Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)

Repetition of information

Advertisement

Close

Whilst I endorse the restoration of the tables, it should not be necessary to repeat the same information again and again. It's one of the aspects I most dislike about some wikipedia pages (it may be necessary to say things twice but not three or four times). We already know Budge was the first winner of the Grand Slam, it is written in the history, says it on the photos (which already list every singles winner of the slam) and lists it in the tables. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Guess what. It does not say it in the history, and it does not say it in the photos. The photos say nothing about the first and there are not photos of every winner. Readers know nothing from the photos. It's in a table but not in prose (which is far more important). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No I see it doesn't say it in the history (I assumed it did), I was about to correct that when you replied. It does list all the singles winners in the photos and the tables though. Three times in one section is overkill. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It does not say those are all the singles winners in the photos... you'd need to search the table for that. And words under photos are never a substitute for prose anyways. Wikipedia MOS discussions are always telling us less tables and more prose... we don't want to do the opposite. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is, that information is listed (Budge, singles in 1938, Connolly singles in 1953 etc.) Actually it almosts lists some names four times, because the tables with numbers in them link to a page with all the names. This is silly and not necessary. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Listing the numbers of players to achieve this in each discipline is also pointless, as the numbers are listed in the table linking to the other page. It is needless repetition. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Big difference between "Don Budge won a Grand Slam" and "Don Budge was the first player to win a Grand Slam." The line you removed was the only prose that said it. And the fact we are talking about the term "Grand Slam" it's not a bad idea to head it off in prose with the first to do it. You should always have some prose to back up the tables. Remember also that table is unsourced per wikipedia rules. Linking to other articles is not proper sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Tables display on all devices. What I and all other readers of this page are seeing is the same thing replicated three times in one section and linking to a fourth repetition. Budge 1938, Budge 1938, Budge 1938. Number of players winning each discipline of the slam, same numbers listed in a table. I don't think wikipedia rules suggest repeating the same information again and again in one section and I can't see editors flocking in outrage to this page to complain if this additional waffle in the narrative section were to be removed. If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I can't think of any encyclopedia that repeats the same information three or more times closely together. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, it is not as if this page is full of tables and has no prose. There is plenty of narrative on this page already. Lets see what other editors have to say on all this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, photos at wkipedia never take the place of prose, so they are ignored for that purpose. Many readers skip right over them. Then the prose gives the highlights of what's in the table. We mention the first and a few other tidbits, and then present the table. I see no issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What I am seeing is the same thing written three times very closely together (others will see that too). I am not changing my mind on adding the Grand Slam winners table, because it is a necessary and very good thing (the photos are good also, to show the readers what these players look like), but I assumed that with the table added the introductory paragraph could be slimmed down to an absolute minimum. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it even necessary to point out the first one to achieve it? Is it notable enough to have to be explicitally stated in the prose instead of being inferred in the table? What's the historical relevance of it and, in any, shouldn't it be moved to the history section?

About the table itself, the ITF source can be used to directly attend WP:V, without needing a prose for such. The prose is necessary to explain what's the table's about, and that's it. Any highlighting should only be done with sources properly conveying the reason why they should be highlighted. ABC paulista (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An article about a Grand Slam... the highest achievement in the sport of tennis. The first one to achieve it is historical, is notable, and in my opinion must be present in the article. And what better place to mention it than the section "Grand Slam?" And what ITF source do we have for that table? It should be with the table. The notes section could be listed as notes and refs, with a ref for each instance. The column that could be looked at as overkill could be the "major" column. Do we really need each major win listed and linked? Removing it would also allow us to dump the key. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The table already shows Budge is the first winner (if this must be re-stated and I don't personally think it should, it should be in the main narrative history section, not right next to two other instances where Budge 1938 is listed). Also, there is no need to say how many players in each discipline won the Grand Slam when exactly the same thing is in the table at the bottom of the section. It makes the page look like cheap propaganda rather than a serious encyclopedia. It may seem trivial to some, but this sort of repetition intensely annoys me. I can add any sources required to the table if that is concerning you. On another note, I see that in the Golden Slam section under Olympic youth medal someone has put a dubious-discuss tag. I assume this is in reference to it not being an actual gold medal. Youth Olympic should either be removed or the dubious-discuss tag should. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

While it is very important to be mentioned, you are correct that it needn't be in that paragraph. While I like it there I'm also open to moving it in another section. As far as sourcing, it can certainly be done with the ITF chart listed below by ABC (probably with a listed page number). Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly because the Youth Olympics has no source that relate it ot the Golden Slam. Maybe it should be removed. ABC paulista (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine notability, but the sources shoud be the ones to denote it. If it's mentioned as mere passing notes or part of a bigger list, with little highlighting above the rest, than I would question it, but I think that looking a little bit deeper would yield more than enough sources to denote its notability, like the HoF does. But my main point is how is Budge's win is treated by the sources: They just mention it as significant or unprecedented, or there are sources that contextualize the importance of Budge's achievement in its era and its ramifications beyond? That's what should tell us its proper placement.

