User talk:Fyunck(click)/Archive 12

Prize money wta players
Hello Fyunck(click), i found the additional information "femal" next to both Kerber's and S. Williams' overall carer earnings in their info-boxes, whereas there is no such information on Kvitovás earnings in her info-box (the top men don't have the lable "male", either). Is that correct? Do you know any WP-rules on that issue? Either way (keeping or deleating the additional information "female"), I'd argue for a consistent use. Thanks and greetings, --LH7605 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess it's one of those things that some editors include and some don't. I'm pretty sure there is nothing at Tennis Project either way. To me, it's understood they are separate organizations with separate totals and we need neither "female" nor "male" in the sentence. I agree with consistent use. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that there is nothing at Tennis Project on thtat matter. It seems like someone already deleated most of the "female"-lables and for consistency reasons, as well as for logical reasons (agree with you that it's clear that WTA and ATP are separate organisations with seperate totals), I deleated the remaining lables.--LH7605 (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Pro at Cleveland
Fyunck, you are right, we should reconcile the number of Gonzales' acknowledged U.S. Pro wins with the number of actual U.S. Pro wins...there appears to be only one officially sanctioned Gonzales' U.S. Pro Championship win, and that was in L.A. in 1954.

Here is the link to the Wiki article on the U.S. Pro, and in note (b) is summarized the problem with Cleveland, which was, in fact, the authorized U.S. Pro in 1950, but not thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Pro_Tennis_Championships

Footnote [9] gives the source from the USPLTA website "Renowned players grace USPTA Championships" which explains that the organization did not authorize U.S. Pro events after 1951, when the U.S. Pro was held at Forest Hills. The only exception to this was 1954 at L.A.

The successor event to Forest Hills 1951 was the U.S. Pro at L.A. Tennis Club, referenced in the L.A. Times on this Wiki page. Segura was deemed to be the defending champion from 1951.

It's complicated, to say the least. But Gonzales at the time used the term "National Professional Championships", not quite the same thing as "U.S. Pro", and I do not doubt that Gonzales was aware of the distinction.Tennisedu (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sanctioned means nothing. Per historians/sources today this is the list of U.S. Pro Tennis Championships. Gonzales won 8. He also won a Cleveland event in 1954 and 1964 that were not the US Pro Championships. It's the same sort of thing with the two events "U.S. National Indoor Championships" and "Memphis Open." At times those two events overlapped and at other times both were in existence. We just need to be careful like we did with Borg and Connors that we don't give credit for the same event twice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, it was a little more messy than that. Cleveland was the USPLTA-sanctioned U.S. Pro in 1950, and the USPLTA gave the Cleveland promoter the Benrus Cup that year to award to the winner, Segura. And the USPLTA gave the Benrus Cup to the Cleveland promoter to use again for 1951 for the expected U.S. Pro event for 1951. However, Kramer and Riggs managed to rent Forest Hills in 1951 (Kramer had lost to Segura on the Cleveland clay in 1950) and the USPLTA switched recognition for the U.S. Pro to  the Forest Hills event.  Segura won the Forest Hills event, but Segura still believed that Cleveland was the rightful 1951 U.S. Pro (won by Kovacs, who received the Benrus Cup for winning at Cleveland).


 * The USPLTA did not sanction a 1952 U.S. Pro, and the Cleveland promoter petitioned the USPLTA to use the "U.S. Pro" billing for the 1952 Cleveland event...but the USPLTA refused the request. Cleveland then retained the billing of "Cleveland International Professional Championships" which had been used in 1951, when the U.S. Pro title had been moved to Forest Hills.  Also, Cleveland billed itself as the "International Pro" in 1953, when Gonzales won over Budge.


 * Now, we can understand the claim in the L.A. Times for 1954, which citation I gave you. The article claims that Segura, as winner of the 1951 U.S. Pro, was the "defending champion" of the USPLTA-approved 1954 L.A. U.S. Pro, carried over from that Forest Hills event, in other words, there had been NO U.S. Pro event since that time. And that is confirmed by the newspaper coverage of the 1952 and 1953 Cleveland events, which used the term "International Pro" as billed for the Cleveland.


 * So when did the Cleveland start getting called "U.S. Pro"? It appears not before the mid 1960's, or perhaps even after the Cleveland event was no longer being held.  In other words, it is not history, but appears to be an anachronistic usage deriving from a history rewrite.


