Talk:List of Grand Slam men's singles champions/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Most Grand Slam tournament singles titles, Open Era (3 or more)

This useful table was removed with this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions&diff=1020701889&oldid=1016421340

Since the new table doesn't differentiate between open and pre-open titles, this useful info has been lost and cannot easily be gleaned anymore. Open era titles are imo much more interesting/impressive, therefore I'd liked the original info with a separate table only giving open era titles. So my suggestion is to re-add it to the site. 165.1.194.41 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You mean the Champions list? It does differentiate between open era and pre-open era titles. I don't see the justification of a seperate table for all time and open-era if they contain duplicate information.
SSSB (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the Champions list. It only differentiates between pre and open for total titles, not for titles per location/tourney.

It wouldn't be duplicate. Tell me how you can tell from the "new" version, how many of the 4 tournaments each did Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall or John Newcombe win in each era?

If I scroll down and see that RL won a Grand Slam both in pre-open and open, I can deduce that it's at least 1 per era per tourney - but what about the remaining 2+1 wins? Which tournaments were they at? 165.1.194.41 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, so I simply misunderstood your complant (having not remebered the previous table). Looking at the diff you provied, the tables do contain duplicate information, looking at the old version, both tables have identical top 4 rows (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Sampras).
SSSB (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, the top4 would be the same in both tables since those players played solely in the open era. You need to look at players playing both pre-open and open. As previously provided:

It wouldn't be duplicate. Tell me how you can tell from the "new" version, how many of the 4 tournaments each did Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall or John Newcombe win in each era?

If I scroll down and see that RL won a Grand Slam both in pre-open and open, I can deduce that it's at least 1 per era per tourney - but what about the remaining 2+1 wins? Which tournaments were they at?

165.1.194.41 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Tell me how you can tell from the "new" version, how many of the 4 tournaments each did Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall or John Newcombe win in each era? - you can't.

But that doesn't mean we should just return to the old system, which had its own problems. The old system meant that we were repeating the stats for those who competed solely in the open era, needelessly so.

As there is no consensus for returning to that old table, I suggest you come up with a proposal for a compromise. One where you can deduce which of Laver's wins were/were not open era, without having 12 rows worth of redundent repetition (the twelve players who won 5 or more slams in the open era).
SSSB (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have THE brilliant idea yet, one thing that might be considered: put pre-open wins in brackets. And for players who played in both era, it would then look like this for example: 2(+1), representing 2 wins in open era and one from before that time.

Out of curiosity: Had the change from old system to the current system been discussed and had there been consensus back then?

By the way, I wasn't suggesting to completely go back to the old system. I suggested to re-add the pure open era table. I concur that the old system had its problems and that the new single table has the potential to be better than the previous 2 tables. As of now it's not there yet though, since there has been interesting / significant info been removed. 165.1.194.41 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

41 consecutive wins at the same grand slam

Only Borg listed here - Wimbledon 1976-81 Federer achieved twice - Wimbledon 2003-08 and US Open 2004-09— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.210.89 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. List of Grand Slam men's singles champions#Most consecutive titles at one tournament list both of those, and Nadal at the French. So what's the concern?
SSSB (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

He's talking about the 41 match win steak. Federer had 40 on his Wimbledon and USO runs. --ForzaUV (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the 41 was some strange typo.
SSSB (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please bring back proper slam colours

Couple of months ago I noticed the slam charts were done with proper official colours for all slam events. It was very eye pleassing and simply correct to use original slam colors. Light blue AO-#0091D2, orange FO-#D35220, green Wim-#006633, blue USO-#O0288c. Now it not the case anymore (again) as someone reintroduced ancient meaningless generic wiki color scheme for slams (AO-yellow, FO-orange, Wim-green, USO blue). It's wrong on many levels. First, the orange-green-blue shades for FO-Wim-USO are wrong and they don't resemble proper slam colors in any way. In top of that, AO is labeled with yellow which is absurdly incorrect. Secondly, it's all psychologically misleading. The wiki scheme orange-green-blue that is used for FO-Wim-USO is not only incorrect portayal of those slams, it's an attempt to suggest that those three slams are "true surface championships" as same colour scheme is used to denote clay-grass-hard surfaces. Thus AO with its yellow label seems like total outsider slam.

You should use proper slam colors for denoting slams, and generic wiki orange-green-blue colors for denoting surfaces.

Can we vote on this?78.2.65.83 (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, can we vote? The colours are wrong, and couple of months ago all 4 slams were coloured with their proper colours, it was excellent. Bring back that? 93.137.4.196 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No ones raised any concerns, so I would just be WP:BOLD and do it. We don't need a vote. And if there was opposition, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so we still wouldn't vote.
SSSB (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked back in April and there were no colors at all. So what you like must have been up a very short time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The color scheme this editor mentions was only active for a very short period of time and conflicted with the long established color scheme that is used on thousands of tennis articles. This should not be changed without prior discussion and consensus on the tennis project talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you wolbo. I didn't realize the colour scheme I was referring to was used for a very short period of time. It looked good aesthetics-wise and it offered true colour of slams. I see no downsides in using that scheme. Do you? I realize it's not a long established scheme but I considered it a great improvement. OTOH if you want to advocate for current scheme, what are the arguments, other than "we've used it for a long time"? Surely that shouldn't be such a strong argument?

The current scheme is absolutel rubbish imo, my biggest issue with it that it uses some stupid yellow for AO, so once you use charts detailing surfaces next to this, it gives false impression that USO (with its Wikipedia blue) is the premier HC slam (Wikipedia generic blue), green-Wim and FO-reddish.

I think Wikipedia generic green-red-blue should be used to denote surfaces, however slams should be portayed by their actual colours. 93.137.6.53 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Tables

ForzaUV, I really dislike this format you're defending. They are so close to each other and kinda blend together, it's messy and makes reading harder. Also, the way the Surface Slam is put separated, but alongside the other three-quarters gives the impression is disconncted form the others, when in reality it isn't, and the way the Channel Slam encompass all achievers while the other two-slam combinations don't will confuse the readers, and no amount of clarification will be able to negate this problem. And since the other pages use a more traditional format, I think that this one should follow suit. ABC paulista (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@ABC paulista: The ones you want are just bad, so much white space under the tables it makes the section look atrocious. It's beyond me how anyone can find the current section messy and hard to read but if you think the tables are that close to each other you can make the gap bigger by editing {{col-break|gap=1em}}, I don't see them that way, they're clearly separated from each other. the way the Surface Slam is put separated, but alongside the other three-quarters gives the impression is disconncted form the others, when in reality it isn't. I have no idea what you mean by that but I didn't want to give the Surface Slam its own section because it's not that significant and the majority of the players in the list didn't have the opportunity to play for it. It's there though, it's clear with the term linked and the players listed with the years of the achievement. That's good enough for most readers I think. As for the Channel Slam, there is no need for yet another section when we already have a list for Wimbledon-FrenchOpen winners, redundancy was one of the biggest issues this page had a few months ago. Now we can list the names of all two-title winners but I'm afraid it'd get messy but we can try and see. Also, this page doesn't have to be formatted the same way as any other pages, there is no standard and each page has its own structure and sections. The only reason other pages have similar format for those specific tables is because they were copied from the Grand Slam article. If you care that much, It'd be better if you could format the other pages as this one, because at least there was some effort put to keep this one well-organized to some degree unlike the others. --ForzaUV (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV:, WP:WHENTABLE state that Tables should not be misused to resolve visual layout problems, and while your format might be perceived as more "harmonious", the way the tables are clumpled together (some on top/below the other, some side-by-side, with little placing criteria) can be confusing for a reader's first read, when a list should be intuitive by glance. Also, MOS:LISTCASE state that Unless there is a good reason to use different list types in the same page, consistency throughout an article is also desirable, and most lists here use the header-on-top layout than your header-on-side one. So these lists should be either side-by-side, or one below the other, not one beside other two or other different configurations. About the Surface Slam, WP:SALLEAD state that A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, and no context was provided here, it shoudn't be necessary for a reader to go to another page for them to know what this is about. Wikilinking is important to give the readers the option to learn more are about the subject, and not about the subject itself (the hows and whys, not the whats) And putting the Surface Slam alongside those lists might give the reader the impression that this achievement doesn't involve any of the other four three-slam combinations, but might be about something entirely else, and that's undesirable. About the Channel Slam one, they should all list all achievers or list only the two-slam winners, with a separate method to account all Channel Slam winners, any attempt to achieve a "middle-ground" will lead to needless confusion. Standardization is important, and since the other lists tackle the same subject, they should mantain the same visual presentation to improve inter-readability. Minor deviations aren't a problem, but your tables don't have minor ones. Effort is only valued if they lead to improvements, and in my view this layout did the opposite of that. Readability and standardization > layout harmony. ABC paulista (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

With the Surface Slam I can see what you mean, but everything else look good to me. You go on and on about how the tables are unreadable but they really are NOT. They are the most basic and one of the simplest tables you can find. Easy to read for everyone. And yes they are consistent with the other tables on the page, all of them can seen with a row and column headers. Take this one for example.

Tournaments	Year	Players
Australian French	1953	Ken Rosewall
	1963	Roy Emerson
	1967
	Open Era
	1992	Jim Courier
	2016	Novak Djokovic
	9 players

As for the two-titles section, as I said I'd list all the names eventually. --ForzaUV (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Pplease don't distort my words. I never said that they are unreadable, but that they can be hard to distinguish from each other at first glance and/or when someone is not giving a proper attention on reading. Your version have no column headers at all with the tournaments being informed on the row header, while the other versions have the column headers and the tournaments are informed there. But my bigger gripe is about their placement. For example: The "AO-WB-US" table shouldn't be beside the other three 3-slam tables, they should be either all side-by-side or one below the other, and the same applies to the 2-slam tables. You fail to see this problems because you are already used to this format, but you have to consider how newbies and first-time readers will deal on how the information is placed here, and they have to be the clearest possible. The way they are placed now, it isn't. ABC paulista (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The point stands, tables' placement is fine. You think it's unclear to the "newbies" and tables are hard to distinguish from each other but I just don't see it. Each table is clearly defined and easy to read. --ForzaUV (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Your format is non-standard, so per MOS:TABLE and WP:Deviations it must be discussed before being implemented. ABC paulista (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

What's exactly non-standard? I'll see what's in there later. --ForzaUV (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that they don't have column headers, their row header have only one item (the title's combination) and the collective of tables is arranged in a unusual way. ABC paulista (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Fyunck(click) so we're all aware of the discussion. A couple of comments from my perspective: 1) You've removed the Career Super/Golden Slam tables from this and the MD/WS/WD/XD pages without discussion. I think given that these achievements are an extension of the Grand Slam, it is wrong to not list them on these pages. Both doubles pages mention them in the lede, which shows that they are relevant. I don't mind the tables also being in List of Grand Slam-related tennis records, but they should be here, placed right after the Career GS sections, which is the current consensus and most logical position. 2) I like the split-up 3 titles in a season tables, but they are inferior to the standard format used on the other pages in that those show the players' results in the fourth major. It is important context whether a player lost early or skipped the major they didn't win, so I think columns with those results should be added to the current tables. 3) The Surface Slam table is out of place; the note says players who won 4 titles in a season are not included here, but you can win a Surface Slam and win all four majors in the season (Djokovic could this year), so either that note needs to be modified or the table moved elsewhere. Also, you removed the definition of Surface Slam, so new readers won't know what that term means.
I've put all the removed tables in my sandbox for easy access. —Somnifuguist (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, the Super and Golden Slam don't belong here, YEC and Olympics are not Grand Slams and the achievements were not possible until 1988. The instances better go to the ATP Finals and Tennis at the Summer Olympics. I don't have an issue with the other format for three titles in year but I prefer the current one because it's clearer what title triple a player won, they're also consistent with the two titles section. Can you think of an alternative for the two-titles section?. I'll make a change with the Surface Slam since it's not clear what it is all about. --ForzaUV (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV:This is incorrect. The "Career Super Slam" could have happened much earlier than 1988 as long as a player's career overlapped 1988. And the "Career Golden Slam" could have easily happened in the 1920s. And why would you put them at ATP Finals or Olympics articles when those articles have nothing to do with the four majors? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter since when they became possible, and these achievements do involve the Grand Slam torunaments, so they do belong here. I don't think that it's necessary to show the results of the 4th slam in the 3-slam cases. I think that a bigger problem we have is how we divide the Open Era instances from the Pre-Open ones. Per MOS:COLHEAD this kind of division in-table is highly undesirable, so we must find another way to divide them. ABC paulista (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

How the instance are divided is the least of our problems here, it can be done in different ways. All the info in this page is about Grand Slam tournaments only, if we're gonna open the door to "extensions" or achievements that involve the Grand Slams then we have even greater extensions but I don't think anything of those belong to this page. I agree with you the result of the 4th slam is not necessary, it's about the 3 titles. For now we need to agree on the format of the 3-titles and 2-titles sections which are already in the page. --ForzaUV (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV:What special rule locked us into "Grand Slam tournaments only?" That's your invention. No one says "Hey she won the Olympic gold, now all she needs is each of the four major titles and she has the Golden Slam." The four majors are the key, as they are with the Super Slam. With that key fact in mind, where do you propose is a better article (or articles for this)? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:COLHEAD says it's a problem, so it must be addressed. Your example is not pertinent because it doesn't talk about a standalone achievement, like the Golden and Super Slam are, it just list the titles he won. ABC paulista (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Never said it doesn't need to get addressed, just that it's a minor issue which can be easily fixed once we agree on the format. It is pertinent and it is a standalone achievement. --ForzaUV (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The source you brought doesn't treat it as an standalone achievement, it just list the major titles he won. It doesn't give a proper name to that collective ("big titles sweep" is not a noun). ABC paulista (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that is literally the only article using the phrase "Big Titles Sweep", so it is irrelevant anyway. Golden Slam, Surface Slam and Grand Slam are always mentioned in the same breath. Here's an article from 50 minutes ago discussing Djokovic's potential Grand Slam [1]:

The “club” consists of two men: Laver, who won the Grand Slam in 1962 and ‘69, and Don Budge, who accomplished the feat in 1938. Djokovic, though, has held all four majors at once after winning the French Open in 2016. If Djokovic wins the Open, he would surpass his rivals Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal with a men’s record 21st major title. "When Don Budge won it in 1938, and I did it in '62, he says: 'We're in a special club here. There's only two of us in it,’” Laver said. Steffi Graf won all four majors and Olympic gold for the so-called “Golden Slam” in 1988. Djokovic was unable to win Olympic gold in Tokyo, falling to Sascha Zverev in the semifinals and then Pablo Carreno Busta in the bronze-medal match.

These achievements are inextricably linked, and readers seeing info for one would expect to see info for the others in the same place. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That would be a good way to put it. They are inextricably linked. When the press or historians are talking about them, it's all together. It's the same conversation. Because of that our readers will expect to find things in certain places. And sometimes there's overlap so we have to have things in two places. There's no issue with that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This is part of the problem with removal from the Grand Slam (tennis) article. Where the next best place (or places) is. One of my pet peeves, because it's a wikipedia guideline, is that BEFORE you start messing with things... you discuss. Not the other way around. Sure you can boldly try it once, but that's it if there's disagreement. Tough if you put a lot of work into it.... that's the way it goes. Then you convince and work it out in a sandbox and in discussion. If you don't work it out then it doesn't get changed. Period. Otherwise it's like ransomware and cart before the horse. It should be the way it was and someone should have all the changes in their sandbox so editors could work on it together there.

I'm not a big fan of splitting pre-open and open achievements unless the article is specifically about the pre-Open Era. The Grand Slam titles by the decade should certainly go back to directly below the Champions by Year... as it has always been. Those two charts are in the same celestial plain. Separating them is a poor choice. This article title is also bending quite a bit here. It not so much a list of Champions anymore... perhaps it hasn't been for a long spell. It more a "Grand Slam men's singles champions and statistics" article. Or perhaps a "List of Grand Slam men's singles champions and records." Something along those lines. It's certainly not just a list of men's champions. I was never a fan of the prior way we handled the charts of three majors on a year or two majors in a year. They were always messy looking. They did have a logical order though. These newer charts look better to me, but they have no order. Why would you start with Wimbledon/US? That makes no orderly sense at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added the Golden/Super Slam tables back (3-1 consensus), and reordered the sections. These pages have been more than simple chronological lists of champions since the beginning ("Majors by decade" goes back to 2005), so there's nothing new in that regard, but your titles do more accurately describe the content. I wouldn't frame good-faith to this page as "messing with things", especially since you objected to ABC Paulista's use of "meddling". I have no issue with the format of two/three majors in a year charts, but also don't have enough knowledge of the accessibility issues vis-à-vis MOS:COLHEAD to comment. I think having the Channel Slam as an exception in the two-slam is fine. Overall I'm happy with the article as it stands now, but would still prefer the fourth major results to be shown in the three major section for added context. —Somnifuguist (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a poll to determine what's the preferred format for these tables, like we did to decide the one in the main article. That would give us the possibility to further work on them to properly address the issues with the guidelines before their implementation. Fyunck(click), I don't think that renaming these lists is necessary because, overall, we're still dealing with Grand Slam champions in some way, so the title is still pertinent. Somnifuguist sometimes I wonder if mantaining the two-slam tabes is really necessary, because these instances don't seem to have a significant notability attached to them, aside from the Channel Slam ones, but even so mantaining the Channel Slam's listing as an exception is the worst way we could deal with this issue, adding unnecessary potential confusion whereas simpler solutions would eliminate it all. ABC paulista (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Somnifuguist: You're a reasonable editor for the most part, and I had the most respect for you here in wikipedia with another editor called Gap9551 so I didn't expect from you to go with those changes without discussing a little bit more. It's been only 3 days since this discussion has started, it was too early to reach your conclusion. It's not about the four of us you know, other editors could have joined and weighed in the discussion. Disappointing, really. I won't revert your edits but I'll make changes, I don't like how you merged and ordered the sections, the bars in the middle of the page is a bad look. --ForzaUV (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to revert the re-ordering/changes to section headings if you disagree. The Golden/Super Slams tables there is consensus to keep here amongst those who've chosen to participate, and they were up for a week before you reverted their addition, with none of the 141 watchers of the page raising any objections during that time. I've defended your editing twice now, and without my compromise suggestions/work on Grand Slam (tennis) your sandbox proposal would most likely have been scrapped. If you've lost respect for me so be it. I came out of retirement from Wikipedia to tie off a couple of loose ends (Grand Slam page + performance timelines I'd missed). The latter is complete and the former I'll keep working on until Djokovic either crashes out or achieves the Grand Slam, in which case I'll make an WP:ITN nomination. After that I'll peace out, but I stand by my conduct and contributions to this project, respected or otherwise. —Somnifuguist (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Most of the 141 watchers are more concerned about the first section of the page which has the list of champions, but some of them might have joined had we kept the discussion alive for a week or two. Your split proposal on the other page was 1-4 at the beginning then 3-4 and I would have made it 4-4 had the draft was scrapped then who knows. It’s all good though, no big deal, I reverted one of your edits and I’ll do some tweaking. Your contributions to the other discussion and the draft are much appreciated. Cheers. —ForzaUV (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

An idea that just came into my mind: We could combine all the 4-slam, 3-slam and 2-slam winners into one single table, using the former Three-Quarter slam's tables as the basis of it. We would list their results in all slams of their respective years and the other achievements (Three-Quarters, Surface and Channel) could be either color-coded on each achiever (like the first table here does with the multi-slam winners) or add new colums about them in the end, "checking" the winner for them to be sortable. That would eliminate most of the redundancy presented here, would solve ForzaUV's problem with the layout and blank spaces, would give us plenty of oredering options to satisfy Fyunck(click), would list their results like Somnifuguist wants to, and would comply with the guidelines. I believe that's the best solution we can come up with to satisfy all parts. ABC paulista (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

How about we just remove the tables and keep it simple

Two titles in a single season

• French Open & Wimbledon (Channel Slam) — 12 players

Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, etc

• Wimbledon & US Open — 21 players

Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, etc

• Australian Open & French Open — 13 players

Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, etc --ForzaUV (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe that amount of times and when they were won are also relevant informations. ABC paulista (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

But it could be "1938 player 1, 1962 player 2, etc". I guess that might start getting messy without a table? I also think your mention that two majors in a season is not really all that notable and could be scrapped. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if we don't find a compromise to include them all, scrapping the 2-slam tables except for the Channel Slam one would be an idea. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista, something like this

• French Open & Wimbledon (Channel Slam) — 12 players

1925 Lacoste, 1933 Crawford, 1962–69 Laver (2), 1978–80 Borg (3) —ForzaUV (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Kinda confusing? It makes seems like Laver did it all years between 1962 and 1969. I don't think that putting the achievers side-by-side would work that well. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista, you're right, a bit confusing, I'll try something else in the weekend. ForzaUV (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• And we still have the "Grand Slam titles by decade" moved to the wrong place. It's placement from below the list of champions (which it is intrinsically linked to) needs to be reestablished. I tried it but was reverted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with you there fyunck, those data bars better stay where they are, they're the least interesting sections on the page. I've been watching Fed, Nadal and Djokovic all those years and if you asked me how many titles they won in this or that decade I wouldn't know, except maybe for Djokovic's 1 in the 2000s, that one is easy :). Not many really care about the info of those section but they're there for anyone interested. Also a bunch of bars in the middle of the article just look bad. ForzaUV (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Threats aside, the bars aren't in the middle of prose. They are after the table of champions. They really need to be right after that table. I find them quite interesting myself. They were moved without discussion and unless others agree that they aren't closely linked to the table of champions, the should be moved back per longstanding consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The way we dispose the information shouldn't be decided on how "important" or "interesting" they are (these should be the deciding factors on whetever the information should be on the article at all), but the sections should hold a degree of relation to each other, to improve coherence and understanding. ABC paulista (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck, what threats?? All the sections are linked in one way or another. Usually, when the media and fans have a discussion on career achievements it's all about the title totals, titles in a season, different titles in a career/season, title total in one tournament, etc. None mention totals in a decade. Sure the info could be interesting but not as much as the other one. That's all I'm saying and I don't think others have a problem with it since it's been like this for a while now. ForzaUV (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Not that long awhile. Sometimes it takes time to notice. And aren't you the one who moved it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

True, sir, it was me. It was when we had a discussion about the main chart in the page (champions by year) some months ago. ForzaUV (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I like now the way ForzaUV reformatted the tables, I'm willing to accept this page as it stands now. ABC paulista (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Break 1

I noticed the article had a) 3 titles in a single season, b) 2+ titles in a single season (but only the channel slam) and c) a count of all the 2+ title doubles. I recently made an edit splitting the 3 titles in a single season to Pre-Open and Open, and made an Exactly 2 titles in a single season table for Pre-Open and Open, for every combination of 2 slams, to avoid double counting (if a person wins 3 slams in a year, they don't get to be listed on both the 3 table and the table for combination of 2 slams they won). I didn't know about this conversation here ABC paulista ForzaUV Fyunck(click), but surely there's a better way to have it than what it was before I made my edit (which was reverted). I don't like how we're a) not double counting Budge and Laver in the 3 and 2 slam combinations, but then double counting Djokovic this season when he should be in the 3 slam table. (we should have EXACT counts for each table). b) Why are we only tabulating the Channel Slam, then COUNTING the rest of the double slam combinations? Surely we should be tabulating all of them?? c) The current tables are hard to edit on the visual editor, which is what I use and is more intuitive and easy to update. Paulista - Tables are not cluttered or stretched. I did not remove the Channel Slam? Titles are not too long, they are specifying what statistic is being listed. Can we work something better out? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, actually the discussions started way earlier on another talk page, where we agreed to make these champions' lists somewhat subordinate to the main article. Your edits created 2 tables per subsection, but you didn't gave any significant spacing between them, which can make them visually blend and blurry their margins for the reader. You also removed the "Period" column, which increased the height-width ratio on the tables, which isn't visually pleasing. About the 3-slam table, it is subordinate to the Three-Quarter Slam concept, so it must list only the ones who won three slams in a year. There's no such concept for the 2-slam winners, and we agreed that the don't seem to be as notable as the 3-slam winners, and don't seem warrant their own listing. But the Roland Garros-Wimbledon winners seem to be notable enough, since there's an achievement attached to it, so they should have their own listing, and since this achivement encompass all instances who won these two tournaments in a year, regardless of what more these players achieved, all instances must be listed, including the 3-slam and 4-slam winners, and your edit removed some instances and separated the open era from the pre-open era ones. We actually tried to mantain the other 2-slam tables alongside the channel slam one, but we couldn't figure out a way to do it without resulting on redundancy or possible confusion for the reader, so we decided that the best course of action was to remove all the other 2-slam listings, mantaing only the Channel Slam ones, and it's not possible to make a "Exactly two titles in a single season" listing and a Channel Slam listing at the same time without one contradicting the other. ABC paulista (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista, OK, now I understand why you were using a 2+ criterion for the Two Titles Table but not for the Three Titles Table. Wouldn't it now be ideal to add in all the possible Title Doubles with their own Table? You said you were concerned about redundancy or reader confusion, I think that can be rectified with notes explaining it's simply those titles in a year, but isn't limited to them. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, like I said, there were tables for each combination before, but we couldn't agree on how to implement a Channel Slam table alongside them. Fyunck and I didn't like the idea of keeping them as 2-slam-only without a table listing all Channel Slam instances, and Forza didn't want either having a separate Channel Slam listing from the other 2-slam listings, or listing all instances for all 2-slam combinations. And I didn't, and won't, agree with 2-slam-only tables alongside a Channel Slam's one listing all as an exception. So, this is the compromise we could reach among our disageements. ABC paulista (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista, Can't we just have 2+ for every combination? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, like I said, Forza didn't agree with such because of the amount of redundancy it would generate within the section and article. ABC paulista (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista It's a pretty clear majority in favour of including them all. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, clear majority? Who else actively agree with your idea other than yourself? I wouldn't disagree with such action, but i couldn't be considered to be "in favor" of such either. ABC paulista (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista Isn't it 1 against, 1 for (myself) and two in favour of change? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, who are the two in favour of your idea? ABC paulista (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

My 2c having just seen the recent changes: 1) "Big Titles Sweep" needs to be removed as there is a 3-1 consensus to do so. It would fit better at List of ATP Tour Top-level tournament singles champions. 2) "Budge and Laver won 4 titles in a season and not included here." is grammatically incorrect—it should be "and are not" or better "and thus are not". 3) The two titles section is currently very confusing: 3.1) the "Title Double – Statistics" table should be moved before the Channel Slam table as it is more important. 3.2) that table also doesn't need a heading, as "Two titles in a single season" already covers its content. 3.3) "Australian Open/French Open/US Open" in that table should be changed to Australian/French/U.S. for consistency with the 3 titles table. 3.4) the heading "French Open & Wimbledon" should be changed to "French Open—Wimbledon ("Channel Slam")" to make it clear that it has special status which is why it is tabulated and the others are not. This account is not autoconfirmed so cannot edit the article, so I'll leave others to decide which of my suggestions are valid. Kuinyo (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Kuinyo, Big Titles Sweep doesn't have a consensus anymore since I now side with Forza on this one. ABC paulista (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a RfC on the Slam Table Issue. ABC paulista can you set one up? DiamondIIIXX (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ABC paulista: What made you change your mind? @DiamondIIIXX: RFCs have to be specific or they fail. What specific question do you want resolved? Kuinyo (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, I disagree, we had way lenghtier discussions before on such subjects and we reached consensus back there, we can do it again. And I've never set up a RfC before, I don't know how to do it. Kuinyo, Forza brought a source that clearly validates it as an achievement. Maybe more sourcing on the subject would be desirable, but I'm content with what he brought. ABC paulista (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, listing all those 2 slams instances would be too much and it's not needed imo. You can already find those in the main table (Champions by year), the players with a yellow background color. Kuinyo, there was no consensus regarding what achievement can be there, it was about, should we lock the page to the Grand Slam tournaments only or not. The Channel Slam heading was just like you suggested but someone changed it recently, I'll revert it I guess. ForzaUV (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Kuinyo Should each Title Double have its own table? Also, should each Table be limited to exactly that combination, or should there be double-counting? For example, in 2010, Rafael Nadal won the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open. Should Rafael Nadal be added to the French Open/Wimbledon/US Open Triple, and French Open/Wimbledon Double (as part of the Channel Slam), and/or Wimbledon/US Open Double, or a combination of these? If you can think of a better way to word this please say. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@ABC paulista: It's not whether it's an achievement—it obviously is—it's whether this is the appropriate place to put it. The concepts of Super/Golden Slams are directly derived from the Grand Slam. "Big Titles Sweep" is not, and as a concept is not notable enough to include here on an equal footing with the others which have well-established notability in the mainstream press and amongst tennis fans. List of ATP Tour Top-level tournament singles champions directly deals with the 4 Slams, 9 Masters, YEC & Olympics as a grouping, so that article is clearly the better place for the "Big Titles Sweep" info. Kuinyo (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Kuinyo, my question was whether it's an achievement or not, since the ATP source didin't use it as nown for an actual achievement, but the sencond source does use it as an nominator, and since it is directly related to the grand slams, I believe that this is a proper place to include it. ABC paulista (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The ATP have changed their definition of "Big Titles" as of 2021 to include the Olympics [2][3][4][5]. Thus our disagreement is moot. Djokovic has not achieved a "Big Titles Sweep" under the current definition, and the table needs to be removed. Kuinyo (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The term itself is about winning the Slams, YEC and the ATP Masters tournaments, nothing changed about the that. The achievement is already sealed. I'm not sure why try so hard here, It's just another achievement that involve the four slams like the other two and it's per a reliable source. ForzaUV (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

False. "Big Titles Sweep" = "Sweep of Big Titles". "Big Titles" includes the Olympics under the current definition. Djokovic has not won the Olympics. Thus Djokovic has not won a "Big Titles Sweep". There are zero holes in this logic, please catch up. It's not "just another achievement", otherwise why haven't you included Davis Cup/ATP Cup? He's also the only player to have won All GS+YEC+Masters + them as well. A single non-notable WP:Secondary source isn't enough to put this achievement on equal footing with the Career/Golden/Super Grand Slams, which all have dozens-hundreds of reliable sources backing them up. As Hippo43 said on the Grand Slam page: I don't think it's enough to find one or two passing mentions of something, then state in Wikipedia's voice that is a widely understood concept in tennis. This even more true when the sources now contradict themselves in their terminology. Kuinyo (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, you’re trying to push your point of view here, first it was an achievement but you didn’t think it was the appropriate place for it even when it is clear it’s just another extension which was acknowledged by the ATP. When ABC paulista didn’t agree with your logic, you started arguing that it’s not an achievement anymore because that ATP added the Olympics but that’s just nonsense. The term was coined for winning the Slams, the YEC and the Masters, it’s clear from the video and that’s how it was defined in the subsection we have, nothing changed about that. As for the Olympics, maybe they’ll coin a Golden Big Titles Sweep or something if Djokovic or another player get the Olympics in the future, nobody would know until it happens. The other thing, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the term is not applicable anymore without the Olympics, you still cannot start removing achievements that have been already sealed and acknowledged. That’s just not possible and will never happen. If the AO changed surface to wood, would that mean Rafa has no Surface Slam? What if Roland Garros changes its surface to grass, does Borg still a Channel Slam winner? What about Laver’s CYGS if in 100 years there is a fifth major?

