User talk:Tennis expert/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Format

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Notchopin 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. Redd Dragon ^speak 12:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Geez, there is no "vandalism" on my part, as any reasonable person would see from looking at the history of the information I have tried to add to and correct in various articles. Having a dispute with a contributor about nomenclature or content does not mean that one or the other is "vandalizing" anything. If anyone is "vandalizing" something, look at the person who keeps reverting the valuable updates and corrections I've made to the Stefan Edberg article, especially concerning his career in Masters series events.

The dispute is whether "wins" and "runners up" should be used instead of "champion" and "finalist." I've been playing and following tennis for 40 years. Contrary to what some of the contributors would say who are complaining about me, it is more common in the media to say that Stefan Edberg was the champion of Wimbledon 3 times and a finalist several others times instead of saying that he was a "wins" of Wimbledon 3 times and a "runners up" several other times.

Furthermore, I am the person who researched and provided almost all the statistical data in the Billie Jean King and Margaret Court articles, which took almost 100 hours of my time. I'm hardly interested in "vandalizing" any article, especially about tennis. Tennis_expert 21:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You may see your edits as contributive, but I think your "valuable updates" are edits that don't add anything new to the articles - you merely replace the commonly accepted terminology.

Furthermore, you've been changing formats that have been used for all the tennis bios without trying to get a consensus on the talk pages first. The yellow background for quarter-finals up to finals, for instance, is used in all tennis related articles, yet you keep changing the templates without discussing this with other users.

Pushing your edits through (using several IP addresses, none of which have edits that contain "the history of information" you mentioned) even though they go against the commonly accepted terminology and use of templates is a form of vandalism. Please stop. Igorrr 21:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is this so-called "consensus" about the yellow background documented? Where can I find a list of the "consensus" items and "commonly accepted terminology"? And who exactly makes up the "consensus"? You and ? Finally, you grossly exaggerate when you say that "all" tennis related articles use the same template. They don't.

So, do you think that completing and correcting Stefan Edberg's heretofore inaccurate and incomplete career history in Masters Series events "doesn't add anything new" or is "vandalism"? Do you also think that adding Billie Jean King's and Margaret Court's record in all four Grand Slam events "doesn't add anything new" or is "vandalism"? Do you really think that the template I've used in many articles for career Grand Slam singles performance timelines is inferior to the one used in just a few articles before I started using my template? If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then in my opinion you have no credibility whatsoever. "Please stop." Tennis_expert 22:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

All the color coding in the templates used for Grand Slam tournaments are the same on the different articles I have read. Therefore, I (genius) derive that editors of tennis articles silently agree on using the same format which is in accordance with the WP: Manual of Style. Same with "wins" and "runner-ups," which you don't respect either.

I dubbed you a vandal because you kept changing these formats even tough I and another user (Zaxem) kept reverting these edits, implying we don't agree with these changes. Instead of taking your case to the talk pages to discuss this with us, you continued editing (under different IP addresses) without attempting any discourse with other editors, so it certainly looked like you were vandalizing from my point of view, but if you state you were not then I will assume good faith from now on.

Now that I've got your attention (hi), the DNP abbreviation you insist on using is stretching out certain pages (Navratilova's I remember), therefore I think it's better to keep the ordinary dash instead. Thank you. Igorrr 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear expert, ignoring all the comments you have received on changing the articles' format and pushing your versions, as you are for instances in Gabriela Sabatini is considered vandalism. Please, consider the posibility that you might not be always right, and that changing a consolidated standard should be consensuated, not forced. I hope you can understand and learn to work side by side with other editors. Failure to do so might result in your account getting temporarly blocked. Mariano(t/c) 06:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you refresh your memory about the official meaning of "vandalism" in Wikipedia. For your convenience, "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. ... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." In fact, your message could be considered "talk page vandalism." Therefore, I am considering whether to remove it. Wikipedia says in its entry about "Talk Page Vandalism": "Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion." Consider yourself warned. Tennis_expert 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wins" & "Runner-ups" vs. "Champion" & "Finalist"

Dear Tennis expert,

I'm glad you've become a regsitered user on Wikipedia. When you were previously editing as an unregistered user, conversations of the type we can have now were not possible because your IP address kept changing.

Let me begin by stating clearly that I personally do not consider you a vandal. I may disgaree with some of the changes you've made, but I do believe that you've always been attempting to be constructive. What we have here is simply a difference of opinion - which we can now talk through and work out (hopefully amicably) since you have an account.