But I have a bigger gripe with that second paragraph, which is most comprised of WP:TRIVIA which the source presented doesn't highlight in any meaningful way. Let's remeber that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATA, they should hold some significance, they should be emphasized by the sources in some way. The only source presented for it is the ITF one, which is the one I said that could be used to source the table, althoug it should be updated like this one ABC paulista (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing, perhaps it might be beneficial if I put contemporary newspaper sources to each "Grand Slam" on the page. This also clears up any doubt (not that there should be any) that there were contemporary references to these events. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:TOOMANYREFS, the ITF website already lists all Grans Slam achievers, and they update it regularly. This one alone is already enough. ABC paulista (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is good to have contemporary references too. It stops a certain biased editor claiming that people didn't know that they were winning the Grand Slam when they clearly did. Only a few weeks ago he was running that one up the flagpole. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it strange that the ITF does not include all the Grand Slams (Smith 1965 and Hingis 1998 are absent). Also the ITF link is a dead link archived so is not updated Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't need a note with all those sources, we don't need the contemporary ones. Just use the updated ITF page that ABC listed which has the Hingis Grand Slam (but not the Court Grand Slam of 1965). Then add a second source for the Court 1965 Grand Slam (Tennis Hall of fame shows all her major championships). I think that's all we really need. The Hingis miss in the first ITF link is surprising but the Court Grand Slam of 1965 gets missed in many sources because the final of the Australian was never played. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Those citations take up no room in the main text area and are important to retain. They show nearly all the Grand Slams being reported as such at the time. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't just a question whether we think it takes up too much room or not. Wikipedia "Policy" says not to do it. If we have a good source that shows it all in one place, that's all we should use. So the ITF chart and something like Tennis.com for Court should be just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is against wikipedia protocol to list a lot of references in a long line, but I have collected them together and they only appear as one. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's still cluttering the Edit mode, which WP:TOOMANYREFS point out as a problem (adding too many can cause citation clutter, making articles look untidy in read mode and difficult to navigate in markup edit mode.). We should avoid putting more than 3 sources, until absoulitely necessary, which I don't think is the case now. ABC paulista (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Each of these sources refers to a different instance of the Grand Slam. If there was a table on this page (rather than displaying text from another page), the references would all be seperated by a line of text and the complaint might be there were too few refs! There wouldn't be more than 3 sources, but one source for each line. Wikipedia pages should be sourced properly. Most wikipedia pages are untidy if you read the source and are full of citations or formatting. I found it remarkably easy to navigate in edit mode compared to many pages I have worked on (I am an experienced wikipedia editor of many years). This page could potentially have considerably more citations than it currently has. There is certainly room for a lot more. You added several yourself which I agreed with. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Policy is that we don't even use it in a footnote... unless it is to prevent an obvious edit war of some sort. You placed it in good faith in your explanation but I don't think it has been proved it is need. Two or three sources should be just fine. If it turns out there is a need, like we actual see an edit war on the sentence, then we would use your footnote style. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The citations I posted are contemporary references. Not something someone at the ITF has cobbled together (and not even listed correctly). Important contemporary sources proving how the Grand Slam was reported at the time. As I said, one for each Grand Slam is not oversourcing. If you don't like them here I will post them on the original page the table is from and the sources will each be seperated by a line of text and will look no different to a lot of the other tables on that page some of which have a source on each line. These sources are important to have, not only to counter one biased editor who already tried to get a load of baloney about what events constituted the Grand Slam onto this page a few weeks ago (which I disproved on this very talk page with contemporary sources), but also important for historians or those interested to see how the Grand Slams were reported at the time. These are more valuable citations than a badly put together page of an ITF manual. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not as important as you seem to indicate for contemporary sources. If none of them called it a Grand Slam back then, but they all do now, we would too. This is not a historian page, but an encyclopedia of highlights, and I think it's overkill. If we couldn't find any sources that show them all together, sure, use them. But we do have sources that show them, or most of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877, my sources were more spread out than your current attempt, in which you just crammed a dozen in one spot, and this is not ideal. Also, it's not uncommon for sources to be cited multiple times on an article to back-up variuos info spread apart, without others accompanying them, ding the job in the place of many others.

Your "biased editor" argument work on hypotethicals that might or not pass, but this kind of solution should be remediary, not preventive, especially since the said editor didn't stay here for too long and we should also always assume WP:GOODFAITH. Your other argument that "historians" is countered by Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Other views and solutions, in its first point.

Also, I would refrain form trying to discredit the ITF website just because they don't mention the 1965's Court Mixed Slam, because we can't be sure if they really forgot that instance or if the actually don't consider it a proper Calendar Slam, we just don't have any official position on the matter from them. Of course, it's not also a reason to this instance's removal if so, per WP:WEIGHT.

