Former good articleBig Four (tennis) was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2016Good article nomineeListed
March 24, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Proposed split[edit]

This article is currently over 343 kB in size, three and a half times the 100 kB threshold at which articles "Almost certainly should be divided" per WP:SIZESPLIT(!). I propose that we split off the statistics sections into Big Four career statistics, like we do with player articles. Somnifuguist (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline deals with "readable prose size", not "total size". The article is currently at exactly 100kB of readable prose.Tvx1 16:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, so the readable prose "Almost certainly should be divided" as well. I still think a good first step is splitting off the statistics tables because although they're not counted as readable prose, they make the article unwieldy, which is why we split them off for individual players when appropriate (per our guidelines). Somnifuguist (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Since the deletion discussion concluded that there is clear consensus that the two articles should not exist simultaneously the only result of this proposal can be to merge them. The question then is which one to merge to. I see consensus for this to be merged into Big Three (tennis) as it is generally agreed to be the now common name of this rivalry. There is no requirement that the newer article be merged into the older one or that the one with the least prose should be merged into the one with the most. There is also a general agreement that this article is bloated already so adding more will not fix that. This bloat can be solved by selectively merging into big three. How the Big three article is set up to accommodate info from this article is up to interested editors. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose to merge Big Three (tennis) into Big Four (tennis) as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Three (tennis). Both topics can be described in one article, we don't need two. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing major titles across the eras, a "Big Three" comparison can be made between the modern day Big Three (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) to a Big Three of the past (Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver). Having a comparable Big Four would be like bringing Ashley Cooper to join Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver (ie absurd). "Big Four" is just a term used by the media, but when comparing major titles, Murray has won 3, Djokovic has won 17, Nadal has won 20 and Federer has won 20. A "Big Four" page (if it exists at all) should merely state "A term used by the media to describe Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray". No statistical analysis between the four players. I am British and appreciate and respect the achievements of Andy Murray, but he is not a player of comparable stature to the other three. So if any page is to be got rid of, it should be Big Four, not Big Three. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be discussing whether it's three or four, but whether we need one article or two. That is the question here. If you agree that we need one article instead of two, we can discuss the name of that article later. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the way the question was framed is the only reason people are inclined to debate. If you had proposed a merge from Big Four into Big Three, there would just have been no debate and a lot of support. Based on your reply here, it would seem to suggest you were asking if a merge is required - which is not entirely true. You were proposing a merge from Big 3 into Big 4 which will without a doubt provoke debate as Big 4 was a non-existent entity. It was just English media overplaying their hand like Rooney, the white Pele or Gerrard, the greatest player in the world. StaySafe2020 (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, no neutral observer of tennis will oppose a merge of the two articles, they just oppose the direction of the merge you suggested.StaySafe2020 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A small edit to my earlier reply. No neutral fan wants two articles. Most people would be okay with either
1) deleting the big Four article alltogether
Or
2) deleting the big Four article alltogether and then adding an addendum in Big 3 that talks about the Big Four and Big Five notations that never really was - especially Big Four which was considerably propogated by British media. StaySafe2020 (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, consensus was formed that said there should be a merge into Big Four. They were not given an option of a merge into Big Three, but merge was the word of the day. Big Four is by far the older and by far the larger and more comprehensive of the two articles. It is not going to be deleted. If there is going to be a merge it will be the Big Three info into the Big Four article. I see no other way for that to turn out. Now certainly the info can be rearranged if merged, and certainly the article title can change. To be honest the Big Four article is the biggest pile of trivial bloat I've ever seen. It's unwieldy, hard to read, badly sourced, overblown, etc... a mess to be sure. I'd probably chop it by at least 2/3's, maybe 90%. The article could be titled "Tennis' Big Four and Big Three" after a merge and be 3x the size of the current Big Three article imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Big Four is not relevant - it never was and is never going to be into the future. You dont see ATP saying Big Four - they say Big Three. While we are at it, lets have an article that says Big Million so that I can also be included as a great player. There has to be an article on Big Three - whether Big Four needs to remain is relaly the only question. And I didnt see any consensus. All I saw was potentially an Andy Murray stan suggesting a merge into Big Four. StaySafe2020 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also google ‘Big Four tennis’ and ‘Big Three tennis’ - you will see recent articles for Big Three. Ironically you will see an article where Andy Murray himself says thise three are the best players ever. Any reference to ‘Big Four’ are mostly by blogs or opinions - but by APT or any news source, currently, people just talk about ‘Big Three’. People always talked about ‘Big Three’ but British media tried to make ‘Big Four’ stick but it really didnt. Whether Wikipedia tries to mKe it stick or not, nobody will ever talk about ‘Big Four’ even 5 years down the line. StaySafe2020 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please nest your posts properly. You are brand new and have only posted on this topic, but it gets a little messy when posts don't get indented. But we don't get rid of historical articles (Just like Big Three will be some day). It's really more of a Big Two now. The relevancy part of your post is worrisome as far as bias so I'll leave that alone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Three may have a lot fewer words, but Big Four is ridiculously bloated at over 17K of them. Is it more work to judiciously add to the former than drastically trim the latter? I think not. (Disclosure: I created Big Three.) Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Category