politics and Wikipedia hypocrisy, so I knew what the outcome would be on day one of the presidents name change. For me this is a very easy matter in how I resolve things but for others not so much. In an ideal world I would say what's the common name... there is none. Then we leave it a couple years until we see McKinley in all the schools and press. Trouble is that's not what happened in 2015. The common name at that time was overwhelmingly McKinley, but the official US argument won out over common name and it was changed to Denali within hours. Many here figured the same would happen this time, but with politics involved it did not. Hypocrisy does not sit well with me, but Wikipedia is what it is and I move on to other editing. Till the next go around, cheers! Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Tennis links requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. saluere,Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS guidelines of app 200px in infoboxes
can you send me a link to what youre referring to when you say infobox images should be 200px, because i have never heard that before lmfao, in fact, if you go to really any other sports players infobox, their image is higher than 200px (usually 240px or near that number) HappyBoi3892 (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HappyBoi3892: I can dig it up, but it has been discussed very recently at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. The usual standard in infoboxes is approximately 200 pixels in size. Of course pixels can no longer be used (static size is deprecated at wikipedia). The closest size was upright=.9 but wikipedia in the last several weeks has totally changed the maximum image size and standard image size in prose and ballooned it up to 250px equivalent. Complaints have been numerous at the link I mentioned. The equivalent to that new max is upright=.8. They err'd in allowing the infobox to balloon with it above the old 200px norm. I hope that helps... cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I probably didn't notice them because they were in notes. I can't see any reason we would keep them. post: But DeMinaur lives in Spain, so it's relevant. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Laver legacy section
You have done a good job on reducing legacy sections the past few days. Could you take a look at Rod Laver's please. That is very long indeed. There are a lot of sentences that just seem like padding on there. It could easily be reworded without losing key information. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tennishistory1877: Done. I didn't realized that bloat had also crept into that legacy. I'll have to look at a few more. I'm sure many may need expanding which takes longer since the references and initial writing isn't there. I'm not saying I'm a super huge fan of legacy sections/career summaries etc, but if you are a top 20 greatest their perceived place in history based on their time-period and peers is not the worst idea. Pete Sampras section is woefully small, but it's more a concern with the amateur era where readers today don't know past accolades, and what events were important. I wouldn't doubt that 95% of most readers here simply look at the four major totals and rank players only based on those. Sad but youngsters tend to think the "current era is best" (CEIB) and older generations of players are superfluous to statistics and greatness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I might have a go at Sampras' article myself to expand the year sections a bit (I have done a bit already in the past). You did a good job on Laver. "Bud Collins often waffled between Laver, Bill Tilden, and Pancho Gonzales as far as who was the greatest of all-time." I thought this was such an unusual way of describing it, but that is exactly what Collins did. What I find the most ridiculous at the moment is even The Big Three seem to be forgotten whilst Djokovic is still playing. The amount of nonsense I hear in the media about modern tennis, I tend to avoid it wherever possible. These so-called experts are not historians or even commentators, they are salespeople. And as for the past, many don't even know who Pancho Gonzales is and they think they are experts! It is no wonder younger people have no clue about tennis history when they are fed history by salespeople of the modern game. I laugh at how absurd it all is. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tennishistory1877: Which is one of the problems whenever talking about the greatest. Magazine's and Newspapers love big articles on the GOAT because it brings in big bucks and readership. I love it myself and talk about new debates while having dinner with friends, which then entices them to purchase a copy or download. It's all speculation of course when talking about a career. All we can really judge is how a player did against their peers in the biggest events of their time period based on the equipment, rules, and training of that time period. I recall reading decades ago how players of the 30s-50s would skip majors if they thought it would interfere with Davis Cup or Wightman Cup. I was amazed back then, not realizing that importance had shifted. Or that a big reason Emerson wouldn't turn pro was because of Davis Cup. Players in the 1970s would have traded two or three trophies of the other three majors for one Wimbledon trophy. This is only an encyclopedia and we can't really go into mammoth details on the differences every 20 years makes in tennis, but we can't forget those who's shoulders today's players are standing on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one reason I am not too fussed about legacy sections is because I am not interested in dictating to people who the G. O. A. T. is. Also I personally go on results 100% rather than who this great or that said their G. O. A. T. candidate was. Having said that I agree with you, Sampras currently has too small a legacy section compared to other players of the same stature. That comes down to fairness and that is important. There are only one or two greats I dislike but I can still appreciate something about them. They all deserve to be represented well on wikipedia as I believe most are now. Possibly less well represented are the one time slam winners and slam finalists of the past. In the pre-open era Wimbledon, the US, the French and Davis Cup were the top amateur events. Davis Cup rivalled the US and Wimbledon for top event. Plus there were the pro majors (and my pro majors list contains the world pro tour, Wembley Pro, US Pro, French Pro, 1967 Wimbledon Pro and the 1932 and 1933 World Pros in Germany). The 1970s was a strange time of transition. The Australian was nowhere and the French struggled a bit. I don't agree with those that claim slams weren't important in the past. Only the Australian wasn't that important (although it was important for Australian players to win). That changed in the 1980s, particularly when they built that marvellous complex at Melbourne Park and expanded draws to 128 players, from then on it was a true major. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sampras has a significant "Career Summary" section, which was recently removed from the Hoad article, and two large "Rivalries" sections. That is substantial material which could be used in the Legacy area. Tennisedu (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that. I will also merge the two sections with him. Other than an Agassi mention, I'm not sure I would use much rivalry stuff in a legacy section. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have cut the rivalries section on Sampras' page right back. It is standard for modern players to have these but that was way too long. I had thought career summary and legacy could be merged, glad you are doing done that. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a quick look on Google newspapers to see about Sampras' GOAT nominations.
I'll leave the legacy section down to you to do. I trust you to list the facts, write a nice flowing script and to keep it to the right length, like you did with the other legacy sections recently. Some other editors put so much hyberbole and sycophancy in these legacy sections they become irritating to read. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosewall citation
Fyunck, I noticed that in your reorganization of the Legacy section in the Hoad article, there is a mention of Rosewall giving an accolade, but the citations for Rosewall's statements are not there, they did not get taken into your revision. In particular the two citations for Rosewall's views are: 1) Shuvam Chakraborty (22 June 2017). "Chasing Greatness: GOAT or GOATs?". peRFect Tennis.
and 2)"Rosewall praises Gonzales". The Canberra Times. 29 May 1963. p. 45 – via Trove. Thanks for your work on this Legacy section. Tennisedu (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Fyunck(click) Just for your information, the edit on the Emma Raducanu article that you kindly thanked me for yesterday has been reinstated. There was no consensus met on the talk page (in fact only the other editor and I expressed opinions) but they have decided they are right and, with their usual AI assisted writing, have put it back in with references that don't mention the trivia they were so desperate to include. I can't be bothered with fighting it anymore as once again a tennis project member proves how petty and obsessive they are (just as an aside I got attacked yesterday by a different tennis project member for adding citations to 20 plus years of previously unsourced Grand Slam tournament pages because I didn't put the date the citations were from or there author!) Thought I'd let you know in case you want to take up the Raducanu page cause. Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @Fyunck(click) Further to the above conversation, have you seen the Victoria Mboko page? It has become a serious trivia fest with such fascinating tit bits as "As a result Mboko became only the third teenager ranked in the top 100 at world No. 91 on 9 June 2025, alongside Maya Joint and Mirra Andreeva" and the highly complicated yawnmania of "She became the youngest player to reach that stage since Belinda Bencic in 2015 and also the third player in the Open Era to reach her first WTA Tour-level semifinal after Elise Burgin in 1983 and Marie Bouzkova in 2019, at the home tournament in Canada, and the first Canadian to reach the event's semifinals when happening in Quebec (Faye Urban and Bianca Andreescu did it in Toronto)" preceded by "She became the youngest Canadian to accomplish the feat at the tournament since Helen Kelesi in 1987." The work of one of the Tennis Project's finest 😂 Shrug02 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a surprise. New player that suddenly is doing great and her fans come out of the woodwork to add anything that sounds amazing. I'll look at it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dates
Hello. Why have you changed the date for Abba Kalinskya"s current doubles ranking to 14 July when the latest rankings came out on 28 July? That makes no sense. Shrug02 (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrug02: Per longstanding consensus ALL tennis article dates for current rank are from the date they achieved that current rank. That's the way its done (or supposed to be done) on all articles. We don't update it every week unless it changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just found out an inconsistency between one statement in the article and the source you added with ProveIt years ago, when citation was needed. I hope this would help, since it seems to be a hoax the press echoes again and again. I'd like to fix the statement directly but prefer reporting the issue for I'm no native English speaker --Thymelikos (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugo Chiesa
There is no Italian tennis player at that time called "Ugo Chiesa". It is an obvious mistake. The tennis player was "Hugo Chiesa" (ARG), whose name was ofter misspelled "Ugo Chiesa". Please doublecheck (do some research), and you will discover that I am right.Gabriele Boccaccini (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriele Boccaccini:, @Tennishistory1877: But I just found something very interesting. In a Swiss Tennis brochure here, he is listed as representing Switzerland in Davis Cup. They spell his name "Hugo Chiesa" in 1930. Chiesa is a common Northern Italian name at the time so Switzerland makes some sense rather than Argentina where that last name is rare even today. So now a tough call on Hugo/Ugo, but this player should be listed as Swiss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recall Tennis Observed, which contain all the men's singles drawsheets of US championships up to 1966, listed Pancho Segura as P. Maguire the first time he entered (or something similar). Yet newspapers containing results of the event listed him as Segura. I always go with what contemporary newspapers say, but this particular player Mr. Chiesa isn't someone I feel particularly strongly about. Nationalities are not always listed in newspapers. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tennishistory1877: It's always tough when you have so little to go on. One thing though... editor Gabriele Boccaccini says it was an obvious mistake, but per the internet Ugo is an Italian name, and a common one... the Italian version of Hugh. We have tennis players today like Ugo Humbert. I'd probably stick with Ugo and if he was important enough we would have mentioned in his player article that he is sometimes called "Hugo". But that is never going to happen. It's also possible that the Swiss brochure I listed went by more of a Germanic spelling of Ugo and turned it into Hugo. Or the Swiss Davis Cup team could have turned it into Hugo in 1930 since German is the most spoken language there. We'll probably never know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I know for sure is that there is no Italian tennis player named "Ugo Chiesa" in the 1920s (I doublechecked Italian sources). According to Tennis Archives (usually quite accurate) https://www.tennisarchives.com/player/?pl=4442 Hugo Chiesa was a tennis player active between 1925 and 1932 (there is also a picture of him). He played in the following tournaments:
Coupe Suisse-Lugano - 1932
Semifinals
Charles Aeschlimann 1 *
Hugo Chiesa6-3 6-3
Coupe Suisse-Gstaad - 1932
Final
Hugo Chiesa 1 *
Mr. Altwegg6-0 6-2
Cannes New Courts Summer Tournament - 1930
Round 1
Hugo Chiesa 1 *
Quarterfinals
Hugo Chiesa 1 *
Nicois Bernheim6-2 6-1
Semifinals
Leonce Aslangul 1 *
Hugo Chiesa6-4 7-5
Roland Garros - 1929
Round 2
Jacques (Toto) Brugnon 1 *
Hugo Chiesa6-1 6-8 6-4 6-1
German International Championships - 1929
Round 1
Hugo Chiesa 1 *
Otto Thümmel6-2 6-2 7-5
Round 2
Emmanuel Du Plaix 1 *
Hugo Chiesa6-2 6-1 6-1
Villa d'Este - 1929
Preliminary Round
Hugo Chiesa 1 *
Adolfo Spasciani8-6 6-4
Round 1
René de Buzelet 1 *
Hugo Chiesa6-2 6-4
Swiss International Covered Courts - 1927
Round 1
Hugo Chiesa 1 *
Quarterfinals
Hugo Chiesa 1 *
Marquis L. Tornielli6-2 6-2
Semifinals
Georg Demasius 1 *
Hugo Chiesa6-1 6-2
Coupe Suisse-Villars - 1927
Semifinals
Hugo Chiesa 1 *
Final
E. Luchsinger 1 *
Hugo Chiesa6-4 6-4
Lugano - 1926
Semifinals
Ferdinand Gosewisch 1 *
Hugo Chiesa6-1 6-1
Roland Garros - 1925
Round 1
Pierre Henri Landry 1 *
Hugo Chiesaw.o.
