Talk:List of Grand Slam women's singles champions/Archive 1

Australia missing from Titles by number

I've added it , maybe someone can check. Piet 23:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Country by Number section

I dont think the "country by numnber" section is correct at all.....great britain has won SO many more grand slam titles than stated! Plus, if you only count the open era they STILL have more than three! Virginia Wade and Sue Barker won grand slams as well as Ann Jones....and if you're counting BEFORE the open era as well then they will have won nearly as many as the USA! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.159.120.114 (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

i count about 49 grand slam titles by Great Britain in all!

The mens' page has 'three of four' highlighted in beige. We don't see that on the women's page?Ryoung122 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Seven of Eight

Note that both Graf and Court won '7 of 8' slams in a two-year period.Ryoung122 02:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing Labels

Numbers for some (i.e. 2/3 for Haydon in 1960's) are missing.Ryoung122 02:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

One-Time Winners

I think one-time winners should still be labeled (1/1) because it helps the viewer know whether to look for that person elsewhere in the list or not (which happens to be incomplete right now).Ryoung122 03:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Country flags in Monica Seles' entries

In case you're wondering: the five-point-star blue-white-red flag is Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the flag without the star is Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (since April 28, 1992), making Seles' 1992 Australian Open her last Grand Slam title under the old flag. GregorB 14:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

We see Lena Rice with the Irish flag, although Ireland was politically part of the UK in the 1890's.Ryoung122 03:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead Wikilinks

For persons like Aline Terry who have no article links, is there a way to still format Aline Terry/Terry without using a false link?Ryoung122 04:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Right-Shift

While the current format may look more 'appeasing,' I think the right-shift for Australia for the 1977-1985 shift should be made. For example, it is difficult to tell that Navratilova won 6 consecutive titles with the current format.Ryoung122 19:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree...It does look better, but it is more functional when you can tell how many Slams in a row someone had (Like Martina). Fyunck(click) 04:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the French Championships

I love it... Ryoung asks for a compromise and edits like a banshee when I'm not around... adding more and more to a controversial subject and burying it amoung dozens of edits every 2 minutes. I'm asking here what the active members on this article think about changing the pre-1925 French Championships to make it count as a slam. I could show you stacks of evidence from books that would show why it should not be included and Mr Ryoung will say the same in his opposing view, so that won't help you at all. I'm asking for people to go to a book store or library or your own book shelf and see what it says under "Slam Titles." The individual Tourny names won't help here since of course someplace like the Australian Open would list everyone who has ever won their tourney, as would a book when you look up Australian Open. But those are taken care of here in the wikipedia under the individual tourney names. The French Open wiki site lists all past winners as it should.

But this article is "Grand Slam Womeen's Singles Champions" , a different beast altogether. Look up total slam titles in whatever sources you would like and make an informed decision and post it here so we can see some sort of consensus on what everyone is thinking. 5 or 6 posts won't really help but if we can get a couple dozen thoughts it might help for making a better article and a way to solve this logjam. I hesitate to go to mediated arbritation because a non-tennis person will make a decision on a teniis related article but if we must we must. Fyunck(click) 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I would vote for keeping the status quo for the pre-1925 French Open; Grayed out names, no slam numbering or counting until it was open to International players in 1925. Fyunck(click) 18:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think this should be discussed this at WPT:TENNIS… —MC 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That had not even crossed my mind but is a great idea. Thanks. Fyunck(click) 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Francoise Masson or Adine Masson?

As soon as Fyunck stops the destructive edits, we can get to something constructive...like whether "Masson"'s first name is Francoise or Adine. I've seen sources for both, but the more reputable sources seem to say "Adine."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/majors-women.htm Ryoung122 09:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Not listed are French champions 1891-1920's.Ryoung122 03:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on 'Neutral Point of View' states that:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Yet we see just one person insist that French pre-1925 titles are 'not viable for slam-counting purposes'...this is a violation of 'original research.' In fact, we see many sources from the World Almanac to the Encyclopedia Britannica list the pre-1925 champions. Thus, this article must be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV.Ryoung122 22:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Ryoung122 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, my encyclopedias and World Almanac do not have a "Total Grand Slam Victories" heading at all. It lists a French Championship going back to the 1890's but that is covered completetly in other Wiki articles. This article doesn't cover the French before 1925 for reasons stated many many times. But good to see you back. Fyunck(click) 04:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's right, the major references don't list 'total grand slam victories' in the way that Wikipedia is. Thus, we could argue that this article is violating the 'original research' provisions, a major Wiki policy violation. I already have offered a compromise: a three-tiered counting system (Open era, since 1922 for everyone, and all-time). Given that the 'challenge-round' provision probably had more effect than the 'opening' of the French championships, I suggest it is the place to start.

By the way, I'm back because with the slams over for the year, this is the time to attempt to deal with it. Ryoung122 07:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But then we would also have to rename the article because the pre-25 French is not a Slam; it was not open to International players. We could call it something like Women's Tennis Championships? I agree with you that the Challenge round also sucked as far as Grand Slam Tennis is concerned but at least it was open to all players. And all 4 events ended challenge rounds in different years... Wimbledon 1922, US 1912, not sure about the other 2. Also, right now we have 1 chart and I'm not so sure the page wouldn't look bloated with 3 or 4 charts. Each of the 4 Championships already has it's own wiki page for all to see...all the stats are there, even for small non-international events like the pre-1925 French. I look at the pre-25 French tourny as if it was a different event all together. Do we call some tier one tourney held in China a slam championship... of course not. Because it's not. In 1925 France decided to join the rest of the world and open up their club tournament to all-comers (whether others came or not). Before that time is was just another tiny event that didn't meet international slam standards. Why should we retroactively give it that status? Fyunck(click) 09:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Monica Seles 1993 Australian Open

Should stil be the Yugoslav flag, became an American in 1994. This is also mentioned as such on the Wikipedia page (English language)concerning her biography.

We should try to avoid such conflicting information on the different Wikipedia pages where (for example Monica Seles) is mentioned(such as her nationality in 1993)

De Petrowski

Great Britain in Country by Number

There's a mistake in the total of open era titles for Great Britain, in what was likely a simple counting error. There should be five--three for Virginia Wade, one each for Sue Barker and Ann Haydon Jones. That makes me wonder if the other "by nationality" totals are correct. I agree that the "right shift" formatting for the Australian Open (see the men's doubles page) would be a useful addition. ---avincent52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avincent52 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting the AO with a right shift was the norm for this article. It was removed July 8 2007 at the request of user:Dsapery. For better or for worse? I'm not sure. And yes, there should be 5 titles. Fyunck(click) 19:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order

Keep this listed from newest to oldest, as is every other grand slam list; they've been this way forever. Obviously when people come to this article they are going to be looking for the latest slam winners 90% of the time. They shouldn't have to scroll way down to find this information. Charles 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So we should begin people's biographies with the latest events in a person's life because that's what most people will be looking at? Besides all grand slam tennis champions lists are sorted in chronological order (newer at the bottom). This is the standard way it is done in Wikipedia and logical way to do it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a long chart and when people read this article the first thing they want to know is who was the last winner, not who won in the 1870's. This is not a person's biography, it is an article on Major singles victories. Maybe, "maybe" if an entire chart would fit on the screen where one could look at bottom or top at a single glance it could be lived with, but once you have to scroll it is so much better to see who is the champion now right there in the first position. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The latest information is not the most important information. If you look at encyclopedia articles, they all narrate facts in chronological order. it's the same for lists. You are going against the norm. ☆ CieloEstrellado 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And you are editing against the consensus for this article. Tennis expert (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

reverts

just an fyi for everyone involved. More than 3 reverts by an individual in a 24 hour period will get you blocked by mediators. There are other things that could cause a block but going over the 3Revert max is a line not to cross. I see it has happened in the last day or so and I don't want to see anyone get banned. I know it's easy to slip up in a heated debate (I've done it by mistake too) but even missing by a minute is forbidden. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for an indefinite period of time. Please discuss your content dispute here and let an administrator know at WP:RFPP that the dispute is settled. Malinaccier (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice I have listed 10 sources in the opening paragraph supporting the fact that the French Championships were not open to international players until 1925 and therefore not slam worthy before that time. I'm not really sure what else you want me to add to the argument? I sent emails to wiki mediation explaining this that apparently went unanswered. At one time the list contained grayed out, unnumbered names of the "non-slam" winners of the French title but new editors kept seeing those non-slam winners and proceeded to change all the totals in the article. I seemed to be the only one who would fix them, and some got pretty deeply buried by the time I noticed. The names really shouldn't be there because of all the problems that occur plus leaving them is really pov anyways. There were actually two charts for quite awhile, one chronological and one reversed for better visuals. The reversed charts I believe had none of the names from the non-international, French club players only era. A recent vote decided only one chart was needed so I merged the two into a fully sourced document.

