User talk:GoodIntentionedFreak

Every now and then i will def try to make some time for editing, esp when big tournaments are held. i think the changes for connors and nastase are correct though, vilas i changed back. and sorry, i thought everything was updated for shanghai - i adjusted it now. have a good weekend! Kendu020 (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, how are you - just a few lines in general about the Tennis records page. When i created this page i wanted to have a page more or less the same as ATP world tour records, but with the correction for 1968-1971, and without a lot of non-important info. As i'm hoping this will eventually overtake that page as the main wikipedia information source, i was very glad that people like you have taken an interest, and the page seems to start gaining some traction. You definitely added and changed things for the good on this page, but all the additions and editions that keep coming in have been a little overwhelming - for two reasons.

I even feel it might become the best source for relevant tennis records (meaning, Men's Singles) on the internet.

First of all, you are very much focused on being technically correct, and that everything is lined up in exactly the way it should be - compared to the rest of the page, mathematically, etc. While a little bit of this is good, i think too much of it takes away the main purpose of the page - give the readers what they want.

How can lining up possibly take away anything from the readers? I have implemented almost everything I had in mind. I cannot possibly imagine that my work so far took anything away from the readers. I think it only benefitted, both the readers and the future editors (who will have be able to gain a clear insight in the structure of the page and edit it accordingly -- thus preventing it from becoming a mess that is the "ATP records" page).

I know we can (and you probably will here) argue a lot about this back and forth, ...

Yes, I will argue. I enjoy a good argument, and I think a good "Talk" page is almost as important as the main stuff. We cannot prevent future editors (if the page indeed gets big with the community) from messing up our work, but we can try to give them the best example of an argumented discussion.

... but to me it's about the overall feel of the page. So that means for example GS should come first, and then all tournaments,

No, it does not mean that. This overall feel is subjective, and my feels are subjective as well, but I can also argue objective benefits that are derived from them. I think I have given ample proof that putting YE, Masters & the Olympic does NOT push "All tournaments" too far back. It does not negatively affect the layout, and it brings symmetry and order.

and a table of 'wins against top 10 in GS' shouldn't be in there, because no one will even have thought of that so wouldn't be interested in it.

OK, maybe it is too much. However, there was already a slot for this table, as "All tournaments" have a Top 10 win streaks table. I don't see why would this new table be less interesting in the old. And why do you think nobody ever thought of that? Maybe they did ("who is the most consistent performer in the most important matches against the top players?" -- a legitimate question), but did not have the time to make it. It does not take too much room and it already has a slot -- I did not invent anything new here.

Without getting into these detailed examples, i just believe the technical approach, while useful, has gone a little bit overboard - everything needs to be changed and corrected and perfected meticulously, and the whole idea of the page is to just have people enjoy the main records in tennis they wanna know about (which in a lot of cases will be Federer's main records :), i know, but that's besides the point...).

How in the seven heavens will the technical approach to the maintenance of the page affect the enjoyment of the readers? It has only gone overboard in the sense that you load the page history and I see a lot of edits by me. I am fixing dashes for typography, making links, entering footnotes, rearranging (and am almost done), arguing the need for something or the lack thereof, correcting data etc. I understand it looks like too much, but first of all, I don't expect you, or anybody in specific, to follow my edits (so it is my effort, not my demand), and secondly, I must repeat myself here -- it is only too much if you look at the history, not if you look at the page. The page is in its early stages (in the sense of community) and only benefits for following a couple of principles. This is so weird -- like every individual edit is meaningful and contributing, but as a whole they somehow spoil the idea of the page? Please, if you try turning your eyes away from "History", and just running the page, you'll see how smoothly it will go.

This brings me to my second reason why it's been a bit overwhelming. Eventhough i know wikipedia is open and for everybody, of course you'll understand that when you create something like this, it feels a little bit like your baby. And like i said - you've added and changed a lot for the good, but i would love to keep the page a little bit how i saw and created it at first.

Yes, I noticed this attitude of yours and I understand it. I too sometimes create individual projects, be it in writing or programming. However, I select platforms that allow me to maintain my vision without having to prove anything to anyone. So, wikipedia might not be the place for what you want to do with these records. I think it might be wrong to use the resources, the language and the popularity of wikipedia, and put a personal/emotional claim over a list of tennis records, in most part copied from other people's work, just like future editors will copy your work or mine.

I don't have a problem anymore with a number of decisions about the page that bothered me at first. You have also been very receptive to considering my ideas, which I respect, and in time we will be able to solve all controversies in "Talk" for all future readers and editors. It can be grand. If I am shown that my arguments are faulty, I will also stop insisting upon this trivial question of section ordering (I recently updated the "Talk" on that question). Almost ANY singular question is trivial. What is essential, however, is the question of how we approach this page and how we settle differences.

The US open is starting, so a lot of new numbers will be added, and i've also got time this week to work on the missing numbers (winning percentage of different courts, some masters tables). So is it an idea to leave the page for what it is now? I think we've created a great page so far, let's be content about it :). Look forward to hearing your ideas. On an 8 hour jetlag at the moment so let's see if i have anything more useful to add later on hehe, but i hope you understand the overall meaning of what i'm saying. Thanks! Kendu020 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have any issues about the layout except for the section ordering, so my edits will not interfere with yours or anybody else's during the US Open. All the best with the missing numbers! --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, one other question - do you know how to de-orphan the page? didn't quite know what this means, have put more links in the opening lines but it seems that's not it... Kendu020 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was also surprised that the page is orphaned. It is the other way around -- other articles should point to this one. "The list of lists of tennis records" does that already, but apparently it is not enough.

I am thankful that you put effort into this discussion, saying how you felt about the page. I also need to say something impotant here. I know that what I am doing is excess. I know I am a perfectionist here, and that it borders on obsession. However, this is the kind of person this page needs in an early stage (omg I almost said I was the hero that Gotham needs). But seriously. When the principles are set, the data will flow. I am a mathematician and a computer scientist -- you don't get that without going a little crazy. An immense contribution can be gained from me if my inputs are treated without personal feelings, as if you would treat a machine.

And in fact, I have a machine that you don't, and probably few people do. I have developed a crawler for the ATP website. I have ALL consistent data in the period 1991-2010 (twenty years) at my immediate disposal, and Java classes to handle it. I can check any listing extremely fast. Of course, I am not sharing the tool as it is intellectual property -- but you already see that I am more than willing to use it for the benefit of this page and the tennis fans. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm biting my tongue not to get into the Batman and Robin analogy :).

Thanks for the elaborate response, and making your way of working/thinking a bit more clear. And it's also good to hear you feel the page is almost the way it should be (yes, it would be great to have strict guidelines that everyone else wil adhere to in future, but let's not be overly optimistic about this...). There are a few things i'm still thinking about as well, i will add them on the talk page of Tennis Records later.

From personal experience, I know a lot about the discussions between facts and emotions, and also the problems of finding common ground sometime (unfortunately...). I don't believe facts and numbers are emotionless and can be treated like that. I believe you probably do (correct me if i'm wrong). In scientific philosophy they've not been able to solve this argument, so i'm guessing we won't either. I think at a certain point we need to agree to disagree, understand we have a different thinking paradigm in this, and give and take whereever we can.

One more try at arguing how a technical approach can affect a reader's enjoyment though, is that it sometimes becomes less easy to read, and brings in useless information that takes away from the focus on the rest. As i've said before, not everyone is a numbers nerd like you and me, and they may need a bit more clarity (sometimes adding the redundant, sometimes leaving it out) to read it easily and want to come back to the page. Examples of this are (i will discuss these in the talk page as well) IMO 'YE' instead of 'year end' which makes it less easy to get right away what is meant, and even GS for Grand Slam - maybe a few more 'Grand Slam' and a few less 'GS' will make it a more readable layout. Also the season streaks with on the top e.g. '2+ GS titles in a season' and then the explanation underneath, will be easier to read when you just have the explanation in the heading - eventhough it may sound to the trained eye a little bit redundant. Again, let's discuss the details of this on the talk page (no, besides the section ordering i really don't have a lot of overly strong convictions on most these issues), but i'm just using this in the techinal vs. user-friendly/readibility approach argument. I'm really not worried about the way it looks in the history of the page - like you, i'm only concerned about how the page comes across to other readers.

I'm glad you understand i have some attachment to the page. Although i get your reasoning of why this shouldn't be the case, I do think there is room, also in a public space like Wikipedia, for a degree of personal emotion and involvement. But yes, within boundaries and by all means set them (for me or anyone else) if necessary. I for sure don't want to become like one of the bullies on the ATP world tour records (2 in particular, you might know who i mean) who treat the page like they own it - they were a big reason for me to stop being very active on there as well. I agree that the way we've communicated and tried to solve problems and arguments has been respectful and therefore productive, thanks for that.

Very cool about the ATP website crawler by the way. I'm trying to work around some of the bugs of the older data (like for Connors' numbers that don't add up) and once that's in, that together will make this page pretty solid and imo the best source of information on the subject. Kendu020 (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

___________________

Just read your reply - i was a little shocked at your ideas about winning percentage, answered it in talk. The bugs in the ATP i try and solve through their own website (often they miscalculate or leave out info), related ones like Davis Cup website, or by finding missing info via other ways (the original tournaments for example).

Thanks for the readability updates. I'm just thinking that in certain instances now it's a bit too much info - e.g. for year-end tournaments, you see the word year-end in one instance about 8 times, might be a bit too much. Maybe leave out the 'year-end' at the top of the tables, and the same with masters? Also in this, i'm thinking maybe year-end semi-finals might be a little bit redundant. Kendu020 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I just checked, and the year-end tournaments were always round robin, so you're right - in that respect the semi-finals table belongs on the page. just not sure if it adds any information. But I'm fine with leaving it as it is.

I added a response on the talk page about the winning %-age. Thanks for the replies. Kendu020 (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, glad to see you again at the Tennis Records page. There's been some changes recently brought up by a few of the ATP world tour editors. I didn't want to get into all of them, so i'm glad you took care of couple of them as well.

This all proves of course that the page really is gaining traction. How do you like the new page name? Kendu020 (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Grand Slam tournaments

I'm not sure why you would delete the word tournament as this is the way we have been doing it for quite awhile. A Grand Slam is a set of four wins in each of the 4 majors in a single season, while a grand slam tournament or major is a single event. Why would you not want this clarified for our readers like we do in other articles? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I think it is quite obvious that a "Grand Slam match" is a match played at a Grand Slam event. I find it difficult to imagine a different interpretation from a reader visiting a page on Open Era tennis records. On the other hand, using "Grand Slam tournament totals" instead of "Grand Slam totals" would lessen ambiguity. If you opt to change this back, please make an analogous change at other places (sections "All tournaments", "Masters tournaments" and "Year-end tournament"), so that it is clear that there is a principle here (for future editors). Thank you. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As I think about it more I think you're correct.... "grand slam match" should be good enough just as "grand slam event" is. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Career Earnings (Tennis Records)

I think most of our data there (except for 2012) is singles + doubles. This is a huge exception to what this page is about. I am not sure if my database also holds prize money info, but if it does I can check the entire careers of the current top three players and come up with precise data. For the rest, I think it is hopeless. We need to try hard to get some serious sources or we can delete "All time earnings" altogether. Might sound heretical, but I remember how you removed Carpet Win % because the data was not complete, only put it back when it was -- I would do the same here.

The other thing is inflation. Careers span at least a decade. Not fair to use just the last year to adjust, each year should be adjusted separately and then summed. Tedious, but only fair. Or remove inflation adjustment from "All time earnings". This is all inherited from ATP records page, not sure how they handled it. (This problem vanishes if we indeed remove All time earnings.)

(Also, inflation adjustment is not the only one needed to compare players from different generations. This is because the profile of tennis has gotten higher, much more money goes into it and awards jump even higher up. But this is only a sidenote.)

In short, I propose serious action to make this section fitting to the page concept and corresponding with reality. I also plan rearranging our "Talks": like, general issues (layout, information sources), specific issues (prize money, olympics, ordering), formatting (bold, links, flags) etc. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely support you in the doubles case. That page is strictly about singles, earnings should be only about singles, too. We must find precise info about singles prize money for each year, otherwise we should delete all the table, in my opinion.Krivo4457 (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I had been thinking about the same regarding the singles and doubles earnings. I agree it would be more correct to change all these numbers for just singles earnings, but this would have 2 disadvantages - a lot of work (continuously, also in updating), and it would give very different numbers from those that will be used in all other media (say, Federer would make it to 100 million, that would be huge, but on this page he wouldn't be there yet). Not sure what to do with this, but i'm inclined to leaving it as it is, with a clear side note on this.

The inflation adjustment isn't that important to me either. It will always be a little bit of comparing apples and pears (hmm, i think this is an expression in my language rather than in english, but you know what i mean), but the numbers also say something about the growing numbers in prize money - so it paints a picture between eras as well. Kendu020 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I must say these do not seem like stroung counterarguments to me.

"a lot of work": Well of course, arranging the definitive Wiki page on tennis records is a lot of work. The ATP records page, from which most of materials here originate, was a gigantic amount of work.

"also in updating": Actually, this is the easy part, as the ATP displays prize money won per instance of a tournament in the playing activity tab of player pages.

"different numbers from those... in all other media": So? The (as yet hypothetical) example with Federer is probably the only conceivable example ever in the future of this page. What can we do if the other media are wrong? The idea is to give relevant, precise information about records achieved in professional men's singles tennis in the Open Era: no women, no pre-Open Era, no amateurs, no doubles.

We need a table on earnings, but not this one, and it better to have nothing than misplaced information. The ATP records page holds both singles and doubles -- let them have this table until we prepare one that fits our page (did not yet check if my database can help; will get back to you with this info later).

Kendu, what is your mothertongue in which you say "appleas and pears"? In my tongue it would be "old women and frogs"... --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha - i love the old women and frogs much better! where is it that they keep old women in such high regard :)? i speak Dutch...

I guess you're right on the singles and doubles earnings - we better strive to be the only proper source of information on this then. We need to check if the yearly numbers are also for singles and doubles both, and need to be adjusted as well. Kendu020 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Single Season Earnings (Tennis Records)

Hey, how are you. I just noticed your adaptation of the single season earnings list. Changing it like this, from only the highest payed in a year to all individual season earnings, will make it a totally different list though - only the last 4 to 5 years will be included, since almost all these years the top 2 or sometimes even 3 will be high enough to enter the top 10.

If you want to keep it like that you should add all those listings as well. Imo this will make the list a lot more boring though; the way it was before shows you the record that a specific year made in earnings. That is also an actual record, but i agree quite different from the other earnings list. Kendu020 (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm fine, wish the same to you. You are right that I should add recent high earnings if I want to keep it like this. I am meddling with it at the moment, perhaps I undo my own revision. The list, though, is boring as it is -- it is just Roger, Rafa, Nole and Sampras. If Sampras falls out, won't make it much more boring, IMO. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi GoodIntentionedFreak. I think it should remain like it is now. It's good to compare different seasons. If we listed not only the leaders, there would be many players from 1 season and I think the stat would lose its meaning....Krivo4457 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys. To me it will be more interesting to use only the single highest earner in a season, because it will be a good combination of saying something about individual athlete's accomplishments as well as about the differences over time. But i have to say i'm not very hung up about this. Kendu020 (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Update of records

Hi, as i'm new here as an editor i may not know certain things yet, for example about when to update a record in a table. Specifically i'm refering to the “Year-end rankings” section of the new “Tennis Records” page. Now i saw you undid my edit on the Year-end rankings table and of course you were right in doing so. But how about the “Year-end ranking streaks” table; it's already been sure since a while that Federer will again end the year in the Top 10, for the 11th consecutive time. My question now is, when should this “Year-end ranking streaks” table be updated? The update on this table will be the same, now or at the end of the year, regardless of how the current players will perfom in the remaining tournaments. Or am i missing something? Feel free to delete this section after answering, and sorry for messing up your talk page.--Geolitha (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all "Year-end" tables should be updated at year end, I think this is the simplest principle and also keeps the symmetry. Similarly, all "Weekly" tables should be updated with each week, not in advance. --GoodIntentionedFreak (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)