Talk:Tennis performance timeline comparison (women)

Remaining work on this article

(1) Create a Wikipedia article for each of the following players: Dora Koring, Carrie Neely, Louise Hammond, Florence Sutton, Eleanora Sears, Helen Homans, Evelyn Sears, Winifred McNair, Dorothy Green, Marie Wagner, Louise Hammond Raymond, Marion Vanderhoef, Eleanor Goss, Joan Fry Lakeman, Irene Bowder Peacock, Katherine Le Mesurier, Nancy Lyle Glover, Dorothy "Dot" Stevenson, Emily Hood Westacott, Ginette Jucker Bucaille Grandguillot, Beryl Penrose Collier, Jenny Staley Hoad, Helen Angwin, Dianne Fromholtz Balestrat, Betsy Nagelsen, and Sharon Walsh. Include a Grand Slam singles performance timeline in each of their articles. Add their results to this article as necessary.

(2) Determine which players reached at least one Grand Slam or Olympic singles final before 1901 and who are not yet listed in the article. Create Wikipedia pages for them as necessary. Add their results to the article.

(3) Add to the article the results of the following players who already have Wikipedia articles: Elizabeth Ryan, Molla Bjurstedt Mallory, Maud Barger Wallach, Mary Browne, Myrtle McAteer, Charlotte Cooper, Muriel Robb, May Sutton, Penelope Boothby, Dora Boothby, Marguerite Broquedis, Blanche Bingley Hillyard, Ethel Thomson Larcombe, Dorothea Douglass Chambers, Marion Zinderstein Jessup, Agnes Morton, Elisabeth Moore, Marion Jones, Sylvia Hanika, Christine O'Neill, Barbara Jordan, and Julie Vlasto. Create Grand Slam singles performance timelines for their articles wherever necessary.

(4) Flesh out the introduction while remaining strictly WP:NPOV. Perhaps find and discuss external written materials regarding women's tennis by decade.

(5) Finish adding flags and left-aligning player names.

Updated by Tennis expert 03:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article is in the top ten longest articles. In order to conform better with Wikipedia:Article size, consider splitting it up chronologically. I don't know if this will impair continuity, but I don't see why it would. YechielMan 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is not "too long" and does not deserve the tag because tables are not counted. Tennis expert (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Flags

The logic behind my choices of flag - I chose the flag of the country the person was playing under at the time. Hence Jausovec being YUG and Zvereva URS. What should happen to players who changed citizenship such as Navaratilova and Seles? -- Phildav76 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this page needed?

Personally, I don't think so. What value does it give to our understanding of tennis? Oplossing is duidelijk 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is a GREAT reference page, meaning you can quickly check out every tennis champion's grand slam career on the one page. It's a BRILLIANT idea.

PS - Sylvia Lance-Harper toured the world with an Australian team in 1925 and reached the third round of Wimbledon. Many internet pages incorrectly attribute this performances to American player Anna Harper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.22.158 (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but what's your source? This source claims it was Anna Harper. Tennis expert (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there - these pages contradict that one and provide more evidence - http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=9467081&postcount=369 and http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=10332852&postcount=3 - I don't believe Daphne Akhurst AUS played doubles with Sylvia Lance-Harper AUS all year and then switched to Anna Harper USA just for Wimbledon! :) Mongrel Punt (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Order within tables

Should we sort players within a table by number of winnings, finals, semifinals...etc during one period?--Jdjerich 18:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we do need a clear sort order, because otherwise it's hard to read it clearly. Some sections are sorted roughly by # of titles, others are seemingly random. I would propose sorting, descending, by # of titles within the time period of that section, with tiebreaker based on # of finals, then # of semifinals, etc. Thoughts? Denzera (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this attempt to sort order has been interrupted as it has been in a messy dual state for too long (some tables sorted one way, other tables sorted another way). Simply unacceptable. So reverted everything back to original alphabetical order until whoever wants to rearrange the order applies it on all the tables on this page, not just on some. --Loginnigol (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Needlessly detailed entry

Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) is listed as number six on Cracked.com's The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries. Please try to address the concerns listed in that article. -- Jreferee t/c 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

External criticisms can be useful but this is rubbish. This is one guy, obviously not a tennis fan, bemoans:

• • the fact that it's women's tennis
  • the lack of Kournikova

Yohan euan o4 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Terminology

This article is incorrect in it's wording when using the term "grand slam" throughout the listing. The French was not a slam or international tournament prior to 1925. I suggest changing the wording to remove any mention of slams or grand slams and simply list the 4 championships. One could also remove French winners prior to 1925 but that would be too drastic and unneeded imho. I don't care which way the consensus wants to go here but it is in error-state the way it stands now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting this article

This article needs to be splitted ASAP. I propose to split this into 4 parts: Tennis performance timeline comparison (women): 1901-1928, Tennis performance timeline comparison (women): 1929-1956, Tennis performance timeline comparison (women): 1957-1984, and Tennis performance timeline comparison (women): 1985-2010. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. If there is no discussion in one week, I'll split this page, as mentioned.--Crzycheetah 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need to be split (ASAP or otherwise) because splitting would ruin one of the primary reasons for having all the information in one place: enabling easy comparisons across tennis eras. Therefore, I strenuously object to your splitting the article. Tennis expert (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to edit because of the large size. Splitting is needed in order for this page to be useful for others who can't open a page this big.--Crzycheetah 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not hard to edit. Simply select the section you want to edit and then make the edits. And how many people can't open a page this big? Not many in this day and age. Tennis expert (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

But there still are, you have to keep that in mind. Many users from developing countries still use 56K. On top of that, it's hard to navigate through the page, it takes several seconds until a desired section opens up.--Crzycheetah 23:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding unknown names

User:Tennis expert, why do you keep adding players that should not belong to this timeline based on the criteria that is stated in the lead? If those players were finalists of any of the tournaments, then why don't you find the info first, then add that player to this article?--Crzycheetah 23:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect, and I have already done exactly what you're suggesting. Ever player in this table has reached at least one Grand Slam singles final or Olympic final. Every single one of them. I challenge you to find even one who has not. The remaining task is to add their results from every Grand Slam or Olympic event (regardless of whether they reached the final). This is why there are "blanks" next to some of their names. Quit vandalizing the article. Tennis expert (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, find the info first, then add them! Now, I'd suggest you to create a subpage at your userspace and leave those names theere until you find the information on them.--Crzycheetah 06:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not tell you to revert then add. I just said add the info on already normal tables, not on those wide tables that've been here.--Crzycheetah 07:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, then you make the tables normal. For example, the first section should be up until 1910 for the table to have a normal size. 1911 and 1912 columns go out of the pages borders and making the table wide; therefore 1911 and 1912 columns should be in a separate section.--Crzycheetah 07:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrink the font on your webpage by 1. You'll be able to see everything fine then. On Firefox in Windows, for example, hit "control-". Tennis expert (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I use IE7 and I've tried to shrink the font, but then I had a hard time reading the names. That's why, I am saying that this page is very hard to navigate.--Crzycheetah 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TL;DR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded.--190.210.0.193 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarified Tournaments

The World Hard Court Tournament was not a slam though some important players did participate. The header was confusing in that it said this was an article that tracked Grand Slam and Olympic tournaments only and so I have now included the fact that it also tracks the World Hard Courts titles as well. I didn't add this tourney but since it's here we should not mislead the readers, especially in the opening sentences. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The neutrality and accuracy of this article are in dispute. The time lines chosen are extremely biased toward certain players in given stretches. And these time lines are not consistent; they seem aligned to the domination of certain players and slice others careers in two. Secondly, and of more importance the ranking is askew and illogical, if you are comparing performance solely in Grand Slam tournament lay. I attempted to make some of these adjustments to no avail. In that this article is without any sources, any information within should be able to be logically challenged. TFBCT1 (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This article does not "rank" players. This article merely lists the performances of players in Grand Slam tournaments. The year breaks in the tables apparently were just for reading convenience, not part of a diabolical plan to "align" with the "domination of certain players and slice others careers in two". Chidel (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It did rank players — some tables had the players ranked (by wins), other tables have the players not ranked but alphabetically arranged. This is confusing and improper (not user friendly) for the reader as all the tables that are right next to each other for comparison purposes are related and therefore should be consistently ordered in one way. Until someone comes up with a better ranking order (that will be applied on all the tables, not some) it will have to be reverted back to the original alphabetical order. --Loginnigol (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Splitting the page into four separate articles

As this page takes an age to load on a modem and is even pretty slow on a 2MB broadband, I propose splitting it into 4 separate articles. Users who wish to compare can open the new articles in separate tabs or windows. Any other issues with splitting it? 213.114.8.106 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to load fairly quickly for me... and I have slow broadband, and I feel breaking it up would diminish the all-encompassing view it gives to readers. Try the Burma page if you want to see slow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so long as it loads OK for you... What about the large part of the globe that don't have broadband? Or dont they count? 213.114.8.106 (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit snippy aren't we? You said it loads slow on modem... I have no clue about that. You said it loads slow on 2mb broadband and I said it doesn't load slow for me on even much slower broadband. Many of the "pages of the day" that wikipedia picks for their merit load slower than this timeline page so I'm not sure speediness is a major factor in most articles. I still think splitting it would diminish the article's effectiveness. Your opinion is it's too slow and mine is that it's not too slow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is 226kb in length. The recommended length is 32kb. Comparison of individual editors' modems is hardly necessary. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Split - I say split, the page is quite lengthy indeed.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's 3x the maximum wiki size per guidelines. Split might be the way to go here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZE, the recommended size is contextual, and usually based on "readable prose" length (30-50kb is normal). If it is necessary, then it should be kept to a minimum (never split into 3 articles, when splitting into 2 will work acceptably). This page currently contains 67kb of text. I'd recommend splitting in 2, at most. HTH. —Quiddity (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As one commenter noted though, it's not just prose size... loading times go up regardless of prose size. However I did find about 50k of bad coding that I fixed. I'll upload the correction in a few minutes. I agree that it reads better if we keep it intact. Also I see that the article WP:SIZE has been rewritten a whole bunch in the last 4–5 months. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing for sure is that the pages are being split too small. Other than the last chart they are unlikely to grow at all so we should try to keep the pages at about 100k or less. The first split at 37k is way too small. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked the page size info and regrouped this into two articles. The rough limits of filesize-750k, prose-50k, and wikitext-150k, are now pretty much met without too much disruption. We need to delete the extra created pages at: Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) (1929-1956), Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) (1957-1984), and Tennis performance timeline comparison (women) (1985-2012), as they are no longer needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the split should be pre-Open Era 1884 to 1967 then have the Open Era (tennis) 1968 to present. Since alot of the time people talk about the Open Era records and majors. It just makes tennis sense.Theworm777 (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the open era separation from the rest of tennis history and it creates more problems than it's worth. One chart is 64-70 so that would need to be entirely reworked. The charts are in 6 year increments so that would require more reworking. The 1968 Australian Open was not in the Open Era so that would be a thorn. There are lots of "eras" in tennis also. 1925 was the year the modern Major era was created by the ITF. Before 1920 there was a challenge round when last years champion automatically made the final. Until 1962 the server had to keep a foot on the ground... that was a huge change! The ATP World tour was created in 1990 at that is also big change. Also if we cut off the old chart at 1967 it also means the newer section would be much bigger, exceeding wikipedia's maximum size so it would probably have to be split in two already instead of 10 years from now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sloane Stephens

Somebody added her. She hasn't reached the final of a grand slam yet. She should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.244.62.183 (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)