One solution for it is to distribute the sources within the table itself, sourcing each respective row. Maybe even creating a own column for them, like the tables in the Treble (association football), or some located on the List of Pacific hurricanes. ABC paulista (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I am discrediting the ITF site for not mentioning Hingis. And your statement indicates you clearly do not know the editor in question like I do nor do you know the long acrimonious history between us. He didn't stay long on that occasion partly because he faced a united front against him plus the evidence, which I (as usual) found to counter his baloney. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The site does mention Hingis (1998: Martina Hingis (SUI) (Australian Open with Mirjana Lucic (CRO). French Open, Wimbledon and US Open with Jana Novotna (CZE).) And yeah, I don't know him, but even if I knew I'd assume Good faith, because we aren't to judge editors by what we might think they'd do, but by what they actually made, and be reported by such. And there are better ways to "protect" the info than source dumping it. ABC paulista (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It is important how history is reported. The entire page would be different if there were no contemporary sources for the Grand Slam. Imagine if Budge didn't know what he was winning at the time and it was later designated a Grand Slam by the ITF 20 years later. A fictional statement by Budge in this scenario: "I just played Australia for a lark and didn't think it important, then 20 years later they tell me I have won a Grand Slam. In the final in New York me and Mako decided to toss a coin to see who would win the match, as it was only a meaningless exhibition tournament and we were good friends. Then 20 years later they tell me it was an important event. A major no less and I won that was for the Grand Slam they tell me! And it was just luck I won. I wasn't even trying". This is why contemporary accounts are important. It isn't about going into every small detail like a historian would in a book. I am never one for writing long explanations like I would write in a book on a wikipedia page, you know me well enough by now to know that. In fact I often am in favour of slimming down over long text. Stick to the core details is my motto. But using contemporary evidence is very important. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if these comtemporary sources were used for something more than just reinforce an idea that a couple sources already do, but they aren't. And even so, the idea you're trying to convey would be better placed on the history section than here. It's not that different from the whole Budge's discussion prior. ABC paulista (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The Budge issue was not resolved well. Suppose we add an edit that Budge was made famous in 1938 by winning The Grand Slam despite that being clearly in opposition to contemporary sources. Do we accept a bogus recent account which is contradicted by the evidence? We should make some attempt to be consistent with the facts, which were that Budge was given credit for winning "a grand slam of the four major national titles" in 1938. Not the same thing. Tennisedu (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus that happens a lot in all wakes of life. Horse Triple Crown winners didn't know what they did till years later. In tennis, players would skip majors to be ready for Davis Cup. Had they known the importance in 2024 that might have been different. There are always what ifs. But Wikipedia rules dont care about what ifs. Current sources are fine and two or three of them are plenty unless you can show an edit war over it. On Budge's wiki article, use the contemporary source for helping with that article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And changing the chart on the other page is kinda bad faith here... since no one agrees with you, especially Wikipedia policy. And no agreement is there to completely remove the other paragraph. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Properly soiurcing wikipedia is a fundemental principle. I have already adapted the sources so they are not bunched together, as ABC paulista suggested, as per the rules. I see no issue at all with this now. I do not need to seek permission from you for every edit I make on wikipedia and neither do you from me. I will seek consensus where it is required and do so and comply by the rules, but I will not be impeeded from editing by you. You are the one breaking wikipedia rules now, not me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You are NOT properly sourcing, you are over sourcing against policy, as we pointed out. We are discussing this chart and you change it against two editors complaints.... you damn well cant do that! That is not working with others, that is going it alone. Please stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I did what ABC paulista suggested (I was doing it anyway). There is no justification whatsoever for saying it is oversourcing. No you need to stop right now. You know full wikipedia should be sourced properly (actually that is a poorly sourced page in large parts). This looks like wikibullying to me and I won't stand for it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"Won a title after saving match points" has more references than the Grand Slam section, most instances individually sourced with one source. This is no different from what I have done. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep up the bullying comments and you'll see how fast administrators jump on you. Knock that crap off. You are abusing the system. This was being discussed and you have jumped the gun. That is not the way wikipedia works. Refs wouldn't go in a notes section anyway, so that would also need to be discussed. I'm not sure why the tantrum from you but it has got to stop. The section is properly sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not need to discuss sourcing wikipedia properly. Rules should be complied with, as I have done (not bunching references together). This never was an issue of oversourcing, it was the way I presented the sources and I have rectified that. "Won a title after saving match points" has more sources than the Grand Slam section, all of the exact type that I have posted, one per line for each listing (one of the few properly sourced sections on that page). You didn't target that section. If sources need to be moved next to the names rather than the ref column, that can be done. I didn't want to get into a row with you about it, but I won't be cross-examined on every edit I make and criticised for doing what is standard wikipedia practice and has already been used without issue on the same page. On a broader point, there is a widespread perception amongst many tennis fans that the wikipedia tennis pages are poorly sourced and contain wrong information. I have seen this said on forums many times and people have said to me privately. I have done my best to rectify that since editing on here, but there are still many pages I have not edited at all or very little. I think the complaints always were a little exagerrated to begin with as there were some modern players pages that have had well sourced pages for many years, but there is no doubt there are still many poorly sourced pages with wrong and outdated information (someone sees one bad page and they tend to think they are all bad, that is human nature I am afraid). This is particularly the case with pages containing things such as match wins. I think as a long term aim, this needs to be addressed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a ongoing discussion, and per WP:BRD the edits must cease and the article to stay in its previous, original form and only resumed when a consensus is reached. You've been editing a lot during this one, which is not recommended. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the ITF and Hingis, you were talking cross-purposes. I was referring to the archived link of the ITF manual which does not list Hingis. That was a sloppily put together manual. I am not surprised it was an unintentional error, thats what I assumed. I am not sure about Court 1965 though, there seems very scant evidence this was actually a Grand Slam (no contemporary sources found so far and I did look) and the Hall of Fame (modern source) says it is but few others. This is questionable because the Australian final was not played and should be asterixed with a note. So important to have contemporary evidence. Just after I had said all those points, Tennisedu appeared and reinforced some of the points I had said about the need for contemporary sources in the first place to counter nonsense claims. Regarding the main issue, there is nothing more to say on this. Fyunck states this is overlinking, I say this most certainly isnt. There was an issue with the way I listed the citations together, which I resolved, hence the several edits I made. I will always try and resolve issues. But I won't be told something says something it doesn't say. The way these sources are now is in line with the page they are on. There are more sources in the titles won from match point down section, exactly of this type, and no one is questioning this. This is when it starts to looks personal (I accept it may not be intended that way). Trying to inhibit someone's editing for no good reason is not acceptable. If you have issues with the perceived overlinking take it to an admin and get a ruling. Personally I feel there are more pressing issues, like adding sources to many sections on that other page without any sources and adding more sources to wikipedia generally. I dont intend editing this page much now (its done to my satisfaction, though there are still room for a few more links, its not urgent). Ironically these sources were intended to be my last edits on it and I never expected all this nonsense. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states this is overlinking, not just Fyunk. And it is not acceptable that you subvert wikipedia rules of conduct. You added the sources and were reverted. You do not add them back without resolving them here. That is wikipedia 101. Now we have a mess with permanent templates stating as such. The rest of us also won't be told what we can and cannot edit, you aren't alone in that. The difference is as ABC says, to put it back the way it was, discuss the proper sourcing, and then after all the discussion to add the best sources. Now we have two articles that are a mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The main problem is that you people having been putting too much importance to the whole "comtemporary" stuff, when the sources presented don't mention it as a important, or even relevant, concept. Notability is valid the way through, so it doesn't matter if it was recognized in the past or just recently, just that notability was attained.

And that's even more for the table, since it's only purpose is to list who achieved a grand slam and who didn't, it doesn't matter how they were regarded at their time, so Tennisedu's arguments don't hold up to this case, and cn be easily counterargued without resorting to "minefield" the whole table.

The history section could use some comtemporary souces for context matter, but the rest is pretty much a matter of notability and relevance, and the table just if the instances meet the criteria or not. ABC paulista (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty spot on. We need a source or two for the table as a whole and the other sources don't matter. If someone created the table with 2/3 of the Grand Slam winners missing, and simply added a contemporary source for each instance, we wouldn't know if the list is complete or not. What we look for first and foremost is the simple solution of finding a reasonable source that does list them all together, just like our chart shows. We are in luck that some do. We put in one or two of those sources, enough that readers know we didn't make up the chart, and we are good to go to do the same for another section. Some times we don't find those full charts in sources. Then we have to do it differently. I thought maybe we'd find a list of singles winners, a list of doubles winners, a list of mixed winners, and a list of physically challenged winners. We would have need four sources, but instead we found what we needed in two. That's great as we needed less clutter, didn't have to rely on original research, and didn't bump up against toomanysources or break other policy edicts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly you seem calm ABC paulista. Please see my comments above. You havent responded to some of my arguments and I am not understanding the motivation behind some of yours, its like we arent even speaking the same language at times. Tennisedu: There is no personal animosity between he and I despite how it may appear. We would get on well if we met I am sure, but not on here. I could write a book on him, but your remark about his arguments can "be easily counterargued" is very far off the mark (I dont blame you, you dont know him well). To cut a long story short, another editor (no longer editing sadly) once compiled a list of all Tennisedu's outright falsehoods that were reverted from wikipedia. It was a very long list. I would be very glad to think you will prevent all his nonsense from entering wikipedia pages. Reality tells me that will be down to me to do most of it with contemporary sources playing a key role. Secondly, I did not only put those citations onto wikipedia to counter him (partly, not solely). Contemporary evidence is very important to see how things were perceived at the time (particularly in the case of the Grand Slam). You seem to not understand the importance of contemporary sources. Are you interested in tennis history or is it just a peripheral interest? (not a snide remark, I genuinely dont know). All the people I have corresponded privately with with knowledge on tennis history think contemporary evidence is very important (I cant think of one that doesnt). That is not to say they solely rely on contemporary sources of course. Its baffling to me why any editor would argue over removing a well sourced section of a page just like another section on the same page with more sources that no one is arguing about. And yet other sections of the same page have no sources at all. You have quoted a lot of wikipedia policies so you must know it is enshrined in wikipedia policies how important it is each page/section is sourced. I cant understand why you have spent hours arguing with me on this. Its not even an argument over the wording of any text. I havent added any. As I said, I probably misunderstand your motivations but please try and see how it looks from my perspective. Maybe try and explain further your motivations to me. Why is it so important good sources are removed?! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I won't dive much further on the Tennisedu's issue, because I don't know the full story and I don't like judging from afar, but from what was shown here his arguments were easy to counter if one doesn't overrate the concept of "contemporaneity", which is my main issue with all this. And if someone behaves like you claim that Tennisedu does, they can be reported, the admins exist for such cases.

Having source(s) is essential, I think that nobody here questions that, but quantity doesn't always mean quality, and even if the quality is there, it doesn't mean much if its used in pretty ordinary ways, and currently these contemporary soruces are doing the same job that any other source can do, but with more cluttering.

Throughtout the article itself we can't find instances where "contemporaneity" is cited in any relevant way, so why should we deem it relevant ourselves? I shouldn't be the one to "understand the importance of contemporary sources", their importance should be demonstrated in the article, and that's currently nowhere to be seen.

And your argument that people think contemporary evidence is very important can be countered by both WP:TOOMANYREFS and WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e. sources should have purpose within the article, and the "contemporaneity" should be proven important. It's not the readers that decide what's important to be presented in an article, it's WP:NOTABILITY the deciding factor.

Just to be clear, I'm actually neutral about the amount of sources presented on the table, my issue was about how they were included there (that's why I suggested a way to reduce cluttering). And as you can see, it does bother me how "contemporaneity" is being brought up when the article and sources don't present it as a relevant concept at all. ABC paulista (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Two years ago there was an ANI complaint underway with myself and two other editors against Tennisedu (hence the long list of reverts, this was evidence). Tennisedu and I reached an agreement so the ANI did not proceed. Reading your answer I still am no clearer as to your motivation. I wasnt asking you for a quotation from a wikipedia policy document, I was asking about your personal motivation (if I cant understand what motivates you its difficult for me to understand your actions). My personal motivation is clear (I hope). That contemporary articles about how a Grand Slam was won are important to see how it was perceived at the time. You will see also that Tennisedu is always talking about contemporary evidence. A modern source like the ITF says little on the Grand Slam, it counts as a source, thats its only purpose. I note you say you are neutral about the amount of sources presented in the table. That seems strange to me that you would spend so much time arguing about something that you are neutral about. The information on that other page looks mainly correct, but its difficult for users to have faith in something if no sources are attached to some sections. People do look to see if pages are sourced, this is important and should be addressed. This past few days has not been a productive use of my time. Sometimes talk threads are necessary, but being dragged into an endless debate that goes round and round in circles takes a toll on my mood. Some editors enjoy this debating side, I dont. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:POV we shouldn't consider our wishes and agenda when edidting here, especially if it leads to conflicts with the policies and guidelines, so it doesn't matter what my "personal motivation" might be, if any at all, because being as impartial as possible is required. My only goal is to make the articles I have an interest to be better and as informative as possible.

