Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Scope of the article

@ABC paulista:, @Fyunck(click): please check out my sandbox, that's how this article should have been since the beginning in my opinion. Mostly about the tournaments. Everything else to be moved to the List of Grand Slam–related tennis records. Any objection? --ForzaUV (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have some. The history section on each tournament is a blatant copy-paste from the same sections on each respective tounaments' articles, and I think that this kind of info belongs there rather than here, since the info contained on these sections relate more to the tornaments on themselves than to the "Grand Slam" concept. They almost don't mention the Grand Slam at all. Also, your table about the Grand Slam achievers shouldn't contain a "Event of completion" (since some of them are wrong, and it would only add confusion to the reader) and a column for streak is unnecessary (since all Gand Slam consist of winning for tournaments, more of them before or after is of little relevance for the achievement). And the other sections sould be at least mentioned here, at least their textual content since they are related to the main topic (any listing is optional), except for the "Triple Crown" and the "Grand Slam titles across all disciplines" ones, they better belong on the Grand Slam–related tennis records. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are excerpts from the tournaments pages. {{#lst:Australian Open|GrandSlamArticle}}, {{#lst:French Open|GrandSlamArticle}}, {{#lst:The Championships, Wimbledon|GrandSlamArticle}}, {{#lst:US Open (tennis)|GrandSlamArticle}}. I don't think it's an issue and it can only be improved with time. You're probably right about the streak column but why do you think the "Event of completion" could be confusing to the readers? Nonissue anyways, it can be fixed. As for the other sections, the article is about Tennis Grand Slam so I made it about the Grand Slam tournaments and the Grand Slam, everything else shouldn't be here but it's not my call so let's see what others think.--ForzaUV (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, copypaste is an issue within Wikipedia, especially on the scale that you're promoting on your sandbox, and was the main reason I disagreed with previous similar propositions. I could see breif summaries about the tournaments here, but the content on there sections are way more pertinent to the tournaments themselves, and have little relation to the "Grand Slam" concept. So any improvements you can do should be done on their respective articles, here should ony contain a summary and every other info that directly relates to the "Grand Slam" concept. About the "Event of completion" column, it is about the tournament where the Grand Slam was achieved or where the winning streak ended?I don't think that that the readed will be able to easily figure out, and if it's about the former, its redundant because almost all seasons ended on the US Open, it is not that relevant piece of info. This article is about the Grand Slam, so all relevant and related info should be mentioned here somehow. Articles should include relevant and related info, not exclude them, especially when they have no other appropriate placement elsewhere. ABC paulista (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't like the origin and history being buried... it should be right where it is now. The history on each major is best left to the major themselves. No need for it here at all. And I see you got rid of all the other categories. This is an article of Grand Slam usage and extensions. Why would you want to do all that removal? So huge objection. This article is mostly about the term not the tournaments. This term is going to get a lot of traffic in the coming weeks as Djokovic tries to win a Grand Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is mostly about the term not the tournaments., is it? I've always felt it's about the tournaments more than the term, when people talk about Grand Slams, it's about the tournaments 99% of the time but for me as an avid fan of tennis, I understand that a Grand Slam refers also to winning the four majors in a year and that's why I kept the article about the tournaments and the term. I moved the Term Origin/history section back to where it was and what you refer to as extensions would be moved to a more appropriate wikipedia page NOT removed. --ForzaUV (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

And that's the difference. When I hear "Grand Slam" all that really comes to mind is winning the four majors in the same year. That's it. Obviously in recent years, because winning a Grand Slam is so rare, the term Grand Slam Tournament has morphed into also meaning one of the four majors. That's cool since language is always fluctuating. But to ignore all the meanings is just not right in my book, and especially the term that's been around the longest. And the fact Djokovic this US Open is trying to win a Grand Slam is amazing and will probably dominate the tennis news if he gets close and/or actually does it. I don't really remember Laver's or Court's Grand Slams, but Graf's is etched forever in my memory. As are Navratilova/Shriver's and Hingis'. I'm hoping to finally see a men's singles winner. Really exciting chance and the biggest story in tennis right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The article accomodates both definitions, but since the tournaments have their own article, we dont need to dive deep on them here. Summarizing and wiklinking them is enough. ABC paulista (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a reasonable assessment on the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to refer to the tournaments, individually we should just cite a summary about each of them, to a proper contextualization. Any additional info on them should only be treated collectively and only eligible here if it significantly relates to the "Grand Slam" concept. This article is about both the achievement and the tournaments, any individual info that don't affect any other major or the achievement isn't relevant here. For example: To the "Grand Slam" concept, it doesn't matter much the venue changes each one passed through throughout their existance, but any interruptions/cancellations of any of these tournaments is relevant because it makes the Gand Slam achievement impossible. ABC paulista (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It's become apparent from these discussions that this is a generational thing. The handful of people that comment here seem to skew older and thus grew up with "Grand Slam" being strictly defined as winning the four tournaments in one year, a concept that younger folk from my experience usually call the "calendar-year Grand Slam" (CYGS) as opposed to just the "Grand Slam", which is normally used for the tournaments. I'd even bet most young casual fans hadn't heard "Grand Slam" used standalone in the achievement context prior to this year, as it's such a rare occurrence and the players who achieved it aren't discussed much nowadays. I still think my proposed split is the best option, and is probably the inevitable outcome like with many of these debates on Wikipedia that separate on generational lines once sufficient time has passed.

P.S. Transcluding is not copy-pasting, which has attribution requirements in order to fulfill Wikipedia's license. Labeled section transclusion is used on thousands of pages across Wikipedia where content is relevant to more than one page. In this case however, I agree that the full history of each individual tournament isn't so relevant, but instead the meta-history of why these four tournaments in particular were elevated to the status they have today. I would agree with transcluding the smaller History of tennis#The Four Majors as I suggested earlier, though. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The content you want to transclude have little to no info on about when and how these tounaments became the most prestigious ones and were eligible to become the Grand Slams i.e. have little relation to the main topic here, and they don't do a good job to summarize what's there tournaments are about. I don't see it as a good inlusion, but could be a fair starting point. ABC paulista (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

But there is a difference. Yes, us "older" tennis editors certainly recall the time when for many decades a Grand Slam was winning all four majors only. And the Australian, French, Wimbledon, and US were only called majors. Half our lives. But we also also recognize that since winning a Grand Slam is uncommon, that the term Grand Slam is now also encompassed by the individual tournaments. We may not use it personally but we recognize it is common. One difference is that we do not want the newer terminology removed from the article. Both terms are used today. In fact I hear players and broadcasters use the term "major" often over use of the term "Grand Slam." The article as about the tennis term Grand Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Break

I made some edits and I manipulated what gets transcluded using <noinclude></noinclude> in the main tournaments pages. The article on my sandbox looks good to me now and almost complete. Basically, we have two article:
Grand Slam (tennis) – this one for the Grand Slam tournaments and the Grand Slam term.
Grand Slam related records/achievements – this one for everything related to the Grand Slam tournaments or term (Three-Quarter, Surface, Super, Most titles in a year, etc).
Pinging other editors who might be interested in this discussion, @Gap9551:, @Hippo43:, @Mjquinn id:, @Sportsfan77777: ForzaUV (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging @Wolbo:. On first glance it looks like you unnecessarily gutted this article. Not a fan of separating so much from an article and I think our readers would suffer for the loss. Plus the last discussion found no consensus to split this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no loss, everything will still be in Wikipedia but in their most relevant articles. To be honest with you, I'm surprised the scope of this article hasn't been defined since the beginning. The article seems significant to me and should be a FA or GA at the very least under Tennis Project but for some reason nobody cared about it. I think I laid it out nicely on my sandbox, focused and well-sourced. Maybe Sportsfan77777 can review and improve it for a GA. As for Somnifuguist split proposal, that one was different, he wanted to make the article solely about the tournaments I think and to start another article for achievements, not the case here. --ForzaUV (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your way of separating the information, instead I still believe that the Grand Slam article Grand Slam (tennis) should contain all the text-based info it has currently, adding some more about the tournaments, while the tables, lists and related info could be moved to the List of Grand Slam related tennis records. Overall, I don't believe that there's enough content to warrant any splitting.

About your sandbox, I like the way you trimmed the info on the Grand Slams' history, but I still believe that they don't warrant their own (sub)-sections, and it would be better to merge them into the "History" subsection, maybe even including the "Terminology" subsection into the mix (that also would help the reader to build a proper timeline of events, as the "History" subsections strive to do). The sections about the tournaments should summarize what they are and how they relate to the Grand Slam term, containing info like: "The tournament is the n-th grand slam tournament of a season, where it is currently played, what time of the year it is contested, what's its current playing surface, what's its prestige for the people, maybe some more info like the tiebreak rules, prize money, the amount of players that player per discipline, etc.

