Talk:2021 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles

Record

Cambridge Dictionary defines Record (noun) as: "an achievement that is better than anything that has happened before." Under this definition, Nadal's achievement of 20 Grand Slams doesn't constitute a record at all, because it wasn't something that was "better than anything that has happened before." This article should therefore not refer to " Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal's all-time record of 20 Grand Slam men's singles titles." The record is Federer's. Nadal has only equalled the record.

Oxford dictionary defines it as: "the best result or the highest or lowest level that has ever been reached, especially in sport" [1]. Merriam Webster: "an unsurpassed statistic" [2]. Collins: "the best result that has ever been achieved in a particular sport or activity" [3]. Cherry-picking definitions that fit your opinion will get you nowhere. Moreover, the fact that "joint record holders" is commonly used for Federer and Nadal in the slam race [4] also shows that yours is not the commonly-held view on this matter. —Somnifuguist (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not a question of cherry-picking definitions. When using words, it is important to take into account their full meaning, taking note of the various definitions and the tradition of how the terms have been used in the past. Take a look at athletics. The world record holder is the person who established the record. Take a look at the Guinness Book of World Records. The record holders are the people who established the records. People who matched the records aren't usually mentioned. It improves the clarity of the article to refer to Federer's record that has been equalled by Nadal. That gives more information than saying it is Federer and Nadal's record. Maybe you're a big Nadal fan, but that shouldn't give you the right to smudge the record in his favour. My use of the term, record, in my edits, meets ALL of the definitions shown above. Your use, Somni, only meets SOME of them. When given two options, we ought to favour the better one of the two.

For the sake of consistency across sports and articles, and for the sake of clarity, it would be better to refer only to the person who sets a record as "the record holder." This conforms with all relevant definitions of the term, record, including the definition that a record is "an achievement that is better than anything that has happened before." If it is considered to be important to make note of people who have equalled that record, then by all means, add; "a record that was equalled by NAME." Across sport and in life generally, greater significance is attributed to the person who did something first. Roger Bannister was the first to achieve the four minute mile. Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. They get given greater prominence in the records, because they were first. Their achievement is more noteworthy than the achievements of those that follow them, because they were the ones who proved the achievement possible. A Nadal fan (and I am a Nadal fan) might not like that, but tough!

First, please use ":"s to indent your replies, and "~~~~" to sign them so we can see who wrote them. Now, comparing definitions is rarely useful, and the difference (record > than any result before vs. record ≥ any result before) is nuanced enough that there will be some variance between dictionaries as we've found, but I did show that 3 of the 4 major dictionaries use the latter, and that "joint record-holder", which contradicts the former (your) definition, is commonly used in this exact context. The key fact in this article is that Federer and Nadal top the all-time list for Grand Slam titles, and that Djokovic can equal their tallies if he wins this tournament. That Federer set the record and Nadal equalled it is not relevant here, and is already covered extensively elsewhere anyway. Your edit [5], which changed "Federer is vying to become the outright record-holder" to "Federer is attempting to extend the record" doesn't make sense given that Nadal and Federer have the same total—Federer winning the tournament would change the status from Nadal and Federer as co-leaders, to Federer the sole leader on the all-time list. "Extend" is normally only used when one is the sole leader and extends their lead. I have edited the phrasing slightly [6]; maybe you'll prefer that. —Somnifuguist (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Somni, but your reply fails to provide a logical counter to the arguments I made in my previous comments. You seem to be floundering. And you're showing your desperation when you say things like, ""Federer is attempting to extend the record" doesn't make sense." It makes perfect sense. Feel free to have another go if you like, but from a rational point of view, you're clearly losing this argument at the moment.

I'm not remotely floundering. Your arguments don't pass muster. "Take a look at athletics. The world record holder is the person who established the record": False, the record-holder(s) are whoever has achieved the best result. In athletics, measurements are very precise to avoid ties, so rarely is a record exactly equaled. It does still happen occasionally, and frequently did in the past, e.g. see World Record Progression 100 m Freestyle, where Kenneth Walsh and Zachary Zorn are both listed as having held the then-record of 52.6 seconds, despite Zorn swimming that time a year after Walsh. "My use of the term, record, in my edits, meets ALL of the definitions shown above. Your use, Somni, only meets SOME of them. When given two options, we ought to favour the better one of the two.": You assume meeting all definitions is better. It is not. If a fringe source, or a small minority of sources define a term in a way out of kilter with the others/common usage, we don't give them undue weight, and don't follow them. "For the sake of consistency across sports and articles...": with a grand total of 0 non-reverted edits under your belt, it's bold of you to assume you have any understanding of conventions here on Wikipedia. See e.g. Women's 100 metres world record progression, where multiple then-record holders are shown for the same time throughout the history of that event, which follows the official usage of 'record' as defined by the relevant world athletics authorities. "...it would be better to refer only to the person who sets a record as 'the record holder.' This conforms with all relevant definitions of the term, record.": It doesn't, as excluding joint-record holders would not align with the 3 definitions I provided. "Across sport and in life generally, greater significance is attributed to the person who did something first. Roger Bannister ... Neil Armstrong ... get given greater prominence in the records, because they were first.": 'Firsts' are a separate category of record. Roger Federer is still the first man to have reached 20 Grand Slam singles titles, and that will always be true, but he is no longer the sole record holder for total Grand Slam titles, as Nadal has equalled him. "Federer is attempting to extend the record" doesn't make sense as Federer has no lead over Nadal, so winning a 21st would not extend his record, but make him the outright record holder by creating such a lead. Finally, your Guiness World Records argument is laughable, when, if you check their very website, you'll find they list both Federer and Nadal for precisely this record! [7].

All of this is moot, though, and I've humoured you enough. Wikipedia works via consensus, and 4 editors other than myself instantly reverted your edits, so the matter was never actually in dispute. —Somnifuguist (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

- Sorry Somni, but you're still badly floundering and failing to be logical. You've failed to rationally counter my arguments and you're just blathering with nonsense. For example, the fact that Nadal is mentioned by Guinness world records doesn't dispute my point, since what I specifically said was, "People who matched the records aren't usually mentioned." The arguments I made in my previous comments still stand. In terms of basic logic and rationality, you're not managing to successfully counter my arguments. I'm sorry you're not very good at logic, but it isn't really my job to school you.

You also resort to an ad-hominem attack, using totally false information. You claim I have "a grand total of 0 non-reverted edits under your belt." But that is totally false. I have hundreds of 'successful' non-reverted edits. In fact, this is the first time one of my edits has ever been reverted in this way. You seem to have wrongly assumed I always use the same IP address. That seems such a basic era for any experienced Wikipedia editor.

The fundamentals of the situation are: I updated the page to read as follows:

Novak Djokovic is the two-time defending champion from when the event was last held in 2019. In addition, he is attempting to equal the all-time record of 20 Grand Slam men's singles titles: a record set by Roger Federer and equalled by Rafael Nadal. Federer is attempting to extend the record to 21 Grand Slam titles.

For the reasons I've explained, this was a better and more precise version than the version it replaced. And you, Somni, have completely failed to explain why it was justified to revert my changes. I think that's clearly game, set and match to me. But if you want to waste your life spitefully reversing perfectly good edits, I guess you have the freedom to so so.

Yes I did assume you were new. Quite an easy mistake to make when you've shown complete ignorance of Wikipedia's most basic policies (WP:3RR), for which you were blocked, and have shown yourself to be incapable of even the most simple talk page formatting. It'd be less embarrassing if you actually were new. You can call my arguments "blathering nonsense" and me "flailing", "floundering", etc. all you want (all ad hominems; water off a duck's back), but it is you who has failed to counter my points here. In the one attempt you made (the only logic-based rebuttal you could come up with?), with respect to Guinness World Records, you fail to even remember your own edit summary. Here's a refresher: [8] "The person who establishes a record is the record holder. Ask Guinness World Records!!". That is what I refuted by showing that GWR lists Nadal and Federer as joint record-holders, i.e. I did ask them, and they disagree with you!! Every other argument you failed to address, and instead tried to quickly declare yourself the winner—"game, set and match"—cute, but not the tactic of someone confident they are actually coming out on top.

Oh, and I did provide reasoning for why your edit was reverted−by 5 different editors no less—:the fact that Federer set the record and Nadal equalled it is not relevant to this article, as the order makes no difference to Djokovic's potential equalling of them. The sentence "In addition, he is attempting to equal the all-time record of 20 Grand Slam men's singles titles: a record set by Roger Federer and equalled by Rafael Nadal" is also clunky in its repetition of "record", and doesn't flow well at all. Again, this is all academic, and just advice for you in future edits. The consensus is against your desired change, so debating here further will bear you no fruit. —Somnifuguist (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

- Sorry Somni, but the fact that Federer got there first is perfectly relevant. Obviously people would be interested to know who set the record - and that's why I included that information in my beautifully-flowing edit. But also, a key definition of 'record' defines it as "an achievement that is better than anything that has happened before." So I edited the paragraph to fit better with that definition. In no way have you shown that to be unreasonable.

I edited the article to make what I considered a clear improvement. I added notes to my edits to explain why I made them. You and others may disagree that my edits improved the article. And you are entitled to disagree. But what you shouldn't have done was repeatedly reverse my edits without explaining (at the time) why you reversed them. I admit that, like most people who edit on Wikipedia, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's rules. And perhaps you are an expert. But like most visiting non-experts on this site, I would appreciate some basic courtesy and decency from the regular editors when I make a well-intentioned edit to try to improve an article.

And this interaction IS bearing fruit, thank you. I have more important aims in mind that perhaps you appreciate.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this matter. It's been interesting! Have a nice day! :-) Sorry if smiley faces break one of Wikipedia's editing rules!

I gave reasons in both my reverts [9][10], so don't misrepresent my actions. Whether I have shown your edit to be unreasonable is for neither you or I to decide (and you wouldn't admit I had in any case), but regardless of your "more important aims", your edit will not be reinstated due to a strong apparent consensus by other editors against it. I have shown you basic courtesy and decency, which is why I directed you to the talk page, and have repeatedly engaged with you here, despite your combative style. Smiley faces don't break Wikipedia rules, but continuing to push an edit when it is reverted 21 times breaches not only Wiki policy, but common sense (a certain saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results comes to mind). It has been interesting. Let's hope this tournament is a good one. —Somnifuguist (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

- In actual fact, I tried different edits and added explanations. So I think I was being reasonable. What I don't think was reasonable was for people (not necessarily you) to keep reverting my edits without explaining their reasons. Your reverts came towards the end of the process. And whilst you made comments about why you thought previous versions were reasonable, they didn't really explain what was actually wrong with my updates. That's two different things. Whilst I'm prepared to listen to reason, I'm not interested in how many people didn't like my edits. Even when one stands against many, the one can still be in the right. Furthermore, whilst you may not see the wisdom of my persistence, it did serve a purpose. It provided evidence which I would otherwise be without. And whilst I didn't necessarily expect a different result, I wanted to give people every reasonable opportunity to have the courtesy of explaining themselves. I don't know if ethics is a topic that interests you, but it interests me. Nice chatting with you!

Points defending/seeded players section

I have restored the original 2019 values at 100% to the "Points defending" column in "Seeded players." I understand that the rules make so they are only effectively defending 50% of the points, but I believe displaying that value causes needless confusion.

With the original values on display, calculating the points after* is essentially: Points after = Points before - Points defending + MAX(Points defending/2, Points won)

With the halved value it becomes: Points after = Points before - Points defending * 2 + MAX(Points defending, Points won); except when Points defending = 10; also if points defending = 22, then subtract 45 instead of 44.

Either way you'll have to make some additional calculations, and with the halved value it's more work.

*Ignoring the special rule for this year's rankings that makes all events non-mandatory

Rubyaxles (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and this is how we've done it the last few slams. Could we not make things easier, and use {{Val|{{Sum|Points before|-Points defending|{{Max|Points defending*0.5|Points won}}}}|fmt=commas}}, so the calculations are explicit and don't need to be hand made/checked? —Somnifuguist (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The formula would help, but there's still some nuance in these calculations, specially this year. I'm okay with updating the values manually — Rubyaxles (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)