User talk:Wolbo

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 10.

Welcome!

Hello, Wolbo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Dark Falls ^talk 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Tennis profiles

It's not "crystal balling", all the information is taken from the live-tennis.eu website, a site updated daily with live rankings. It's also an official source for both the ATP World Tour Finals and the WTA Finals. So there is no predictions or guesswork. And now you just caused extra work because the ATP is too damn stupid to have heard of live updates and live-tennis is doing all the hard work for them. No surprise considering how horrid the ATP's writing staff is with multiple errors and typos every single week.

List of the busiest airports in Europe

As agreed from the beginning, European airports are defined as those that are within the airspace of the member and candidate states of The Council of Europe. (See discussion). Therefore, please don't delete any Canarian, Cypriot and Russian airports. Thank you.

Changes to ATP seasons pages

On what basis do you think that by enlarging the text it is better readable? - This results in a larger table size, which makes it more difficult to find information, withdrawing the bold of the winners of given tournaments makes it difficult to find them in the large table content. It was not conditioned through talk tage to make changes. Also, it makes a given ATP season not inconsistent with articles on Challengers or WTA tournaments, among others. Therefore, until the situation is clarified, I propose reverting to the previous versions. Otherwise it will be reported as WP:VANDALISM. Gro456 (talk) 23:01 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Win percentages

I really have no opinion either way on this, but there is Fyunck removing them from pages, other editors adding them to some pages. A consistent approach should be adopted throughout wikipedia. Maybe it should be discussed on the tennis project talk page and a consensus reached. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tennishistory1877, I'm surprised these percentages are deleted as they seem completely uncontroversial to me. It is relevant information and suitable for an infobox. I agree consistency is important. It is probably a good idea to have a discussion on the project talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you. I have posted on tennis project about it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding pre-open era, I think your comments about websites with unreliable stats data that close after a few years might mean Tennis Base. I have been through all their data. Generally speaking their data was reliable, though there are errors. There are errors on the ATP website, but only a few score errors now. There were match wins credited to the wrong player on Tennis Base. But Joe McCauley's book counts as a source on wikipedia and that is the least reliable source there is on the pre-open era pro tour. Many errors and lots of missing info. A great ground-breaking book back in 2000, obsolete now. Tennis Base had two reliable researchers that provided them with a lot of their data but a small amount of their data came from less reliable sources. The same guy that was one of the reliable Tennis Base researchers corrected data on the ATP website and added missing matches to their database a few years ago. Whether a website survives is often down to money. Official organisations like the ATP have money and instant recognition and instant respect for their website. Tennis Base had to work hard to establish a reputation, with little help from the tennis establishment and that costs money. It costs money to run a website and promoting it also costs money. My book is the most reliable and complete source on the pro tour (I don't say this with any sense of arrogance, only because I look through it regularly, check it and also look regularly for missing results). I do not have a stats section in my book, because I know no book on the pro tour can ever contain complete results (some weren't reported anywhere). Incidentally I believe my book now qualifies as a source on wikipedia though this isn't a prelude to me linking it everywhere. I would like to include stats in my book and still wrestle with this issue in my mind, but if I ever did I would make it crystal clear the stats were based on incomplete data. Where is a reliable official source (ATP, ITF) on the pre-open era pro tour? The reason people like me and Tennis Base exist is because official organisations do not publish pre-open era pro results (and few amateur results). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing in relation to the French Open ?

