Talk:Lists of tennis records and statistics/Archive 2

Proposals
I'd be interested to hear proposals for how to develop this page. Fyunck, could you explain your idea in a bit more detail? Is is something that you could carry out without too much work, so people could see it live on the page?  SilkTork  *YES! 10:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it tonight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Thankyou. I've made some comments. I understand that you want to distinguish between major events and Grand Slam events, though you include Grand Slam events in the list, so perhaps there needs to be some clarification on the aim of the list. It can include major events including Grand Slam, and a sortable table can be made so people can identify Grand Slam events - that would mean you don't need to have lists in two different places - you don't need to have Grand Slam or Major, you can have both, sortable. What needs clarifying also is what constitutes "important" or "major". What is the selection criteria for which tournaments are included.
 * I haven't looked - how much of the material is duplicated from elsewhere - is there any cross-over?
 * Well done on what you have got so far.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only slam chart is the one containing most tournaments won at a single event. It seemed impossible to leave out the slams in that table and have it viable. It's a hybrid that fits perfectly on neither the slam record wiki page that already exists nor on a non-slam page. I was looking for a natural split on a page that was too long by many kb as per wiki guidelines and slam/non-slam pages seemed the right choice for dividing. Also be careful when conversing in tennis lingo and using term major and slam as they are 100% the same thing and might confuse others reading this at a later date. As far as crossover I'm sure there is. First I took the original statistics page and weeded out the slams since there is a page on wiki that did the same in reverse. then I added, corrected, tweaked etc.. to make it a stand alone page. The only other minor point to make is in your "red ink" help the french championship before 1925 is not a slam event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. It would be worth now contacting WikiProject Tennis and those people who have been involved in editing this article, and made comments on the talkpage, to see how others feel, and if the consensus is that the list is useful, then implement it.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm notifying people, though User:Chidel, who objected to the article being split, has been blocked indefinitely, so cannot be contacted.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Two significant contributors User:Striving4 and User:Tennis expert not notified because they have been blocked. It appears that Chidel, Striving4 and Tennis expert are all the same person - the main contributor to this article. Other significant contributors have been informed.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the IP on this talkpage was the same as the one who reverted the article, though that IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Tennis expert. It appears that so far all the accounts that wish to keep this article as it was, all belong to the same person, the main contributor - Tennis expert.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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

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

Proposal
A proposal has been put forward to replace Tennis statistics with User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats and name it List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records. Thoughts, comments and/or votes are encouraged.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Neutral - I think it better for me to remain neutral on this issue.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I think that it is good for a reader entering "tennis statistics" is given the current list of all our statistics articles, rather than trying to guess which ones they want. The reader will just end up wading through the new article's selection and then, if we haven't guessed correctly, have to try and find the correct article themselves.  I'd just move the sandbox article to the proposed title, and add this to the list above near the top of the list - navigationally, this is the best solution.  My other major reservation is the section User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats; it has no clear inclusion criterion for selecting the included players, and will just collect duplicates of the records over time, just ordered by player instead.  We don't need what will become a laundry list of editors' favourite players, justified by ever more tenuous "records" and "firsts". Knepflerle (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is unfortunately what has happened to the article that split away from this one at List of Grand Slam related tennis records. There are now charts like "least first round losses" and "career runner-ups." Very odd charts. The section User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats was there before the split as it is in List of Grand Slam related tennis records. I simply removed the records having to do with the Majors so as not to duplicate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

* Oppose: For the reasons I've already provided on this discussion page. 70.253.64.1 (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the split of tennis statistics article into several pages with clear paramaters (as the page is in its current protected state). I attempted this a year ago without success. The old article was a miscellaneous collection of statistics without any parameters whatsoever. For example it used to list Olympic medalists, grand slam records and longevity statistics of particular players. Is it possible the IP opposition to this is from user:Tennisexpert?  Francium12  17:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could User:Fyunck(click)/SandboxTennisStats not be a stand alone article rather than one replacing tennis statistics? Francium12  18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no real problem leaving it where it is now as a list of links that was created by SilkTork. At least we can find the articles. What I have now done is created my sandbox page and added it to that list so it compliments the one Francium12 created last year. However perhaps Tennis Statistics should be renamed as "List of tennis statistics"? or "List of tennis statistical articles"? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have renamed the article List of lists of tennis records and statistics following Fyunck's suggestion. There is no clear consensus to significantly change the contents, and the creation and adding of List of non-Grand Slam tennis statistics and records seems to have filled any gaps. I am closing this proposal, and taking this article off my watchlist. Please leave a note on my talkpage or by email if you disagree with anything I have done here and want to discuss it. I will leave the article semi-protected.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

How ? Thank you

Fred30 13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I just added added it per your request. Thanks for the suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks you very much ! Fred30 13 (talk) http://fredtennis.blogspot.com/ —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC).