Talk:List of Grand Slam men's singles champions/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Recent change left oodles of dead air
The recent change to the pictures, moving them from the side to the top, created so much dead white space as to be terrible. At least in my Chrome browser. That can't stay that way and it wouldn't let me delete just the offending edit. Sorry but I went back to longstanding formatting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, the double columns for images do not work properly in terms of layout and usage of space. Single column is far better. Would properly be better to divide the images over the sections to get a better flow..--Wolbo (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see you did it. Looks good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Wolbo and Fyunck(click): I have done most of the editing, that you two reverted, because in my mobile browser Dolphin, which has a desktop options. It pretty much truncates/tightens the width of any Wiki page. And Fyunck knows this. I have done similar edits to picture placement and resizing in sister tennis pages, related to this one, for the sake of fitting said photos in line with the tables. It was my intention to skew up and screw up the layout of the pages by no means. I seldom use my PC, since I am used to editing on mobile. I had no idea it was so different on my Firefox browser, that I use.
- I see you did it. Looks good. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. I reverted the Big titles sweep subsection, because it does fit the scope of the article. If you disagree, then at least move to a page pertinent to it. Don't just outright remove it out of existence. Lot of work went into it and many sleepless nights arguing about its layout in the talk page. So, yeah. That's my side of the story on the matter. If you two, think otherwise, then I am willing to discuss. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I understand you do most of your editing on mobile. I undid the huge dead air it created and put that in the summary. You reverted it back to dead air anyway. I reverted back and started this thread so everyone would understand why. If you are going to do major structural changes to pages then perhaps you should do those on a laptop and use several browsers to check the results. Otherwise no problemo... I'm sure many are only using their phones for editing these days. It probably works the opposite way for me since I never use my phone for editing so I have no idea how it looks on that. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. I reverted the Big titles sweep subsection, because it does fit the scope of the article. If you disagree, then at least move to a page pertinent to it. Don't just outright remove it out of existence. Lot of work went into it and many sleepless nights arguing about its layout in the talk page. So, yeah. That's my side of the story on the matter. If you two, think otherwise, then I am willing to discuss. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Olympics and Big Titles
The ATP has stated that Olympic Gold is a Big Title. How can someone have swept all Big Titles without winning one? I know there are older sources that have said so, but those are now outdated sources for this feat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you on this one, @Fyunck(click), it serves no purpose to have the section: "Big titles sweep", whilst it being factually disputed. I propose we change the name of said section to Impartial Big titles sweep...throwing ideas out there, OR remove it altogether. Anyhow, I deem it fit, it gets removed or gets properly cited. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Changed the title of the section to "Big titles won". Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's what me and Kuinyo have being saying to ForzaUV for days now. Per WP:OLDSOURCES and WP:V, it should be removed.ABC paulista (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I changed some things around in said subsection that it meets standards. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I see it was changed again. Is there actually a thing called Annual Big Titles Sweep? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I thought that was the fairest way to go about it. The achievement is there and acknowledged by sources, so I made a description (not a term) of the achievement which should make it clear what it is all about. The other alternative, "Grand Slam, Year-End and Masters titles sweep". ForzaUV (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are probably right that it is the best choice. However there is a "Big Titles Sweep"... and that includes the Olympics. Since it exists should we add the section above the annual one and say simply in prose that it has never been accomplished? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we should list achievements that never happened. For now what we know the term "Big Title Sweep" used to refer to winning the annual tournaments in particular, stating that it's about them all and the olympics would violate WP:OR I think but there is a note under that chart about ATP recognizing the Olympics as a Big Title. Should be enough I guess. ForzaUV (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, then tell me where something like that should go. We have a term used by tennis authorities called a Big Titles Sweep.... a career term. Yes, no one has done it, but the term exists. Where do we put that fact if not here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The term exists but as I said it was used to refer to the achievement of winning the annual tournaments, we can't make it about the olympics too without a source and I'm talking about the term itself not the Big Titles. Maybe the ATP would use a "Golden Big Titles Sweep" for the whole set, we just don't know. Let's hope for Zverev to make it, he's great on all surfaces and already won the Olympics. Should it sealed, it would be another great extension to the list we have on the page. ForzaUV (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Well, actually, The term Big titles sweep is irrelevant for singles, as no singles has achieved this, male or female, hitherto. However, it has done in men's doubles, in particular, recently. Daniel Nestor and the Bryans completing the collection of all Top tier tournaments. I took the liberty of making a chart/table of said achievement in the Doubles slam article yesterday, for reference. As for the titling of the subsection. I propose either we keep it as is or change to Top-tier title sweep. Just throwing ideas out there. Wanted to make the legend color boxes daltonist-friendly, but did not know which colors exactly to choose from. Need some help in that department. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- ForzaUV and Fyunck(click), actually the WP:OR violation comes with the refusal of the acknowledgement of the Olympic Gold Medal, when multiples reliables sources do it (
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.
). And no source state that the Big Titles Sweep was exclusive for annual tournaments, and assuming so without direct back-up is also a WP:SYNTH violation. The ATP itself never used the "Big Titles Sweep" as a term to nominate an achievement, only another, bordeline reliable, source did so. ABC paulista (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)- ABC paulista, I don't think there is anyone here refusing to acknowledge the Olympics as a Big Title. Of course it is. I was arguing that when the term was used it was about Slams, Masters and YEC (the annuals) with no Olympics in the mix, and there is direct back-up ATP media, now the question would using the same term for all of those tournaments in addition to the olympics violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or not. I honestly think it does. Not that it's relevant on this page anymore but for that section made by Qwerty in the doubles page, this needs to be answered. ForzaUV (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- ForzaUV, you're right that it was when the terms were first used, but more emphasis on the past tense because it isn't now, Kuniyo's make it crystal clear. The image you brought is just a promotional stunt, thus being barely reliable, and it emphasizes more on what Djokovic won (and the Gold medal he never did) than in trying to establish any kind of concept. The "Big Titles Sweep" isn't written a noun in that phrase (basic grammar, "Sweep" there is a verb, not part of a noun), thus it doesn't nominate a supposed achievement, the image makes no mention of any prerequisite for "annual tournaments" (thats just you assuming such because of the seasonal status of those, thus WP:SYNTH), and this image is older than Kuniyo's sources, thus being WP:OLDSOURCES. ABC paulista (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- My point is the term was first and last used to refer to winning the slams, masters and tour finals so using it for Bryans’ instance could violate WP:OR but I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it, it’s still correct and fair. ForzaUV (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- The term as a noun was only used once by a barely reliable source, not nearly enough to pass WP:N and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This whole "Big Titles Sweep" concept seems to be a textbook WP:FRINGE case, and treating it the same way the other concepts are seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE weight. ABC paulista (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- My point is the term was first and last used to refer to winning the slams, masters and tour finals so using it for Bryans’ instance could violate WP:OR but I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it, it’s still correct and fair. ForzaUV (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- ForzaUV, you're right that it was when the terms were first used, but more emphasis on the past tense because it isn't now, Kuniyo's make it crystal clear. The image you brought is just a promotional stunt, thus being barely reliable, and it emphasizes more on what Djokovic won (and the Gold medal he never did) than in trying to establish any kind of concept. The "Big Titles Sweep" isn't written a noun in that phrase (basic grammar, "Sweep" there is a verb, not part of a noun), thus it doesn't nominate a supposed achievement, the image makes no mention of any prerequisite for "annual tournaments" (thats just you assuming such because of the seasonal status of those, thus WP:SYNTH), and this image is older than Kuniyo's sources, thus being WP:OLDSOURCES. ABC paulista (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- ABC paulista, I don't think there is anyone here refusing to acknowledge the Olympics as a Big Title. Of course it is. I was arguing that when the term was used it was about Slams, Masters and YEC (the annuals) with no Olympics in the mix, and there is direct back-up ATP media, now the question would using the same term for all of those tournaments in addition to the olympics violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH or not. I honestly think it does. Not that it's relevant on this page anymore but for that section made by Qwerty in the doubles page, this needs to be answered. ForzaUV (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The term exists but as I said it was used to refer to the achievement of winning the annual tournaments, we can't make it about the olympics too without a source and I'm talking about the term itself not the Big Titles. Maybe the ATP would use a "Golden Big Titles Sweep" for the whole set, we just don't know. Let's hope for Zverev to make it, he's great on all surfaces and already won the Olympics. Should it sealed, it would be another great extension to the list we have on the page. ForzaUV (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, then tell me where something like that should go. We have a term used by tennis authorities called a Big Titles Sweep.... a career term. Yes, no one has done it, but the term exists. Where do we put that fact if not here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we should list achievements that never happened. For now what we know the term "Big Title Sweep" used to refer to winning the annual tournaments in particular, stating that it's about them all and the olympics would violate WP:OR I think but there is a note under that chart about ATP recognizing the Olympics as a Big Title. Should be enough I guess. ForzaUV (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are probably right that it is the best choice. However there is a "Big Titles Sweep"... and that includes the Olympics. Since it exists should we add the section above the annual one and say simply in prose that it has never been accomplished? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I thought that was the fairest way to go about it. The achievement is there and acknowledged by sources, so I made a description (not a term) of the achievement which should make it clear what it is all about. The other alternative, "Grand Slam, Year-End and Masters titles sweep". ForzaUV (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I see it was changed again. Is there actually a thing called Annual Big Titles Sweep? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I changed some things around in said subsection that it meets standards. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- That's what me and Kuinyo have being saying to ForzaUV for days now. Per WP:OLDSOURCES and WP:V, it should be removed.ABC paulista (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Changed the title of the section to "Big titles won". Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
ForzaUV, please comply with the WP:BRD rules and discuss the matter. Try to avoid transforming it into an WP:EDITWAR. ABC paulista (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Remove all non-GS content from this page
This is not a place/page for olympics, atp finals or masters series stats. That stuff should promptly be removed and placed into Open Era or ATP records and stats page.
Reasons:
1. If someone feels "it's good/useful to have a piece of non grand slam titles trivia on this page as it broadnes the scope of the article", then I might ask you, why don't you polute ATP Masters 1000 page with GS trivia, or with Olympics trivia? Here it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Tour_Masters_1000 and no mention of Grand Slam titles, ATP Finals, Olympics and other sorts of combos.
2. Broadening this article into silly direction (ATP Masters Series 1000) is very insulting to tennis history as this page, detailing tennis majors, now suddenly includes stats regarding combos with clear tier II tournaments of present era, but doesn't list major titles preceding current Grand Slam titles. Wilding won all big 3 ITF official titles in 1913, Wimbledon, which was ITF grass court World Championships and he won another 2 World Championships, on clay and on wood. He clearly won the first historical official sweap of all official big titles (US was big, but not official until 1924) and he was mightily praised in his day. It's ridicioulus that such masssive achievement is omitted from this page. That should have been here as in the period 1913-1923, those 3 majors, Wimbledon-WGCC and WHCC and WCCC were part of tennis evolution that brought current slams into existence. If you don't have that, it's already a disgrace, but then to insert tier 2 titles of present day is just some Nadal or Djokovic fanboy being behind it I guess. No other explanation.
3. This article needs to be rearranged imo. ITF declared these 4 championships to be "ITF Official Championships" starting in 1924. Grand Slam is a term invented by the journalists couple of years later, and ITF embraced it later. So strickly speaking, these slams are majors from 1924/1925. Before that in the period 1913-1923 it was Wimbledon-WGCC and another 2, WHCC and WCCC. Before 1913, there's no official majors, but I guess historically speaking, Wim and US were unofficially "big" since their very start. So that leaves us with AO and FO before 1924, two championships that had no official status and neither were they considered majors even unofficially (Wim and US at least were that). So this article is very generous historically and retroactievely applying major status to AO/FO before 1924 but it's also cruel for ignoring ITF majors 1.0 (1913-1923). My conclusion, since we list AO/FO before 1924, to provide a reader with a bigger picture despite those titles were not majors at the time, we could at least include ITF WC titles, which were majors in their days, Wimbledon being one of them. Major argument, if two tournaments had status equal to Wimbledon, how big do you think those tournaments were? For a decade, they were officialy tier 1 tournaments, sanctioned by ITF and that decade could be included here for historical accuracy and proper perspection just as status-less AO/FO before 1924 are included. ITF World Championships should absolutely have priority over some silly combos of tier 2 tournaments in present era. Yogi 93.140.225.100 (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- From what I could gather, those records did cover the Grand Slam tournaments. Just because they cover more is not really a reason to remove them is it? I wouldn't call it polluting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have to remove it because you can't have your cake and eat it. Think of it. If the page details with "Grand Slam tournaments" then the most narrowest and most correct view is that it's about Aus/French/Wim/US Championships since 1924/1925. They were not Grand Slam tournaments prior 1924/1925. So there's all the reason to remove even the pre-1924/1925 content. Purists would certainly do it. Now think what would purists do with totally unrelated trivia on this page? Adding some goofy stuff that combines Olympics, ATP Finals and ATP1000 to make Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic get few extra mentions is cringe stuff. That stuff belongs to ATP records or ATP big titles page. Here it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_Tour_Top-level_tournament_singles_champions
- The concepts of Golden Slam and Super Slam, for example, are derived from the Grand Slam concept and are directly related to it, being somewhat subordinated and conditional to its existance, and these relations are direclty supported by reliable sources so they belong here. No sources directly relate the World Championship concept to the Grand Slam one, and without a direct linking betewwen them they have no right for more space here than they already have. ABC paulista (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- You have to remove it because you can't have your cake and eat it. Think of it. If the page details with "Grand Slam tournaments" then the most narrowest and most correct view is that it's about Aus/French/Wim/US Championships since 1924/1925. They were not Grand Slam tournaments prior 1924/1925. So there's all the reason to remove even the pre-1924/1925 content. Purists would certainly do it. Now think what would purists do with totally unrelated trivia on this page? Adding some goofy stuff that combines Olympics, ATP Finals and ATP1000 to make Agassi, Nadal and Djokovic get few extra mentions is cringe stuff. That stuff belongs to ATP records or ATP big titles page. Here it is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_Tour_Top-level_tournament_singles_champions
- I don't see much info that's not directly related and/or subordinate to the "Grand Slam" cconcept, maybe aside that controversial "Big Titles Sweep" section, so I don't think that this concern is appliable here. About the World Championships, this article is about the Grand Slam tournaments and its direcly related concepts/achievements, not majors, and trying to imply that they were the same thing, or that they are considered as such, is WP:OR whithout sources stating so, thus they don't belong here. And the "Grand Slam tournament" status is retroactively applied to the pre-1924 editions of these four tournaments, even ITF itself does so.ABC paulista (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is applied retroactively and since ITF does it, we respect it but we all know Australasian 1905 is not a major in any way, neither officially, neither in strength of the field. Wim/US can at least boast unofficial status based on strength of field. E.g. Wimbledon doesn't need to be recognized by ITF to be the big one. It's the first so it's the big one from the start, but it's still not official before 1913. ITF label matters. The thing with e.g. Aus in 1905 is that at the time it had no official label and it wasn't any different from any small championships at the time. Even Victorian championships in Australia was more prestigious that Australian as it had longer tradition (1879) and stronger fields on average.
- The stuff I'm arguing, there's no need to "find sources" for obvious stuff, the source is ITF - International Tennis Federation. The 3 big ones in 1913-1923 period, Wimbledon-WGCC, WHCC and WCCC were in theory even superior to present day slams. ITF designated them as World Championships for the period 1913-1923. Current big ones are designated by ITF as "Official Championships" starting from 1924. Go visit ITF site and read their constitution. So if a mere "ITF Official Championships" is a "major", then "ITF World Championships" can only be "more major", not less. But why are we even discussing about "majors", it's an unofficial term anyway. We should not even discuss concepts such as "majors".
- You have two legal concepts. First you had 3 ITF world championships 1913-1923, we can call that ITF 1.0 era and after ww1, once US joined ITF, they made an agreement to sort of "descale" these top ITF events. Wimbledon-WGCC was degraded from World Championships to a mere Official Championships and US, French and Aus who had no status, were uplifted to that status. WHCC and WGCC were scrapped as tournaments altogether. So that led to ITF 2.0 era.