You state that "contemporary soruces are important to see how it was perceived at the time", and yet I don't see them being used in the article this way, there's few to none mention to these "perceptions" stated in the article. In fact, pretty much the comtemporary sources are being used the same way any other source is being used here, they aren't bringing much context ouside what the modern sources already do. Actually, the #Non-calendar-year Grand Slam section seem to make the most use of the comtemporary sources.

And that brings to my main point about all this: Wy does it matter how these concepts were regarded at their time? Sure, I know that these views provide a context that can help the article into constructing a timeline of their creation and "evolution" over the years, but what matters the most is the today, the nowadays, how they are regarded right now. WP:AGE MATTERS, concepts and contexts evolve over time, what was considered back then might not be as valid right now and vice-versa. Both these concepts and the WP:notability they have don't include "comtemporaneity" as one of their criteria, and the sources themselves don't cite it as an important part of the whole idea. So, if the sources don't bring "comtemporaneity" into the conversation, why should we?

And that's even more visible for the table: The only purpose of this table is to list who achieved a Grand Slam i.e. who won all 4 slams in the same year. It doesn't care when they were acknowledged, only if. The table only ask who and which year, that's why the comtemporary sources don't do a better job at sourcing them then the modern, ordinary ones. I don't think that the inclusion of the comtemporary sources is bad for the table or anything else, but if I were the one sourcing it I wouldn't have done it that way, since one source alone can provide the same sourcing that all these sources do together. Note that I'm not advocating to leave the table without sources, only that the way it was done was not the best and it could have been more efficient, but the way it is currently, I don't see a reason to change it again.

Another thing that I found concerning was how in previous discussions the "comtemporaneity" argument was seemingly used to undermine recent developements about the concept, especially about its derivatives like the Surface and Channel Slam, with some undermining their notability just because some instances weren't labeled as such comtemporarly. If this line of thought catched on, it would create issues with future expansions within this concept that could lead to the article's stagnation. Recently there are other concepts slowly gainig traction, like the "Career Surface Slam" or the "Big Titles Sweep", and that would be obstacle for updating the article for such inclusions if they stick around enough to gain notability. ABC paulista (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The point I made above is simply that we cannot be totally uncritical about recent sources whenever they obviously misrepresent the events described. That especially applies to this article which promotes the idea that The Grand Slam was a concept which emerged in its current form cast in stone from 1938. That is clearly inconsistent with contemporary sources from 1938 which only used the term "a grand slam" consisting of the four biggest national titles as one type of grand slam. Trying to ignore or misrepresent the record on this creates a weak and ill-informed article. Tennisedu (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any source that shows how the term Grand Slam could be interpreted in another manner, that was considered at that time? Or a source that state when the current concept really catch on? If not, then the current concept is the only one we have to go on, which was used at the time in some shape or form. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

To put it as briefly as possible, the term is listed in 1933 by Gould. There were some different interpretations between 1933 and 1938 before the term was cemented. After that (ignoring 1940-45 when most of the majors werent held) the term is what it is today. It might be accurate to say something like "before Budge won his Grand Slam there were several different interpretations of what the Grand Slam was" listing citations but this is not true after Budge. The Budge slam was a big thing. Saying an event was part of a Grand Slam of the eastern US tournaments is not saying the same thing as the Grand slam of the four major tournaments. Any suggestion that people thought the Grand Slam was anything other than what it is post-war is not accurate. You wont find any history book that states this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That's why I asked for sources from him, to see if he can back up his claims, that's what determines their validity per WP:V. And if he can, these could be valuable resource to enrichen the article, especially the "history" section. If he can't, then it's just plain WP:OR that can be refuted. ABC paulista (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

While it was pretty much etched in stone, that doesn't mean it was universal. There are articles in 1952 about both Sedgman and Connolly going after the "Grand Slam" by winning the Wimbledon-US championships. That was an important doublet. Of course the next year Connolly won a true Grand Slam. You have to remember that it had only happened once in singles so the term could waver at times. Since Budge it was always the four majors we have today, but it could also be used for other important tennis milestones. Look what happened in modern times. It happens so infrequently that the term has now also morphed into the individual tournaments instead of the long-used term of "majors." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes but again we need to look at the exact terminology used. A "Wimbledon-US Grand Slam" is not the same thing as the Grand Slam (of the four majors). Neither is a "Grand Slam of the three Wimbledon titles" the "Grand Slam". "Grand Slam" applied to each of the four tournaments is just a lazy shortening. The key element in the chronology is Budge's win. The Grand Slam does not automatically become defined because Alan Gould writes a column in 1933, although writers seem to latch on to the term applying it to tennis. There were several variations put forward over the next few years (in the mid 1930s the majors tend to be the four we know but not always). Budge talks about this in his autobiography how he popularised the term. Because he not only won it, but he set out to win it (there are reports of this in 1938). This is where it becomes enshrined in history. There are articles referring to Budge's 1938 Grand slam several years later. This is a historic event. There is doubt whether the non-calendar slam should be regarded as a true Grand Slam and that is explained in the article. None of these other variations of the Grand Slam post-war (like "Wimbledon-US Grand Slam", "Grand Slam of Wimbledon titles", "Grand Slam of Eastern US tournaments") has more than a few citations each, they arent recognised terms, never were, they were just writers wanting to jazz up their articles a bit. Very important the context here. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

We could at least acknowledge that the term "Grand Slam" was applied to describe other combination of tournaments, or in conjunction with said combinations. Doing so could provide the reader with further context about how it appeared into the tennis lexicon and how it settled as the current nomenclature. Provided with sources, of course. ABC paulista (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

True... but as TH says, the terms for other combos came and went quickly. Sort of like 3/4 Slam. A writer wrote of it to spice up his article but it has no real fortitude as far as tennis is concerned. One source for Wimbledon/US Grand Slam is by the United Press... right here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also a "U.S.-Wimbledon Grand Slam" and "Grand Slam of Wimbledon titles" are not the same as saying the "Grand Slam" (no appendage). They may be attempting to create a second definition, but they are not denying the first one (actually I don't think they are even doing that, they just want to spice up the article). If there was genuinely an established (even for a short time) alternative definition of the Grand Slam (with or without appendage) after Budge won it, then I would support the right for its inclusion, but there was not. The only questionable thing is whether the non-calendar Grand Slam should be regarded as the Grand Slam, there are quotes describing it as a Grand Slam going back to Budge. But most of that is covered in the article anyway. The three-quarter slam is the definition of winning three majors in a year, but as Fyunck says, a rarely used term. That is why it is so important to look at articles written when these were achieved to see if the term is used. I was a child just getting into tennis when Graf won the Golden Slam, I remember the term well. I don't recall hearing a three-quarter slam mentioned when Wilander won the US Open that year. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, they don't always use an appendage. Mercer Beasley coach of Vines talking of Wimbledon/US Championship doublet: "Nobody can realize unless they've been in the situation what a tremendous nervous strain it is to try and clinch the grand slam. The closer they come the more difficult every shot becomes. Look how few times it has been accomplished. And you'll understand what I mean." It goes on that "only six men and but three women have been able to score the grand slam of the courts. Big Bill Tilden, Fred Perry and Don Budge, three of the immortals, did but twice each. And superstars Jack Kramer, Bobby Riggs and Vines managed it only once." And at the end of 1958, top 10 sports stories of the year, we have at number 10 "Althea Gibson first negro to score tennis grand slam." She only won two majors, Wimbledon/US Championships. So while it is almost always talked of the Grand Slam as the four majors, there were instances where other meanings would creep in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying absolutely every article in the history of tennis since 1938 does not contain an alternative attempt to define the Grand Slam, but the vast vast majority define it with the four tournaments known today. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

That is 100% accurate. Maybe even three vasts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats is good to hear you agree with me, because this article could turn from a good article to a laughing stock with the addition of one wrongly phrased sentence on this issue. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing for each possible alternative definition to be individually mentioned, but aggregate them as a whole in order to demosntrate that he term was used to either describe, or accompany, other combinations of titles before the concept was fully established. This part of the history, how the term came to be fully accepeted and attached to the titles and tournaments, is kinda lacking on the article. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I already said in this thread I would agree to a statement that says "before Budge won his Grand Slam there were several different interpretations of what the Grand Slam was" and providing citations. But I do not accept there was an alternative interpretation after Budge. Budge's win was huge. Tennisedu keeps arguing against an invisible enemy on this. I think this article is pretty accurate and well sourced. I was just looking at the Grand Slam golf article. The history of golf is something I know quite a lot about. In the article it stated that Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam as it was defined in that era, but it did not mention that nearly all the top players were professionals by 1930 and the Grand Slam as defined then contained two events only open to amateurs. This should be stated every time the 1930 Grand Slam is mentioned, its a Grand Slam for amateurs only. I just made several adjustments to it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There were about six tennis writers who described Budge's 1937 achievement "a grand slam", some from December 1937. Krosero listed them in the reference I gave above. Allison Danzig used the same term to describe Budge's 1938 achievement, "a grand slam". No capitalization or definite article. Budge did not "call" or announce his intention to win "a grand slam" in early 1938, in fact he said that he mentioned it to no one. Tennisedu (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Try reading the set of references you quote rather than ranting.

"May 13, 1938

Seeks Tennis “Grand Slam”

Before going on the court, Budge put himself at the disposal of interviewers in the clubhouse. He stated definitely that he would not play in Germany because of the fact that his friend Von Cram [sic] cannot play against him. He has his heart set on adding the French, British and American crowns to the Australian championship to become the first player in history to win the four major tennis titles of the world in the same year." That article from The New York Times.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

All of white h is summed up by Danzig that same year when he stated that Budge was the first tennis player to win "a grand slam of the four major national titles". No capital letters or definite articles. Those only came much later. Tennisedu (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"Tenslam" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tenslam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 28 § Tenslam until a consensus is reached. Paradoctor (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The "current champions" chart is a horror show

All the other charts we use at wikiproject tennis, when you see 2/4 it means this is the second title chronologically out of four total titles won. This chart is a confusing mess. Plus what about the winners of the French, Wimbledon, and US Opens? They dont get these confusing numbers? Only the Australian winners get them? This is really very sloppy and I feel confusing to our readers. This is current champs only... they do not need any numbers at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) My idea was to implement this change on all tournaments as this year's editions happened to ease the workload, so at the end of the US Open they would follow the same standard. Also, I don't think that this table in particular has to follow the same standard as the others because their scopes are opposite: While the others show all the slam champions in their respective disciplines, this one show only the current ones in all disciplines. So if the same standard was to be applied here, the first and second numbers would almost always be the same, which would kinda undermine their usefulness.

On a side note, I was also planning to change the current standard in all the Wikiproject Tennis to the one I implemented here, because I feel that the current one is not as informative as it can be, and is more cumbersome to edit since everytime a player increases their total tally it also has to be edited in all their previows wins, while this format only requires the edit on the current title to be properly mantained.

Overall, I don't like the asterisks as the link bearer, because they're small characters that are harder to perceive and easier to missclick since they're so close to the players names, which contain their own linkages, and I feel that the number system works better as such. ABC paulista (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Fyunck. I don't like the numbers and I don't get what they mean. Also, why are there asterixes next to the player's names? They seem to link to the events that the player won. Very strange idea that. An asterix is supposed to indicate a particular feature that is applied to the word or words before the asterix (and later in the document the asterix feature should be explained, which isn't the case here). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Do Not change all the articles to this messy version. To be honest the asterisk doesn't need to be there either. We dont need a link as the year under the major is linked to the article where all these champions are listed. It shouldn't have more detail than that. Are you the one that changed it to this version.... I didnt check back to see if you did it or it gained consensus to be added. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You are referring to ABC paulista I think with these remarks. All I did was undo ABC paulista's edit (ie resetting it to the version you had left it at, Fyunck). I assume it's titles first and then number of appearances in the event, but this is both unnecessary and confusing. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877 One just need to read the section lead to understand the numbers meaning, their meaning is explained above the table. Also, the asterixes exist there just to link to the specific event which the respective player won, but as I explained above I have gripes with this format, so we should find another way to include the linkage, and I propose that we take inspiration from the List of Grand Slam champions, in a slightly altered way. ABC paulista (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this chart the asterisk is overkill. The year under the major links to a page that lists all the winners. We dont need more than that. It looks like the incomplete chart change was done on 07:19, 26 January 2025 with no discussion and not noticed till now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If the consensus is to remove the linkage, then fine. I'd prefer them to stay in another form, since all similar tables also include this linkage, but I wouldn't oppose their removal here. ABC paulista (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's the misuse of an asterix. An asterix is not a linking device. Most people will not get what the numbers are and the number of appearances isnt very relevant (the sort of thing listed on a player page but not here). 3 of 3 usually refers to the 3rd of 3 titles, not 3 titles out of 3 appearances (thats why its confusing). The purpose should be to show current champions. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877 Did you read the text above the table? That's not what the numbers mean at all. The format goes this way: ([#th title won at that tournament]/[#th grand slam title won overall]). Take Jannik Sinner for example: the 2025 Austalian open was his ([2nd title at the Australian Open]/[3rd grand slam title won overall]) ABC paulista (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I did not look at some note in the text and that's the point. I looked at the table like most other people would look at it, see the numbers and try and work out what they mean. I always look at every page like a non-editor reading it for the first time would read it. I apply the same standards to every page I look at on wikipedia. Wikipedia should never patronise readers but it should always be clear. Some wikipedia inner circle code is not what should be written here. Two very experienced editors have looked at those numbers and at first glance don't know what they mean and you are expecting first time readers (non-editors) to understand them. That speaks volumes. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877 Having legends to explain some concepts and or symbology within a table is very commonplace, is also recommended per MOS:LEGEND, it's just standard practice for tables overall.

Take the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions, for example, and see that pretty much all tables has some legends and/or footnotes attached to them.

We should strive to be as clear as possible, but when legends and footnotes are required we can expect our readers to... read. We can expect them to know how a table works. ABC paulista (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I expect numbers in a table such as this to be understood instantly. And it doesn't matter that the note is written just above. People often scroll through pages and they look only at bits of pages, they may spend seconds looking at a page. Whilst I agree there are some tables on some pages that are more complicated and require longer to look at and more explanatory notes, this should not be one of them. It should merely list current champions. Anything else is a distraction. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Information can only be instantly understood if it's directly related to the subject tackled by the table, which isn't the case for these numbers, so explanation is required for their understanding if they were to be mantained. But if not, I'd like to find a substitute for the asterisks, at least. ABC paulista (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel the asterisks should be removed as unnecessary. That info is already right at the top of the charts under the year link. Asterisks get used for notes but it is quite unusual to use them as a linking object, especially for something that doesn't need to be linked. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) and Tennishistory1877: So, do we all agree to remove all asterisks and their respective links for this chart? ABC paulista (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would. I know they've been there a lot longer than the (1/3) nomenclature (which is worse than the asterisks here). I'm trying to think of other charts that link only asterisks. It's certainly something I would avoid if at all possible, and this chart it's simply overkill to add any extra links. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

All the wheelchair tennis ones (men's, women's and quad) link the events through asterisks since the beggining. That's one of the reasons I've been meaning to implement this change on the linkage and numbering format to the articles, but the workload is big and the time, not so much. ABC paulista (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and to be honest I have a hard time even moving my mouse onto the asterisk since it's so small on those articles. I have to wiggle it around a couple times to hit it correctly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's my main issue iwth the asterisk as the link bearer, and that's why I want to change it for the format used on the other articles. But the number of entries is big, it'll require time to be done. ABC paulista (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree the asterixes should be removed in that current champions table. Whilst I agree an explanatory note should be there IF the numbers are there, the numbers should not be there at all. They are completely unnecessary and confusing. I note ABC paulista and Fyunck discussing about these changes not being noted when they were originally made. I am only a sporadic wikipedia editor these days and I do not monitor every edit on this page. It might be a good idea if you were not to focus your tennis editing so much on this page, ABC paulista. It seems like you are regularly tinkering with things on this page that are best left alone. You seem like an intelligent person, I am sure your editing would be better used elsewhere, there are many tennis pages that require more attention than this one does. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877 maybe you should take a look at my contibution's log before making such remarks. I'm not nearly as active on this page as you might think. ABC paulista (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have looked at your contributions log (though not in detail). I am not saying you are on this page all the time, but you seem to come back here at regular intervals. I have seen this before with other editors on other pages where a page reaches a point of basically being done (apart from the necessary updating), but an editor continues to edit it and this can create issues. My comment wasnt meant as an accusation, but a suggestion. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist, so I come back here mostly to undo edits that don't comply with the guidelines. Even this change I done while updating the current champions after the Australian Open. ABC paulista (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with keeping an eye on a page to prevent vandalism (this is praiseworthy in fact). But adding a load of confusing numbers to the page is not improving the page imo. Anyway, I have said enough on this thread now, it is obvious what the three of us think. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I feel that the numbers were a improvement to the asterisks, but it seems that it didn't work as I intended, so it's fine, it can be removed just fine. ABC paulista (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

My final word on this now. I see there is a tag in the section saying "The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed." I don't like this, as it implies the information is wrong in some way (which it isn't). The problem is the information is confusing and unnecessary and can very easily be misinterpreted. Fyunck and I have both said we were confused with the numbers at first glance. You need to ask yourself the question, ABC paulista "are most readers of this page going to understand these numbers quickly?" (Quickly being the key word, as I explained before.) You seem a reasonably intelligent person. I can't see how the answer can be possibly be yes. And at the end of the day, this isn't your private page, it is there for people to read. There are many things I would add to this page if I was designing it purely for my own use (and many things I would add if I were writing a chapter of a book on Grand Slam tennis). Just do the right thing, remove that tag and remove the numbers in the table. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag, it was Fyunck(click) who did. About the numbers, I don't think that they are confusing since they aren't meant to work on a "first glance" basis, they follow a similar format which regular readers are used to and I went further beyond on explaining their meaning (maybe the wording could be clearer...), which is more that the other tables do.

But my main point aren't the numbers, but the asterisks. My main goal was to get rid of the asterisks while finding another way to mantain the linkage, and I don't want to reinstate the asterisks. I prefer to get rid of the links rather that bringing back the asterisks. ABC paulista (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a format regular readers ever see. The two numbers are apples and oranges to one another. One counts the total of Australian wins, one counts a different total... all majors won. It took me awhile to understand that as I'd not seen its like before. The usual is for the first number to be the exact chronological number of all majors, and the second number the total of all majors. Seeing it this way is head-spinning for me and that was after reading the key. Add to that the fact that the next three majors only had asterisks and it was more confusing. Add to that the Australian had two numbers that are apples and oranges but the link only went to one of the numbers. Add to that the 2025 link under Australian Open went to a page that shows all these winners so we didn't need asterisk or number links to begin with. At that point I knew it had to be removed, and here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The format was exactly the same as each other, just the numbers' meaning was sligly altered to better fit the chart's purpose. ABC paulista (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the need for the linkage to pages. A three figure AUS or two figure US within the sections of the table could provide linkage if required or AUS 25, US 24, AUS 25 MD, US 24 WS etc.. Anything is better than the numbers and asterixes. When I see an asterix I immediately think special conditions apply to the item asterixed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I moved Tennishistory1877's page edit example to right here, so it can be found in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that your suggestion is too distracting and would make the table way wider than it should be. Any alternative should be notable, but small to take as little space as possible. And I'd refraing to make it text-based to avoid mixing the letter with the players' names. ABC paulista (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The obvious example is a photograph of each player. But I am agreeable to almost anything that doesn't contain the numbers. A simpler MS or WS perhaps. How about you two make suggestions. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tennishistory1877 and Fyunck(click): Do we all agree to remove the linkage, as it was deemed as unnecessary multiple times here already? ABC paulista (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Not needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) This version is not messy at all, at least as messy as the one found on all the disciplines champions' tables, like the men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles and mixed doubles ones. It's the exactly same format, just with slighly altered meaning.

About the format itself, I changed it after the end of the Australian Open this year by WP:BOLD, but the asterisk has been around for some years, but AFAIK the format itself has never been discussed. ABC paulista (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue that you changed it by being bold. That's the wikipedia way. However now two people have challenged it so it should be removed. Plus only the Australian Open column was done to begin with and the chart should not have been left only 1/4 finished. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), Wikipedia is not a democracy, so just because the majority prefer's something going one way that doesn't mean is has to go their way, that's why we are discussing it to reach a consensus. Also, I explained above why I only implemented the change partially, but also to avoid the amount of work wasted if there was disagreement of such, like what's happening now. ABC paulista (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, if more want it a certain way that's exactly how it works at wikipedia as long as it doesnt go against policy. And if someone boldly changes things and it gets reverted, they shouldnt add it back without discussion per wikipedia. This is sort of cart before the horse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion, thus it only works if the minority concedes their cause. And in this WP:BRD cycle, my version was the current consensus since is stayed for months without challenge, until and editor made a change but proptly reverted itself, so you were the one who boldly removed it, and I reverted you. ABC paulista (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Because no one saw it. And when two removed it you should never have put it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:BRD requires the article to stay in its pre-Bold removal until consensus is reached of the changes to be implemented. I was just enforcing the proper process. ABC paulista (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I look at it that it should revert to its pre-Bold addition. And if two persons revert you, you should never add it back. At that point "you" should have brought this to talk, not me. That's sort of wikipedia 101. I could have reverted it again where you would not have been able to do another revert, having reached your limit. I didn't want to put you in that situation so I backed off and brought it here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You either can't claim to have undone a "pre-Bold addition" after months it was done and basically became consensus through silence, thus your boldness was a new one that started the whole cycle, which put on you the "burden" to start the diiscussion as the reverted one, or you could claim as reverting the "pre-Bold addition" but that would also mean that you would reach the revert limit before me. You can't have your cake and eat it. ABC paulista (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Well we disagree big time here. Months is nothing. Had it been here years that would mean something. Many articles, like those on the four majors, get looked at the most when those majors are ongoing.... like now. No one has added those weird numbers since. Just the fact it was only 1/4 complete was grounds to remove it until it was finished. That even made it more complicated than it already is. I felt the burden was on you, but absolutely was on you once another editor reverted you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I feel that no arguments of mine will change your mind, and vice-versa. You feel that the timeframe was narrow and I feel that was plenty, and we'll keep poiting fingers at each other endlessly, and I don't feel doing like that. I'll just add that in such timeframe that I only would accept the burden of the discussion on the BRD cycle if you directly reverted my original edit. There were so many edits on the article between that the system couldn't even register it as a reversal at all. ABC paulista (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)