Talk:List of lists of tennis records and statistics

split

Is there is concensus on spliting the article into something more manageable.

I've made the nav box

to show how it could be done. Francium12 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about this one. It takes getting used to when you've seen it one way for so long. It sure looks neater Francium's way though it does make it less an article and more a repository of links. It is nice to have everything one click away and it might be easier to control/notice vandalism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did think that when I tried splitting it. The article becomes nothing! I think all the player related stats could be one article? I suppose the problem stems from such a vague article title as tennis statistics. The scope. There are a indefinate number of statistics you could state about the career of Roger Federer. Francium12 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing I did note is that List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions and Chronological list of men's Grand Slam tennis champions are almost repitition. The Olympic stuff here is also better represented at List of Olympic medalists in tennis Francium12 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought for a long time that the chrono list could be dumped. I guess what it offers is player name with instant number and type of slam. You would actually have to count and tally to get that from the Grand Slam List. Of course they could be merged but the tables are both pretty long as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no consensus for the split. I am personally opposed to it. The article is fine and is the result of combining various independent articles in the past. There's no need to reverse that decision. Chidel (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be hasty and say no consensus yet. Maybe a vast majority do like Francium's edits. He only put up the query today so lets give it a couple weeks to see what others think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

His question was "Is there ... consensus?". As of today and answering his question directly, there is no consensus for the split. But as with anything else on Wikipedia, consensus can change in the future. Chidel (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for Wikilawyering but the article is 102 kilobytes long!. According to Wikipedia:Splitting it should "Almost certainly should be divided" Francium12 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the definition of readable prose. Tables are not included. Consequently, this article is fine as it is. Chidel (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to read the article as is, it definitely needs to be split to more structured sections, the above nav bar is a fine start. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion? Francium12 (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Page too long

I'm suggesting rather than having an extremely long and tedious page of all the tennis statistics perhaps having 3 seperate pages of them.

Mens singles

Women's singles

Doubles

and a little bit more refined would make it easier to access the information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbrewer (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

In favour of splitting: Francium12, Spaceman7Spiff, Djbrewer Neutral: Fyunck(click) Opposed: Chidel

Responding to {{Split}} request, and agreeing that the article should be split

SilkTork.