 * As far as I can see in the histories, USPLTA had the authority to sanction the U.S. Pro, and Kramer had obtained that approval for both of his events, the 1951 U.S. Pro at Forest Hills, and the 1954 U.S. Pro at L.A., which was also a Kramer event. It is entirely possible that Kramer also got USPLTA permission for the use of the U.S. Pro billing for the 1963 Forest Hills event, although that is based on Kramer's history of 1951 and 1954, and his mention of getting USPLTA approval for Forest Hills in the final day press coverage of the 1959 Forest Hills TOC. Tennisedu (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please learn to indent properly and to sign your text with four tildas at the "end" of your text, not at the beginning. Otherwise it's harder to follow. I indented your last post for you here and moved your signature. Thanks. A lot of tennis is after-the-fact. The Grand Slam tournaments have retroactive acknowledgement back to the 20s and 30s. Heck in 1920 there were five international Major championships, not four. But history and usage change things. The same with the US Pro. Historically, tennis tournaments have often been a bit fuzzy about when they started and ended, and they sometimes move to new places and retain the same name. Or restart in the same place under a new name and management. Perfection is not possible with this sport. But we can't give players more credit for wins just because an event has two names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, but I would like to see the tournament which we label as "U.S. Pro" actually make some credible claim to that name at the time it is actually played, and not decades later. Especially if we are claiming that it is a major tournament, and that is another sore point for Cleveland, the fields were very weak in some years.Tennisedu (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The fields were weak in all the Major pro events in some years. That was the nature of the Pro events. Small fields and variable draws. And we aren't claiming they were major events, sources given are claiming it was one of the three major pro events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, but those sources were written years after-the-fact, and really have no more status than what we could write today, they were not official statements by anyone connected with the management of these purported U.S. Pros. Sometimes it may be better to just acknowledge, as the USPLTA does on their history, that "in some years the U.S. Pro was not held", just as in some years the French Pro "was not held", or in some years the Wembley Pro "was not held". I think that is better than scouring the landscape looking for something to fill the gap. In 1942 the U.S. Open golf tournament was won by Ben Hogan, but he did not get credit for it, the title was withdrawn just before the tournament was played, due to wartime. Now, some golf historians believe that Hogan should get credit for this U.S. Open because all the golfers were there ready to play the U.S. Open, and it was a very prestigious event. But there is no acknowledgement of this win as an official U.S. Open victory in Hogan's record. We could say that Hogan certainly deserved to get a win registered for this win, but it does not appear on his official record.


 * That may be a similar situation with these Cleveland events, everyone wants them to be acknowledged as U.S. Pro wins, and so that is what happened in the 1960's, the Cleveland event was reinvented in tennis histories. Well, each to his own, but it doesn't register on my radar as a major. Kramer, for some reason, did not supply his top field of players to Cleveland to make that a credible major.Tennisedu (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Postcript: Fyunck, sorry, my indents are still not working properly, I will keep working on my technique.Tennisedu (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no idea about the golf situation, but the Pro tennis situation was an entirely different beast than the tennis authorities today. It doesn't exist anymore and the entire landscape was a lot of fighting and scrambling for dollars. per today there was nothing "official" about any of it and hence the reason the ATP doesn't even act like it existed. And the fields for some of the current Open Era majors has been just as depleted in the 1970s because of other infighting, yet those are still considered Grand Slam tournaments. Field strength is only one indicator value. My own thoughts might be totally different than what we have sourced but my own thoughts mean absolutely zero here on wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Errors by purpose
There is a user 188.105.94.86 that always do errors by purpose, never explane why he done this. I'm alluding on changing US$ to $ without explanation (he always do this), resized font of ITF / WTA 125K table, without explanation, not responding to messages that i left on his talk page (he also didn't respond before). I'm just wondering, just you so into these guidliness things, do you think it's ok that he do it, and maybe i'm wrong, I don't know anymore, but I think it's fair if you correcting me for mistakes, to do also with him. Also reverting some of my edits without explanation. So, if you are intresting, some of pages where it happened: Thanks. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Iga Świątek (1 undid revision without explanation)
 * Veronika Kudermetova (no undid revision, but he was told before about resize and dollar sign)
 * Lauren Davis (2 undid revision without explanation)
 * Fanny Stollár (no undid revision, but also told before)
 * Now, see it also on Maria Sakkari (you can see on his last edit, what he made - removing "career total", removing bold for year-end ranking, full form of american dollar sign, resize of tables. -  - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it. The US$ thing I have no idea what is wikipedia consensus. I'm not sure if we have a guideline on legend font size, but all other tables should be at 100%. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The guy who has begun with those undid revisions (since Sep 2018) is: JamesAndersoon - see f.e. Fanny Stollár, Lauren Davis... - 188.105.94.86 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You used to change things without explanation, and you was told before to not do this, but you ignore, that's why your edits were reverted. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Tennis format question (related to Kayla Day)
Hey so I had a general question about the performance timelines. Does Kayla's timeline go above the ITF tournaments since they are ITF tournaments, which is like minor leagues? I was under the impression that the timelines go towards the bottom, like for Caroline Dolehide. Also saw the format of putting timelines towards the bottom here WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. Appreciate your assistance. michfan2123 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline at all as to placement, just a strict guideline as to content. We were discussing this the other day at tennis project that some of us feel there is no more important chart as our performance timelines. They are the single most informative bit of information and they are the same for all articles. I have been putting them right at the top of the career statistics to show them off for our readers as opposed to having them buried in the middle of other less important charts such as low-level ITF events. If a player has a career statistics secondary article we use a small Grand Slam tournament only chart on the main page, at the top of the career stats. Does that help at all? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks. michfan2123 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources For Claim
Hi. Regarding this edit, and a few others you've made, I believe that I mentioned that the US Open is not a WTA event. You replied that it's "part of the WTA schedule." Just because something is on your schedule does not mean that you own it.

If you are going to claim that the Slams are ATP and WTA events, please provide reliable sources which explicitly state so. Otherwise, your scheduling argument could be labeled original thought. I've added some reliable sources to the Grand Slam article which explicitly state that the Slams are not owned by the ATP or WTA. Therefore, Grand Slam titles should not be labeled ATP or WTA titles (see Roger Federer). This is not about "splitting hairs" or being antagonist, it's simply about Wikipedia policy. -- James26 (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The four majors are part of the ATP and WTA tours. They also give 2000 ranking points. They don't own them, but by agreement they are part of the tour. And there is no wikipedia policy saying otherwise. If you want to change how we do things please bring it to Tennis Project talk. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

". . .by agreement they are part of the tour."