- People seem not to understand the concept of development. Just as open era = amatuers + pros, current Grand Slam tournaments have came into existence from two directions. 1. First one is of course, tournament history. 2. Second direction comes from a label that ITF bestowed upon them in 1924 turning them into Official ITF Championships. But while it was a "promotion" for US, French and Aus, considering they had no official status prior to 1924, it was also sort of "degradation" for Wimbledon, which went from 1913-1923 World Championships to a mere Official Championships. So while we recognize the label ITF bestowed in 1924 on these 4, and as ITF does, we retroactively count them, it's a huge mistake to forget about the label coming from ITF that preceded the current label. I'm reminding you to focus on the label. I'm not saying ITF World Championships should be counted in slam totals, as I'm not obsessed with counting "majors", but they belong here historically just as pre-1925 French is listed since it was an evolutionary step. Today you have big 4, one of which is Wimbledon. In 1913-1924 you had 3 big ones, one of which was Wimbledon. Wimbledon's co-equals are by definition majors. If the irrelevant pre-1924 AO/FO are both shown and counted, the important ones in 1913-1923 should at least be shown here. This is about Grand Slam Titles, but you don't have Grand Slam Titles without ITF blessing. Tournament + ITF label = grand slam tournament. So I think it's historically accurate to at least list here the previous ones blessed by ITF just as we list Aus/French before they were blessed by ITF. So adding a decade of ITF 1.0 era so that people could see that Wilding won proto-slam in 1913, is something that's historically more accurate than to include here goofy ATP Finals or ATP1000s. Having separate ITF Championships page is a dead end. If you at least don't show tournanents that were on equal footing with Wimbledon, and officially equal, how can you justify publishing some combo trivia including Wimbledon and ATP Shanghai.93.140.225.100 (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is obligatory to follow what the sources state, per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, and these are policies thus aren't negotiable, even for supposed "obvious" stuff. As an encyclopedia, it's main purpose is to collect and condense the information provided by WP:SECONDARY sources, we aren't entitled to create our own information, we can only follow what the sources state. It doesn't matter what you, or I, think about some info or how we feel about it, what dictates on what and how info are presented are ther sources presented, period. All you said above is solely based on your personal opinion, thus constituting as WP:POV, and without support from reliable sources it constitutes as WP:OR and both are prohibited here.
- At the time the ITF designated them as "Official Championships", but later the term "Grand Slam" catched on and nowadays it is more recognized and used by the federations, ITF included, tournaments themselves, media, tennis experts and fans, when referring to these four tournaments than the original nomenclature, and per WP:N and WP:NAME and WP:AGE, we have to follow suit. As shown by the link I provided earlier, "Grand Slam" is a term registered by ITF, and on its constitution, it acknowledges both “Official Tennis Championships”, “Recognised Tennis Championships” and "Grand Slam tournaments". The label on this page is "List of Grand Slam men's singles champions", so it should only refer to the Grand Slam tournaments and their related aachievements. Feel free to create a "List of major's men's singles champions" or a "List of World Championships men's singles champions", but as it stands now, the World Championships don't belong here. ABC paulista (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- If older stepbrothers (ILTF WC) of Grand Slam tournaments don't belong here, why should the neighbours (ATP1000s) be mentioned in this article? Seriously I consider that trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.140.255 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- The ATP 1000s were mentioned here only once, where they formed an achievement alongside the Slams: The "Big Ttiles Sweep" (which was already removed because its inclusion was very controversial). The World Championships never had such relationship with the Slams, they never shared and achievement or something similar. ABC paulista (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- If older stepbrothers (ILTF WC) of Grand Slam tournaments don't belong here, why should the neighbours (ATP1000s) be mentioned in this article? Seriously I consider that trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.140.255 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Last I checked, Wimbledon was Grand Slam tournament (Official ITF Championships), and just as today it is a part of big 4, in 1913-1923 it was a part of big 3, nominally even superior to present day status because back then it had "ITF World Championships" designation which is superior in name to a mere "ITF Official Championships". So Wimbledon was at its relative peak vs rest of the game (on paper) precisely in 1913-1923 period as it's the only period in which it was officially considered World Championships (on grass). Wimbledon used that designation for itself since inception, but in 1913-1923 it was officially recognised as such by ITF (world) so it was peak for Wimbledon importance (speaking in terms of bureaucracy) and post 1924 Wimbledon had to renounce the title, becoming just one the 4 equals due to US pressure. Bottom line, I don't like trolls and it's trolling to ignore Wimbledon's co-equals in 1913-1923 period.
- This is the most important argument. The formation of current Grand Slam required two ingredients: 1. These four tournanents naturally, and 2. ITF designation for them starting in 1924. So it means these 4 wouldn't have been slams without ITF saying so, and if we track history of these 4 before they officially became slams (ingredient 1), it's logical to also track previous ITF designations (ingredient 2). It's even more clear since Wimbledon had both designations at different times so it should be a no brainer that the first one was an evolutionary process in development of the current Grand Slam structure.
- Listing historical development is not merely "allowed" but it's also necessary to provide a clear and full picture. Take a look similarly at articles of confederation (1781) preceding current US Constitution (1789). Articles of Confederation has its own page, but is mentioned and fully described in US Constitution page. It has its own section there despite being something else. Why so? It's there because it's an evolutionary process in the development of US constitution and that's why it's there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#Articles_of_Confederation.
- Apply the same logic here. Winners of non official French Championships (1891-1924) and winners of official ITF WHCC (1913-1923) should all be listed so that it's understandable where does current French Championships with ITF label come from. It shares tournament history with the one, and shares ITF label with the another one. 93.140.140.255 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Your argument seems to be that, because it was the ITF who both designated the World Championships and the Official Championships, and that Wimbledon hold both titles, it automatically infers a direct relation of causality between these two concepts, but that's a mere assumption that constitutes on WP:SYNTH, a type of WP:OR. Your statement that "ITF World Championships" were superior in prestige to the "ITF Official Championships" is an unsupported WP:POV. WP:V states that all information, no matter how "obvious" it is, must be backed up by reliable third-party sources, complying with WP:RS standards, otherwise it isn't eligible to be cited here. Citing information without having reliable sources backing it up is WP:OR, and such is not allowed by Wikipedia's policies.
- The Constitution of the United States argument doesn't hold up because WP:OSE states that the procedures adopted on one article isn't a valid enough argumetnt to justify the adoption of similar procedures on another one, especially on cases of articles that have so little in common to each other like these two. The objective of that article is inform the reader about those concept and to give background to their inception, while the objective of this article is to just list the Men's singles Grand Slam champions, and achievements and statistics related to it, it's not to establish a evolutionary line that led to the formation of the Grand Slam concept. This informative approach is already provided by the Grand Slam (tennis) article, and its history section already provides this historical development, feel free to expand the information there if you feel the need to do so. ABC paulista (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- ABC paulista you're "asking me to prove causality" in situation in which causality is both self-evident and officially registered. ITF was founded in 1913, it run World Championships 1913-1923, they had a meeting in 1923 announcing new structure of their tier 1 tournanents from 1924 onwards (4 Official Championships replacing 3 World Championships).
- So your request baffles me. The causality is painfully obvious and documented, and mentioned in many pages in Wikipedia. So your request is silly imo. Do you ask the same in masters series page? Do you demand there as well that people "prove to you" that Super 9s from the 1990s are equal to ATP masters series in 2000-20008 and then again from 2009-present? How is that proven? E.g. Miami in 1996 is not classified as it is nowadys. The only thing that's same both back then and now is that it's part of top tier tournanents organized by ATP. For some reason you've taken the right to do OR to conclude they're the same. Yes ATP claims they're the same, so I'll give you that. But my intention was not to claim that ITF WC were equall to ITF OC so I don't have to prove anything. I wasn't into comparing them I was only into respecting history. My notion that ITF WC were nominally superior in status was accurate, but it's irrelevant semantics issue, similar to e.g. Emperor being superior to King. As a rule that's the case, but it's totally irrelevant here.