His nationality is listed as "Argentina", buit it could also be a mistake. He could have been "Swiss" and in fact he was active mostly in Switzerland. His name "Hugo" also could indicate Swiss nationality. Hugo is not used in Italy (the Italian form is Ugo). In any cas, he was not Italian. Gabriele Boccaccini (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugo Chiesa was probably related to Alberto Henri Chiesa, another Swiss tennis player, active 1913-1929. Being a Swiss-Italian it is likely that his given name was Ugo (Hugo is the German form). Neither Alberto nor Ugo were Italian. They were Swiss.Gabriele Boccaccini (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriele Boccaccini: That source doesn't actually say those two were the brothers. It says:
"In the singles, little can be said about the first three rounds, except for the very keen interest aroused by the young André Najar, from Racing , which was somewhat expected after his successes in Espérance, especially as partner of Miss Jacqueline Vives. Xajar, to begin with, eliminated Alberto Chiesa, elder brother of the well-known Swiss player, by 6-2, 6-3 in the third round, he routed Alain Gerbault by 2-6, 7-7 and, in the following round, he completely dominated d' Ainvelle who also retired, the result being 6-3, 3-0 in favor of Najar, but, in the semi-final, the latter did nothing at all against Landau who won by 5-0, 6-1. Landau, in the quarter-finals, had beaten Parisot by 6-0, 3-0.
At the bottom of the table, we had the pleasure of seeing the young Daninos play, who beat the Pole Mokjowski in the first round, 6-3, 6-2, and in the second, seriously resisted de Vaugelas whose victory was recorded by 7-5, 6-4, but who, in turn, was beaten by Colonel Symons, by 6-3, 6-0. The semi-final, at the bottom of the table, brought together Aslangul and Hugo Chiesa, the first having easily eliminated Colonel Symons, the second the young Xiçois Bernheim."
We could likely assume that Hugo is the brother from the first paragraph, but not 100%. However we still have the issue of the ATP and French Open website saying his first name is Ugo and the Swiss Davis Cup info and German paper calling him Hugo. La Figero uses both Ugo and Hugo. If there was heaps of other info on him, and he had his own article, the article title would be placed at his most common iteration with both spellings being mentioned in the article. But I'm not sure what the most common spelling is in this case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see some contemporary evidence for Hugo. The results section of the 29 May 1925 also lists him as U. Chiesa incidentally, so both in the forthcoming draw and results he is U. Chiesa rather than H. Chiesa. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2943870/f8.item.r=Chiesa+landry+tennis.zoom Results websites either use contemporary sources for information (usually newspapers or magazines, occasionally a hand written contemporary draw in a tournament's archive though this is much less common than people often assume) or they use other non-contemporary sources. Sometimes website information can be transcribed wrongly. Of course this can also apply to contemporary newspapers. If just one newspaper article were to list a wrong name I could believe that were a mistake, but if there are many newspaper articles on different dates listing one particular version of a name I would go with that. Just how many errors there in newspapers is an interesting topic, something I have a great deal of experience of dealing with when conducting my research. For instance, there are score variations sometimes in newspapers. And when newspaper articles are syndicated, the error appears many times that particular day across many newspapers. Very rarely a newspaper will give the winner wrongly, but it does happen. Names can sometimes be wrongly spelled. For instance I have heard of Pancho called Poncho Gonzales, which is an error. https://books.google.com/books?id=M-0vAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=%22Poncho+gonzales%22&article_id=2864,2978102&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjy-8_8mYGPAxVyXEEAHawYFCcQ6AF6BAgQEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Poncho%20gonzales%22&f=falseTennishistory1877 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. It does not say "explicitly," but we do not have trace of any other player called Chiesa in the 1920s--only Alberto and Ugo. And as we have seen before everything seems to indicate that Hugo also was Swiss, independently from his relationship with Alberto. The most likely conclusion is that Ugo (Hugo) Chiesa was a Swiss player (and he was Alberto's brother). My point since the beginning is that Ugo Chiesa was not Italian. Initially, I though he is from Argentina, based on Tennis Archives, but I think the evidence that he was from Switzerland is very strong. In any case we cannot find a single source from the 1920s that seems to suggest that Ugo Chiesa was Italian. There is no record in Italy of a Italian player called Ugo or Hugo Chiesa. We should not identify him as an Italian tennis player. It is a mistake, confirmed by the fact that sometimes even Alberto Chiesa (who was undisputedly Swiss) is mistaken in modern databases for an Italian player, because of his Italian name (but Swiss Italians have Italian names as well).Gabriele Boccaccini (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts at this second are that we keep it at Ugo, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the evidence in saying he is a Swiss player. Is that good enough for all concerned? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes fine with me. Ugo is the name given twice for 1925 French in newspapers, so I would go with that. Gabriele may well be right about different pronounciation of the name in different countries. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hello @Fyunck(click). As the seemingly only sensible tennis project member there is, do you know of any way (and is it worth trying if there is a way) to have a certain editor prevented from adding reems of trivia, often using twitter as a source, and adding nonsense like "close to top 100" to section headings? Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrug02: Believe me, there are plenty of sensible project members. Thousands of articles get updated just fine by editors volunteering their time. But it's the squeaky wheels of a few that get noticed over and over again. That and anon IP addresses. You can't really stop folks from being bold with "sourced edits." You can revert back once or twice when it seems overly trivial, and then bring it to that article's talk page to see if other editors agree or disagree with the edit. If it happens over and over and over on multiple pages, you might bring it to tennis project talk page to see if we need to go to the next step of administration. Always try to avoid that if possible because it's long and drawn out and an editor who might be fine contributing 90% of the time winds up getting blocked, and there's anger all around. Sometimes that's unavoidable, but it should be an end result not a beginning or middle goto. But yes there are a couple editors that create headings like candy. One or two items of the most important aspect of the year is what is best. And while top 100 or top 10 are fine if that's the best that happens to a player that year, the other rankings like top 25 and top 75 are pretty useless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click) Thanks for the reply and advice. I was particularly frustrated when I initially wrote to you. I will take on board what you said. In all fairness it is only 4 or 5 editors who seem to be totally obsessed with trivia and nonsense, 1 in particular who I have just today sent the guidelines on the use of Twitter as a source after they removed a perfectly legitimate citation and replaced it with Twitter garbage. Thanks again. I'll take a deep breath and ponder in future. Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wimby 2019 Finals
Look, you reverted my edit, but it looks awful to have Roberto Agut's full name out there, especially on mobile. I'm sure there's some sort of precedent from "WP : always how we've done it" but standards are meant to be bent. I don't understand the need to be so pedantic when simply clicking on the player will send you to their full name. 135.23.202.10 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tabilay: So what. It already said in March 2020 she competed in the Monastir series. That's all we need. You changed it wrongly to 2000, and a trivial the ninth week. We don't need that at all.... this isn't a book, this is an encyclopedia of the highlights of her career. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also i was making corrections on the date of Yecla yet you wiped out that part. before you purge editd consider there are VALID corrections to the article. Tabilay (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tabilay: And perhaps you should do the edits in your sandbox before adding wrong and trivial info to an article. We aren't mind readers knowing if you are going to make corrections at a future date. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I absolutely did not violate the three revert rule. You need to double check that. There was a vandalism inbetween where an anon IP changed an item from boos and cheers to simply cheers, turning the source into a complete falsehood. That was vandalism in the anon IPs only edit on Wikipedia. I pointed that out. This seems crazy and I'm actually shocked with all I tried with this guy that I would get blocked. This must be some clerical error that needs to be looked at. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You absolutely did. Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM; though you might not have liked that edit, it's not an exemption from 3RR -- and even if it wasn't, you're still edit warring regarding the "censorship" issue (you've been here long enough to know that if you're counting your own reverts, you're already edit warring.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇21:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have been here long enough to know a hit and run IP vandalism when it happens. How can you not call that vandalism? It's obvious I won't get unblocked with two administrators concurring, so I wont try. And I was not sitting there counting my own edits till this was reported. I do my best here to try and fight vandalism and non-consensus additions, and I go to administration when things seems to be getting out of hand. I warn this editor that administration is about to happen to give them every chance to avoid it even though he is reverting multiple editors. I always want to give every chance possible because I hate seeing editors get blocked and I've said this many many times if you look at the track record. And now this. So I will never understand this and it will put a chink in me helping with all the vandalism here, but I've had my say and I'm moving on. Cheers to all involved and for taking the time to review the request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Every few years the events change. With the WTA/ATP 1000 events changing it might be difficult. Right now the tables are pretty darned uniform since they must follow our Project Guidelines. Sure you can always find some tables that a new editor tweaks but we usually set it straight when we find them. I assume when people create new players they simply use a performance timeline from another player as a model, but I guess a performance template might work. Fyunck(click) (talk)
I really don't but I can't stop you from doing so. One thing is you already have a change going right now and I don't think you would want multiple things going on multiple fronts. Editors get overwhelmed with too many changes coming at them. I happen to like the way the table is now as it's easy to read and understand. I've always been for changing coding if the table looks the same, but once abbreviations enter and orientation changes you tend to lose me. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the thing is the change got declined because that's what it was a change. And people didn't like the new design, despite resolving accessibility issues and the discission died out afterwards. So do we propose the new design, we already decided upon last year, to the project for a community-wide feedback for one last time or call it a performance timeline with MOS:COLHEAD issues? 8rz (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that one design, the others sucked. But it does not fail moscolhead. I dont think we have ! in the middle of tables. It has been vetted by users with screen readers who tell us it works fine. We had multiple screen-reading editors give their evaluation and it's why we settled on these charts. And COLHEAD is not a guideline. It is an advisory help page that has little to no vetting, and it says so right at the page top. Those Help pages have no bearing on what we do. And, if in order to make things a little better for accessibility we have to make it substantially worse for everyone else, that is a bad thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am having this discussion here first. To dip my toes, see where we are at before deciding to proceed forward or not. COLHEAD has always been that rhing I've been trying to tend to as much as possible. I guess it's become a force of habit. ! mid-table was a fluke. I put together those draft versions in 1 hour, which are bound to have flaws, minor or major. 8rz (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I appreciate it. But I have had this conversation with the editors who help write MOS. Our MOS says nothing about ! in the middle of tables. MOS should say we are linking you to a page that helps but is not part of MOS and is advisory. But it doesn't do that. Then people go to these Help page links, don't notice the warning at the top, and think it's something special. They can certainly help but anyone and their uncle could have written it without any kind of consensus. As far as ! I don't think we have any of those in our mid-table as it exists today. If we do we can simply remove them since screen readers say them differently than a simple |. Without making things much worse for sighted readers we try to help those with limited sight. You want a table that at a glance is self explained and easy to understand. If you have to keep looking back at legends and notes we haven't done it correctly. We want to make sure that color is not the only way a cell gives us information. If bold or italics work, great, but if not we have to include different symbols... but not so many as to make it too busy and gives you a headache to read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, here's something else. Even at Help MOS:COLHEAD it states that "! colspan="5" | Representing Soviet Union" is not the best way to do it. That was written many years ago before Wikipedia started using "scope." While using | isn't a new column head, I was under the impression that using "! rowspan="5" scope="row" | Representing Soviet Union" fixes the issue of using ! in the middle of a table. I think your way is fine and maybe didn't need to be fixed. The addition of "Scope="row" helps sort that thing out. And screen readers have gotten better in the last few years also. It is very very possible that of the choices of !, |, or ! scope="row"... that ! scope="row" is the best choice. I think it depends what you're using it for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
