User talk:Wolbo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

 Welcome To WikiProject Tennis
Image:Tennis net.jpg

Hi and welcome to WikiProject Tennis. As you might have known, WikiProject Tennis is a project dedicated to improving tennis-related articles.

These are a few things you might find useful, when editing with us:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or one of our other members. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! --Dark Falls talk 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Axios_XRF_Spectrometer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Axios_XRF_Spectrometer.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mens Grand Slam Champions

Wolbo, the men's last names were converted into hidden formulas, not removed entirely:

Gomez

Please consider fixing.Ryoung122 18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wolbo, if you look at all the names on the page, such as 'Nadal', then you check what is written on the editing page, you'll find all the first names are included in hidden formulas such as Nadal (you can see the first name in the edit box but not in the main page). What this does is allow the front page to display just the last name, but when you click on the last name, you are wikilinked to an article on the person. Given that the goal is to write an eventual biography for everyone, wikilinks are needed. So, if you have time, could you restore the first names you deleted, just in hidden format? Thanks.Ryoung122 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryoung, I see what you mean. Actually I am aware of the hidden formulas but as far as I can tell my removal of the first names in the list only consisted of the pre 1925 French Open players and none of them were wikilinked. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Grand_Slam_Men%27s_Singles_champions&diff=next&oldid=143275520 Wolbo 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Grand Slam champions" fork

Mr. Wolbo, might I ask you to edit my version, not the Fyunclick 'fork' for the Grand Slam champions? I believe it is incredibly unfair to not count the pre-1925 French champions, but to count the others back to their initial inception. I have already shown that:

A. The French Open's first winner was an Englishman (a foreigner) while Wimbledon's first 29 winners were all UK natives. Hence, the argument of 'exclusion' or lack of 'internationalness' is a farce.

B. The early U.S. 'Open' only allowed members of the U.S. clubs, but we don't see any greying/blanking.

C. Champions like Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra clearly demonstrated their top-level ability post-1925 as pre-1925.

D. Not counting the pre-1925 titleholders would be like not counting Babe Ruth's home runs (because no black players were allowed). Except that non-French players WERE allowed.

Note that, to date, only one person, Fyunclick, has disrespectfully opposed my efforts at equity/fairness, calling me a 'nutball' and suggesting a was just a short-term person. Believe me, I am not in this for the short hall. I spent several hours adding and finishing the formatting. I am not opposed to third-party edits. However, Fyunclick is trying devious maneouvers to try to split my edits from everyone else's. Look at my track record. Look at my 'user page'. I have a lot more standing in reality than Fyunclick. However, I realize that, right or wrong, one person cannot win an argument...the key to victory is to persuade others to come around to one's position. Wikipedia IS about consensus-building. At the same time, Wikipedian principles include the concepts of pluralism (allowing room for multiple viewpoints). However, unilateral dictation by one person is not consensus-building, nor does it allow multiple viewpoints. Fyunclick resorted to scorched-Earth tactics (refusal to negotiate, name-calling, mass reversions, etc). This, despite the fact that I came up with top-notch citations: the Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Almanac, CNN, ESPN, etc.

I did suggest that, to placate Fyunclick's concern, we could use 'italics' for the pre-1925 French titleholders. Of course he didn't respond. Grey-out is simply too much, and it smacks of cultural imperialism.

So, I ask: what are your thoughts on this?Ryoung122 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On your dispute with Tennis Expert

Per your suggestion, I moved my entry on User:Tennis expert's talk page to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#The_question_of_putting_links_in_tennis_performance_timelines. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 16:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official ATP tracking?

Can you show me where this? Thanks. —MC 21:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links on JC Ferrero for Recent Results, Ranking History

You removed links I had just re-entered on Ferrero's page following a lengthy discussion with HJensen.

Your stated reason was a violation of the Spam policy. Can you please elaborate?

How are these links Spam in any way?

The Recent Results link performs exactly as advertised, pulling up ALL of Ferrero's recent results.

If your issue is as HJensen's issue was when he first deleted the link, that the info is already covered at the ATP site, then this is simply not the case.

The ATP Site has a Player Results page. Among its glaring faults are:

  • it does not show Qualification matches (not much of an issue for Ferrero, the last time he had to qualify was the Hamburg Masters in 2005, but if his ranking drops below 30, he will again need to qualify for a few Masters events each year).
  • it does not show the most recent matches until the rankings-eligible results are updated. that is, right now, the link I entered shows his US Open results and is updated daily. the ATP site shows nothing until the entire 20-day tournament is over.
  • doubles matches are on a separate page, instead of showing up along side the singles results with each tournament -- again, not much of an issue with Ferrero, his last doubles match was US Open 2006, he seems to play just a few matches a year, if that. but i am guessing that if you encounter these links on other player bios, you may be tempted again to delete them, from players who do in fact play doubles as well as singles.

As for the Ranking History link, if you click the link wondering why it is there, you probably will not see the value. If you click the link because you actually want to know a player's ranking history, how he is trending very recently and more generally over the years, then the link does not disappoint. But you still might say, "well, the data is already on the ATP Site." Not really. The ATP Site has glaring faults here as well, compared to the SteveGHelper page:

  • SGH shows a telescoping view of the data, so in a single screen of data, you can get a general feel for how the player's career has gone recently and over time.
  • ATP gives you a garbage dump of data, with a few extra clicks showing every ranking week going back for years. It's 2007 now, do you really care to know his ranking in the first week of 2004 and the 2nd week, and the 3rd week ...? It's September, do you really care to know his ranking in the first week of January, the 2nd week, the 3rd week, ...?
  • ATP gives only the numeric ranking for each week.
  • SGH gives the player's ranking, points, # of tournaments played, and also a link to directly to the full ranking list for that ranking week, as well as points increased / decreased since Jan. 1. If you actually wanted to know a player's ranking history, the points and tournaments played would be extremely useful pieces of data. For instance, if you were looking at Nadal, you would see that while he has been #2 for 2 years now, his ranking points have continued to increase and he has continued to close the gap slightly vs. Federer. If you looked at Federer, you would see that he has slid a bit from his obscene ranking points over 8,000 from a year ago.

Anyway, aside from HJensen, other users I have explained this to (Epeefleche, Goran.Smith2) have immediately recognized the unique value these links deliver and have ceased to remove them.

Please let me know if the above explanation does not address your concerns. ShabbatSam 09:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tennis statistics" and "Tennis male players statistics" articles merge

Hello.

You've suggested to merge those articles and I agree but some disapprove it because these articles treat different subjects. I've said in the talk page that "Tennis statistics" had an inadequate title because this article eludes all the great pro feats before the open era. "Tennis statistics" is a modern but wrong conception of tennis history because it mainly takes into account the Slam tournaments which became the main tennis sporting events only in the mid-1980s (when great players began to play the Australian Open). In the 70s, WCT Finals, Masters, US Pro, Los Angeles Pacific Southwest Open, Wembley Pro and so on had sometimes more importance than Roland Garros or the Australian Open. In the 60s all the great pro events were superior, in a sporting view, to any amateur Slam tournament. In the 50s the same can be said and furthermore the Davis Cup was much more important than the US amateur Chps or Wimbledon. In the 30s - 40s the best amateurs were as good as the best pros so it's hard to select the greatest events. In the 20s the best players were the amateurs and the Davis Cup was the Graal. Finally from 1877 to the 1910s several events were important : for instance the Irish Championships were as great (if not superior) as Wimbledon in the 1880s. The US amateur Chps (ancestor of the US Open) was worth "nothing". In 1881 the British Irish J. J. Cairnes, who wasn't ranked among the best British players,went to the USA and easily defeated Richard Dudley Sears, US Chps winner. Until circa 1900 no US player was in the same league as the best British players. Until 1902-1903 no "down under" player could rival with the best British players and before Froitzheim, Decugis and others arrived, no European player was a World Top player : therefore only the British events were great ones and the US and Australian Slams were very ordinary tournaments (the French Slam attracted for the first time all the top players in ... 1969 and for the second time in ... 1979).

Consequently to have "good" tennis statistics we should select the greatest events of each year since the beginning of tennis competition history and then merge those statistics which would be an horror because they are hardly comparable. Imagine that the greatest event in 1937-1938 was the Davis Cup and in 1939 the French Pro and in 1940 the US Pro : Donald Budge had won those events making him the best player in the world during that period but how can you synthesize those performances : he has won 4 "what? greatest events ?" in a row. Nowadays it's very simple : Wimbledon is the greatest competition so you can say that Federer has won 5 Wimbledon in a row and the statistics are simple and easy to understand. Budge at the end of the 30s was the Federer of his time but then the hierarchy of the events changed almost every year. In 1937-1938 as an amateur he could enter Wimbledon and won it but in 1939, though the best player in the world by far, he didn't won Wimbledon because he wasn't allowed to enter it as a pro : that year Riggs won the tournament where all the pros were absent (and amateur von Cramm too because he was rejected, though he had trounced Riggs the week before) but it was clear that Budge, Vines, Nüsslein and Perry all pros were superior to Riggs that year. Therefore to say that Budge has won the greatest tennis event four years in a row is not very easy to apprehend.

In conclusion merging both articles would be great but seems very difficult. So I don't oppose it but I don't push either to do it. Wait and see.

Carlo Colussi (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)