User talk:ForzaUV

Tennis Pro Tours
We have provided more context and extended the information on the tournament series lists. I think that we should remove the templates now. Are you agreeable?Tennisedu (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Tennisedu, looks good enough for me. I'd remove it from the Ranking Series but not from the World Series just yet. I hope you can correct the dates of P.P.A and Ampol Open. Best. ForzaUV (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have carefully checked the dates for P.P.A. and Ampol. they are correct as they stand. The 1946 P.P.A. series incorporated that Dec. 1945 L.A. Hardcourt as a launching event, or so I have read. I will recheck that date to make certain. The 1959/1960 dates for the Ampol are correct, perhaps I should add the years to make it clear what is being stated here.Tennisedu (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

1951 and 1954 US Pros
Hi. I notice you were casting doubt over whether there were two US Pro events in 1951 and 1954. Another editor has considered there are two events for both these years. I haven't removed these edits by the other editor, even though I agree with your statement. In my personal interpretation, there was only one US Pro event in each of these years, though the matter is open to interpretation. There was only one US Pro designated in these years by those running the pro game for touring pros (ie Riggs in 1951 and Kramer in 1954). The 1951 Forest Hills event was the one designated (this had a better draw than the 1951 Cleveland event, with Riggs, Kramer, Segura and Gonzales participating, whereas Cleveland only had only Segura of those four). An article in June when Kovacs won the Cleveland event says "Tourney Director Jack March plans to make it the top tournament for the play-for-pay netters next season" and "has the backing of the Professional Tennis Players Association". Which indicates two things, firstly that the tournament wasn't the top event that year and secondly that it was backed the PTPA (which was a short-lived organization, not the same International Professional Tennis Players Association that was created in the early 1960s). When Segura won 1951 USPLTA Forest Hills US Pro, the newspapers reported it saying "Amid rains Pancho Segura of Ecuador won his second consecutive National Professional Tennis championship yesterday", ie this was the same event, the US Pro, that he had also won the previous year. In 1954 Kramer hosted his own version of the US Pro at Los Angeles, called the US Pro. March held his World Pro at Cleveland, but this wasn't designated the US Pro by Kramer this year because he ran his own US Pro. However, Cleveland this year was a high class event and probably should be regarded as a "pro major". Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I was just dubious about Pancho's two U.S. Pro title in 1954 but tennisedu said you guys already had a discussion about it. If it were up to me, I'd probably count only the ones designated by Riggs and Kramer as U.S. Pro since they were the ones officially running the pro tour but then I also noticed in the tournament's article history that you added contemporary sources referring to the Cleveland events as U.S. Pro so I just left everything as it was. I guess it's only fair to list the winners of the two events. ForzaUV (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If you want to list the full draw of Cleveland 1951, I just posted it on the relevant talk page. Add it if you wish. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I tagged Draft:Current tennis players rankings for deletion
@ForzaUV, wanted to let you know, that I tagged Draft:Current tennis players rankings for deletion with db-g6. I moved the templates wikitext to both Tour pages and did the transclusions. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Qwerty284651, Well, I don't think it should have been deleted in the first place but I'm glad that you've changed your mind and decided to bring it back. One page makes the whole process of updating the rankings a lot easier. You made a mistake though by switching the order, the actual rankings should be given the priority in such page. ForzaUV (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ForzaUV, I would keep the order of race and then actual rankings, because at the end of the tennis season when the year-end rankings tables are made they are on aligned on the right. They are wider and it's common practice to have them on the right. Also, the race rankings have preceded the normal rankings tables in ATP/WTA Tour yearly articles for years and nobody's been against it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. A minor change proposal: You don't have to wikilink every table's date, in this case, 31 december 2022, to the article's sections. On the 2023 ATP and 2023 WTA Tour pages where the tables are transcluded in their respective rankings sections, you can wikilink to the Current rankings page with the main template at the beginning of the section, instead of having to click on the dates. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Qwerty284651, on the tennis season articles it kinda makes sense to keep the race ranking preceding the actual ranking because the race tracks players points in the same ongoing tennis season but in a page about players' world ranking? The actual ranking is what matters the most here for the readers, fans and even tournaments. Don't forget there is no race ranking after the ATP Finals, so even the one we have on the page is incorrect and you wouldn't be able to find a source for it.
 * As for the dates, I just feel it's more practical to have the ranking easily accessible for the editors who don't have much experience with editing. I'm sure many of them like to help updating but they get discouraged when they hit the edit button and all they see is a random code they don't understand or a reference to a template they can't get access to. Sure we can us the main template but then we have to do in every article any of the 8 tables is transcluded into, who would be able to track it all and why not just make it accessible from the table itself?
 * I've also just noticed you removed the custom widths from the other article, I'd like to ask you to restore it, they have been always there and the table looks neater with the same-size cells, it's only noticeable on desktop. Thanks. ForzaUV (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ForzaUV, I guess you put priority to which rankings are more important, since that is the page's name, so it fits withing the page's scope. Makes sense. The race rankings we have are correct. If the links to an empty page, just filter the result to the last date when yhe atp/wta finals took place, which will display the race ranking points. There are pdf links on the tour pages as well, for example, WTA race rankings. Also, when transcluded to the yearly tour articles the race table should be placed before the actual rankings one.
 * All transclusions, section and labeled, from the page can be found on "What links here". And the date links aiding the less experienced editors is a valid point. We could use both main template and the date links on the tennis season articles.
 * Reverted per request. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Qwerty284651, I didn't know that "What links here" tracks the labelled sections, that's actually cool. Yes we can use both the main template and the date links or either.
 * The race rankings usually begin in December, sometimes even in late November depending on the Challenger events played at that time of the year. So the ones we have on the article are not exactly "current". The current race rankings are already counting points towards the 2023 ATP Finals, see Race to 2023 but I guess nobody cares about that right now. Long way to go.
 * By the way, I'm considering limiting the race rankings of singles to only the top 10 players, the doubles ones are already limited to the top 10 teams. Since there are only 8 qualifiers and 2 as alternative, no need for a list of 20. What do you think? ForzaUV (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ForzaUV, the race rankings only count points from main tour matches. Points from challenger tournaments are added for challenger finals. Not to be confused with tour finals. After the ATP/WTA finals are finished, the both main tours season are concluded. Period. The link you sent me is inaccurate as it shouldn't be counting points until the 2023 season has started. There are challenger finals and there are tour finals. This website isn't always reliable; that's why we should to the main websites race rankings.
 * I wouldn't limit the singles race to top 10 as it changes on a weekly basis and it's easier for editing. Plus, it's common practice, so just leave as it is. There will most probably be top 20 for doubles (11-20) and top 30 for singles (21-30) in the hidden comments for easier copy paste editing, you know. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Qwerty284651, unlike the normal rankings, the race rankings don't get updated weekly in Wikipedia because editors don't seem to care much about it outside of the season's ATP Finals article. Limiting it to the top 10 while keeping 11-20 hidden would encourage more editors to update it regularly or more frequently at least, that's what I believe. But hey it's not me who update those table so I'm fine either way, it's up to you and the others to decide.
 * You're wrong regarding the race rankings, the points from challenger tournaments do count towards the ATP Finals and the list in that website is 100% accurate, just wait a couple of weeks and check the ATP website and you'll see Leandro Riedi with 175+ points in the race rankings. ForzaUV (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ForzaUV, TBD with the race rankings. I did notice that after the deletion discussion had concluded and the templates were replaced with regular wikitext in both tour pages, the race rankings were also updated on a more regular basis. We'll see how things unfold come 2023. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Federer–Nadal rivalry
Federer–Nadal rivalry has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 23:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)