There appears to have been long standing concern that this article is not manageable, and that much of the material would be better served organised differently. Investigating the split request I noticed that a partial split had been undertaken, and much of the material on this page was duplicated elsewhere, making this page both awkward to navigate and redundant. I carried out the split in the spirit of the consensus on this page, Wikipedia:Splitting, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and Wikipedia:Article size. I made it into a disamb page, and shortly after R'n'B made it a list page, an edit that endorsed the split. That makes five users in favour of the split, and one user against. Two months after the split a newly created IP account reverted the split with the comment "There never was a consensus for this disastrous split". I restored the edit, assuming it was a quiet piece of vandalism. The same IP reverted again. I have restored the split again, and semi-protected the article. There appears to be no proper rationale for the action of the IP account; however, it would be appropriate to review the split to see if there is still consensus that the current situation is the appropriate one. If people would prefer the article to be restored to how it was, then the {{Split}} request tag would need to be removed. SilkTork *^YES! 12:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I was ever happy this page was turned into a simple check list but it's better than the lengthy thing it was before. However I think I envisioned an actual split... maybe open vs no-open, or slam vs non-slam records... not a list. When you converted it where did the easy heading to the following go..."most titles at a particular tourney", "most year end tourny wins", "longest match winning streaks", etc. It seems that many tables didn't make it into the split and maybe that's what has bothered the anon editor. It was something like 112k long before so split into two groupings was all that was needed, and anything totally redundant like "grand slam records" being just a listing. My quick thoughts on a Sunday while watching the Fish/Federer match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the choice is totally either one state or the other. I think there is the option of working to make things better. I think the problem with this page was that problems with organisation had not been addressed. I would 100% support anyone rolling up their sleeves and improving the page. If you feel it would be helpful to have certain links, then go for it, create those links. The information exists somewhere in one of the other lists - this page could serve as either a disamb page or list of lists (though if it is to be a list of lists then it might be appropriate to name it as such - List of lists of tennis statistics) - either way, it seems it would be quite useful as a navigation guide to what is available, and it can be built on and improved. SilkTork *^YES! 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this the sort of thing you are looking for? - "most titles at a particular tourney", "longest match winning streaks" - that is linked in the nav box at the bottom of the page, but can be moved up into the page proper if you feel that would be helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 21:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is this article duplicated elsewhere, SilkTork? 75.63.3.179 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In the articles listed. SilkTork *^YES! 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you make sure that everything in this article before you blanked it actually exist elsewhere? 75.63.3.179 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Here is an example of an error you made during the split. You deleted Roger Federer from the "Most Combined Grand Slam titles (all time)" table. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was actively edited and keenly watched until the split. Now, the however-many articles that have been created are going to become orphans or quickly out-of-date. The last activity on the split discussion was over a year ago. But without any advance notice, you split the article based on an old discussion that was never concluded. And what you didn't consider is the fact that since the discussion ended, many people have edited the non-split version of this article, which indicates consensus to keep it as it was. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a mix - one article was created (and is being actively edited), some material was merged into existing articles, and most were simply redirects as the material already existed (the edit histories of the articles can be checked to verify this). Could you give some reasons for why you feel the previous version was more useful than the current version. It's worth looking at the articles listed, and comparing their content with the page as it was. If you could also explain what you feel was the rationale behind the selection of the data - given that some data was reproduced here while other data was not. If it is felt that there might be some use for a full page of tennis statistics, it would be useful to sketch out a plan for how the page would be organised, and the rationale for what information to include, and what to exclude. SilkTork *^YES! 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You should ask Francium12 why, on June 27, 2009, he unilaterally duplicated much of this article by creating the List of Grand Slam related tennis records. He was a participant in the discussion of whether to split this article. But instead of waiting for the discussion to be concluded, he acted. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC) You created List of open era tennis records when you blanked this page. To my knowledge, the Tennis statistics article did not duplicate any of the information you placed in your new article before you created it. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC) It appears that this article reached its pre-blanking form in December 2007 after a discussion to merge separate tennis statistics articles into this one. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's proper for an administrator to protect an article for the purpose of preserving the administrator's content edits? I think not. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to have a discussion about the matter, which is what we are doing. I have protected the article against what appeared to be inappropriate edits. Would you agree to not revert the page if I unprotect it? SilkTork *^YES! 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not agree to preserve your faulty edits. Perhaps you should ask an uninvolved administrator to determine whether this page needs protection. 75.63.3.179 (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the page was too large before turning into a list so it could not stay the way it was. The question is how to go about cutting it down and making it presentable. Francium12 breaking off grand slam records was hasty and also misnamed. It should be "Grand Slam Tournament related tennis statistics" and this one could have been Non-slam tournament tennis statistics. That would have been a nice split with a prominent sublink on this page to the Slam page. And I have no problem with silktorq administering and protecting when needed. He seems fairminded so far and I would assume good intentions. What I don't like is someone new and anonymous complaining about an administrator or anyone for that matter. Get a proper id and you'll have no trouble editing this page. Or is that a problem? Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think my edits were inappropriate? Why do you think your edits were appropriate? Why do you believe that you did not engage in edit warring in this article? It's clear that you protected this page to preserve your own edits. I'm sure you know how "inappropriate" that is. Could you tell me where I can file a complaint about your actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.159.244 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

IP editors can't participate on Wikipedia, huh? Or is it just your peculiar rule? Do tables count when determining whether an article is too large?

Of course they can and they are welcomed. But if you're going to get into shouting match with an administrator go get yourself an actual account. The ip addresses can change and we don't know if we are talking to the same person from day to day... so making an edit on occasion is fine and dandy but an ongoing argument is much easier for all to follow if you have an account. As far as article size wikipedia likes them to be smaller than 32k but the rule of thumb is -

> 100 K Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 K Probably should be divided

> 40 K May need to be divided

This article was bigger than 100k. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You conveniently ignored my question. Do tables in an article count when determining whether the article is too large? Could you refer me to the Wikipedia rule that says a person must get a named account before participating in a talk page discussion or before disagreeing with an administrator? Or are you just trying to intimidate IP editors that disagree with you? Sounds like the latter to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.159.244 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the tables don't count, but kb does. As for getting an actual account that's up to you, it's just a suggestion on my part and absolutely not a requirement. We've had a couple of real kooky anonymous banned nutball editors around lately that have kept us on our toes so it simply helps all of us separate you from those wackos. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the current version is an improvement - it is certainly a lot easier to navigate to a desired statistic by looking through this short list, finding the correct article, and then looking through the shorter article. The old version was massively impractical in comparison; WP:SIZE was introduced to avoid articles where the amount of content overwhelms the limited navigation ability, and was well applied here even though the content was in tabular format. Knepflerle (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

I'd be interested to hear proposals for how to develop this page. Fyunck, could you explain your idea in a bit more detail? Is is something that you could carry out without too much work, so people could see it live on the page? SilkTork *^YES! 10:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it tonight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here it is so far, User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats. Rough in parts but I've added a lot of extra info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. I've made some comments. I understand that you want to distinguish between major events and Grand Slam events, though you include Grand Slam events in the list, so perhaps there needs to be some clarification on the aim of the list. It can include major events including Grand Slam, and a sortable table can be made so people can identify Grand Slam events - that would mean you don't need to have lists in two different places - you don't need to have Grand Slam or Major, you can have both, sortable. What needs clarifying also is what constitutes "important" or "major". What is the selection criteria for which tournaments are included.