- The relevant stuff is that Grand Slam tournaments (ITF OC) are tier 1 championships by ITF. For some reason ITF recognizes their status retroactively before (1924) and I'm not questioning it. My point is, even if ITF didn't recognize their status before 1924, we would still be obliged to list winners of these tournaments before they were tier 1. Likewise, tournaments that were also tier 1 by ITF in the past should also listed for the period they were tier 1. Remember Hamburg is not ATP 1000 anymore but it's listed in ATP 1000 page for the period iz was top tier of ATP even though it was never *named* as ATP 1000. ATP says it's the same so we count it. ITF doesn't say ITF WC are the same so we don't count it, but offering historical perspective is necessary. Why else is French (1891-1924) listed?93.140.176.241 (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, every claim needs to be properly sourced, period. Wikipedia doesn't care if you feel that is uncessary, or baffling, or silly, or trolling, or whatever. If you read the policies, youll see that WP:V state that,
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.
, and verifiability is provided by reliable sources.The burden of proof is on the claimer. - Also, whatever happens on other page, it isn't relevant here. WP:OSE states that what happens in one article isn't a valid enough argument to justify similar procedures on another one, bringing here what happens in another is pointless. And like yourself said, ATP supports the equality status between the Super 9 and the Masters/1000, and the ITF doesn't do the same for the Grand Slams and the World Championships.
- The pre-1924 French Championships are listed here because the French Tennis Federation states that they are the same tournament, so it establishes continuity, a direct relation. No sources provide a direct relation between the Grand Slams and the World Championships, and this article is not about the "ITF Tier 1 tournaments", it's about the Grand Slam, and its scope doesn't go beyond that. ABC paulista (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- The historical perspective is already offered on the Grand Slam (tennis), you should refer to that article. We don't neeed two articles doing exactly the same job, one is already enough. ABC paulista (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Grand Slam tournaments or ITF Official Championships indeed are ITF's tier 1 tournaments. That's not up to debate. It's a fact. You can not have a group of tournaments without some of them being top tier, can you? Their names is irrelevant. Just as there is always at least one person (or more) who is "tallest person on the planet", or "richest person on the planet", there are always tournaments that would be top, tier 1. Even if all were the same (only possible in theory) that would still make those equal tournaments to qualify as top events.
- I know that ATP recognizes Super 9s and claims they're the same as ATP1000s and it's fine. As I repeatedly said, I am not pushing the idea that ITF WC should be counted together as ITF OC. ITF claims they're not the same, so fine. But I am saying whether ITF recognizes them as same as current GS or not, the fact remains that in their days ITF WC were tier 1 ITF events. ITF always had tier 1 events since its inception in 1913 and it had only two tpyes of such events. 1913-1923 WC and 1924-present OC (or GS).
- So history of current GS (ITF OC) is a combo of history of those tournaments since their begining, and also a history of ITF and them recieving ITF label. But the history of those GS includes other prior events with ITF label. Wimbledon belonging to both groups, being both ITF OC since 1924, and also ITF WC 1913-1923 speaks clearly about the history of those two being intertwined.
- It's horrible enough that there's no place for one decade of ITF WC in this article, but then you (someone) including Olympics and ATP Finals and ATP1000 in statistical section of this artcicle is a mockery. How are they connected to either these 4 tournaments or to ITF tier 1 label?
- I beg for vote. 93.140.138.137 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Can you prove that a concept of "ITF's tier 1 tournaments" even exist? Some Google searchs like this and this shows no results, so it sounds either entirely made-up, or extremely irrelevant, to the point of not passing the notoriety criterias of WP:N.
- Again, put something in your mind: This article is only about the Grand Slam events, and related statistics. It's not about the Tier 1 events, or the Top Tier ITF events, or the Official ITF Biggest events, or the Events who received an official ITF label or similars. The Olympics and the Tour Finals are directly connected to the Slams because they share achievements: Winning the Grand Slam alongside the Olympics form the Golden Slam, and the Tour Finals combined to it forms the Super Slam. Does the World Championships share an achievement with the Slams the same way that the Olympics and the Tour Finals do? AFAIK, no.
- Again again, put something in your mind: This article is not to contextualize and explain, is just to show achievements and statistical data. We already have contextualized and explained all this history baggage on another article, I already linked it multiples times on this discussion. ABC paulista (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, every claim needs to be properly sourced, period. Wikipedia doesn't care if you feel that is uncessary, or baffling, or silly, or trolling, or whatever. If you read the policies, youll see that WP:V state that,
Non-slam tournaments
ABC paulista, what exactly is your problem? ForzaUV (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Most people, like me @Wolbo, Qwerty284651, and Fyunck(click):, Kuinyo and others shown disagreent to the existance of this section and its implementation here. You are the only one who's defending suck an unnotorius and borderline-reliably sourced section, that has little relation to the Grand Slam concept. ABC paulista (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: What are you even on about, mate? Since when the ATP is a borderline-reliable source? What the hell!! Qwerty and Fyunck were never against the section because if the tour finals and olympics are an extension then the tour finals and the masters are also an extension. It's an achievement which involve the four slams tournaments like the others and what those extensions are all about. You've also violated the three revert rule and you should self-revert your most reversion per WP:3RR and by the way you're the one who act like you own the article not me. ForzaUV (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ForzaUV: The WP:3RR states that
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period
, and my last revert there was more than 25 hours ago so no violation there, but I won't revert you anymore because I don't like such warring-like discussion. - Also, this is not about the Olympics and the Tour Finals, but about the Golden Slam, Super Slam and the Big Titles Sweep, and the latter differ from the former two when, while the Golden Slam and Super Slam concepts have their existance completely dependant of the Grand SLam concept, where they wouldn't exist without it, the Big Titles Sweep as a concept doesn't need the existance of the Grand Slam to exist, it just happens to include them, establishing just an indirect correlation where the Slams aren't the main players on the concept.
- Qwerty showed disagreement when he admitted that this concept doesn't fit the article on this edit and Fyunck shown disagreement on the inclusion of it without the Olympics, proving that the subject is controversial.
- The ATP is a reliable source, but it never used "Big Titles Sweep" as an term, but used like saying that Djokovic "sweeped the big titles", not as a noun, but as a satement, and claiming that it was used to name an achievement is WP:SYNTH. But even if they used it as a noun, only them and another borderline-reliable source used such terminology, and that's not nearly enough to pass WP:N, since WP:EXCEPTIONAL state that such claims must have multiple reliable and notorious sources attached to it for validation. One reliable, but WP:SYNTHy source, and another borderline-reliable don't cut it. ABC paulista (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is about the achievements/extensions that involve the four Grand Slam titles, you know it and I can quote you on that just from this talk page 1)
these achievements do involve the Grand Slam torunaments, so they do belong here.
, 2)Does the World Championships share an achievement with the Slams the same way that the Olympics and the Tour Finals do? AFAIK, no
. It's you who made those comments. - You're also wrong regarding this particular extension not needing the Grand Slams, quoting the ATP
Novak Djokovic is the first singles player in history to win all four Grand Slams, the Nitto ATP Finals and all nine ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles.
and the GuardianStill, 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.