Ryoung122 is really the only one complaining since chidel/Tennis_expert has been indefinitely banned. Now to be fair no one ever really puts in their two cents in most of these "general" tennis articles. We've had polls and votes before with very very few, if anyone, other than the two people involved in the dispute, willing to post anything. That makes it tough for a real consensus of say.... 17 for and 10 against type of result. That's why I properly sourced everything and sent mediator-bound emails before this protracted out too long. I guess that didn't work too well. I could add more sources if needed but 10 seemed more than enough at the time this started. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

3R rule is stupid when fighting vandals who refuse to recognize the truth about Navratilova being under the US Flag for all of her wins in slams!98.240.44.215 (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

work around

The sourcing is pretty clear that the pre-1925 French was not a slam and I have listed 10 of those sources. This is a "slam" article and the French Championship pre-1925 was not a slam. However we could put in the names of the pre-1925 French winners "greyed out" as a courtesy to those readers who want to see those names on the list. No numbering of any sort though as they are not slam worthy per preponderance of sourcing. Those players should be in no other charts on this page for the same reasons. There is a French Championship page to take care of those pre-slam winners of the title where for 33 years only members of a certain french club could play (a couple of which were British residents living in France at the time).

As I have said before, if the China open one day becomes a 5th slam, it will be a slam only starting on that day. Historians won't go back to 1989 and call that China Open winner a slam champion.

This is not my choice, to put up false info on the page, but for the sake of compromise, so that others might edit, I could agree to this. I worry how future wiki administrators will look on this info in the future though. Will it be more work because of some newbies wanting to add numbers and titles to those non-slam winners just because they see those names on the list, greyed or not? Yes, certainly. But I would hope that Mr Young would also help correct those people's errors just as I have done many times in the past. He never did before but I'm willing to chance it on his word that he will be diligent. Fyunck(click) (talk)

The sources are pretty clear that there were no "slams" until the idea was invented in the 1930s; before that there were tennis tournaments. Tradition, and many sources including the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Almanac, ESPN, etc. date the winners to the founding of all four tournaments.

It is pretty clear that a single, solitary biased edito, Fyunck(click), has been attempting to impose his "Original research" on these pages for the past several years. I am not going to stand by and let these violations of Wikipedia editing policies go uncorrected.Ryoung122 04:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it's why I have thoroughly sourced all additions to the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point, entirely. It doesn't matter if YOU have sources for your POV. I have significant sources for my point of view. According to Wikipolicy on pluralism, multiple major viewpoints must be included. That means that you could, for example, include a list of "slams" excluding the pre-1925 French (but also allow a separate list, including them). It means you SHOULD include the pre-1925 French names (because a major viewpoint supports that) but include an asterisk that "some" do not count them. The point is, that according to Wiki's core policies, no one WP:OWNs any article. It is amazing to me that you do not yet understand that. Instead, you have engaged in a crusade to beat down/exclude all those who dare to see things differently from your (non) standard POV, and your only "compromises" have been insults, not real. You are not more reliable than the sources I quoted.Ryoung122 07:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The only insults have been from your side of the aisle, not mine. My compromise offer is quite real and fair. When one has an article that totals up items as this one does we have to make sure the numbers are right. That is why I went with the proper sources. Again we can bring in the greyed out version... I still think that would be incorrect and will create problems with newbies but the names would be there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a sabermetrician's fanblog. The most important thing here is the names. Without the names, there's really no reason to have an article. Note this is a "list of Grand Slam Women's singles champions."

How about this for a compromise: create a separate article for "counting" stats such as "most grand slam titles won." The main point of a "list of champions" is to have the names, not the counts. You could then have the lists in three forms: Open era (which most TV networks use), your way (don't forget to drop US "Open" 1881"), post-challenge round, and "since tournament inception." I do note that some of the early French stars, such as Max Decugis, also won Olympic gold medals. How is this different from today, when Elena Dementieva won (she has not won a slam, but has been in the finals twice and is #4 in the world). Suzanne Lenglen beat Helen Wills and Dorothea Douglass. It's simply wrong to suggest that their level of competition/ability was not high enough.

I think the greyed-out version is moving in the right direction, but still too unbalanced. You could use other methods, such as italics, or asterisks, to let readers know that SOME (not all) authorities don't count the pre-1925 French winners (as well as the US Open 1881 winner). Many do, however, including the ones I mentioned: the official Roland Garros website, Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Almanac, and ESPN.Ryoung122 09:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this is a list of grand slam women's champions is the whole problem here. It was not an international slam in those years per almost every source. The article title could be changed with no mention at all of the word slam or major as the only work around for that. What I did just now is create a separate chart for the pre-major French title holders. They are not greyed out, I am unhappy that they are on a slam page, but at least I can move forward to other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hi - I just swung in to do the admin editing on Kim Clijsters winning the 2009 US Open. This leads to a formatting question.

It appears that the wikilinking is being done in reverse order - eg. Serena Williams is linked for her first grand slam appearance. While this makes logical sense, due to the (default) reverse format of the table it creates the unfortunate case where the wikilink occurs for the final appearance of the name and not the first. Would it make more sense to wikilink the first appearance of the name (the most recent GS victory) only? Manning (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't notice this before.... good catch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

fixed by flipping chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

/* Total winners by country */

East Germany was DDR, West Germany was BRD. Unified Germany is also BRD, thus both technically and legally West Germany incorporated East Germany. The current Germany legally exists from 1949, not 1990 so I don't understand why there are "two" countries, West Germany, and Germany here?

Kaiserreich (1871-1918) > Weimar Republic (1919-1933) > Third Reich (1933-1945) > BRD (1949-present)

Notice how World Cups won by West Germany also belong to Germany. It wouldn't have been the case with East Germany if they had one WC too. East Germany simply stopped existing, (West) Germany still exist.

Slams that Graf won prior 1990 and after 1990 belong and should belong only to one country, Germany.

Pre-1925 French

The World Almanac counts Suzanne Lenglen's pre-1925 French slams.Ryoung122 08:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But other sources do not... even wikipedia's article on Lenglen does not count pre-25 French Titles. Fyunck(click) 08:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lenglen page was obviously written by a freak who, notably, decided that the "World Hardcourt Championships" counted as a 'major.'Ryoung122 19:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise proposal:

First off, the numbers like (3/3) are primarily meant to link a person to their other victories. For example, one might see Virginia Wade win in 1977 and think she won just one title. However, with (3/3) it lets the reader know to go back and check.

More than that, however, it allows the reader to calculate the heads-up (vis-a-vis). For example, Federer currently leads Nadal 11-3 but what about Evert-Navratilova? We can go back 20 years and see that Evert had an early lead and that Navratilova caught her at the end (1990).

Thus, I think for the French pre-1925, there should be (1/1) numbers as well.

In exchange, we can list the 'most victories' list for pre-1925 French either asterisked or both ways. Note NBC, for example, does 'Open-era' record but as Bud Collins mentioned, Federer now has to challenge Renshaw's 1880's record. Also, it seems the pre-1925 has the biggest impact on the players who made something of themselves...Lenglen, Lacoste, Cochet...not those that no one ever heard of. So, to exclude would be like saying that Margaret Court won 'only' 8 titles (not counting pre-Open era). It's simply not fair to penalize the athlete for rules made over 100 years ago.Ryoung122 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a question of rules. The French Championship was only a local affair until 1925... no other country was allowed to participate. The other big 3 NEVER had this restriction. Fyunck(click) 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would hardly call 'France' a 'local affair...the Tour de France is mostly in France, does that make it 'local'? The first 29 male winners of Wimbledon were all British. Check the French record. The international breaththrough actually came earlier there. Many of the early Wimbledon 'championships' had only British entrants...some had as few as 7 entrants. It really beggars belief that you suddenly appoint yourself 'official aribiter' of what has been listed in the Encyclopedia Brittanica as 'major-championship' winner. Your historical revisionism is apalling.Ryoung122 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Official arbiter?.. this page has been set up by others to not include the restricted French tourney... not by me. I just happen to be the one watching the page right now during the height of nutball season to weed out people like you who feel they are better than everyone else in defining what a Slam is. Fyunck(click) 10:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that 'anyone can edit.' That doesn't make it right all the time. Actually, the best thing that Wikipedia can do is to present all the information and let the reader decide. For example, some have listed titles by 'Open' era and pre-Open era. Wow, who would have thought? Likewise, I do believe that the 'World Almanac' and Encyclopedia Britannica DO constitute a bit more authoritative source than someone like yourself. I also see you are reverting to name-calling, which is unacceptable. Finally, if you think that I'm going away, think again. Have you checked my profile? Hmmm...do you have degrees in history? I do. The fact of the matter is, the pre-1925 rules were less about protecting French players and more about the fact that people tended to stay home. It was the French, indeed, that changed the rules to 'encourage' international competition. I think it highly unfair to penalize athletes such as Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra. Lenglen, notably, won Wimbledon before the French.

The bottom line: Wikipedia is not a final arbiter, it is a tool to present facts. Also, your comment that pre-1925 French titles are 'not viable for slam-counting purposes' is biased and bigoted. Simply stating that the championships were opened to international competition in 1925 should be sufficient.Ryoung122 10:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Name calling... you got to be kidding me right? You started the personal attacking and everyone can see that by the history. I don't care if you don't go away. One thing though... I was correcting your nutball additions while leaving later non-nutball additions alone. But with your constant vandalism it's gotten to tiresome to do that. I'm just going to revert it back to non-ryoung status and the others will have to re-edit themselves. I checked your profile and it's hard to believe you would resort to personal attacks at that level of education. Degree in history??? I have degrees in math and comp sci but I don't flaunt it. Is yours Tennis history? ... yeah right. You say Lenglen won Wimbledon before the French, of course... Wimbledon let her play because it was an international event. And if it is true it is not biased and bigoted. You're correct on one thing though, it should have been enough to say "open to international competition in 1925" but you are an example of why it needed to be further defined. Fyunck(click) 10:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fun-click, your rants are approaching the point of 'paranoia'. Yes, you are worried...because you know, deep down, that discrimination shall not prevail. Building a house of cards on one man's interpretation is NOT what Wikipedia is about. Presenting the facts in a way that allows the user to interpret the facts they way they wish is what Wikipedia does. That's why they already have an 'Open-era' record and an 'All-time' record...except the "All-time" record isn't, really, all-time. And since I've already shown that other tournaments also had exclusivity rules (indeed, the first non-French person won at the French before a non-UK person won at Wimbledon), to simply hold to one 'slam' to one standard while not the others is neither fair, equitable, or historically accurate.

As for background, I do wonder what nation you are from...the UK?Ryoung122 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

More lies from Fyunclick. The word "slam" didn't even come about until the 1930s, so to say that the French was a "non-slam event" pre-1925 is anachronistic. Also, as has been pointed out, both the U.S. and Wimbledon tournaments began as open to just nationals, but we don't see any ASTERISKS for them, do we?Ryoung122 03:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are commenting/attacking on something said 3 years ago. Remember we came to an agreement on what to include to avoid any type of edit warring? It has been stable since last September and now suddenly you start to change things after a third party helped decide what to include last time? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Slam occurrences

It isn't clear to me what the section titled 'slam occurrences' is about. I'm sure it's interesting and I doubt it should be removed, but it should be clearer what the stats are or they'll be lost on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.157.28 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Evonne Goolagong, Chris Evert, etc.

I'm all for accuracy (isn't that what encyclopedias are all about?) ... so shouldn't "Evonne Goolagong" be recorded for the championships she won BEFORE she got married to Roger Cawley in June, 1975, and then as "Yvonne Goolagong Cawley" thereafter? Similarly, Chris Evert was known as Chris Evert-Lloyd while married to John Lloyd.184.151.63.225 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We Will Need

Just an fyi... We will need an administrator to adjust winners on this site once the US Open finishes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please message me if I've made any errors or missed a place to update. Manning (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You have 18 open era slams for France, I only count 4. Am I missing somthing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakotajim (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Listcruft

This and similar articles on tennis contain way too much current events and arbitrary lists...such as list of Grand Slam finals competitors from the same country. This may be just a coincidence. Is this really necessary? Also, scores and minor tournament results are overstated in many tennis biography articles. A summary of wins and losses is appropriate, but do we need a daily diary for every player?Ryoung122 21:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-French bias continues from one single-issue editor

We see that ALL of the early Wimbledon championships are UK winners, we see that the early U.S. championships were dominated by the U.S., yet a certain editor wants to "disqualify" the French championships even though sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Almanac count them.

I'd like to see commentary from someone other than Fyunclick. Ryoung122 04:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you still around? I thought we agreed long ago to the compromise in the current form. I worked hard to make sure no one messed with it either for or against so things would continue smoothly... yet here you go again. Other editors were involved in the dispute which we worked out way back when. Please keep it cool. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "some" is a good compromise. In fact, there are still a lot of issues:

1. The U.S. "Open" was limited to U.S.-only participation in 1881. This has already been cited/documented. Do we even know when the U.S. opened itself to "international" competitors? The same question must be asked of Wimbledon, which clearly began as a "British" club in 1877.

2. The very first French "Open" mens's winner from 1891 was British. That's because the club did NOT limit competitors by nationality.

3. In reality, we have an historical fiction here. The idea of a "Grand Slam" was not even coined until 1938. The idea that these were the "Big Four" tournaments emerged with Don Budge. That's the truth.

4. Part of the purpose of the (4/7) material is to connect multiple winners. That could easily be done with the French pre-1925 material.

5. Wikipedia values "multiple, pluralistic points of view"...not marginal viewpoints, but those supported by at least a large segment of the population. Many sources list the French "Open" champions since 1891, regardless of "opened to international competition" or not. And if that's the issue, then holding the French "Open" to the fire, while not treating the other tournaments the same way, is a farce.

6. One solution is to "count everyone"...except the Nazi-era Vichy titleholders. That is the solution I prefer. Another solution is to count only those since the Open era began. I prefer an "historic" count and an "Open era" count. Wikipedia is not either/or but should include both versions.

7. Before the "Open" era, many persons played in the "Big Four" as warmups for a pro career, leaving after a few years. Also, the Australian Open in particular was not on par with the other three as recently as the 1970s, when many top players didn't bother to go due to the long flights and travel expenses. Brian Teacher, Grand Slam titleholder. Ok. Not if the top players had been there.

8. Sometimes we need a "convenient fiction" to address issues such as #7. But we shouldn't be hypocritical. The other day, Fred Stolle claimed that Rod Laver would have won a lot more GS titles had it not been for the pro/am dispute...but forgot to mention that, in turn, the amateur titles Laver won in 1962 would have been a lot harder against pro competition.

Excluding some for having limited competitors, but not others, is a hypocritical and historically untenable solution.Ryoung122 20:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We discussed this all before... even under mediation and what we have now IS the compromise that has been the stable version for a long long time. Why are you dredging this old stuff up all of a sudden? All the points you make had been talked about many times when this compromise was reached so I have no idea why you'd want to run in those circles again. And some is not good when most don't count them. We could change it to majority... I'll do so to keep the peace. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Flags or flagicons

Noticed the recent frequent edits from flags to flagicons and reverts on this and similar tennis list pages. The reverts to flags for first usage seems correct, i.e. according to guidelines/policy, but the frequent edits are indicative of the confusing nature of this rule and I don't expect that will change. Personally I find the mixed usage of flags & flagicons confusing, unnecessary and untidy and would prefer the usage of only flagicons. Wouldn't mind bending this rule a bit. --Wolbo (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I had done that originally and been reverted and scolded by two administrators. Since then I simply just followed the rules and it's no big deal for me to keep up with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Some country abbeviations liste with flags, others not

Why do SOME flags have country abbreviations with them? Also, some are in another language, such as DEU for "Germany". This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia. However, this issue is a moot point because I don't believe that there should be any country abbreviations, just flags.

I'll wait to hear what others have to say before making changes.Ryoung122 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

While you wait perhaps you can read the section directly above... --Wolbo (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What puzzles me is that the same rules don't seem to apply to men and women, I don't see any abbreviations in the men's list. NeieBlannen (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mischief was done to it. It's fixed. The best thing would be to make some sort of collapsible "key" at the page bottom so we could leave them all as flagicons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Molla Mallory's nationality

Molla Mallory's nationality is inconsistently listed in the tables. In the big "Champions by year" table, she is given an American flag icon, but in the "Most Grand Slam singles titles - All time (5 or more)" and "Most singles wins per Grand Slam tournament - All time" she is given a Norwegian flag icon. In the totals by country, I assume she is counted as an American, since I don't see Norway listed. Which is the correct way to list her, as Norwegian or as American? Calathan (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct about the inconsistency. It probably slipped in because Mallory played for Norway until she became a US citizen in 1919. her Olympic win in 1912 was as Norway, as were her first 4 US Championships. Her next 4 US Championships she was considered to be from the USA. I fixed those concerns. ESPN mentions it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hilde Sperling - Danish tennis player

Hilde Sperling represented Denmark, when she won the French Championships, as they were named then. She married Sven Sperling 28th of December 1933, and became danish citizen by that date. After that date she represented Denmark.

Here are Le Figaro 3rd of june 1935 - psge 7: "La joueues danoise Mme Sperling" http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k298079k/f7.image.langFR

Nationality is not given in Le Figaro in 1936.

Here are Le Figaro mondag 31st of May 1937 - frontpage clearly states Mme Sperling, Dan. - Dan. for Danemark - Denmark. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k409503z.langFR

I know it is not valid here in Wikipedia, but I am a journalist, and I have written about her. I have been into the national archives in Denmark and found articles there as well. The authorities in Denmark has confirmed to me, that she became a danish citizen in 1933. At the time it was something, that happened automaticly, when a woman married a danish man. The day after the wedding danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende wrote, that she now would ne representing Denmark. I also spoke to her training partner from the 1930'es - a 92 year old man. She was a dane representing Denmark.

On this page, they have contacted the danish tennis federation, and they confirmed, that she represented Denmark after her marriage (it is in danish). https://www.denfri.dk/2011/09/franskmaend-anerkender-ikke-dansk-grand-slam-vinder/

So I change here nationality to danish anywhere I find here results after 28th of December 1933.

Best regards

Fightdane (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Most consecutive year of winning a grand slam title

In the men's equivalent of this article there is a section for most consecutive years winning at least one grand slam title...why not one for the ladies? (Coachtripfan (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

That could certainly be done. The men's was incorrect so I just fixed it. The ladies top 5 would be: Evert 13, Graf 10, Wills 7, Court 7, Navratilova 7. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I just added it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Country abbreviations

The occasional appearance of three-letter country abbreviations (e.g. "GER", "RUS", "ITA") in the "Champions by year" table is confusing and rather pointless. At first I thought these were inserted randomly; then I realised that they seem to be inserted at the first instance of a country's flag, presumably intentionally so. But what is the point? Let's say I come across the German flag at some point in the list. Am I really going to look back through the whole list searching for the first instance of the German flag so that I can read "GER" or click on it? Obviously not. 109.145.5.46 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It was done long ago to conform to wikipedia guidelines. I believe it was done because not all devices have the ability to simply click on the flagicon. We were left with conforming by either using the "flag" term on every entry, or just on first use. Have the wiki rules changed? It was also suggested that we could instead have a collapsible key that lists all the countries, so we could use "flagicon" throughout the table. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to be bold and added a link to a full list of flag icons instead of using the "flag" term in the table at first use. There might be a better way of making the addition a collapsible list instead of a link, but I think this could work so we don't run into MOS accessibility issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Formatting Issues

I'm not sure who sabotaged the formatting for this table

joanna jerica centeno flores

, but I do find it reprehensible that Mr. Fyunck has not respected the need to be as open and inclusive as possible, nor does he respect the amount of effort that went into adding (building) the table. Also, scorched-Earth edits can result in 'collateral damage' (i.e positive additions thrown out by excessive reverts). Considering that authorities as trusted as the World Almanac (#1 in the world) list Suzanne Lenglen with '12' grand slam titles, I find it flabbergasting that some self-appointed troll has determined to decide for everyone what is or is not a 'grand slam' title.

As noted, many don't count pre-Open era. Some don't count pre-1922 (due to the 'challenge' round). The solution is to allow multiple listings to satisfy everyone. However, the numbering in the table should reflect the most-inclusive, because the real purpose of the title numbers is to cross-link the titles, making it easier for the viewer to find all the relevant titles for a particular player. Thus, numbering Jean Borotra as (1/4) when he had '5' titles fails to meet this criteria, or real purpose of the numbering system in the first place.

Finally, I do believe the right-shift is correct. Why? With the right-shift, any reader should be able to read each year from left to right and determine the historical sequence of the title wins (such as how many consecutive titles someone one). Right now, that is impossible.Ryoung122 04:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Authorities such as ESPN list French winners from 1925, and they say why too...because it was only open to French Club members before then. SI lists "Grand Slam Singles Winners" of all the slams also; the French from 1925 and they also say why... because the French wasn't open to all comers until 1925. There are plenty of sources that don't count pre-1925 French results as a slam. This isn't based on hatred or bigotry of France as nutball Ryoung would have people believe. And as I have pointed out to Mr Young time and time again this Article is titled "Grand Slam Women's Singles champions", not Womens tennis titles. We are not listing tennis titles here but SLAM WINS!

Mr Young says I don't respect the effort that went into building this table...well.. I helped build this table many times as have others. A lot of work has gone into it to have it abused by some nutball on a crusade to make it in his own mold. The old French titles were greyed out for a reason... I thought it better that way but acquiesced to Mr Young's constant battering to un-grey it. That may have been a mistake because now he wants to include more and more and more to make the pre-1925 French a relevant slam... which it is not. I like the numbering system but I would rather have it scrapped completely then add bogus titles to the slam list.

Perhaps I was too brash in saying I would revert all the way back to pre-Ryoung editing. But look at his editing. He adds 10 edits, someone else adds a good edit, he adds 10 more, then someone adds another good edit, theh he adds 7 more and I come online and have to fix all his entries. It's easy to revert all the way back and tough to keep the two good entries. I'll try to hunt through his mischief as best I can. Change can be good but it should be discussed for quite awhile when something as major as adding bogus titles is involved. (1/1) was a good idea, removing first names from the first title I'm not crazy about, column shifting the aussie to make it look good I have to agree with mr Young...I'm against it... You should be able to read the table from left to right to see the order of wins. Keeping pre-1925 French vistories out of the slam world... I think we know I'll defend that one. Fyunck(click) 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I already offered the 'compromise' of counting the pre-1925 French winners separately. More importantly, however, the biggest injustice is taking away a slam or four from persons like Suzanne Lenglen, Henri Cochet, and Jean Borotra...champions who showed they were good enough post-1925 as well as pre-1925. Again, the early Wimbledon tournaments amounted to little more than a high-society social gathering and to count those but not the French is, really, just seeing the world through British-colored glasses. I have been a fan of tennis for quite some time, and I once made my own chart of tennis champions on paper. The bottom line is: Wikipedia should present the facts and let the reader decide. Perhaps italicized entries would be a compromise? I'd rather have italicized entries than un-numbered entries. And I disagree with the whole 'slam' premise. The idea of 'slam' didn't come about until 1938, when Don Budge won all four. Look, people like Lottie Dod won two titles, took two years off, then decided to come back for three more. Those who crossed the ocean for international competition were few and far between early on, but by the 1920's a new tradition was emerging. To say that pre-1938 were 'slams' when no one competing thought of them as such is simply revisionism.Ryoung122 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your not taking away a slam or two because they are not slams, and you're trying to give them something they never earned. You keep talking about the facts but they are simply not the facts and you want to ram them down everyones throat. On the French Championship Wiki page all these players are displayed as they should be, but this is a SLAM page only... those names shouldn't even be on the list. CBS won't list them... MSNBC doesn't list them... it's because they are not viable slams. If you disagree with the whole 'slam' premise then you should be working on the French Championship page not destroying the Grand Slam Women's Singles Champiuons page. Fyunck(click) 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are the one making things up. Do a little reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

The term or even the 'idea' of a 'Grand Slam' didn't even come into existence until 1933. Yet you want to count Wimbledon 1877 (56 years prior) a 'slam' title but not a French championship in 1891 (or 1924, for that matter). Last I checked, Wimbledon is STILL called the 'Championships' NOT 'the Slam tournament.' How can one win a 'slam' when, in 1877, there was only one tournament, not 4? The four all had to start, grow in stature, and establish themselves. But to count 3 of them 'from the beginning' and one 'from 1925' is simply biased. Again, who appointed you to re-write the record books? No one.Ryoung122 03:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The term slam may have originated in 1933 but that has no bearing on this argument. This page is about slams tournies; tournies that were open to multiple countries not just club members in a certain French city. The slam record books agree with me not you, who seem to have some sort of fetish with the French tourney. Are you getting a kickback from the folks at Roland Garros to include non-slam events in this article? And one would think you have guilty conscience by the freeness you throw out words like biased and bigoted. Again if you dislike the term "slam" so much why are you here exposing us to your bizarre antics in an article about Women's Grand Slam titles? Fyunck(click) 06:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the record books do NOT agree with you; they come in many varieties but as, I note, both the Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Almanac and even ESPN list the French winners since 1891.

ESPN may list the French winners but do not include them when totaling slam wins.

Also, let's be honest: when Federer 'tied the record' of 'five in a row,' obviously NBC wasn't including pre-1922 Wimbledon. So, why no * for that tourney? Hmmm....one can only conclude that unequal treatment is based on discrimination. Hence, calling someone 'bigoted' is more an allegation of wrongdoing on your part than simple name-calling.

Yeah right... nice try.

On the other hand, when you start throwing out terms like 'nutball'--which, by the way, sound far more sophomoric and amateurish than accusing someone of discrimination--you set the standards of discourse fairly low. Certainly, You get back what you give. So, if you want to raise the level of discourse to 'civil', I would expect, at a minimum:

A. Stop using epithets B. Stop making mass-reverts without attempting to come to a compromise first

It would seem you don't practise what you preach. And FIRST talk, then edit.

Otherwise, happy edit-warring.Ryoung122 20:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not my preference but you seem to have left me no choice but to keep reverting your sabotage.Fyunck(click) 01:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The color coding for multiple major winners in a calendar year is not distinct enough in my opinion, in particular for users of f.lux and other blue-light-removing apps. The calendar slam winners stand out but the 2- and 3-major winners really blend into the background. Same goes for the men's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00E:CBA6:44B5:C753:8849:DC07 (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Helen Moody major count should be 18, not 19

US championship was designated a major in 1924. Helen Moody's 1923 US championship title is counted as a major when it should not be.

204.197.181.89 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Since it was a huge international event, all sources consider the US Championship a Major since it's inception. All four of the current majors got their status in 1924. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. The French championship didn't become a major until 1925 when it allowed all amateurs to play rather than only amateur players of French clubs. 38.88.107.130 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not correct that all sources consider the US Championship a Major since its inception and it is arrogant to claim this. For example this site states the reason for the French Championship not being considered a Grand Slam event until 1925 was due to only French club members or citizens being able to participate but the same applied to the US Championships in 1881, but one will not find that recorded in the equivalent site for males. This is a reasonable issue for debate and should not be dismissed in the manner above. As for the argument about being "a huge international event" it is my understanding that there were no foreign competitors at the US Championships until 1886 - happy of course to be corrected on this point, as for any others lacking a factual basis. Antipodenz (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Major changes in history affecting the number of titles won

Several examples are provided but the key one, the period between the establishment of the tournament and the provision of an event for ladies singles, is not mentioned. While the dates for commencement are shown in the table there is no information provided explaining the date of establishment of the tournament to allow the reader to assess the significance of the impact of this. It would be helpful to actual list the number of years for each tournament when it existed but for when women were denied having their own singles event. Antipodenz (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

And what relevance this information would have in the context of this article, whose sole purpose is to list the Grand Slam tournaments champions? ABC paulista (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It would help explain: - why there is a discrepency between numbers of male and female Grand Slam tournaments champions; - provide clarity around the actual period for which women were denied the opportunity to become a Grand Slam champion in the respective events; - provide the key reason to the introductory discussion about number of titles being won by various players. Antipodenz (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)