Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)/Archive 2

Major (disambiguation)

 * identical to Talk: List of tennis tournaments -P64

Last month I re-targeted Majors from Grand slam (tennis) to the disambiguation page, which covers both singular and plural (M/major/s).

And I reported (Talk: Major (disambiguation)) on the current redirection of several "major" terms, mainly those with golf or tennis expressions or targets. (Tennis is a latecomer that did not get many redirects.)

Major (disambiguation) needs attention. The latest revision is a big improvement in some respects and a big de- in others. See recent sections of that Talk page (Talk: Major (disambiguation)). --P64 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat that all four simple redirects have men's golf targets: Major championship(s) and Major tournament(s). Simple redirects are therefore unavailable for tennis use.
 * It does not follow that this article should cover "Grand Slam (tennis)" in the sense "slam", "grand slam", "Slam", "Grand slam", or "Grand Slam" is a nickname for one of the major tennis championships or tournaments. That can be handled here by a footnote when one of the "Major tennis ..." titles is selected for that coverage.
 * (repeat) Talk: Major (disambiguation). --P64 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(Scope and emphasis)

 * under neutral heading /*(Scope and emphasis)*/ restore twice-reverted 1743-byte new section, except heading and two lead sentences -P64 (with reiteration immediately above)

[...] I struggle to believe that anyone would fail to see the problems that needed rectifying. Well, let's have a close look at the shit you keep putting back in.


 * The four Major tennis tournaments, also called "Grand Slam tournaments", "slams" and "majors", are the most important annual tennis tournaments.

The article title is Grand Slam, not major tennis tournaments, so the first term in bold should be Grand Slam. You also got the capitalisation wrong anyway. Putting in several minor perturbations of the names is unnecessary. Otherwise you'd end up saying "also called grand slam tournaments, grand slams, slams, major tennis tournaments, major tournaments, majors", and that would be really stupid.


 * The term Grand Slam primarily refers to the achievement of winning all four major championships in a single year in one of the five disciplines: men's and women's singles; men's, women's, and mixed doubles.

No, it does not primarily refer to that. If you said "Roger Federer has won 17 grand slams", it would not be understood to mean he's won all four titles in a single year 17 times.

So, please do enlighten us all as to the good reasons why flawed writing must be kept. If you could tell me after how long bad writing becomes immune from editing by virtue simply of its age, that would be very helpful. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 190, the tone of opening and closing paragraphs is destructive.
 * Wolbo, that doesn't justify wholesale reversion of substantial talk.
 * After restoring this twice-reverted comment I have provided a neutral heading and deleted the first two sentences only. --P64 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow someone took some anger pills this morning. If it's written that "Roger Federer has won 17 grand slams" it is written poorly, is not encyclopedic, and could very easily be misconstrued. "Roger Federer has won 17 grand slams" means exactly that he won 4 titles in a year, and did it 17 times. This was talked about in the past in multiple tennis articles whose names elude me right now. Throughout its history the correct term is winning a "Major" not winning a "Grand Slam". To this day Major is used in plenty of books and magazines along with interviews. It has long standing backing. Now I realize that just because it is the longstanding name doesn't mean it's the only name. Certainly the press also uses the more recent "grand slam tournament" language and if the press uses something the general public starts to follow. Historian Bud Collins says it well in this article. We can take it to tennis project and talk about it there since it could affect thousands of articles. I feel the term "major" is the more proper term for an encyclopedia but we must also have "grand slam tournament" because of it's popularity in the press. I almost always use the term "Major" but others here use the term "grand slam tournament" or "grand slam event" and it's recognized that in prose the terms are interchangeable. But in an encyclopedic article talking specifically about the Majors I don't see why we should change the long standing sentence order. 190.44.158.38 has been editing since July 9 2012, this is his/her only tennis edit, and maybe he doesn't understand that he should bring this to talk "before" insisting on his version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You can't surely be ignorant of the fact that "Grand Slam" is used all the time to refer to one of the tournaments and is not used "primarily" to mean the achievement of winning all four in a single year. So you must realise that no matter what your own pedantic gripes are, the article should not say something that isn't true.
 * As for my editing history, you realise IPs change, right? The first edit I ever made was in 2004.  So don't give me any shit about not "understanding".  When reverting substantial edits, you need to understand that "the old version was there for a long time" is not a sensible justification.  When trashing work that other people have done, have the basic courtesy to explain yourself.  190.44.158.38 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first edit to the thing appears to be with the tag "Tidied up massively" which means pretty much nothing. And as for IPs, get yourself a real ID because right now your history is a short one. For all we know you could be a good wikipedian or some old banned editor back for more (which I'm starting to wonder about). And surely you also realize that the term Major is much more historically accurate and is used all the time as I noted. As for the term grand slam, well the word ain't is used a lot too but that doesn't make it correct English for an encyclopedia. You also seem to have added this material under 200.120.204.246 (which has been around since June 15, 2012) and David0811 reverted it with your once again revert reply being "Don't be so fucking stupid...". I then wrote "looking closer, you got rid of the abundance of edits in your last revert. I liked the M dash fix, and we'll go with your styling of the opening sentence as a compromise, but not the exact wording" to which your attitude was "dick" fetish" and "not into compromising" with the following "You want to be a dick about it? I'm not into compromising over quality or fetishising text just because no-one changed it for a while. This version is better.". Maybe you have some issues but at least two editors have reverted you and yet you keep at it with a nasty tone. You need to be a bit calmer and bring it to talk if you want to change people's minds. Maybe you will and maybe not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tidied up massively" means I tidied it up massively. Pretty simple really.  Whatever problem you have with the use of "grand slam" to refer to a single tournament is your problem, not mine.  Once you've convinced the world of sports journalism that they are getting it wrong, then you can change it here.  Until then, the article reflects the usage.  A simple question for you - is the title of this article "major tennis tournament" or is it "grand slam"? 190.44.158.38 (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what happened to you in this discussion. The article is at "Bill Clinton" also, but the first line is the more accurate "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton". You have been reverted by at least two people and you complained about someone calling yours vandalism yet you have now done the same. Please put it back the way it was before this started and discuss it here rationally. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not acting in good faith, as shown by your selective quoting above. If you ever wanted to discuss things in a collegiate manner, you shouldn't have reverted my work with the utterly banal and uninformative "reverted some of the last edit".  If you don't have the courtesy to explain a revert, then you're not likely to be a productive person to discuss things with.  The manual of style explains the conventions for biographical articles and other articles.  You are violating the manual of style with your foolish attempt to impose your own pov on the article.  190.44.158.38 (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to convince us since yours is the "new" entry and it was reverted by others. I see no good faith here from you here. You refuse to take the edits back to their previous state, you are foul mouthed, and you are re-introducing errors into the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a good faith edit. You demonstrated bad faith by reverting it without explanation.  Two other people reverted because they were too stupid to actually look at the edit, and falsely claimed that it was vandalism.  Your attempt to use their edits to pretend that there's a "consensus" here only further confirms your own bad faith.  I took errors out of the article, as I explained to you already.  190.44.158.38 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your nasty tone aside, I for one am getting a headache with this and I'm willing to try a compromise solution. We'll leave in your order and we'll leave in your also instead of primarily. But the lead should read: "The four Grand Slam events, properly called Majors, are the most important annual tennis tournaments." I'm not happy with it, but it seems a reasonable step to me. Are you game? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Properly" is your POV. It's not reasonable to impose your POV on an article.  190.44.158.38 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, no compromise from you? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. NPOV is a core policy and there is no scope for compromise. 190.44.158.38 (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Small slam
"Small slam" was a redirect to section "Three Grand Slam tournament titles in a year" but the redirect was used only in one User-space list of articles that do not exist. So I have changed the target to the contract bridge glossary entry. It's used in three other times in the glossary and in many contract bridge articles. --P64 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What redirects here?
Now there are 20 redirects to this page. Seventeen incorporate "Grand Slam", "grand slam", etc, and none of the three others is now used anywhere (Tennis Majors, Tennis open, Tennis Championship). Editors of tennis articles do not currently directing any major-terms here.

There are 5 redirects to List of tennis tournaments. Only one incorporates "Major", "major", etc, and that one is now used only in talk space. Editors of tennis articles do not currently direct any major-terms there.

I believe it will be unproductive for tennis editors to use those redirects much. Instead create (next section) and redirect there.

I have expanded and consolidated my disambiguation-talk report on '''"Major" in sports: articles, disambiguations, redirects". Talk: Major (disambiguation). --P64 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Major tennis tournaments
Grand Slam (golf) should embarrass the golf project at least by its lead section: one line without a link or a copyeditor. Yet that project has done a better job than tennis simply by having that article.

It seems clear to me that tennis should choose one of the redlink titles and cover its majors there. (Offhand I recommend Major tennis tournaments but I don't really know enough to choose tournament over championship and I would look for WP guidelines about singular and plural titles before choosing.) The obvious scope for a Start article is represented by the lead and sections 1-4 of golf major, aka: Men's major golf championships (lead) 1 Importance 2 History 3 Television coverage 4 Distinct characteristics of majors (I don't know enough to be more specific except in general, but that doesn't matter here and now. One theme may be whether and how the four tennis tournaments have been national tournaments of the four most skilled? wealthiest? or whatever tennis-playing nations. Did the Allies alone play high-level tennis or did war ruin the losers or did war winners determine what would be considered major, yada yada yada. General issues about "majority" in tennis.)

At both Grand Slam (tennis) and List of tennis tournaments, editors should be able to rely on adequate coverage of (the four) Major tennis tournaments elsewhere.

Here the main issue should become, as that coverage becomes available, which achievements of players in major tournaments should be covered here, which in the other article, which in some lists. Thus at the same time, how much of golf major sections 5-12 should be in the corresponding tennis article? how much here? how much in the four&dagger; major tournament articles? Thus how much covered only once and how much replicated?

&dagger; or more than four if more than four tournament articles cover the entire history. --P64 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Something not right...
"Most consecutive Grand Slam singles finals (women)" lists Navratilova's 6 finals between Wimbledon 1983 and the 1984 US Open, and separately lists her 11 finals between the 1985 French open and 1987 US Open. The only Grand Slam tournament between the 1984 US Open and the 1985 French Open was the 1985 Australian Open... which Navratilova won. Why is this not simply listed as 18 finals in a row? Grutness...wha?  10:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A "Career Golden Slam" doesn't exist!
The term was invented by the media, it is nothing official! The section should be deleted.
 * Apparently the term Grand Slam itself was also first used in the media. Gap9551 (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No male player ...
What does this mean: "No male player has yet accomplished a (calendar year) grand slam, making Laver the most recent male grand-slammer even by this more relaxed definition", given that Laver is listed as having won the Grand Slam twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.26.2 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It means someone messed up, since there have been male players that won even non-calendar year grand slams. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

List formats: bullets and headings

 * ''This concerns |2013-01-09, section 5 and |section 11. -P64

In sections "Non-calendar year ... [mouthful]" and "Three Major ..." is there a good reason for double-bullet format? and in section "Non-calendar year ...", for subsection headings (which show up in the page Contents and provide link anchors)?
 * column 1 - current "Non-calendar year ..." format, double-bullet with subsection headings
 * column 2 - current "Three Major ..." format, double-bullet with bold headings
 * column 3 - single bullet, bold headings
 * column 4 - no bullet, bold headings

Boys' singles

 * Mark Kratzmann
 * 1984: Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * Nicolas Pereira
 * 1988: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * Gaël Monfils
 * 2004: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon

Girls' singles

 * Natalia Zvereva
 * 1987: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * Magdalena Maleeva
 * 1990: Australian Open, French Open, US Open


 * Boys' singles
 * Mark Kratzmann
 * 1984: Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * Nicolas Pereira
 * 1988: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * Gaël Monfils
 * 2004: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon


 * Girls' singles
 * Natalia Zvereva
 * 1987: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * Magdalena Maleeva
 * 1990: Australian Open, French Open, US Open

Mark Kratzmann Nicolas Pereira Gaël Monfils
 * Boys' singles
 * 1984: Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * 1988: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * 2004: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon

Natalia Zvereva Magdalena Maleeva
 * Girls' singles
 * 1987: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
 * 1990: Australian Open, French Open, US Open

Mark Kratzmann
 * Boys' singles
 * 1984: Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Nicolas Pereira
 * 1988: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Gaël Monfils
 * 2004: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon

Natalia Zvereva
 * Girls' singles
 * 1987: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open

Magdalena Maleeva
 * 1990: Australian Open, French Open, US Open

In my opinion the example formats improve from left to right. --P64 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Three weeks later, section 11 has been revised to replace double-bullet format (column one or two as illustrated above) has been replaced by a single-bullet format (such as column three above, but its complement illustrated below).


 * Boys' singles
 * Mark Kratzmann
 * 1984: Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open


 * Nicolas Pereira
 * 1988: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open


 * Gaël Monfils
 * 2004: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon


 * Girls' singles
 * Natalia Zvereva
 * 1987: French Open, Wimbledon, US Open


 * Magdalena Maleeva
 * 1990: Australian Open, French Open, US Open


 * That too is an improvement.
 * Double-bullet format now appears only in section 5 and the very brief section 9 Grand Slam (tennis).
 * --P64 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Achievements consecutive or in a row
Current usage here (maybe not consistent thruout the article) We always (or generally?) use these terms only within one event such as women's singles.
 * "consecutive" — player or pair wins everything scheduled
 * "in a row" — player or pair is undefeated but may be idle

Sections 7.3 and 7.4 do not fit section 7. Perhaps sections 6 and 7 or even 5 to 7 should be combined.

Is the non-calendar year grand slam equivalent to four consecutive grand slam titles?

--P64 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wheelchair tennis
Shingo Kunieda and Esther Vergeer is one of the few player who I can recall who have achieved a Golden Slam in doubles and all three single GS with a Paralympic title (Wimbledon does not exist as a singles match). Would it be worth including since we also got boys and girls. Donnie Park (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wheelchair tennis is now covered in tables, barely in prose. Someone provided the Note [nb 1] which is obscure, needs expansion. Today I inserted oneliners that call the Note from sections 8.8 and 8.9.
 * Probably a brief explanation in relation to Grand/Golden slams belongs somewhere in sections 0 to 3. It should state when some wheelchair tennis slam became possible. --and it should link the wheelchair tennis article, of course.
 * --P64 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Trifecta
In tennis, no one plays singles, doubles and mixed doubles as the matches are scheduled at the same time. Triple crown is something superior achievement used in horse racing. Trifecta is a better word for the once played singles,doubles,mixed doubles at the same time.

The equivalent of triple crown which is originally used in horse racing like winning kentucky derby, preakness stakes, Belmont stakes in the same year, that happens in different cities at different times. It is considered as the most prestigious and difficult, something that can be equivalent and used in tennis as winning French Open, Wimbledon and US Open in the same year. Only Rod Laver achieved this twice and greatness can be understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2FC0:7:5458:4459:CEC0:7E7E (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't use what may or may not be a better word. We use what books, newspapers and other sources use. And there are players who have played all three disciplines... much rarer these days to be sure. My understanding is the tournament will work around a schedule if you enter multiple events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Editorial error on Golden Slam - tried to fix but was reverted
I'm not sure why the burden of convincing has changed for this issue, but the term is "Golden Slam", just as it is "Grand Slam." When talking about about winning over the course of an entire career we would change it to say "career Golden Slam", or "career Grand Slam." If won over consecutive years it would be "non-calendar year Golden Slam" or "non-calendar year Grand Slam." That's the way consensus has always been. I would suggest a revert of the recent change (as I tried to do) unless the editor can convince Tennis Project that a definition change is needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus about "Golden Slam" because the terminology itself was never discussed in the Project. It was mantained in that way because it was treated like the way the Grand Slam's terminology was, however it kept the "Golden Slam", "Non-calendar year Golden Slam" and "Career Golden Slam" topics separated when all 3 are part of the same subject (Golden Slam per se), going against WP:ACCESSIBILITY and WP:BODY (per MOS:HEADINGS).
 * The thing is: Grand Slam has a official definition by the ILTF (although they changed the definition in 1982, they reverted back a little time later), so the other definitions have different terms, but there isn't official definitions for the others terms (Golden Slam, Super Slam, Triple Crown, Boxed Set, etc) only being coined by media. It's true that the term was first used when Graf won all at the same year, but it has been used when other players when the five titles non-consecitively, such as Nadal, Serena and the Bryans. It can be seen in articles made agencies like Washington Post, ESPN Time Bleach Report, ATP and such. So, clearly Golden Slam hasn't a calendar-restrict definition.
 * But the way it was before was misleading calling Graf the only one to win the Golden Slam, implying that she was the only one that won the four majors and a golden medal in tennis hstory, which is untrue. And looking how the Super Slam section, that is at the same way is Golden Slam's one is now, didn't caused a discussion, I don't know why it has to be an issue for the Golden Slam. ABC paulista (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true. Graf IS the only player to win a Golden Slam. Period. Others have won non-calendar year Golden Slams or Career Golden Slams. Self revert and try to gain consensus for your change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you prove what are you saying? I see no sources. ABC paulista (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, Revert yourself as per standard wiki protocol and we can discuss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I will only change something when the discussion is over. Please let's just keep discussuing about the issue itself for the sake of productivity. ABC paulista (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, a week passed and I still not seeing good refutations here. Can I revert back to the calendar Golden Slam? ABC paulista (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Most years between titles
I think this should be added to this page (I just collated the info).

Most years between first and last Grand Slam tournament won


 * Men’s singles: 12 years – Pete Sampras (1990 US Open, 2002 US Open)
 * Women’s singles: 15 years – Serena Williams (1999 US Open, 2014 US Open)
 * Men’s doubles: 19 years - Ken Rosewall (1953 Australian Open, 1972 Australian Open)
 * Women’s doubles: 19 years – Billie Jean King (1961 Wimbledon, 1980 US Open)
 * Mixed doubles (Men): 18.5 years – Bob Hewitt (1961 Australian Open, 1979 US Open)
 * Mixed doubles (Women): 32.5 years – Martina Navratilova (1974 French Open, 2006 US Open) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.18.187 (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I just checked the first entry on your list and it is wrong. Ken Rosewall's first win in singles was 1953 and his last was in 1972... 19 years! And in looking at the second Helen Wills also went 15 years between her first and last title. So I'm dubious as to whether the others are correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes Fyunck is correct Rosewall's span is for singles and Moody is also 15 years 1923 US to 1938 WM.--Navops47 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking further, while men's doubles and Ken Rosewall look good, the ladies doubles is way off. Elizabeth Ryan had a 20 year span, but Thelma Coyne Long was 22 years between first and last victories. I think Martina and Hewitt are correct for mixed doubles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, regardless - it just proves that these records should be double-checked officially and then listed on this thread. This info can't be found anywhere on the internet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.18.187 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Modern 'misuse' of the term
In recent years 'Grand Slam' seems to be widely used (or arguably mis-used) as shorthand for 'Grand Slam Tournament' in tennis, sometimes even in Wikipedia. Indeed so common has this become that when Boris Becker opined on the BBC a few years ago that Rod Laver was the greatest player ever because he had won 2 Grand Slams, another panelist felt the need to clarify what he had said for the benefit of those viewers who would have understood this to mean that Laver had won 2 Grand Slam tournaments. No such confusion arises in golf where the Grand Slam tournaments are always called Majors, not Grand Slams, although maybe this will change with golf now being in the Olympics (assuming, perhaps mistakenly, that 'Grand Slam tournament' came about to avoid arguments over whether the Olympic title was a 'major' title). Could somebody please perhaps find some Reliable Source(s) that mention(s) and/or discuss(es) this confusion, and then mention the issue in the lead and/or in the 'origin of the term' section (possibly renamed to something like 'Origin of the term and current usage')? Tlhslobus (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is true. Though we do have the line "The term Grand Slam also, and originally, refers to the achievement of winning all four major championships in a single calendar year within one of the five events..." and it is in the lead. I don't think more needs to be mentioned in the lead, but perhaps in the body proper more could be said. I hear player interviews today and many use Majors and many use Grand Slams (as a shorthand for Grand Slam tournaments). I'm old school so Grand Slams used in this way is very peculiar to me. I find it improper (like the word ain't) but there is no denying that it is in the vernacular of lots of people. So much so that the tournaments themselves now use the term at times. I'll have took and see if anything in depth has been discussed in a magazine or book. Thanks for the query. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I note that this issue does get half a sentence in the Grand Slam disambiguation article's Tennis section ("; also a nickname for each of the major tournaments"), but this seems both rather inadequate and very likely to be missed by most interested readers. (It's also arguably inaccurate - is a rather confusing abbreviation for a class of events really a nickname for each event?) Tlhslobus (talk) 06:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Serena Slam
I don't know what's going on. Usually, to add some record or noteworthy info here we usually wait until a streak ends. As now, US Open didn't started yet and we don't know if this Serena Slam will become a CYGS. And we don't add NCYGSs that contain CYGSs within it, as we don't see Budge's 6 slam streak, Connolly's 6 slam streak or Graf's 5 slam streak at the NCYGS's section, since both contain CYGS in the achievement. ABC paulista (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But she currently has the Serena Slam now, and that should be acknowledged in this article that at the present time, she holds all four Grand Slams, in a non-calendar year. If/when she wins the US Open, then the information should be moved to the CYGS section. Budge, Connolly and Graf don't need their streaks placed in the NCYGS section because they contain CYGS. Serena's, the moment, is not a CYGS. If it becomes one, then it should be moved accordingly. It doesn't make sense to completely omit accurate information in the hopes that it becomes a new record. If Nadal had an 82-match streak on clay at the end of the French Open that broke the record of the previous streak, we would say he had an 82-match streak on clay as of June 20XX, we wouldn't wait until the first loss in order to add the information in. Piratesswoop (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are we holding back this factual info? We can always change it if need be. This Martina Slam/Serena Slam is news and it seems that readers will be wondering why it's not here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, long ago it was decided within this project that all streaks should only be added when they ended. But if some of the project are against this consensus now, it should be okay to add this Serena Slam and others active streaks by now. ABC paulista (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall it exactly, and I can see some sense if that's the case. 40 matches in a row... they'll soon be on their way to winning or losing the next match. But a streak of major tournament victories... there are only 4 of them. I'm not sure if that's what we were talking about when deciding not to add a streak. I'd have to see the original discussion and the reasoning behind it. For all I know I was apart of it. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Three Majors
The "UR" that I used in that table means "Unknown Result", which I used to describe players whose results in those tournaments couldn't be found (whenever they lost at the QF, SF, 3R, etc, I couldn't find their results and/or draws), or is unknown even if they took part of the competition or not. Or we find the Roland-Garros and US Open results somewhere, or it would be wise to include "UR" in the Key. ABC paulista (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I put a note under the table. I'm not sure the key needs being altered as I've not come across a need in the past. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Grand Slam (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060901230004/http://www.usopen.org:80/en_US/about/history/all-time.html to http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/all-time.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118183826/http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_46448_original.PDF to http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_46448_original.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Further Grand Slam info
"I should start by pointing out that information on the Grand Slam in the ITF Constitution has always been as an Appendix, so information rather than rule or regulation (ie Article or Bye-law). Separately under Bye-laws, Grand Slam tournaments are listed as Official Tennis Championships of the ITF together with what this entails.
 * I am about to edit the Non-calendar year Grand Slam section based on a) research (specifically, a review of Paul Fein's Tennis Confidential)and b) personal correspondence with the ITF's Communications department. I will copy their letter to me in full here (minus the salutations & personal pleasantries), for all who are curious.  In sum, the ITF never intended to change the traditional definition of a Grand Slam in 1982; rather, this has been a decades-long misunderstanding perpetuated by members of the tennis media--some of whom did, in fact, vote in their professional organizations to change the definition.  Sadly, the Wikipedia entry has contributed to this confusion. Hopefully, that ends now.

The amount of information on the Grand Slam included as an Appendix in the ITF Constitution has varied over the years, but in 2011 the ITF Constitutional Committee determined that the existing wording in the Constitution left ambiguity so proposed the current text as clarification, starting with the 2012 ITF Constitution.

I can confirm that Navratilova was the only player to receive a $1 million bonus for winning four consecutive majors." This is an email from Nick Imison of the ITF (dated 12/12/2016).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.192.246 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be inadmissible original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That’s fine; I didn’t end up needing to cite the ITF statement. You obviously don’t need my permission to look over & edit the changes I made to the section, including a new sub-heading, "Controversy over terminology." I probably included too much information &/or quotations about the 1980s controversy, but I figured it was better to be thorough on a first go and let someone else trim as he/she sees fit.

NCGS vs. CGS
I strongly disagree with your editing about the ones that achieved a Non-calendar year Grand Slam (NCGS). I believe that only the ones who did that without achieving a Calendar Grand Slam (CGS) should be added here. First, on the table that shows the ones that achieved a CGS there's already these streaks info, so there is no need to present this info again. Second, this section is about Non-calendar year Grand Slam chievers, not Slam wins' streaks. Third, adding them can cause some confusion for the reader about their differences and definitions, mantaining them separed would help consolidating their definitions better. Fourth, a CGS is a more noteworthy and coveted achievement than NCGS for many people, so in cases where both are acheived the NCGS one shoud be secondary. Fifth, how should the NCGS be counted? A streak should count as one NCGS regardless the amount of slam wins in a row, or from four titles and beyond a new one should also count as a additional NCGS? Should a CGS also be counted as a NCGS? Adding them would raise these questions and others.

Also, you were very inconsistent with your additons: Why you only added Budge, Court and Collonly? What about Graf's 1988-89 5-Slam streak? What about the doubles ones? Why you didn't added everyone that was on the Grand Slam Winners' table? This kind of inconsistency is very misleading and plain wrong. ABC paulista (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you wouldn't have all players that won a NCGS. The section says nothing about limiting it. There is also very misleading writing in the sentence "On the men's side, Novak Djokovic is the only singles player to accomplish the non-calendar year Grand Slam during the Open Era, winning all four majors between Wimbledon 2015 and the 2016 French Open." That really makes it sound like he completed something no one else had, when Laver did it even better in the Open Era. It's very fuzzy sounding to me. It's like saying "John is the only player in history to win 2 consecutive marbles titles", when 37 other players have won 8,9, and 10 in a row. And if this isn't about the number they won in a row, then we need to remove the extra sentences about how many each player won in a row and only list the events that completed their non-calendar slam. It also needs to clearly say that this list excludes all those whose non-calendar Grand Slams overlap a Grand Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I went with your logic but made it crystal clear what this list is for, while also toning down the Djokovic acheivement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Slam (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0%2C22049%2C23047855-5001023%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814221124/http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=153982 to http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=153982
 * Added tag to http://2012.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2012-08-17/201208171345228394852.html?promo=relatedcontent

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Golden Slam definition in subhead
Can I suggest defining "Golden Slam" in the subhead as well as the introduction? "Golden Slam" on other pages redirects to the subhead, which doesn't explain what a Golden Slam is. I understand that this would be redundant for a reader starting at the beginning of the article, but think that clarity merits it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy bedlam (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concern, and I support this suggestion as long as such addition is accompanied by some reliable sources. ABC paulista (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Grand Slam - Triple Crown
Can you explain on what basis you insist to attribute a 'Triple Crown' achievement to Doris Hart at '52 Wimbledon? Borucic (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, you've pinged me wrong, since this tool only works when the sign saty at the same paragraph of the ping, so if you jump to another line, it won't work. Second, I'm sorry, I saw that wrong. I thought that you eliminated the 1951 Wimbledon by accident instead of the 1952 one. But don't worry, it'll be reverted. ABC paulista (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And what about Ivan Lendl's supposed streak of 4 consecutive finals appearances? I am sure, I was right deleting that. The timeline is like this: 1985 US Open (CH) -> 1985 Australian Open (SF) -> 1986 French Open (CH) -> 1986 Wimbledon (RU) -> 1986 US Open (CH). There was not Australian Open in January 1986, but there was one in December 1985. Best regards.Borucic (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The ping didin't work again, because you added the sign on a later edit, and pinging only work it it's used on the sameedit where the sign is also added. About Lendl, yes it seems that you're right again. ABC paulista (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Multiple Career Grand Slam Titles - Women's Doubles
Hingis should be listed in order ahead of Serena & Venus since her first came in 1998? SquashEngineer (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's apparently sorted by the last career grand slam. It's the same with the other categories. Please don't add  after section headings. It breaks the syntax. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Accepted response - close issue. SquashEngineer (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Career Grand Slam - Women's Doubles - Individual
I don't understand the value in the table numbering system, from 1 to 20, when there are 21 individual winners, and the skipping of numbers for the pairings. This table is for individual accomplishment - the pairings, while noteworthy, do not contribute to the # of overall individuals. The numbering could go sequentially from 1 to 21, without gaps, and simply indicate the pairings through some other means (table boarder font for example).SquashEngineer (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In this table the possible pairings weren't lumped together on purpose. What happens is that, sometimes, some players won the career slam at the same time, on the same tournament, because they played said tournament together and won it. In these cases, since they are "tied" on this criteria, we can't arbitrarily decide who won the career slam first, and no other criteria seems able to objectively order it, so it's better to lump such cases together. So, in these cases, what the tables are saying is that: "Player A and Player B were the (N)th and (N+1)th ones to achieve the career slam". ABC paulista (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Accepted response - close issue. SquashEngineer (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Career Boxed Sets
Its annoying that the columns of the two tables in this section are not aligned. It makes it difficult to see where Margaret almost accomplishes three independent boxed sets. SquashEngineer (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

May I propose this?

1. Change her name to Margaret Smith Court in the first table.

2. Change the "Open Era table" accordingly:

If someone thinks it's worth it - here's my finding/proposal (please feel free to change this into a proper english sentence):

"Trivia: one can compose Court's career boxed set out of the titles won solely after her first boxed set was completed:"

--Borucic (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And what's your reasoning for these changes? ABC paulista (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ad 1. Quote from SquashEngineer: "Its annoying that the columns of the two tables in this section are not aligned." - One can make it perfectly aligned this way. Borucic (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Artificially aligning the columns that way is undesired. Per WP:NAME, we should always stick to the name that a person is most commonly referred as, and people rarely use the surname Smith for her. ABC paulista (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ad 2. Like I said - if such an accomplishment is not worth it, one doesn't have to publish this information. Borucic (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the Open Era division is a very important one for tennis, I believe that the current second table contains a noteworthy info. Also, your replacement proposal is already covered in the first table, that cites the two independent bexed sets that she achieved. ABC paulista (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The second table is good to highlight the open era. I would still like to see the alignment of the columns with the first table for the purpose of comparing the span of years that Court was able to accomplish her Boxed Sets.  It does not need to involve artificially lengthening her name.  It simply needs a similar column added for "Boxed Sets."  The number for Court in that column could be "1."  In addition, a note could be added below the second table, noting (similar to Hingis and King) that she narrowly missed a 3rd career box set by only one further win at Wimbeldon Doubles - the original point of my initial edit request. SquashEngineer (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , remember to sign all your comments, the ping doesn't work without it. About this issue, I'm against adding another column for the open era since Court's one was the only instance of a boxed set in the open era, thus adding as column to quantify it would be redundant, failing conciseness. I'm also against adding such note because she did achieve the boxed set, so the fact that she was unable to achieve subsequent boxed sets isn't as notable as the fact that someone fell short of achieving their first one. It's just not noteworthy enough. ABC paulista (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Now that I look at the article as a whole, I wonder why ALL the tables with similar columns aren't all aligned with the same column widths, from top to bottom of the article. It may look cleaner overall IMHO. SquashEngineer (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's a way to set the columns in predetermined sizes, but I'm not good at it. It's a pain to properly adjust it, a time-consuming trial-and-error process. If you wanna test it out, go for it. ABC paulista (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Career Grand Slams - Women's Doubles - Team
I don't understand why the Williams Sisters are listed as a collective item rather than just there names (in brackets) like all the other pairings in the table. SquashEngineer (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You refer to Grand Slam (tennis). "Williams sisters" is followed by individual links to Serena Williams and Venus Williams. It's the only of the listed female teams which has a team article. It would be odd not to link it in a table specifically about teams. The male table at Grand Slam (tennis) uses the same format for Bryan brothers and The Woodies. The three linked teams are the only ones in Category:Tennis doubles teams. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do they need to be identified as brothers and sisters. We all know that by their names.  Can't they simply be listed as a doubles team by name, like all the others?SquashEngineer (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We want to link relevant Wikipedia articles. A team article is relevant when the team is mentioned. A link needs text to click on. Blue text means a link in case you don't know. Williams sisters is the common name when they are mentioned together so we use that for article title and link text. It's possible to make a piped link to change the link text but I see no reason for that. Doubles partners with the same surname don't have to be siblings but usually are. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Woodies aren't siblings. Feliciano López and Marc López aren't either. ABC paulista (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Bryan brothers as the other example. SquashEngineer (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the statement "Why do they need to be identified as brothers and sisters. We all know that by their names." Sharing the same surname doesn't mean that the players are siblings. The "brothers and sisters" identification is how their respective articles are named, because that's how their pairing are more commonly referred as, so per WP:NAME, that's how they should be identified here. ABC paulista (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Accepted response - close issue. SquashEngineer (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is too long
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. I think most of what's in this article can be moved and redirected to the discipline articles. For example, the first section 'Grand Slam completion' can be remade to look like this.

Grand Slam completion
In terms of the current four majors, the first to win all four in a single year was Don Budge, who completed the feat in 1938. To date, 17 players have completed a Grand Slam, though only six in the most prestigious singles titles. Of these players, three have won multiple majors: Rod Laver accomplished the feat twice in men's singles; Margaret Court accomplished the feat three times, in two different disciplines – once in women's singles and twice in mixed doubles; and Esther Vergeer completed a grand slam twice in Women's wheelchair doubles. The four Junior disciplines, boys' and girls' singles and doubles, provide limited opportunities to achieve a Grand Slam. Players are only eligible from age 13 to 18, with 18-year-olds likely to hold a physical advantage. Only Stefan Edberg has completed the Grand Slam in a Junior discipline.

Men's Singles

Women's Singles (not there yet)

Men's Doubles (not there yet)

Women's Doubles (not there yet)

Mixed Doubles (not there yet)

The same can be done with some of the other sections (Non-calendar Grand Slam, Career Grand Slam and Multiple Career Grand Slam). What do you think? --ForzaUV (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What sections would be moved, and what would stay? I fear that, by doing so, this article would be too empty to justify its existance. ABC paulista (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are there probably too many tables? Yes. But I do not think that most of this article should be moved to proper disciplines. This article augments other articles but is more specific in nature. It talks about controversial meanings, different varieties, streaks, etc. Now, some of the charts here basically tell you the same thing in a different format, or a combined format. That should not happen. Trim=yes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , I think you've got me wrong. I'm not saying the sections should be moved, they should stay as they are, it's just the sections' lists (tables) are what should be moved to their discipline pages, the Calendar Grand Slam, Non-Calendar Slam, Career Slam and Multiple Career Slam lists in specific. See the Grand Slam completion section above, it's there but not the lists, the section includes the wikilinks to the lists instead. Nothing changes with the lists which are across all disciplines (Triple Crown, Boxed Set etc) as this is the proper article for them. The other option, we start trimming as Fyunck suggested. Those sections about Three Majors in a year or Finals appearance for example could be removed, maybe. --ForzaUV (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , so if I'm getting your proposal right, all sections that have divided subsections based on each discipline would be moved, but the ones that aggregates all disciplines together would stay? If so, I think I can agree. ABC paulista (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. Just one thing, only the subsections (lists/tables) would be moved not the sections themselves. Let's see if Fyunck can agree as well. ForzaUV (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I'd need to see it. Could you delete (without moving yet) the sections you don't think are relevant? Maybe put it on your sandbox so we could see what won't be here anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can see it on my sandbox. --ForzaUV (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On first look I think that is way too much left on the cutting room floor. This is a Grand Slam article and there is no better place than here for some of these charts. Take the current Grand Slam completion section. That chronological chart is great. The per player chart not so much. What happens to the near miss three majors in a year charts, or the 4 finals in a year charts? Is there a link to those? Maybe we first have to decide which charts are useless and which help our readers, and then figure out a re-order. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, how about this
 * We keep the CYGS first chart and NCYGS charts, just a few changes to save space and improve readability.
 * The Career and Multiple Career Slam charts should certainly be moved. They are too many and fairly long. I think we can reduce the size of the page by 1/3 just by moving those.
 * Three majors in a year and the 4 finals in a year stay as they are but those consecutive titles and finals sections should just be removed. They belong to the Open Era and All-time records pages.
 * Everything else stay the same with the addition of one chart for the Grand Slam titles totals across all disciplines. ForzaUV (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds better. Can we see the new version again in the sandbox before we change things? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. What do you want to see exactly? The article will be the same, except those lists of the CGS and Multi-CGS will be moved and the sections of consecutive titles/finals removed. If it's about the changes I mentioned in the first point, I'm working on them now. ForzaUV (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just published the changes, if there anything you don't like, try to fix it or let me know here and I will see what I can do. ForzaUV (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But I really liked seeing the Grand Slams as they were won chronologically. That chart didn't really need fixing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the chronological order is that important here tbh. Grouping them by discipline is the way to go imho, makes it easier for readers to find the info they're looking for. ForzaUV (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But those are simply different opinions held by us. For me that chart is really useful. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We can do both simultaneously, we have sortable tables for cases as such. But I personally really dislike the format where Pre-Open era instances come after the Open era ones, when both are sorted chronologically. IMO, it makes even more confusing to the reader than the current format. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe they shouldn't be grouped by era even though I prefer it that way but they should certainly be grouped by discipline. How it's done now is just not right, the names can be sorted chronologically within the discipline group. Merging different disciplines and classes makes no sense and I've never seen it anywhere else. ForzaUV (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We have article charts that list both mens and womens accomplishments merged together. There is nothing wrong with having the chart in question... I find it very useful. One thing I was told early on at Wikipedia is that we do not use a cookie-cutter for our articles. Each article can be unique in what they present to our readers. I find this particular chart cool and informative. I do like chronological charts to see the prgression of accomplishments. Could it be done slightly different, sure, but I see nothing wrong with it the way it is now. You could start an RfC and see if editors want it removed entirely. Maybe everyone but the creator and me hates it. That's happened before. But also realize that the chart as it stands, starts off sorted by year with the ability to sort by discipline. It could stay "identical" except it could start off sorted chronologically by discipline. Then I can always sort it by year to get same chart we see today. Not my choice, but it is a compromise I could live with as long as no other changes are made to it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't see my changes as removing the chart entirely. It's basically the same exact chart but grouped by discipline as it should be. The chronological order of accomplishments is also there, but within the discipline group. Laver is said to be the second player to complete the Grand Slam and the first in the Open Era, never heard or read he was the fifth. Could anyone here link one source where winners of different disciplines and classes listed this way? There are maybe charts in Wikipedia where men's and women's accomplishments merged but it would be Singles → Doubles → Wheelchair. The list as it is now makes no sense to me, it's like listing the winners of FIFA World Cup, Women's World Cup, Futsal World Cup and U-20 World Cup in one chronological list and claiming it's useful and informative when in reality it's really not. ForzaUV (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not even close to the same thing. These are not tournaments winners. These are people who play at the exact same event, and the same sport, who have achieved a rare accomplishment. There are not 100s of championship winners to list. This type of table happens with Wikipedia events. This Olympic medal table lists Gold winners across all disciplines. The Tennis at the Pan American Games uses a similar chart. So a particular tennis article can't have one? This chronological table has a heck of a lot less people who have accomplished the winning a Grand Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Come on, man. Olympics charts really? Those don’t help your argument at all. Olympics charts are about nations and medals, so not only that disciplines, classes, genders are merged, even the sports themselves are merged. Anyways, let’s keep the discussion about the chart layout for another time. The whole point of the discussion here is to have the article at a reasonable size and length, so do you have any objection to the other points? Point 2 and 3 in particular? Pinging as well, same question. ForzaUV (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One could argue that Tennis is different from other sports in the sense that, although the tours are separated by genre, many tournaments hold both disciplines simultaneously, that being even truer when regarding the biggest ones, like the majors and masters. Very few sports do that. ABC paulista (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much problem in sorting per era, but I also don't see much benefit from it, especially when we deal with achievements that span both eras (some Career Slams, like BJK's singles' one, for example). But if we are gonna sort per era, we should do either "from oldest to youngest with Pre-Open Era instances coming before Open Era ones", or "from youngest to oldest with Pre-Open Era instances coming after Open Era ones". The way you proposed, "from oldest to youngest with Pre-Open Era instances coming after Open Era ones" (like this and this one) is very counterintuitive. I don't mind much the table being sorted per discipline, but I'm against splitting it for each discipline, I don't think that there's enough content to warrant such move. And going further, I think that all NCYGS instances should be merged into a single table, there's just too few instances for each discipline to have their own subsection. ABC paulista (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s not about youngest or oldest. Open Era achievements are considered more significant, there is more weight to them compared to the amateur era achievements. I think you’d agree that Djokovic DCGS for example is rated higher than Emerson’s DCGS., sorry, what do you mean here, moving what exactly? As for the NCYGS instances being merged into one chart, there is no disagreement about this one. ForzaUV (talk) 07:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on who you are talking to and the discipline. Womens Open vs Pre-Open is pretty much the same... Alice Marble maybe being the exception as she would have won a few more. And it's only some modern invention that makes a dcgs anything. Emerson put most of his marbles into Davis Cup... it's the reason he wouldn't turn pro. I'd put both of Laver's Grand Slams above anything Djokovic has done, but it's different eras where different things are more important. I personally dislike splitting the eras in charts, and I would agree that we should always strive to do things chronologically with the pre-open era first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In that phrase, I meant that I don't think that splitting a table, like the CYGS and NCYGS ones, into various individuals per each discipline would work well, since currently there's too few instances of each. A single table could be sorted per discipline, but not divided. About the era's divisions, I don't think I personally agree with such weighting, but I know some specialists do have such view, although we should be wary of cases of recency bias. So I think that either dividing them here or not are both valid options, but should we opt to divide them and give the lead to the Open era instances, I do belive that we should strive to mantain a chronological order overall, since that's still a possibility. Putting the Open era instances before the Pre-Open era ones while sorting them from oldest to youngest is incoherent. ABC paulista (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Recent bias is a problem with many sports. Tennis is no exception with the press wrongly and constantly projecting CEIB.... "Current Era Is best." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split
I think this article mixes two separate concepts - the tournaments, and the achievement of winning all four of them. I understand it because I'm familiar with tennis, but I'd imagine that unfamiliar readers would be confused as they'd have been linked to the article in one of the two different contexts. I think we should split the article into Grand Slam (tennis) (the tournament class and clear primary topic), and Grand Slam (tennis achievement), where we would have the history of + all the tables for calendar year/career etc. Grand Slams (or link to the tables in the separate disciplines' articles as is done in the sandboxed proposal above). The former would be equivalent to Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era, except it would be shorter as we would link all the lists of champions. This would make things clear for readers new to tennis. —Somnifuguist (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as nom. —Somnifuguist (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As I read what was actually being proposed here in the discussion section, I see the nominator wants to remove all aspects of winning a Grand Slam (all four majors in the same year) from this article. Gutting the historically accurate and heavily used terminology from a Grand Slam article seems like one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard . It's one thing to do some trimming, but I'm in shock this would be proposed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sneering responses such as this to good-faith proposals to improve the encyclopedia for readers are strongly discouraged. —Somnifuguist (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing sneering about it. I am in shock this was even proposed once I understood the full purpose in the discussion section. I couldn't oppose this more strongly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is welcome, but not with statements like "...seems like one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard", which is textbook belittlement—see WP:Civility section 1.(d)—part of a policy, not a guideline. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone proposed taking George Washington's early life or military career out of the George Washington article, I would probably use even stronger words than silly. That's how I feel about the term Grand Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all an equivalent scenario, but yes you would be wrong to do so then as well. —Somnifuguist (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I feel that there's too little information on the tournaments themselves to justify such splitting. This article is almost fully concentrated on the achievements, so a proposed sole article for the achievement would still suffer from too much info, and the tournaments' one would have too little to justify its existance. ABC paulista (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I feel all the information should be listed on one page. It should be possible to trim this article and still retain the relevant information contained within it, but I don't agree with splitting the article into two. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I highly oppose this. The very thought that anyone would even think of splitting one of the most fundamentally important tennis articles, especially about grand slams, sickens me. Somnigiguist, I respect you as a tennis wiki editor and I can tell you are passionate about improving things, but, my god, have some decency to preserve the standards of tennisnon wikipedia, man. Like, come on. Why would split a perfectly good article. Why? Just because it seems too long and you want it "trimmed" into 2 articles? No. Highly disagree. And I am sure the others see tue obvious issue with this unnecessary inane proposal. I know I am going out of line. But I felt the need to state my opinion on the matter. And so, here it is. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading this, but in future, challenging the basis of a proposal (clarity is my primary concern here, not length), not attacking its proponents, is necessary if you want your argument to hold any weight. —Somnifuguist (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support (Conditionally) - I believe that certain sections could easily be moved to List of Grand Slam related tennis records; like "#13) Three major titles in one year" which really is a list of people that "missed" getting a slam. Section "14 Four major tournament finals in a year" - admittedly small, showing how rare it is, but again a listing of BOTH those that DID get it and those that did not... (Maybe not on the "primary" page?).  I have a hard time distinguishing the different "achievement" from "#10 Most Grand Slam titles across all disciplines" in a year and "#15 Triple Crown winners"? - so, maybe a "consolidation" is in order?  Though Section 9 "Most consecutive GS singles finals" should be a separate page for each "event" shouldn't it? Finally, as a person that "reads" these out-loud as part of Spoken Wikipedia...Beyond the lede, Can you imagine what this would "sound" like? Mjquinn_id (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. As has been discussed, the concept of a Grand Slam tournament is separate from the achievement of winning all four Grand Slam tournaments. Golf already has separate articles for these concepts; tennis should as well. The fact that it would be an uneven split isn't a concern. The reason for the split has nothing to do with the length of this article; it's entirely because we shouldn't have an article that covers two separate concepts. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
So it seems that "Grand Slam (tennis)" would be nothing but prose? We'd keep the exact same lead, same origin and history sections, a list of the four majors, and that's it? Then we'd have to repeat some of that same prose in a "Grand Slam (tennis achievement)" article. Is this the proposal as I understand it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I envisioned it as including the prose definition for the tournaments from the lede, the table Grand Slam (tennis) and the links to the lists of champions Grand Slam (tennis) as a start. From the lede, the first two paragraphs are relevant to the tournaments, the third the achievement. In the history section, the first two paragraphs are relevant to the achievement, the third to the tournaments. The origin section doesn't even mention when the term "Grand Slam" transitioned to being used for the majors themselves, so that section needs work either way, but probably there would be some overlap in the split articles for that section, yes. More prose could definitely be written about the tournaments- expanding info about the transition to the open era from the pro, adding info about the changing of surfaces and speeds at the slams, the equalizing of prize money for men and women, adding wheelchair events etc. We could move the content over from History of tennis, as that covers a lot of it. —Somnifuguist (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this article would certainly need to keep the full explanation in the lead of a Grand Slam being the winning of all four majors in the same tennis season. You can't pull that from the article and stick it somewhere else. It would be a gaping hole. I can't see cutting the lead at all. It seems like this article would be sparse and the achievement article would be about the same length. I'm for thinning down but not for gutting it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No "gutting" is being proposed, just splitting an article covering two separate concepts with the same name into two separate articles. If we split the career/golden/calendar year/... Grand Slam info into a separate article (as proposed), we could just link to it in the origin section with, and in the lede with  , e.g.:
 * This article is about the tennis tournaments, for the achievement of winning all four of them in the same year, see Grand Slam (tennis achievement)
 * Both uses of "Grand Slam" would be covered appropriately in their own articles, so there would be no "gaping hole"s in Wikipedia's coverage of them. Or do you not agree that the article as it stands covers two different ideas, and that that is confusing for readers? —Somnifuguist (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is only confusing in the way that Websters covers multiple meanings of words in the same definition. In tennis, Grand Slam has two distinct meanings. That is what this article covers. Both are in heavy use by the press, historians, magazines, etc... To not cover both meanings in this topic seems outlandish to me. If that is what the proposal would do, I would be very much against it. There is a reason why Tennis Project uses the term "Major" or "Grand Slam tournament" when talking about one the events that make up a Grand Slam. Djokovic, having just won the French, is already talking about winning a Grand Slam plus the Olympics. He's an amazing player and the press is gonna eat up on it. You might as well move everything out of this article that concerns the four Majors into an article called the "Grand Slam tennis tournaments." But I would opposed that too for the same reasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Splitting, and more generally WP:Disambiguation. On Wikipedia, if two concepts share a name but are distinct, we create separate pages for them, and disambiguate their titles. We don't share an article for multiple concepts just because they share the same name, even if they are related. Wikipedia is unlike a dictionary in that way. Here's a perfectly analogous situation to what I'm proposing: we have Grand Slam (golf), which is about the achievement of winning all four golf majors, and Men's major golf championships, which is about the majors themselves. The only difference in tennis is that the term "Grand Slam" has bled over from its original meaning to cover the tournaments themselves, whether purists like it or not. My proposed namings were only a suggestion; if Major (tennis) and Grand Slam (tennis) (or Grand Slam (tennis tournament) as you suggested) were preferred, that would be fine with me as well. However, "Grand Slam" is more commonly used for the individual tournaments than "major" nowadays, which is why I suggested two disambiguated "Grand Slam" titles instead. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now some 90/10 split of this article doesn't help at all. But if it was more like 60/40 we could move the contents of this article to "Grand Slam (tennis achievement)" and "Grand Slam (tennis majors)" or perhaps "Grand Slam tennis tournaments" so we wouldn't need parenthesis. Then take the resulting "Grand Slam (tennis)" and make it a redirect to the Grand Slam disambiguation section on tennis. Would that be satisfactory? Because we use the (tennis) parameter to encompass all things with the preceding term. Grand Slam for an individual tournament is more common today, but I hear Major all the time in interviews. Usually it's more like "Grand Slam tournaments." I don't use the term myself for an individual event unless I'm trying to explain things to administrators here, it's aways the four tennis majors for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand why major is the more correct term. If you're suggesting making "Grand Slam (tennis)" a disamb page, then I would agree with that. I proposed keeping it about the tournaments as the primary topic, but it's reasonable to dispute that. The "Grand Slam (tennis achievement)" and "Grand Slam tennis tournament" titles work for me. The 90/10 split is irrelevant, what matters is that we clear up the terms for readers. You can see a rough draft for the article about the majors in my sandbox. Besides, as I wrote before, much can be added about the majors including content from History of tennis, and the Grand Slam/Golden Slam/etc. tables are going to be trimmed/moved to the individual discipline pages (as proposed above), so the end result of the split and that work would be two reasonably-sized and well-defined articles. Another example: Grand Slam (NASCAR) (achievement), NASCAR Cup Series (tournaments). —Somnifuguist (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the split is made alongside the content move to each discipline's pages, then almost no content would be left for the proper achievement's article. I feel that we either split the articles or move the tables, both would be too much. ABC paulista (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We would end up with two articles whose summed length would be shorter than the current article, but that's not saying much—the current article is monolithic and very difficult to navigate even as an experienced editor using a desktop. —Somnifuguist (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like that more info regarding the tournaments should be added here before justifying shuch move. As it stands now, the article is almost solely focused on the achievement. There justo too little content regarding the tournaments, it could be easily merged into other articles without much loss or problems. ABC paulista (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That does make sense. If we add some material/prose on the four tournaments, and it gets unwieldy, perhaps a split could work. I'll look a little harder at the prose and see if more can be added to augment what we already have. Certainly the achievement section is more than adequate as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you see my sandboxed proposal for the majors' article, it's more than an adequate start—far longer than most new articles created here daily. Again, this article currently conflates two separate concepts. It'll be easier to work on expanding and improving our coverage of these separate concepts if we separate them. I see no benefit in delaying it if you're both not disagreeing with the premise of the split itself. —Somnifuguist (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We are disagreeing right now. Don't split it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We are, and the encyclopedia is worse for it. I don't need to be commanded when I've followed procedure to a tee, thanks. —Somnifuguist (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on your draft, it's clear to me that the total amount of content about the tournaments contained here is stub-worthy, and I doubt that itself justifies a proper article for it own. I'm alsso don't agree that mere copypastes from other articles, to increase the amount of info on them here, would be desirable. Maybe, for a start, would be better to reorganize this arcticle to make the different concepts clearer for the readers, or maybe you should first to work on your draft, adding content into it, to better justify your proposal and for us to have more to work with. ABC paulista (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagree. The draft would be start class; this is a stub. I didn't propose copy-pasting content but moving it, and that was just an example to show that much more can be written about the slams as a group. I may continue work on the draft, thanks for your levelheadedness. —Somnifuguist (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure if there's enough content to be moved and make your proposed article to work, and I'm even less sure how much you can move from other articles without harming them. Again, it's better for you to show us what's your idea. ABC paulista (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think my draft already works as a start without needing any extra content. As I said, moving the content from History of tennis was just an idea. The difference of opinion between myself and the "Oppose"rs seems to lie in whether "Grand Slam" as the type of tournament, and as the achievement of winning all 4 of them in a year are sufficiently separate concepts to require separate articles. If they are, then we must split the article as I've proposed. As I see it, the term is always used in one of the two different contexts; there is no in between. Now more than ever, when Djokovic is winning "his 19th Grand Slam" and attempting "to clinch the Grand Slam", I think it is important for Wikipedia to be clear and unambiguous on the difference, just like it already is for golf and NASCAR. A reader linked to the article in the achievement context will be confused by the first two paragraphs of the lede describing something else, and a reader linked in the tournament context will be confused by the marked lack of information and history about the tournaments that are the supposed pinnacle of the sport. Multiply this by 15,000 incoming links and a million pageviews a year and the result is a lot of confusion that could be easily avoided. But, I have expended enough words on this now, so will say no more. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At least from me, the only disagreement I have in this lies in the amount of content currently available for the subject regarding the tournaments. I don't think that such move would be beneficial until there's enough content for both subjects to have their own B-class articles each. And I do believe that we're able to properly separate the concepts within the same article, and that would have create benefits than a full split. Not always there is need to split concepts within a subject to make it clear that they are different things, words and proper article organization can do that with similar efficiency. ABC paulista (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The Channel Slam
, I like what you have done with the Career Grand Slam sections but I see you also added a new section about the Channel Slam? Please don't re-add it. No need to include 'Anything Slam' to the article, maybe there is also some source in the internet about 'hardcourt slam' for winning AO and USO in the same year but we don't have to list everything here. At least the 'Three-Quarter Slam' and 'The Surface Slam' sections are about 3 out of the 4 tournaments so they could be interesting to some readers but those about only 2/4 should be kept to the records pages or players' achievements pages. Or just like Somnifuguist suggested, we start a new article for Grand Slam achievements where you can add whatever you want. This article is ridiculous even in its current state. --ForzaUV (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm intent to add it as long as it's seen as a notable achievement by reliable sources and it is related to the Grand Slam achievement. The presentd sources stated that the Roland Garros-Wimbledon combination is more noteworthy than others and that for me is sufficient for their inclusion here. Honestly, I would argue that the "Three-Quarter Slam" is the one cited here with the least amount of credibility on it, and I could see it being removed first. I wouldn't agree, but I would understand. Actually, between the "Channel Slam", the "Surface Slam" and the "Three-Quarter Slam", the "Channel slam" seem to be the most recognized and noted of the three. ABC paulista (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the point of the records and achievements pages then? This page should not be about all kinds of achievements. We have also other per discipline articles which can be expanded as you want. --ForzaUV (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * List of Grand Slam men's singles champions
 * List of Grand Slam women's singles champions
 * List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions
 * List of Grand Slam women's doubles champions
 * List of Grand Slam mixed doubles champions
 * List of Grand Slam boys' singles champions
 * List of Grand Slam boys' doubles champions
 * List of Grand Slam girls' singles champions
 * List of Grand Slam girls' doubles champions
 * List of wheelchair tennis champions
 * I don't know what "records and achievements pages" you are talking about, but these achievements aren't bound by a specific discipline, but it is related to the Grand Slam achievement. This page is about the Grand Slam and all its noteworthy related achievements and subjects, and these 3 fit the criteria. These pages you cited are specific to their respective discipline, and they should only contain info pertinent to them. ABC paulista (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, broadly, with ForzaUV. Three quarter/Channel/Surface slams are not notable enough. // Hippo43 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He isn't disputing the notability of such achievements, but arguing that here isn't the proper place to cite them. ABC paulista (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read his comment, but he can answer for himself. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just my own input on an item. My long life has seen many items talked about in the history of the press along with historians and sports commentators. No one ever talks about a "3/4 Slam." I have never seen that term, though it may exist. Sure they have talked about winning 3 of the 4 majors being an incredible feat, but they don't call it the 3/4 Slam. The "Surface Slam" is also pretty un-notable in the history of tennis. Probably because it was only achievable since the late 1970s when there were only two surfaces, except when we had a World Covered Court Championship that was played on wood. But the "Channel Slam" I hear all the time. It was used a lot in the time of Bjorn Borg, when he kept winning it over and over. But the commentators use it regularly today. Clay to Grass is still quite tough, though not like it used to be before they tried to equalize all surfaces. Of all of them, Channel Slam absolutely needs to be here in it's own section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, broadly, with ForzaUV. Three quarter/Channel/Surface slams are not notable enough. // Hippo43 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He isn't disputing the notability of such achievements, but arguing that here isn't the proper place to cite them. ABC paulista (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read his comment, but he can answer for himself. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just my own input on an item. My long life has seen many items talked about in the history of the press along with historians and sports commentators. No one ever talks about a "3/4 Slam." I have never seen that term, though it may exist. Sure they have talked about winning 3 of the 4 majors being an incredible feat, but they don't call it the 3/4 Slam. The "Surface Slam" is also pretty un-notable in the history of tennis. Probably because it was only achievable since the late 1970s when there were only two surfaces, except when we had a World Covered Court Championship that was played on wood. But the "Channel Slam" I hear all the time. It was used a lot in the time of Bjorn Borg, when he kept winning it over and over. But the commentators use it regularly today. Clay to Grass is still quite tough, though not like it used to be before they tried to equalize all surfaces. Of all of them, Channel Slam absolutely needs to be here in it's own section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Tournaments of Super Slam
According to the Guinness World Records Super Slam also includes the Davis Cup (Fed Cup/ BJK Cup), along with a Grand Slam and YEC. Kacir 00:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other sources using this same definition? Sports Illustrated was the one who invented the term, and the don't consider the World Cups on it, and the majority of the sources presented seem to agree with it. ABC paulista (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I was just a little surprised by that reliable source, imho, contains this information, again here. Cheers. Kacir 06:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * However, I can find the terminology in no other sources. None. It would be interesting to ask Guinness where they got their data, or did they just make it up. It's hard enough to ever see the term "super slam" outside of golf. What's interesting is the WTA honored Martina Navratilova on April 17, 2003, for winning the first Open Era "Career Super Slam." But it was for winning singles, doubles, and mixed doubles at all four Major tournaments... what we would call a "career boxed set" today. It was also in error since Margaret Court had already done so from 1968–1973. How soon the press forgets. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read information about Navrátilová as well.Kacir 08:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)