About the tables, the Grand Slam doesn't need to have the year of the achievement cited for all torunaments in every instance, since the proper definition of the Grand Slam (calendar-based) and "Year" column already imply this info, so it feels redundant. If you really want to wikilink all tournaments, maybe you should copy your NCYGS table and sort it per majors, because some times the order in which an achiever won these tournaments change (like the Australian Open in the 70s and 80s). Speaking about the NCYGS table, I think you should bring back the "Streak" column for this one, it's a relevant information since the NCYGS streak can involve more than 4 consecutive tournament wins. All in all, I believe that the current tables are still better than the ones you proposed so far. ABC paulista (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

ABC paulista All the tournaments are in one section now and the details you mentioned were added to the tournaments table. The Grand Slam table has the event linked because why not, it’s a special feat, readers might as well want to see how it was achieved and the order doesn’t matter, in the end they were all won in one calendar year. I can add the 'streak' column to the NCYGS but since the feat is achieved once the player holds fourth major, I fail to see why it’s relevant. Unfortunately, not all events have draw articles, maybe @Somnifuguist: using his tooll can add the draws for the few ones that are still missing? That would be great :). ForzaUV (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I'd preferred if you'd included this info in a prose format within their respective subsections, because it seems to be way more relevant to the article's scope and to the reader that the info that's currently on them, which I still believe that should either be moved to another section, or be further trimmed, since they do little to illustrate these torunaments' prestige and reasoning behind their status. The tournaments' table doesn't seem to have that much of a relevance until the tournaments themselves are explained, so I'd move it to the end of the section.

About the CYGS table (will name it this way to avoid confusion), I wasn't against the wikilinking, but on how you did it. By citing the year of achievement 5 times for each isntance, you created way too much redundance on it, and while the the order in which the tournaments were won is not that relevant, this way will be more informative to the reader than having the exact same info being presented 5 times to them.

About the NCYGS table, yes the streak is relevant because it is part of the achievement. Usually the full streak is considered to be part of the same NCYGS, otherwise players like Navratilova would be considered to have achieved 3 NCYGSs in her 1983-84 6-major winning streak, or Gigi/Zvereza on their 1992-93 6-major winning streak, or 2 NCYGSs for Houdet and Alcott on their respective 5-major winning streak, when in reality they are considered to have won only one NCYGS each comprising all the consectuve titlse they won. This is relevant and these additional tournaments should be mentioned on the table alongside the first four. ABC paulista (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The ITF's site doesn't have pre-Open Era tournaments unfortunately, so my tool can't be of help for those early slams. —Somnifuguist (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

About Grand Slam (tennis) - as if I am doing a GA review. I put it here, because I don't even want to touch the article with all of you editing it willy nilly. ALL of these edits should have been discussed here first. Any massive revision of an article should be discussed.
Now, I have played tennis for long enough to know and understand the article. But a reviewer's job, is to review from the perspective of a non-learned person on the topic. Joe Reader. So, NOTE: Removed by author, as it was a review of the wrong page. Mjquinn_id (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think in this case, it would be perfectly acceptable to insert your comments in-line with any of mine above. Mjquinn_id (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: Lol, sir, the version I thought worth reviewing is the one on my sandbox. The one we have now as the article is a big mess, I understand. --ForzaUV (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Nuts... I will put my new comments on that Talk... Mjquinn_id (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, added my review on that page. Mjquinn_id (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mjquinn id: that will be useful when the fundamental structure of the article is sorted.
The condensed histories are better, but I still prefer those in History of tennis#The Four Majors as they list the changes in names, surfaces & venues. For the tables, I would add streak and partner(s) columns to both so no info is lost to keep everyone happy.
I thought the original goal was to move the non Grand Slam, i.e. Career/Golden/Super/Three-Quarter/Surface/Channel slam tables to the respective discipline articles, e.g. List of Grand Slam men's singles champions#Grand Slam achievements. The definitions would be kept, and each of the respective sections in the discipline articles where the tables were moved to linked. For example, the Career Grand Slam section in this article would look something like this:

Extended content

Career Grand Slam The career achievement of winning all four major championships in one discipline is termed a Career Grand Slam. Eight men and ten women have won Career Grand Slams in singles play and, of them, three men and five women have at least two Career Grand Slams in singles. Since the beginning of the Open Era, five men (Rod Laver, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic) and six women (Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova) have achieved this. Only six players have completed a Career Grand Slam in both singles and doubles: one male (Roy Emerson) and five female (Margaret Court, Doris Hart, Shirley Fry Irvin, Martina Navratilova, and Serena Williams). Court, Hart and Navratilova are the only three players to have completed a "Career Boxed Set", winning all four titles in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles; this has never been done by a male player. Number of players to complete the Career Grand Slam Men's Women's Mixed WC Men's WC Women's WC Quad Boy's Girls Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Doubles Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Singles Doubles 8 23 10 21 17 0 7 1 8 1 3 1 1 0 0

The remaining cross-disciplinary sections: #Grand Slam titles across all disciplines, #Boxed Set and #Triple Crown, would all be moved to List of Grand Slam–related tennis records because they have nothing to do with the achievement of winning the four slams in the same year. The Pro Slam section should stay.
Either that, or all the non Grand Slam content including prose is moved to List of Grand Slam–related tennis records, but Fyunck and ABC paulista seem to want the prose kept on this page, and I don't see the point in just moving the tables. —Somnifuguist (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Break 2

Thanks Somnifuguist, added to the sandbox version and added the CGS tables to the disciplines pages. ForzaUV (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are those non Grand Slam items not related? It seems to me they are extremely related. If we only have this about the term Grand Slam meaning winning all four majors in a single season, and nothing else, you may have a point. But this is also about the four majors themselves. The Channel Slam is quite integral to those two concepts, as is Career and Golden. It seems fundamentally wrong not to have them together. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say they're not related, but they aren't specifically about the Grand Slam, so the initial proposal was that their tables can be moved to the respective discipline pages and linked as my example above demonstrates to save space. The prose for Career/Golden/... slams will not be moved so It seems fundamentally wrong not to have them together is a misunderstanding of the proposal. —Somnifuguist (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do we need to save space... is wikpedia running low on space? It's only 172,227 bytes... George Washington's article is a heck of a lot bigger. Djokovics article is 291,027 bytes. Could it be tightened up, sure. But it seems like the proposal is a fix in need of a problem. This article is not only about the Grand Slam. There are two concepts and we talk about both concepts to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It is 240k bytes if we include tables for all disciplines for three-quarter/surface/channel slams (added by ABC paulista [1], removed by ForzaUV [2]), plus the added 10k bytes for the slam histories. Regardless, the whole premise of these discussions is that the article is too long and confusing with 100 tables—to quote ForzaUV: There are too many tables and too many subsections on this page. My head hurts scrolling through all the tables with all the names and the different colors, which ABC paulista seemed to agree with: so if I'm getting your proposal right, all sections that have divided subsections based on each discipline would be moved ... If so, I think I can agree. The argument There are two concepts and we talk about both concepts to our readers. is again a misinterpretation of the proposal—only the tables for Career/Golden/... slams would be moved, not the sections/info on them. Just the tables. —Somnifuguist (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Somnifuguist: Did you even look at the proposal at User:ForzaUV/sandbox/Grand Slam (tennis) ? They are gone! Sections gone, tables gone, Channel Slam gone, etc... It's a gutting we don't need and I can't ascribe to. Plus the added bloat on each tournament is not really needed... especially the amount for Wimbledon and the US Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I knew some editors opposed the wholesale removal of those sections, which is why I suggested keeping more with the original proposal from June. Do you have any problem with what I suggested above? —Somnifuguist (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

At least I understand where you're coming from now. Thanks for that. What would happen to the charts that are right now at "Career Grand Slam"? You show a very simplified chart but it seems to me the players that have won a CGS that that info is best suited to an article all about Grand Slam info. It's where I would look. The number links you created are not at all clear where they would go, plus the only reason the links work is the info was improperly merged into other articles (with no merge details in the summary or talk page of the new article). I'm not at all sure about that material being inserted in a "list" article, but I didn't remove it. We might have to change the title of those articles into something like "Tennis Grand Slam mixed doubles champions and records" as opposed to what it is now, "List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions." And we don't really want to rob Peter to pay Paul. If we put all the tables into List of Grand Slam–related tennis records, that article gets much larger than this one. I'm not sure what the answer is, but then I'm not sure what the question is it seems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Since all these tables are separated per discipline, all of them would be moved to their respective list artticle, with them being wiklinked to this article and vice-versa. I wouldn't oppose a change of those articles' titles and scope in order to accomodate the addiotional listing. ABC paulista (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at Forza's updated version of my suggested table, it's much clearer. There was no "improper merging", the career GS info was first added to that article in 2010!—it's the natural place to put these tables and a good compromise. The only sections I think should be completely moved (prose + tables) to List of Grand Slam–related tennis records are as I said #Grand Slam titles across all disciplines, #Boxed Set and #Triple Crown, as they have nothing to do with the achievement of winning the Grand Slam. —Somnifuguist (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that the Boxed Set is related to the Career Slam, since one have to win it in all disciplines to achieve the Boxed Set. ABC paulista (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do you care about the Channel Slam and those sections so much, they've been in the article for like two months lol. And I'm not sure why you insist they'll be gone, nothing will be gone. They'll be moved to a more relevant article, this one is about the GRAND SLAM TERM and TOURNAMENTS. We have another article for everything related to those. Winning a Grand Slam tournament is still an achievement you know but I don't see all Grand Slam champions listed in this article because we have other pages for such lists and what bloat in Wimbledon/USO tournament sections you don't like, let me know. Also, is there a specific reason for why those 4 tournaments became majors, I thought I'd ask you because you've been watching tennis longer than me so you might have an idea. I'd like to add that kind of info to the tournaments section. ForzaUV (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