What exactly does this mean? How does this pertain to editing? Is there some formal agreement in place to list ATP titles and WTA titles as Slam titles on Wikipedia? Please link me to it. I wasn't aware. The Roger Federer article clearly makes a distiction between "ATP Tour" and "Grand Slam."

According to policy, claims added to articles, especially about living persons, have to be verfied. Unless you can verify that her US Open title is "a WTA title," that claim does not belong in the article, and discussion is not required to remove it. Please source your claim. -- James26 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, the infobox uses just a short WTA instead of WTA Tour... same as ITF instead of ITF Tour. Otherwise the Grand Slamd tournaments would go under ITF in the infobox... they don't. We simply use WTA to mean events sponsored by the WTA or ATP tours. In the infobox we shorten it to WTA or ATP. It's that simple. The WTA and ATP total the Grand Slam events and give points just like they do all their other events. The WTA website says she has 3 titles... that includes the US Open, Canadian Open, and Indian Wells Open. Argue with them. If you want to change how we do things then please bring it up on the Tennis Project talk page and get others to agree with you. I don't think you'll find any at all. And Federers article simply says 103 titles. We do not list his ITF titles as it's so trivial so we don't have to say ATP titles. If Andreescu wins a couple more WTA titles the 125k challenger and ITF titles will be removed from the infobox as also being trivial. It's what we do at Tennis Project. It's pretty obvious you aren't retired as your talk page says. Perhaps you should change that? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Consensus is supposed to respect Wikipedia policy. Purposely adding something incorrect to an article, especially about a living person, is not respecting policy. Also, I did not see a consensus on Project Tennis to explicitly list Slam titles as WTA or ATP titles.


 * The WTA site may incorrectly call it a Grand Slam title, but I've cited other reliable sources which contradict this. Again, purposely adding something incorrect to an article is not proper. -- James26 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done my best to explain things to you, but it doesn't work. I'm done here since you won't follow through with bringing it to tennis project talk. And you brought some frivolous claim to ani. My goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You explained it to me just fine. I simply disagree with purposely including something false in the article. It's either a fact or it's not. Note: the ANI wasn't meant as an attack. Just trying to resolve the matter, as I'm short on free time. -- James26 (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Resolving Dispute
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. James26 (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL... and they wouldn't accept it. Bring it to Tennis Project Talk as I said. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: March 2020
I don't really have time for this now. I've taken it to another notice board for assistance. I asked before: Provide me a link to this "long-standing consensus" that specifically states that Slam titles shall be listed as WTA titles. Do that, and I'm fine with leaving it be. -- James26 (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Longstanding consensus is just that. Tennis Project has used this formula on countless articles. Another overkill source was added to the infobox also. You need to convince others at Tennis Project talk that your new longer way works better and so far that hasn't happened. You can't just keep reverting everyone or you will certainly get blocked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * James, I have no dog in this hunt (except being interested in tennis and being a longtime contributor) so I don't really care one way or another what you and Fyunck end up with. But I just wanted to second what Fyunck says above -- make too many reverts and you will sooner or later get yourself blocked. Best to work out a consensus with the other people at the Tennis Project and then go along with whatever is decided. Whether it's what you yourself would have preferred or not. That's the way of Wikipedia, and, as they say about City Hall, at some point you can't fight it. Cheers! Hayford Peirce (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian Wells 2020
Many of media outlets said that the 2020 Indian Wells has already been cancelled as it was truly confirmed on March 8, 2020; as several websites shown being linked up:


 * Indian Wells cancelled due to concerns about the coronavirus outbreak
 * Coronavirus spread: Coronavirus spread: Indian Wells cancelled because of concerns
 * Coronavirus spread: Indian Wells cancelled because of concerns
 * Tennis in turmoil after Indian Wells cancelled due to coronavirus fears
 * Olympic torch to be lit without spectators; Indian Wells tennis canceled over coronavirus
 * Indian Wells Tennis Tournament Becomes First Major U.S. Sporting Event Canceled In Wake Of Coronavirus

Stated on the links above, 2020 Indian Wells is cancelled and wait till next year. ApprenticeFan  work  02:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the tournament itself, "We are prepared to hold the tournament on another date and will explore options." So we need to wait and see before we start changing all articles to say canceled. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Question
Can you tell me what's your problem, dude? Removing Russia/Kazahstan from Elena Rybakina page (in Performance timeline table - but Navratilova and Gavrilova should have this???). Removing separately ITF reference??? Don't you think it's better for people to have faster access to draw of some tournament, rather than saying oh we sourced from this site. You remove Premier Mandatory/Premier 5 performances from Kurumi Nara that I edited, why??? I really don't understand what problem you have with me, but dude, you have serious problems. You don't care about most articles being such a mess. I guess you don't have other job except distroying my edits. - James Andersoon

p.s. and talking about "ugly" row (ofcourse for you) with source reference on performance timeline, then tell me why ex. 2020 WTA Finals have it??????
 * A couple of things. Wikipedia has a problem with flag icons. We allow them for players, not places. Russia/Kazahstan is fine, the flags are not. Remove them if you see them. Thanks. And there is no need to fill the charts with reference after reference if it is esentially from the same source. A single link works better. But making any new rows or columns would require tennis project approval for sure. And i have no problem with you at all. I only have issues with changing are charts will-nilly with no approval. Following rules goes a long way and if someone points it out then you should be willing to accept rather than forcing your way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, you don't answer me, then why these pages have this? WTA Finals has it every year. That's the reason why I said you have something against me. I think it's really unfear, if you say something is ruled; that why noone arguing about that on WTA Final page or Daria Gavrilova. It's not something that happened two days ago. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess i don't understand. Russia/Kazahstan is still there. What else is missing? But really? You look around and find a flag error on Martina Navratilova's article and assume two wrongs must make a right? Di you happen to notice Martina Navratilova career statistics does not have that flag error? Did you happen to search the edit history on Navratilova's article and see it never had those flags except someone slipped it in on 28 July 2018‎. Sorry, but we miss things. Two other things. The 2020 WTA finals is not the same as the player performance charts. It's a different chart entirely. Someone decided it was better to have it on the bottom for that year (the other WTA finals years don't have that row). That chart also has formatting html errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Remember what JamesAndersoon yesterday said to me (- isn't it just the way he is editing here ?): "vandalism is when you want on purpose to change some things against guidliness, cuz you don't like it. US$ link could be here, but it's not nessecary. In that case we have it. If you don't like, move on, and edit other things. Just because you think something is excess, that it should be removed? There are so many things that need correction. so 'be of benefit' and do something good." - 188.105.94.86 (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this is? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote it, but what Fyunck has with that? And what bad I said? It's obvious than you can't do whatever you want. Not only you, everyone. Don't undrstand your point? Ofcourse it's vandalism when you remove stuffs cuz you don't like it. I also don't like something, but keep it, cuz it needs to be there. Maybe not for me, but for others. Thing with US$ link is that something like 2 or 3 months you didn't say a single word why you want to remove it, just like some other stuffs. I saw you changing ex. Australian Open, Australia to Australia, Melbourne cuz you like it more that way. I told you to try to find consesus, but you never respond. Fyunck also warned you a couple of times. I really don't have problems with don't having US$ link, even if I like it more with link. Point is that you can't do it on your own, without explanation and consesus. Everytime I made something that is against guidlines, I was told to correct it, and I did it. In past I had some arguing about this with Fyunck and others, but in the end I understand my mistake and go on. I don't understand your obsession to follow every step I take, even to go on User page's talk to respond to my post that don't have anything with you. p.s. Sorry Fyunck, some users don't have regard. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And you now go to Petra Martic's page and do things against guidliness (that was told so many times before not to do) and you come here to say that I'm vandal? I'm confused (read it ironicly). - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You also done it on Monica Puig career statistics. Sorry Fyuck cuz I write it here, but he wants answers. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 9:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

While I'd rather you two talk this out on your own talk pages, if you can solve anything here or come to some compromise here, that's fine too. But if it's only going to be back and forth kicking & yelling, please do it somewhere else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Totally agree! But he mentioned me here for doing vandalism, so I was forced to respond. That's why I say sorry to you. - JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking to collaborate on tennis articles
I'm trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Honda Sports Awards and the award winners.

When I started work on this about a month ago, 14 of the 40 Award winners for volleyball did not have an article. I've created at least start class articles for each of them.

I'm now planning to turn to tennis. The good news is that more of the 38 winners have an article; only nine are missing:

I see that you are an active participant in the tennis project. I'm hoping to convince you to collaborate on creating the articles for these 9 7 players.

* 1981 Anna Fernandez (Update, just found this one) * 2015 Robin Anderson Update, found another one
 * 1977 Kathy Mueller
 * 1984 Lisa Spain
 * 1998 Marissa Catlin
 * 2005 Zuzana Zemenova
 * 2008 Amanda McDowell
 * 2010 Laura Vallverdu
 * 2019 Estela Perez-Somarriba

If you are interested, my plan would be to start barebones drafts, either in draft space or user subpages, then work on them together until we think they are ready for prime time. Any interest?

(I also note that Michfan2123 has identified an interest in " mainly focused on American female players," so I will reach out, but that editor hasn't been active in a month, so I don't know whether that will work.)-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure the stance at Tennis Project on winning the Honda Sports Award. It does not pass and Tennis Project notability guidelines, but I'm sure the winners pass Wikipedia GNG guidelines. The award is not just for tennis ability but also the ideals of team contribution, scholastic endeavor, school and community involvement and those personal characteristics as stated in the philosophy of the NCAA... I'm not sure it is in the scope of Tennis Project. There are players that have won professional tournaments that are not notable per Tennis Project Guidelines because while professional they are the minor leagues. Even junior players have to win a junior Grand Slam event or be ranked in the world top 3 to get an article with Tennis Project tagged on the talk page.


 * All that said, these awards are notable, and the winner would meet GNG so some editors at Tennis Project, who are great at stubs, may want to help at creation. Editors like, or might want to take a crack at it. I would not tag the player's talk pages with a WikiProject Tennis banner unless the player also meets Tennis Project guidelines in some manner. See WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm fine with the Tennis Project deciding who is eligible for a Wikiproject Tennis banner. That's not my area of interest. I have also steered away from debating what confers auto inclusion - I've always felt that if there isn't enough material to support an article, then what's the point of an article? If there is enough material, then automatic standards aren't needed.
 * My main area of interest is women's basketball, so I have limited familiarity with the "status" of awards in other sports. In wbb, the top award is the Wade, and perhaps the Wooden Award, with the Naismith and AP POY close behind. The Honda Sports Award is probably in the next tier, but ahead of USBWA and some others. I can't imagine a women's basketball player winning the Honda Sports Award and not deserving an article. Maybe that's the case in other sports. I recently saw an AfD denied simply because the subject was a Honda Sports Award winner, although I don't recall which sport. It may be the case that the award ranks differently in different sports, but I'm not sure why this matters. I brought up the Award to explain how I am choosing the articles to work on; I am not making any presumption that the recipients are worthy of an article without consideration of gng, or whether they ought to have, or not have some banner on the talk page. I'm happy to leave those decisions to editors who are close to the sport.
 * When it comes to women's basketball, I am very familiar with the types of sources that cover college and pro activities, but when it comes to other sports, I know very little about the pro leagues, what's important or where to find it, so I was hoping to work on generic material, and collaborate with someone who knows more about the professional sources, as well as the intricacies of the infoboxes.
 * I've made some progress on User:Sphilbrick/Kathy_Mueller_Rohan, a bit challenging because she predates much of the internet. I've barely touched her pro career, and don't know how to look up some of the usual info in the infobox.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually the best place to look for those items is the WTA or ITF websites. On the ITF site I found Kathy Mueller. She tried to qualify for a couple big tournaments and never made it. I see no minor league record. On the main WTA tour at the WTA nothing comes up either. However records are much sketchier at that time, and maybe some newspaper articles would turn up a tournament or two. If she played on the WTA tour (or its equvilent back then) Tennis project would certainly want a banner on the talk page. Right now it looks like she won the Honda award and went on to some other business. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I figure if her best pro ranking was 150, she probably didn't win anything notable. I'll try those sites on some of the other players, who may have had more significant post college careers. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made some progress on User:Sphilbrick/Kathy_Mueller_Rohan, a bit challenging because she predates much of the internet. I've barely touched her pro career, and don't know how to look up some of the usual info in the infobox.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually the best place to look for those items is the WTA or ITF websites. On the ITF site I found Kathy Mueller. She tried to qualify for a couple big tournaments and never made it. I see no minor league record. On the main WTA tour at the WTA nothing comes up either. However records are much sketchier at that time, and maybe some newspaper articles would turn up a tournament or two. If she played on the WTA tour (or its equvilent back then) Tennis project would certainly want a banner on the talk page. Right now it looks like she won the Honda award and went on to some other business. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I figure if her best pro ranking was 150, she probably didn't win anything notable. I'll try those sites on some of the other players, who may have had more significant post college careers. S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

ITF Challenger names for WTA players
On Kamilla Rakhimova page you said that is probably best to put Challenger name instead of ITF + tournament's city name? I think it will be bit diffucult to do that cuz a lot of tournament don't contain name of city in tournament's title. Some of examples: What's your opinion on that? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Zed Tennis Open - ITF Cairo, Egypt
 * Bredeney Ladies Open - ITF Essen, Germany
 * Torneig Internacional de Tennis Femení Solgironès - ITF La Bisbal d'Empordà, Spain
 * Al Habtoor Tennis Challenge - ITF Dubai, UAE and etc ...
 * Some of these are a tough call. On one side, we really don't need the city name if there is a tournament name. Just the tournament name and country is fine like we would do with Canadian Open, Bavarian Championships, Italian Open, German Open, Swiss Indoors, US Open, etc... If readers really want to know the details of the city they can go to the link. However a name like "Torneig Internacional de Tennis Femení Solgironès" is ridiculous. All that title says is International tennis tournament for females sponsored by Solgirones. We absolutely frown upon sponsored names if we have any kind of an alternative, and the ITF page calls it the ITF La Bisbal d'Empordà. The Al Habtoor Tennis Challenge hs the same sponsor problem but the entire area its played in is actually called Al Habtoor City. Bredeney is the name of the tennis club it's played at so no problem there. These are very tough calls I would agree with you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, understand you. A bit tricky, but it must be look individualy. Definitely, it can't be same rule for all ITF tournaments. Thanks! - - JamesAndersoon (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably true. A general philosophy but case by case. And if someone puts up a stink I just move on and work on hundreds of other things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Header vs bgcolor=efefef
You also told me before that "!" is bad html. Should that mean that also row with years should also be with bgcolor=efefef instead of "!"? If this is case, then it should be changed in Tennis Project Guidlines? - JamesAndersoon (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "!" is header html meant for the top of tables. It is exactly what we should use for that top row of years. It's in the middle of tables that it breaks wikipedia accessibility guidelines as it's only supposed to be used for the first row of years. And some screen readers for the blind don't do well when it's in the middle of a table. We got hit with that many years ago by the accessibility hounds and fixed most issues. I think our tennis project charts are up to date on that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Rolland Garros French Open
Hello Fyunck(click). I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Rolland Garros French Open, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: may be useful; users may query official name, plus does not apply as it is a result of a good-faith page move. Thank you. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 06:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

