Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records

Other slam records

@Fyunck(click) and ABC paulista:, you can replace the prose in List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics with tables for individual non-calendar or calendar super/golden slam in the "Grand slam achievements" sections in the articles listed in the Template:Grand Slam champions navbox (bottom row). In my opinion, listing all possible instances is unnecessary but I am not goinf to split hairs because of it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I can do that, but I'm having issues editing these tables since I can't see the changes I make, because of the scrooling that is necessary to see all entries, and I don't know how to temporarly remove it. If you teach me a way for me to visualize it whole, I'd appreciate. ABC paulista (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It is much harder to edit scrolling tables and I'm not sure we need to scroll all of them... only really lengthy ones and ones that are likely to grow exponentially. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@ABC paulista, how do you usually edit tables? Mobile or desktop? VE or source? Best way to edit them is to temporarily remove the scrollable add {{in use}} or {{uc}} above the table being edited during the edit session for ease of, well, editing.

I contained them with a div scroll to reduce vertical scrolling for all long tables on the page. , Temporarily remove them, edit and then restore. Code in question is <div style"height:40vh"/> or {{<div style="scroll-container" style=.../>}}. Just remove those to see the whole table and then edit accordingly. I made this, primarily, to save up on scrolling and for mobile users. If you do not like it in this article, feel free to revert this or all instances. I don't mind. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Did some testing: the fastest way to disable the scrolling containment is by changing 40vh -> 100vh (vh—width of an element (table) to be of X % of the viewport’s height). Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that later. I usually edit in my laptop because I prefer keyboard and mouse than touchscreen. ABC paulista (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Golden Grand Slam, Golden Slam issue

This section is a mess. Both terms "Golden Grand Slam" and "Golden Slam" are in use today; Golden Slam more so, hence the name of the section. Both both must be mentioned as our readers will me seeing both in mainstream media. Also, de Groot and Alcott won the four majors in 2021 while winning the 2020 Olympics. It was not the 2021 Olympics! The people who qualified for 2020 Olympics did not need to requalify for 2021. I'm not advocating their names be removed, but this is an important aspect of the record and should be mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), the issue with the terminology is that this is not the article to elaborate on it. This article is just to list "who achieved what and when", if the reader wants further information about the achivement itself they should head to the Grand Slam (tennis) article, so the only information that should be contained here is the most known name of the achievement and it's criteria, anything else is to be further informed there. Trying to cite both here would mean that they have similar relevance, which is untrue per WP:COMMONNAME, so doing so would be WP:UNDUE.

About the 2021 Slams, while is true that the Olympics were supposed to be played on 2020, by all intentions and purposes it was played in 2021. It started in 2021, played in 2021, ended in 2021, was part of the 2021 calendar of both ATP, WTA and ITF and pretty much all media, specialists and relevant people and organizations consider it a 2021 title. I've never seen anyone questioning this, and these that actually do are probably part of a vast minority. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

They didn't have a selection committee for the 2021 olympics, they did it in 2020. The Olympics themselves say it was the 2020 Olympiad. That should be noted here and to do otherwise confuses our readers when they see 2021 on the four majors and 2020 on the olympics. And it is quite simple, since this is a stand-alone article to make sure the readers know that the terminology for GoldenGrandSlam/GoldenSlam is used throughout our sources. Golden Grand Slam is not some archaic term... it is used today. Readers could be scratching their heads and saying what about Golden Grand Slam I heard on the news today? My small addition covers that and yours leaves them confused. And your WP:COMMONNAME site... that links to a discussion of titles, not prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how the Olympics call or see themselves, or when the qualification was held, since the subject here is solely about tennis, and for the tennis world the Tokyo Olympics were part of the 2021 season. We don't even need to cite the year in which the event was branded, since 2021 Olympics also disambiguates there, and on the tables it can be linked via [[2020 Summer Olympics|2021]] just fine.

About the terminology, "Golden Grand Slam" is way, way less common than "Golden Slam", and not that used on the mainstream media nowadays, so the reader is less likely to hear about the earlier than the latter. And the ones that do use the former tend to use both interchangeably, like France 24, for example. Even the organizations like the majors tehmselves, ITF and the associations refer more as Golden Slam than Golden Grand Slam.

And even if they indded came here for "Golden Grand Slam", they should be redireceted to Grand Slam (tennis)#Golden Slam, the section that properly explain the similarities about the terminologies, not here. Remeber that we have to be WP:SUCCINCT and try to relay the essential information that belongs to the scope of this article. If readers come here, it's probably because they already have a grasp on these concepts, otherwise they should be redirected to where they can properly learn about it.

Also, WP:COMMONNAME applies also for the sections per MOS:HEAD (Section headings should generally follow the guidance for article titles), and it'd be pretty weird to show one name on the title and other on the prose. ABC paulista (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It is less common but not way way less common. It's on the Wimbledon website which is going on right now. The Australian Open website had an article on it in May of this year. And Tennis Now put out an article June 26, 2024 on Steffi's Golden Grand Slam. And yes commonname applies to section headings also, but that hasn't changed in the article. Prose is always more specific and explains the concept in much more detail. And again we aren't talking about showing one version in section heading and another in prose. We are talking about showing the most common in section heading and both terms explained in prose. Huge difference that is being censored. And it's not a question of what we can do to hide the fact it was 2021 for the four majors and 2020 for the Olympics, it's what should be explained to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not about censorship and/or hiding information, it's about importance and relevance.

Yes, Golden Grand Slam can be thrown here and there sometimes, but overall the Golden Slam terminology is more proeminent than the former (Google Search presents 10 times more "Golden Slam" results for either Graf or Djokovic than "Golden Grand Slam", for example). By these metrics, terms like "calendar golden slam" and "calendar-year golden slam" also show for a relevant number of times, closer to "Golden Grand Slam" than it is to "Golden Slam" per se.

But here we are dealing with a list article, and these should contain as little prose as possible, only having the absolute essential for the reader to understand what's being talked about on the tables, and the terminology is not one of these essential info. There's a proper place where the terminology can be explained and properly expanded: Grand Slam (tennis)#Golden Slam, not here. We don't have to mention both terms every single time the Golden Slam is being mentioned, only the most common name is enough, is already recognizable for the majority of cases, such as this.

About the Olympics, we shoudn't treat the readers as babies or dumb, idiots, they understand the concept of "links" and know that they can click on verbatims to go to an article on a specific subject, and one of the first information contained there is how the 2020 Olympics were held in 2021 (Originally scheduled to take place from 24 July to 9 August 2020, the event was postponed to 2021 on 24 March 2020 due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, [...] However, the event retained the Tokyo 2020 branding for marketing purposes.).

But if you so insist, I woudn't complain if you add a note, like ITF did: 2021: Diede de Groot (NED) achieved a unique 'Golden Slam', also winning gold at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics (which were held in 2021), but your previous dismissal of the Wheelchair Golden Slam, or attempt to "asterisk" them, for this reasoning was not acceptable per WP:OR.

TL;DR, avoid WP:TOOMUCH. Everything has its own place, and these are irrelevant to this article, one doesn't need to overexplain everything everytime everywhere everywhen. People know links and understand its function and usage, our purpose is to facilitate this navigation. ABC paulista (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

We can agree on some of this. I could see making that part on de Groot and Alcott as a note exactly as you mentioned. That can work just fine. But I didn't see any metric by wikipedia to curtail prose, especially on something that has two connotations in real life usage. This is a section on the Golden Slam. The prose we add that says Golden Slam should be accompanied by Golden Grand Slam on first mention since they are used interchangeably in sources. We treat the fact the elementary kids read these articles also... not dumb, not babies, not idiots... but kids and also adults who are drawn here from watching Wimbledon. Or folks who come here after reading about Graf at the Tennis Hall of Fame. The mention of Golden Grand Slam should stay as I wrote it. It takes up barely any space and is quick and to the point..."A player who wins all four majors and the Olympic gold medal (or a Paralympic gold medal) in a single season is said to have achieved a "Golden Slam" or "Golden Grand Slam"." I see no issue with that at all but I will acquiesce to your note on the other item. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You act like Grand Slam (tennis) page doesn't exist, and that this one is the first that people enter when looking for information about the Grand Slam and its related concepts, but its actually the opposite: As shown in the Wikidata, the Grand Slam page has almost 10 times more traffic than this one, when searching for "Golden Grand Slam" on Google, the Grand Slam (tennis) page is the first Wikipedia's one to appear, on the first page, and when searched here, that page is the first to appear, and this one is only the fourth one to appear, so it's way more likeky that someone would end up there than here when searching for these terms.

And that's how this stuff should work, since this list is supposed to be accessed by people who already have a grasp about these concepts, so it doesn't make sense to elaborate further on concepts that are already covered by an article that exists for this. If we keep adding info that don't aggregate to the understanding to these lists, it could have adverse effects to it:

• Per MOS:LONGSEQ, prose should be limited to what's necessary to understand the subject, otherwise the prose format should take precedence over lists and tables, per MOS:USEPROSE, and if that's the case than the subject doesn't belong here, since this is a List article so by definition its info should be formatted to be a list.
• It could open a precedent that could bloat the article overall with other denominations. Aside from "Golden Slam" and "Golden Grand Slam", there are other denominations used to refer to this achievement, so we coud end up with phrases like A player who wins all four majors and the Olympic gold medal (or a Paralympic gold medal) in a single season is said to have achieved a A player who wins all four majors and the Olympic gold medal (or a Paralympic gold medal) in a single season is said to have achieved a "Golden Slam", or "Golden Grand Slam", or "Calendar Golden Slam", or "Calendar-Year Golden Slam", and etc. And we have to consider that all the other concepts also have alternative denominations, with no good counter-argument to impede it. The Grand Slam concept is especially notorious for having multiples names and acronyms.
• It could lead to here becoming more and more similar to the Grand Slam (tennis) article, and that would be WP:REDUNDANT, and that could lead to a undesired merge for WP:OVERLAP. Honestly, one could already argue that all these sections without tables could be merged back into the Grand Slam (tennis) article, since there's no information here that is not already stated there.

Even if someone, for whatever reason, end up here first with no prior knowledge on the subject, the can easily navigate their way to the proper articles, as long as they are properly linked here. We don't need to spoon-feed the reader, they can feed themselves as long as the info is kept properly organized and connected. Even elementary kids undertsand the concept of links and know how to use them, sometimes even better than proper adults. ABC paulista (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not have sub-pages. This should be a standalone article and the subject matter, if possible, should be explained. This is such a simple thing that I have no idea why you would object. This is not an expose on the subject, this is short and sweet. And readers get directed here for Novak Djokovic' article, Jannik Sinner's article, Chris Evert's article, and heaps of others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

No article exists within a bubble, all of them are supposed to be inteconnected to give the reader the option to move into anoter topics, in order to either gain better understanding or related concepts that they had little or no prior knowledge, or to expand futher on specific subject that they found particularly interesting, because every subject requires knowledge of related concepts in order to be properly understood, but it's not their purpose to explain on those, so they link to those that do expand on them.

No article is supposed to go futher beyond its own scope and since this is a WP:STANDALONE list article, its scope is limited to the understanding of the data that it display. The List of FIFA World Cup finals don't need to cite that the sport is also known as "soccer" in some countries in order to properly convey its contents, since there's a proper article that covers this question for those who might need, or the List of the most intense tropical cyclones doesn't need to cite why they are called either "Cyclones", "Hurricanes" or "Typhoon", because that's the kind of knowledge required for one to understand the information displayed there, but that knowledge itself has no bearing on that content per se, thus explanation for the different terminology is displayed in its proper article.

Also, remember that 3 years ago we agreed to move the tables that were previously on the Grand Slam page to here and the ones specific to each discipline, in order to better organize the contents. And with that the functions were divided with that one becoming a prose article focusing on explaining the concepts (terminology included) and this one serving to display notable data about these. ABC paulista (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We appear to be polar opposites on this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I created a redirection on Golden Grand Slam‎, that leads to that article's Golden Slam section. ABC paulista (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Just as a head's up. The following wiki markup

{{sticky header}}
{| class="wikitable sticky-header"
|-class=sticky-row

is reserved for containing long tables in div scroll to save up on vertical scrolling (for aesthetic purposes), not for short tables. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Career Grand Slam table

Consensus was reached to include all instances of a Career Grand Slam by separating able-bodied tennis (main and junior tours) from wheelchair tennis. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should we add a table for the Carrer Slam instances? Although that would seem to be the proper way to go since all the other Grand Slam-related tables are included here, I'm concerned about the size of such, which could be 4 of 5 times bigger than the current Carrer Golden and Super Slams are. ABC paulista (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Only just now seeing the topic. You can mention in a sentence how many players have completed the career grand slam overall OR you can add a collapsed table with all the instances. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I feel like mentioning the amount of players who achieved it would overlap with a similar table on the Grand Slam (tennis)#Career Grand Slam, so I'd favor the latter option. ABC paulista (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I transcluded said table to the top of the section to save up on space or list all of them in a collapsed table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I kinda disagree, due to WP:REDUNDANT. If they were to be mentioned here, I feel that making a full table would have some value that woudn't be found anywhere. My only concern is about the size, but if that's not a problem, then I can make it no problem. ABC paulista (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Another option, maybe due to consistency and page size, both the Career Golden Slam and the Career Super Slam should have their info transcluded from the same page, instead of having their own table. That's also an option, if it's deemed that these tables don't bring enough noteworthy info to justify their standalone existance. ABC paulista (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Either transclude the 3 (career grand, golden and super slam) tables for consistency or create a standalone career grand slam one to list all 3 combination instances in their respective tables. The page is well below the readable page size threshold per WP:SIZERULE (see current page size), which consists mostly of tables, which don't count towards prose. Adding the career grand slam table will add to the page's markup size but not prose.Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I tried to transclude the Career Slam tables, but it didn't work. If possible, could you please transclude them here? I'm thinking of making a table "per player" instead of the current "per instance", to showcase and highlight the amount of times each palyer achieved them per discipline. ABC paulista (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC) You can transclude a section or part of it (such as a table) with the help of Help:Labeled section transclusion#Markup. To transclude parts of section encompass the part you want to transclude with <section begin=X name/> and <section end=X name/> on the source page and then use {{#section:section name|section label}} on the target page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Meant to write without div. Apologies. See example: (transclusion markup on source page, followed by transclusion on target page). Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Which career slam tables did you mean? Can you give an example of "per player" table? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I gave it some thought and I think I get which tables you meant. Would you like all the career slam tables: List of Grand Slam men's singles champions#Career Grand Slam List of Grand Slam women's singles champions#Career Grand Slam List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions#Career Grand Slam List of Grand Slam women's doubles champions#Career Grand Slam List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions#Career Grand Slam List of men's wheelchair tennis champions#Career Grand Slam List of women's wheelchair tennis champions#Career Grand Slam List of quad wheelchair tennis champions#Career Grand Slam List of men's wheelchair tennis champions#Career Grand Slam List of women's wheelchair tennis champions#Career Grand Slam List of quad wheelchair tennis champions#Career Grand Slam transcluded separately to the Career Grand Slam section one below the other or all merged into one big table? I assume no juniors, only main tour and wheelchair. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Made a draft of tables listed separately. Thoughts? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC) My original idea was to merge them all together, juniors included, and format them on the same way that the others are currently formatted. But currently I'm favoring the "per player" table, since it seems to offer more "original" context and require less work to be updated. ABC paulista (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC) If I understand you correctly, you would have all main, wheelchair and junior listed in 1 merged compact "per player" table. With "years of completion" or just "how many times" a player completed CGS? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Mostly "how many times", linking to the respective sections to each respective discipline, where the years could be seen. ABC paulista (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Similar to the CGS's table format? Qwerty284651, which wikilinks to the respective sections but you would rather have it per player. I feel a single instance of a link to the respective section will suffice. Linking it for each player each time can come off as repetitive. (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC) No, I explained it below. Maybe the discussion could continue there. ABC paulista (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Added a separate subsection for the table's format. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC) I meant something like the "Per Player" table on the "Winners" section, that the Grand Slam article used to have. ABC paulista (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Jrs mixed in with pros???? I wouldn't list the wheelchair aspect merged together either. I'd have to see it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I don't mind not having juniors. We already have charts with both pro and wheelchair in List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I mean, in the current tables they are all already merged together, so I don't see any issue on the matter. ABC paulista (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC) "Per player" table format discussion @ABC paulista, can you provide an example, please? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Qwerty284651 I've took the liberty to add my proposal in your sandbox, so you, Fyunck(click) and anyone elase can review. My idea is that these tables would substitute the current ones for the Grand, Golden and Super Slams. Maybe we could also add the same for the other kinds of slams as well. ABC paulista (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC) I would list the actual disciplines: men's singles, quad doubles, etc., not just senior and wheelchair. Also, senior is for retired players, pro is for active. And many missing instances of CGS need to be added. I removed the old table so we can edit only one table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC) I'd like to see your proposal about the disciplines, how it'd work. ABC paulista (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC) You would need 2 more columns for the wheelchair quads singles and doubles, because you can't list them under mixed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC) I did my part. Only the missing players and instances of CGS need adding. The ball's on your side of the court. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Version 1 S Singles D Doubles X Mixed doubles QS Quad singles QD Quad doubles Player Discipline Grand Slams S D X QS QD No. Margaret Court Senior 1 2 3 Rod Laver Senior 2 2 Esther Vergeer Wheelchair 2 Don Budge Senior 1 1 Ken McGregor Senior 1 Frank Sedgman Senior 1 Maureen Connolly Senior 1 Maria Bueno Senior 1 Ken Fletcher Senior 2 Owen Davidson Senior 2 Stefan Edberg Junior 1 Martina Navratilova Senior 1 Pam Shriver Senior 1 Steffi Graf Senior 1 Martina Hingis Senior 1 Korie Homan Wheelchair 1 Sharon Walraven Wheelchair 1 Aniek van Koot Wheelchair 1 Jiske Griffioen Wheelchair 1 Stéphane Houdet Wheelchair 1 Yui Kamiji Wheelchair 1 Jordanne Whiley Wheelchair 1 Version 1 added for archiving purposes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I think that quad players could also be listed under singles and doubles, and the distinction could be made under the "Discipline" column. ABC paulista (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Wheelchair" and "wheelchair quad" in lieu of the 2 quad columns? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Yes, that's the idea. Or, we could divide the disciplines the same way they are on the ones currently used at the Grand Slam (tennis) article, with each individual discipline having their own column. That could be useful in case any player achieve slams on both junior and professional categories. ABC paulista (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Added a todo list. Feel free to add if I missed anything. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Yeah, I do not like the term senior at all. Are they on medicare? And "discipline" is not the correct term. Discipline is something like women's singles, not the tour they compete under. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Well, these are provisional terms, just placeholders for the finalized table. Since we're still brainstorming this, there's plenty of time for any changes to be made. ABC paulista (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC) New versions I added versions 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a and 3b in my sandbox. Leaning towards 2a or 3b. Would gladly scratch version 1 to avoid the confusion with disciplines and the usage of "senior". Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Version 2a S Singles D Doubles X Mixed doubles WCS Wheelchair singles WCD Wheelchair doubles QS Wheelchair quad singles QD Wheelchair quad doubles Player Discipline S D X WCS WCD QS QD No. Margaret Court 3 2 4 9 Esther Vergeer 3 3 Rod Laver 2 2 Don Budge 1 1 Ken McGregor 1 Version 2b S Singles D Doubles X Mixed doubles WCS Wheelchair singles WCD Wheelchair doubles QS Wheelchair quad singles QD Wheelchair quad doubles Player Discipline S D X WCS WCD QS QD No. Margaret Court 3 2 4 - - - - 9 Esther Vergeer - - - - 3 - - 3 Rod Laver 2 - - - - - - 2 Don Budge 1 - - - - - - 1 Ken McGregor - 1 - - - - - Version 2c S Singles D Doubles X Mixed doubles WCS Wheelchair singles WCD Wheelchair doubles QS Wheelchair quad singles QD Wheelchair quad doubles Player Discipline S D X WCS WCD QS QD No. Margaret Court 3 2 4 N/A 9 Esther Vergeer N/A 3 N/A 3 Rod Laver 2 N/A 2 Don Budge 1 N/A 1 Ken McGregor 1 N/A Version 3a No. Player Notes 9 Margaret Court 3x women's singles, 2x women's doubles, 4x mixed doubles 3 Esther Vergeer 3x wheelchair doubles 2 Rod Laver 2x men's singles 1 Don Budge 1x men's singles Ken McGregor 1x men's doubles Version 3b No. Player Notes 9 Margaret Court 3x women's singles, 2x women's doubles, 4x mixed doubles 3 Esther Vergeer 3x wheelchair doubles 2 Rod Laver 2x men's singles 1 Don Budge 1x men's singles Ken McGregor 1x men's doubles Added versions 1-4 for archiving purposes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC) I prefer 2b because I don't like empty cells on a table, and I feel that such tables would have a lot of them ABC paulista (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC) On first look I far prefer the 3a/3b charts, 3a the best. No one has to decipher a key. My biggest concern is still the bit of lumping them together. Do outside sources lump them together? Edberg's 1 equaling Mo Connolly's 1? Vergeer's total compared to Navratilova's? To be honest It's probably hard to find women's singles compared to men's. Because if we cant find reliable standard websites (not betting sites) comparing all these totals we could be looking at original research. That can come back to bite us at a future date. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC) I think that neither totaling them together, nor equating their notability are the main point here, but to show who did in what discipline in a simple way, that can also distinguish itself from other articles, and some players did in fact achieve some of those in multiple disciplines. That's why I think that it's important for the table to be sortable, in which both option 3 wouldn't work. For all intentions and purposes, the current structure employed here already lump them together, but in a way that can be considered redundant with the lists that aleady exist on each disciplines' respective pages. ABC paulista (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC) But once you put in into a No. column you are automatically comparing their totals against each other. So Margaret Court has three Grand Slams and Edberg has one Grand Slam. It's why it wouldnt be such a bad idea to have these tables split by discipline and sex. They'd be one after another but you'd be comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges instead of apples with oranges. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC) @Fyunck(click):, your little correction changes everything. I thought you were against the splitting of the table by sex and discipline. This pretty much debunks/rejects version 4. Next time sign your correction or cross it out with strikethrough. If I hadn't checked the history, I wouldn't have noticed the change. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Here is version 5: a variation of version 1, accounting for Fyunck's It's why it wouldnt be such a bad idea to have these tables split by discipline and sex.. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Version 5 S Singles D Doubles.X Mixed doubles Player Discipline Classes S D X Margaret Court Women's 3 2 4 Esther Vergeer Wheelchair women's - 3 - Rod Laver Men's - 2 - Don Budge Men's - 1 - Ken McGregor Men's - 1 - Dylan Alcott Wheelchair quad 2 1 - For me, Version 5 is the one to go. About the column name, we could name it "Tour", or "Division" which is the one used by ITF in its website to describe them. ABC paulista (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Division are pretty much disciplines. But where would you place "men's" and "women"s? Gender? The columns has both genders as well as the wheelchair/quad + gender (singles), (doubles) that are omitted from the discipline description and added in the subsequent columns instead. Sort of as a hybrid of gender/discipline. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Now they are called classes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Only in the paralympics, but I don't see issue with this terminology. ABC paulista (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Is it really necessary to divide per gender? If yes, then maybe Version 4 would work better than this one. ABC paulista (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC) What would you call it instead of women's singles (singles is one of the tally columns)? I omitted singles/doubles from the discipline column to avoid double mentioning singles/doubles. If we had all disciplines listed in the 2nd column, then we revert back to listing them by disciplines ONLY and thus making the last 3 "tally" columns obsolete, thereby going backwards. The goal is to list all instances in a table with as few columns as possible. V5 I think best fits the bill. I would name the column: "classes" with a note: "Singles" and "doubles" already included in the third and fourth columns." Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC) In this case, we can only call them "men's" and "women's", without any other distinction. The tournaments themselves don't add any other distinction for them, adding distinctions on the wheelchair, junior and invitational ones. We could follow suit. ABC paulista (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Invitationals? As in legends? Ages above 45? Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Yes, that's what Wimbledon calls them, at least. ABC paulista (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC) You want those added as well? Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC) No, these are invitation/exhibitional, not proper competitions. AFAIK no one tally the winners, I don't think that the tournaments themselves include them as oficial champions as well. ABC paulista (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC) So, not include them then. No, they aren't official events. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Named the column "classes" until we come up with a better name for it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Is there anything else you want modified for the "CGS per player" table or is it pretty much settled? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC) I think that the table is now complete, the result is great IMO. I'm thinking of waiting until weekend to implement them here, to see if anyone else gives feedback on it. ABC paulista (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC) How would you like to have it sorted initially? By player in alphabetic order or most disciplines? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Alphabetical seems the easier way to keep it mantained and updated, IMO. ABC paulista (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Very well. Will you create the table yourself? Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC) That's the idea, it's the easy part now that we settled at a standardized format. But if you want to do it youself, feel free to. ABC paulista (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC) I made the 1st column sort sort alphabetically. I can do the formatting afterwards. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC) And what would v6 be used for? Didn't we settle with v5? ABC paulista (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC) We did settle with V5. I am using V6 as a springboard to make V5 faster, because all the required data is in V6. We just need to compile it in V5. "Player" column now sorts alphabetically for ease of V5 table creation. That's all. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC) I see, fine then. ABC paulista (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC) Here is a headstart. Feel free to finish the rest. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Thanks, I'll work the rest this week. ABC paulista (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Version 5 continued discussion Thanks for creating the table. By initial alphabetic order I meant sorting alphabetically by last name not first name. When you click the sorting arrow in the first column "Player" it sorts by last name not first. See the sort code in source. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC) I noticed that, that's why I chose to organize them alphabetically by first name, so it would show a different order when the column was sorted by clicking the arrow. I also thought about organizing them by nationality, but since some of them represented multiple countries througout their career, I realized that it wouldn't have worked as well as desired. ABC paulista (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Do we add dashes - in the empty cells or not? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Maybe, but more importantly I think that a "N/A" should be added in the "Mixed" column for the disciplines that don't hold such competitions, like Wheelchair and Junior ones. ABC paulista (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC) For N/A we can use {{n/a}}, for e.g., {{n/a|n/a}} or {{n/a|N/A}} or {{n/a|-}}. Or a plain n/a or N/A without the gray background that {{n/a}} creates. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) I think that the grey background is necessary to emphasize the idea that these events aren't contested, but maybe it hould be better if the cells were colored grey as a whole, not only areond the letters. ABC paulista (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC) I added the n/a. Do you want uppercase N/A or lowercase n/a inside the n/a template? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Both are good, but I kinda prefer uppercase. ABC paulista (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Here's 6 variations of n/a you can choose from below. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Version 5 variations with N/A A player who wins all four majors during his or her career is said to have achieved a "Career Grand Slam". S Singles D Doubles X Mixed doubles n/a Disciplines unavailable Version 5a Per player Player Discipline Class S D X Yui Kamiji Wheelchair women 4 n/a Version 5b Per player Player Discipline Class S D X Yui Kamiji Wheelchair women 4 N/A Version 5c Per player Player Discipline Class S D X Yui Kamiji Wheelchair women 4 n/a Version 5d Per player Player Discipline Class S D X Yui Kamiji Wheelchair women 4 N/A Version 5e Per player Player Discipline Class S D X Yui Kamiji Wheelchair women 4 - Version 5f Per player Player Discipline Class S D X Yui Kamiji Wheelchair women 4 – I prefer 5d if we are to add the dashed on the cases where players didn't achieve a Cerrer Slam. If not, then 5F seems slightly more pelasing to the eyes. ABC paulista (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Either one, 5d or 5f, works for me. Your call. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Then, let's go with 5F for now. ABC paulista (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Done. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Versions continued discussion There's no need for a column to show the total of times each player achieved such, just counting the amount of times per discipline for each player is enough. The objective is to tally the numbers, not to rank them. ABC paulista (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC) Since there is no need for a "totals" column, we can have a sortable table: M-men's W-women's S-singles D-doubles X-mixed (doubles) WC-wheelchair Q-quad JR/J-junior col1: the 1st column "Players" for players listed in alphabetic ascending order; either: a) col2-onwards: a column for each discipline (which will create a messy wide table: MS, MD, WS, WD, XD, WCMS, WCMD, WCWS, WCWD, QS, QD, JRS, JRD,...) b) col2: a "discipline" column: differentiating between men's, women's and WC variations (regular and quad) – excluding singles, doubles and mixed + col3-5: S, D, X (hybrid table of discipline and S D X columns, where singles, doubles, and mixed are indicated with the 3 columns; 5 in total). We can merge all tables of the aforementioned disciplines' tables into 1 following the same table layout in the section. The newly created table would take up cca. 30kB (cca. 70kB for the whole section=1/3 of page's size). We can resolve this by moving the section to a namesake page or subpage and then trasclude it to the main article to reduce load time (albeit minimal). Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC) With the per player "career grand slam table" added, the Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics section takes up 35% of the whole article (82 out of 232 kB). The only logical explanation is to split the article by moving the section to a new page and then transclude it to this page without changing the main page's appearance just reduce the latter's size. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC) My idea is to apply the same table format in the other subsections, so I assume that the section's size will shrink a bit. We should wait until it's done to decide any further changes, but right off the bat I don't see how beneficial would be such split aside from the size matter. ABC paulista (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC) I would retain the current layout of the other tables. Maybe merge multiple instances into 1 (example). By reducing the page's size, the loading time for the page reduces as well. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Summer articles#Progress tables. They've been put on their own pages and then transcluded (three behemoths: table 1, table 2 and table 3). I am not saying all tables should go on their own page (or subpage) but rather on one (a one stop shop) for ease of editing. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC) I idealized this table in order to link to the respective instances in their respective disciplines' articles, in order to standardize their layout and reduce redundancy between them. It wouldn't make sense for a specific table to be developed and be applied in only the Career Slam cases. And I don't think that merging the instances would work well, when there's many playes and many disciplines to consider. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Isn't 2b my original suggestion? If yes, what would be the nomeclature adopted for the "disciplines"? ABC paulista (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC) Version 4 MS Men's singles MD Men's doubles XD Mixed doubles WS Women's singles WD Women's doubles WMS Wheelchair men's singles WMD Wheelchair men's doubles QS Wheelchair quad singles WWS Wheelchair women's singles WWD Wheelchair women's doubles QD Wheelchair quad doubles Player Discipline MS MD WS WD XD WMS WMD WWS WWD QS QD Margaret Court - - 3 2 4 - - - - - - Esther Vergeer - - - - - - - - 3 - - Rod Laver 2 - - - - - - - - - - Don Budge 1 - - - - - - - - - - Ken McGregor - 1 - - - - - - - - - In my opinion: it should still be called "discipline", as it encompasses them specifically. Spekaing of which, I created version 4 (see above), where I've listed all disciplines to avoid lumping thereof as that might appear as original research per Fyunck; included all disciplines sans juniors (as the jury is still out on that one: 2 other instances are missing from the section, so TBD on the juniors discipline's inclusion). Although the table's wide it does list all disciplines (with sticky headers navigating the table will be unhindered). Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC) About juniors, honestly I see no "jury" on these ones, since they are legit regarded in the tennis world: ITF includes Edberg's calendar slam on its "roll of honour", and the Hall of Fame also highlight it, while Kratzmann's career doubles' one is mentioned. Being juniors doesn't undermine or invalidade the achievement itself, they are as valid as the others conceptwise. ABC paulista (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC) It is a phrase: "jury is out". I am not against its addition. Only saying it hasn't been decided for it. Since edberg's JR CGS and Kratzmann's junior records have never been added in CGS and related records lists. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC) I know that it's a slang, is just that I don't see a valid discussion on the matter, because the matter is about the achievement and not the disciplines, so any competition that is held in all 4 slams are eligible to achieve a Slam. Outside wikipedia there aren't many CGS lsts, and almost all only list the able-bodied singles' ones, so I wouldn't put much stock on the lack of mentions on those. ABC paulista (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC) It's technically a colloquial phrase not slang but that is not the point of this discussion. I would already add the junior instances: singles and junior doubles CGS records as I see we are reaching consensus on their addition but not before we come up with a color code like we have for the other disciplines. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC) I do question the necessity of color codes in this case, but on the older Grand Slam page it was green. ABC paulista (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Good question. Do we need color codes for disciplines at all. They are there just for aesthetics more than anything. If we decide to keep the colors, then we still need to decide on a color for junior doubles RGB color picker. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC) There would be no need to pick up a color for discipline, only for tour/gender. Version 4 list the disciplines on its columns, and version 5 don't make distinction between singles, doubles and mixed outside. Specifing singles/doubles/mixed on a column outside the tallying would be unnecessary. ABC paulista (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Got it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Versions continued discussion 2 Right now I'd lean towards version 6. It's the cleanest that needs no deciphering. It's separated by discipline which most readers would expect. I do wonder the same as ABC on whether we actually need links to every event they won. Why not a column that says "Year of completion" and only list the year that finalized the completion of the Career Grand Slam? One other thing. A chart like this could only be used on this article... it would have no precedence for another article unless it was brought to Tennis Project talk in it's final state. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC) @Fyunck(click), version 6 was used to create version 5. It is the truncated version with all CGS instances of a player merged into 1 to reduce size and simplify it by removing the 4 majors columns. Although V5 deviates from the rest of the charts in the section by design, it allows for a simpler look. ABC proposed to have Version 5, namely 5f,'s format be applied to the rest of the charts to decrease the overall page's size. See #Versions continued discussion: The newly created table would take up.... What are your thoughts on that? Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Sorry, but your version 5 6 is by far the best. I'd have it in a sliding chart, but chronological by discipline is the way to go. If you don't like a name being done multiple times, that can easily be remedied by only showing the year of completion. That person would have multiple years of completion. You would simply add the year of each completion, and next to the person's name it would (5x). It always seems like people try to cram too much into a chart, use more and more one or three-letter abbreviations, and they become busier and busier and harder to read. As far as applying it to other charts, not a fan at all. The Grand Slam winner chart is by far the best and doesn't need tinkering. You made it into a slide chart, and that's fine since it didn't destroy the essence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Sorry, but your version 5 is by far the best. Version 5 or version 6? I am confused. If you don't like a name being done multiple times, that can easily be remedied by only showing the year of completion. That person would have multiple years of completion. You would simply add the year of each completion, and next to the person's name it would (5x). Can you provide an example of what this chart would look like in your sandbox or here? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Sorry I meant 6. So just the mens section like this: Version 6 Player Discipline Year of completion Fred Perry Men's singles 1935 Don Budge 1938 Rod Laver 1962, 1969 Roy Emerson (2x) 1964, 1967 Andre Agassi 1999 Roger Federer 2009 Rafael Nadal (2x) 2010, 2022 Novak Djokovic (3x) 2016, 2021, 2023 Version 6b Separate tables, so "Men's singles" would be: Men's singles Player Completion Fred Perry 1935 Don Budge 1938 Rod Laver 1962, 1969 Roy Emerson (2x) 1964, 1967 Andre Agassi 1999 Roger Federer 2009 Rafael Nadal (2x) 2010, 2022 Novak Djokovic (3x) 2016, 2021, 2023 or together tables: Men's singles Player Completion Fred Perry 1935 Don Budge 1938 Rod Laver 1962, 1969 Roy Emerson (2x) 1964, 1967 Andre Agassi 1999 Roger Federer 2009 Rafael Nadal (2x) 2010, 2022 Novak Djokovic (3x) 2016, 2021, 2023 Women's singles Player Completion Maureen Connolly 1953 Doris Hart 1954 Shirley Fry Irvin 1957 Margaret Court (3x) 1963, 1965, 1970 Billie Jean King 1972 Chris Evert (2x) 1982, 1984 Martina Navratilova (2x) 1983, 1984 Steffi Graf (4x) 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995 Serena Williams (3x) 2003, 2013, 2015 Maria Sharapova 2012 It's easy to read, no key needed, it's chronological, and it's by discipline with no bolding needed. Whether we link the year of completion is optional. ABC paulista I believe was saying we don't need to list/link every year and I agree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC) I am still leaning towards V5 because of its simplicity and combined instances of each player. In V6 I would color code all disciplines and wikilink them to their respective pages; bolden the years when a Calendar Grand Slam was achieved, albeit those are few. Rename "year of completion" to "year" (to keep the column narrow) without links. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Navratilova, Shriver have had consecutive years of CGS success: merging the years (1983-85) looks better than (1983, 1984, 1985)...years may vary, just throwing an example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Color code is fine, linking the discipline is fine, unlink the year is fine. 1983-85 is fine but is a little less visual. Many readers scroll down a chart (like me) and can readily see if someone won more than another. With 1983-85 it will look like they won less than 1986, 1999. Wikipedia has said over and over that we need to keep bolding to a minimum. If we only have a single year in a column we have no need to bold it. And if we have only "year" some reader is surely going to say year? year of start or year of end? I recall that happening in another chart. Once you have someone winning 3x like Djokovic, or 5x for other folks, that is wider than Year of completion. One of the problems with V.5 is all the disciplines are merged together on first visual. That's a deal breaker in my book. Readers want to see it by discipline not wheelchairs merged with singles. Plus how the heck did you come up with the player name order? I cant figure it out. And the classes are really confusing too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Okay, fine. "Year of completion" it is. As long as it wraps in 2 lines, it's fine. Players are ordered by first name in alphabetic ascending order (ABC's idea) I noticed that, that's why I chose to organize them alphabetically by first name, so it would show a different order when the column was sorted by clicking the arrow... Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Here is the part of discussion about the alphabetical order. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC) By merging disciplines we had to come up with a way to distinguish between singles, doubles and mixed as well as wheelchair. There are disciplines such wheelchair men's singles, doubles, etc. All "singles", "doubles" and "mixed doubles" were removed from the disciplines' names in the "class", for lack of a better term, column because they were already represented in S, D and X columns. This was the thinking process behind version 5's design. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC) When I unhide your version 5 above it is NOT in alphabetical order by first name. I have no idea what order it's in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC) I am talking about the final version (V 5f), which is already implemented in the article List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Career Grand Slam diff. The one you are referring to is just a design template I added for archiving purposes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Ah. Trouble is the version in highlights in this talk is not 5f. I can't see a 5f heading and when people look back through these discussions the only version 5 is the one I see listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC) In my opnion, the V6 is a mere copypaste of the various tables that exist in each respective discipline's lists, and if it were to be apllied here it sould be sorted chronologially overall, encompassing all disciplines, similar to how the Grand Slam, Career Golden Slam and Career Super Slam currently are, in order to distinguish itself from the others. That would be quite the undertaking. Another advantage that I see for the V5 over the V6 is that it makes easier for the reader to compare players and disciplines with each other. For example, if one wants to see which were the players who achieved it in multiple disciplines, V5 makes it easier to find than scrooling around V6. ABC paulista (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Fyunck(click), I like your V6 but I think it would work better if applied for the Calendar and Non-Calendar ones, since these are sequential within one or 2 years. But for the Career Slam it doesn't work as well since the process of achieving it can last multiple years, maybe even a whole career. ABC paulista (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC) And that's a reasonable objection. I guess the biggest beef is that I like it separated right off the bat by discipline, and I think readers would want that too. Plus the chart we have now at Career Grand Slam has that weird "class" which may only be used in parolympic events. That class should be dumped and replaced with discipline and the discipline above removed. All disciplines should be together and if you then want the names sorted alphabetically by discipline, fine. Perhaps a table for each discipline and you can dump all the sorting. No one wants to compare boys wins with wheelchair wins. Or womens singles with mixed. Readers want to compare doubles with doubles and men's singles with men's singles. But you are correct that what may work for one would be cumbersome for the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC) But people do take some interest on who did them in multiple disciplines (that's one of the reasons why the "Boxed Set" is a thing) and I feel that V5 gives the reader more sorting possibilities than V6, making easier to make comparisons than the latter, while making the table shorter since it doesn't repeat names. One compromise that we could reach is to organize the V5 by class by default, so it would partially acquiesce your wish. I think that such would make the updating process a bit more cumbersome, but still completely doable. ABC paulista (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC) The problem with "class" is I had never heard of it before and I'm guessing 99.99% of readers haven't either. We use it in no other article I'm aware of. Same with strike rate. The only place I ever see that used is here at Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC) What would you call it instead of "class"? Because there is no real way to define a column which has: men, women, wheelchair and quad (it doesn't fall under any common category or anything). I would rather leave the column header empty, but that would go against MOS. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Like we've always done it, like the US Open does it, like the Olympics does it. Those are tennis disciplines. I have no idea why we have mixed up men's singles and men's doubles players, into just men. I think with wheelchair tennis they might use class to differentiate between Open and tetraplegic (quad) players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC) We mixed up to make the tables smaller and let the readers compare stats across players and disciplines more easily. The main topic of these aren't the players of the disciplines, but the achievement themselves. At the end of the day, there are players that did achieve it in multiple disciplines, and that was the way we found to avoid making a humongous copypaste of a table. ABC paulista (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC) And that's where we have a big disagreement. The disciplines are intrinsically linked to the achievement as is the player. Without it we compare apples to oranges. It seems like a mess to me and I'm glad no other table was created this way. As a reader myself I find this table almost useless. My usual search would be to find men's doubles Career Grand Slams chronologically through the years. If I submit an article to the press I want to know the last doubles player to achieve this feat. I want to know the first women's singles player to have done it for a class book report. Maybe if instead of a number in S,D,X you had the year completed? I'm not sure how to fix this chart but this could simply be one where we have separate charts for each discipline to make it easiest to navigate for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC) The achievement is intrinsically linked to the timeline and the tournaments, not the players and disciplines themselves. Any player can achieve it in any discipline, there's no disctinction in the achievement itself depending on the player or discipline, the only stiputaions are the order of tournaments won and the sequence it followed. Since the tennis world usually regards singles as more prestigious than doubles, and both more prestigious than mixed, they are counted separatedly and not encompassed together, specifically to avoid this apples-to-oranges comparison, which can happen sometimes like the HoF did with Margareth Court (and she stands alone as the only player in history to win three calendar-year Grand Slams (one in singles, two in mixed doubles). Overall, the V5 doesn't mix the information itself, it justorganize it differently: Instead of a linear configuration, it works more like a matrix. Actually, it organizes the information even more neatly separated than the ITF used to do, where the gender of the player wasn't considered. ABC paulista (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC) We are simply not going to agree on this. When you say "Any player can achieve it in any discipline, there's no disctinction in the achievement itself depending on the player or discipline" I will never agree with that. People hit three pointers in basketball too. But we don't lump NBA, WBA, college, little league, etc all together. We separate it out because those are different aspects of the sport. You will not convince me that winning a Career Grand Slam in doubles, singles, or quads, is even close to the same thing. It should be displayed by each discipline to be judged among peers of the same discipline and not mashed together in a blender. If it was chronological, at least we'd have division by time, but by discipline is the best way to handle it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC) I never said that they were the same thing, even acknowldged that that's the reason that the numbers aren't being summed at the end of the table, but at the end of the day, winning all 4 majors in men's singles is a Grand Slam, winning all 4 majors in mixed doubles is also a Grand Slam, winning all 4 majors in girls' doubles is also a Grand Slam, winning all 4 majors in wheelchair quad singles is also a Grand Slam, etc. Different prestige, same achievement. But about the table itself, they are not being mashed together, just being put in the same format. Think it like produtcs being put on the same shelf of a supermarket, just because they are on the same place doesn't mean they are being treated as the same product. ABC paulista (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC) That's not a bad analogy. All the Heinz string bean cans are lumped together, all the DelMonte string beans cans are lumped together separated away from the Heinz cans. Then we have the lima beans away from the string beans in their own section where we can decide which brand of lima beans to buy. And those beans are separated from the pork&beans, and those from the kidney beans. We dont put all of them together in a pile on the shelf just because they come under the heading beans so you have to search for what you want. We separate them and then separate them again so people can find at a glance exactly what they want. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Yes, they are all put in their own "cells", one above or below the other in "rows", but all in the same shelf. Just like the table is organized. ABC paulista (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Versions continued discussion 3 Since you're so adamant about the presence of the disciplines on their own, I have an idea on how to compromise both our wishes: Version 7 Player Singles Doubles Wheelchair singles Wheelchair doubles Junior singles Junior doubles Men Women Men Women Mixed Men Women Quad Men Women Quad Boys Girls Boys Girls Alfie Hewett 1 5 Billie Jean King 1 1 Diede de Groot 5 3 Margaret Court 3 2 4 Dylan Alcott 1 1 What's your opinion about it? ABC paulista (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC) @ABC paulista, the table's way too wide with the full name of the disciplines. You want something compact, abbreviated to minimize horizontal scrolling, which brings us back to version 4. See above. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC) I prefer V4, but I think that Fyunck(click) doesn't like the labels to be put outside the table (I could be wrong on this assessment, tho), so it comes down to how much he is willing to concede. ABC paulista (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC) I realize that this particular table is a tough fit no matter the choices. Let me look at V4 and the other versions a bit for this instance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC) @Fyunck(click), any update on the versions. Did you find one you like or should we look for other variations/alternatives? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC) I still think table 6 or 6b works the best. They need to be separated by discipline but we don't need every individual year listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC) I'd mostly agree with V6 (albeit I still stand that a chronological approach works better here) if it were to be applied for the Calendar Slam, but I still stand that it's actually the worst for the Career Slam, because I think that the years matter more ot it than for the "Non-Calendar" or "Calendar" variants, so for the "Career" variant IMO either all the years are shown or none, depending on the WP:SCOPE targetted. Honestly, I'd even prefer to ditch the tables in favor of just listing the links for the tables dedicated to each discipline than V6, they are better suited to provide this info and are more pertinent to their articles' WP:SCOPE. ABC paulista (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC) For me V6 works better than V6b because it's better to have 1 big table than 13 smaller ones (1 for each discipline:main, jr and wc). Looking at the latest 2 comments this all boils down to 2 options: 1. chronological or 2. by discipline. We can always go with the same format like every other table. Don't worry about the size though. That can easily resolved afterwards when all has been said and done. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Then we can go with my original idea, which was to create that giant table, combining all the tables in each discipline's lists into one, like you did during the process of implementing V5. But I still insist in about the chronological sorting as default, it's the way to be different from the discipline-dedicated tables while also following the same format used for the other tables in this section. ABC paulista (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC) I do want it chronological, but first by discipline. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC) I'm talking about how the Calendar and Non-Calendar Slam tables currently are organized, I can compromise on a Career Slam full table if it follows the same way as these are sorted. And these aren't sorted by discipline by default. ABC paulista (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC) I am working on the full table being sorted in initial chronological ascending order by year of career slam completion, which can then be sorted with a click of a sorting arrow/button by discipline. Kingly welcome to assist in my sandbox. Also, the juniors and the no.1 column are missing from the list. I pulled this version from an old revision. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC) I can do the sorting process, so you can focus on formatting and coding the table itself. Is that fine for you? ABC paulista (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Can you add the 2 junior instances as well? I can do the colors and formatting afterwards. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Of course, I'll try to have it all done before the end of the weekend. ABC paulista (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC) Okay, so the table's almost done. I am trying to figure out the spacing between the slam links and sorting arrows to avoid misclicking on the link when clicking an arrow in the first row. Which of the 4 options best minimizes the risk of accidentally clicking a link instead of a sorting arrow? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Version 8 AO Australian Open WIM Wimbledon FO French Open USO US Open No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Jean Borotra Mixed doubles 1928 1927 1925 1926 2 Fred Perry Men's singles 1934 1935 1934 1933 3 Don Budge Men's singles 1938 1938 1937 1937 4 Adrian Quist Men's doubles 1936 1935 1935 1939 5 Louise Brough Women's doubles 1950 1946 1946 1942 6 Frank Sedgman Men's doubles 1951 1951 1948 1950 7 Doris Hart Mixed doubles 1949 1951 1951 1951 Frank Sedgman (2) 9 Doris Hart (2) Women's doubles 1949 1951 1951 1951 10 Ken McGregor Men's doubles 1951 1951 1951 1951 11 Frank Sedgman (3) Men's doubles 1952 1952 1951 1951 12 Doris Hart (3) Mixed doubles 1950 1952 1952 1952 Frank Sedgman (4) 14 Maureen Connolly Women's singles 1953 1953 1952 1951 15 Doris Hart (4) Women's singles 1949 1950 1951 1954 16 Lew Hoad Men's doubles 1953 1953 1953 1956 Ken Rosewall 18 Shirley Fry Irvin Women's doubles 1957 1950 1951 1951 19 Shirley Fry Irvin (2) Women's singles 1957 1951 1956 1956 20 Neale Fraser Men's doubles 1957 1958 1959 1957 21 Maria Bueno Women's doubles 1960 1960 1958 1960 22 Neale Fraser (2) Men's doubles 1958 1960 1961 1960 23 Roy Emerson Men's doubles 1962 1960 1959 1959 24 Rod Laver Men's singles 1960 1962 1961 1962 25 Margaret Court Mixed doubles 1963 1963 1963 1961 26 Margaret Court (2) Women's singles 1960 1962 1963 1962 27 Ken Fletcher Mixed doubles 1963 1963 1963 1963 28 Margaret Court (3) Women's doubles 1961 1964 1964 1963 29 Lesley Turner Bowrey Women's doubles 1964 1964 1964 1961 30 Roy Emerson (2) Men's singles 1961 1963 1964 1961 31 Margaret Court (4) Mixed doubles 1964 1964 1965 1962 32 Fred Stolle Men's doubles 1963 1965 1962 1965 33 Margaret Court (5) Women's singles 1961 1964 1965 1965 34 Roy Emerson (3) Men's doubles 1966 1961 1961 1960 35 Margaret Court (6) Mixed doubles 1965 1965 1966 1963 36 Roy Emerson (4) Men's singles 1963 1967 1965 1964 37 Owen Davidson Mixed doubles 1965 1967 1967 1966 38 John Newcombe Men's doubles 1965 1967 1965 1967 Tony Roche 40 Billie Jean King Mixed doubles 1968 1967 1967 1967 41 Fred Stolle (2) Men's doubles 1964 1968 1964 1966 42 Margaret Court (7) Mixed doubles 1969 1969 1968 1964 43 Margaret Court (8) Women's doubles 1962 1965 1969 1968 44 Ken Rosewall (2) Men's doubles 1956 1968 1956 1969 45 Rod Laver (2) Men's singles 1962 1969 1962 1969 46 Margaret Court (9) Women's singles 1962 1969 1970 1969 47 Judy Tegart-Dalton Women's doubles 1964 1966 1969 1970 48 Roy Emerson (5) Men's doubles 1969 1962 1971 1965 49 John Newcombe (2) Men's doubles 1967 1969 1966 1971 50 Billie Jean King (2) Women's singles 1968 1972 1966 1967 51 John Newcombe (3) Men's doubles 1971 1973 1968 1973 52 Marty Riessen Mixed doubles 1969 1969 1975 1969 53 / Bob Hewitt Men's doubles 1963 1972 1962 1977 54 / Bob Hewitt (2) Mixed doubles 1961 1970 1977 1979 55 / Martina Navratilova Women's doubles 1980 1975 1976 1977 56 Kathy Jordan Women's doubles 1981 1980 1980 1981 Anne Smith 58 Martina Navratilova (2) Women's doubles 1982 1982 1979 1978 59 Chris Evert Women's singles 1982 1974 1974 1975 60 Martina Navratilova (3) Women's singles 1981 1982 1978 1983 61 Stefan Edberg Boys' singles 1983 1983 1983 1983 62 Martina Navratilova (4) Women's doubles 1983 1984 1981 1980 63 Pam Shriver Women's doubles 1982 1984 1981 1983 64 Martina Navratilova (5) Women's singles 1983 1984 1979 1984 65 Mark Kratzmann Boys' doubles 1984 1983 1983 1983 66 Chris Evert (2) Women's singles 1984 1975 1976 1976 67 Martina Navratilova (6) Women's doubles 1984 1985 1982 1983 68 Pam Shriver (2) Women's doubles 1983 1985 1982 1984 69 Martina Navratilova (7) Women's doubles 1985 1986 1983 1984 70 Martina Navratilova (8) Women's doubles 1987 1987 1984 1986 71 Pam Shriver (3) Women's doubles 1984 1987 1983 1986 72 Martina Navratilova (9) Women's doubles 1988 1988 1986 1987 73 Pam Shriver (4) Women's doubles 1985 1988 1984 1987 74 Steffi Graf Women's singles 1988 1987 1988 1988 75 John Fitzgerald Men's doubles 1982 1986 1989 1984 76 Anders Järryd Men's doubles 1987 1983 1989 1987 77 Steffi Graf (2) Women's singles 1989 1988 1989 1989 78 Helena Suková Women's doubles 1990 1990 1987 1985 79 Gigi Fernández Women's doubles 1993 1991 1992 1988 80 // Natasha Zvereva Women's doubles 1993 1989 1991 1991 81 Steffi Graf (3) Women's singles 1990 1993 1991 1993 82 Gigi Fernández (2) Women's doubles 1994 1992 1993 1990 83 / Natasha Zvereva (2) Women's doubles 1994 1992 1992 1992 84 Todd Woodbridge Mixed doubles 1993 1992 1994 1990 85 Jana Novotná Women's doubles 1990 1990 1989 1994 86 Mark Woodforde Mixed doubles 1992 1995 1993 1992 87 Steffi Graf (4) Women's singles 1994 1995 1992 1995 88 / Natasha Zvereva (3) Women's doubles 1997 1993 1993 1995 89 Jana Novotná (2) Women's doubles 1995 1991 1990 1997 90 Jacco Eltingh Men's doubles 1994 1995 1998 1994 Paul Haarhuis 92 Martina Hingis Women's doubles 1997 1998 1996 1998 93 Andre Agassi Men's singles 1995 1999 1992 1994 94 Todd Woodbridge (2) Men's doubles 1992 2000 1993 1995 Mark Woodforde (2) 96 Serena Williams Women's doubles 2001 1999 2000 1999 Venus Williams 98 / Martina Navratilova (10) Mixed doubles 2003 1974 1985 1985 99 Serena Williams (2) Women's singles 2003 2002 2002 1999 100 Jonas Björkman Men's doubles 1998 2005 2002 2003 101 Daniela Hantuchová Mixed doubles 2002 2005 2001 2005 102 Mahesh Bhupathi Mixed doubles 2006 1997 2002 1999 103 Lisa Raymond Women's doubles 2000 2006 2001 2001 104 Bob Bryan Men's doubles 2006 2003 2006 2005 Mike Bryan 106 Shingo Kunieda Wheelchair men's doubles 2007 2008 2006 2007 107 Daniel Nestor Men's doubles 2002 2007 2008 2004 108 Roger Federer Men's singles 2004 2009 2003 2004 109 Korie Homan Wheelchair women's doubles 2009 2009 2009 2005 110 Esther Vergeer Wheelchair women's doubles 2004 2007 2009 2005 111 Stéphane Houdet Wheelchair men's doubles 2010 2007 2009 2009 112 Cara Black Mixed doubles 2010 2002 2004 2008 113 Serena Williams (3) Women's doubles 2003 2010 2002 2009 Venus Williams (2) 115 Esther Vergeer (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2006 2008 2010 2006 116 Rafael Nadal Men's singles 2009 2005 2008 2010 117 Sharon Walraven Wheelchair women's doubles 2011 2011 2010 2010 118 Esther Vergeer (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2007 2009 2011 2007 119 Maikel Scheffers Wheelchair men's doubles 2011 2008 2011 2010 120 Leander Paes Men's doubles 2012 1999 1999 2006 121 Mahesh Bhupathi (2) Mixed doubles 2009 2012 2005 2005 122 Maria Sharapova Women's singles 2008 2012 2004 2006 123 Jiske Griffioen Wheelchair women's doubles 2006 2008 2012 2006 124 Michaël Jérémiasz Wheelchair men's doubles 2013 2009 2009 2005 125 Serena Williams (4) Women's singles 2005 2013 2003 2002 126 Bob Bryan (2) Men's doubles 2007 2013 2011 2008 Mike Bryan (2) 128 Jiske Griffioen (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2007 2013 2013 2007 129 Aniek van Koot Wheelchair women's doubles 2010 2010 2012 2013 130 Stéphane Houdet (2) Wheelchair men's doubles 2014 2009 2013 2011 131 Sara Errani Women's doubles 2013 2012 2014 2012 Roberta Vinci 133 Yui Kamiji Wheelchair women's doubles 2014 2014 2014 2014 Jordanne Whiley 135 Shingo Kunieda (2) Wheelchair men's doubles 2008 2010 2013 2014 136 Stéphane Houdet (3) Wheelchair men's doubles 2015 2010 2014 2014 137 Serena Williams (5) Women's singles 2007 2015 2009 2008 138 Martina Hingis (2) Women's doubles 1998 2000 1998 2015 139 Aniek van Koot (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2013 2013 2013 2015 140 Nicolas Peifer Wheelchair men's doubles 2016 2011 2015 2011 141 Martina Hingis (3) Mixed doubles 2006 2016 2015 2015 142 Leander Paes (2) Mixed doubles 2003 2016 1999 2008 143 Novak Djokovic Men's singles 2008 2016 2011 2011 144 Gordon Reid Wheelchair men's doubles 2017 2015 2016 2015 145 Yui Kamiji (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2015 2016 2015 2018 146 Diede de Groot Wheelchair women's doubles 2019 2018 2018 2017 147 Pierre-Hugues Herbert Men's doubles 2019 2018 2016 2015 Nicolas Mahut 149 Diede de Groot (2) Wheelchair women's singles 2018 2019 2017 2018 150 Dylan Alcott Wheelchair quad singles 2015 2019 2019 2015 151 Dylan Alcott (2) Wheelchair quad doubles 2018 2019 2019 2019 152 Aniek van Koot (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2017 2015 2019 2019 153 Gordon Reid (2) Wheelchair men's doubles 2020 2016 2017 2017 154 Alfie Hewett Wheelchair men's doubles 2020 2020 2016 2017 155 Yui Kamiji (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2016 2017 2016 2020 156 Jordanne Whiley (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2015 2016 2015 2020 157 Diede de Groot (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2021 2019 2019 2018 158 Gordon Reid (3) Wheelchair men's doubles 2021 2020 2018 2018 159 Diede de Groot (4) Wheelchair women's singles 2019 2021 2018 2019 160 Andy Lapthorne Wheelchair quad doubles 2011 2021 2019 2017 161 Alfie Hewett (2) Wheelchair men's doubles 2021 2021 2017 2018 162 Novak Djokovic (2) Men's singles 2011 2021 2014 2015 163 David Wagner Wheelchair quad doubles 2008 2019 2021 2007 164 Dylan Alcott (3) Wheelchair quad singles 2016 2020 2021 2018 165 Gordon Reid (4) Wheelchair men's doubles 2022 2021 2021 2019 166 Rafael Nadal (2) Men's singles 2022 2006 2010 2013 167 Diede de Groot (5) Wheelchair women's singles 2021 2022 2021 2020 168 Alfie Hewett (3) Wheelchair men's doubles 2022 2022 2018 2019 169 Shingo Kunieda (3) Wheelchair men's singles 2007 2007 2022 2007 170 Barbora Krejčíková Women's doubles 2022 2018 2018 2022 Kateřina Siniaková 172 Sam Schröder Wheelchair quad doubles 2023 2020 2022 2021 173 Niels Vink Wheelchair quad doubles 2023 2022 2022 2021 174 Andy Lapthorne (2) Wheelchair quad doubles 2012 2023 2021 2018 175 Diede de Groot (6) Wheelchair women's singles 2022 2023 2022 2021 176 Alfie Hewett (4) Wheelchair men's doubles 2023 2023 2021 2020 177 Novak Djokovic (3) Men's singles 2012 2023 2015 2018 178 Gordon Reid (5) Wheelchair men's doubles 2023 2022 2023 2020 179 Diede de Groot (7) Wheelchair women's doubles 2022 2020 2023 2019 180 Jiske Griffioen (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2008 2015 2023 2013 181 Yui Kamiji (4) Wheelchair women's doubles 2018 2023 2017 2023 182 Diede de Groot (8) Wheelchair women's singles 2023 2024 2023 2022 183 Alfie Hewett (5) Wheelchair men's doubles 2024 2024 2023 2021 184 Mate Pavić Men's doubles 2018 2024 2021 2020 185 Gordon Reid (6) Wheelchair men's doubles 2024 2023 2024 2021 186 Alfie Hewett (6) Wheelchair men's singles 2023 2017 2024 2018 Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Honestly, overall it seems me that the links below the arrows present more misclicking potential than the slam ones. It appears that the links below are closer to the arrows than all of the above ones are. ABC paulista (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC) You can click on any part of a cell with a sorting arrow to sort not just the arrow. The ones with the slam links are a bit obstructed as you have less space to click, because of the links. Should we add an empty row below the 1st row? Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC) I don't think so, the header has lots of clicking space so it shoudn't be an issue. Maybe follow the "WIM" alignment, just to be safe. ABC paulista (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Versions continued discussion 4 The sorting doesn't work. The two most important disciplines, womens or men's singles, get buried no matter how many times i click on discipline. And the individual event headers are not straight across. That looks weird. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC) The sorting can be fixed with "data-sort-value". You want what the tables in the Grand Slam subsection can do. Note:those are the only 2 tables in the last section that sort the disciplines properly by importance/recognizeability, the rest are sorted alphabetically. See my comment above👆 the posted table about the arrows and the follow-up discussion. We are testing out heights: . I am trying to figure out the spacing between the slam links and sorting arrows to avoid misclicking on the link when clicking an arrow in the first row. Which of the 4 options best minimizes the risk of accidentally clicking a link instead of a sorting arrow? Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC) It never occurred to me that link distance was a problem. USO is way more than enough room. If you are worried about that then why aren't you worried about the distance between the discipline sorting and mixed doubles? That distance is way more likely to make a mistake. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC) How about one of these versions regarding the sorting arrow distance? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC) I might not be the best at determining this distance. I rarely use my phone for any detailed search info on wikipedia. I like to see the whole thing when I'm looking at data or doing some research for writing an article. With a phone and it's small screen sometimes I'm lucky to see one or two cells of a table rather than a whole table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC) How about this version? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Something looks bizarre with two No. columns. And I've never seen a number column go from two 7's and then to 8. It would go to 9. But I'm not even sure why we have one number column let alone two. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC) That was the issue I was facing, because the first 2 tables (Grand Slam and Non-calendar-year Grand Slam) in Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics, don't go to 9 after a rowspan=2|7 but to 8 and, of course, the "Career Grand Slam" table. The rest of the tables in the section count rows normally. So I wasn't sure, whether we want them counted/listed 8 or 9 after a rowspan=2|7, for example. Glad to have figured that out. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC) It depends on what you're actually trying to count. If you're counting players, then the first nº makes more sense, but if you're counting instances, than the second one makes more sense. ABC paulista (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC) So, what do you reckon? Are we counting instances or players? To me, a team completing a CGS counts as 2 instances, even though they completed the feat together. Whichever we decide on I would implement that for the rest of the section as well, so it is unified. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Either way is fine by me, we can go with which one is the easier to code, format and mantain. ABC paulista (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC) On a second thought, looking at the description of each subsection it says in prose A player who wins all four majors...is said to have achieved a "XYZ Grand Slam". Because it states "player", we can count it by how many players instead of instances to keep it in line with the description. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC) IMO, the blank row is the worst one visually, and doesn't adress very well the issue with potential conflicts with the links below. For now, I think that the arrows being at the side of the the header (Without sort under) is the best one. ABC paulista (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Without sort under, having the arrows in same line with the col headers makes the table wider. The goal is to minimize the table's width. See other tables on the page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC) There's that too. Is there any way to move up the arrows in order to distance them a little from the rows? ABC paulista (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC) With style=padding-bottom=:Xem you can. See Template talk:Sort under#Regulating the arrow height. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC) What I mean is making them more centralized within their respective cells, farther from the bottom limit, while the text stays above the arrow on the upper limit. ABC paulista (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC) No, once centered the arrows stay to the bottom. You can click anywhere in a cell with an arrow to sort the column. You don't have to click ON the arrow itself to sort a column, you know. I asked on the template's talk page if the arrow can be centered vertically as well not just horizontally. Best I can do is Sorting arrow distance versions Version 1 No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Jean Borotra Mixed doubles 1928 1927 1925 1926 Version 2 No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Jean Borotra Mixed doubles 1928 1927 1925 1926 Version 3 No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Jean Borotra Mixed doubles 1928 1927 1925 1926 Version 4 No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Jean Borotra Mixed doubles 1928 1927 1925 1926 Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC) V2 seems to be the best option then, but maybe it could be a bit less stretched out. ABC paulista (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Lowered V2 to 2em. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Fixed No. 1 column and disciplines now sort properly User:Qwerty284651/sandbox#Career Grand Slam. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC) The "Career Grand Slam" table is finished and is ready to be implemented, unless somebody has something else to add. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC) IMO we're ready to go. ABC paulista (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC) If Fyunck has nothing to add, then by all means update the CGS table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Of those v2 is the best. Why would we allow sorting of the dates? There is little to no reason to do so. And I still don't think we need all four dates... just the date of completion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Well, we can disable sorting for the majors, but why would you leave only the year of completion? I thought we opted for this version out of the all tried above, which was ABC's original idea, to match the design of the other tables in the section, i.e. the style of the section. Unless, I missed something. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC) I have said it since the beginning and i think ABC also said it, why do we need all four dates? It's why I created version 6 and 6b above. Way simpler, allows for less name usage since you can do 3x, and a less wide table. You even thought "Year of completion" was fine. It's why I still thing something like 6b (apart or together works well. Separated by discipline, which everyone expects, and a simple list of those that accomplished it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Fyunck(click) I said that IMO we don't need the torunament's links for the "Calendar Slam" table, since mentioning the year it was achieved already tells the reader the editions of each tournament that each respective player won, meanwhile telling the player when they completed the Career Slam doesn't tell the reader when the they won the other 3 slams, so I think that mentioning the years for these are more useful than for the former. About the sorting the dates, one can simply counterargue with a "why not?". You may think that there's no point to such, still there's no harm either. Sorting exist to improve readability by giving more options to the reader to gather information or data without resorting to WP:LISTCRUFT, so I usually don't take issue with sorting that doesn't break the table's layout. ABC paulista (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC) I misunderstood your stance on listing all the dates... sorry. As for sorting, I think there is harm in over-sorting as it takes up more room. You sort when a list is long and you have items that need sorting... those dates have no reason to be sorted... it's more like "why" not "why not." It's like editors that get sloppy and sort the score column. I'm always having to remove that sorting. If there's a good reason for sorting of course we use it, otherwise it is not supposed to be there. There's not a lot I can do if you two like a table that I don't, but we have to be careful in important articles to the project. What you put on Grand Slam records is less important than what you put on Grand Slam (tennis). That really needs the project ok with a finished choice or two. If you are planning to use the same table on both articles then it should be a wikiproject tennis decision. It may still wind up 2 to 1 with the amount of participation I see these days at the project, and i have no problem with that at all if that's the way it goes. But I would present my choice also and see how it goes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Just because you don't see the use for a sorting, doesn't mean that it actually doesn't have any at all. I myself can find some interesting insights when sorting them in some ways, but even if that wasn't the case I woudn't just outright dismiss this possibility, so whenever it's possibile to alter the info's context when sorting the table, I'm always in favor of sorting. Also, Qwerty284651 can tell if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the increase in size in both spacial and data storage arisen from making a table sortable is negligible, and actually making columns unsortable within it further increases its data size. If you want to present your own ideas, go for it because this is the space for such, but bear in mind that I'm not willing to agree on tables that either are divided by discipline, or do a half-job at presenting the information (looking at V3 and V6). Also I feel like it's high time we decide on a definitive solution because this duscussion has been going on for a long time, and we already made 2 full tables in the meantime, both also taking a lot of time and effort to be made just to be dismissed, so I think we should land on a final decision before working on its implementation. If you prefer V2 of all those, fine by me as long that's the true final consensus, no going back, no more wasted effort. About the table's usage, I never intended to show it in any other article but here, transcluding to the Grand Slam article never crossed my mind. And if someone were to suggest such, I'd argue against it just like I argued against the transclusions of both the Calendar and Non-Calendar tables there. ABC paulista (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC) @Fyunck(click):, I wouldn't put the Career Grand Slam, i.e. transclude it, to the Grand Slam (tennis) article. Just the Calendar and Non-calendar year ones, that was already decided/agreed on in the discussion on the aforementioned page's talk page. Besides the table's way too long. Even if it were collapsed I still wouldn't put it elsewhere but on this page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Continued discussion 5 Interesting that ABC paulista is not willing to agree on tables that are "divided by discipline", while for me it's very important we separate it for our readers. My own ideas I have given multiple times... I'm guessing they were just dismissed by ABC paulista. Some of these changes are pretty massive so you should present them to the project and see if the efforts were wasted. As for sorting I'm in the opposite camp on that. If there can be shown a need we use it... if not or it's frivolous, we don't. If you two want each and every date of a career slam, I can live with that even if I think it's not needed. But I will always feel it should be divided by discipline (that goes for all the charts), and the sorting on the individual tournaments dates is absolutely ridiculous. As for trancluding it to the Grand Slam article I agree we should not. Plus that has already created a problem with the over population of sourcing on the one table that's now in both places. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Btw, @Fyunck(click), I have an updated version in my sandbox of the entire section with all charts INITIALLY sorted chronologically, but when you sort by discipline afterwards they all sort properly by listijg men's and women's singles first, then doubles, mixed, etc. If we had the tables sorted in initial discipline order, then it's impossible to sort them chronologically across 4 different columns for all 4 majors. I can live with sorting being disabled for the majors. As for the 2 charts being present on both pages, I only transcluded them because others wanted in the other discussion, but we can always revert that. Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC) Fyunck, adding to the issue that Querty presented about the technical aspect regard the ordering, there's also the issue that pretty much all the other tables on the subject are already sorted by discipline, or contains info solely about a specific discipline, so making another table sorted the same way would be redundant, just a cheap copypaste of them that would bring nothing new to the table, no new insight, no new perspective, etc. I think that our efforts should also strive to give the reader options, give the most amount of information using less space possible, we should broaden horizons instead of narrow visions or dictate how the information should be presented while negating, dismissing other possibilites, other perspectives. The tables I envisioned would provide insights that the other ones were unable to because of their narrower scopes, and I think that's beneficial to not repeat the same thing over, and over, and over ad eternum. And the sorting is part of such, because what you deem as "frivolous" might not be for others. The reader's demographics is broad and people can be looking for all kinds of information or stats, so why should we shut this possibility? It can't be considered as trivia because its totally contained within a notable info, it doesn't harm either the article or the list itself, it doesn't affect readability or disrupt the content itself, and doesn't take additional space. At best it's useful and at worst it's harmless, so again: Why not? About the dates themselves, note that the initial ideas were to not cite them because I was looking for more streamlined versions as I was concerned about the size of the full table (that ended up being materialized as V8). I tried to accomodate your demands to separate the disciplines as best as I could while trying to make them bring something new, but we don't seem to agree on them, so I tried V8 as the fullest option that neatly separes every aspect, but since that also didn't lead to a consensus, now I don't know how to proceed since I feel like I conceded all I could and tried my best to reach a compromise. And I don't think that's necessary to bring it up to the project because it's a simple table about a piece of information that was missing from the article, since the additions Querty made some months ago led it to be the only one not referred here. I just feel like that the wasted effort was in part because the objections that could have been made during the process of their creation, especially since their progress was fully documented in this talk page, and that could have halted their further progression, were made after the tables were already done. ABC paulista (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC) Sorry, I'm dealing with some lower back issues and am sometimes slow to respond. The thing is, this is an article on Grand Slam records, which is a pretty big thing to readers and WikiProject Tennis. When we have a disagreement of chart style, where better to get more eyes than the project itself? When I think about how items are best displayed for our readers in finding what they want it seems counter-intelligent to order it any way other than by discipline. We don't do totaling of records of disciplines in other aspects, and for the most part neither does the world. This isn't really a place for experimentation, we are supposed to show what is shown in most outside sources. In reality we are supposed to be showing full charts exactly as they are shown in other publications. If they are not shown as a group in other sources it starts to skirt original research here. Obviously we always have to battle that fine line of info with OR in how we present things here but we do have to be careful that it is presented in a manner that is intuitive and that readers would be most comfortable with. Womens's and men's singles winners should be top front and center. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC) I feel that the projects are to be involves when the matter relates to a whole portion of their contents, or at least multiple articles within it, and this case still seems to be firmly contained here. About the tables's organization, WP:OR concerns only about the table's contents, not how it's organized, and even MOS:TABLE doesn't dive into it, so they leave it open to ourselves to decide how the table should be made and organized based on our interpretation and decision. And there's surprisingly few sources that lists the stats that we do here in general (not only the slams), even when divided by disciplines because pretty much those are focused on singles, barely anything relating to doubles, and pretty much none for juniors or wheelchair, so its not that we have much to base from to begin with. And then comes the sorting: WP:WHENTABLE states that The sortability of tables makes them very useful for "List of..." articles in Wikipedia, which are intended to give an overview of the subject area, and to allow easy comparisons among many similar items. so one must be very careful when deeming sorting as "unnecessary", "frivolous" or "trivial", because that might not really equate to reality (i.e. we should not let our WP:POV dictate how the information can and cannot be presented to the reader). But as Qwerty pointed out, organizing the table chronologically by default lets the reader to organize it by discipline fairly easily, while the vice-versa doesn't apply, so organizing by discipline does harm it's utility and versatility (thus, one might argue that the chronological default is objectively the better option), especially when you consider that we already have this table specific for each discipline, like for men's singles, women's singles, both doubles and mixed ones, all wheelchair and both juniors, so even if the chronological didn't enable the discipline-sorting option, it wouldn't be too much of a problem because WP:WHENTABLE state that if appropriate, the reader should be able to click a Wikilink to read a full, detailed article corresponding to a concise table entry, but the same can't be said the other way: If this table doesn't allow the chronological sorting, a substituite can't be found anywhere whthin Wikipedia AFAIK. But again, it's not like options with full discipline speration weren't offered, both Version 4 and Version 7 separates the disciplines within their own columns, but you seem so attached to your own idea that it doesn't leave much room for us to work with, not much options for a compromise, for us to reach a consensus. ABC paulista (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC) And there's the rub... you are the one who said you will not compromise and make the table sorted by discipline, which I think is by far the best and what our readers would expect. So don't lay the non-compromise solely on me. And 4 and 7 really aren't sorted by discipline, they are sorted by player name. 4 above looks like it's sorted by totaling apples and oranges... not chronologically. Same with 7. They don't even have the list of all the events which you said you wanted so I came up with versions 6 and 6b that at least shows the the year and event in which they won the Career Grand Slam, but you shot that down too. I realize the Tennis project isn't the most forthcoming in making opinions on charts and such, even on the project page, but these types of charts probably should have been discussed there early on so input could be gather from more than just three people. These are pretty important articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC) I said that I wouldn't accept a table that would be sorted by discipline by default, because we alredy have them and we don't need more WP:REDUNDANT, but I worked a lot to find a way to accomodate both our desires in the table, since I tried many times to include the disciplines divided the way you seem to want, while not getting in the way all its functionality. I even made the tables to be able to sort by discipline in the specific order you wanted, but you dismissed all of them while never trying to offer another similar option, since your Version 6 was formatted to not even let the reader to sort it, with the years all clumpled togehter in the same cell. Honestly, I feel that I tried to appease both sides and I didn't feel the same effort coming from you, especially on how adamant you were to have the tables being sorted by discipline by default, even to detriment of theirs functionality and adaptability. You never showed that you cared much about what we were asking for as long as you had it the way you wanted, showing little willingness to compromise or concession. I feel like I tried to embrace the possible desires of our readers, be them actually true or not, while you dictated how things should be seen by them, negating the them the capability of seeing info in other ways if they so desire. Versions 4 and 7 didn't hold any kind of totalling since the total sum was eliminated before they were even created, and I don't think that your apples and oranges argument doesn't hold up since this article have lots of tables that includes data from multiple disciplines together, sometimes even mixing them. And I don't get where you got the idea that I actually want all the dates on the table, because if you pay attention to the tables you'll see that I only included them on Version 8, all the others only count how many were achieved per discipline by player. I only said that if the dates were to be included, we'd rather include all of them, because including only the year when it was achieved would feel like a lesser versions of the tables we already have, that include all dates, and if we were to make your Versions 6 sortable they would be as big as Version 8 with less info. You keep holding on about how sorting by discipline is what our readers would expect, but have you ever considered how much that's actually true at all? I'm not saying that is a totally unfounded assumption, but it's mostly founded on the fact that singles disciplines hold more prestige than the others, and I'd say that's a shaky ground since we don't have much examples of reliables sources showing stats from multiple disciplines at the same time, the same way we do, one might wonder this pillar is somewhat filled with their own WP:POV. What the readers actually want? I don't know and I won't assume I know, so I want to give them the most possible of information they might desire, as long as it doesn't cause WP:LISTCRUFT. That's how I seek to prioritize the readers. ABC paulista (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC) @Fyunck(click), I agree that this definitely needs to be taken to Wikiproject Tennis to get contributions from the wider tennis community. A list on grand slam records is very important for tennis fans and readers alike. I feel that the projects are to be involves when the matter relates to a whole portion of their contents, or at least multiple articles within it, and this case still seems to be firmly contained here. @ABC paulista, when we can't come to an agreement, we take it to the tennis project even if it is about a table style. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC) I let the whole project know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC) I saw your message on Tennis Project page. This thread is very long and difficult to follow, with versions scattered all over the place, but I have seen all the versions now. My preference is for versions 4 or 8 for design (although the list should be sorted chronologically, as in version 8, not by player surname). Version 8 is my preferred version of the two. Version 7 I least like, it is too wide. You should not have to scroll left and right to read tables (the only instance where this is unavoidable is on player pages that list Grand Slam performance charts). I get Fyunck's point about being sorted by discipline, this could be incorporated into version 8, listed chronologically by discipline. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Tennishistory1877 Like Querty said, if Version 8 is sorted by discipline by default, it would limit the sorting possibilities for the reader as it wouldn't be possible to sort it chronologically, for example, but being sorted chronologically by default lets the reader to sort it by discipline. And also, all the similar tables here are sorted chronologically by default, so it would be consisitent with the style applied here. About Version 4, it's sorted by player because it just mentions how many times each player achieved the Career Slam in each discipline, no t when it was done, so sorting it chronologically wouldn't make sense. ABC paulista (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Well my preference is for version 8 (with or without sorting by discipline). It is also, I believe, the best visually of the tables. I think the main issues surrounding sorting by discipline come from the large number of wheelchair winners in every list (a huge number of calendar Grand Slam winners for example). This is because there are few wheelchair players in comparison to non-wheelchair and some very dominant players emerge. There are likely to be many more added in the coming years also (wheelchair records only started around 15 years ago). Also, the sport of wheelchair tennis is not the same, the ball bounces twice. If the wheelchair players were listed on seperate stats pages the need for sorting by discipline would be reduced. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Article split? Moved to Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Proposal to split Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics into a standalone article  – Discussion veered off topic. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Continued discussion 6 So newcomer Tennishistory1877 says it's wheelchair tennis, with is different rules and plethora of wins, skews the chart and makes it harder to read and sort. That it might be better separated by discipline but that a better solution would be to re-chart the para-tennis players into their own branch because of the different rules. Maybe that's the missing piece of the puzzle. While I prefer initial separation by discipline in both charts for our readers benefit, maybe I could live with initial chronological with two charts. I think we could visualized what the charts would look like by discipline but here is 8b with two different charts and the date sorting removed. Is this more what you were thinking of @Tennishistory1877: Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Version 8b AO Australian Open WIM Wimbledon FO French Open USO US Open Career Grand Slam (able-bodied tennis) No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Jean Borotra Mixed doubles 1928 1927 1925 1926 2 Fred Perry Men's singles 1934 1935 1934 1933 3 Don Budge Men's singles 1938 1938 1937 1937 4 Adrian Quist Men's doubles 1936 1935 1935 1939 5 Louise Brough Women's doubles 1950 1946 1946 1942 6 Frank Sedgman Men's doubles 1951 1951 1948 1950 7 Doris Hart Mixed doubles 1949 1951 1951 1951 Frank Sedgman (2) 9 Doris Hart (2) Women's doubles 1949 1951 1951 1951 10 Ken McGregor Men's doubles 1951 1951 1951 1951 11 Frank Sedgman (3) Men's doubles 1952 1952 1951 1951 12 Doris Hart (3) Mixed doubles 1950 1952 1952 1952 Frank Sedgman (4) 14 Maureen Connolly Women's singles 1953 1953 1952 1951 15 Doris Hart (4) Women's singles 1949 1950 1951 1954 16 Lew Hoad Men's doubles 1953 1953 1953 1956 Ken Rosewall 18 Shirley Fry Irvin Women's doubles 1957 1950 1951 1951 19 Shirley Fry Irvin (2) Women's singles 1957 1951 1956 1956 20 Neale Fraser Men's doubles 1957 1958 1959 1957 21 Maria Bueno Women's doubles 1960 1960 1958 1960 22 Neale Fraser (2) Men's doubles 1958 1960 1961 1960 23 Roy Emerson Men's doubles 1962 1960 1959 1959 24 Rod Laver Men's singles 1960 1962 1961 1962 25 Margaret Court Mixed doubles 1963 1963 1963 1961 26 Margaret Court (2) Women's singles 1960 1962 1963 1962 27 Ken Fletcher Mixed doubles 1963 1963 1963 1963 28 Margaret Court (3) Women's doubles 1961 1964 1964 1963 29 Lesley Turner Bowrey Women's doubles 1964 1964 1964 1961 30 Roy Emerson (2) Men's singles 1961 1963 1964 1961 31 Margaret Court (4) Mixed doubles 1964 1964 1965 1962 32 Fred Stolle Men's doubles 1963 1965 1962 1965 33 Margaret Court (5) Women's singles 1961 1964 1965 1965 34 Roy Emerson (3) Men's doubles 1966 1961 1961 1960 35 Margaret Court (6) Mixed doubles 1965 1965 1966 1963 36 Roy Emerson (4) Men's singles 1963 1967 1965 1964 37 Owen Davidson Mixed doubles 1965 1967 1967 1966 38 John Newcombe Men's doubles 1965 1967 1965 1967 Tony Roche 40 Billie Jean King Mixed doubles 1968 1967 1967 1967 41 Fred Stolle (2) Men's doubles 1964 1968 1964 1966 42 Margaret Court (7) Mixed doubles 1969 1969 1968 1964 43 Margaret Court (8) Women's doubles 1962 1965 1969 1968 44 Ken Rosewall (2) Men's doubles 1956 1968 1956 1969 45 Rod Laver (2) Men's singles 1962 1969 1962 1969 46 Margaret Court (9) Women's singles 1962 1969 1970 1969 47 Judy Tegart-Dalton Women's doubles 1964 1966 1969 1970 48 Roy Emerson (5) Men's doubles 1969 1962 1971 1965 49 John Newcombe (2) Men's doubles 1967 1969 1966 1971 50 Billie Jean King (2) Women's singles 1968 1972 1966 1967 51 John Newcombe (3) Men's doubles 1971 1973 1968 1973 52 Marty Riessen Mixed doubles 1969 1969 1975 1969 53 / Bob Hewitt Men's doubles 1963 1972 1962 1977 54 / Bob Hewitt (2) Mixed doubles 1961 1970 1977 1979 55 / Martina Navratilova Women's doubles 1980 1975 1976 1977 56 Kathy Jordan Women's doubles 1981 1980 1980 1981 Anne Smith 58 Martina Navratilova (2) Women's doubles 1982 1982 1979 1978 59 Chris Evert Women's singles 1982 1974 1974 1975 60 Martina Navratilova (3) Women's singles 1981 1982 1978 1983 61 Stefan Edberg Boys' singles 1983 1983 1983 1983 62 Martina Navratilova (4) Women's doubles 1983 1984 1981 1980 63 Pam Shriver Women's doubles 1982 1984 1981 1983 64 Martina Navratilova (5) Women's singles 1983 1984 1979 1984 65 Mark Kratzmann Boys' doubles 1984 1983 1983 1983 66 Chris Evert (2) Women's singles 1984 1975 1976 1976 67 Martina Navratilova (6) Women's doubles 1984 1985 1982 1983 68 Pam Shriver (2) Women's doubles 1983 1985 1982 1984 69 Martina Navratilova (7) Women's doubles 1985 1986 1983 1984 70 Martina Navratilova (8) Women's doubles 1987 1987 1984 1986 71 Pam Shriver (3) Women's doubles 1984 1987 1983 1986 72 Martina Navratilova (9) Women's doubles 1988 1988 1986 1987 73 Pam Shriver (4) Women's doubles 1985 1988 1984 1987 74 Steffi Graf Women's singles 1988 1987 1988 1988 75 John Fitzgerald Men's doubles 1982 1986 1989 1984 76 Anders Järryd Men's doubles 1987 1983 1989 1987 77 Steffi Graf (2) Women's singles 1989 1988 1989 1989 78 Helena Suková Women's doubles 1990 1990 1987 1985 79 Gigi Fernández Women's doubles 1993 1991 1992 1988 80 // Natasha Zvereva Women's doubles 1993 1989 1991 1991 81 Steffi Graf (3) Women's singles 1990 1993 1991 1993 82 Gigi Fernández (2) Women's doubles 1994 1992 1993 1990 83 / Natasha Zvereva (2) Women's doubles 1994 1992 1992 1992 84 Todd Woodbridge Mixed doubles 1993 1992 1994 1990 85 Jana Novotná Women's doubles 1990 1990 1989 1994 86 Mark Woodforde Mixed doubles 1992 1995 1993 1992 87 Steffi Graf (4) Women's singles 1994 1995 1992 1995 88 / Natasha Zvereva (3) Women's doubles 1997 1993 1993 1995 89 Jana Novotná (2) Women's doubles 1995 1991 1990 1997 90 Jacco Eltingh Men's doubles 1994 1995 1998 1994 Paul Haarhuis 92 Martina Hingis Women's doubles 1997 1998 1996 1998 93 Andre Agassi Men's singles 1995 1999 1992 1994 94 Todd Woodbridge (2) Men's doubles 1992 2000 1993 1995 Mark Woodforde (2) 96 Serena Williams Women's doubles 2001 1999 2000 1999 Venus Williams 98 / Martina Navratilova (10) Mixed doubles 2003 1974 1985 1985 99 Serena Williams (2) Women's singles 2003 2002 2002 1999 100 Jonas Björkman Men's doubles 1998 2005 2002 2003 101 Daniela Hantuchová Mixed doubles 2002 2005 2001 2005 102 Mahesh Bhupathi Mixed doubles 2006 1997 2002 1999 103 Lisa Raymond Women's doubles 2000 2006 2001 2001 104 Bob Bryan Men's doubles 2006 2003 2006 2005 Mike Bryan 106 Daniel Nestor Men's doubles 2002 2007 2008 2004 107 Roger Federer Men's singles 2004 2009 2003 2004 108 Cara Black Mixed doubles 2010 2002 2004 2008 109 Serena Williams (3) Women's doubles 2003 2010 2002 2009 Venus Williams (2) 111 Rafael Nadal Men's singles 2009 2005 2008 2010 113 Leander Paes Men's doubles 2012 1999 1999 2006 114 Mahesh Bhupathi (2) Mixed doubles 2009 2012 2005 2005 115 Maria Sharapova Women's singles 2008 2012 2004 2006 116 Serena Williams (4) Women's singles 2005 2013 2003 2002 117 Bob Bryan (2) Men's doubles 2007 2013 2011 2008 Mike Bryan (2) 119 Sara Errani Women's doubles 2013 2012 2014 2012 Roberta Vinci 121 Serena Williams (5) Women's singles 2007 2015 2009 2008 122 Martina Hingis (2) Women's doubles 1998 2000 1998 2015 123 Martina Hingis (3) Mixed doubles 2006 2016 2015 2015 124 Leander Paes (2) Mixed doubles 2003 2016 1999 2008 125 Novak Djokovic Men's singles 2008 2016 2011 2011 126 Pierre-Hugues Herbert Men's doubles 2019 2018 2016 2015 Nicolas Mahut 128 Novak Djokovic (2) Men's singles 2011 2021 2014 2015 129 Rafael Nadal (2) Men's singles 2022 2006 2010 2013 130 Barbora Krejčíková Women's doubles 2022 2018 2018 2022 Kateřina Siniaková 132 Novak Djokovic (3) Men's singles 2012 2023 2015 2018 133 Mate Pavić Men's doubles 2018 2024 2021 2020 AO Australian Open WIM Wimbledon FO French Open USO US Open Career Grand Slam (wheelchair tennis) No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Shingo Kunieda Wheelchair men's doubles 2007 2008 2006 2007 2 Korie Homan Wheelchair women's doubles 2009 2009 2009 2005 3 Esther Vergeer Wheelchair women's doubles 2004 2007 2009 2005 4 Stéphane Houdet Wheelchair men's doubles 2010 2007 2009 2009 5 Esther Vergeer (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2006 2008 2010 2006 6 Sharon Walraven Wheelchair women's doubles 2011 2011 2010 2010 7 Esther Vergeer (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2007 2009 2011 2007 8 Maikel Scheffers Wheelchair men's doubles 2011 2008 2011 2010 9 Jiske Griffioen Wheelchair women's doubles 2006 2008 2012 2006 10 Michaël Jérémiasz Wheelchair men's doubles 2013 2009 2009 2005 11 Jiske Griffioen (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2007 2013 2013 2007 12 Aniek van Koot Wheelchair women's doubles 2010 2010 2012 2013 13 Stéphane Houdet (2) Wheelchair men's doubles 2014 2009 2013 2011 14 Yui Kamiji Wheelchair women's doubles 2014 2014 2014 2014 Jordanne Whiley 16 Shingo Kunieda (2) Wheelchair men's doubles 2008 2010 2013 2014 17 Stéphane Houdet (3) Wheelchair men's doubles 2015 2010 2014 2014 18 Aniek van Koot (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2013 2013 2013 2015 19 Nicolas Peifer Wheelchair men's doubles 2016 2011 2015 2011 20 Gordon Reid Wheelchair men's doubles 2017 2015 2016 2015 21 Yui Kamiji (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2015 2016 2015 2018 22 Diede de Groot Wheelchair women's doubles 2019 2018 2018 2017 23 Diede de Groot (2) Wheelchair women's singles 2018 2019 2017 2018 24 Dylan Alcott Wheelchair quad singles 2015 2019 2019 2015 25 Dylan Alcott (2) Wheelchair quad doubles 2018 2019 2019 2019 26 Aniek van Koot (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2017 2015 2019 2019 27 Gordon Reid (2) Wheelchair men's doubles 2020 2016 2017 2017 28 Alfie Hewett Wheelchair men's doubles 2020 2020 2016 2017 29 Yui Kamiji (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2016 2017 2016 2020 30 Jordanne Whiley (2) Wheelchair women's doubles 2015 2016 2015 2020 31 Diede de Groot (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2021 2019 2019 2018 32 Gordon Reid (3) Wheelchair men's doubles 2021 2020 2018 2018 33 Diede de Groot (4) Wheelchair women's singles 2019 2021 2018 2019 34 Andy Lapthorne Wheelchair quad doubles 2011 2021 2019 2017 35 Alfie Hewett (2) Wheelchair men's doubles 2021 2021 2017 2018 36 David Wagner Wheelchair quad doubles 2008 2019 2021 2007 37 Dylan Alcott (3) Wheelchair quad singles 2016 2020 2021 2018 38 Gordon Reid (4) Wheelchair men's doubles 2022 2021 2021 2019 39 Diede de Groot (5) Wheelchair women's singles 2021 2022 2021 2020 40 Alfie Hewett (3) Wheelchair men's doubles 2022 2022 2018 2019 41 Shingo Kunieda (3) Wheelchair men's singles 2007 2007 2022 2007 42 Sam Schröder Wheelchair quad doubles 2023 2020 2022 2021 43 Niels Vink Wheelchair quad doubles 2023 2022 2022 2021 44 Andy Lapthorne (2) Wheelchair quad doubles 2012 2023 2021 2018 45 Diede de Groot (6) Wheelchair women's singles 2022 2023 2022 2021 46 Alfie Hewett (4) Wheelchair men's doubles 2023 2023 2021 2020 47 Gordon Reid (5) Wheelchair men's doubles 2023 2022 2023 2020 48 Diede de Groot (7) Wheelchair women's doubles 2022 2020 2023 2019 49 Jiske Griffioen (3) Wheelchair women's doubles 2008 2015 2023 2013 50 Yui Kamiji (4) Wheelchair women's doubles 2018 2023 2017 2023 51 Diede de Groot (8) Wheelchair women's singles 2023 2024 2023 2022 52 Alfie Hewett (5) Wheelchair men's doubles 2024 2024 2023 2021 53 Gordon Reid (6) Wheelchair men's doubles 2024 2023 2024 2021 54 Alfie Hewett (6) Wheelchair men's singles 2023 2017 2024 2018 I also shortened the em distance from 2 to 1.5 so it wasn't such a pronounced gap. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Yes I like version 8b. Wheelchair records could be split to a seperate page if this page became too long. There are far more wheelchair players listed per year in these charts than other disciplines and that is likely to continue, as a smaller player pool means a greater likelihood of dominant players emerging achieving these big milestones with more frequency. There are differences between the wheelchair sport, as I outlined, the two bounces being a fundemental (and necessary) difference. Despite the name being the same, I think wheelchair tennis could qualify as a version of tennis (ie pickleball, padel, etc.) Therefore wheelchair tennis stats could quite legitimately be listed on a seperate page if required. All the material for wheelchair tennis would remain, just on another page. But that is an option if editors felt this page (and others) were too long. Its not something I feel strongly about. The option of moving wheelchair stats to a seperate page occured to me some time ago (not in response to reading this thread). Just thought I would mention it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) I don't feel like that's the ideal solution, but I can agree to this. At least is a format that can be replicated to the other tables as well. ABC paulista (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC) I would retain the chart as a whole instead of separating into 2 to distinguish between main and wheelchair. Why? Because splitting the chart into 2 requires adding a subsection or a table caption: Career grand slam: -main tour and wheelchair (tennis). However, the 1st chart has 2 junior instances, namely, Edberg and Kratzmann on rows 61 and 65, respectively, who are not part of the main tour. This would require a mid-chart...just for 2 instances, which would seem excessive. This would also merit as others have mentioned applying same design to the rest of the charts in the section, but that's off-topic. @Tennishistory1877, you mentioned separating the page if it's too long. See § Article split?. Feel free to start a new topic. We can continue the discussion for applying the same design to the other charts and/or forking into a new (sub)page. I've been drafting a potential improved section in my sandbox. Feel free to experiment there. I'll chip in more later in the week. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC) But jr tennis at least plays by the same rules. The jrs could simply be mentioned instead of a chart but we could come up with names like standard tennis and wheelchair tennis. Australia uses able-bodied tennis and wheelchair tennis, as do some tennis schools. So two charts, one Able-bodied tennis and one Wheelchair tennis, which I just did. Otherwise it really needs separation by discipline to start. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Juniors are closely linked to the main tour. Many of the same players go on to the seniors and they play by the same rules. Wheelchair tennis is different. This problem of space is not going away. For now there seems to be a rough consensus for version 8b. Moving wheelchair tennis to a seperate page is something I will suggest the next time someone says this page is too long. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I would stick with established names not some we'd come up with — borderline WP:OR. We still need section headers or captions for the 2 charts. Main tour & Wheelchair/able-bodied; standard/able-bodied tennis; what have you. Plus, names w/ footnotes for both JRs. Moving wheelchair tennis to a seperate page is something I will suggest the next time someone says this page is too long. I'll do the honors soon. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Split discussion started. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Which is why I used able-bodied tennis and wheelchair tennis, they are terms in sourcable use today. We can't use main tour and keep the jrs in there... they are not on the main tour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Able-bodied as a hypernym, i.e. an umbrella term that comprises both main and jrs. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC) That's the idea. ABC paulista (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC) I see the "problem" with Juniors as a non-issue because they are considered to be diistinct disciplines from their main counterparts, being named boys' and girls' (singles and doubles), and since juniors become professional into the main tour, I don't see the problem of including them on the same table. As recently both Roland Garros and US Open created junior competitions for Wheelchair tennis, so it's just a matter of time until all 4 slams have such, and if the juniors were divided from the Able-bodied instances they'd have to follow suit, and I feel that would be too much. Overall, able-bodied tennis seems to differentiate well from the wheelchair one, we can go with this one. ABC paulista (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC) I didn't realize that they have started including jr wheelchair events at the majors. I assume if it happens we would include those under the wheelchair section just as we do the able-bodied? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC) IMO, that's the best course of action if it comes to happen. ABC paulista (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC) The chances of that happening are very slim as the wc jr cats just got introduced this year. So, it is still fresh out of the oven. At what age does an athlete turn pro? A disabled jr sweeping the slams before turning pro...that'll be the day... Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC) It might take some time, but it'll probably happen someday. At least, we should not dismiss the possibility, Ksenia Chasteau already won both tournaments, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC) I modified V8b: all but col2 aligned center, made 2nd col sticky for better horizontal scrolling (if on desktop, zoom to 300% to see what I mean), restored forename sorting for players (those with 2 flag icons don't sort properly; needs fixing; moved captions to subsection headers to keep track of edits on individual pages in revisions, removed padding-bottom as no longer needed (no arrows in col headers with links) ther tweaks. Also, the amount of table displayed can be modified with {{sticky table start|style=max-height: Xvh}} Viewport's height set to 75% by default (75vh). Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) I removed {{cot}} wrapper because it disables sticky headers and temp collapsed both charts to reduce page density. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC) Why did you remove the surname sorting? IMO that was useful for the table. ABC paulista (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Per Tennishistory's wishes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC) From my understanding, I think that he said that he prefers chornological sorting over surname one, not that he had problems with surname sorting per se. But IMO it doesn't change much if the player sorting is done either way, so I'd say let it be. ABC paulista (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Added {{sro}} — screen reader user support as substitute for captions. In conjunction with mw-collapsed hides column headers, but this won't be an issue because the final version will be expanded. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC) However all the other versions were cob'd so most future viewers of this thread will expect it for 8b as well. I had a hard to finding it myself. And some agreed formatting was changed. That would need an 8c to add over-bolding and odd column centerings. It was discussed at some template talk pages that in html columns of numbers should be right justified, or left justified, not centered. And we never center the things like the discipline... it looks like an unkempt hedge. It's why we decided that charts like top 10 wins look the way they do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC) I dropped cot to demonstrate what a sticky column is. As for {{table alignment}}, you can set up alignment per column as you deem pleased. I just used 2nd col left as an example. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC) What agreed upon formatting that was changed you don't like? Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC) You can certainly add another example just like you did, that includes the sticky column. It was just that all the others have a green bar with the version, so it's what we would expect when we go back and look again at a later time. When folks were saying they wanted 8b it was 8b... not 8z. There was no number bolding, the number column was properly aligned left, and the disciplines were properly aligned left. I certainly would not have made it against normal html and standard tennis project alignment. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Fair enough. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Instead of creating numerous other versions, I'd rather focus on the individual elements of the chart we've been ambling about for almost 2 months now. Looking at the columns I'd like to get things clear on the following: Col1: use {{static row numbers}} or plainrowheaders (unbolded) with regular left alignment Col2: sort by fore- or surname players Col3: disciplines aligned left or center; with or without symbols for screen readers users per MOS:COLORS Col4-7: Majors years aligned left or center; wikilinked or not Col8 & 9: I would merge notes and refs with players to reduce horizontal scrolling and omit empty cells This way we'll come to a definitive conclusion to this saga that is the Career Grand Slam chart. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Usually you would be consistent, but html and wikipedia discussion have said number columns should be aligned left or right, not centered. And those numbers in Col1 have no importance at all... we don't really even need them, so plain text to avoid overbolding. For Col2.... how do we usually sort in all our charts... last name? What we usually do. Col3 disciplines aligned left like all our other charts. It does not need a marker since color is not the only way we are giving the information. Col4-7, again left, though visually with 4 digits for every one there won't be a difference in right/left/center. Bold the year of completion. As for wikilinking... does that give readers anymore info than linking each and every discipline? If we fell it doesn't give more then it would be overlinking. If it does give more then at least link the completion year. I didn't know we had a notes and refs column but it makes sense to create it and merge the two entities. I'd probably just header it as "Refs." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Four charts in the section have notes and refs. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC) I'd say both Col1 and Col2 could either stay with their current format, or follow the same ones from similar tables. About Col3, I still question if the colors actually bring any benefits at all, but as long as they comply with MOS:COLOR they're harmless, and symbols would be redundant since the prose already tells what's the color refers to. Cols4-7, IMO centralized is the best visually speaking, and I'd wikilink all events just once to avoid WP:OVERLINK. And about Col8-9, I'd merge them together, but keep them spearated from the other columns, I'd slighly improve readability and verifiability. ABC paulista (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC) And you, @Tennishistory1877? What're your thoughts on the columns? Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC) I don't have any strong views on column width, centering and colour schemes etc. The last version I saw was version 8b, which was the version we agreed on. It is important to list career Grand slams in chronological order per version 8b. I am also unsure as to what was agreed regarding the wheelchair records. They should (I believe) all be listed together in one section, but if not the wheelchair records section should be renamed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC) For wc records on the article we have the below discussion: Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Proposal to split Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics into a standalone article 👇 Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Version 8c Version 8c AO Australian Open WIM Wimbledon FO French Open USO US Open ===Career Grand Slam (able-bodied tennis)=== List of able-bodied players (main tour and junior) who have completed the Career Grand Slam. No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Jean Borotra Mixed doubles 1928 1927 1925 1926 2 Fred Perry Men's singles 1934 1935 1934 1933 3 Don Budge Men's singles 1938 1938 1937 1937 ===Career Grand Slam (wheelchair tennis)=== List of wheelchair players who have completed the Career Grand Slam. No. Player Discipline AO FO WIM USO 1 Shingo Kunieda Wheelchair men's doubles 2007 2008 2006 2007 2 Korie Homan Wheelchair women's doubles 2009 2009 2009 2005 3 Esther Vergeer Wheelchair women's doubles 2004 2007 2009 2005 Here is a version 8c (truncated) with merged legends. Changes made: replaced sticky column 1 with column 2, sorting players by first name in line with other charts in the section, moved captions to subsections for more precise and convenient editing (instead of editing the whole section, you can edit individual tables for better tracking in edit history), added {{sro}} for screen reader users (an =alt equivalent for tables). Decided to leave overall (table) alignment left because the majors columns are so narrow because of the slams' abbreviations that aligning cols 4-7 center or left is visually the same (the years cells are as wide as the text in them, no excess whitespace...); for col1 overbolding would be extra in combo in scope=row; scope bolds cells by default, but I can live with unbolded numbers even though I prefer the numerical bolded version. This chart does not have any "ref" or "notes" columns. I presume we decided on merging them under 1 column, whether with col2 "players" or as a separate merged col "Refs" — that is still unclear. Hopefully, we can come to a deciding conclusion soon. Any final thoughts or objections? Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Looks good to me. Regarding Notes/Refs, either a combined column or seperate columns are fine with me, I have no preference. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC) I'd also go with a separate ref column at the end. Otherwise it looks fine. I do have a question since i had never seen it before at Wikipedia. Why a sort by first name? I thought MOS default and the most natural was by last name? Are any of our other charts sorted by first name... I can't say I ever really looked. And then a question on coding. Why are you using the more unusual flagg instead of flag icon? Many of these flags are unknown to everyone so it would seem we would use our standard and link them so our readers knew what the actual country is. I can't say any of our other articles use the generic flagg.Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC) As for sorting by for first or last name, charts in other articles (no. 1 players, slam winners by discipline, 1000s stats pages, not sure about Top 10 wins in -career stats pages) are sorted by last name, however, this section, in particular, has always had the players sortable by first name. Uhm, a quick sort regex should do the trick...for the entire section, that is, not just the Career Grand Slam table. {{flagg}} for WP:PEIS (where one can find a page's PEIS aka post-expand include size) reasons. When dealing with section transclusions-heavy pages or pages with a lot of flags/flagicons, {{flagg|uxx|...}} is the way to go, otherwise the page won't load completely. See ATP Masters 1000 tournaments's code (diff when page exceeded WP:PEIS) and WTA 1000 tournaments's codes, for example. This entire page has flagicon→flagg for the same reason(s). Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Found related discussion on post-expand include size. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC) They were queries as to why. Hmmm....I am not convinced it helps, the archive doesn't mention the use of template "flagg" at all and it's the icons themselves that can cause the issues). But not for the rest of our articles. But it should be cxx not uxx. I have no clue what half the countries are by just a tiny icon... I need the country name to pop up too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC) You hover over the icon to see the what country it is. cxxlo or uxx suffices. Flagg resolves the icons issue. Don't believe me? Edit the whole page, replace all flagg|uxx back to flagicons on and monitor the template "post-expand include size" under "Parser profiling data" before and after clicking preview. You'll see what I mean. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC) I'll take your word that it works better in this instance than flag icon. But in your version 8c no amount of hovering will bring up the country with uxx. The template even says that uxx suppresses the country name. cxx (no lo needed) works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Use cxx then. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Then I'm good to go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC) I think we're pretty much done here. From my part, no further objections. ABC paulista (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC) @ABC paulista, deploy the new version. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC) I'm kinda busy at the moment, so if anyone wants to do the honours... Or wait until the weekend, probably some 72 hours from now. Maybe you could also apply the "quick sort regex" on the tables while at it, to make them consistent with the whole article. ABC paulista (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC) No, you do it. This was your idea to begin with. It's only fair that you did it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)  Done I took the liberty to make some adjustments using the tables currently on your talk page, so feel free to undo/adjust tehm as you deem necessary, since I'm no coding expert. I've also adjusted the tables on the Golden Slam and Super Slam sections. ABC paulista (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC) You mean my sandbox, not talk page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I was talking about the new page created, not this one. ABC paulista (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes I agree to that. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Page title? Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"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)

We could just add the records in Wheelchair tennis. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Both records section and CGS section or just the latter? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Let's get to work then. Almost all charts need separating. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

This sounds reasonable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fine by me. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There shouldn't be any duplication. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Not for long. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Continued discussion

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)

I meant to write columns not sections. I stand corrected. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)