User talk:Darko A7

ATP Rankings charts

Hi Darko, thanks a lot for the great rankings charts you made, uploaded, and added to several biographic tennis articles, such as [[File:Singles-Ranking-Composite-History-Chart-1997-2015-RF+RN+ND.png]]. They are useful and well designed, with the logarithmic vertical axis and rank 1 on top. If I may make a few minor comments, you could consider using 1000 as lower cut-off to increase the effectively used area in the image (since the strip between 10,000 and 1000 is almost empty). And maybe you could consider using solid lines for all players, since a dotted line is a bit less clear when the ranking jumps up and down quickly. These are just suggestions, the charts are great as they are. Also, since you already have the data ready, you could consider making a chart for Big Four (tennis), including Murray. Have a good day, Gap9551 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gap9551, thank you for your comments and suggestions. I will reply to all points below:

1) 1000 cut-off point is possible, however, due to some kind of bug in Excel, when setting manual limits on log charts, dotted line becomes completely messed-up (read: ugly). For this reason, I do not plan to replace manual chart limit at the moment.

2) About all-solid lines, yes, I have made several chart versions prior picking this up as a final candidate. To summarize, all-solid lines look much less clear at cross-section points (even with transparency effect applied - as you can already notice it). The problem with all-solid is that, even if the No.1 spot looks little better, everything else including transitions looks very bad. So, for the time being, until I or someone else figures how to do it better, chart will not be changed in this regard.

3) Finally, when creating a composite chart, I had to set some limits, mainly because of chart readability (it already feels cramped). For this reason, only players who reached No.1 spot at some point in time in the recent history were taken into account. I do not wish to insult any player fan out there, it was done simply because of technical issue with chart clarity and readability.

Regards

Hi Darko, thanks for your replies! As for the 1000 limit, you could try to delete all data points with ranking 1000 and up from the data set (or copy them to another sheet in case you need them later), and then probably Excel will automatically pick 1000 as its limit without manual intervention. Those data points would be invisible anyway with a manual limit, so the data shown in the figure would still be 100% correct. And well done on figuring out which line styles work best, thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gap9551, thanks again. Yes, I have figured the same work-around solution in the meantime, however, I will expand height and crop the chart manually without Excel limit intervention. New chart is already ready for upload, however, I am currently testing few other options (including all-solid, but differently set) and will upload new version very soon! I still consider the dotted version better, because transitions are clearly visible with it.

Thanks!

update: new chart uploaded

Awesome! Gap9551 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Federer ranking charts

A couple things about the rankings charts you created for Roger Federer. A singles ranking chart is already on his career statistics page (where it really belongs). There it is actually large enough to read where the ones you put on his main page you can barely see at all. That second chart is not about Federer, it is about three arbitrary players. Other players could have been included, or different players if you included Murray. I don't feel that should be there at all. However a larger version could be placed at the Federer–Nadal rivalry article if you exclude Djokovic. And a larger version could be placed at the Djokovic–Nadal rivalry article if you exclude Federer. The same with the charts you put up on Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray's articles. I'm not saying the charts aren't well done, just misplaced or not pertinent to the particular article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand. They are not "three arbitrary players", but the three most competing ones at present time. And no, I will not include AM.