Let me outline why I believe that the existing format of using "Wins" and "Runner-ups" at the top of retired players lists of Grand Slam finals should be kept in place. In all cases where these headings appear on players' pages, they are in fact sub-headings of a main title "Grand Slam singles finals". Therefore, since we're looking at sub-headings of this main heading, we're not saying that Stefan Edberg (or anyone else) was as a "wins" or a "runner-ups" (which of course would not make sense), but that these particicular Grand Slam finals resulted in a "win" or "runner-up" finish for the subject of the page. That makes perfect sense and avoids the problematic term "finalist", which doesn't necessarily mean the subject lost and thus may confuse some people who are not very familar with the subject matter. To my mind, therefore, it makes sense to keep these sub-headings as is (and several others who've also reverted your attempts to change this clearly agree with me).

If you think you can make a strong case as to why I'm wrong about this, I'm more than happy to discuss it with you, either here or on my talk page. But let's talk it through first, rather than continually reverting edits regarding this which waste the time and energy of you, me and others who've got involved in this.

With regards to your changes to the Grand Slam/Master Series performance timeline charts, I don't have a strong preference on this and haven't personally reverted any of you editing of these. However I do think Igorrr has made a reasonable point about some of them becoming too long to into fit on the screen. (This could fixed by splitting some of them into two.)

In the meantime, I'm glad to have another person around who's committed to improving the tennis articles on Wikipedia. Let's just make sure we talk through differences of opinion rather than getting into unnecessary edit wars.

Regards, Zaxem 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This Controversy Is Completely Ridiculous

This whole thing is completely ridiculous, for the following reasons. (1) There's a certain implication in the posts by Igorrr and Zaxem that editors who don't register are somehow less important or credible than those who register. If Wikipedia considered that to be true, then it would have restricted contributions to only those who have registered. (2) Having different IP addresses is not sinister, as Igorrr has implied on more than one occasion. People who have dial-up accounts will have a different IP address each time they log on. And people who edit using different ISPs will have different IP addresses. If Wikipedia wanted each editor to have the same IP address everytime they edited, then it would have imposed a restriction to achieve this objective. (3) Zaxem and Igorrr do not necessarily make a consensus. There are a lot more editors of tennis article than those two guys (or girls). (4) I doubt there are many people who have contributed more than yours truly to tennis articles all over Wikipedia since late 2005. Therefore, my opinion about how these articles should be formatted is at least as important as the opinions of the people who mindlessly and carelessly revert those articles and, due to their mindlessness and carelessness, trash important contributions. Witness what has happened repeatedly concerning the reversions of the Stefan Edberg article, which has had the stupid side effect of eliminating the updates and corrections I've submitted concerning his Masters Series results.

If you want to use something other than "DNP" (did not participate) to indicate that a person did not play in a tournament, then I am open to suggestions. I object, however, to using a dash because of its inherent lack of specificity, i.e., its vagueness.

I do not see anything wrong with "champion." That is certainly a better choice than "wins." A person has to "win" seven matches to be the champion of a Grand Slam singles tournament. A person is a "champion" only if the person prevails in the final match.

As for "finalist," I would not object to "losing finalist." But "runners-up" is a lame and awkward term.

I have been preparing career Grand Slam singles results for other players, like the contributions I submitted for Billie Jean King and Margaret Court. But if these controversies continue, e.g., publicly labeling me a "vandal" whenever I do not agree with someone else's edit, I will instead submit them to other, more tennis-related, websites. Tennis_expert 02:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to your comments

Dear Tennis expert,

I get the impression from the last set of comments you've written here that you think I'm trying to antagonize you. Let me assure you that that's not the case. I cannot speak for any other Wikipedia editor, only myself. But with that noted, let me address what you've said:

• I in no way beleive that unregistered users are less important or credible than registered users. The difficulty that I faced when you were editing as an unregistered user was that, becuase you were logging in from different IP addresses each time, it wasn't possible to leave messages for you to discuss things - because an unregistered user will only see messages left for them if they log on from the same IP address again. I thus tried to communicate my thoughts on our dispute to you through the edit summaries on the respective players' pages, but you still reverted my edits without offering any explanation. That's why I was pleased when you registered an account, because it actually gave us a proper forum to discuss this through your talk page. In all my communications with you, I've tried to be above-board and civil, and I don't intend for that to change.

• I agree that Igorrr and I do not by ourselves make a consenus. But I think you'll find that more people than just the two of us have been reverting your edits of "Champion" and "Finalist" (including, but not limited to, Notchopin and Redd Dragon), whereas only you have been reverting these changes back. At the moment it seems you're in a minority of one among the people who particularly care about and pay close attention to these articles. That doesn't necessarily mean we're right and you're wrong. But in a colaborative project like Wikipedia, it does mean that the person in the minority has a duty to try and persuade those of us who are upholding what has become an established format that we should agree with you that it should be changed. Rightly or wrongly, the "Wins" and "Runner-ups" sub-headings under the main banner heading "Grand Slam finals" has become an established practice on the pages about tennis players. And very similar forms of formatting also extend to pages about players of other sports, for example several of the pages about squash players. If you think the established practice should be changed, discussion with others involved in editing these pages is a better way to tackle the issue than edit-warring.