I haven't looked - how much of the material is duplicated from elsewhere - is there any cross-over?

Well done on what you have got so far. SilkTork *^YES! 10:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The only slam chart is the one containing most tournaments won at a single event. It seemed impossible to leave out the slams in that table and have it viable. It's a hybrid that fits perfectly on neither the slam record wiki page that already exists nor on a non-slam page. I was looking for a natural split on a page that was too long by many kb as per wiki guidelines and slam/non-slam pages seemed the right choice for dividing. Also be careful when conversing in tennis lingo and using term major and slam as they are 100% the same thing and might confuse others reading this at a later date. As far as crossover I'm sure there is. First I took the original statistics page and weeded out the slams since there is a page on wiki that did the same in reverse. then I added, corrected, tweaked etc.. to make it a stand alone page. The only other minor point to make is in your "red ink" help the french championship before 1925 is not a slam event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That looks fine to me. It would be worth now contacting WikiProject Tennis and those people who have been involved in editing this article, and made comments on the talkpage, to see how others feel, and if the consensus is that the list is useful, then implement it. SilkTork *^YES! 08:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm notifying people, though User:Chidel, who objected to the article being split, has been blocked indefinitely, so cannot be contacted. SilkTork *^YES! 08:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Two significant contributors User:Striving4 and User:Tennis expert not notified because they have been blocked. It appears that Chidel, Striving4 and Tennis expert are all the same person - the main contributor to this article. Other significant contributors have been informed. SilkTork *^YES! 09:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought the IP on this talkpage was the same as the one who reverted the article, though that IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Tennis expert. It appears that so far all the accounts that wish to keep this article as it was, all belong to the same person, the main contributor - Tennis expert. SilkTork *^YES! 09:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is so badly written and internally inconsistent that I don't know how anyone knows exactly what it means. Aside from that, Fyunck's proposal above is to combine substantive changes to the article with the split. That's an extremely bad idea. Administrator SilkTork already made at least one substantive change to the article when he or she split it but didn't tell anyone, not even in the edit summary for the split. Naturally, no other editor noticed the change. And now, Fyunck is proposing to repeat that woeful action but on a much greater scale. Another problem is the one Fyunck noted: some tables relate both to Grand Slam tournaments and other tournaments. What should be done with them? Make even MORE substantive changes? The split, done by an administrator without advance notice and then improperly enforced by him or her through page protection when the split was reverted, has the potential to ruin an article that countless editors have worked on for many years. This is why the split should be reversed so that a rational and transparent discussion can continue. 70.253.64.1 (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The basic thing though is it was way too big. We have to split it so where would you have split it? Silktork turned it into a page of links. I thought since the slams stats now have a page of their own the least I could do was bring back the charts that got dumped. I added some new charts and expanded what was left out of the old charts. Even if the page was left in it's original form the charts needed expanding. So bottom line is the page needed splitting... silktork tried and I have tried but you have only criticized with no remedy offered. I do agree that turning the page into a set of links was rather abrupt since we hadn't decided on the best way to split it but it was done with good intentions and after a year of nothing happening. What would the size have been if we had renamed it Men's Tennis Records and Statistics and created a new page with Women's Tennis Records and Statistics? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have offered a solution. But you have ignored it. Take the page back to where it was before the split and then through discussion arrive at a reasoned consensus for the future of the article. Splitting it between men and women is far preferable to the current situation being improperly enforced by the administrator through page protection. And starting over will ensure that substantive changes don't get mixed up with the splitting effort. Splitting is complicated enough without anything else to confuse people. 70.253.64.1 (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Note the editor using IP 70.253.64.1 is an indefinitely blocked editor who edits anonymously, jumping IPs to avoid the block. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I would like to add this page *Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era on List of lists of tennis records and statistics.

How ? Thank you

Fred30 13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC).

I just added added it per your request. Thanks for the suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks you very much ! Fred30 13 (talk) http://fredtennis.blogspot.com/ —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC).