Talk:Big Three (tennis)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Big Three (tennis) into Big Four (tennis) as per Articles for deletion/Big Three (tennis). Both topics can be described in one article, we don't need two.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: the tables in Big Three (tennis) should be added to Big Four (tennis) (with Murray added to them), but other than that everything is covered much more comprehensively in Big Four (tennis), and there is no need for two overlapping articles. Somnifuguist (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with somnifuguist that really only one table needs to get the merged since everything else is already covered. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose In light of Murray's injury struggles since his 2016 season and 3 Slams in comparison to Federer and Nadal's tied 20 Slams and Djokovic's 17 Slams, the Big Four is no longer as commonly used by the media and even current/former players as it was before 2017/2018 and in light of that, the media and most players now more commonly refers to Federer-Nadal-Djokovic as the Big Three so with that in mind, I think its better to keep this article rather than merge it, but maybe expand it further and have a history section explaining how this emerged from the Big Four over the last two/three years. If however, a merge is supported by the majority here, then maybe I would weakly support a merge of Big Four to Big Three as Gap9551 as suggested below or merge them both to an article maybe called e.g. Golden Era (though Gap9551's suggestion sounds better to me), but for now, I oppose a merge. Broman178 (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A merge seems natural given the strong overlap between both articles, but I oppose merging into Big Four (tennis), because Big Three (tennis) is the more prominent topic, so I suggest merging into Big Three (tennis), where a section can be used to discuss Big Four. Gap9551 (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gap9551 in that thr merge has to be from Big 4 into Big 3 with a section in Big 3 talking about how Big 4. Big 3 is simply way more relevant and will be talked about for decades to come due to the magnitude of their rivalry. Big 4 is more an afterthought. StaySafe2020 (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging into Big Four (tennis). Instead, the articles should be merged into Big Three (tennis) with a section on the Big Four.  Even the Big Four article discusses how the term has fallen into disuse because of Murray's struggles and the achievement gap between the Big Three and Murray. A quick search of news articles shows Big Three being used far more than Big Four. OCNative (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 *  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Comparing major titles across the eras, a "Big Three" comparison can be made between the modern day Big Three (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) to a Big Three of the past (Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver). Having a comparable Big Four would be like bringing Ashley Cooper to join Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver (ie absurd). "Big Four" is just a term used by the media, but when comparing major titles, Murray has won 3, Djokovic has won 17, Nadal has won 20 and Federer has won 20. A "Big Four" page (if it exists at all) should merely state "A term used by the media to describe Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray". No statistical analysis between the four players. I am British and appreciate and respect the achievements of Andy Murray, but he is not a player of comparable stature to the other three. So if any page is to be got rid of, it should be Big Four, not Big Three. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Metaphorically speaking when one compares 3 skyscrapers there should be no debate if a mansion should be included in the comparison. As big and pretty as a mansion might be, it can not be compared in any way shape or form to skyscrapers.  Let Murray out of this debate. After all it is clearly a debate about the GOAT.  This represents the biggest 3 players in the history of tennis.  For as hard as the BBC worked to create this illusion that Murray was in the same level as the other 3 by now any comparison is just absurd.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.137.40.187 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the silliest posts I have ever read on Wikipedia, and from an IP with four edits. Totally ignorant of the whole situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When anybody starts to criticize you by using technical and intelligent expressions like "silliest" "Totally ignorant" (referring to IP edits as some form of criteria for anything) We know we need to pay close attention. LOL
 * We should not be discussing whether it's three or four, but whether we need one article or two. That is the question here. If you agree that we need one article instead of two, we can discuss the name of that article later.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way the question was framed is the only reason people are inclined to debate. If you had proposed a merge from Big Four into Big Three, there would just have been no debate and a lot of support. Based on your reply here, it would seem to suggest you were asking if a merge is required - which is not entirely true. You were proposing a merge from Big 3 into Big 4 which will without a doubt provoke debate as Big 4 was a non-existent entity. It was just English media overplaying their hand like Rooney, the white Pele or Gerrard, the greatest player in the world. StaySafe2020 (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, no neutral observer of tennis will oppose a merge of the two articles, they just oppose the direction of the merge you suggested.StaySafe2020 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A small edit to my earlier reply. No neutral fan wants two articles. Most people would be okay with either
 * 1) deleting the big Four article alltogether
 * Or
 * 2) deleting the big Four article alltogether and then adding an addendum in Big 3 that talks about the Big Four and Big Five notations that never really was - especially Big Four which was considerably propogated by British media. StaySafe2020 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, consensus was formed that said there should be a merge into Big Four. They were not given an option of a merge into Big Three, but merge was the word of the day. Big Four is by far the older and by far the larger and more comprehensive of the two articles. It is not going to be deleted. If there is going to be a merge it will be the Big Three info into the Big Four article. I see no other way for that to turn out. Now certainly the info can be rearranged if merged, and certainly the article title can change. To be honest the Big Four article is the biggest pile of trivial bloat I've ever seen. It's unwieldy, hard to read, badly sourced, overblown, etc... a mess to be sure. I'd probably chop it by at least 2/3's, maybe 90%. The article could be titled "Tennis' Big Four and Big Three" after a merge and be 3x the size of the current Big Three article imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Big Four is not relevant - it never was and is never going to be into the future. You dont see ATP saying Big Four - they say Big Three. While we are at it, lets have an article that says Big Million so that I can also be included as a great player. There has to be an article on Big Three - whether Big Four needs to remain is relaly the only question. And I didnt see any consensus. All I saw was potentially an Andy Murray stan suggesting a merge into Big Four. StaySafe2020 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, also google ‘Big Four tennis’ and ‘Big Three tennis’ - you will see recent articles for Big Three. Ironically you will see an article where Andy Murray himself says thise three are the best players ever. Any reference to ‘Big Four’ are mostly by blogs or opinions - but by APT or any news source, currently, people just talk about ‘Big Three’. People always talked about ‘Big Three’ but British media tried to make ‘Big Four’ stick but it really didnt. Whether Wikipedia tries to mKe it stick or not, nobody will ever talk about ‘Big Four’ even 5 years down the line. StaySafe2020 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please nest your posts properly. You are brand new and have only posted on this topic, but it gets a little messy when posts don't get indented. But we don't get rid of historical articles (Just like Big Three will be some day). It's really more of a Big Two now. The relevancy part of your post is worrisome as far as bias so I'll leave that alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it's pretty clear that we have consensus for merging those two article into one. But, I'm not sure about the consensus on which article should be merged into which. Anyway, the closer should determine which article should be kept and which should be merged into that one. If editors are not happy with the outcome, they can initiate a move request. I think it is important for now to make this one article instead of two, the title of the article can be discussed later.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Somnifuguist. In addition to the Big Four still historically being the more prevalent term, there is no prose in the Big Three article. It wouldn't make sense to merge an article with prose into an article with no prose. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Big Three may have a lot fewer words, but Big Four is ridiculously bloated at over 17K of them. Is it more work to judiciously add to the former than drastically trim the latter? I think not. (Disclosure: I created Big Three.) Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support merging; and per, the Big Three should be the resultant article, with Big Four in a "history" (or some historical perspective) sub-section. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 12:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Big Three era start date
Hi.

Not an error but a small contradiction in the article. The beginning of the big 3 era is Wimbledon in 2013 (as it is said in the article and which is true), so we whould not include French Open and Australian Open (2013 editions) into account. Therefore, the percentage are wrong : we should have 15/17 for AO (88% victory) and 14/16 for French Open (87,5%). The respective boxes shoud be left empty.

Have a good day ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.215.224.229 (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal
As a result of this merger which itself followed on from this deletion proposal, there now exists a statistics article for the Big Four, a concept which no longer exists as a topic. The article itself was only created about five weeks ago although these players have been active for 15 years, which suggests to me there is no huge desire among followers of elite men's tennis to have the comparative statistics of all the players in one place, or at least not in a standalone format. (it's been pointed below that this was a recent fork from older content on the Big Four article as it appeared then). So I propose that Big Four career statistics be merged into Big Three (tennis) and adjusted to remove Andy Murray as appropriate.

The Big Three article itself has a lot of merge content and still requires a fair bit of work in this respect – personally I feel it's somewhat recentism to revert to 3 due to Murray's injuries of the past few years when there were a wide range of sources in the Big Four article (which had existed for seven years) to describe the group as such, contrary to the assertions of the Big Three article's creator who claimed they had never heard the term. Nobody can credibly argue that Murray has achieved as much as Federer, Nadal or Djokovic but he was some distance ahead of all the other players in the era, and it's evident that only a series of defeats in semis and finals to the others, who are rightly all considered among the half dozen or so greatest players of all time, prevented him from winning more; the fact that he competed on almost equal footing with them for several years is testament to his ability, although the trophy haul doesn't bear that out in comparison to lesser players in previous eras. He is no longer in that absolute top group and unlikely to return to that level, but the involvement of one or more of the others could also end suddenly (more so as they age), does that mean the Big Three term no longer applies if it's not an active concept? Plus, there are rivalry articles for Murray vs the three others in addition to them vs each other, indicating his status as their peer albeit usually the 'loser' among them – but I'll concede there was a probably an element of enthusiasm bias among Murray fans, the majority of whom are English speaking, to create such detailed content on Enwiki (there's certainly a lot of stuff in his category). Anyway that's an argument I'd like to have made in the previous discussions but I wasn't aware of them at the time.

Alternatively, if it's felt that the Statistics article should stay, in view of the outcome of the earlier discussion it's logical that it should be re-named to Big Three career statistics or similar (should there be a '(tennis)' suffix there?) again removing Murray's stuff from the direct comparison. I'll highlight this on WP:TENNIS for input. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually that article info has not really only existed for five weeks. It was here for a long long time but was split off five weeks ago because the Big Four article was so long. It looks like the info is geared for the Big Four, not the Big Three so it should probably just remain as is, with some of its links updated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If there's no Big Four Article (which would not have been my choice, as I indicated above), there's no justification for a Big Four statistics article hanging about. Either it can be merged back in to Big Three or it can be amended on its own, I'll do it myself if nobody else wants to. But it can't remain as it is since a vote was taken and the topic was deemed unworthy. Crowsus (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Big Four was not deleted, it was merged. All the info from Big Four should still exist but simply merged into Big Three and other articles. Just like your hatnote on Big Three is a bit inaccurate. Yes it needs updating, but everything in the Big Four article should be in the Big Three article. It should not be deleted as that was never agreed to. It was not deemed unworthy, just unworthy as separated from Big Three. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read it and not what the title indicates. The Big Four article was merged into Big Three after discussion because it was decided that Three was a more valid concept than Four so Three should be the primary subject of the article. To have it titled Big Three and yet have an Infobox with 'Big Four' as its header and content, with some tables listing achievements of only Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and other sections also including Murray, is a mess. To have 125k worth of bytes from Big Four copied into in the middle of the initially very small Big Three with very little adjustment to suit the theme of the article as indicated by its title is getting off topic IMO – it's obvious to us why there's lots of stuff about a Big Four on there, but it would likely be confusing to readers expecting to find out about Nadal v Djokovic v Federer but then inconsistently find some of the content also includes Murray. The closing merger admin stated "There is also a general agreement that this article is bloated already so adding more will not fix that. This bloat can be solved by selectively merging into big three. How the Big three article is set up to accommodate info from this article is up to interested editors." I think substantial editing is required to accurately reflect the 'Big Three' title, you don't, so I suggest it goes back to the Tennis Project for consensus on what it should contain, then we can adjust both it and the Statistics article accordingly. I'll remove the hatnote since what should be included is a matter of debate. Crowsus (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said all of the Big Four text was supposed to be merged here? That article was exceptionally bloated, and now this one is too. The intro is way too long, to begin with. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no problem shortening the article a heap as far as prose, and merging some of the content into individual statistics articles. There would be a "big three statistics" and a "big four statistics" article. The general wikipedia consumer would then be able to read prose on the big three and the section on the big four, and if they want more detail, they can go to the more detailed stats pages. I can't help it if the big three stats page will be sparse compared to the big four stats page. That's because of the length of time people have been working on the big four article. The Rod Laver and Helen Wills articles should be every bit as large and encompassing as Federer and Serena Williams, but they aren't either. Maybe one day they will be. And Federer is really sounding like retirement is just around the corner so we could be going through this again with a Big Two article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Rather than merge the Big Four career statistics page into the Big Three article, I think it would be better to rename that page to Big Three career statistics in light of the Big Four article being merged into the Big Three article and remove Murray's statistics from that page because merging the contents of Big Four career statistics into the main Big Three article now in my opinion would create unnecessary extra clutter in the page. Broman178 (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't just delete merged content. It was never a delete request. But I agree that we should not be merging the Big Four career statistics page into the Big Three article. It absolutely would create too much clutter. That's why separate stat pages exist. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you are determined to keep a Big Four article - under a different name - despite the consensus. If Big Four doesn't merit a standalone article, neither do its stats. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus was that neither exist without the other. They were to be merged into one large article, not decimated either way. The content of the Big Four should remain, but merged into Big Three. Originally it was Big Three merged into Big Four, where the info from Big Three would remain intact but merged. It was decided to go the other way, and that's cool. But we don't purge the content. The Big Four has a data page that is very specific to Big Four, not Big Three. Just leave that data where it is and either add Big Three content or keep it separate. I don't see the problem here with this long-standing content. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to have "a section" on the Big Four. Check the debate. This article isn't the vehicle for those aspirations of self, clan, and country. 64.190.226.125 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead
I genuinely think the lead of this article is just too long, per WP:LEAD. Specifically I think there is way too much overly detailed information on the Big Four in this lead of the Big Three article. It should be trimmed down considerably.Tvx1 01:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The lede shouldn't have references to Murray; makes no sense. 64.190.226.125 (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It certainly needs a substantial trim. Given the recent merger, it should definitely include a brief summary of the "Big Four", which includes Murray. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead should absolutely have mention of Murray and the Big Four as that time period is half the article. Remember this article is actually Big One, Big Two, Big Four, Big Three, Big Two all rolled into one article. It's just under the title Big Three with subsections on each. But I agree it needs trimming. But that's the lead. The other large section of the article is about about the time period of the Big Four, which was again mentioned multiple times during the semifinal of the Australian Open. Talking about how Medvedev is making inroads into Big Four territory. My recent reverts were more because of the complete removal of the merged Big Four items in the main body. We have other articles linking to the large Big Four section and those links became dead with the removal of content. The whole time period has fluctuated from a Big One, to a Big Two, to a Big Four, to a Big Three, to probably a Big Two + Medvedev. Who knows when and if Federer will play to his potential again. This article incorporates all these time periods and the lead should tell us that in its summary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then the title shouldn't be "Big Three." It should be "History of men's tennis from 2003 to the present." 64.190.226.125 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The name of the article can certainly be up for debate.... I can't argue with you there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The title is the starting point of an article. This article is about the Big Three because the title says so. It is not about the Big Two, or the Big Four or nnything else. 64.190.226.125 (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So you just go and do more reverts and have now been reported. This article is about many things and is a merged article. The title could easily be changed but consensus is that the Big Four material should be a large subsection of this article. You seem to want to re-write history as if Murray was never born. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus was that the title should be "Big Three." No, it cannot be easily changed; try it. That means the article should be about the "Big Three," not about "many things." You may like it that way. Don't push that as "the consensus." A "section" does not mean widespread references to the Big Four everywhere, particularly the lede. 64.190.226.125 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus in that discussion not to move/rename this article following the merger; the only consensus was as to which article to use as the base article. Given the huge overlap in the big three/four, moving/renaming to something like "Big three and big four era" (clunky, I know) may help. Note: using the current title as a lever to undo the merger is not appropriate, and per WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE, all aspects should be given due weight in both the lead and body of the article. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess since they are proper terms it would be "Big Three and Big Four era" or "Big Three and Big Four era (tennis)." Maybe "Men's professional tennis dominance in the early 21st century." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus was that the article "should" be about many things, whether you or I like it or not. I never saw that the article has to remain under the exact title of "Big Three." Big Four must be in the lead because the lead (and that's the way it's spelled on Wikipedia) summarizes the main body information, of which the Big Four is a HUGE part. The only way to obviate that is to undo the merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Big Four are adequately dealt with in the prose. The excessive length of the lead isn't only due to that though. It's generally overly detailed. It should be trimmed down considerably.Tvx1 23:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it's way too long. WP:LEAD gives a guide of about four well made paragraphs, this has seven. It probably needs to be shortened to: what is it? "The Big Three is a common tennis term for Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic." History: since blah blah blah - there needs to be a decision if we take the "start" from their combined first win (Wimbledon 2003, Federer) or from the start of the year (Australian Open, 2003) - this affects the statistics. Then the consecutive wins and rankings needs to be mentioned.
 * I like how the article mentions the Big Four - we need to say it was used previously, but add something like: Federer and Nadal have 20 GS each, Djokovic has been gaining on them with 18, while Murray has relatively few compared to them with 3, prompting the change in terminology from Big Four to Big Three. I think a point could be made in the statistics section that while Murray has only won 3, he reached the GS grand final a total of 11 times, giving a win rate of 3/11 in finals. Also good to mention his injury struggles throughout his career - one that stands out to me was his on-court treatment of his foot blisters at the Australian Open - (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/27/article-2268997-1731D3F2000005DC-9_964x628.jpg) - if someone can figure out a way to include this or a similar picture that would be great. At the same time possibly mention Federer's injury struggles late in his career also, and possibly his resurgence after Wimbledon 2012 when he was able to win the AO and Wimbledon in 2017 (and AO again in 2018), although he did reach the GF three times inbetween those wins.
 * I think the whole article needs to be generally trimmed and rewritten, probably starting with the lead. Include a section on Big Four, and the history. I don't know what to do with Big Four career statistics because having an article Big Three and at the same time Big Four career statistics causes some confusion and misalignment. Possibly we need to have a big discussion on how to resolve all these issues at once, as we have a problem with the naming (Big Three/Four) and Statistics - Essentially the problem comes down to "Was Murray good enough to be included in all the stats, despite losing in many finals to Federer and Djokovic" and balancing this with the fact that Murray's wins in the 2012 US Open, 2013 and 2016 Wimbledon complete the "consecutive wins" and utter dominance of the sport - especially in Wimbledon, which, if you include Murray, completes a win chain of all four combined from 2003 to 2019 - I think this is one of the big reasons for including him in the statistics - perhaps we could include both. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple things. We don't do anything about if Murray was good enough. Sources including magazines, newspapers, books, and general press have already taken care of that. The Big Four existed and those four player stats are needed because of it. We did not invent the Big Four. Murray was always there in semis and finals until injuries took over. It was not based on only the 4 majors, it was a culmination. There was already a discussion on the Big Four Stats article so no need to do it again. To be honest the only thing that could change would be to unmerge the content and separate the articles again. That has happened many times in the past at Wikipedia, especially when a discussion takes place and after the merge it is made clear that editors in the merged-to article vehemently disagree. That may be happening here now because of article size issues. Editors of "Big Three" don't seem to want the merged content. I don't care either way, though it is easier to update when it's all in one place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really care too much, just that the article seems to talk about the "Big Four" too much when obviously it's about the Big Three which is the more common name nowadays. Obviously anything written on here needs to be sourced from multiple good sources. The article needs maybe a single mention of the Big Four in the lead, and a history section in the article going deeper into detail. That is also why I said both versions of the Grand Slam "Green square win" table could be included on this page - one for the Big Three and one for the Big Four - showing Murray's service to the win streaks and completion of wins in the table, but ultimately that Djokovic Nadal and Federer contributed more and thus that is why those three alone deserve a single table, which is an exceptional achievement.
 * Ultimately I think the article needs to be shrunk a fair bit, as when I scroll down all I see is a page full of text which is difficult to read. I haven't edited much on this page, but it seems like it wasn't synthesised when the merge happened - It seems like the Big Four article wrote about 3 separate Eras - Big Two (Nadal and Federer), Big Four (Nadal Federer Djokovic and Murray) and more recently Big Three (Nadal Federer Djokovic) - This probably means the article has to be re-sectionised as the article is about only the Big Three. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is not only about the Big Three. That's one of the issues... a potential title problem. The Big Three article originally encompassed a time period long before there was a Big Three. It encompassed Big Two, Big Four, Big Three, and now probably Big Two, but it focused on three players. And it was created last year. The Big Four article encompassed the same time period, but focused on four players, and was created in 2013 with a wealth more material on those four players. The original suggestion last year was to merge smaller six-month-old Big Three article into large (in fact split because there was so much info), much older, Big Four article. That would have been easier. Someone said, since it's the term used now, to merge it the other way, and that's what was agreed to. Obviously the Big Three info will suffer in comparison. Anyone who has handled merges could see there would be problems. And voila, we are where we are today. It's a tough fix as a merge, especially without a title change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ...What was the point of the merge then? I have no idea what the article should be called then, since there are merits to calling the time period the Big Three as well as the Big Four. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm not sure. Usually when you merge articles, info is not supposed to be lost. There will usually be overlap so cuts will be made and wording will have to be changed. Sections will have to be created and paragraphs moved, etc... But you don't really lose much if any info and the new single article gains the benefits of two sets of info. Often when merges happen it's because two articles were created about the exact same topic, or two small articles get put together to create one manageable larger article. I have no idea what people were thinking about this merge. But remember, it was put up as merging the small Big Three article into a section of the Big Four article. That had some merits but it still seemed like too much material. Then the merge got flipped and I don't think the repercussions were well thought out. Until this merge I don't think I had ever seen a much larger (already split) seven-year old article merged into a small brand new article, so this is strange uncharted waters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And one more thing. The closer may have made a big mistake in their assumption of consensus to merge. Had the original query been to merge the huge Big Four into the tiny Big Three, I am pretty sure it would have been a resounding NO and been no consensus to merge. In fact I think it could be successfully challenged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the articles should be separate. The Big Three and the Big Four are usages from different eras. There is sufficient material for two articles. The Big Three will focus on the three. The Big Four will focus more on Murray and refer to the three in abbreviated form. Articles should focus on one topic; that is basic to WP and, in fact, to all good writing. The current consensus can't stick; every new editor will reject it as violating WP's most basic policy: one article, one topic. 64.190.226.125 (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Except the term Big Four is still used today as we see here, and here, and here, so there is overlap. You keep removing all mention of Murray, yet you do not remove all mentioning of Djokovic during the Big Two time period of the article. You seem to have some dislike toward Andy Murray. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I changed the title to "Big Three and Big Four (tennis)." This may or may not help the situation, but it is worth a try. I did not include the Fed-Nadal years in the title because it was not facing the same scrutiny, plus it's also handled under the Federer–Nadal rivalry article as opposed to a direct merger of a huge article into a smaller one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous article title
Perhaps you can change to Big two and big three and big four and big five and big big tennis,or what ever if you want. lol --Chinyen Lu (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could, though some of those additions can't be sourced like Big Three and Big Four can be. The article is about the Big Three and Big Four, so the title seemed appropriate. Fyunck(click) (talk)
 * You've acted unilaterally without bothering to mention it to anyone. I'm going to revert it if I can. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually we talked about a name change above. If you want to revert I can't stop you. We can always talk about a tweak to the name. But with all the reverts and re-reverts because of so much content it seemed the best choice to try before an RfC to unmerge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you said you were going to do it without getting any feedback. That is not talking, that's dictating. But I agree the best solution is to unmerge. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the revert wars were pouring in. I think we have an editor on the brink of being blocked because of their passion against the merge. I figured I would try something first that might calm nerves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The title should be "Big Four and Big Three [in/of tennis?]" since it most accurately reflects the actual content and the merger. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Shall we unmerge the Big Four content of this article?
A recent merge had the question of shall we merge the Big Three article into the Big Four article. It was closed as yes to merge, but the far older and far larger Big Four got merged into the brand new and small Big Three article by the closer. IMHO if it had been phrased that way from the beginning there would have been no consensus to merge because of all the problems that would ensue. And now we're here. I sure would have said no to such a proposal. Heck, the Big Four article was already split in two. Now we have umpteen editors constantly trying to purge Big Four material from this merged Big Three/Big Four article. I even tried a title change to "Big Three and Big Four" but that didn't seem to work either. We had no such problems before the merge took place so I'm proposing we go back to two separate articles so the grappling can stop.


 * Shall we un-merge Big Four from Big Three? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support un-merging (as un-merge requester). It seems to have created anger and constant reverts. All seemed calm before and the content split over two articles has simply overwhelmed the Big Three article into something few seem to want. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose un-merging and actually support re-naming to Big Three / Big Four (tennis) or similar. Using either Big Three or Big Four implies that one is the much preferred term, when neither is true. But there is no Big Three Cup or Big Four Tournament, all of this (whether 3 or 4) is an intangible construct in the minds of players, fans and media, although just to be clear, I'm not saying this makes them invalid as a Wikipedia topic, far from it. However, the matches they played and tournaments they won only occurred once so to have two articles on broadly the same topic and discussing the same timeline of events from a slightly different standpoint seems odd to me. Therefore, using some kind of dual title, although untidy to look at, allows both concepts to be discussed in a logical manner within a single article. The way I see it (and I realise this is subjective, but appears to be borne out by the way the article is set up) it became a big three around 2008-9 and remained so until 2017, so using a less rigid title allows both 3 and 4 and events before and after that period to be included without editors getting upset over what must or cannot be part of the article. Crowsus (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose unmerging. There seems to be too much overlap and duplication to warrant two articles. Probably just need to agree on a new title to avoid more of the frankly ridiculous disruption that has occurred recently. Doesn't seem to be anything natural (or handily provided by any RS) so constructing a combination seems like the best solution along the lines of my earlier suggestion. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The Big Three and Big Four exist, or at least sufficient mentions exist, in different eras. One article is just a mess. Having the title as just Big Three is unacceptable if the content is going to be something else. A combined title also seemingly has no support, though I wouldn't mind that. 64.190.226.125 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Just because there is overlap was not a good reason to merge in the first place IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OVERLAP. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And at OVERLAP, while it says it can be a reason to merge, it also states not to do it if "The resulting article would be too long or clunky", not to do it if "separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles", and not to do it if "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles." It also continues to hammer that it is usually done with two short articles. This situation is only some overlap. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * These are plainly not discrete subjects and are irrevocably intertwined with significant overlap and duplication of content. I see no reason for the resultant article to be too long and clunky – the fact that the merger has been done badly (with obstruction – which this seems to be a reaction to more than anything) is no reason to rush to override the consensus of at least two recent discussions. It seems to me that editors simply need to do a better job of collaboration in working to rationalise the content to cover Big3 and Big4 together. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When you add another player into the mix of stats it almost becomes hopelessly messy. Take him out for this section, put him back in for that section. When you have a bunch of stats based on four players and a bunch of stats based on three players, all you can have is a very large article split down the middle with each half covering the appropriate group. The years overlap and makes that quite difficult to do. I do not believe we have consensus for the merge of Big Four into Big Three. I had though of a straight up contesting to the closer's choice but thought this would be the easier path to start. There is nothing in OVERLAP that says these articles should be merged. I tried a title change that might have worked, but was reverted. I didn't see anyone revert it back to back me up on trying and I'm tired of seeing the mess going on here and the bit by bit deletion of material. As soon as the title was reverted so was more content. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While I'm all for being bold, the name change was clearly not going to be uncontroversial and you should have followed WP:RM. I know you don't want to lose content, but there is a lot of excessive detail and statscruft that could/should be culled regardless of this ending up as one or two articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends on the content. If, as a stand-alone article, The Big Four needed trimming, then by all means it should be trimmed as part of this article. If the article had been trimmed when it was The Big Four, so that it was good, then that material should not be removed here. If the name change was only controversial to one or two anon IPs I wasn't worried. I figured there would be plenty of editors here to back me up. To be honest I was surprised who reverted it. And remember, when these articles were created, I assumed they would be much more like The Four Musketeers article. Not the article empires that stand before us today. But once overruled on content I adapt to consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The article is finally where it should already have been a long time ago. The big four can be covered here more than adequately. No reason to split whatsoever.Tvx1 22:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The Big Three have their own spot in tennis history – and that should be honored by letting them stand out alone in their very own article. --LH7605 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you check the title of the article? This is their very own article. Spinning out a seperate article for the period some sources considered there to be a big four is not a good idea at all. These three formed an integral part of that. The Big Four is not a completely seperate concept. And even in the period some considered that there was a foursome, the three here dominated Murray massively. This can thus be best dealt with in a section here.Tvx1 02:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * With your use of "some sources" as opposed to almost every source, it almost sounds like a rewrite of tennis history. Big Four is still being used by announcers at this year's Aussie Open. The term wasn't just used because of who won... it was about who was making it to all the semis and who was winning smaller events too. And this is not the Big Three's very own article... not since it was merged with a much larger and more comprehensive article. That's the point. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose . Agree with T. The Big four article is outdated, it can be regarded as a part of big three, even, we can remove anything about Andy Murray, we are talking about the big three.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because its outdated doesn't mean it never existed. But it's only part of the longer-running Big Three concept, so I don't think a second article makes sense. But a different, dual title recognises the importance of the big four period in the overall big three timeline and discourages the, let's call it misguided, wholesale purging of Murray content because it's 'old'. Re-naming the statistics article in the same way (the disconnect from the Big Three article, or its title at least - the full messy picture became known as the days went on - being the reason for me becoming involved in this Tennis stuff in a small way at the end of last year) would also make sense as a better reflection on both the title of the prose article and its content (of course, the 'Big Four statistics' contains all the Big Three achievements too). Crowsus (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose unmerging. I am in favour of getting rid of article bloating but there is no justification for a Big Four article. Big Four is just a term used by (usually British) media to pretend Murray is in the same class as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic which he isn't and never has been. And I am British and respect Murray's achievements.  In no other tennis era do we pretend a three slam champion is in the same league as three players of the same era with 18-plus slams.  Lets have a reality check please. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While Murray is no longer in the same class as the other 3, saying that he was never in their class is inaccurate. 2601:204:D400:7310:41D8:410B:5F2D:BC45 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is entirely accurate to say that Murray was never in the same class of the Big Three. He only reached number 1 briefly in 2016 because Federer and Nadal were injured and Djokovic was out of form. Just look at Murray's record in slams against the Big Three. He only beat Federer once, beat Nadal once in a completed match and Djokovic twice (and in both matches Djokovic played well below par). Murray lost to each of the Big Three many times in slams. One year at Wimbledon Andrew Castle talked of a Big Five with the addition of Dimitrov! Such media hype should be treated with the contempt it deserves.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of the Big Four's overall records become significantly less impressive and less coherent when you take out Murray (e.g. consecutive wins, consecutive time at no. 1 etc.). Plus the idea that the Big Four is a British media construct is absolute fantasy. It was used by a huge number of news sites, commentators etc. before Murray's injury. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - while it may come to pass that we do not un-merge, the fact remains that editors like 64.190.226.125 will be constantly removing whole sections and facts as if they don't exist. This needs to stop and it's edits like those which is why I made this proposal. 64.190.226.125 is making unfounded claims about the nature of this article and the title of this article... which will be the next RfC if this un-merge fails. We need to keep an eye out for those type of edits regardless of the outcome here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If a user is behaving badly, than that is a seperate issue to the unmerge issue. But where on wikipedia do we have a special page devoted to stats comparing players of the same era with 18-plus slams to players with just a few slams? There is no Big Three page with Navratilova, Evert and Mandlikova, for example.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the big reason is because newspapers, magazines, and other publications didn't call Navratilova, Evert, and Mandlikova the "Big Three." Wikipedia didn't make this stuff up.. the term "Big Four" dominated the tennis world airwaves for years and years. And it's still used today. That's the only reason we have an article on it. By that logic do we have articles on the three best baseball player stats side by side? The three fastest runners stats side by side? Do we put the stats up on one page of boxers Ali, Frazier, and Foreman? How about Lakers, Celtics, 76ers of the 1980s? No we don't. For the most part Wikipedia does 1on1 rivalry pages in sports. Perhaps this whole article should be rethought out and condensed to a few paragraphs in totality given your parameters. The only reason the Big Four article came into being was because for a decade you couldn't watch any tennis match without every announcer bringing up the Big Four, even when none of them were playing that day. Even when the weren't entered in a tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many terms used by the media to hype things up, that doesnt mean we should create a wikipedia page for them. There isnt a page devoted to Federer's SABR, there isnt a Big Five page to include Dimitrov (which Andrew Castle talked about one Wimbledon).  When a statistical page was created for the Big Four, it just highlighted the absurdity of the concept.  No one is denying the term was used, its taking it seriously that I object to.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The tennis world and an abundance of reliable sources have taken and continue to take it seriously, and that's all that matters here. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it's it's not something that carries much weight when it contradicts those sources. See WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So we both agree the term exists, wjemather. We both agree the term is widely used.  The argument is whether we should create a page for it containing lots of statistical analysis.  Big Four is shown to be the hype that it is when analysed. The SABR is another term that was widely used to hype the fact that for a time Federer came into the net after his return.  These commentators were amazed at this new invention of Federer's!!  Of course this tactic was also used back in the days when volleying was commonplace (not that I would expect myopic TV commentators to remember this).  But I dont see a wikipedia page for it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means present the substantial reliable sources that have done the analysis and determined it to be nothing more than hype. We can potentially add that to the article. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Big Three page has tables with stats showing each player's accomplishments. The Big Three 20-20-18 becomes with the addition of Murray 20-20-18-3. Creating an article full of quotations of media hype might be your idea of a good article but it isnt mine. Results speak for themselves and override any opinions. And in no way am I anti-Andy Murray, in fact I say let us celebrate his achievements but spare him the harsh comparisons a Big Four article would bring. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, reliable sources override opinions. The term was/is not all about GS titles, per those sources. Seriously, visit the policy pages I listed earlier. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Grand Slam titles/results are hugely important, particularly in modern times (Jimmy Connors is not considered the male G.O.A.T. despite winning most overall titles in the open era). Wikipedia pages are largely based around results (the most reliable sources of all) and long may that continue.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, for the last time, any analysis of results we include (other than basic addition) must be done by reliable sources, not us. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And actually, wikipedia articles are never based on results. They are based on notability and the sources that convey that notability. If it's notable and you can source it, anyone can create an article on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Analysis certainly should not be done by us. Results speak for themselves and most results can be reliably sourced.  And most of the tennis pages I have seen on wikipedia are constructed around results.  Sourced opinions are there also, but are kept to a minimum.  And you would be the first to start curtailing overuse of cherry-picked sources, revoking the edits as POV edits, fyunck. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that's a different statement. Yes, tennis articles are "constructed" around results. But results have little bearing on whether the article exists to begin with. Notability is the 100 pound gorilla, and sourcing that notability are all his bananas. Once that is established we order the article by important results and usually chronologically. As far as cherry picking there is no need when it comes to the Big Four... sources are everywhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We all agree the term Big Four exists and has been widely used. But writing a lengthy article about it is another matter entirely.  And as you say, tennis articles are constructed around results and that is where the concept of Big Four is shown up. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:OVERLAP, since the Big Three make up 3/4 of the Big Four. As mentioned above, it becomes a mess if Big Three and Big Four statistics and discussions are mixed throughout the article (and lead). I think the best solution is to keep this single article, with the name Big Three, in which statistic sections are just about the Big Three. Additionally, there should be a section (and a paragraph in the lead), to give due weight to the Big Four concept. In terms of statistics, the latter section can say stuff like "Including Murray, they have held the number 1 ranking continually since 2004" and "won x out of y Masters titles", etc. Gap9551 (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I like and respect Murray a lot for what he achieved between 2012 and 2016, I'm not sure if unmerging it to one Big Four article or a separate Big Four article would be a good idea now with Federer and Nadal both having 20 Slams and Djokovic just two Slams behind them (and possibly likely to overtake them both in the coming years should he stay healthy and keep his top form going) while Murray just has 3 Slams in comparison and that cannot really be comparable now with three players who have won 18+ Slams. I would admit I considered it a Big Four for some time between 2012 and 2016 but since the 2016 season, with Murray's recurrent injury struggles, it definitely is a Big Three and while some people and media may still consider it a Big Four now, most people think of it as a Big Three and even most of the media has somewhat shifted over the last three years to calling it a Big Three. And while there may be edits reverts & conflicts now (if there are too many edit conflicts, I think we could just request protection for this article), I think merging it back to two articles would create more anger and edit conflicts especially from editors who are fans of the Big Three and either oppose the Big Four or want to keep the name just as it is (I know I earlier opposed a merge of Big Four & Big Three into one article but I've changed my stance since they were merged to this). So its a no from me (I would only support an unmerge of this if Murray were to recover and add on his his three Slams and maybe win more than 10 Slams which seems unlikely now with his hip surgeries and if fans and the media referred to it more as the Big Four now), and in any case I have mentioned a note before that lead that Big Four (tennis) redirects into the Big Three article, so better in my opinion to keep it as this one article with a section on the Big Four below in the history. Broman178 (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Absolutely not. This unmerge proposal's claim that "we had no such problems before the merge took place" is just not true: there were complaints for years about the existence and name of the Big Four article before it was merged into this Big Three article. There were huge amounts of unnecessary overlap between the two articles which this merger finally rectified. Big Four is an obsolete term that tennis news sources have moved away from and which is so unsupported by current statistics (e.g. 3 Slams compared to 18+ Slams) that its continued existence as an article would be giving extreme biased WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to one player. —Lowellian (reply) 04:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There were some complaints it wasn't merged, but we weren't having to revert edit after edit here. And winning majors isn't the whole story behind the Big Four. If you think that only winning those four tennis events is all that matters then tennis history eludes you. And do we start removing articles because their terms are obsolete now? A lot of articles would need to disappear or merge if that's the case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. In tennis we don't just look at the Slams. Murray has won a lot of 1000s and has made it into 11 Slam finals. The Big [insert number] are supposed to represent a group of players who consistently dominate the field. The Big 4 represents a separate era from the one we are in right now. For the ordinary person, it might not seem like a very important issue, but for people who follow tennis, it matters. Icil34 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Icil34
 * But even in 1000s and grand slam finals, he's far behind them. I mean, the big three have reached around 30 grand slam finals each whereas Murray has merely reached 11. In fact, those three are the only three players who have even reached at least 20 grand slam finals in the all-time history of the sport. It's things like that which make the threesome the most successful players of the sport so far. Meanwhile is also behind the likes of Sampras, Emerson, Laver, Borg, Tilden, Lendl, Rosewall, Connors, Agassi and Crawford and tied, albeit with a lower success ratio, with McEnroe, Edberg and Wilander. Also, this article doesn't just deal with now. It's a historical article intended to detail the combined achievements of the most successful, still active, three players in the history of the sport thus far.Tvx1 22:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We didn't have to revert any edit. You chose to revert those edits because you strongly disagree with anything that even remotely removes anything whatsoever concerning Murray. No one instructed you to make those reverts, however.Tvx1 22:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There were others too. And it's easy to take a look at the original Big Four text to see if any Murray info has been taken out. If so I guess I'll have to add it back in since I would never allow that to happen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The current status quo seems to be an attempt to disappear 10-15 years of tennis history where people almost universally used the term Big Four in favour of the last 4 years after Murray's injuries where some (but not all!) media outlets have started using the phrase Big Three. The difference between big three and big four was never about number of Grand Slam titles (which is how it is presented in the Big Three article), but about dominance over the whole tour, and Murray contributed to that dominance to a significant degree. In any case if the article is to remain as Big Three (tennis) then it needs to be significantly rewritten, because as it currently stands it is a very long hodge podge of content from this article and the old Big four (tennis) article that reads poorly. If this is an article about the Big three, then Murray should be a footnote rather than taking up about a third of the discussion on the page about whether he should be included, and if it is a Big Three and Big Four article then Murray should feature prominently in all of the statistics, perhaps with a comparison between his numbers and the big three at every stage. It seems to me that the current title of the article is treaing Big three as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I don't think there is any evidence that this is the primary topic over Big four if you take into account the last 15-20 years of tennis reporting.Tazerenix (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That will be the next topic if this topic fails (which it is certainly trending towards). Changing the article name to something like "Big Three and Big Four." If people want to include the substantial information on the Big Four in this article, the title should display that so as not to mislead our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively, remove a lot of the Murray bloat on the Big Three page. If people want chapter and verse on Murray's career, then they can read his profile. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't. Then it would not have been a merge of BIG Four, it would have been a deletion, and that would be against consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What consensus? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL. Per the closer, the consensus to merge two articles into one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Removing some bloat is not the same as removing everything. Merging does not mean moving every single word from multiple articles into one. Removing some bloat wouldn't be in contradiction of merging in any way.Tvx1 22:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends what you mean by bloat. Take a look at the prose of Big Four before the merger. Obviously anything exactly duplicated should go, and heading have to change. The Big Four went from 225k to 124k when it merged. It looks like a heap is already missing, and you propose to remove even more? The Big Three was only 21k before the merge so you would expect the Big Four material to dominate. I'm just saying we have to be a bit careful that we have a merge not a deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of removing lots of bloat from many wikipedia tennis pages on the modern game. The achievements of the "Big Three" and "Big Four" are hyped up out of proportion and achievements of players of the past are downgraded or in many cases not even remembered. For those who think tennis isnt mainly about slams, I dont hear anyone talking about one-slam winner Muster being one of the 90s Big Three (with Sampras and Agassi), despite him winning the same number of non-slam titles as Murray in a shorter career.  I am in favour of removing some of the Big Three bloat from this page as well as removing some of the Big Four bloat, but the Big Four bloat should be more heavily curtailed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is article is not "Live ticker of the most dominant group of male tennis players at the moment". This is a historical encyclopedic article meant to deal with the most successful threesome in the sport. Yes, there was a period during which sources considered them to be a Big Four, but that view has changed. And that doesn't apply how they consider in their current activity. And there certainly isn't an attempt to disappear 10 to 15 years history. All of those events are still very much detailed in this article. The reality is simply that this threesome is an inherent part of that period and that actually they did most of that dominating, including even over Murray.Tvx1 22:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well is this article "not a live ticker of the most dominant group" or is this article about the Big three because "that view has changed" since 5 years ago when the Big four was the mainstream concensus. These statements are in direct contradiction with one and other. Clearly 5 years ago there was a concensus on Wikipedia that the Big Four was a topic worthy of its own article or discussion, because an article on the Big Four existed 5 years ago. If Wikipedia is not to be a "live ticker" then surely it stands to reason that if the Big Four (as a historical entity in mens tennis) was worthy of an article/place on wikipedia 5 years ago, then it still does now.
 * You can disagree with the concensus that the Big four should have ever had a space on wikipedia, but that is ahistorical as many many sources over a long time period referred to the big four, often or usually with more frequency than the big three, and it is not for Wikipedians to judge whether Murray "deserves" to be in the Big four, if the sources treated him as a part of it. In any case, I don't think you actually disagree with my suggestions for the article: with the way it is currently written "Big three" doesn't accurately represent the article's content, so either it should be called Big three and Big four, or it should be rewritten to be primarily about the Big three, in which case, since Wikipedia is "not a live ticker" and since 5+ years ago the Big four was a major topic of discussion in the tennis media with many citable sources over a period of 10-15 years, there should be a page about the Big four also (which is how things were before). Tazerenix (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And there HAS been an attempt to "disappear 10 to 15 years history"... that's why we are here today. To make sure it doesn't continue. I'm fine with how things are, except for the article title, but it has been a continual struggle lately to keep things from disappearing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No there hasn't. At no point has there been an attempt to remove all information from a certain period. Everything these three did from 2003 until now is still here. And as I said the change of view does not only apply to their current status, but also to their historical status. To their entire legacy on the sport. No matter how you turn it, the dominance of the Big Four was 95% because of the threesome of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. They are an inherent part of that period. It's completely intertwined with them. You cannot describe that in separate articles because these are simply not separate groups. Describing it in a dedicated section of an article that details the legacy of the combined achievements of this threesome is the most sensible way.Tvx1 23:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there has. Luckily most has been thwarted by multiple dedicated editors. Not everything these "four" did from 2003 until now is still here. I don't disagree that it's sensible to describe the details of the combined achievements of this foursome and threesome in a single article. As long as it sticks to the combined info I'm cool with things. If one gets squeezed too much then I'm not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not for Wikipedia to judge to what extent Murray contributed to the dominance of the Big four, and therefore whether the big four "deserves" a place on Wikipedia. Whether you like it or not, for a long time (since 2006 at least) the majority of the tennis media referred to the big four, and it is only a recent development (since 2016 say) that some parts of the media have begun referring to the Big three. Obviously the term existed throughout the last two decades also, but the majority of the media referred to the big four. It is not as though the entire tennis media has come out and said "actually we were wrong when we talked about the big four, on second thoughts Murray isn't as good as we said." What the media has said is that "The period of dominance of the big four has ended, but a longer period of dominance of the big three has continued." I have no doubt I could find many citable sources that say the second, but not the first. Therefore, given that the "Big Four" era lasted for about a decade, and included a dominance not just in terms of grand slam titles (which were obviously 95% Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) but also gold medals, world rankings, ATP tour events, and appearances in Grand Slam quarters, semis, and finals, it seems like whitewashing to relegate this entire period to a paragraph on a page about a more recent development (the big three alone) which, for one thing, has only existed as a mainstream concensus in the tennis media for half as long as people were talking about the big four.Tazerenix (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting into words how I feel. People who don't follow tennis very closely seem to have this idea that Big Four vs. Big Three is simply a problem of "Should we include Andy Murray" but in reality, it's not. Tennis statistics are not simply Grand Slams. Or titles. That would be comparable to judging how good filmmakers are based on how many Oscars they've won. It's about consistent domination of the field (or court, in this case). Icil34 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Icil34
 * Beautifully said. I actually just posted something very similar, that the current changes feel like an attempt to write Murray out of his rightful place in history -- and, more importantly for WP, the place given to him by the media and various commentators etc. That his career was unfairly ripped away from him - ironically, at a time when he was most likely to go on and cement an indisputable legacy among the Big Four - is not a reason to paper over the past. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Big Three was a blatant and unnecesary content fork of Big Four, created only last year, 7 years after Big Four . Really, a discussion about which term was more relevant should have been started on the Big Four's talk page, which would have avoided the mess we're now in. The clear consensus from the previous merger proposal was to keep only one article, so we should not now complicate things further by separating off them again (how would that even be done?). Since Murray is integral to the chronology of Big 1 → Big 2 → Big 4 → Big 3 etc. accurately outlined in the article, editing him out entirely would be ahistorical. Instead, I propose the title Dominance of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, with redirects from Big Three/Four. Lengthy, yes, but it takes the emphasis off of the media-created terms 'Big Four' and 'Big Three', which are haphazardly applied, and seem to be satisfying nobody. Somnifuguist (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good alternative solution and my favoured solution too. Although it sounds like you're also unhappy with the current state of affairs, and oppose votes appear, cursorily, as support for the status quo. Maybe we need a separate dissenting option, like "the idea of telling the whole story of the Big Four, including Murray, remains important and should not be replaced with the Big Three but also we don't need an entirely different article" -- but, y'know, catchier. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Soft support (in lieu of the present situation). A late comment but since the discussion continues, let the music play on. The records of the Big 3 vs 4 look completely different once you take out Murray. There's a lot that can't be spoken about in terms of win records (e.g. at, say, the Olympics) etc. in a Big 3 article. And the change to "Big Three" as a title seems like an attempt to write Murray out of history, which rankles me on a personal level when his career was unfairly stripped away from him at his prime, just as he was about to (probably) cement his position as an indisputable member of the leading pack. (I'd have supported an article called "Big Three and Big Four" or similar, with text that reflected the bifurcated subject matter and wasn't a complete mess, but that's not what this is. E.g. "Big Three" and "Four" are used pretty much interchangeably in places and paragraphs about the Big Three sometimes totally ignore Murray's matching accomplishments, including the Davis Cup stuff.) Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Big Four term used "in the present"
The lede: "The Big Four was used to describe the larger quartet of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Andy Murray from about 2009 through 2017, though the term is occasionally still used in the present"

What does in the present mean? Because the article says until 2017, although the three sources used are from 2011, and "the present" is 2021. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that it means the term "Big Four" was used extensively through 2017... pretty much a household word. After that time period the press shifted to the term "Big Three" most of the time. You'll still hear Big Four from time to time, but not even close to what it was pre-2018. Present means now... this year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Such statements need a citation or two; they should also avoid terms like "current" and "present" as they are only valid at the time of writing, not necessarily the time of reading. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. An encyclopedia should not use "in the present" since it will get outdated fast. As for 2017, we need new sources then since the statement is backed by sources from 2011. I agree it was used up to 2017 but it's not sourced. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you use an actual year like 2021 that would also be incorrect since it would imply it ended in 2021. You could say "the present (2021)" so others could update as needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead mutli-image
, keeping in mind the concern that Template:Multiple_image violates Image use policy, it is prudent to use smaller sizes because thumbnail-sizes are usually preferred for articles. Take Infoboxes for example: The images aren't beyond 200–300px in-size (and the size can and does dynamically vary according to user-set preferences) while you're insistent on 600px+ images in the lead without a concrete justification other than it looks small on whatever device you happen to view article on. I can assure you, the images are not-that-small on mobile screens. Thoughts? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The 600px is actually for the 3 images so each image is 200px in size, that's a standard size, same as Murray's image in the article. You can remove total_width parameter entirely and you will see no difference in sizes because 600 is the default. The parameter is there just to match the images height. On mobile nothing looks too loud because they're displayed vertically. --ForzaUV (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, but  takes away more than 50% of screen's horizontal real-estate on Tablet devices, and a 100% page-height on smartphones. Btw, one could embed multiple image template in the infobox against its image attribute, which then with   width makes it look weird; but not-so-weird with   or so. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * see: User:Murtaza.aliakbar/sandbox. Thoughts? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Look clean but still too small on desktops and laptops. The thing is we can't really make it perfect for every device, for now it looks fine on desktops and mobiles but I'm not sure about tablets because I don't own one. How does 500px look on your tablet? ForzaUV (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's  on iPad resolution (desktop   looks worse): 600px / 500px. There exists pics of the Big Three together. Shame none of those are licensed for free-use though. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC
 * The first one doesn't look that bad tbh, it kinda takes the whole row. Anyways, I'll keep it at 450, it should be a good compromise for now. ForzaUV (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well,  is only a tad better. Unless it is sub-  in width, the multi-image template is going to break formatting.  Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Would a name change to something more inclusive help resolve ongoing, unresolved debates?
Personally, it seems to me that the title should be "Big Three and Big Four [of tennis?]"[1]. It most accurately reflects the actual content, the bifurcation of the content by the merger, and the intrinsic fact that there was a merger. In combination with a clearer delineation between content about each group, which should be simple since the groups have a subset/superset relationship, the change also solves many of the objections raised by those in favour of re-splitting the articles.

It certainly resolves my problem with the fact that the takeover of the article appears to be an attempt, regardless of how unintentional, to write Murray out of history and out of his rightful place among the leading group prior to his injury woes (a huge variety of media and commentators from around the world referred to him as a member of the "Big Four" construct for many years; this article now seems like it's heading in the direction of ahistorically retconning that construct, and Murray's position, out of existence). The Big Three can even take precedence (as I've given them) in the title to please those who, for often seemingly personal reasons, want the Big Four to be written away in favour of The New Thing/The Present(TM), which is clearly not the purpose of WP. This is despite the fact that the Big Four existed for significantly longer than the post-Murray Big Three era, and so did the former's article. Why shouldn't the older, broader, more comprehensive, and arguably more recognisable label get a presence, even if not precedence?

[1] The article title has never specified that this Big Three/Four is "of tennis", relying instead on the parenthetical disambiguation of "(tennis)" and the article itself, but with a combination title, it feels right. Though that's not the important part: the important part is the inclusion of both major titles and all involved players. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One article, one topic. I think that merger should be revisited. Also, I don't think it makes any sense to keep adding what is happening now to the article as the big 3 is no longer active (and, by definition, neither would the big 4). Tennis stars nowadays never formally retire. Are we going to keep adding to the article forever/ 2600:1700:A419:8030:78EB:5324:E24E:5D27 (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Now that Federer has retired and there is no big three (or big four), why do we keep adding to the article?
This article is about the joint accomplishments and mutual rivalries of the big three (or big four). That (or those) group/s no longer exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:A037:B0C4:51CD:1D3:3DF1 (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I have no idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the article is supposed to be the achievements of all three of this threesome. As long as some of them keep collecting results, we keep documenting them. The article isn't titled "Dominance of the Big Three".Tvx1 16:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Big 4 relationship
We know that Federer and Nadal are both teacher as well as a friend, Djokovic and Murray are both great partners, but Djokovic and Federer or Murray and Federer or Nadal and Murray? It seems like seldom to talk about these duo, just curious about. 洛郡 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Big Four Current Usage
I'm not looking to get any changes made here, I just wanted to drop these links in the talk page for future reference due to the regular attempts to expunge "The Big Four"/Murray from the page entirely. Here is an example of present-day (late-2023) usage of "The Big Four"


 * https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/ATP_Tennis/139197/wally-masur-issues-candid-take-on-nick-kyrgios-future-grand-slam-chances/


 * https://tennisuptodate.com/atp/there-are-opportunities-nick-kyrgios-could-win-grand-slams-due-to-big-four-being-dismantled-says-wally-masur


 * https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/1828228/Nick-Kyrgios-Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal-Andy-Murray


 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-12668773/Aussie-tennis-legend-Wally-Masur-issues-blunt-warning-Nick-Kyrgios-comes-motivation.html

All of these links refer to the same comments made by retired Australian tennis pro, Wally Masur. I've included multiple links as I'm aware these are not the most reliable of sources, but as they're all reporting Wally's comments it should be safe to assume these articles are themselves reliable.

Again, I'm not arguing for a change to the page, just leaving this here for the next time someone argues that there is no such thing as the "Big Four". John Bullock (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Multiple citations to one single comment is not sufficient to establish relevance. Reliable sources such as Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc do not use this any more. 2607:F140:400:141:91D6:37CF:AA3C:313B (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)