• I'm not totally unconvincible that this established practice should be changed. But further up on your talk page you'll see that I've explained, in as clearly reasoned a way as I can, why I think the existing practice is still workable and sensible. Your alternative proposal of "Losing finalist" might be a sensible alterantive. But in fairness if you want me and others to consider your suggestion fully, you need to explain, in clearly logical terms, why you consider this better than the existing practice so that we can properly understand and assess your thinking. At the moment what you've said is that you think that "Runner-ups" is a "lame and awkward term" - a statement which hardly allows anyone else to understand your thinking beyond the fact that you take a personal dislike to it. You also note that a player is a champion "only if the person prevails in the final match", but given that the term "Wins" is being used as a sub-heading under the banner heading "Grand Slam finals", I still don't yet understand why you consider "Champion" to be a superior alternative (other than becuase of personal taste). And I have to say that I think your changing of the main headings to "Grand Slam tournaments" from "Grand Slam finals" is inappropriate - these sections list the result of the final on the occassions when the players made the final, not every Grand Slam tournament they ever played in (a reader who's generally unfamilar with the context and subject matter may well find this labling quite confusing). If you want to convince me and others that we're wrong and that your preferences are indeed more clear and appropriate, please offer us a more carefully reasoned explanation. I think that's an entirely fair request in the circumstances.

• In the spirit of goodwill, I'll personally avoid reverting any of your edits on this for at least another 24 hours to give you an opportunity to state your case clearly and let the rest of us fully understand your thinking (though I'm in no position to stop others from doing so).

Let me be clear - I have no desire to develop a hostile relationship with you. I, like you, have devoted a great deal of time to developing the tennis articles on Wikipedia over an extended period and I see you as someone I'd really like to be working together with rather than battling against. I do hope that some sort of consenus agreement involing everyone involved in this dispute can be reached so we can all move on productively and collaboratively.

Regards, Zaxem 10:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: This Controversy Is Completely Ridiculous

Hello. Thank you for taking out the time to respond. I understand you're only trying to contribute to this project, but as I've expressed before I don't agree with the changes you've been submitting lately. Please let me state my case.

If you haven't already would you please look at the Grand Slam overviews on the following articles for a moment (articles selected off the top of my head)

Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt Federer, Roddick, Graf, Hingis, Serena and Venus Williams, Davenport, Henin.

You will notice that -all- these articles use the same Grand Slam format: Yellow background for quarter finals up to finals and a dash for DNP, which was what I meant with the unwritten consensus in my previous comment. Not just the consensus of merely a couple editors, but most tennis editors seem to use a standard format to display Grand Slam results at Wikipedia. I apologize for not explaining this clearer the first time.

I would also appreciate it if you would explain how changing virtually all the backgrounds of the grand slam overviews to yellow is an improvement over the commonly accepted quarter-final up to final coding. These changes make both aesthetically and logically no sense to me.

I also disagree with your notion that a dash isn't clear enough to illustrate that the player did not attend the tournament that particular year. Would you please explain how a dash could be misinterpreted by it's vagueness as you call it, because the assumption that some aren't capable of understanding the intended meaning of a line in a tournament overview seems more than a little condescending to me.

Finally, some may consider this a [completely ridiculous controversy], but as I see it you have been changing a widely used format without initiating a discussion with other editors on the appropriated discussion pages first. Pushing your points of view through without seeking the opinions of other editors is, contrary to what you may intend, disrespectful to other users who, like you, are trying to contribute to the tennis pages.

Thank you. Igorrr 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses to responses

Zaxem:

Word choice is always subjective. Whenever I choose to use one term over another term that has the same meaning, I am making a subjective choice. In my subjective opinion, "runners-up" is lame and awkward compared to the alternatives of "finalist" or "losing finalist." You and a few others apparently have a different opinion. Wikipedia allows you to edit articles to reflect your personal choice, just as I am allowed to edit articles to reflect my personal choice. If you do not want to compromise about "runners-up," then I guess we are at an impasse. You'll see that I have offered a compromise already. You have not. The ball is now in your court, so to speak.

Igorrr:

Silence does not necessarily imply agreement. For example, someone does not "vote" that they would like an article to continue having grammatical errors just because the person does not take the time to correct them. And how many of the tennis editors are actually using the background-is-yellow-only-from-quarterfinals-on template? Just because a few editors have plastered that template all over the place does not mean that there is "consensus" on using it. And even if there were consensus at one point (however vaguely and unilaterally you have defined it), I believe that consensus needs to be revised and improved.

A dash can mean any number of things, such as the tournament was not held, the player did not participate, or we do not yet have any data about the player's participation. That's why a dash is inherently ambiguous and why "DNP" is not. As for whether "DNP" is condescending to the average reader's intelligence because the average reader would know that a dash means non-participation, I believe your comment about that is absurd.

Yellow emphasizes participation. White emphasizes no participation. If you want to use a fourth color for quarterfinals through finals, I am open to discussing it. For example, a white background could be used for no participation, a yellow background for participation but not making it to the quarterfinals, a green background for making it to the quarterfinals but not being the champion, and a red background for being the champion. I am not wedded to particular colors. But I do think that the background should reflect a difference between not participating at all and participating but not reaching at least the quarterfinals. Top level tennis is about results, and you cannot get results without participating. Therefore, it is important to emphasize at a glance whether a player participated.

I appreciate your deletion of the public notice about my alleged "vandalism." I still think you overreacted and an apology is due for what I view as borderline libel and an invasion of privacy. The notice is still in the history file for anyone motivated enough to find it. Tennis_expert 18:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Responses to responses

Seeing how the grand slam templates have been used for a long period of time without being ambiguous to people (no one has complained on the discussion pages anyway, and editors keep using them indicating the format is understandable), there is no substantial reason to change the color coding in my opinion, which I believe is in accordance with WP: Manual of Style.

But if you are of the opinion that a change will be for the betterment then my suggestion would be to use a different color for the years when the player DNP (have no preference for a color, but not green, white or yellow obviously) and I'd rather leave the rest of the color coding as it is, the way it's been applied by several editors.

About the several interpretations of a dash. As you probably know Grand Slams haven't been canceled since WWII, it might therefore be unnecessary to differentiate between the years the player DNP and years the tournament was annulled altogether for Open Era players in my opinion.

Speaking of absurd, I do not believe I had "vaguely and unilaterally" defined the consensus regarding the use of grand slam templates. I showed how the articles of some of the most successful tennis players of the last years have the same structural format, suggesting there is some notable agreement in the use of grand slam overviews between the editors.

Dubbing the reporting of an editor for unilaterally changing templates that are commonly used throughout the tennis pages (which is suspicious behavior at best) as a libelous action is once again absurd. You win the absurd claim 2-1. Congrats. But even though you made no effort to seek discussion and continued to edit when others clearly objected to the changes, I do admit I should have tried to contact you even when the change of IP addresses made this virtually impossible. I apologize for reporting you as a vandal; I should have been more subtle. Hugs?

At least we can agree tennis is a great sport (not as great as soccer though!) Igorrr 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More responses to responses

Igorrr:

It must have slipped your mind that the Australian Open (AO) was not held in 1986. It moved from the end of the Grand Slam calendar in 1985 to the beginning in 1987. Hence, my addition of "NH" (not held) to the performance timelines. Should the timelines use a dash for the nonexistent 1986 edition of that tournament? If so, how do we keep a reader from being puzzled when the Stefan Edberg article says that he participated in 54 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments, yet there is a "dash" in his performance timeline for 1986, which is in the middle of the streak? Should we just assume a casual reader will know that the 1986 AO didn't happen? We, of course, don't want to be condescending....

You and I will have to just disagree about the meaning of "vandalism" or "suspicious behavior." I don't hug non-repentant strangers. And soccer is a sleep-inducing joke, loved only by those who can't understand American football. Tennis_expert 22:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Dear Tennis expert,

"Grand Slam singles finals", "Wins" & "Runner-ups" vs. "Grand Slam singles touranments", "Champion" & "Losing finalist"

I said I would wait for over 24 hours before changing any of your edits in order to give you a chance to provide a clear, logical argument for why your preferences on the headings for Grand Slam finals sections were better than the existing practices – and I that's what I've done. However in that period, the only justification you've provided is still one of purely personal preference. I'm therefore about to change the affected pages back to the original format in this regard. I hope you will not view this as a hostile act. Let me explain as carefully as I can why I'm taking this action right now and what I think is the best way forward on this (because there may well be a better format out there, we just haven't found it yet):

• You are correct in saying that Wikipedia allows people to edit articles to reflect their personal preferences. But where disputes arise over such preferences, Wikipedia expects users to discuss the issues with each other, and work out which format that makes most sense for the general reader. In such disputes, the agreed on format should be the one which can be best explained in terms of making logical sense to someone who reads the article. And the agreed format should be one which can be explain by factors that go beyond personal taste. It should be one which everyone involved in editing the article can understand the rationale for from a clearly logical point of view, and could thus potentially explain clearly to someone else who gets involved in editing the article in the future (and you cannot do that with a rationale based purely on personal taste).

• The established format (regardless of anyone's personal feelings about it) makes clear logical sense to anyone who reads it, even someone not very familiar with the subject matter. The banner heading is "Grand Slam finals" (making it very clear that the matches listed below are the finals of Grand Slams, and not any other round); and the sub-headings "Wins" and "Runner-ups" make grammatical sense in relation to the banner heading (where the main subject is the match not the player), and show what the outcome of the match was for the overall subject of the article.

• I do appreciate your attempt at compromise, but it still doesn't make things absolutely clear to the reader who's unfamiliar with the subject matter. The heading "Grand Slam singles tournaments" doesn't make it clear that the section only refers to events where they made the final and not every Grand Slam they competed in, and so may confuse the uninitiated reader.

• That said, I agree with you that the term "Runner-ups" is slightly awkward. I have been wracking my brains to come up with a better term that would still be widely understood makes perfect grammatical sense in relation to the banner heading. But unfortunately I haven't come up with one yet. I therefore think the best way forward right now is to stick with what's become the settled format rather than change it a disputed and not wholey satisfactory alternative (and you have to accept that you're in a minority of one in thinking that the existing format is so objectionable that it must be changed immediately). Let's keep it in place for now, but continue to think about and discuss alternatives. If and when we can come up with a improved format that makes complete logical and grammatical sense to anyone who reads it, I'll be happy to help you change the pages to that format and explain the rationale to anyone who questions it. Fair?

Grand Slam performance timeline boxes

On this issue, I think you've made some arguments on this talk page which very clearly and logically support your point of view in a way that goes beyond personal taste. You've explained your case well.

The colour coding you've added some of the most recent pages you've edited makes things very clear and, since you've outlined a good case for doing this, I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute your actions in editing these boxes now (provided that you're willing to follow through in applying the format more widely).

Let me offer a few more suggestions here:

• The problem of some of these boxes getting too long to fit into most screen set-ups remains (see for example Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert and Billie Jean King). Possible ways to fix this could be reducing the font size a bit, and splitting some of the longest ones into two.

• The abbreviations used make sense to people who follow tennis closely, but may not make sense to a reader less familiar with the sport. I’d suggest adding a legend at the bottom of each chart.

• Perhaps there should also be another colour for being the runner-up, because this is a notably more significant achievement in the tennis world than being a semi-finalist or quart-finalist.

When the format is settled, if you like help in applying it to other players' pages let me know. I'm willing to pitch in and help.

Regards, Zaxem 03:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Zaxem on that. Mariano(t/c) 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:More responses to responses

Tennis expert:

A sarcastic ellipsis? Ouch. That hurts.

Anyway, going through some of your edits, I'm glad we came to an agreement to keep the color code for the first four rounds and the quarter-final and up separated. Not sure why you initially considered a single color an improvement, but I support most of the new edits and won't revert them. I still, however, prefer the dash over the DNP in the overviews, but the NH addition is another change I back.

The runner-up and win dispute. I consider "runner-up" to be an unambiguous and widely used term in the sports lexicon, but if "losing finalist" is more distinct in your mind then go ahead and edit as far as I'm concerned. As long as you won't revert factually correct edits like some here have done, I have no objections to these changes as they currently stand. Igorrr 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad we're coming to agreement on one of the issues

If someone will help with making a list of the articles that need the updated format for the performance timelines, I'm more than willing to do them myself because I was the instigator. My objective isn't to create work for other people. I'm probably not aware of some (or many) of those articles. And as I said before, I'm not wedded to particular colors. What color would you prefer for a losing finalist (or runner-up)? Is there a list of colors that can be used in a Wikipedia article? Is there a list of color codes, like the one currently being used for green?

How can a font size be made smaller? I see the point about a few of the performance timeline tables being too wide. But I'd much rather reduce the font size than split the tables.

I will be adding a legend to all the charts. I don't think that "W" needs to be explained. "DNP" and "NH" definitely need explanation. "F," "SF," "QF," "4R," etc. seem obvious to me, but if the consensus is that they should be included in the legend, that's OK with me. --Tennis expert 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See the Web colors page for a list of the colors available and their codes.

To change the font size for the whole chart, change the line at the top of the table which says:

to:

This will give you the same table format as Wikitable, except with a font size of 80% of the existing size. You can vary that percentage by changing the percentage value in this instruction line.

Useful pages: Wikipedia:How to edit a page, Help:Table

Regards, Zaxem 00:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone else's point of view on the Winner-Runner Up baloney

I've just looked at my 1981 edition of the "Official Encyclopedia of Tennis" published by the United States Tennis Association. On page 238, for instance, they have four columns for the USTA CHAMPIONS -- MEN'S SINGLES. Column #1 = Year. Column #2 = Winner. Column #3 = Runner-up. Column #4 = Score. The format in the "Bud Collins Total Tennis The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia" is slightly different, since it gives more info about each major tournament but the two crucial columns are called Winner and Defeated. Which leads me to cast my vote AGAINST the "Finalist" notation. In the context of tennis it means nothing: it can be either the winner or the loser, since it refers to EACH of the two players in the final. So, for whatever it's worth, I'm 100% behind Zaxem in this dispute, which has obviously consumed far too many man-hours of effort, unless all of you have superb bots to do your reverts and re-reverts. PLEASE -- just leave it at "Winner" and "Runner-up"! Hayford Peirce 05:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In several other sports at Wikipedia, runner-up is also the common choice. See for instance FIFA World Cup. Mariano(t/c) 07:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

During the trophy presentation at the conclusion of the doubles competition in Cincinnati, the on court announcer presented the "finalist" trophy (not the "runner up" trophy) to the Bryan twins. And a recent news release from the U.S. Open reads as follows (in part): "The USTA has announced the creation of the US Open Champions Invitational for the 2006 US Open. The new event restructures and upgrades the existing programming currently provided at the US Open and will only feature players who were Grand Slam champions or finalists." Note that the news release does not use the term "runner up."Tennis expert 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, those are US centered... Mariano(t/c) 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the official Wimbledon site and look at their list of Gentleman's Singles Champions this is what the names at the top of the columns look like:

Year Champion Seed Runner-up Seed Score Mins

Please note the use of the word Runner-up Hayford Peirce 17:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you go the official USTA site and look at *their* list, here is what you get:

Year Champion Right/Left Handed Runner-up Score

Once again, please note the use of the word "runner-up". Geez, what more do you want? A list of every tournament in the English-speaking world? Hayford Peirce 17:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another example: The International Tennis Hall of Fame (ITHF), which by the way is officially recognized by the International Tennis Federation, calls people "finalists" whenever they lost championship matches at Grand Slam events. But I guess the ITHF doesn't have any credibility because it is "US centered." Tennis expert 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Performance timelines on tennis pages

I will agree to a change in the performance boxes, if it only involves slight (color) modification to the current layout of the performance timeline, which to me looks fine. I for one despise the dark gray that is currently being used, as it makes the box rather hard to read. Perhaps us tennis editors can agree on a set of colors that are pleasing to the eye, yet spice up the performance timeline. Perhaps more pastel colors, like light blues, as opposed to the "hotter" shades of charcoal, reds, and oranges that you are currently using. Please do not mistake my revising your boxes as an attack on your work tennis expert; on the contrary, I'm delighted that someone of your dedication is working on the tennis player pages. Perhaps the Agassi editors (Scineram and co), you, and all other interested wikipedians can agree on a colorway and a standard. Here's hoping a common ground can be reached. --Flute138 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tennis expert,

I don't want to get too involved in discussions on the performance timeline changes as I don't have a very strong opinion about this. But since Flute138 has contacted me to ask my opinion, I thought I'd also be open and share my thoughts with you. As I've told you before, I completely agree with the principle of adding more colors to further differentiate between different levels of performance. But I do nevertheless think Flute138 has a point about the colors you have chosen being a bit bright and jarring, and that pastel shades would probably be more pleasing to the eye. Perhaps you and Flute138 can discuss this (referring to the Web colors page for color options) and work out something that serves the purpose and also looks nice. If you'd then like my help in implementing it, let me know.

Regards, Zaxem 10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tennis expert,

I've thought up some color changes and would like to see what you think of them. If you look at Venus Williams' player page, you'll see a great shade of light pink being used for Finals. I think that would be fantastic to make standard. Another change (from your current timelines) I think would be fitting is to maintain the light gray shade of the timeline. The lighter gray blends more with wikipedia's actual color (well, it is wikipedia's main color), and makes the text much easier to read. Thirdly, I support using dashes instead of DNP, simply because it reduces clutter (making the timeline easier to read) and because it is being used by the Grand Slam tournaments on their player profiles, and also the WTA Tour website on its player profiles (the ATP Tennis player profiles display their timelines in a different fashion). I understand you consider dashes to be ambiguous, but how ambiguous can it be if there is a key below the timeline indicating its significance? Fourthly, for players who were playing at the time when the Aussie Open was not held, I'm sure we can agree on perhaps a light shade of orange, or even a darker color, like a gray with a lighter colored text (like a yellow) on top for the NH.

Instead of "DNP," how about "A" for absent or some other one letter code? To the unitiated, a dash can indicate that we don't yet know whether the player participated -or- that we in fact know that the player did not participate -or- something else but we're just not telling. There needs to be a code and the code needs to be defined just below the table. As I have said about 10 times already, I am not wedded to particular colors, as proven when I toned down the silver in the Agassi timeline a few days ago. However, I AM wedded to the idea that there needs to be different colors for different levels of performance -and- that the performance data needs to be distinguished somehow from the column and row headers, which is why I "silvered out" the headers. Tennis expert 17:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC

While I'm not crazy about using a's for absent, I am a big fan of the color changes that you made on the Venus Williams page. Perhaps instead of a's, we could "gray out" the box, and note that in the key below the timeline. --Flute138 13:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's better to substitute "1st," "2nd," "3rd," and "4th" for "1R," "2R," "3R," and "4R" in the Venus Williams page because a causual reader could interpret the former as Venus finishing first, second, etc. in the tournament instead of losing in the first round, second round, etc. As for greying out the not played boxes, I don't think that would work because we're already greying out a bunch of boxes. What shade of grey would you use? Dary grey would almost equal the silver that so many disliked when I tried to use it. Tennis expert 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tennis expert.

Looking at the web colors, I think the "a" would be a better option rather than using any sort of grey, but do you think it should be made capital (A)...its a minor thing but it gives a look of symmetry to the table. Also, do you agree with the little changes I made on the Venus Williams page? I just got rid of some color on the timeline, that, IMO gives it a nice professional look. Also, do you really think the timelines need a "career championships played" column? When I first saw that, I was quite confused, and it took a bit of time to comprehend what exactly it mean. Perhaps it would be better just to omit that column, as it also gets rid of resize issues (if you see the Andre Agassi page, the timeline looks a bit out of place due to the addition of that column). Also, as this new standard for player pages is getting fleshed out, do you agree with adding a color code for the year end ranking bit, with the gold for the top 10 finishes, and the light purple (or maybe green) for the number 1 finishes? --Flute138 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your latest version of the Venus Williams performance timeline better than mine. Good job! I actually would prefer capital (A) to little (a). But I thought that one of the objections to "DNP" (did not participate) was that it cluttered up the table. So, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that a little (a) would look less jarring to those who previously asked for changes. As for the career championships / total played information, it's a very useful statistic when comparing players with one another across eras. For example, on the WTA blast from the past message board, Grand Slam strike rate (number of championships out of the number contested) is one of the main statistics that people use when arguing who was the greatest player ever. You'll notice that Martina Navratilova won 18 Grand Slam singles championships in 67 attempts. That's a fantastic record. But Margaret Court won 24 in a mere 47 attempts, which many would argue favors Court's career over Navratilova's. Having the statistic displayed in Wikipedia is very convenient (i.e., can be seen at a glance without doing any manual, error prone calculations) and interesting. And I don't think it's all that confusing. As for the resizing issue, I see that problem. Maybe we could use an abbreviation in the column and row headers, with a note at the bottom of the table to explain what we mean. That might also clear up any confusion some would experience with the statistic. The color codes you've mentioned for top 10 and number 1 finishes are fine with me. Tennis expert 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tennis expert,

Now that a standard has been set for singles performance timelines, what say you to helping me develop a doubles performance timeline for the likes of Bob/Mike Bryan, the Woodies, Jonas Bjorkman, Bhupathi/Paes and other doubles specialists? I'll start testing out some stuff in the sandbox, and if you're interested in adding some feedback, I'll show it to you to see what you think. Also, someone should probably be compile some pages that need to shift to the new standard of performance timeline (I suppose I can start one up on my talk page, and I'll start updating too).--Flute138 01:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. Pete Sampras and Tracy Austin need to be changed a bit. Bjorn Borg, Gustavo Kuerten, and Patrick Rafter need major revisions. And there are a whole bunch of significant current and past tennis players that don't have a performance timeline of any sort. Among men, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Roy Emerson, Pat Cash, Tony Trabert, Pancho Gonzales, Bobby Riggs, Don Budge, Fred Perry, Jack Kramer, Lew Hoad, Gottfried von Cramm, and the "Four Musketeers" readily come to mind. Among relatively recent women, Hana Mandlikova is a big omission. My interests are more in female tennis players than male, although I'm willing to help with both genders. My near term plan is to provide timelines for 1960s and earlier female players, including Maureen Connolly, Angela Mortimer, and Suzanne Lenglen. I'd eventually like for every person who has won at least one Grand Slam singles event to have a timeline. Tennis expert 09:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I'm definitely willing to help with developing a doubles performance timeline. Tennis expert 00:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion on timeline layout?

I have just started followed this debate recently. What is the status? The reason is that I just noticed the "new" layout on the Lleyton Hewitt page. Look at the time line layout here: [1] compared to an older one here: [2]. My opinion:

• It is nice to have different colors for QF, SF, F, and W
• Rounds prior to QF should not be colored (the merit of reaching the final eight is visually lost)
• Non-participation should not be shown as "A". A "-" suffices and makes the layout less compact.
• The column "Career SR" is not adding any information that cannot quickly be seen from the table; it just widens the table unnecessarily.
• Minor thing: Coudn't the final column header be on two lines to narrow the width of that column?

I am not trying to engage in unproductive debates (and definitely not about vadalism). I just want to note the following in the case of Hewitt: Tennis Expert, you have not commented that you have changed the design of the timeline at all. I think it would be nice if you write in the Edit Summary more clearly what you do, preferably with reference to which consensus (or talk page, at least) you are referring to in making these substantial changes. Otherwise one is almost asking for a revert. A motivation is always helpful. --HJ 22:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

All the timelines are being changed, as time permits, to a uniform format. Yes, this has been talked about. Agreement was reached some time ago. If you know of a way to make a column header use two lines instead of one, I'd certainly like to use it. Tennis expert 00:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jadwiga Jedrzejowska

It's nice to know you. I am a tennis writer of Japanese Wikipedia. I've written 287 tennis players since November 4th 2004. Thank you for improving Jadwiga Jedrzejowska, a Polish legend! I wrote her Japanese Version in April 28th 2006. Two months after, I made a poor stub in English. Thanks to you, it became much more detailed // beautiful article. Where do you gain timeline information, especially old players? I gained Bud Collins' "Total Tennis: The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia". However, some people still missing in it -- What's your researching sources? I'll try to search on eBay. (Some sections above, Collins and "Official Encyclopedia of Tennis" by USTA are mentioned. I ordered USTA encyclopedia too, but not received yet.) Any other references?? My best regards. --Hhst 07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! That's a bunch of articles. A large group of women's tennis fans has painstakingly transcribed and posted the draws for virtually every Grand Slam singles and doubles tournament since about 1900. You can find them here: http://www.wtaworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108 They have used a wide variety of sources for the draws, including old newspaper articles. One of the best things is that for many of the draws, there is a newspaper-like story describing what happened. Enjoy! Tennis expert 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your information! I added it to my favorite shortcuts immediately. Let me introduce two excellent tennis writers overseas, types not exist in English WP. Swedish WP, Mr. Rapsodin specializes in historical tennis. (Talk Page) Polish WP, Mr. Berasategui is the most experienced tennis writer in all Wikipedia projects: He started his activity in February 10th 2004. In July 26th 2006, he completed International Tennis Hall of Fame for the first achievement in Wikipedia! (Polish Version) I've admired them for a long time. So many writers in English WP, but historical field is still so weak -- Keep on doing your greatest job! Best regards --Hhst 04:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon Vamei and local geography

Here's your link for Vamei. Cold surges that are fed by terrain to the west help increase vorticity in poleward facing small gulfs, like north of Panama, north of Honduras, the Bay of Campeche, and where Vamei formed. Similar low level vorticies can form a bit to the east of north-south mountain chains for a similar reason, like in the central Plains or near the East coast of the United States, with very little upper level forcing. As for Agni, I'd have to look into that some more. If there's another link, I'll let you know. This type of preferred low level turning appears to be the only culpit to get you enough vorticity near the surface near the equator. Most times this happens, upper level conditions are normally hostile to development. Just look at the western Gulf of Mexico right now. Thegreatdr 00:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The way you wrote the sentence I deleted, it implied that you had data to support this method of formation for Agni. If you have data only for Vamei, then you need to rework the sentence. Tennis expert 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Xavier

Rapid intensification does not have to adhere strictly to the definition given in the article. If the RSMC and the JTWC are saying it's rapidly (or explosively) intensifying, then it is, whether its pressure is actually dropping 2.5 mbar per hour or not. Accusing other editors of providing false information when they haven't is incivil, so please refrain from this behavior in the future. --Coredesat 04:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Prove where I said that another editor provided "false information." Who is mischaracterizing whom? Tennis expert 04:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Coredesat 04:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated

You might be interested in and have your say about this.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronological list of ATP Masters Series tournament winners Thx.Scineram 20:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally unjustified 3RR warning for 2006-07 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Coredesat 04:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is uncivil for an administrator like you or an editor to warn another editor without reasonable justification. I have not even come close to violating the three revert rule concerning the article in question. Look at the facts. I made edits (not a reversion). Another user reverted them. I reverted the edits back. That user reverted them. That's ONE reversion made by me and TWO reversions made by the other user. Did you warn the other user? I haven't seen any evidence that you did. Refrain from posting further unreasonable and unjustified warnings on my talk page. Tennis expert 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to remind you of the three-revert rule, given that you came very close to violating it once before, and on the same article. In the case of the changes you made, the person who starts the article gets to choose whether to capitalize "Southern Hemisphere" or not. Don't change it without discussing it first. --Coredesat 07:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your "feelings" were wrong. I have made hundreds, if not thousands, of edits on Wikipedia and have never violated this rule. By the way: (1) the history of the article proves that Chacor did not start it; and (2) show me the Wikipedia policy which says that the person who starts an article gets to make this kind of choice. Editors, even the original authors, of articles do not "own" them. Tennis expert 07:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)