. So as you can see the extension is not complete without the four slams. The rest of your argument and all the disagreement that happened before was only about the term and how the extension should be described, we tried to alter it but it seems you still think it's controversial. Fair enough but that can still be easily fixed without dismissing the achievement/extension like it doesn't exist. In the end, it got acknowledgement from the tennis authority and that's more than enough for it to be legit. I would say it's more legit that all those terms that were made up by Bleacher Report or SI magazine. I'll edit it and let's see if you still have a problem with it. ForzaUV (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC) - Listen, @ABC paulista and ForzaUV:, I only reverted aka removed the Big titles sweep, because Wolbo, a patroler, decided that said section does not fit within the scope of the article, which I disagreed at first. But because he is a patroler, a more experienced editor than myself, who knows more things about wiki pages, what needs to stay, and what does not, I decided to yield to his request, and after first reverting his edit, I found a suitable tennis-related Wiki page for the subsection, which I explained that I moved it elsewhere, i.e. to the Big titles for men's singles in tennis Wiki page, therefore it is not totally removed/expunged, but salvaged, so to speak, in a different article. So, please, both of you just stop arguing over menial things, Just let the article be as it is without unnecessary controversy and edit-warring and whatnot. Just don't, please. This is my honest opinion. All in good faith. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I did these comments regarding the Golden Slam and Super Slam, which are fully ackonwledged achievents, which the Big Ttiles Sweep is far from being so it doesn't apply for it. Also you misunderstood my comment about how these achievements correlate to each other: Let's say that the World Championships were never scrapped and the Grand Slam never came to exist, the Big Titles Sweep could still exist because it is about winning the perceived biggest torunaments, no matter who they are, and which the slams happen to be among them (one could stat that
"Novak Djokovic is the first singles player in history to win all three World Championships, the Nitto ATP Finals and all nine ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles.
and the concept would work just fine). The Golden Slam and the Super Slam, on the other hand, own their name and entire existance to th Grand Slam concept, whitout the Grand Slam concept they wouldn't exist, so they are about the Grand Slams plus something else, and that's why they are more closely related than the Big Titles Sweep is. - Also, in your quotes a "Big Titles Sweep" term is not used, and since the ATP never used it as an term, and The Guardian never used it at all, trying to use it to validate a supposed achievement is WP:SYNTH. When dealing with WP:N, it's not about who invented it, but who and how many did so, and as it stands for now, only Sprotskeeda acknowledges the term, and only ATP acknowledges the concept who boerders on WP:PRIMARY. For the Golden Slam and Super Slam, plenty more do acknowledge such concepts and terms, which complies with WP:EXCEPTIONAL, that states that
Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources
. ABC paulista (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)- For God sake, man, those are properly sourced facts. You really don’t have the right to discard published material by reliable sources. Your being biased by cherry picking the tournament and achivements you like and dissmising the ones you don't like and what you're doing is absolutely against Wikipedia polices and principles. This is not about some term anymore since it’s already fixed in the most recent edit, this is about the achievement, about the extension, about the set of the four Slams, the Masters and the Year-end championship (
Novak Djokovic is the first singles player in history to win all four Grand Slams, the Nitto ATP Finals and all nine ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles.
) per the ATP and the The Guardian, those are VERY reliable sources. Who are you to say otherwise? The ATP is one of the two tennis authorities and 100% more reliable and a bigger source in tennis than Bleacher Report or SI magazine. Your other claimIt's not about who invented it, but who and how many did so
is utter nonsense too and its flawed argument nonetheless given the age of the achievements/extensions, the first instance of the S/M/Y extension was accomplished only 3 year ago and we’ve already had multiple reliable sources acknowledging it. How many reliable sources do you have for some of the other achievements 1-3 years after their first instances were accomplished? None. Now, please self-revert your most recent edit and stop violating Wikipedia policies and rules. It’s getting petty. ForzaUV (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)- Having reliable sources is just part of the process of inclusion, is not the only one. Not just WP:V, must be attended, but also WP:N. And in terms of sourcing, the Big Titles Sweep, is still lacking. Both the ATP and the The Guardian are reliable, sure, but since ATP itself who created the concept, it falls somewhat on WP:PRIMARY which diminishes its WP:NEUTRALity on the subject, and the way that The Guardian acknowledged Djokovic's feat is not by acknowledging a achievement, but as an "individual accomplishment", just like Federer's winning both Wimbledon and US Open 5 consecutive times, or Nadal's 2010 "Clay Slam", or Evert's winning a Slam for 13 consecutive years, or Connors for winning the US Open on 3 surfaces, etc. All of these are reliably sourced accomplishments, but that doesn't mean that they should be mentioned everywhere. There are places that are more suitable than in others, and for this case, since in involves primarly ATP tournaments, it should be on an ATP-centric page, which this isn't. And the "
It's not about who invented it, but who and how many did so
" argument is not nonsense bacuse WP:NRV and WP:GNG says so. ABC paulista (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Having reliable sources is just part of the process of inclusion, is not the only one. Not just WP:V, must be attended, but also WP:N. And in terms of sourcing, the Big Titles Sweep, is still lacking. Both the ATP and the The Guardian are reliable, sure, but since ATP itself who created the concept, it falls somewhat on WP:PRIMARY which diminishes its WP:NEUTRALity on the subject, and the way that The Guardian acknowledged Djokovic's feat is not by acknowledging a achievement, but as an "individual accomplishment", just like Federer's winning both Wimbledon and US Open 5 consecutive times, or Nadal's 2010 "Clay Slam", or Evert's winning a Slam for 13 consecutive years, or Connors for winning the US Open on 3 surfaces, etc. All of these are reliably sourced accomplishments, but that doesn't mean that they should be mentioned everywhere. There are places that are more suitable than in others, and for this case, since in involves primarly ATP tournaments, it should be on an ATP-centric page, which this isn't. And the "
- For God sake, man, those are properly sourced facts. You really don’t have the right to discard published material by reliable sources. Your being biased by cherry picking the tournament and achivements you like and dissmising the ones you don't like and what you're doing is absolutely against Wikipedia polices and principles. This is not about some term anymore since it’s already fixed in the most recent edit, this is about the achievement, about the extension, about the set of the four Slams, the Masters and the Year-end championship (
- I did these comments regarding the Golden Slam and Super Slam, which are fully ackonwledged achievents, which the Big Ttiles Sweep is far from being so it doesn't apply for it. Also you misunderstood my comment about how these achievements correlate to each other: Let's say that the World Championships were never scrapped and the Grand Slam never came to exist, the Big Titles Sweep could still exist because it is about winning the perceived biggest torunaments, no matter who they are, and which the slams happen to be among them (one could stat that
- This is about the achievements/extensions that involve the four Grand Slam titles, you know it and I can quote you on that just from this talk page 1)
- @ForzaUV: The WP:3RR states that
- @ABC paulista: What are you even on about, mate? Since when the ATP is a borderline-reliable source? What the hell!! Qwerty and Fyunck were never against the section because if the tour finals and olympics are an extension then the tour finals and the masters are also an extension. It's an achievement which involve the four slams tournaments like the others and what those extensions are all about. You've also violated the three revert rule and you should self-revert your most reversion per WP:3RR and by the way you're the one who act like you own the article not me. ForzaUV (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Is there someone superior here to stop ABC Paulista from making decisions around here? He is pushing nonsense agenda. Someone has to impose the truth here which is the fact that ATP1000s, ATP Finals and Olympics have nothing to do with Grand Slam titles. "The big titles sweap" is just some journo nonsense and marketing attempts by ATP to make their own tournanents somehow more relevant equating them with Grand Slam titles and counting all of those together. However that has no bearing on real life.
- The most superior authority in tennis and the only one with power to deciede what is prestigious is International Tennis Federation. And they recognize no "sweaps" or major "combos" including their GS and some other events, so zero reason to have some of those here. Since 1924 ITF has been running 4 GS tournanents as their tier 1 championships, and before that, in period 1913-1923 they run another 2 as part of their tier 1 championships so those two should actually be listed here. They're part of evolution of Grand Slam concept so they're part of history, just as pre-1924 French tournanent is part of history and is listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.225.77 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- While I partially agree with you on your assessment about the "The big titles sweep", you are wrong about ITF being the only one that should be considered, and doing so would be a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially WP:NPOV. WP:NEUTRAL state that all WP:NOTABLE poits of view must be considered, and per WP:RS those include viewpoints and opinions of experts on the field, media outlets, resarchers, historians, etc. Not only "official" views from "authoritative organizations" count, Wikipedia must consider all of them to remain neutral on a subject.
- Also, please keep WP:CIVIL and assume good faith for other editors, this is a policy and its required for anyone who's participating on it. Also, bear in mind that per WP:V,
Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it
. For Wikipedia, verifiability is more important than "truth". Also, in Wikpedia information is not "imposed", but rather discussed by the editors when there's some disagreements about it. All decison making is only achieved through Wikipedia:Consensus after talking and reaching a common denominator. Imposing supposed "truths" violates many policies, and can be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour. No one WP:OWN the articles. ABC paulista (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)- Yeah, you tell 'em, @ABC paulista:. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorting out chronology
Will someone sort it out? No mention of Australian being held in Novemeber in 1921-22, no mention of it being held in August in 1915, no mention of it being held in November in 1911-14 either, 1909 in October, 1908 in December, 1907 in August, and 1905-06 in Novemeber/December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.130.91 (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is this kind of information relevante here? I believe that it would be more pertinent somewhere else. ABC paulista (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- You are well known troll Paulista I've noticed. Of course this information is relevant. Why else would we have citation informing us that iUSO was held before FO in the year 2020? So either have citations for all such cases, or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.155.12 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, WP:CIVIL please. The information might be relevant and could be cited, being properly sourced, but there's no need to change how the tables are sorted based on it. The standard sequence "AO-RG-WB-US" works well for their purpose. ABC paulista (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- You are well known troll Paulista I've noticed. Of course this information is relevant. Why else would we have citation informing us that iUSO was held before FO in the year 2020? So either have citations for all such cases, or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.155.12 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Double career Grand Slam (open era)
Novak Djokovic Is the only one to make this achievment in the open era 191.113.126.218 (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not anymore. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
solmeone should order pics by place nadal on top for the moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.43.247.127 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Puzzling distinction
What's the difference between "Finals without win" and "Runner-up finishes"? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend "Finals without win" means a finals win percentage of 0%, Murray's AO finals record 0-5. Whereas, "Runner-up finishes" indicates most times player finished as finalist in said Major final, having already won the title before. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Really? We have a category of Finals without win? Very odd and very confusing to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly, the table "At one tournament" should be either deleted or moved to List of Grand Slam-related tennis records. It does not fit the scope of the article as defined by the article title and lead.--Wolbo (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click) and Wolbo: In my opinion, the table should stay, because it provides some statistical information to the reader and, besides, it is relevant to the article's scope, for it adds some miscallenuous info to the article. Either that or modify the table, but certainly not remove it. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I guess I really don't care one way or the other. I have no idea who goes in for all the intricate stats. I had just never thought of tallying the number of runner-ups for players that never won a major. To me it's pretty trivial but to others it must be gravy. But if its title is confusing to one reader then you can bet it's been confusing to others who weren't bold enough to mention it. That could maybe be corrected at the least to make it more understandable, or perhaps a footnote with a more thorough explanation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click) A footnote could work, too. Haven't thought of that. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Follow-up: Added footnotes in the section in question as suggested. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I guess I really don't care one way or the other. I have no idea who goes in for all the intricate stats. I had just never thought of tallying the number of runner-ups for players that never won a major. To me it's pretty trivial but to others it must be gravy. But if its title is confusing to one reader then you can bet it's been confusing to others who weren't bold enough to mention it. That could maybe be corrected at the least to make it more understandable, or perhaps a footnote with a more thorough explanation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click) and Wolbo: In my opinion, the table should stay, because it provides some statistical information to the reader and, besides, it is relevant to the article's scope, for it adds some miscallenuous info to the article. Either that or modify the table, but certainly not remove it. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Federer stats are incorrect
Federer didn’t hold the record of 20 slams for 14 years from 2009 to 2022, this is very misleading. He won his last slam in 2018 and Nadal won his 21st in 2022. 2001:8004:27F1:3C45:5C94:9AE8:E3A0:D54E (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Time for a refreshed look for the champions by year chart?
So I've just seen today that some symbols were added to the champions by year chart and I have to say I didn't think they were necessary as the chart looked fine and cleaner without them for years. What made it worse is the choice of the symbols (▲, ½, ¾),they're not consistent and that triangle symbol is used to indicate active streaks in the other tennis articles. I'd probably understand if they were (4/4, 3/4, 2/4) but unfortunately we don't have such symbols. Also, those ½, ¾ can't be seen on desktop screens even if they look fine on mobile.
I actually spent some time looking at the chart and honestly the more I looked and scrolled the more I found the whole look messy and amateurish. I don't think we still need the cells of players' names to be colored. We already have full sections for players with Grand Slam, three title, channel slam, two titles and whatnot. Keeping the color only for the cell of the year should be good enough imho. I wanted to make the change but I felt it might get reverted because of the longstanding consensus so let's have a discussion first. Please see what I have in mind here and tell me what you think. ForzaUV (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- It looks even worse on doubles articles so I'm going to apply the change and hopefully the majority here can see the improvement. ForzaUV (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- ForzaUV, I think that the changes you promoted improved the quality of the tables overall, but I didn't like the changes on the symbols used. Yes, the fractions were hard to distinguish, but IMO the clover and spades symbols are equally hard to distinguish from each other, while being less related to the subject at hand. I think that the symbols used should have simpler, yet more distinct features from each other to improve readability for visually-impaired people. ABC paulista (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's weird, they look distinguishable to me and simple as they're well-known to everyone. I wanted to use consistent solid symbols and these are (♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ● ★ ▲ ◀ ■ ▶ ◆ ○ △ ☆ ◁ v ▷ ◇) what the text editor had as options. I thought the hollow symbols were not great as they're not recognizable and easy to see like the solid ones. I chose the 3-leaf clover for the 3-slam seasons, just seemed to make sense. The spade is special because of its ornate design on the ace of spades card, so I though it would be perfect for those players who "aced" the season, and third symbol had to be the diamond lol. Additionally, the whole "Grand Slam" concept originated from a card game so we don't have anything better, really. They look fine, on mobile especially they look beautiful and I've just noticed they're smaller on the other articles than the ones we have on this article but that's easy to fix. ForzaUV (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Either way looks fine to me and I have no issue seeing the difference on my desktop. The ½, ¾ looked ok on my desktop too, but the card symbols are more easily discernable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- For someone with fine vision they look distinguishable enough, but their similar shape, combined with the small size might be troublesome for people who suffer from blurred vision, like astigmatism for example, and have dificulties from seeing the contours. The symbolism they hold is marginal on this context, I don't think it's worth to partially sacrifice WP:ACCESS for it, so that's why I think that the usage of more discernible and simpler symbols, like ●, ★, ▲, ■, ◆, #, %, @, †, etc, is better. Using either ♠ or ♣ is fine too, but both at the same table might raise some issues. ABC paulista (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's no big deal. I guess I can see your point in the Multiple titles section, the spades and clovers might be hard to distinguish there for some visually-impaired readers because of their smaller size, but that's due to the <sup> tags. I'll remove the tags and you can see and tell me see if it gets better, otherwise, I'll replace them. ForzaUV (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- The bigger size might reduce the issue, but since we have options that might eliminate it, they should be applied by default. Also, the symbols having the same size as the text looks kinda intrusive, looking like that they're part of the word/sentence. IMO they work better with the tags. ABC paulista (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've made some adjustments. The symbols used now have distinct features from each other. Should be all good I think. ForzaUV (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good enough IMO, but maybe the tags could be also implemented on the main table. ABC paulista (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've made some adjustments. The symbols used now have distinct features from each other. Should be all good I think. ForzaUV (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The bigger size might reduce the issue, but since we have options that might eliminate it, they should be applied by default. Also, the symbols having the same size as the text looks kinda intrusive, looking like that they're part of the word/sentence. IMO they work better with the tags. ABC paulista (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's no big deal. I guess I can see your point in the Multiple titles section, the spades and clovers might be hard to distinguish there for some visually-impaired readers because of their smaller size, but that's due to the <sup> tags. I'll remove the tags and you can see and tell me see if it gets better, otherwise, I'll replace them. ForzaUV (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's weird, they look distinguishable to me and simple as they're well-known to everyone. I wanted to use consistent solid symbols and these are (♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ ● ★ ▲ ◀ ■ ▶ ◆ ○ △ ☆ ◁ v ▷ ◇) what the text editor had as options. I thought the hollow symbols were not great as they're not recognizable and easy to see like the solid ones. I chose the 3-leaf clover for the 3-slam seasons, just seemed to make sense. The spade is special because of its ornate design on the ace of spades card, so I though it would be perfect for those players who "aced" the season, and third symbol had to be the diamond lol. Additionally, the whole "Grand Slam" concept originated from a card game so we don't have anything better, really. They look fine, on mobile especially they look beautiful and I've just noticed they're smaller on the other articles than the ones we have on this article but that's easy to fix. ForzaUV (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- ForzaUV, I think that the changes you promoted improved the quality of the tables overall, but I didn't like the changes on the symbols used. Yes, the fractions were hard to distinguish, but IMO the clover and spades symbols are equally hard to distinguish from each other, while being less related to the subject at hand. I think that the symbols used should have simpler, yet more distinct features from each other to improve readability for visually-impaired people. ABC paulista (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Career Super Slam
Is:
Players who won all four Grand Slam titles, the Olympic gold medal and the Tour Finals in over the course of their careers.
Should be:
Players who won all four Grand Slam titles, the Olympic gold medal and the Tour Finals over the course of their careers.
165.1.194.41 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Done Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Grand Slam achievement section has MOS issue
The Grand Slam achievements section fails MOS guideline because it uses colors as the only means of conveying court surface. We could use H,C,G to help those visually challenged, but we also would need to put those letters in the key boxes. We could put a break after the event name and in non-bolded letters write hard, clay, or grass. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I just added the surface to each event and got rid of the non-compliant key. I wasn't sure how best to do the Career Grand Slam surface since it changed between Amateur and Open Era's. Maybe two separate charts for the eras? Also, since whoever added the colors felt surface was important, I added the surface to the Olympics and Year-end events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) I think that the way that the surfaces were added on the tables' headers is intrusive and doesn't actually help with colorblindness. Maybe a notelist would be better in these cases, or adopt the same solution that was adopted on the main table and on the multiple slams section. ABC paulista (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: I don't think it's intrusive... it conveys what color alone can't do for those who are colorblind. My aunt and uncle are colorblind and they thought my way helped them understand it better. But if you think it's intrusive then lets think of a better way. How it was, was against Wikipedia MOS. What you mentioned could be done. I had said that if the color boxes had a H, C, W in them and we simply put the same in each cell, that could work. I actually thought that having a H,C,W in each in every cell would have been more intrusive, but it can certainly work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: I tried your suggestion with a key to convey the surfaces. Is it more to your liking? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click), the keys located on the headers didn't actually tell when the change occurred, or on what surface each edition was played on, thus it didn't properly conveyed the information that was intended to. This new version looks slightly better, the keys could be supped and downsized to be less intrusive like on the other tables, but I think that a true notelist would work better than legends. ABC paulista (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, the letters HCW are downsized. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) I believe that the "sup" tag would work better than the"small" tag currently used, but I still believe that a notelist would be even better. I'll try to implement it tomorrow or the day after. ABC paulista (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Most of the article uses a "small" tag like (1/13) but I see we also use sup when it pertains to something specific the player did. When I tried it, I think it's better "small" than "sup." Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fyunck(click) and ForzaUV: I've implemented the idea that I had in mind. Feel free to tweak, change or even revert if you prefer the previous versions. I'd like to see what you think of it. ABC paulista (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: While @ForzaUV: changes were fine (except he missed Olympics and Year-end) I really don't like your changes. There is no reason for brackets, there is no reason for a link when we have a key above, and it is far more intuitive to use H,C,G,Cp for hard court, clay court, grass court, carpet court. I only used the small command but sup or sub is no big deal.thought it was fine before your change.
- Fair enough. Unfortunately the brackets are a standard part of the Notelist template, and it doesn't let us create a custom listing. The advantage of this template is that it enables the possibility to identify the item/aspect without having to check the keys, but I guess it doesn't constitute as that advantageous since there few keys on the legend. ABC paulista (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: While @ForzaUV: changes were fine (except he missed Olympics and Year-end) I really don't like your changes. There is no reason for brackets, there is no reason for a link when we have a key above, and it is far more intuitive to use H,C,G,Cp for hard court, clay court, grass court, carpet court. I only used the small command but sup or sub is no big deal.thought it was fine before your change.
- @Fyunck(click) and ForzaUV: I've implemented the idea that I had in mind. Feel free to tweak, change or even revert if you prefer the previous versions. I'd like to see what you think of it. ABC paulista (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Most of the article uses a "small" tag like (1/13) but I see we also use sup when it pertains to something specific the player did. When I tried it, I think it's better "small" than "sup." Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) I believe that the "sup" tag would work better than the"small" tag currently used, but I still believe that a notelist would be even better. I'll try to implement it tomorrow or the day after. ABC paulista (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, the letters HCW are downsized. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click), the keys located on the headers didn't actually tell when the change occurred, or on what surface each edition was played on, thus it didn't properly conveyed the information that was intended to. This new version looks slightly better, the keys could be supped and downsized to be less intrusive like on the other tables, but I think that a true notelist would work better than legends. ABC paulista (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: I tried your suggestion with a key to convey the surfaces. Is it more to your liking? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: I don't think it's intrusive... it conveys what color alone can't do for those who are colorblind. My aunt and uncle are colorblind and they thought my way helped them understand it better. But if you think it's intrusive then lets think of a better way. How it was, was against Wikipedia MOS. What you mentioned could be done. I had said that if the color boxes had a H, C, W in them and we simply put the same in each cell, that could work. I actually thought that having a H,C,W in each in every cell would have been more intrusive, but it can certainly work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@ForzaUV: me and Fyunck(click) semm to agree that the surfaces for the Olympics and Tour Finals should be cited on these tables, yet you just go and remove them without caring to discuss the issue, breaching WP:BRD. So, what's your reasong for this? ABC paulista (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @ABC paulista: There was no discussion about it until now. And it's no big deal, really. I can self-revert now but I was just wondering what has changed for this to be now necessary. As I said in the comment, I just feel it's better to keep the colors for the majors since the article is for majors. With your edit it feels like the six tournaments are all equal if you get what I mean? I don't see the court surface of the non-majors as relevant as the surface of majors in this article. ForzaUV (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Those are not colors for the majors, those are colors for court surface. Otherwise Australia and US Opens would be different colors. One of the first things I wanted to know was the surface of the other events in these records and leaving them white seemed like a big whole. Actually, as far as golden slams and super slams all the events are really important since you can't have the achievement with any missing tournament. If the surface is important to one it is important to all. As to what started this, it is nothing new. Color cannot be the only means of displaying data... it is against Wikipedia MOS. Having "red signifies a loss" cannot be seen by someone colorblind for red. So it must have some text to also let people know what the data means. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- ForzaUV, the article isn't about the tournaments and achievements themselves, but about the champions and their achievers, and when it comes to surfaces the level of the tournaments doesn't really matter. Also, it feels inconsistent, incomplente to leave such information behind for such reason. When it comes to the Golden Slam and Super Slam, the Olympics and the Finals are as relevant as the slams, even if the latter ones are bigger in tennis overall compared to the former ones. ABC paulista (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Olympics and YEC are as relevant as Slams for those two achievements but still the Career Grand Slam is the main thing and the two tournaments are the extensions, nobody talks and starts thinking a player is going to achieve a Super Slam before he completes the Career Slam. I really thought the colored and non-colored cells was a good way to differentiate the majors from the non-major tournaments. What do you two think of this format, would it be a good compromise? ForzaUV (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- A "career" event true. But Steffi Graf won it in the same year. Had the Olympics been first (as it is these days) they would have talked about it before the US Open. That said, this new chart absolutely works for conveying the info and passing MOS. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- ForzaUV, throughout the whole article it's stated what tournaments comprise the Grand Slam achievent, it's literary cited everywhere here, so ee don't need another method of differentiating the slams from the non-slams, especially a less effective method like this one. People who'd read that section would probably know this difference, and if some reader doesn't they can find it immediately above or below. ABC paulista (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Olympics and YEC are as relevant as Slams for those two achievements but still the Career Grand Slam is the main thing and the two tournaments are the extensions, nobody talks and starts thinking a player is going to achieve a Super Slam before he completes the Career Slam. I really thought the colored and non-colored cells was a good way to differentiate the majors from the non-major tournaments. What do you two think of this format, would it be a good compromise? ForzaUV (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Potential improvement to "Champions list"
For players who won titles both in the AE and OE (e.g. Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall), the listings for the 4 tourneys don't show how many titles were won in each era. So for those three players I suggest a change of the entries to a more informative format.