"Rolland Garros French Open" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rolland Garros French Open. Since you had some involvement with the Rolland Garros French Open redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Agathoclea (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Very strange non deletion though since the Rolland is misspelled and it would never be placed at Rolland Garros French Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Subjective Rankings in Pro Tennis
Fyunck, I noticed that Laver's ranking was removed from the lead in the Lew Hoad article, you mentioned that subjective rankings are inappropriate in a lead. I notice that many other bio articles for tennis pros have subjective statements and subjective ratings/rankings in leads. Should those also be removed?Tennisedu (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I presume that subjective ratings/rankings in a lead could be moved into the body of the article, assuming that the same material is not already inside the body of the article.Tennisedu (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The usually discussions have tried to keep the very subjective all-time rankings to a legacy section of prose. And in prose it should have a year attached because we find former players or historians change their minds on greatness all the time. This is not a policy, just consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Understood. Well, then no objection if I follow the consensus and do some relocating of puff/subjective ratings/rankings from the leads of some tennis players into the bodies of the articles?Tennisedu (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll note his No. 1 ranking is in the lead. And with many sources in prose I think general consensus was mixed on saying "one of the greatest players of all-time." But I think even that is better left in a legacy section. So no complaints from me on moving missed players stuff to prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ilie Năstase's playing career
His career section looks like a mess. Can you work on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.103.69 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not very specific but it looks like someone is working on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Quinn is back
Got pretty bored during "Covid-19"; wanted you to know I am back working my way through the project "Cleanup" listing; still mostly references, categories and templates. You might be one of the only ones that cares anymore. Saw your note (Dec 2019); yeah, we all get tired of it. I have been away for a bit; promised myself that I would give up on it...but boredom leads to "looking around", which leads to "Who butchered this page", which leads to me probably kicking myself...but once more into the breach! Mjquinn_id (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hélène Prévost
Hi Fyunck(click), I don't understand why you have reverted all of my edits regarding Hélène Prévost? You wrote "you cant use a wiki as a source. The Olympics and ITF use Hélène Prévost". Olympedia is not a wiki, it is a research site headed by Bill Mallon, an individual who has won the Olympic order for his work in Olympic history. Only a very small number of researchers can edit it, not the general public. Furthermore, the data for Olympedia will eventually be used as the official IOC data, so effectively the Olympics will no longer be using Hélène, they use Yvonne. So it's just the ITF, but contemporary sources that refer to her first name (admittedly not common), list her as Yvonne rather than Hélène. This is why Wikipedia and the ITF lacked her biographical details (birth, death etc.) previously; there is/was no "Hélène Prévost". There is/was only Yvonne, and that's why information on her was unavailable previously. Canadian  Paul  16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the revert back to Hélène. One of the criteria for making an undiscussed move is that it seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. Given the conflicting sources and uncertainty I don't think this criteria was met. In these cases WP:RM is a better process to discuss the merits of the move. The outcome may still be a move to Yvonne.--Wolbo (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, to be fair, I've done dozens, if not hundreds, of Olympian moves and people almost never care. In this case, however, it has been challenged, so fair enough, RM should be done. But it's always good to discuss with the user first too. In any case, I'll make the RM sometime soon. I'm in no rush. Canadian   Paul  04:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked at the site before reverting, and there are some disturbing attributes. First of all, even in the research notes there is some question as to the validity of Helene or Yvonne. Next, right at the top right of the page it gives links to search for, and one of them is wikipedia. That's not really what you want to see in a reliable source. Other things are Getty photo sources uses Helene. We also have contemporary tennis guides using Helene Prevost. The International Tennis Federation uses Helene Prevost. We have books such as Women in Sport the Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine using Helene. I had checked the Olympiandatabase.com and it used Helene. Olympic.org uses Helene. We have Great Britain Olympics also using Helene. Not as compelling but a tennis historian Mark Ryan also uses Helene. Now it could be that her name is Yvonne Helene Provost since there is a lot we don't know about tennis in that time period. But with so many sources using Helene Prevost, one Olympedia has some serious explaining to do into why it is changing the name. I know there is some evidence that Helene is really Yvonne, based on Yvonne being married to Boppe (who tried to murder her), but we aren't 100% sure of that. If it is truly going to be the main source for the Olympics then we can do a note saying the the official Olympics database uses Yvonne. If because of the switch to Olympedia, most of the other sources also change from the longstanding use of Helene, it seems to me that's when the article should change to Yvonne with Helene as the footnote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As suggested, I have placed a move request at Talk:Hélène Prévost. I think the bots take care of the rest these days... Canadian   Paul  04:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The bots should. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Blast from the past
Howdy. I haven't been around the 'diacritics' stuff, as much as I used to (due to the sour taste it puts in my mouth), but I noticed at the RMs Ana Ivanovic, Maja Milinkovic & Raul Julia, that the same individual is still pushing his pro-diacritics usage agenda (which includes 'mass creating' French-based bios & immediately moving them to diacritics titles). After all this time, somethings never change. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Tennis article bloat
Thanks for agreeing to make 4 or 5 months of my life a complete waste - spent 20 or more hours a week on the article in parts of 2018 and you agreed with my changes before and as I was making them. Look back at the article in 2010 - it always had all the details that are now being deleted but they were inconsistent between the years - I made all the years consistent, which yes, in some cases meant adding info to get some years up to the detail of others.Informed analysis (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You know, bring it up at tennis project. The info is great but as an article gets longer and longer it becomes harder and harder to discern why No. 1 and No. 2 got to be No. 1 and No. 2. Maybe a different article with those facts would be good for the pros, but this article is already gigantic and when a tiny section claims Laver is 1 and Rosewall is 2, that tiny box needs to say what Laver and Rosewall won and lost and that gets crushed if you also have 5 other players wins and losses. I actually like reading about all the big events you put in there but most readers will not, and many editors here did not, and we need to cater to the general populous. That's why we should consider a different article for that. All your work is still there in the history. It would almost be better suited to a place like was done for 1990 in tennis. Then in the boxes at World number 1 ranked male tennis players you could simply add a link to the article that has all the info instead of cramming it all into a tiny box. Any thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Milos Raonic article
Hello! Thank you for your message! What part of my edits did not conform to Wikipedia's standards? I stated clearly true facts! Thank you, Tennis Lover (2604:3D08:6F7F:F020:98B:4F22:B26E:A111 (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC))
 * When you put in the following:
 * "Which really goes to show how unsuccessful male Canadian tennis players have been. Luckily, players like Bianca Andreescu have redeemed Canadian tennis on the women's side at least. Daniel Nestor was better than Milos Raonic at singles because he was able to beat a world number one in singles, something Raonic never accomplished."
 * That whole thing could be construed as mischief by some. Let's assume it was an honest mistake. It is total opinion by you to place it there. It must be backed up by credible sources just like any other encyclopedia or magazine, and those sources must be present in the article. This is not a blog where opinion counts for anything. We need to see those sentences in writing in another published source. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Frank Dancevic Articles
Hello! I can see that you and someone else removed an edit because it was deemed to be trivia. I can see why you said this. Why are facts that are "trivial" not allowed though? Is there a place on Wikipedia for them instead?
 * No there isn't. This is not a blog or tabloid that you find in a supermarket. This is the foremost encyclopedia in the world. You wouldn't find that stuff in Encyclopedia Britannica either. Just because we have a source for Serena Williams shoe size, it is not worthy of Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Serena Williams article
I don't want to engage in edit warring, but I have read all three citations of the Serene William "However, there is a sizable percentage of people who disagree" sentence and all of them exclusively cite the US 2018 open and nothing else. Accordingly, there's no reason whatsoever to revert my edit. Here are the three citations for you convenience. [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Those were probably just three chosen of many. You can find some similar things with the 2015 Clijsters incident. 2018 was simply a culmination of multiple instances for some people. We can always add more but usually three is sufficient. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense though. We make a sentence and we follow it up with three citations. The idea being that sentence will be affirmed through the sources. If there are additional citations that prove your point (that Serena is not a role model for reasons not related to the 2018 US Cup), then it should be included. In some instances, we have a sentence with 10-20 citations following it and that's generally understood to be okay. As it stands, the three citations all affirm my edit. They simply do not cite anything else. I've read all three sources at least twice and couldn't find anything else being mentioned. Wikipedia is suppose to say what the sources say, not anything else (or at least that is what I was told). GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a 4th that questions her status. You are correct that the three chosen to show she is not a role model put a big circle around the 2018 US Open and nowhere else. I'll dig up a few more that expand it to a cumulation of Grand Slam tournament controversies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, thanks for keeping me in the loop! GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not find that the current sentence is supported by the citations, particularly the phrase "a sizable percentage of people". Simply listing some incidents she was involved in is not in any way the same as claiming that "a sizable percentage of people" disagree that she is a role model. I do not see any survey in these articles which show this or any mention of any percentage, let alone a sizeable percentage (which is in itself a weasel term). Given the strict BLP policy this should either be directly supported by a reliable citation or be rephrased.--Wolbo (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's more of a counter balance to the equally problematic "have largely been a positive influence on young girls and boys who see Williams as a role model and an ambassador of tennis." It might be better to say "some look at Williams as a role model and ambassador to tennis, and some do not." Then a couple of both sources to that. That might make things a lot more palatable, don't you think? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please update your edit, adding the actual links to Wiki projects that have been informed about t discussion
Could you please update your edit, adding the actual links to Wiki projects that have been informed about the Kyiv discussion? Specifically in this edit you said the names of the projects (Former countries, Russia, Military history) to which you added links to the talk:Kyiv discussion, but you forgot to add the actual links where those wiki project discussions are located (and some users might not be able to find those wiki projects easily). In other words, could you please update your edit, adding the following links: wt:Milhist, wt:WPFC, and wt:Russia? Thank you,--67.175.201.50 (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is going to those projects from talk:Kyiv... There is no conversation going on at those projects. They are coming to talk:Kyiv from those projects. It's not needed but I'll do so anyways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2020 French Open – Day-by-day summaries
Hello, Fyunck(click),

Thank you for creating 2020 French Open – Day-by-day summaries.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"This has been tagged for several concerns."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Talkback
This should have been changes after a conclusion of US Open article(s). ApprenticeFan  work  07:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, we aren't a ticker-tape repository. If something is only supposition it should be in a draft page, not an article. But even if we are to retain them, those charts should be at the bottom of the singles or doubles articles, not the 2020 US Open article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - additions and removals
Good to see you noticed I was fixing tennisedu blatant errors, in both directions (deleting info no longer relevant due to the reduced scope but ensure the info at the current scope is there). Personally, I find it quite idiotic that he had those errors and then erased my changes without even looking at why I made them. Basically what I just did now is what I did 2 years ago (added info to the highest level that some years already had)Informed analysis (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Informed analysis (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think we need a yearly article to cover all the events, but he went too far in this removal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can talk a wee bit of sense into the other guy - the fact is if he is being consistent he will delete Connor's No 3 mention in 1977 which would be moronic - all the events he won should be listed in that column, but by his logic they would be deletedInformed analysis (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Day-by-day summaries for Grand Slam
Hi is there a discussion that I missed? IIRC these articles were only created after the tournament finished. –  333-blue  at 01:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There were some discussions about the four majors yearly articles being almost unreadable. A couple administrators concurred and I had to admit they were pretty bad. Someone took the onus upon themselves to rewrite a 2020 article and put many items into the draw pages (where they work better). As for the day-by-day articles, nothing was concrete, but you are asking the wrong person about when to move them. I have always been of the opinion that any subject that deserves a standalone article after the tournament has no business ever being buried in another article. It should always be standalone from the start. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Yeah, I have read the discussion in September, and I don't think there was really a consensus. I agree that draw pages are unnecessarily long these days. –  333-blue  at 11:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Iga Świątek
I will just remove the respelling now cause I don't want the readers to get the wrong idea. You are completely mistaken about the pronunciation. Please don't revert, could you? I don't have time now, but I'll open a discussion about this on the talk page later today. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's been a discussion for days and days already. And I'm not mistaken because we have it from her own mouth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have it from her own mouth. We have it from her own mouth that's her last name is prounced "SHFYON-tek". ;-) I can understand that you hear it differently. Because you interpret what you hear through your own language experience/background. But just look at the IPA transcription and try to find an [i] there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked for help at the Polish wikiproject: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this is an English Wikipedia. As a source we have her own mouth and a US Open article that says it is pronounced Shvee-On-tek. You are going to need other sources that actually contradict this... not a spelling guide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Olmedo's Nationality
I have recently made an edit which got undone on the Grand Slam champions, Australian Open winners and US Open winners pages regarding Olmedo's nationality. He is already listed as a Peruvian on the Wimbledon winner's page. While he did represent the U.S. in Davis Cup as he was living in the U.S. at the time and Peru didn't have a Davis Cup team, most of my sources seem to back up him playing as a Peruvian in individual competition. Looking in The Bud Collins History of Tennis book, on the Wimbledon website, the tennis base and grand slam history websites as well as numerous other sources 1 2 3. He is even referred to as a Peruvian competitor on a Britsh Pathé video clip of the 1959 final between him and Laver 4.--Xc4TNS (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wimbledon is post writing his history. The Australian Open still keeps it as what it was back in the 50s.... American. he could not play Davis Cup unless he played and continued to play for the United States. His entry forms and newspapers said as much. I can't help it it if today, Wimbledon decides they want to be politically correct and say he was Peruvian. That's as an amateur. Once he turned pro and could no longer play Davis Cup I'm not sure how his nationality was treated, so I did not revert the pro changes you made (though they could be wrong). Stock photos from 1959 hosted at Alamy say USA. When the Open Era started he again played for the United States and the ITF still uses USA. The Library of Congress has contemporary photos that say Peruvian-born US tennis player. When The Guardian published their list of Wimbledon winners in 2011, Olmedo was listed as USA. His draw sheet for the US Open in 1968 was USA. His draw sheet for the French Open in 1969 was also USA. We also have "The Encyclopedia of Tennis: 100 Years of great Players and Events" by Max Robertson, on page 295 calling Olmedo a USA player in its glossary of players (it does call him Peruvian-born). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What confuses me is the conflicting sources. He was still a Peruvian citizen at the time. While that may not apply to what country a competitor plays for, tennis is ultimately an individual sport if you don’t count Davis Cup. Lendl stopped playing for Czechoslovakia in Davis Cup past 1985 but never played as an American until he received citizenship in 1992. It’s not just a case of Wimbledon changing records. Bud Collins' History of Tennis book from 2016 lists him as Peruvian as well as The Tennis Base. Either way, having conflicting information is somewhat confusing. --Xc4TNS (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree tennis is confusing at times. Navratilova played for the US long before she became a citizen. From 1975-1981 she played for the US while not a US citizen. There a a heap of controversy at the time with Olmedo playing for the US Davis Cup. Tennis is individual that is true, but you can't play at Wimbledon without a country recognizing you. You can't just go there and say I represent no country and be able to play. The ITF has you sign a detailed bio with how you want your name spelled and what country you represent. Davis Cup was Huge at the time. Players skipped majors so they weren't tired for their Davis Cup round. Players would not turn pro because it would mean no Davis Cup. Since he had lived in the US a certain amount of time Olmedo was allowed to play Davis Cup and represent the United States and my guess it came with the baggage of having to represent the US at all other event also. Officially he did so. What I don't know is when he turned pro, and could no longer play Davis Cup, did he change and start representing Peru. I don't know the answer to that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We know the answer to that, when Olmedo turned pro he represented Peru in pro international competitions. The major pro international event was the Kramer Cup and Olmedo represented Peru.Tennisedu (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)