User talk:Wolbo

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

Barnstar

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

Tennis profiles

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

List of the busiest airports in Europe

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

Changes to ATP seasons pages

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

Hoad article corrections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotation does not match source

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Wolbo:

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

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

We hope to see you there!

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

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

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

John Barrett rankings

Hi Wolbo. Could you add the following sections to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_ten_ranked_male_tennis_players replacing the existing sections please? These now include additions of the John Barrett rankings for the years 1984-1985 & 1996-1999, filling a lot of the remaining gaps in the Barrett rankings. Also, could you add the word Barrett and the player he ranked 1 and 2 plus the citation to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_ranked_male_tennis_players in the relevant sections please? I would be grateful if you could. Thanks.

The Signpost: 15 January 2026

The Signpost: 29 January 2026