Jump to content

Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal to split Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics into a standalone article

[edit]

I am proposing that the following section List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics be split into its own independent article Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics to reduce the page's size by 40% especially when the page is in the top 3500 longest pages on Wikipedia. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Article split?

There's no harm in sorting in by year, i.e. year of completion.

Don't worry about the size, ABC. My plan was to call for an article split when this discussion will be done. We move the entire last section List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics to a namesake page Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics (or List of <something slam completion related>) or a subpage and then transclude the entire section to its place retaining the page's look but cutting its size in half, for e.g.

Test section transclusion

Replacing List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics with the following code: <!--The following section has been transcluded from XY page to reduce page size and speed up loading time. DO NOT REMOVE the following transclusion code!--> {{#section-h:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records|Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics}} (Page title may vary).

Actual code suppressed: 👇 

{{#section-h:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records|Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics}}
{{st}}
{{nlt}}

Transclusion suppressed to lower section count in TOC for better navigability in a lengthy thread. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By V2, I think Fyunck meant the arrow distance versions not the V2 versions. Apologize on my end for naming them the same as the table's versions. And agree about taking way too much time for a table. Hours and hours go into it, making sure every sorting, alignment, flagg|uxx (for WPPEIS), bg color, event links and everything in between is done properly. I am not putting my time into another one. Not for a while.

