Talk:Tennis performance timeline comparison (men)

message: The women's timeline is a lot more complete. However there are two major
differences in the style that has been adopted for the men's timeline.
* The men's timeline only shows the last name and does not show the country flag.
* The men's tables are sorted alphabetically instead of being sorted by number of wins as the women's tables are.
Shouldn't we adopt the same style for both articles? 
Anurag Garg 12:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try asking at WP:TENNIS. —MC 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll copy it there. —MC 16:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style change from Women's timeline 

message: This is my first time coming across this page (just looking up someone who's name I had forgotten), but I like it a lot.
I originally turned off the bold names until realizing what they meant.  I went back and extended them to current athletes.  It may make it a bit more of a pain to keep current, but it's going to be that way every 6 years anyways!
I like this table a lot better than the women's table.  I think alphabetical fits better than wins... though if a few summation columns could be added at the left or right side of each list... then it could be sortable that way as well.
But the real benefit of this page is that it doesn't run off the right side of the page, isn't overly cumbersome.  As much as I'd like first names to be included, the conciseness I think is more important.  Flags might be something worth having if could be done without overly extending the page, but that's a point for discussion when the rest of this cleaned up.
A 1-line across quicklink bar at the top (and even each table) might help navigation.
The 6 season periods are pretty arbitrary and make direct comparison a little harder.  I wish there were some wiki-kosher way to have dynamic tables which can the choice of either years going across (ie the current format, except that the reader can choose to extend/change the period to whatever they wish and the table fills in) or relative years in career (such that all players can be compared "directly" by career.
Perhaps something I'll put on a personal website at somepoint, which can then be linked from here.  Somewhere done the line.
Perhaps alternatively each column could be carefully limited to one character (Q and S instead of QF and SF, 1 and 2 instead of 1R and 2R)... maybe the text size diminished... and thus quite a few years could be listed across, put more information in one place... and then also have a separate page with career comparisons by years into career.  Maybe, maybe not.
But I like the concept a lot, and can envision where all the sports (at least individual), standardized and maybe linked together.
Point being I like the page a lot and hope to put in effort here and there to keep this page growing and others forming!
JeopardyTempest 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two quick items. 1) The open era began with the French open in 1968 so the Australian of 1968 would not be included. 2) No worries because I am working on the entire history being up there... it's just not completed yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, I knew about the open era stuff, I just generalised. To make it so the intervals reflect before the open era and during the open era wouldn't it be better to class the intervals as the following: 2010-15, 2004-09, 1998-2003, 1992-97, 1986-91, 1980-1985, 1974-79, 1968-73, 1962-67, 1956-61, 1950-55, 1944-49, 1938-43, 1932-37, 1925-31. I understand it's planned to begin from 1925 when the ITF recognised the 4 slams existence. Also don't you think there are too many players listed, too many one slam wonders or just 1 slam finalists. Even those with max 2 Slam wins bulk it up more. I think if you reduced it to minimum 3 slam wins you could get the intervals to only hold between 10 and 16 (for the intervals shown so far) instead of 25+ players.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it will begin in the beginning... 1877.  Take a look at the ladies chart and you'll see that it doesn't take into consideration the Open Era either... probably because it would be difficult to show it beginning in April of 1968. Since the ladies have single Major winners I'm guessing the men's just followed the same format. Plus readers would wonder why there was no green W box for certain years if we exclude one slam wonders. The ladies had been left 90% done until late last year when I finished it. Now I'm doing the very slow tedious process of finishing the mens of which maybe a third was done. I only needed 2 charts to cover through 1906, but then every 6 years will bring us the the end of 1966 which will be perfect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow you do a lot of work on these pages, respect. But for the sake of consistency could it not be done so that the main page shows intervals from 1968 (open era) and the additional page shows from 1877 to 1967, its just that all other wiki tennis articles are either the whole history, the open era or both but with a clear definition between the two.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't Stanislas Wawrinka now need to be brought into this after winning the 2014 Australian Open? I'm guessing you'll will then retrace his career grand slam achievements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:388:23E:150:0:0:1:97 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts