Jump to content

Talk:Big Four (tennis): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 86: Line 86:
[[Special:Contributions/82.31.220.33|82.31.220.33]] ([[User talk:82.31.220.33|talk]]) 08:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/82.31.220.33|82.31.220.33]] ([[User talk:82.31.220.33|talk]]) 08:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:No, it should not be changed. That section is "meant" to focus on their tournament titles from 2009 to 2013, which it does, and which was a period of particular dominance for them over the rest of the tour. In 2013, they won all of the big titles (4 Majors, 9 Masters, Tour Finals), so it makes sense to include it with 2009-2012. The whole article is about the Big Four and covers their entire careers at various points, so this section is not somehow problematic in a way that the rest of the article wouldn't be by your definition. And their status as the "Big Four" is not dependent on or defined by their rankings, and certainly not their year-end rankings only. Witness almost this entire season in which they have held the top four rankings for only a week or two, but in which the media have persisted in talking about the "Big Four" anyway. [[User:LacrimosaDiesIlla|LacrimosaDiesIlla]] ([[User talk:LacrimosaDiesIlla|talk]]) 13:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
:No, it should not be changed. That section is "meant" to focus on their tournament titles from 2009 to 2013, which it does, and which was a period of particular dominance for them over the rest of the tour. In 2013, they won all of the big titles (4 Majors, 9 Masters, Tour Finals), so it makes sense to include it with 2009-2012. The whole article is about the Big Four and covers their entire careers at various points, so this section is not somehow problematic in a way that the rest of the article wouldn't be by your definition. And their status as the "Big Four" is not dependent on or defined by their rankings, and certainly not their year-end rankings only. Witness almost this entire season in which they have held the top four rankings for only a week or two, but in which the media have persisted in talking about the "Big Four" anyway. [[User:LacrimosaDiesIlla|LacrimosaDiesIlla]] ([[User talk:LacrimosaDiesIlla|talk]]) 13:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)





<big>'''Suggested content for page:'''</big>
<big>'''Suggested content for page:'''</big>
- How about a table showing longest tennis matches between the big 4? As a number of these matches are also grand slam open era records.
How about a table showing longest tennis matches between the big 4? As a number of these matches are also grand slam open era records.

- How about a table showing the longest winning streaks from each of the big 4, and on each surface?
Also, how about a table showing the longest winning streaks from each of the big 4, and on each surface?


== Combined Big Titles Performance Timeline (best result) ==
== Combined Big Titles Performance Timeline (best result) ==

Revision as of 12:07, 12 October 2017

WikiProject iconTennis NA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles
NAThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Tennis To-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a page

Honestly, I've read tens of thousands of pages on Wikipedia, but this one, when it comes to stats (compilation, accuracy, updating) takes the cake. Kudos to all of you who have worked on it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.29.251 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Suggested

Under the title of 'Tournament Titles 2009-2013' should this not reflect just their period s a big four? As in 2013 Roger Federer dropped out of the top 4 rankings so shouldn't this be changed to just show 2009-2012 as during those years the top 4 tennis rankings were just the Big 4 at each year end? Not sure how to change things here, but this bugged me a little given it's meant to focus on their period as a Big 4.

Thanks.

82.31.220.33 (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be changed. That section is "meant" to focus on their tournament titles from 2009 to 2013, which it does, and which was a period of particular dominance for them over the rest of the tour. In 2013, they won all of the big titles (4 Majors, 9 Masters, Tour Finals), so it makes sense to include it with 2009-2012. The whole article is about the Big Four and covers their entire careers at various points, so this section is not somehow problematic in a way that the rest of the article wouldn't be by your definition. And their status as the "Big Four" is not dependent on or defined by their rankings, and certainly not their year-end rankings only. Witness almost this entire season in which they have held the top four rankings for only a week or two, but in which the media have persisted in talking about the "Big Four" anyway. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Suggested content for page: How about a table showing longest tennis matches between the big 4? As a number of these matches are also grand slam open era records.

Also, how about a table showing the longest winning streaks from each of the big 4, and on each surface?

Combined Big Titles Performance Timeline (best result)

@Zain786909: I think this table is unnecessary (and very close to redundant) since it basically just combines information already displayed in other tables nearby. It also rather arbitrarily starts in 2003. But, if you want to include it in the article, then at the very least you need to (1) put it in a more appropriate place (i.e., don't divide the table for "Top Tier singles tournament standings since 1990" from the paragraph that explains that table) and (2) make it match the formatting of all the other tables in the article (i.e., follow the color scheme for tournaments and for results and indicate by superscript which member(s) of the Big Four achieved which results). You should probably also add a row for the Olympics and pick a non-arbitrary starting point (like the beginning of Federer's career). In the form you have already twice tried to add this table to this article, it sticks out like a sore thumb. The article is in very good condition, and many editors have worked very hard to make it so, and there is no desperate need for this table, so there is no reason to add it until it looks like it belongs. Perhaps you should work on it in your sandbox. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big 5?

Shouldn`t it be a Big 5 already? With everything Stan did in the last 3 years, so many Grand Slam semifinals, 3 Grand Slam titles + Grand Slam final and so many wins over the Big 4... Yes, I know he said to not be included with one list with these players but with these accomplishments he just has to be included. If you say yes, I will get on it and edit the page. GeorgiPeev03 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do it. It's not like wikipedia invented the term "Big 4." It's Big 4 because all the press and writing on the subject calls them the Big 4. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: it's not our call. We don't get to decide that it's a "Big Five" just like we didn't get to decide it was a "Big Four". Also, just as a quick rebuttal: Wawrinka's highest ranking is No. 3, rather than No. 1 (like all of the Big Four), he's made only 4 Slam finals (instead of at least 11, which is the minimum for the Big Four), and he's only won a single Masters Series title (instead of at least 14, which is the minimum for the Big Four). There's still a big difference between Murray and Wawrinka. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Four_(tennis)&oldid=804996532"