May I ask why you removed the edit I made which is totally accurate. It was the 95th edition of the Grand Slam in France. It is misleading to say it is just the 124th edition peple will think there has been 124 French open grand slams which is not true, it became a grand slam event in 1925, So wht did you remove this fact ?. 178.167.180.147 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should only be one edition of a tournament in the infobox. We also don't mention what edition it is in the Open Era or what edition it is for men and women (in case of a combined event). If you want to add that information you can do so in the lead of the article.--Wolbo (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said there should be only one edition of a tournament in the infobox ?. It is misleading to say it is the 124th edition of the French Open without pointing out it is the 95th grand slam event. It will make readers think there has been 124 grand slam events instead of the correct figure of 95. Let's change it from the first grand slam event in 1925 to the present day then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.147.253 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a longstanding consensus to handle it that way. If you wish to do it differently, make a proposal at the Tennis Project talk page and see if you can get consensus.--Wolbo (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why can it not be pointed out that there has only been 95 grand slam events do you not think it makes sense to point it out no ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.161.159 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzales legacy section

Hi. I notice you recently tagged Pancho Gonzales' legacy section as too long. Whilst I am not a fan of legacy sections on player articles, the relative length of the legacy section taking into account the success of each player is far longer on Lew Hoad's page than Gonzales' (it may be too long on Gonzales' but it is longer on Hoad's). Also, the Hoad page has some individual year sections that are longer than any year section of any other player page on wikipedia. Because Hoad's career at the top was not that long the article length does not show up as being amongst the longest (Djokovic, for example has 18 plus years of being a top echelon player to fit in the article, Hoad was about half that). On the Hoad page the win-loss figures in the Hoad-Gonzales matches are wrong per the sources (it should be one less win for Hoad), surface head to head records are unsourced, in the 1961 year section there is a 1961 Gar Mulloy "ranking" that is not a ranking and in the 1956 section a statement that Hoad didn't know what the Grand Slam was until he arrived in New York is directly contradicted by contemporary sources earlier in the year, but apart from these few glaring errors the information is largely correct on the Hoad page now. It would benefit from a bit of pruning though (some years are fine, others too long, career summary too long, assessment section too long). I have thought for some time that the legacy sections are a problem. I know Fyunck is not a fan of them and neither am I, but the size of them should reflect the success of the player. If legacy / assessment sections were reduced in size for a lot of players that would be a good thing (Laver's is too long also). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tennishistory1877, I wasn't comparing the Pancho Gonzales article with Lew Hoad's (or any other). I hadn't been to the Gonzales article for some time and while scrolling noticed the legacy section completely filled my screen. It is basically a large wall of text without any subheadings to facilitate navigation. It is neither inviting nor pleasant to read, in fact it is rather off-putting. That's why the 'too long' tag was added. Mind you, the tag indicates 'the section may be too long to read and navigate comfortably' which is more specific than just saying it is too long. I'm well aware of the editing process that led to this result and have no desire to open that particular Pandora's box again, but frankly the legacy sections for both Hoad and Gonzales (and to a lesser extent even Laver) are simply too long and could use a bit of pruning. Will have a look at your other remarks on the Hoad article.--Wolbo (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the legacy sections are too long on all three articles. Thanks for looking at the Hoad article. There are no Pandora's boxes that need opening, just a small number of errors to remove and possible trimming of certain sections. There aren't many issues I have with that Hoad page now, but I dislike errors intensely (these few glaring errors stand out). Here is the newspaper article about Hoad being very keen to try and win the Grand Slam in June 1956 before winning Wimbledon. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/71810404 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 1956 statement that Hoad didn't know what the Grand Slam was until he arrived in New York because it was not mentioned in the source provided for that sentence and the article you mention does indeed directly contradict it. Will have a look at the other points but will only change any info if I can verify it via a reliable source.--Wolbo (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There has never been an accurate source for pre-open era pro tour surface stats. I do not list the surfaces of matches in my book, as surfaces do not correspond to modern day surfaces (canvas on ice, antbed, shells etc. were all pro tour surfaces) TennisBase only listed some surfaces of matches accurately. Writing unsourced or questionable source would satisfy me rather than removing it entirely. I have looked through all relevant tennis base pages and am 100% sure that extra Hoad win was not on TennisBase when the editor added it. Hoad and Gonzales could have both won more matches against each other but documented matches are what matters. The 1961 bit of fluff from Mulloy refers to matches in 1959 and is not a 1961 ranking. I was thinking about the legacy sections for all three pages. Perhaps listing a sentence like Person 1, person 2 and person 3 etc. all considered Hoad/Gonzales/Laver the greatest of all time (keeping the citations but shortening wording would be better than what exists now). All the fluff and hyperbole of the statements are not necessary, although it should be noted if a person rated someone else as number 1 at some other time. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There was one more thing I remembered. On the Hoad page in the 1959 section it says the Kramer brochures described the Ampol series as World championship Tennis. He described many events as World championship tennis in brochures. An example:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/305207915223?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

Dundee 1961 was not a world championship status event. It was a standard tour stop. Kramer used this term on many of his brochures to boost ticket sales. This is a good example of why advertising material should not be used as a source. Independent newspaper reports are very different from advertising brochures. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been looking at wikipedia policy documents and WP:NOTADVERT

WP:NOTPROMO

states "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources". So the 1959 statement on the Hoad page that "Kramer's brochure described the Ampol series with the term "World Championship Tennis"" fails this wikipedia rule. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information which is certainly acceptable from those publications, particularly the title of the various tours. For example, describing the 1959 4-man tour as the "world professional championship" as opposed to the 1959 Ampol series as "world championship" without the term "professional" included, or in newspapers referring to the Ampol series as "world's open championship" or "world series", a term which is specifically used for world championships, tells us something about how Kramer designated these tours. Tennisedu (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His brochure for 1961 Dundee described the event as "World Championship Tennis". If Dundee is a World championship everything is!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/305207915223?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mulloy's ranking of the top pros was clearly dated for 1961. He was probably influenced by the results of previous years, but his focus was on the 1961 season. Tennisedu (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source for Hoad being surprised by the events in the Grand Slam when he arrived in New York and saw the Sports Illustrated cover article. Hoad regarded the GS as being the Australian, Wimbledon, and US titles. Tennisedu (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that Hoad regarded the Grand Slam as consisting of the Australian, the Wimbledon, and the US Championship, which is not the four-event Grand Slam which you are assuming. That is made clear in the text, with a clear reference. Tennisedu (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure see news articles that say differently. He talks heaps about equaling Budge's Grand Slam record in multiple sources, and Budges record was four titles, not three. If he was talking about equaling the record of Aussie, Wimbledon, and US titles he would have mentioned equaling Perry's record. And as far as legacy goes, who the heck cares what Hoad thought? Every news source was saying the Grand Slam was all four tournaments, not three. They also say Hoad disliked the French Championships and the spectators. So just because he disliked the French, or was too ignorant to understand what the Grand Slam was, means nothing to his legacy. His legacy is based on what others think, and what the press thinks, and what history thinks... not what Hoad thinks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Budge's record was referred to in newspaper reports as the "Big Three" (Hoad's terminology), and the citation is right there in the Hoad article, I included that citation so that there would be an answer to your query. Perry's record is also mentioned.Tennisedu (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another report which details the Big Three, this report from the AP. July 2, 1951. AP- "Now the pair come face-to-face again in the second of the big three of world amateur tennis tournaments. Australia, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Championships form the grand slam." Tennisedu (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just before the French final, an article discussing the calendar Grand Slam attempt by Hoad: "Hoad had only to beat Sven Davidson of Sweden tomorrow to have achieved 50% of his goal for he won the Australian championships earlier this year"

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article71805343 Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a quote from Hoad. Tennisedu (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Hoad quote reference, from UPI, to explain his "Big Three" terminology. Wilmington Morning Star. UP. 4 September 1951. p. 10. "Savitt was seeking the third grand slam in tennis annals, for the Australian, Wimbledon and United States titles had been won previously only by Fred Perry in 1934 and Don Budge in 1938." Tennisedu (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is a statement on Hoad in the 1964-67 section that says "This would be the last match on grass between Hoad and Gonzales, with Hoad holding a lifetime edge on grass over Gonzales of 21 matches to 14." Not only is this statement dubious, but it contains three sets of references that do not confirm the statement. These stats are later repeated in the career summary section (they certainly don't need saying twice). Propaganda like this seems to stand out more and more as the article has improved and continues to improve with your recent edits. BTW, I notice a minor typo at the start of 1957 "where the beat". I did a rough count and I think most of the 52 titles are listed now. I never thought I would say it at one stage several years ago, but it is a pretty good article, though certain sections are still too long with too much padding. Some examples: in 1956 "Hoad travelled to Brookline in August, to partner Rosewall in the U. S. Doubles championships, which they won to complete their career doubles Grand Slam" could be shortned to "Hoad and Rosewall won the U. S. Doubles title at Brookline in August to complete a career Grand Slam". The wording of certain sentences in 1959 : "The LA Masters round robin from 5-14 June, was held at the L. A. Tennis Club on concrete, and was part of the Ampol series" could be shortened considerably with better wording (exact dates are not usually given). Again in 1959 there is a long explanation of Gonzales going home for holidays and skipping Kooyong that could be shortened. Also I note a certain editor has asked for the citation to the relevant Guinness world record page be added where it says citation needed on 1953 being a record for youngest world number 1. I see no reason why this shouldn't be added. Ironically the citation needed should be written on several statements with citations that don't confirm the information written. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on the need to fix the citation and remove the notification on Hoad's record of youngest ever. This record should be mentioned in the lead, consistent with other tennis biography pages.Tennisedu (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there needs to be an update of a citation on the Hoad and Tournament of Champions pages, the 1959 Jack Kramer fall tour brochure entitled "World Championship Tennis" from November 1959 held in The National Library of Australia, the corrected link is:

https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/795653. I hope that this can be updated.Tennisedu (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The brochure should not be listed as a source at all. This is a brochure describing an event as World Championship Tennis, when even events like Dundee 1961 are described as World Championship tennis. It was a marketing ploy. Advertising material should not be used as justification for an event being a world championship. I do feel the Hoad page may be considered something of a laughing stock for describing Ampol 1959 winner as being world champion, because you won't find this in any history book. Only 1 legitimate source (the French language newspaper one) lists it as such and all the other many many many sources list Gonzales as world champion. If we hadn't had a Hoad fanatic editing this page, that claim would never have been on here. I feel a bit guilty we are all bombarding Wolbo's talk page with these comments so this will be my last one. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to hand out pretzels. --Wolbo (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you have a sense of humour about it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the press statements about Ampol being a world title. They are duly cited in the Hoad article. Tennisedu (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note this needs to be moved to either Lew Hoad or Pancho Gonzales talk pages, not a personal talk page. These are really for discussing things with Wolbo. Wolbo could disappear one day and all his pages would be removed and no one will ever know these conversations took place unless placed on the article talk page. That allows other followers to join in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of us will disappear one day! Agree with your comment, so kindly move the discussion over to the articles concerned.--Wolbo (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Originally my comments are directed directly to Wolbo. It is only when Tennisedu chimed in that it started to look like a talk page discussion. The earlier comments would look very odd on another page and they weren't meant for an article talk page. I have stopped replying to the insane propaganda now, so once Tennisedu has had the last word as he always does, that should be an end to this discussion. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to discuss the citation upgrades...and found a major discussion already under way.Tennisedu (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yvonne Bourgeois

The article Yvonne Bourgeois has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No SIGCOV found. She is mentioned in the NYTimes' archives, but only in passing and not in a manner which fulfills SIGCOV.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-founder of Amsterdam-based AI company

Hi Wolbo, would you mind taking a look at my edit request for Arkady Volozh? He is co-founder of Nebius Group, an AI infrastructure company that focuses on energy efficiency and is headquartered in Amsterdam. I saw that you are both a member of WP:Netherlands and that you are passionate about protecting the environment; I figured you might like to weigh in here. You'll find my proposal here: Talk:Arkady Volozh#Further suggestions. Thank you Wikigracht (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoad article corrections

Hi. I noticed two errors on the Hoad page. In the references a "Cite error: The named reference "annual958" was defined multiple times with different content". Also at the start of the amateur 1957 section an error "Hoad started the year in Manly where the beat the young". The beat should be replaced by he beat. You have done a good job on the page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks.--Wolbo (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There are still a few sections too long. 1954 wasn't even a good year for Hoad but still seems too long. Statements like "After returning to Australia, Hoad scheduled extra practice to work on his serve and volley" are just padding and are not necessary. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated a bit about this because sometimes this type of info can be relevant, for instance Tilden's practice during a winter to work on his backhand. It is not easy to keep a tennis career article interesting to read. We cannot editorialze or use flowery language like Bud Collins to spice up an article, but we want to avoid monotonous and dreary repetition of a player's activity, which is all too common ("then he played this tournament and won/lost, next he played that tournament and won/lost, etc, etc"). That's where sentences like the above can be useful to break up the repetition and add some variety in the prose. Did decide to remove the sentence because the article mentions only a week of extra practice, hardly noteworthy, and, more importantly, it states he is going to practice, so we do not even know if it took place at all. Added the lack of consistency in Hoad's play to the previous sentence.--Wolbo (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of descriptive material regarding Hoad's game currently in the Assessment section which could be transferred to the Playing Style section, specifically comments of Gonzales and Laver regarding Hoad's wide range of shots. This might lighten the load on the Assessment section.Tennisedu (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Fyunck's edit has taken care of that.--Wolbo (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was a good edit by Fyunck. I note "This would be the last match on grass between Hoad and Gonzales, with Hoad holding a lifetime edge on grass over Gonzales of 21 matches to 14" is written on the 1964-67 section, same (non)references as the other statement removed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is not cherry-picking because the sentence is about grass court matches. The sourcing issue is the same but it is probably best discussed on the Lew Hoad talk page or even at the tennis project talk page, because it deals with the problem of how to handle player statistics based on a source (Tennisbase) which is no longer available. Tricky issue.--Wolbo (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree it is a tricky issue. There are three levels of concern I have about TennisBase stats. The first is that since a certain publication in 2019 they have not contained all the known results and since 2021 no results were added and it later closed entirely, effectively freezing it in time (plus TennisBase had errors, I gave the chief TennisBase researcher some corrections in late 2018, plus he made many corrections himself, but there were many others never made). The second issue I have concerns surface stats. Originally TennisBase listed surface stats but they were incomplete and many were wrong. The chief researcher attempted to rectify this and went over them in 2020-21 (they were still incomplete though) but these updated surface stats are not on wikipedia because no one changed them (I do not know exactly the extent of the changes he made as I was told he was doing this by another historian). The third issue concerns specifically the grass surface stat between Hoad and Gonzales. I already posted the page from TennisBase from 2018 that had the result listed that Tennisedu amended in 2021. Tennisedu also changed the overall record for one more win for Hoad. So I believe the TennisBase stat was 20-14. There is no evidence it was ever 21-14. From his remarks saying it was paywalled clearly indicate Tennisedu never went on to TennisBase after it went to a partial paywall but free trial basis, so how could he check the stat when he amended it in 2021? And as I proved, that result was already on TennisBase in 2018. I doubt 20-14 is correct, but I am prepared to accept that as a partial tally of TennisBase results as given circa 2018. The fact TennisBase is no longer available adds further complications as we have seen, and though I do have a large number of screenshots, they are not of every TennisBase page. Plus regarding that citation list of the 21-14 figure, there are a list of match reports, none of which list the tally, plus a TennisBase page which I don't believe did either. I agree it is a difficult issue, because I don't really want to remove TennisBase overall head to head tallies (other than amending Gonzales Hoad to one less Hoad win, because that is an error). Surface stats I think should be removed though, I just don't believe they are complete or accurate enough for any player. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was able to read TennisBase in 2017 without paying anything and saved the stats as of 2017. I was the editor who discovered that 3rd place match in Sydney and added it to the citations adjacent to the 1961 grass events and the 2017 Tennisbase figure. Krosero contacted me and asked about the numbers for this stat, I explained it to him, and he did not complain about the numbers. Krosero may have used my discovery of the 3rd place match at Sydney to amend the Tennisbase number. There is no problem with this stat. Sorry to disagree with you but I was involved in this. Tennisedu (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you were not able to read TennisBase in 2021 when the figure was updated on wikipedia so did not check the figure. "Krosero may have used" the result to amend the number?! I do not care what krosero MAY have done. The anecdote about krosero is hearsay anyway (for argument's sake let's say I believe your story, so what?) What happened in 2017 has little relevance. Numbers need to be checked and verified when they are changed, which you clearly did not do. TennisBase is a mess of a source now, I can't blame you for that and it isn't your fault it can't be verified anymore, but it is your fault on insisting on keeping a number that you don't even know was written on the source at the time you changed it. Wikipedia isn't about what you personally guess what a number may be (and has nothing to do with "approximates" which you said before). Wikipedia works on sources: a source says something, an editor enters it on wikipedia, the editor checks what they have written against the source to see it is correct, which you did not do. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, your assumptions are wrong, as I stated above I used the 2017 Tennisbase data and later, after I discovered the 3rd place Sydney match from 1958 by browsing the newspapers, discussed the number with Krosero, who was, I believe, editing Tennisbase. Krosero was well aware of these numbers and did not make any complaint against them. Unless there is something to add to this, this is a good number for the hth.Tennisedu (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stated facts. It is you that made assumptions when you corrected that source in 2021. Please learn how to use wikipedia properly. Goodbye. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Krosero corrected the Tennisbase to reflect the 1958 3rd place match at Sydney which I discovered, that is unrelated with the hth number, which is based on a combination of the 2017 Tennisbase data (not the corrected Tennisbase you are referring to), plus the 1961 British tour and the 1958 Sydney 3rd place match. The overall hth number does not change. Krosero did not complain about it. Tennisedu (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice you started removing round of result. This is going a bit far imo. Seeding details can be removed but I don't agree with removing round of result. The rest is good reduction. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation does not match source

Hi Wolbo, I was reading the Legacy section in the Hoad article and I found that this statement does not correspond to the cited source article. Namely,"He had many more bad patches than periods of top form.", referring to a supposed statement from Hopman. Was there perhaps another source for your quote? Tennisedu (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tennisedu, it is a literal quote from the article. If you have a Newspapers.com account, it is in the top middle of the page. Have changed the citation to make it accessible for non-subscribers, so you can search on the text.--Wolbo (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found it, but the overall context is somewhat different in total. That larger context is lost in the small excerpt we get in the Legacy section.

    "He had many more bad patches than periods of top form. Apparently he has now struck one of his depressions and Kramer (promoter Jack Kramer) is going to find there is no presto magisto magic getting him into...Hopman said that not one of the professionals who beat Hoad in New York and Los Angeles recently ever played consistently as well as Hoad in the last Davis Cup. That was in a tense atmosphere and not the easier spirit of the exhibition play of most pro tennis, he said."

Also, Hopman himself ranked Hoad world No. 1 in 1953 and 1956. So it looks like Hoad could not have been more inconsistent than other players like Rosewall or Trabert. Rosewall was never consistent enough to get a No. 1 amateur ranking from anyone.Tennisedu (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's 9th Edit-a-thon

Hello Wolbo:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2025!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2025, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event with the theme What Women Do! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 different occupations or professions (or broader roles in society) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk), Spookyaki (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]