Examples could be: x/y with x being the number of AE wins and y the number of OE wins. Or a(+b) with a being the OE wins and b the AE wins (since OE wins were more difficult / important).
So as an example, Rod Laver's entry would look like this: 2/1 1/1 2/2 1/1 or 1(+2) 1(+1) 2(+2) 1(+1)
and John Newcombe's entry like this: 0/2 0/0 1/2 1/1 or 2(+0) 0(+0) [or just plain "0"] 2(+1) 1(+1)
Better ideas? 165.1.194.41 (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- It might be informative, but also looks messy. I'd like to see an example before stating a definitive opinion on it. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think that is not really needed at all as it would be messy. We have two columns that say how many in each era a player has won. If someone needs that fine a detail they can click on the individual events and see it. I really don't see the importance for a change... Laver won four Wimbledon trophies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Examples:
| Titles | Player | AE | OE | Australian Open | French Open | Wimbledon | US Open | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 |  Rod Laver |
6 | 5 | 2/1 | 1/1 | 2/2 | 1/1 | 1960–1969 |
| John Newcombe |
2 | 5 | 0/2 | 0/0 [or "0"] | 1/2 | 1/1 | 1967–1975 |
| Titles | Player | AE | OE | Australian Open | French Open | Wimbledon | US Open | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Rod Laver |
6 | 5 | 1(+2) | 1(+1) | 2(+2) | 1(+1) | 1960–1969 |
| John Newcombe |
2 | 5 | 2(+0) | 0(+0) [or "0"] | 2(+1) | 1(+1) | 1967–1975 |
165.1.194.41 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, this looks confusing, especially for newbies who might not be ttaht aware of such distinction. ABC paulista (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Grand Slam achievements - Career Grand Slam - Rod Laver (2) misleading/wrong
His two 1969 wins were already in the OE, so he didn't achieve a second AE career grand slam. He was the first player to achieve an OE cgs though; the two 1962 entries (Australian & Wimbledon) should be changed to 1969 and 1968 though. 165.1.194.41 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- It looks ok to me. He had a double career Grand Slam. Where to put him since he overlapped AE and OE is simply a matter of opinion. I myself would have put it in the Open Era. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry mate, he did NOT achieve a second AE cgs. He did achieve an OE cgs though. So the table as is is factually incorrect. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of facts. In order to achive an AE cgs you need to win each tourney in the AE. He didn't do that twice for each tourney.
- And since you would've put him in the OE anyway, kindly correct the table. Can't do that myself since it's locked. Thanks. :) 165.1.194.41 (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- He won his second AO and WB in 1962, inside the Amateur Era, and his second RG and USO in 1969, already on the Open Era, so his second CGS spans both eras, it's a mix of titles in both periods. So where should be placed: in the AE because of his first title of this CGS (1962 AO) or on the OE because of his last title on this CGS (14969 USO)? I'd say that, regardless of the decision, the placement is subjectve, and I'm fine both ways. But the unchangeable fact is that his second CGS is comprised of 1962 AO, 1969 RG, 1962 WB and 1969 USO. Both his 1968 WB and 1969 AO titles were his third on each tournament, so they cannot be part of his second CGS. ABC paulista (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since it did bug me that his second was put in the Amateur Era but it also would have bugged me putting it in the Open Era, I created a mixture row of both that hopefully satisfies us all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't like how it looks. I think that we should ditch the "Period" column, and maybe create legends in the names to replace them, since this one isn't the only case of achievement spanning both eras. ABC paulista (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, I hadn't expected that. I like it much better than it was and it already has enough legends in the table. We could simply get rid of the the "period" column. it says "Players who won all four major titles over the course of their careers." The period doesn't really matter so I removed it. Is that better? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can agree with such. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- And I just gave the section header a bit of context on what it is about and when the Open Era started.... for extra clarity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I would tend to disagree: During the AE, quite a few players went pro in order to earn money. So competition in the AE tourneys was noticeably easier than OE tournaments. During the OE, all the top players were playing those 4 tournaments. So in my opinion, it clearly makes a difference. You can also see how Novak Djokovic was praised for being the first man in the OE to win each tourney twice. That was/is worth mentioning. Same with Nadal, who became the second player to achieve that feat. 165.1.194.41 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)The period doesn't really matter so I removed it.
- I can agree with such. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, I hadn't expected that. I like it much better than it was and it already has enough legends in the table. We could simply get rid of the the "period" column. it says "Players who won all four major titles over the course of their careers." The period doesn't really matter so I removed it. Is that better? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't like how it looks. I think that we should ditch the "Period" column, and maybe create legends in the names to replace them, since this one isn't the only case of achievement spanning both eras. ABC paulista (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since it did bug me that his second was put in the Amateur Era but it also would have bugged me putting it in the Open Era, I created a mixture row of both that hopefully satisfies us all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- He won his second AO and WB in 1962, inside the Amateur Era, and his second RG and USO in 1969, already on the Open Era, so his second CGS spans both eras, it's a mix of titles in both periods. So where should be placed: in the AE because of his first title of this CGS (1962 AO) or on the OE because of his last title on this CGS (14969 USO)? I'd say that, regardless of the decision, the placement is subjectve, and I'm fine both ways. But the unchangeable fact is that his second CGS is comprised of 1962 AO, 1969 RG, 1962 WB and 1969 USO. Both his 1968 WB and 1969 AO titles were his third on each tournament, so they cannot be part of his second CGS. ABC paulista (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023
 | This edit request to List of Grand Slam men's singles champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "making him the only male player with double-digit titles at a single major." to "making him the only male player with double-digit titles at the French Open."
As of the 2023 Australian championship, Novak Djokovic has also won double digits titles at a single major. Kotobukiso (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Partly done Info about Rafael Nadal was updated by another user, removing the incorrect statement. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Order of the players
Please can someone clarify the rules on the order of the players presented with photos and captions at the top of the page. I believe I have seen the order change over the years depending on perhaps who had the most impressive records. Using this logic surely it would change once more to have Rafael Nadal second below his fellow player Novak Djokovic? Kxcii (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- They both have 22 major titles. Usually we would go chronologically if it's tied. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Consecutive years with at least one Grand Slam title
We should include back this table (deleted sometime in mid-april 2021) for analysing career spans with consistent level of success. All players have some off-seasons, but keeping high level year after year to win a major is a significant achievement showing discipline, mental fortitude, consistency - key elements of great tennis players.
Most consecutive years with at least one Grand Slam title
| Years | Span | Player(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | 2005–2014 |  Rafael Nadal
|
| 8 | 1974–1981 |  Björn Borg
|
| 8 | 1993–2000 |  Pete Sampras
|
| 8 | 2003–2010 |  Roger Federer
|
| 7 | 1881–1887 | Richard Sears
|
Note: * indicates ongoing streak, bold indicates player still active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.146.102.181 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's kind of weak but it really doesn't belong here. Maybe at List of Grand Slam–related tennis records or All-time tennis records – Men's singles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- This chart existed in all-time article a few years back before the revamped cleaned up version, if my memory serves me right. It's been awhile since I've delved into said article in more depth. I say, put the chart in the all-time article. Putting it in the slam records article would open up a whole new can of worms, wherein you'd be giving the option to add more akin records in the list. Whilst I am an advocate of slam related records, the aforementioned table fits better in the all-time article. @Fyunck(click):, which one you think'd be more pertinent the above chart in: slam records or all-time article? Qwerty284651 (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not totally sold that we need it, and I'm not sure which article would be best. You made good points. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2023
| This edit request to List of Grand Slam men's singles champions has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Roy Emerson has his 12 grand slam wins in bold despite not being an active player. 110.150.56.247 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Not done It's bolded because it's the record for the Amateur Era, not because he's active. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