What we are saying is that all the prose and text-based info should stay here because this is the most appropriate placement for them. And only the lists should be moved because the scope of those articles is about listing and statistics, not for informative text-based info. Here to inform what they are all about, and there to inform who achieved what. ABC paulista (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's the compromise solution. ForzaUV equivalent tables now just have to be made for career golden slam, career super slam, three-quarter slam, surface slam & channel slam. We'll need to resurrect those tables that ABC paulista added so they can be moved to the discipline pages. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so my question would be: where are you going to move all the winners of the Channel Slam? What proper discipline page exists, other than this article, for our readers to find a list of all winners of the French/Wimbledon doublet? And remember, just putting a list of winners with no context prose is not supposed to happen, so some prose will be required on the page you move the table to. Essentially duplicating or almost duplicating the prose left here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

All disciplines have their own specific lists for Grand Slam champions. We can move the tables there and transcribe just their definition ("Channel Slam means winning both Wimbledon and the French Open in the same season", for example), while wikilinking it to here where more context can be put into their definition. ABC paulista (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

But that is what's confusing me. Ok so I go to the discipline list of Women's Grand Slam Singles champions and I can find the new list of Channel Slam winners. Cool. But, where do I find the list of all Channel Slam winners together? Where will that list be placed? If I want to see them all at the same time under a heading of Channel Slam? Would we create a new article called "List of tennis Channel Slam winners" and put all the winners together there? Doing it that way someone wouldn't have to click to ten different articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There would be no such unified list on one page for these lesser achievements. That's the compromise from your position. And currently, there is no such list on the page anyway: the section has men and women's singles, but none of the other 13 disciplines. You can see what they look like all together on ABC paulista's sandbox—the exact mess of tables we are working to avoid. —Somnifuguist (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

But one of the reasons some find it messy is because it adds to this article's page bloat. As a standalone, with better created tables, it wouldn't be a mess. And we can't stop people from creating articles they deem necessary. There is much overlap of titles and champions in our tennis articles. Who won wimbledon in a given year is probably in lists in 20+ articles. We can control this article but not another that's created to showcase all the winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

So we would have standalone pages for all the Career Slam, Golden Slam, Super Slam, Three-Quarter Slam, Surface Slam and Channel Slam achievers? I would be strongly against that as these lesser achievements are only ever mentioned in passing in sources, whereas the Grand Slam is well-established. They deserve to have sections here, but not their own articles IMO which would legitimise them in a way that is not supported by sources. You say we can't stop people from creating articles they deem necessary, but you are the only one that has suggested such articles be made here—"people" is just you! Let's implement the current proposal first and then if there is consensus to spin-off standalone articles we can do that later. —Somnifuguist (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing what articles exist here so I wouldn't be so quick to think it should or shouldn't exist. If you think that Career Slam, Golden Slam, and Channel Slam are only passing mentions, you are crazy. I was getting sick of hearing about Golden Slam during the Olympics. It was talked about ad-nauseum. They come up all the time when a player gets close or completes it. During the time of Borg, Channel Slam was as common in the press as pulling weeds. I'm saying it could be helpful to see a list of all winners, whether here or linked to someplace else. You can poo-poo it all you want. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Somnifuguist, you can find these tables on my sandbox, that Fyunck dreated for me and I forgot to delete. ABC paulista (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I try to put myself in a reader's place as far as looking up Channel Slam, Boxed Sets, Surface Slam, etc., and ask where is the most likely place to find information on them. Unless it's a stand-alone article I would think right here. You don't want the Channel Slam at the French or Wimbledon articles because it is part of both. It seems logical to find it here, especially the prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The prose, I agree. The list of achievers can be moved somewhre else if both articles are properly wikilinked to each other. Just like the Grand Slams' articles don't contain a listage of their winners, these are contained in another article. And this method work just fine for them, I believe we can achieve the same here. ABC paulista (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as why those particular four tournaments you have to look back to 1912. The game of tennis was growing by leaps and bounds and it needed an international overseer to link all the individual tennis organizations together under one set of rules. Britain and France talked about it first at their Davis Cup meeting. In October of 1912 they brought in Australasia, Austria, Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland to talks in Paris. They formed the ILTF. The first meeting was in 1913 and by then Denmark, Germany, Holland, Russia, South Africa, and Sweden were involved. The USA refused to join because of the power distribution and the fact the ILTF wanted Wimbledon and France to be be called "World Championships." The USA did sit in to watch. By the 1920s the USA could not be ignored and the tennis blossoming in Australia was also huge. In 1923 the ILTF agreed to USA demands that "World Championships" would be dropped. They agreed to Britain's demand that tennis would be "for ever in the English language." Anther thing about the ITLF is voting rights. The more mature tennis countries got more votes. Britain started with more votes than any other nation. In 1923 the vote power was heavy between Britain, France, Australia, and the US, but no actual definition of "major" was defined. There were French Championships, German Championships, Irish Championships, etc. But with the tennis blossoming in Britain, France, Australia, and the US in particular, it was obvious by 1930 that they were the most prestigious event in tennis. Then all it takes is for columnists John Kieran and Alan Gould in 1933 to use the term "Grand Slam" for winning all four of those tennis tournaments in a calendar year, and the prestige is locked in place for all of history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that we're all aware of this, but the problem is to translate it into an encyclopedic format, and find reliable sources to back-up this info. ABC paulista (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we are all aware of it. The question was asked above and I answered it. And it's easily sourced from "The Encyclopedia of Tennis" by Max Robertson and other books. Plus some of it is sourced on our ITF article. If someone re-composed what I wrote on their sandbox I could add the required page sourcing from my books. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Juicy. I made a subsection out of it but still needs some work and sources. ForzaUV (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Break 3

Somnifuguist, ABC paulista, I added a section for all related terms and redirected everything to the related-GS records page. I guess we can agree on this version now? At least as a starting point. Fyunck, I still hope you can see some improvements here but I doubt you will lol ForzaUV (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I never said there haven't been improvements, I simply disagree on some removals to the detriment of our readers. However one thing I absolutely despise is the addition of italics for the pre-open years. It's harder to read, it's not keyed as to why they are italics anyways, and it appears to cheapen an older generation of tennis players. That's got to go! Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Done!

I added the equivalent tables for the other achievements to your draft per the discussion above, and updated the prose from the changes to the main article so we don't lose the recent changes. I also moved the Triple Crown and Grand Slam titles across all disciplines sections from the current article to List of Grand Slam–related tennis records (the box set is winning the career GS in all three disciplines so it should probably stay). We now just need to add the tables from ABC paulista's sandbox to all the discipline articles, like was done for Career GS, so that all the links in the tables I added work. Then we just need to agree on the CYGS and NCYGS tables, and add references to/polish the new slam history section (Fyunck?) and then we should be good to go. —Somnifuguist (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Just one thing, I'd like for the Golden and Super slam tables to stay intact, so those need to go to the Slam–related records page, not the disciplines pages. Other than that yeah, I hope Fyunck can polish the Beginnings section. --ForzaUV (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should keep the Career Golden/Super slam tables in one place—it wouldn't make sense to keep those but not the Career GS tables just because they're shorter, as the Career Golden/Super slams are an just extension of the Career GS tables which we decided to separate, and putting Career Golden/Super slams but not all the other slam types on the Slam–related records page would be random and inconsistent. The info is now on the discipline pages in any case. —Somnifuguist (talk)

Somnifuguist, You reverted my edit and told me to discuss but I tried to discuss before you made your edit and you ignored what I said and did it anyway. The thing is, the Olympics and YECs are not Grand Slam tournaments which have been established for more than a 100 years, the achievements themselves were not possible for the majority of the GS winners who are listed in those pages so I'm not sure why they should be included there. I insist that the GS related page is the more suitable destination for those two achievements and there we get to keep the two tables intact. I also prefer the way I laid out the Surface Slam and Channel Slam in the men's page. Cleaner look and no redundancy, because the page already has a table for Wimbledon/RG winners. I spent some time cleaningup that page a few months ago and I'd hate to see it become a mess again. Nice edit with the Channel Slam map btw, I'll try to do a similar one for the four tournaments. :) --ForzaUV (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