I don’t really understand what exactly your problem is with the achievement, I think it’s one of the biggest in men’s tennis and definitely a great extension to the four slams. Just after Djokovic’s win at RG this year there was an article published on the Guardian and I’ll quote the relevant part The world No 1 has now won 19 major titles and he is within touching distance of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal’s joint men’s record of 20. Having won the Australian Open this year, he is also halfway to the year’s grand slam for the second time in his career. Still, the most impressive achievement is that he has become the first man in the open era to win every major, Masters 1000 and ATP Finals title at least twice. A unique, unparalleled accomplishment.. As for the ATP and Davis Cups, they’re team tournaments not singles and there is no source. ForzaUV (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

ForzaUV, the sources that Kuinyo brought literally state that A 'Big Title' is a trophy at a Grand Slam championship, the Nitto ATP Finals, an ATP Masters 1000 tournament or an Olympic singles gold medal., which means that the ATP, the inventors of the achievement, updated this definition and in cases of such WP:OLDSOURCES state that we should follow suit. We could acknowledge its previous definition if it was notable on its own, but no source seem to discuss the achievement independently, and very few actually discuss it even inside a context about Djokovic, which means its not that noteworthy and such acknowledgment could be deemed unnecessary. ABC paulista (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

We're all pushing our own points of view; what matters is how well-founded they are logically & policy-wise. I did change tack after having reviewed the (very limited) sources and realising the ATP had modified their official definition of "Big Titles", which basically ends the debate. (The change happened last year between this and this article, where they added "or an Olympic singles gold medal"). Grand Slam & Channel Slam go back decades with dozens to hundreds of reputable secondary sources attesting them, so if their definitions were to change we would have to explain that. "Big Titles Sweep" on the other hand has literally only a single passing mention in a (non-notable) secondary source, with the primary source being just another of the gazillion promotional videos the ATP puts out and which is now fundamentally contradicted by all of their recent articles discussing "Big Titles". That's the difference. Your Guardian quote doesn't use "Big Titles", which is what's key if we're to list it here on an equal footing with the other well-established Grand Slam-related concepts. What would be useful would be a table at List of ATP Tour Top-level tournament singles champions listing who has won the most and which of the "Big Titles", i.e. Novak at the top with 14/15, Nadal & Federer with 12/15, etc. Anyway, I said I'd finish up my editing post-US Open. I've struck my unnecessary inflammatory jab. It was a solid collaborative effort on the Grand Slam page between the four of us. Keep up the good work here. Kuinyo (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced but there has to be way to make it work. I think I'll make some edits later. ForzaUV (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless you can prove that this concept is well used even after ATP's update, I don't think that this has any place here or elsewhere. It seems that the ATP "forgot" the Olympic Gold Metal on their first assessement of this achievement, and then they remembered it on subsequent times that the titles were counted. ABC paulista (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ForzaUV, based on the sources that Kuinyo brought, it sems that the ATP adapted the achievement to include the Olympic Gold Medal as one of its prerequisites. It seems to be a case of WP:OLDSOURCES, so for now I'm inclined to agre with him. And he also brought more souces than you. ABC paulista (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks man, I replied to Kuinyo but I trust your judgment here more than his, I’d appreciate your input. ForzaUV (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes good to have his opinion. Seeing as he seems to agree with me (back to 3-1), and you trust his judgement, it would appear this dispute has been resolved in favour of removal. Kuinyo (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@DiamondIIIXX: My opinion is: No, only the Channel Slam (French/Wimbledon) has special status as a double; yes there needs to be double counting due to the way the concepts at Grand Slam (tennis) link to here. RFCs are usually reserved for more fundamental disagreements than the formatting of tables on a statistics page. If you really want more opinions, make a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis directing people to this discussion, but I don't think many will be interested. Kuinyo (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista ForzaUV Fyunck(click) See New Discussion Here DiamondIIIXX (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I specifically said to make a post "directing people to this discussion", not splitting the discussion to over there. Kuinyo (talk)

DiamondIIIXX I refuse to take the discussion there. Dividing the discussion will only make it harder to reach a consensus, and since this disagreement is only pertinent here and this was the original discussion, It should continue here. ABC paulista (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondIIIXX, so where do you want us to continue the discussion, there I guess? ForzaUV (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

ForzaUV ABC paulista, here's fine. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Channel Slam

I think it's better to have the full list for the the Channel Slam table. It's not clear which players achieved the feat with the recent edits. ForzaUV (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It was Qwerty284651 who went against consensus and promoted the changes without discussing them first, going against Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, they put the multiple slam section on such a bad state, it became unreadable. They should have reopenend the discussion first, and should have done what they want to change in their sandbox first. The article is not a place to promote "experiments". ABC paulista (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Then it should be put back the way it was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I did that, no worries. ABC paulista (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Name consistency

In the Champions by year category Anthony Wilding is named for each of the six titles as listed but in the Champions list he is listed as “Tony Wilding”. It is recommend this be changed to Anthony Wilding (this is, for example, how he is referred to in the Australian Open official site) for consistency. Antipodenz (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Emerson achievements

The impressive achievements of Roy Emerson recorded in the caption imply that his singles/doubles career Grand Slam is unique for all players. Recommend adding 'male' between "only" and "player". Antipodenz (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you be more specific in which section of the article you want the change? Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Grand Slam titles by decade

It is not clear why this article does not include detail for Grand Slam titles by decade pre the 1920’s. Antipodenz (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Probably because the 1920s is first decade the four tournaments were designated as majors. ForzaUV (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That would make sense if th e article took a consistent approach with the lists of champions by year and champions list plus consecutive titles as well as Grand Slam titles by country. Antipodenz (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry @Antipodenz I am working on this very issue. Will propose a new layout shortly, after I finish with other subsections of this article. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Order

@ForzaUV: Is there a reason why you changed the achievements/records tables to reverse-chronological order in this edit [6], when the main list is in chronological order, as well as all the tables in Grand Slam (tennis)?. —Somnifuguist (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Those need to be corrected, and the pre-Open Era stats should come before the Open Era. I think Forza fixed some of the edits but missed these. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Somnifuguist: I fixed a bunch. Look and see if I missed any. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Everything is in nice shape. BTW, the visual editor makes reordering tables very easy; give it a try if you haven't already. In preferences → editing, you have to uncheck "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". I've also changed "Editing mode" to "Show me both editing tabs", which means there is always "Edit source" and "Edit" options, depending on which editor I want to use. The visual editor is great for editing prose and citations, and working with rows/columns in tables from my experience. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Never really used it. I'll have to try it on some tournaments who have their champion lists in reverse order. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t do it because I intend to do the opposite in the future. If there was a consensus regarding this, put the the link to the discussion here and I’ll make a proposal in TennisProject to change it per sources. If there isn’t then we should list them as official tennis sources do.

ITF

ATP

Australian Open

French Open

Wimbledon

US Open

ESPN --ForzaUV (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Somnifuguist:There are a couple of reasons, I actually think the achievements of the professional era should take precedence over the achievements of the amateur era and I’m sure the majority would agree on this but it’s no big deal. Achievements are probably better to be listed chronologically but definitely not the lists of champions or events, so I’d argue even the main list of this page shouldn’t be ordered chronologically. The most recent first approach just makes more sense and I’ll tell why

• Most recent winners/events are what most people interested in, when people search for Slams or Masters events/champions they want to see the current and most recent events and their winners. So, editors should keep that mind and make this info more accessible for readers by listing those events and winners at the top.
• Reverse-chronological order keeps the top of the list dynamic. Every year we can see a new event and new defending champion at the top. The top of such list should belong to none. The way it’s done now makes the top fixed until the end of time for first editions and first winners for no other reason but that they were born first, which makes no sense at all. The sport could be totally different in a 100, 200 or even a 1000 years and readers of that time will still see editions of different format/rules and names of players they don’t even have an idea how they played the game. They will need to scroll pages to get to the info they're looking for. Heck, even now the game is totally different than how it was in the 1880s and we shouldn't keep scrolling to get to see who has won the tournaments of this year. With most recent first approach, readers get to see the events and the players of their era, events they watched and players the recognize. Those the ones that matter in every era.

This is really how it should be done and how it’s actually done by sources, I listed the sources above for Fyunck. --ForzaUV (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Chronologically was decided years and years ago and has very longstanding consensus. Leave them as is or get consensus for a change. If you do the opposite you will get reverted without consensus. It is far far better that when changes happen to an event we see it realtime in real order in a list, not backwards. Almost all charts have been corrected through the years, and only a very few remain in reverse chronological order anyway. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course I understand if there is a consensus regarding the order of events I'd need to get another one for a change. Have you read my reply to you? --ForzaUV (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I did read it fully. There are plenty of things that are done differently in some places than here. But I can also pull out book after book that does it our way. Max Robertsons Encyclopedia of Tennis, Bud Collins History of Tennis, ESPN Sports Almanac, Sportskeeda.com, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. It's also done this way at other wikipedia sports such as List of U.S. Open (golf) champions, List of NBA champions, List of Super Bowl champions, List of world number one snooker players... so there is precedent in other sports as well. Even something non-sports related such as a List of presidents of the United States they don't put president Biden first in the listing. It's eldest first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh please lol, those are not “some places”, they are THE places and nobody cares about sportskeeda and some books when we have the 6 official and most reliable sources in tennis. Anyways, I won’t start another discussion with you when there are 3 other discussions we haven’t finished yet but we’ll get there lol. ForzaUV (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Two things... Those official tennis sources use the same sets of data interchangeably between themselves so it's one set of criteria shared. And while their tennis data is a reliable source other things about the organizations aren't used with the same zeal. We don't have to present charts the same way just because they do. We aren't allowed to spell tennis player names the same way as they do even though they are official tennis player data sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV: This would have to be taken to the tennis project talk page, as chronological order is the long-time de facto standard. The ordering is a style choice, so we don't have to follow sources. A couple of rebuttals:

• Wikipedia is not a news site, so has no need to be "dynamic" to generate clicks. Encyclopedias usually list chronologically as Fyunck has shown. The ITF/ATP/the slams/EPSN all list in the other direction because their goal is to increase engagement in the current game and players, so recentism is encouraged.
• The top of the list is occupied by the first GS champion, Spencer Gore, who holds a special place in the sport's history. Having the top row be "TBD"s instead for most of the year would be much worse. I can only speak for myself by saying that having to scroll past all the former champions to reach the current ones makes me appreciate the depth of history more, and puts the current generations' achievements into perspective.

—Somnifuguist (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input. You made some good points and I understand why some would prefer the chronological order of events but I’m taking into account the majority of readers and fans. You made a proposal to split the Grand Slam page for the same reason. The ordering could be a style of choice but when there is a disagreement and one choice is backed by official sources then we have to follow it. Anyways, I had intention to do that anytime soon and probably I won’t. I’ve come to like the chronological order tbh so we’ll see. ForzaUV (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This quote. " I can only speak for myself by saying that having to scroll past all the former champions to reach the current ones makes me appreciate the depth of history more, and puts the current generations' achievements into perspective." by Somnifuguist, pretty much sums up the importance of why the current chronological order of the tables of many tennis articles, and sports articles, in general, should be kept from first year of achievement in ascending order, the very one I strive for and support. It is because of honest words like these, that I appreciate this tennis-related discussions on Wikipedia. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The reverse chronological-order generally is not my cup of tea. It can be used occasionally for some specific instances where it's suited, imo, but for page like this, with lots of records being listed bellow the list, using chronological order is the only sensible way. 93.137.6.53 (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Grand Slam achievements accessibility issue

In the Grand Slam achievements section there is a big accessibility problem. There is a key based solely on color and that can't stay because of colorblind issues. We can't use color as the only means of communicating an attribute to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't that also apply to the main chart of the page? It's been always like that.

It does. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking on including the color-blind color per WCAG, but have not looked for daltonism-friendly color yet. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Found some daltonist-friendly colors that, when used properly and sparingly, should meet the accessibility criteria. Tell me what you think of this idea. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. The colors we use are fine, they do not need to be changed and shouldn't be changed. But they need to be accompanied by something else... some other symbol. Like †, ‡, ∑, ↕, ▲, ♫, etc. Just like we do for "change of surface." Something added to the key and something added once to the chart. We can't use "only color" no matter if you use daltonist colors or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I added symbols to the key using ▲ ¾ ½. They can be different but these seemed reasonable. They need to be added either after the year or perhaps another tiny non-sortable column. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

In which sub-sections did you use said symbols? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, found in which one. I suggest we update the leftmost column of data cells, who meet the criteria from the legend above the table with the latest symbols, which, in my opinion, are inappropriate. Better ones could be used to convey the slam combo, 2 slam/yr, 3 slam/yr or 4 slam/yr per achievement. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What different symbols? It really doesn't matter to me. But I'm also re-evaluating my initial complaint on accessibility. If we say to color in orange those players who won in straight sets, since there is no other way to tell other than orange, it would be against guidelines. But in this case case it more of an augmentation. We are shading in those who won 2,3, or 4 majors in a season. The row already tells us they won 2,3 or 4 majors in a season. The color is an added helping hand. I'm not sure I'm conveying this properly but maybe this isn't an accessibility issue since the info is there even if there is no color added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to rearrange photos in lead

Proposal to rearrange the photos in lead in 2 columns, so they take less space when scrolling through the first section of champions by year. What do you think of this idea? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

No need for that as the photos don’t stretch beyond the main chart of the section. ForzaUV (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks to the width parameter set in the Champions list table in the wikimarkup. Couldn't find out who did me the huge favor, though. But then again what does it matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Grand Slam Achievements

The list of grand slam champions by year is taken from the commencement date of each of the four championships listed (1877, 1881, 1891, 1905) but does not make sufficiently clear the limitations to achieving a grand slam as per the modern view of it. For example in 1903 when Laurence Doherty won both the Wimbledon Championships and the US Open he won all of the (currently accepted) major tournaments that were possible at that time (prior to the Australasian Championships and when the French Championships was Open only to French citizens). At a minimum I consider the section should make clear what is meant by the pre open era for this purpose in that it was only possible to achieve this from 1905 (commencement of the Australian Championships) and then only for French Nationals until the opening of the French Championships to non-nationals in 1925). This is discussed in some respects in the introduction but I think it needs clarifying in this section. I do not think it diminishes what, for example, Don Budge, achieved but better clarify the actual impediments (impossibility for most) the earlier generations of tennis champions had in achieving the feat. To better appreciate their achievements as related to this section I recommend that the current discussion on Grand Slam achievements is notated as 1925- and an earlier section 1881-1924 is included noting: - the first opportunity to win multiple international competitions now recognised as comprising the Grand Slam was after the US Championships commenced. The only multiple winner of both championships in the same year (Wimbledon and US) was Laurence Doherty in 1903; - the only person to win the three official championships recognised by the ITF in one year was Anthony Wilding in 1913 [demonstrating this in table would be appropriate as it could also make clear that this was the first ‘slam’ achieved on three different surfaces). Antipodenz (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The ILTF only designated the four majors in 1925 and that is stated on the lead prose, I don't think that further clarification is necessary, and doing so could fall on WP:SYNTH. Also, the purpose of the first table is to list the winners of each grand slam tournament, unrelated to the grand slam achievement, so one aspect doesn't affect the other in this case. Also, the World Championships were never considered Grand Slam torunaments, there are two separate and unrelated concepts, and trying to equal them or equal Wilding's 1913 achievement with the other slams could be considered WP:OR. ABC paulista (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually the lead prose states the ITLF officially recognised the Australian and US tournaments in 1924 and the French in 1925, The (Wimbledon) Championships had already been accorded the Major designation at the same time the other World Championships (WHCC and WCCC) were. The term Grand Slam was not in use prior to or at the time of these designations and when it was adopted it applied to a circumstance that could, for all practical purposes, only have occurred from 1925. So, using this approach why is Budge’s achievement not qualified to recognise this? The wider issue is that the Grand Slam is an extension of something wider; the development of the game of tennis and its premier tournaments (Majors) and the esteem accorded to those who were multiple champions. It is appropriate and I consider respectful to note those achievements. Antipodenz (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless you can find sources that actually put the World Championships and the Grand Slam tournaments on a equal footing, taking such initiative could be considered WP:OR. The term "Grand Slam" might not be the original nomination for these tournaments, but that's how they are mostly known nowadays, and that's what really matters per WP:NAME. ABC paulista (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The World Championships are part of the submission made but in respect to them they were designated as Major tournaments by the ILTF just as were each of the four national championships. Do you consider this is something that is not sufficiently clear or you disagree with? The term Grand Slam was specifically appended to Major tournaments, but at the time is was so made some Major tournaments had ceased, this however does not make them any less than what they were. The issue is how far back to you go to consider something to be a Grand Slam (retrospective application of the term to Major tournaments perhaps with some qualifications e.g. full potential access); if you go back prior to 1924 then the World Championships (which included Wimbeldon) are in the equation. Antipodenz (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Grand Slam term is retroactively applied to the current 4 major tournaments. The World Championship is another kind of designation, disticnt and unrelated to the Majors currently played and back then, and no source here treat them as equal, or relate them in a direct way. You can't try to equal them if no one elsewhere makes such remark, otherwise it would be WP:OR. It only boils down to if you have sources to back-up your opinions, and if you don't, than they are irrelevant here. ABC paulista (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The World Championships (which included one of the current Majors) were officially designated by the ITLF and continued until they were ended and replaced (excepting The Championships) with other officially designated Championships. This was the clear evolution of the establishment of the Majors as we know them today. This is all clearly documented and historically recorded including on such Wikipedia articles as this - it is thus misleading and inappropriate to attempt to suggest that the views I have outlined are either unique or without foundation. Further I return to the manner in which the events developed into the Grand Slams as we know them today - the process happened in an interrelated manner and is appropriate to recognise this. Antipodenz (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is more apropriate on the Grand Slam (tennis) article than here, especially at the History section where such context is discussed. But you are still arguing without providing sources to back-up, and the burden of proof is on the claimer, so I can, and will, suggest that your views are without foundation until you provide some. The World Championships were dismissed because the USNTLA demanded so to join the ITLF, and the Majors developed over time, building on the prestige of their national federations and the sportive success of their representatives on indvidual tournaments and on the Davis Cup, and it wasn't based on the dismissal of the WCs. And even if it was entirely true that the WCs and Majors were this interconnected, it would be still baseless to try to hold them on the same ground without sources directly stating such. Without direct sources to back-up your claims, all of this is WP:OR, period. ABC paulista (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. Lets start by looking at this article. You want to see sources that put the World Championships (there is a hint in the title by the way) and the Grand Slam tournaments on the same footing. It says: "From 1913 to 1923 there were three official championships recognized by the ILTF". And it says: "The Australian and U.S. tournaments were officially recognised by the ILTF in 1924, and the French Championships followed a year later in 1925". They were approved official tournaments by the ILTF. To look at the article you mention: "Three tournaments were established, being designated as "World Championships":

• World Grass Court Championships, played on grass courts.
• World Hard Court Championships, played on clay courts.
• World Covered Court Championships, played on an indoor wood surface.[8]

The LTA was given the perpetual right to organize the World Grass Court Championships, to be held in Wimbledon, and France received permission to stage the World Hard Court Championships until 1916.[9] Anthony Wilding of New Zealand won all three of those World Championships in 1913.[10]".

So when the (Australasian, US and French) Championships were recognised in 1923 and 1924 there was no need to recognise The Championships - it already was considered to be a Major tournament. Now lets look at your claim of being 'separate and unrelated concepts' the same article goes on to record: "Until 1925, it was known as Championnats de France (French Championships) and only French clubs members were eligible to compete in the tournament,[48] thus another tournament called the World Hard Court Championships was the premier clay championship in France at the time as it admitted international competitors, and it's often seen as a true precursor to the modern French Open.[13][54]". Other articles discuss this and similar themes.

Now to be clear - I never said that the World Championships were Grand Slam events, that would require a determination by the ITF. I have (above) referred to them as official and I have made the case that in the evolution of the game of tennis in terms of multiple championships there should be due recognition for the likes of Reginald Doherty as the first multiple Majors mens singles champion and for Anthony Wilding as the first person to win three (and all recognised at the time by the ILTF) Major Championships in the same year. In my view they are connected with the Grand Slam story and it is poorer without it. Further I have submitted that clarification regarding the potential achievement for the Grand Slam is required by noting that the first year it could have practically been achieved was 1925.

About Wimbledon, it's stated that the ILTF worked to convince the USNTLA to join them, meeting their demand to drop the designation of "World Championships" from all three tournaments, which led to the demise of both the World Covered Court Championships and the World Hard Court Championships.[9] By 1923 the power distribution was heavily in favor of Britain, France, Australia, and the US, but no actual definition of "major" was attributed. While many countries had their own national tennis championships, it was obvious by the 1930s that the tournaments in Britain (Wimbledon), France (Roland Garros), Australia, and the United States were the most prestigious events in the sport, and thus they were subsequently designated as the "Official Championships".[13][14], which means that it wasn't desginated an Official/Major tournament directly from World Championship. It first was demoted from its "World Championship" status, as they were disbanded, then later it was designated as an "Official Championships", by another and unrelated process on what the World Championships passed through.

About the Roland Garros/WHCC debacle, this is an discussion that only pertains to these two tournaments, and neither there's a consensus on the subject, nor similar discussion can be found for the WCCC, for example. This discussion is subject of disagreements between experts on the subject, but the Roland Garros itself doesn't consider the WHCC as a official percursor.

I'm not against giving World Championships a proper recognition and for their champions, but this isn't the place. This article is Grand Slam-exclusive, just to list the Grand Slam tornaments champions and instances whose achivements directly involve these four tornaments, or the Grand Slam concept itself. But nothing is stopping you to be WP:BOLD and crate and artcile exclusively discussing the World Championships and its winners. It's just that it isn't the place. ABC paulista (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Break 1

I just noticed this discussion and I'm not sure in black and white what is actually being asked to be done. It's hard to comment until I see what someone wants to change. There were a heck of a lot more "ILTF Official Championships" created in 1923/24 than those four. And the World Grass Court Championship was not really created in 1913... it already existed as a major event. It pre-dated the ILTF just as the US Championships pre-dated the ILTF, just as many championships pre-date the ILTF. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The ITLF was established for reasons including the regulation of the game (rules etc.) and establishing Major tournaments which were, initially, the three World Championships. At the Mar 1923 meeting they determined that they would cease these Majors (The Championships continued but not for future years also as the WGCC) and agree that the US and Australasian tournaments would receive official recognition and thus became Major tournaments the following year; a similar process later occurred confirming the French Championships as a Major tournament in 1925. The World Championships did not cease immediately e.g. the WHCC was held the following May and, further, it was determined not to hold that tournament in 1924 as the Paris Olympics were being held that year. The key point is that the establishment of the Grand Slam tournaments, as are often referred to today, came about through a process that was directly associated with what had preceded it (e.g. earlier Majors now superseded). I have not requested that this article goes into detail about these (earlier) Majors.

What I requested (apologies if this was not clear):

- that the periods for which the respective Majors listed within this article are considered to be Grand Slam tournaments and the reasons for this;

- the clarification, associated with the above, of the first opportunity in which it was possible to complete the Grand Slam;

- the recognition of the first champion of multiple tournaments (when they were considered to be Grand Slam ones);

- the recognition of the first occurrence of the completion of a sweep of the recognized Majors at that time. This last point is not to consider it is the same as the Grand Slam but advise that in the evolution of the development of the Grand Slam tournaments there were Majors established and a significant record pertaining to them had been achieved that helps tell the story to which this article refers (multiple champions of Majors).

Some of this info is not quite right. The ILTF formed to regulate the game. The US first brought this up years before but balked in 1913 at anything being called a World Championship and the voting power arrangement. So they were out except as observers. The ILTF announced three world championship events. Two were already in existence, Wimbledon (since 1877) and the World Hard Court Championship (since 1912). Those two became world championships and they created the World Covered Court Championship that rotated around from country to country. Then came WW1. After the war the ILTF was broke and losing members left and right (including Germany). Wimbledon still did great but the WHCC was failing to draw enough crowds and the WCCC was never more than a blip... it never amounted to anything close to a World Championship regardless of title and stayed a minor European affair. Concessions were made on all sides to get the Americans involved and with the dropping of any World Championships the US applied for membership.

There would simply be an Australasian Championship, and French Championship, a US National Championship, and Wimbledon. My understanding was that they didn't do anything special for those events. There were also New Zealand Championships, Belgian Championships, Czechoslovakian Championships, etc.. Many nations had LTA's that granted the ILTF authority over rules and such. The ILTF didn't really sit down and say "These are the four biggest events." They morphed into that by 1930. And the French Championship was considered at the same time as the others, but it was delayed until 1925 because Paris hosted the Olympics in 1924. The Olympic tennis event took the place of a French Championship. Ironic because of the huge dispute the Olympic committee had with the ILTF in 1924 over the definition of amateurs led to no more tennis in the Olympics.

These old events, while important, really have no place on the Grand Slam articles except as a passing mention and a link to the old tournaments and the ITF article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Antipodenz, the name of this article is "List of Grand Slam men's singles champions", not "List of major tournament's men's singles champions" or something similar. This article deals exclusively with the Grand Slam tournaments, not any other "major tournament" that have ever existed. ABC paulista (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You can start a new article for those "forgotten" majors and you can also expand the lead. Other than that, I'm not sure what can be done in this article. ForzaUV (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I have made, and further clarified the request, for amendments in four areas. The responses have dealt with only one of these so it it my understanding that the others have been accepted and I look forward to seeing these addressed. In relation to the comment that 'this article deals exclusively with the "Grand Slam" tournaments', I note that it also deals with the Olympic tournament, the End of Year tournament and the ATP 1000 series tournaments.

But only because those other events are totaled up with the Grand Slam tournaments. We don't have simply Olympic titles or Year-end championship titles. Those events have their own articles. The WCCC and the WHCC also have their own articles. There isn't a combined article though it is talked about in the histories of several articles. It probably fits better in other article's histories such as the ITF article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Antipodenz, I honestly don't undestand what you want on the other points, so I addressed the only one I think I understood. I ask for more clarification on them. About the Olympic, Year-End and the ATP 1000 series tournaments, they are addressed only within the context of the Grand Slam tournaments, and only alongside them when they share the same achievements. The World Championships don't have a similar context with the Slams. ABC paulista (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Two titles in a single season

The details for the French Open and Wimbledon are provided but not the other combinations (they are however listed in terms of numbers of players to achieve the respective doubles); if two titles are to be provided in detail for one combination I think they should be provided for all. One reason for this in terms of the topic is that it demonstrates better the progression of multiple championship wins in a single year up to Budge achieving it for all four Championships (this especially applies to the US/Wimbledon double. Antipodenz (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The Roland Garros-Wimbledon double has its own achievement attached to it, the Channel Slam, while the other 2-slam combinations don't have such, therefore being the only really notable double of the possible combinations. I personally woudn't oppose listing them too, but others have shown shown opposition to this idea because of redundancy issues that such move would bring. ABC paulista (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Not clear what the redundancy issue is, but I rate consistent approach as being a desirable factor. Antipodenz (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy in terms of listing the palyer and year multiple times since 3-slam winners would be mentioned in half of the 6 resulting tables, and Grand Slam achievers would be mentioned 6 separate times, one for each double combination. It's true that consistency is desirable, but it doesn't supercede WP:NOTABILITY, and the Channel Slam is clearly more notable than the other 2-slam combinations. ABC paulista (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I consider recording the earliest multiple champions of tennis Majors as notable. The argument is also curious in that the notability of the French Open/Wimbledon combination could only, for all practical purposes, have commenced from 1925 so determining that this is more notable in the (generally accepted?) view today is such that it displaces the view of notability before this circumstance. There is probably a word for this thinking along the lines of time-ism; the practice of appropriating the thinking that occurred for all time. Antipodenz (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not about what we, as editors, think, but what the sources state, and in general the RG-W double is considered more prestigious and notable than the other doubles, being more mentioned and lauded by sources and having its own achievement (Channel Slam) attached to it, which the others don't. Achivements and concepts can be retroactively attributed to the ones to achieved it before they were conceptualized, it's normal and happen in all areas, not just tennis. Concepts and prestige changes over time, and WP:OLDSOURCES state that we must adapt to these changes, what was prestigious at the past might be forgotten nowadays, and vice-versa. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Some reasonable points here but if you take prestigious as the standard you end up with just what is popular. And myths are very popular. As for Oldsources that describes something else to this: inaccurate old information which is superseded by new information brought to light, new theories etc. There is no doubt about the substantial accuracy of the two title winners. What brought me along this road to an extent was the fact that the site, albeit focused on multiple wins for Grand Slam events did not even mention the first such occurrence (male singles). So what's an alternate to Oldsources, something akin to disregarding the past and minimising its relevance; because its forgotten about and not mentioned so is not prestigious and therefore isn't worthy. Except it happened, it was the first occurrence and some, at least I, consider it significant.

This case is not much about old vs. new, but about WP:NOTABILITY and the sources give the Channel Slam a degree of notability that none of the other doubles receive, even in the past it seem to be the case. All-in-all, that aren't much sources that give much credit or attention to the other doubles. Accuracy might be somewhat important, but it isn't essential and it isn't a criteria for deciding what and how info should be presented here, and it definitely doesn't supercede notability. ABC paulista (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the Channel Slam you can win that and have no chance of getting the Grand Slam - Federer and Nadal for example; but to get a Grand Slam you most certainly need to start off with the Australian - French double (something neither Federer or Nadal have achieved) so for Grand Slam glory what is more important?. This and other doubles have been subject to media and other coverage and they seem notable to me. But my key interest in this started from (and still is) me observing that the entire article has not recognized the achievement of Laurence Doherty as the first Champion of multiple Major tournaments (plus: in the same calendar year and the complete set available to achieve then); if this is covered elsewhere as a notable occurrence I'll drop this issue.

Can you prove the notability of these instances, and back-up your points? It doesn't matter what you (or I, for instance) think, but what WP:SECONDARY sources state. The notability of the Channel Slam is well covered on the main article, but the same can't be said about the other doubles, and without sources your statements are nothing more than subjective opinion and mere speculation. ABC paulista (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

OK. To use the article you referred to as (apparently) 'proof', I refer to reference #137 (Prochnow) which states: "Going forward the Australian Open and the French Open should therefore have an added gravity for players and fans alike. Winning the title at the former and/or latter punches a bonus ticket. That ticket allows for the ability to compete for a special place in history, with possible admission into an ultra exclusive club hanging in the balance.

On this reference, Prochnow is talking about winning the "Surface Slam", which means winning at least 1 slam on each of the 3 current surfaces (clay, hard and grass) in a year, totalling 3 or 4 slams on the same year. It's not about 2 slams, like the Channel Slam. ABC paulista (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

He is making the point about what the AO/FO double allows - access to also attaining the Surface Slam. With the current calendar this double is one of only two options that must be won in order to have the potential to attain the surface slam (the other being FO/WO; as Nadal achieved and went on to complete in 2010). I have above also stated that the AO/FO double must be won in order to achieve the Grand Slam and any other double combination can be won without having that opportunity. Nadal has never achieved this and so also has not had the opportunity by the time of the completion of FO to go on to win it. This isn't something lacking OR etc. - the combinations and what they can lead to (or not) are what they are. If you don't hold that it is notable then fine, that's your call.