Well, ABC, we had to meet somewhere in the middle with othe people who insisted on having the tables in the Grand Slam article. Luckily, a couple of transclusions barely affected that page's size. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, such move would allow for the expansion of the section to include other slam combinations. About the transclusions, I'd rather not mess with them for a while, that whole discussion was long and tiring as that was, so I prefer to leave it as it is currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABC paulista (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't add additional sections to the article after the move. This page has a lot of information and statistics on grand slams as it is. A page that ranks in the top 3500 by longest pages by size on Wiki, which is a lot. The slam combinations are already located in their respective discipline pages (main and wheelchair) and I would like to keep them there not add them here as well as additional balast. You want to keep this page's size low. Adding sections after the move would undo the whole purpose of the move — that is to reduce the page's size not increase it. But that is a discussion for another time. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the new page created, not this one. ABC paulista (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say absolutely 100% NO! You cannot have an article called "List of Grand Slam and related tennis records" without the Grand Slam winners listed. If you are going to split something out of this article we would start with "5 Miscellaneous records" and "8 Wheelchair records." You are also making an error in when you split articles. The more important stat is keeping the readable prose at bay. Wikipedia tells us the "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact." We don't want to force a split into two pages if we don't have to. Editors tend to keep thing more up to date when they are all in the same place. If you look at readable prose we are looking at Characters 4,158 characters and 717 words. Something like Iga Swiatek's article has Characters 40,357 characters and 6,978 words. We aren't going to split her article into 10 articles. I don't see any need for a split here at all, but if we do this isn't the section that needs to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for a split here at all, but if we do this isn't the section that needs to go. That's what I am proposing. Split the last big section from the article and, admittedly, and very important I forgot to add, we would then transclude the section to this page to retain the same design but split the page's size by 40%+, as previously discussed in other topics. All edits will reflect from the split page onto this one. The page's size of almost 250kB is the sole reason I am proposing the split. With how the above discussion is going and planning to split all charts to able-bodied and wheelchair (which will add additional data), we are looking at 90kB easy. That's a lot for a major page. The goal is to have a fast page for readers that opens in jif not taking an egregious amount of time to load. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree to splitting the Grand Slam sections to a seperate page. The wheelchair records on their own page is what I originally suggested and is the only obvious (and to me acceptable) split. As for this page ranking among 3500 longest on wikipedia, some pages have to be among the 3500 longest and if this is one of them, so be it. An obvious and easy way of shortening it would be to remove wheelchair records to a seperate page (this I would support). There is no other split I would support. I am not in favour of splitting off sections just because the article is long. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some research and you may be being bold about the cost/benefit of using transclusions. While it can help with mistakes since there is one location for the original text and a fix there is a fix in both, it still has to be called over from the holding page and be loaded here. It can often make pages load slower because of multiple parsings. An article that has three transclusions on it can be a dog in loading at times. It can cache if no new edits are done to a page, but once an edit is made or multiple hours have passed, it stills has to locate the template and reload. Transcluding uses more machine resources to run. And splitting pages often cause one page to not get updated as when everything is together. This article already loads in a jif for me... I'd hate to see it slow down for no real reason.... the prose is minimal and that's the main reason we would split pages. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know about the cost, Fyunck. If the two of you are only in support for relocating wc records, then I propose we include other wc-related records on the page to the split as well, namely List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Wheelchair records. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree to that. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page title? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wheelchair tennis records", something like that. All wheelchair data removed from this page and moved to that page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could just add the records in Wheelchair tennis. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should be clear. I am not in support of moving the wheelchair records out of this article and I think all is fine as is. If somehow this article would be split I said I would start there along with the miscellaneous records, and not touch things like the Grand Slam records. Splitting pages makes for tougher upkeep, transclusions can make pages load slower, and the prose amount in this list article is fine. Now, having a separate section here for wheelchair records is a great idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view on tennis articles generally is that each has an optimum length, but the optimum length varies from article to article. The article length of this article is always going to be among the longest and that is the way it should be. It has no problems opening on my device (and mine is not a fast internet connection). Because I view wheelchair tennis to be a seperate entity from non-wheelchair, I see no problem with moving the wheelchair data to another page. There is no comparison to be made between wheelchair and non-wheelchair records that I can see. So, speaking as someone who doesn't see an urgent need to curtail the length of the article, I would move wheelchair tennis to a seperate page anyway. But having a seperate section for all wheelchair records on this page is definately a better alternative than mixing the wheelchair records in with the non-wheelchair records. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to move the wc records to the new page, would they be transcluded here or not? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to have them on this page personally so I would not transclude them. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both records section and CGS section or just the latter? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing containing wheelchair tennis on this page (that means none of it, cgs, non cgs included). All of the wheelchair data on a seperate page. Yes I am aware that the cgs and non cgs data is currently transcluded to Grand Slam tennis page. A seperate transclusion can be added to the Grand Slam tennis page from the new page if required. I do not like how currently the wheelchair cgs and wheelchair non cgs records are mixed in with the non-wheelchair cgs and non cgs. The tables are much longer and more difficult to view with all the wheelchair data mixed in. This should be seperate. So to be clear:
My preferred option: to remove all wheelchair data from this page to a seperate page, no transclusions on this page to it, just a link saying "for wheelchair records see this page" or similar wording. Seperate wheelchair transclusions to the Grand Slam tennis page from the new page (or alternatively a link saying something like "wheelchair records can be found here")
Second preference: to list all wheelchair records (cgs, non cgs included) in a seperate section on this page and the Grand Slam tennis page also. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can make duplicate charts to display full CGS and non-CGS versions of the originals to Grand Slam (tennis) but have them separate here with includeonly tags. Quick workaround. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that the wheelchair/non-wheelchair cgs and non cgs data is mixed in together though. That is something I have felt for a while. The fact they hold wheelchair events at the Grand Slam events is good, but that doesn't mean the wheelchair events should be listed together with non-wheelchair Grand Slam events events on wikipedia. Different rules (two bounces etc.), different players, much smaller pool of players = seperate sections/articles. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get to work then. Almost all charts need separating. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original intention was to establish a standart table format for the Grand slam and its derivatives, so if we're going to separate the Career Slam table into two my idea was to do the same things with the other ones. And I don't think that it would require that much work, since the table format is complete and the data-gathering process is already done, and there isn't that many sections here that include wheelchar tennis data to begin with.
About the split, I don't think that's necessary because the wheelchair data is notably smaller than the able-bodied one, so I feel that a wheelchair page would be too small to justfy its own existance, but I wouldn't oppose such move either. At the same time, I don't think that separating the sections within this article would be beneficial, since we'd have to duplicate them and that's not ideal. Instead, I suggest that we only separate the charts that contain both mixed together, but keep them contained within the same section, like we're doing with the Career Slam table now. ABC paulista (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, we are splitting all mixed charts into 2 but retaining the section's size, no new page then? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wheelchair records should be together in one section, otherwise it makes no sense. There is already a wheelchair records section, so it would make sense to have all the wheelchair records in that section, otherwise people seeking wheelchair records have to look all over rhe article for them (in the cgs section, non cgs section etc.) Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wheelchair section is there just to list the players who won the most majors overall, as the article also has separate sections for singles, doubles and mixed on the same subject as well. Actually, IMO the most appropriate name for that section would just be "Most wheelchair titles", or something similar. ABC paulista (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparison between a wheelchair grand slam and a non-wheelchair imo, that is why all the wheelchair records should be in one section. But I agree if the wheelchair records are scattered around, the wheelchair section title should definately be changed. It is wrong to have a title saying wheelchair records and then locate some wheelchair records outside the section. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The objective of this article is to tally data, not really compare with each other, so I myself don't mind much the positioning. I just think that separating the wheelchair data would lead to section duplications that would unnecessarily incease the layout's size.
But overall, I don't think that either soution would change much the article's quality or readability, so if it's decided to contain all Wheelchair data in a separated section, I woudn't mind much either. ABC paulista (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we already have duplicated wc stats in 2 separate sections. Time to merge them under 1 section. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be any duplication. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not for long. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

[edit]

Here is a split version by able-bodied and wheelchair tennis. Thoughts?

I've been thinking we leave the "WC records" section as is and only have the charts split by able-bodied and wc tennis. Now they could be all clumped together: first ALL able-bodied charts, FOLLOWED by wheelchair or we can have them as they are currently, able-bodied followed by wc section by section.

As for whether the refs and notes sections columns should be merged or not, the jury's still out on that one. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to write columns not sections. I stand corrected. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tables are in line with what we discussed and look fine to me. There should not be a section title saying "Wheelchair records" unless all wheelchair records on the page are contained within that section. This is a long page and I think for navigation purposes it would make sense to have all non-wheelchair and all wheelchair records in two seperate sections. I do feel quite strongly about that and its largely due to the length of the page that I feel so strongly about it. I am always aware that people look at a wikipedia page for a limited time period and, whilst it is important to present all relevant information, the information should be presented in as few words as possible and laid out in such a way that the information is easily accesible. Interspersing the wheelchair data just increases the time the reader spends on the page (the vast majority of tennis fans follow men's and women's singles). For those that wish to read the wheelchair data they can do so at the end of the article (for those that only wish to read the wheelchair data, they can skip the non-wheelchair sections easily). I have no preference as to whether Notes/Refs is merged into one column or not. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I separated able-bodied from wheelchair tennis in their own sections:
User:Qwerty284651/sandbox#Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics (able-bodied tennis)
User:Qwerty284651/sandbox#Wheelchair records
Is this what you had in mind? Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for a week for any improvements, after which I will implement the above proposed design assuming no objections. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the jury is still out on the ref section/column at all. If we have sources that show all the winners, that's all we need for a source... not individual sources. It's when we don't have a source as a whole that we need individual sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should definately have a refs section column, but whether it is merged with notes or not I have no preference. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly reworded Fyunck's and Tennishistory's comments from section to column to clear up the confusion. Apologies for the mix up. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back a bit. If the table can be sourced fully prior to the table or after the table, that also works just fine. We can have a ref section that encompasses the whole column with one or two refs. We cannot have a ref for every event. That breaks wikipedia own rules of over-reffing. That's why there is a template notice that will remain until fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to fix, because there is no over sourcing. One source per event is not over-sourcing. This article is still undersourced. There are still a lot of tennis articles that have more sources needed tags on them. Not sourcing articles properly was an accepted norm 15 years ago (some of this information added by knowledgable tennis editors without adding sources, other wrong information added by less knowledgable tennis editors without adding sources, all intermingled. Only an expert eye can tell which is genuine information and which is not). It should be the aim of all current tennis editors to add sources to unsourced material across the wikipedia tennis pages. A more productive use of time than spending months arguing over the design of a table imo (not that table design isn't valuable, but adding sources is more important). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a single source for the whole table, and we have several, that's all we need. That's what we strive for to avoid original research. If we don't have a single source then we add one for each match. That's Wikipedia 101. It is oversourcing we don't need. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oversourcing is listing lots of sources for the same event. I have seen many instances on wikipedia where there are four or five sources for the same event. When it gets towards ten sources for the same event, this becomes excessive. If I had listed ten sources for Budge's slam, this would be excessive, but I listed one, which is not. Contemporary sources are important to show how the calendar Grand Slam was regarded at the time. The calendar Pro Slam is a modern term, no contemporary sources for it, which is a very different thing. How can someone win a Pro Slam if it doesn't exist?
Maybe if all editors (this is directed at no one in particular) were to add one source to wikipedia every day they are editing this would be a good principle. Because the lack of sources is not going unnoticed judging from the amount of more citations needed tags there are on wikipedia tennis pages. It is wikipedia 101 to fully source pages and this is being neglected with the amount of undersourced pages out there. Often it only takes a minute to type a few words into a search engine or newspaper site to find a source. No one is going to add a tag to a page because they don't like the design of a table, but they are if there aren't enough citations. The sad thing is, some of these pages are accurate, but only sources can verify their accuracy. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary sources are important to show how the calendar Grand Slam was regarded at the time, implying that this contemporaneity is even relevant to begin with, but I never saw either the tables, or the articles bringing it up in any meaningful way outside the "history" section, thus I do cast doubt in this importance you put on it.
How can someone win a Pro Slam if it doesn't exist? Retroactive attibution. Happens everyhere, anytime, it's neither a new notion nor exclusive to tennis. ABC paulista (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that mantaining the sections as one, separating the able-boided and wheelchair ones within it is the best cource of action, because applying the Tennishistory's solution would mean that both the headers and prose would have to be repeated twice, at least. I feel that the current page layout is the best option we have, we'd just have to make some adjustements to improve readability. ABC paulista (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Grand_Slam_and_related_tennis_records&oldid=1261827347"