My view was that we would have all the slam achievements on the discipline pages (which I've implemented), and then if the three of you wanted some of the info combined somewhere else as well (I personally don't and argued against it with Fyunck above), then you could do that, i.e. they are not necessarily mutually exclusive choices so I wasn't ignoring what you said. I didn't notice your changes to the Surface/Channel Slams format in your edit, my bad I've re-added them. Olympic tennis actually predates the Australian Open, and the Career Golden/Super Slams are inextricably linked to the Career GS, so I really think they should be there for completeness. I did make a map for the four tournaments [3], but figured it was not that useful (it's obvious where the French, Australian, and US Opens are without seeing a map, and we already list the locations in the table), but feel free to copy the map code from there if you want. —Somnifuguist (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I find kinda confusing how the 2+ and Three-Quarter slams are displayed on the men's singles page, it's kinda messy and inconsistent on how the tables are formatted elsewhere else on this list. Another incosistency that should be undone is how on the 2-slam lists only the Channel Slam one mention all the instances, while the others don't. I think that we should stick to a unified criteria, so either all of them mention all the instances, or they should mention only the 2-slam instances with a separate list for the channel slam. As it stands now, I prefer the way they are handled on the women's singles page. ABC paulista (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The 3+ titles section looks fine to me, no change is needed there but I'll see what I can do with the 2+ section. And there is no inconsistency with the tables, most of them were made by me the same way. ForzaUV (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

All the non-wheelchair links in the tables should now work. —Somnifuguist (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

All the links now work. I just have to go back through and double check everything/iron out a few formatting inconsistencies. —Somnifuguist (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It's getting better. I still defend that the fundamental info about the majors should be prose-based and everything else should be moved into the history section, but the "Beginning of majors" subsection definitey should be moved there, it's way more pertinent to the Grand Slam term than to the tounaments themselves. About the tables, you still mention the redundant years on the CYGS one and didn't include the additional majors on the NCYGS one, so I'll make some changes that I think will improve them, and then you all can review it. About the Golden Slam and Super Slam, there are only a few entries for both and all disciplines are joined together into one table, so I think that they should stay, just like the NCYGS and the Boxed Set ones. Speaking of the Boxed Set, I don't like how Margaret Court's Open Era Boxed Set was integrated alongside the other ones, because it might mislead the reader into believing that she achieved it thrice, when she did it only twice and the Open Era one being just a trivia. I think that this instance should be separated form the others and its condition be clarified. ABC paulista (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Good edit on the CYGS table but the one on the NCYGS made it all confusing and kinda ugly, one would think the feat is about winning 7 consecutive majors looking at the table so I just readded the streak column instead. You're more than welcome to make changes to the tournaments proses or move the 'Beginning' section to where you see fit but don't move the content of the Terminology subsection, it belongs to the NCYGS section and better stay there. The Golden and Super slams, agreed no need to split the instances but since neither the Olympics nor the YEC are Grand Slam tournaments, they should be moved. The Boxed Set table is kept because it's small and it's about 12 Grand Slam tournament titles but if you have problem with it, we can move it as well. You're right about Open Era Boxed Set so I've just removed the row, the important info there is that Court completed it twice in her career. --ForzaUV (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

About the NCYGS table, subsequent consecutive wins after the fourth one are part of the streak and part of the achievement, and citing the first four wins without citing the others might mislead the reader into believing that they aren't, or that subsequent wins don't make a NCYGS because the other titles are already part of a previous achievemet and that NCYGS instances can't overlap, which doesn't make sense since all NCYGS hold the same prestige and weight (otherwise the 5th and 6th titles wouldn't be mentioned on cases of NCYGSs that went that far, and the ITF wouldn't have mentioned Navratilova and Shriver on the same 1986-87 NCYGS when Navratilova acheived it a tournament earlier). So if we can't mention all the titles we should either restore the same approach that is currently applied (mention the first and last titles of the streak and its size), or mention all instances where someone hold all 4 consecutive slams regardless of any overlapping (and for the sake of consistency, this option should include the ones that overlap with the CYGS, like both Budge's 1935-36 NCYGSs, Graf's 1988-89 one, the three NCYGSs from Sedgman and McGregor in 1951-52, etc). ABC paulista (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the current approach in the article with From-To-Streak is best. Listing multiple NCYGSs for the same streak or displaying all slams for the 5+ slam streaks would only confuse people. I've just added in prose that Court has an Open Era-exclusive box set, as the extra row in the table was confusing (and rightly removed by ForzaUV after I mistakenly moved it). —Somnifuguist (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the difference here is that you see Navratilova's streak as multiple NCYGS instances while I see it as one NCYGS instance completed with the fourth title and extended by 2 and that's why I don't think displaying all streak's titles is necessary. The chart with all titles was really confusing and an ugly look as I mentioned before. Would linking the other streak titles in the notes be good with you? I'll make an edit so you can see what I mean and let me know what you think. By the way, Alcott's NCYGS is 4 not 5, you can see it in the ITF documents and by ITF's logic I think Hewett and Reid's (last instance in the table) should be 4 not 7. ForzaUV (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You can include those who won a Grand Slam or not in a list of ncygs. I don't look at that aspect as a big deal. But the proposed chart has two issues. It's about those who achieved a Non-calendar year Grand Slam. The streak number is not needed to show if they achieved that Non-calendar year Grand Slam. Dump that column. Otherwise it's unfair if you don't also show the streaks for those that achieved a Grand Slam. And put back the notes section. Readers would want to know who they won their titles with if there were multiple partners. I know I do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you on the streak column but not on including the partners as it's not that relevant of an info to the achievements imo, if anyone is interested in the partners they can click on the events' links, that's why they're there and the note column makes the table a little bit wider than desired and also inconsistent because of the other singles instances. ForzaUV (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing about the NCYGS streaks is not about how we see it, but about how it is seen elsewhere (by the organizing bodies, media, fans, etc). You'll hardly find sources mentioning a NCYGS inside a CYGS (like Budge's 1935-36 and Graf's 1988-89), because it seems that a CYGS supercedes a NYCGS for its bigger prestige and notability, so I'm against mentioning them (or at least, they should have something to differ them froom the others if mentioned). On the same note, you'll hardly find sources mentioning just the first four on a 5+ NCYGS streak (like Navratilova's 1986-87 NCYGS is mentioned alongside Shriver's, and her own 1983-84 singles' one), because these subsequent titles mean that they were still holding the 4 trophies and they have the same weight on the achievement as the first four (they would constitute as their own NCYGS if the first titles weren't won, and they would have the same prestige and weight as the actual configuration), so doing the way you did it gives undue weight to the first four. All titles of the streak should be equally regarded and the table should reflect that somehow, so if we can't mention the all in an equal footing I believe that the From-To-Streak approach is the best option. ABC paulista (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the GS supercedes the NCYGS. But I disagree that most sources include the number in a row they got. It's usually just the Serena Slam or Djokovic Slam, not how many they won. And by including it in that chart and pulling out Budge's GS, you leave out the fact he won six in a row, since the GS chart doesn't include the column. Best to leave it out of both. And I find the partners they won the Grand Slam with very notable. Yes it makes the chart wider, but not wider than several other charts on the page. It's a mistake not to include that info and it should remain unless consensus changes. And we don't want to take one of the best charts on the page and ruin it just to create links. That is a chart on winning a Grand Slam. If there is to be links it should be to something that shows they won a Grand Slam, not to individual events. Under discipline you could link the mens singles to "List of Grand Slam men's singles champions." That would be the way to do it. Plus something else, there also link overkill. At the bottom of the article we have huge templates, one of which is "Grand Slam tournament champions." What the heck is that doing there if you already have the same links elsewhere? It would be bloat. Those templates are there for a reason... to link to things discussed and related to the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the sources do mention the streak more often than not, even the ITF does so in its official documentation, so yeah, that's a relevant information. Neither Serena Slams' nor Nole Slam's streaks went further than 4, so it makes sense that they don't have the streak size mentioned. I'm not against mentioning the streak size on the CYGS one, but these additional titles outside the CYGS season aren't usually mentioned when talking about the achievement, so I don't feel that this information is relevant, but I don't feel like mentioning and wikilinking all tournaments is necessary either. Like I said before, I prefer the tables that are currently used on the article than the ones that are on Forza's sandbox. ABC paulista (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Would you like me to list the hundreds of times that ncygs are mentioned that they don't tell you the extra ones. You putting the links in the way you did is bit grandstanding and not factual in the context of how often they numbers are not used. I don't think we need them but certainly if it gets used in that chart then you don't shortchange another chart. Also draft articles are fair game to edit in a sandbox just like anywhere else. As long as that chart doesn't make it to mainspace I'm good though so my point is made. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If you want to list them, be my guest. All in all, it's still his userpage draft, and as such proceed with caution as stated by WP:UD and WP:NOBAN, and we should avoid trying to impose our own view per WP:OWN. The goal here is for us to make compromises and reach consensus. ABC paulista (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

However this is not just some random user page draft. You know, someone working on his own to fix a section that has some errors. This is a draft page that has been published here on the talk page as what will happen to this page in the future. That's a totally different beast and pretty much fair game for editing. That page has a lot of his own view.... lots! He took what was here and changed it to what he thinks is best. Nothing wrong with that at all, but that's exactly what it is. To me putting the chart back to what it was is the correct thing to do unless consensus deems a change is required. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Random" or not, its still his userpage and so all editors must adhere to the guidelines that dictates how they should be handled, regardless of the conditions or its purpose. And since its contents are still being discussed, WP:BRD must be preserved. Like I said, I prefer the current version of the tables than the sandbox's ones, but before bringing them back we should wait for Somnifuguist's and ForzaUV's opinion on the matter. ABC paulista (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It’s all well guys, great work so far, we’re almost there. ABC paulista, most of the sources you provided mention Martina’s six titles as a statistic or the achievement of winning 6 in a row. That achievement has its own section in 4 other article, the All-time, Open Era records pages, women's and men champions list pages. It’s clear to me that with winning the fifth major the narrative changes from the NCYGS to how long the streak can get or the possibility of a Grand Slam. Some quotes from the sources:
1.The Czech-born American made up for that the following year by capturing the championship in Roland Garros over her longtime rival Chris Evert to become the titleholder at all four majors and complete a non-calendar year Grand Slam. Another victory at Wimbledon—again over Evert in the final—made it five majors won in a row, raising expectations for the US Open.
2. Navratilova, Court and Connolly each put together strings of six consecutive titles in Grand Slam events.
As you can see there, it's completed with the Martina's RG title and by winning Wimbledon it was all about the CYGS not the NCYGS. The other source mentioned Martina with Court and Connolly even though they don't have a NCYGS but a CYGS. It's exactly what would have happened if Serena and Djokovic won their 5th major. With Serena's and Djokovic's 5th at 2003 RG and 2016 Wimbledon, the narrative would have been about the possibility of a CYGS or breaking Martina's/Budge's record of 6 consecutive titles, none would talk about the NCYGS afte the fifth. ForzaUV (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The narrative never really changed on these instances you mentioned, because both the NCYGS and the streak-count are both part of the same conxtext. When people refer to the NCYGS achievement, the usage of the "Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam" or similar is not that common, with descriptive phrases like "won all four slam titles consecutively" or "now holds all four trophies at the same time" being preferred over the NCYGS nomineer. That can be seen when Graf won all four in 1993-94, and even with the advent of the "[player] slam" like the Serena Slam or the Nole Slam. And when the term is used, it is often conetxtualized under the "holding all four trophies at the same time" narrative, to the point when even the ITF recognizes the achievement without using the term. And as the NCYGS is about holding all four trophies at the same time, that means that adding a fifth and sixth slam to the streak means that they are still holding all of them at the same time i.e. holding a NCYGS. These additional slams are part of of the achievement, are a continuation of it, and that's why the ITF mention them in equal footing to the first four wins. They have the same WP:WEIGHT. ABC paulista (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), sir please, if it's about what's necessary then nothing in the CYGS and NCYGS is necessary except for the year/period, player and discipline, that's it, everything else can be dropped. What we're trying to do here is to keep the most relevant and useful information to the readers and I'm sure most of them care more about HOW the feat was achieved than the info which currently is in the notes column. I can prove it by making a survey in tennis message board if you like, just let me know what tennis board you prefer. Those events need to be easily accessible to the reader so let's keep them. You probably don't like the "poor" looking more than anything but we can work on that. It has been done in 4 different versions so far, which one of them you prefer? ABC paulista obviously prefers #1, I have no problem with any but if I have to choose, #2 or #3 look nice, not-too-wide and consistent with the NCYGS and even though the tournament names are abbreviated they're still easily readable. ForzaUV (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

				1
1	1938	Don Budge	Men's singles	Australian Championships	French Championships	Wimbledon	U.S. Championships
2	1951	Ken McGregor	Men's doubles	Australian Championships	French Championships	Wimbledon	U.S. Championships
		Frank Sedgman
3	1953	Maureen Connolly	Women's singles	Australian Championships	French Championships	Wimbledon	U.S. Championships
4	1960	Maria Bueno	Women's doubles	Australian Championships	French Championships	Wimbledon	U.S. Championships
5	1962	Rod Laver	Men's singles	Australian Championships	French Championships	Wimbledon	U.S. Championships
6	1963	Margaret Court	Mixed doubles	Australian Championships	French Championships	Wimbledon	U.S. Championships
		Ken Fletcher
7	1965	Margaret Court (2)	Mixed doubles	Australian Championships	French Championships	Wimbledon	U.S. Championships
8	1967	Owen Davidson	Mixed doubles	Australian Championships	French Championships	Wimbledon	U.S. Championships
9	1969	Rod Laver (2)	Men's singles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
10	1970	Margaret Court (3)	Women's singles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
11	1983	Stefan Edberg	Boys' singles	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open	Australian Open
12	1984	Martina Navratilova	Women's doubles	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open	Australian Open
		Pam Shriver
13	1988	Steffi Graf	Women's singles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
14	1998	Martina Hingis	Women's doubles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
15	2009	Esther Vergeer	Women's wheelchair doubles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
		Korie Homan
16	2011	Esther Vergeer (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
		Sharon Walraven
17	2013	Aniek van Koot	Women's wheelchair doubles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
		Jiske Griffioen
18	2014	Stéphane Houdet	Men's wheelchair doubles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
19	2014	Yui Kamiji	Women's wheelchair doubles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
		Jordanne Whiley
20	2019	Aniek van Koot (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open
		Diede de Groot
21	2019	Dylan Alcott	Quad wheelchair doubles	Australian Open	French Open	Wimbledon	US Open

				2
1	1938	Don Budge	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
2	1951	Ken McGregor	Men's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Frank Sedgman
3	1953	Maureen Connolly	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
4	1960	Maria Bueno	Women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
5	1962	Rod Laver	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
6	1963	Margaret Court	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Ken Fletcher
7	1965	Margaret Court (2)	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
8	1967	Owen Davidson	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
9	1969	Rod Laver (2)	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
10	1970	Margaret Court (3)	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
11	1983	Stefan Edberg	Boys' singles	FR	WB	US	AU
12	1984	Martina Navratilova	Women's doubles	FR	WB	US	AU
		Pam Shriver
13	1988	Steffi Graf	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
14	1998	Martina Hingis	Women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
15	2009	Esther Vergeer	Women's wheelchair doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Korie Homan
16	2011	Esther Vergeer (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Sharon Walraven
17	2013	Aniek van Koot	Women's wheelchair doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Jiske Griffioen
18	2014	Stéphane Houdet	Men's wheelchair doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
19	2014	Yui Kamiji	Women's wheelchair doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Jordanne Whiley
20	2019	Aniek van Koot (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Diede de Groot
21	2019	Dylan Alcott	Quad wheelchair doubles	AU	FR	WB	US

				3
1	1938	Don Budge	Men's singles	1938 AU	1938 FR	1938 WB	1938 US
2	1951	Ken McGregor	Men's doubles	1951 AU	1951 FR	1951 WB	1951 US
		Frank Sedgman
4	1953	Maureen Connolly	Women's singles	1953 AU	1953 FR	1953 WB	1953 US
5	1960	Maria Bueno	Women's doubles	1960 AU	1960 FR	1960 WB	1960 US
6	1962	Rod Laver	Men's singles	1962 AU	1962 FR	1962 WB	1962 US
7	1963	Margaret Court	Mixed doubles	1963 AU	1963 FR	1963 WB	1963 US
		Ken Fletcher
9	1965	Margaret Court (2)	Mixed doubles	1965 AU	1965 FR	1965 WB	1965 US
10	1967	Owen Davidson	Mixed doubles	1967 AU	1967 FR	1967 WB	1967 US
11	1969	Rod Laver (2)	Men's singles	1969 AU	1969 FR	1969 WB	1969 US
12	1970	Margaret Court (3)	Women's singles	1970 AU	1970 FR	1970 WB	1970 US
13	1983	Stefan Edberg	Boys' singles	1983 FR	1983 WB	1983 US	1983 AU
14	1984	Martina Navratilova	Women's doubles	1984 FR	1984 WB	1984 US	1984 AU
		Pam Shriver
16	1988	Steffi Graf	Women's singles	1988 AU	1988 FR	1988 WB	1988 US
17	1998	Martina Hingis	Women's doubles	1998 AU	1998 FR	1998 WB	1998 US
18	2009	Esther Vergeer	Women's wheelchair doubles	2009 AU	2009 FR	2009 WB	2009 US
		Korie Homan
20	2011	Esther Vergeer (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	2011 AU	2011 FR	2011 WB	2011 US
		Sharon Walraven
22	2013	Aniek van Koot	Women's wheelchair doubles	2013 AU	2013 FR	2013 WB	2013 US
		Jiske Griffioen
24	2014	Stéphane Houdet	Men's wheelchair doubles	2014 AU	2014 FR	2014 WB	2014 US
25	2014	Yui Kamiji	Women's wheelchair doubles	2014 AU	2014 FR	2014 WB	2014 US
		Jordanne Whiley
27	2019	Aniek van Koot (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	2019 AU	2019 FR	2019 WB	2019 US
		Diede de Groot
29	2019	Dylan Alcott	Quad wheelchair doubles	2019 AU	2019 FR	2019 WB	2019 US

				4
1	1938	Don Budge	Men's singles	1938	1938	1938	1938
2	1951	Ken McGregor	Men's doubles	1951	1951	1951	1951
		Frank Sedgman
4	1953	Maureen Connolly	Women's singles	1953	1953	1953	1953
5	1960	Maria Bueno	Women's doubles	1960	1960	1960	1960
6	1962	Rod Laver	Men's singles	1962	1962	1962	1962
7	1963	Margaret Court	Mixed doubles	1963	1963	1963	1963
		Ken Fletcher
9	1965	Margaret Court (2)	Mixed doubles	1965	1965	1965	1965
10	1967	Owen Davidson	Mixed doubles	1967	1967	1967	1967
11	1969	Rod Laver (2)	Men's singles	1969	1969	1969	1969
12	1970	Margaret Court (3)	Women's singles	1970	1970	1970	1970
13	1983	Stefan Edberg	Boys' singles	1983	1983	1983	1983
14	1984	Martina Navratilova	Women's doubles	1984	1984	1984	1984
		Pam Shriver
16	1988	Steffi Graf	Women's singles	1988	1988	1988	1988
17	1998	Martina Hingis	Women's doubles	1998	1998	1998	1998
18	2009	Esther Vergeer	Women's wheelchair doubles	2009	2009	2009	2009
		Korie Homan
20	2011	Esther Vergeer (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	2011	2011	2011	2011
		Sharon Walraven
22	2013	Aniek van Koot	Women's wheelchair doubles	2013	2013	2013	2013
		Jiske Griffioen
24	2014	Stéphane Houdet	Men's wheelchair doubles	2014	2014	2014	2014
25	2014	Yui Kamiji	Women's wheelchair doubles	2014	2014	2014	2014
		Jordanne Whiley
27	2019	Aniek van Koot (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	2019	2019	2019	2019
		Diede de Groot
29	2019	Dylan Alcott	Quad wheelchair doubles	2019	2019	2019	2019

I still prefer the ones currently on the page, but if I had to choose between these four the first oness seems to be the best one right now, although the second one might be more useful if we choose to add more info on them. ABC paulista (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Every one is terrible compared to what we have now. There is no need to link to each event and the note section is rather good as is. None. Clicking on them will not show that the player has won a Grand Slam. All we need is a link in the discipline that goes to the full grand slam article. That way a reader can see all at once that the player has won a Grand Slam. It seems to be your way or the highway since you didn't give a choice of the original.

#	Year	Player	Discipline	Notes
1	1938	Don Budge	Men's singles	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
2	1951	Ken McGregor	Men's doubles	Part of 7 consecutive titles for the team.
		Frank Sedgman		Part of 8 consecutive titles for Sedgman with John Bromwich and Ken McGregor.
4	1953	Maureen Connolly	Women's singles	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
5	1960	Maria Bueno	Women's doubles	With Christine Truman and Darlene Hard.
6	1962	Rod Laver	Men's singles
7	1963	Margaret Court	Mixed doubles	Part of 7 consecutive titles for Court with Fred Stolle and Ken Fletcher.
		Ken Fletcher		Part of 6 consecutive titles for the team.
9	1965	Margaret Court (2)	Mixed doubles	Part of 5 consecutive titles with John Newcombe, Ken Fletcher and Fred Stolle.
10	1967	Owen Davidson	Mixed doubles	Part of 5 consecutive titles with Donna Floyd, Lesley Turner and Billie Jean King.
11	1969	Rod Laver (2)	Men's singles
12	1970	Margaret Court (3)	Women's singles	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
13	1983	Stefan Edberg	Boys' singles
14	1984	Martina Navratilova	Women's doubles	Part of 8 consecutive titles.
		Pam Shriver
16	1988	Steffi Graf	Women's singles	Part of 5 consecutive titles.
17	1998	Martina Hingis	Women's doubles	Part of 5 consecutive titles with Mirjana Lučić, Jana Novotná and Anna Kournikova.
18	2009	Esther Vergeer	Women's wheelchair doubles	Part of 12 consecutive titles for Vergeer with Korie Homan, Jiske Griffioen and Maaike Smit.
		Korie Homan
20	2011	Esther Vergeer (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles	Part of 8 consecutive titles for Vergeer with Sharon Walraven and Marjolein Buis.
		Sharon Walraven		Part of 7 consecutive titles for the team.
22	2013	Aniek van Koot	Women's wheelchair doubles
		Jiske Griffioen
24	2014	Stéphane Houdet	Men's wheelchair doubles	With Joachim Gérard and Shingo Kunieda.
25	2014	Yui Kamiji	Women's wheelchair doubles	Part of 5 consecutive titles.
		Jordanne Whiley
27	2019	Aniek van Koot (2)	Women's wheelchair doubles
		Diede de Groot		Part of 7 consecutive titles for de Groot with Aniek van Koot and Yui Kamiji.
29	2019	Dylan Alcott	Quad wheelchair doubles	Part of 6 consecutive titles with Heath Davidson, David Wagner and Andrew Lapthorne.

Those four majors are the definition of Grand Slam so we don't need the overkill to tell people that over and over and over in the chart. I don't know who created this chart, but they really got it right. Easy to read and informative without being overly repetitive. No need to wreck it just to create words for linking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see both perspectives: the notes column is useful to get the partners/streak length (and we should probably have a citation in each row there), and providing links to each of the majors allows readers to click through to see how the players won each tournament. How about this combined version as a middle ground:

#	Year	Player	Discipline	Major				Notes
				1	2	3	4
1	1938	Don Budge	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
2	1951	Ken McGregor	Men's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 7 consecutive titles for the team.
		Frank Sedgman						Part of 8 consecutive titles for Sedgman with John Bromwich and Ken McGregor.
4	1953	Maureen Connolly	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
5	1960	Maria Bueno	Women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	With Christine Truman and Darlene Hard.
6	1962	Rod Laver	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
7	1963	Margaret Court	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 7 consecutive titles for Court with Fred Stolle and Ken Fletcher.
		Ken Fletcher						Part of 6 consecutive titles for the team.
9	1965	Margaret Court (2)	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with John Newcombe, Ken Fletcher and Fred Stolle.
10	1967	Owen Davidson	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with Donna Floyd, Lesley Turner and Billie Jean King.
11	1969	Rod Laver (2)	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
12	1970	Margaret Court (3)	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
13	1983	Stefan Edberg	Boys' singles	FR	WB	US	AU
14	1984	Martina Navratilova	Women's doubles	FR	WB	US	AU	Part of 8 consecutive titles.
		Pam Shriver
16	1988	Steffi Graf	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles.
17	1998	Martina Hingis	Women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with Mirjana Lučić, Jana Novotná and Anna Kournikova.
18	2009	Esther Vergeer	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 12 consecutive titles for Vergeer with Korie Homan, Jiske Griffioen and Maaike Smit.
		Korie Homan
20	2011	Esther Vergeer (2)	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 8 consecutive titles for Vergeer with Sharon Walraven and Marjolein Buis.
		Sharon Walraven						Part of 7 consecutive titles for the team.
22	2013	Aniek van Koot	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Jiske Griffioen
24	2014	Stéphane Houdet	WC men's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	With Joachim Gérard and Shingo Kunieda.
25	2014	Yui Kamiji	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles.
		Jordanne Whiley
27	2019	Aniek van Koot (2)	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Diede de Groot						Part of 7 consecutive titles for de Groot with Aniek van Koot and Yui Kamiji.
29	2019	Dylan Alcott	WC quad doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles with Heath Davidson, David Wagner and Andrew Lapthorne.

—Somnifuguist (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Do I think the "major" columns are unnecessary and that the chart we have now is much better.... yes I do. I think it's overkill on linking just to link... something I really don't like when it's done on Wikipedia. That said, this is a vast improvement compared with the other examples and something I can bite my tongue and live with. A couple of issues though. The sortability is overused in the chart. Player and Discipline are ok. We do not need both the # and the year sortable... one or the other and I would choose the year. Majors and Notes should not be sortable. There is also an issue with poor html. The "!" should not be after the top headings because of screen reader issues, UNLESS you use the "scope" attribute. You could also simply use "|" with a bold statement, so one way or the other, not a combination. The discipline column would need to be completed in linking to the particular Grand Slam article (only some were done by me), but the chart without the sortable columns and the corrected html would look lke this:

#	Year	Player	Discipline	Major				Notes
				1	2	3	4
1	1938	Don Budge	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
2	1951	Ken McGregor	Men's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 7 consecutive titles for the team.
		Frank Sedgman						Part of 8 consecutive titles for Sedgman with John Bromwich and Ken McGregor.
4	1953	Maureen Connolly	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
5	1960	Maria Bueno	Women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	With Christine Truman and Darlene Hard.
6	1962	Rod Laver	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
7	1963	Margaret Court	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 7 consecutive titles for Court with Fred Stolle and Ken Fletcher.
		Ken Fletcher						Part of 6 consecutive titles for the team.
9	1965	Margaret Court (2)	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with John Newcombe, Ken Fletcher and Fred Stolle.
10	1967	Owen Davidson	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with Donna Floyd, Lesley Turner and Billie Jean King.
11	1969	Rod Laver (2)	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
12	1970	Margaret Court (3)	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
13	1983	Stefan Edberg	Boys' singles	FR	WB	US	AU
14	1984	Martina Navratilova	Women's doubles	FR	WB	US	AU	Part of 8 consecutive titles.
		Pam Shriver
16	1988	Steffi Graf	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles.
17	1998	Martina Hingis	Women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with Mirjana Lučić, Jana Novotná and Anna Kournikova.
18	2009	Esther Vergeer	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 12 consecutive titles for Vergeer with Korie Homan, Jiske Griffioen and Maaike Smit.
		Korie Homan
20	2011	Esther Vergeer (2)	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 8 consecutive titles for Vergeer with Sharon Walraven and Marjolein Buis.
		Sharon Walraven						Part of 7 consecutive titles for the team.
22	2013	Aniek van Koot	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Jiske Griffioen
24	2014	Stéphane Houdet	WC men's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	With Joachim Gérard and Shingo Kunieda.
25	2014	Yui Kamiji	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles.
		Jordanne Whiley
27	2019	Aniek van Koot (2)	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Diede de Groot						Part of 7 consecutive titles for de Groot with Aniek van Koot and Yui Kamiji.
29	2019	Dylan Alcott	WC quad doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles with Heath Davidson, David Wagner and Andrew Lapthorne.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs)

That's exactly what I was talking about when I said that Forza's second option was better if we'd add more info on the table. I believe that's the best compromise we can achieve right now. ABC paulista (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes, you have a deeper understanding of the html/accessibility issues than I do, so I trust your judgement there. I delinked the repeated links in the discipline column before to avoid overlinking the same pages. Here's a version with surface colours, which matches the tables on the discipline pages:

#	Year	Player	Discipline	Major				Notes
				1	2	3	4
1	1938	Don Budge	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
2	1951	Ken McGregor	Men's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 7 consecutive titles for the team.
		Frank Sedgman						Part of 8 consecutive titles for Sedgman with John Bromwich and Ken McGregor.
4	1953	Maureen Connolly	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
5	1960	Maria Bueno	Women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	With Christine Truman and Darlene Hard.
6	1962	Rod Laver	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
7	1963	Margaret Court	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 7 consecutive titles for Court with Fred Stolle and Ken Fletcher.
		Ken Fletcher						Part of 6 consecutive titles for the team.
9	1965	Margaret Court (2)	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with John Newcombe, Ken Fletcher and Fred Stolle.
10	1967	Owen Davidson	Mixed doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with Donna Floyd, Lesley Turner and Billie Jean King.
11	1969	Rod Laver (2)	Men's singles	AU	FR	WB	US
12	1970	Margaret Court (3)	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles.
13	1983	Stefan Edberg	Boys' singles	FR	WB	US	AU
14	1984	Martina Navratilova	Women's doubles	FR	WB	US	AU	Part of 8 consecutive titles.
		Pam Shriver
16	1988	Steffi Graf	Women's singles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles.
17	1998	Martina Hingis	Women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles with Mirjana Lučić, Jana Novotná and Anna Kournikova.
18	2009	Esther Vergeer	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 12 consecutive titles for Vergeer with Korie Homan, Jiske Griffioen and Maaike Smit.
		Korie Homan
20	2011	Esther Vergeer (2)	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 8 consecutive titles for Vergeer with Sharon Walraven and Marjolein Buis.
		Sharon Walraven						Part of 7 consecutive titles for the team.
22	2013	Aniek van Koot	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Jiske Griffioen
24	2014	Stéphane Houdet	WC men's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	With Joachim Gérard and Shingo Kunieda.
25	2014	Yui Kamiji	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 5 consecutive titles.
		Jordanne Whiley
27	2019	Aniek van Koot (2)	WC women's doubles	AU	FR	WB	US
		Diede de Groot						Part of 7 consecutive titles for de Groot with Aniek van Koot and Yui Kamiji.
29	2019	Dylan Alcott	WC quad doubles	AU	FR	WB	US	Part of 6 consecutive titles with Heath Davidson, David Wagner and Andrew Lapthorne.

Is everyone happy with that? Also, there are two possible layouts for the other tables:

Extended content

Number of players to complete the Three-Quarter Slam (current) Men's Women's Mixed WC Men's WC Women's WC Quad Boy's Girls Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Doubles Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Singles Doubles Singles Doubles 11 23 10 21 17 2 4 3 3 3 0 3 9 2 11 Number of players to complete the Three-Quarter Slam (alternative) Singles Doubles WC Singles WC Doubles Junior Singles Junior Doubles Men's Women's Men's Women's Mixed Men's Women's Quad Men's Women's Quad Boys' Girls' Boys' Girls' 11 10 23 21 17 2 3 3 4 3 0 3 2 9 11

I'm thinking of changing to the second because it's narrower and has the men and women's results for singles/doubles next to each other for easier comparison, but am not sure. —Somnifuguist (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Two things. I would lean towards the second also but one reason is you could probably fit Wheelchair as opposed to WC, and therefore get rid of the mouseover info. But I like the Grand Slam chart better without the added surface colors. It seems to make it messier and harder to see when they are right next to the discipline colors. It's added info that we really don't need and a simply white background works well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Totally agreed. The colors on the CYGS one just add confusion with little gain, and the second option for Somnifuguist's charts is the best model so far. ABC paulista (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Break 4

I thought of making the CYGS chart in a similiar way but I needed to see how Fyunck likes the events to appear in the table first so I asked him and he went "It seems to be your way or the highway" lol. Probably that's the best compromise as ABC paulista said but I agree with Fyunch that the surface colors next to the discipline colors made the info harder to see so I made minor changes to the tables on the sandbox article. I've also added the alternative tables for the concepts to the page, they're better. Hopefully, everything is good now. ForzaUV (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not a laughing matter, it is often true. All your choices included those columns and the removal of notes. You wouldn't put back the note section till much later. You have a backwards way of discussing things. It's not "what can we do to make a chart better"... It's make your own completely different chart and work backwards from that. Usually only giving back small amounts. That can lead to more animosity than usual. I was taught to build things brick by brick as opposed to building the wall and removing a few bricks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's not get personal now; this has been a very productive discussion. Forza's sandbox isn't the article, so making large changes to it to show new ideas, and then compromising after others have seen them in context is a good way of going about things. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. I still disgree with the way we've been handling the NCYGS chart, there must be a way to keep the info well organized while properly reflecting the same weight that all titles on the streak have. The history section still needs to be expanded (there's pretty much no info about the amateur/professional divide that existed pre-OE and how that affected the slams, and there's still too little on how some majors were skipped in the past, especially regarding the French Open on the 70s), I don't like how on the "tournaments" section, crucial info about them were relegated to a mere table and more trivial stuff were made in-text. By logic, should be the opposite, and most of the intext info could be moved to the history section. And we still have to address on how the tables were formatted on the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions: In my view this kind of formatting makes readability more difficult, so I prefer the more traditional one, like on the List of Grand Slam women's singles champions, where the tables are more standardized. ABC paulista (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

All of the 5+ titles in the NCYGS streaks are included in the notes column and you may add a bullet point under the chart where you can explain your point in full, wouldn't that be enough? Maybe also writing the note in different words could help, would something like "Extended with 1984 WB and 1984 US titles" reflect the same weight for all titles?
I'm not in a hurry but unfortunately I can't help you with expanding the history/tournaments sections because I'm not as well-versed in tennis history as Fyunck or maybe you. Keep in mind though that those sections don't need to be perfect, it's a starting point and what we have there is already more expanded than what it's in the published article. The tables in the list of men's singles look totally fine to me but we'll get to that when we finish working on the content of the main page. ForzaUV (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

When we talk of winning a Grand Slam the focus is on the person, not the discipline. The two charts needs to go back to the way they were with the person first and no color added to the individual titles. It's just not needed and it works best that way. Another query about the other charts on the page. I was always taught at wikipedia not to mess with the font size unless it was necessary... such as with Federer charts because of his length of play-time. Why are these at 90%? It looks like 100% would work just fine. I agree that talk about how the tables look on the other pages takes away from discussion on this page. Heck just change the tables on those articles, as long as the info is there it's no big deal. We also have to be careful in history and chart wording and not to get too technical. Pre-open had little affect on the women. Yeah the French was skipped in the 70s but that was because of a power struggle between competing tours. Do we really want to get into the competing tours? The difference in weight of the four majors was enormous through the early 1980s. There was talk of Wimbledon being the true world championship that was worth two or three of the other majors, and that was often shown in who was considered the best player that season. Prior to the 1970s, almost nothing was more important than Davis Cup. It's hard to fathom how important that was. Players skipped majors if they thought it would interfere with their prep for Davis Cup. Emerson would not turn pro in the 1960s and one reason was that he would not be able to play Davis Cup. So there are all kinds of little things that would take many sections of writing that are not well suited to this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) Any info about the pereceived prestige of these tournaments, and/or how something affected here is valid, so talking about the bigger prestige the Davis Cup had back then, how the pros were banned from these and how the power struggle form the various tours affected on the player's participation is important. The article don't even talk about the perceived prestige of each individual tournament, and how it changed throughout the eras, and this must be addressed. We don't need to dive deep on each of these topics, we can do something smaller and more focused on the Slam-side of these. ABC paulista (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

To me that is more for a book rather than an encyclopedia which summarizes the most important aspects. To each his own I guess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd call call them "important aspects". While books often focus on one subject and goes deep on it, encyclopedias aggregate various related subjects with a somewhat superficial apporach, and that's how we should handle these info. At least these happenings should be informed to the reader, without going into much detail on the whys and hows. ABC paulista (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ForzaUV I don't think that would be enough, I believe that they all should be put on the same breath. Maybe we could lump all tournaments of a streak into one column, separating one another with brackets (since they aren't sortable, it woudn't make much of a difference). Maybe I'll try that later. About the lists on the men's singles page, I brought it up because they were changed while we were working here, and any changes we promote there would mess with the recent wikilinking promoted here. But yeah, we can addess them later. ABC paulista (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

We have a deadline—the US open starts August 30, and there will be an enormous surge in interest and visits to this article, so it needs to be ready by then. The key question is whether the draft is worse in any respect than the current article. If not, then we are ready to substitute it in. The tournament history can be added to, but it is already much better than the non-existent content in the current article. What "crucial" information is in the tournament table but not the text? When you say "most of the info could be moved to the history section", which info specifically are you referring to, and which history section, the general or the individual tournaments'? The table formatting on the men's singles champions list as Fyunck said can be discussed after, and I'm not too bothered as long as all the info is there. I've moved the discipline column before the year column on the CYGS chart—do you mind the surface colours with that layout? Fyunck, smaller font sizes are typical on wide tables to reduce the width, e.g. Roger_Federer#Career_statistics has font-size:94%, so I don't think that's an issue. That leaves the NCYGS chart, which we should hammer out next. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the tables as being that wide. And my older eyes sure don't read it as well that small. Tennis Project usually wants a good reason for smaller fonts and I don't think this qualifies. And I still have a problem with the colors for the tournaments. I feel it really starts to detract visually from the chart's purpose, so I think that the table is worse in that respect than what we have now. It should be added without those colors and that can be discussed later. However the change you made is better than it was. Otherwise you are correct that while not perfect the article is by-and-large better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Somnifuguist I disagree that we have a deadline, because the actual article is already fine as it is, so we aren't in a hurry to implement the changes, we can take it slow. About the tournamets info, crucial info like current venue, date of play, playing surface, draw size, tiebreak format and other related info is only contained on the table, when they should be intext to give the reader a better overview about them. The fact that Wimbledon is considered the most prestigious and that the Australian Open is known as the "Happy Slam", or calls itself the "Grand Slam of Asia-Pacific" is nowhere to be found. While info like who was their first champion and when they implemented each discipline's competitions wold be better located on the "History" section. And info like how many they changed their names or venues have littile relation to the subject here, so they could be either removed or also be further trimmed and relocated to the history section. ABC paulista (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Increase in interest with Djokovic US Open hype ⇒ increase in edits to the article ⇒ our draft branch quickly becomes outdated and has to be manually updated edit-by-edit (I doubt you're volunteering). Also, that our draft is so different in structure and content suggests that the current article is less than "fine", so we should not "take it slow" if we want the best for our readers. If 3/4 of us agree it's ready (not that it's perfect), then we will publish it, but obviously it'd be better if we were all happy to do so.

I agree the "happy slam"/most prestigious type info should be in the tournaments' sections, and that some of the info currently in them is trivial. I've replaced the section translusions with the actual text so you can do your desired trimmings/additions, although I don't think tournament-specific history should be in the "history" section, which I strongly think should be only for the history of the tournaments collectively, or the achievement. Do you mind the surface colours in the current CYGS layout? What do you and Fyunck think of Forza's new NCYGS layout? —Somnifuguist (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not like there's much to be updated, though. There are a couple of possible three-quarters and CYGSs, but not much beyound that, so it would be rather easy to promote such updates, especially now that most of the content that is short-term updating-prone was moved to other lists. About the colors on the CYGS table, I think they do more harm than good so I'd keep them out, and the NYCGS one, I like this new format but I'll make some adjustments, and the you guys can review the changes I promote. I'll try to work more on the history section too, to see what more can be added there. ABC paulista (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not just updates, it's improvements. We've made many changes to the prose and remaining tables that editors seeing the article might think to make. Letting them work on a version that is going to be completely overridden soon after is just needlessly wasting their time. —Somnifuguist (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that the added colors do more harm than good on the GS chart. The NCYGS chart is fine except for some html issues. I thought I had fixed some but perhaps they crept back in. Also the N/A font color is no longer compliant with our visually impaired guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this page perfect right this second?... no. It is certainly a compromise of ideas. But it is far better than it was before. One minor issue is that in the new compact charts like Career Super Slam, there are lots of single digits. It is really hard to tell even on my 24" screen that they are clickable links that go somewhere. Readers may not notice. It's easy to tell when there are three or four alphanumerics in a row, and I wish we could convey that those numbers link to the proper article. Otherwise I would say it's ready for prime time. I do agree that we shouldn't be in a hurry to do things, but Somnifuguist is correct in that we may have a slew of viewers and editors pouring in during the US Open. Djokovic is the favorite and we may see the first men's Grand Slam since Rod Laver 52 years ago. It may be time to put the thing to work and make tweaks as we find them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the French Open/Wimbledon/US Open sections still need reworking, but that can be done on the article. The hype machine is in full motion now, so the sooner we publish our version, the better. The visibility issue with the single digit links in the tables could be ameliorated by increasing the font sizes. We'll need to request a history merge, as multiple people have worked on the draft so it can't just be copy-pasted.

@ABC paulista, @ForzaUV, @Fyunck(click), do you agree to me making the request? If two of you do, I'll go ahead with it. —Somnifuguist (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to ask to keep working on it until next monday. I'll have time to work on these sections this weeekend, and I believe that it would be easier to do that without the risk of other editos meddling with the article, eliminating the risk of potential conflicting edits. ABC paulista (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You can keep working on it as an article. If you have edit conflicts on those sections, just override them with what you've written. It's unlikely someone will edit the individual sections you'll be working on during the same window anyway, as the current prose is taken directly from the history sections of the tournament articles, which are very seldom edited. I'm sorry but a cost-benefit analysis overwhelmingly supports us publishing now. —Somnifuguist (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I hate the term "meddling" for other editors trying to make their own improvements. We are no better or worse than they are. I would go ahead and publish. We always have to deal with editors changing things in the middle of tournaments. Sometimes I have to put up an "under construction" sign for an hour. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't the sentiment I wanted to convey. I was trying to say that would be annoying and bothersome to have conflicting edits, not about their merits or quality, but the term "meddling" was the only one I remembered at that time that had a somewhat similar meaning. English isn't my first language, so my true speech was somewhat lost in translation. ABC paulista (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. I see no reason why not. --ForzaUV (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Since it's all settled, the I'll work on that section rewriting on my sandbox. I really, really want to avoid a edit conflict since these tend to open the edit page for the whole article, and my computer would struggle to process it, giving me a real hard time. ABC paulista (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)