Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)/Archive 3

Sourcing and mentioning
, I don't understand your reasoning behind the removal of whole sections like you promoted recently. They are similarly sourced to all other sections here, so I don't see what's the problem with them. We clearly disagree on this, so we should comply with WP:BRD and discuss the matter before going full bold and warring on this. ABC paulista (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for starting this discussion. I should have done it.
 * With these sections, I don't think they are sourced the same as the main Grand Slam sections. (Although I think some of the same problems also apply in those sections. Where are the sources, for example, that says Gordon Reid has won a non-calendar year grand slam?)
 * I haven't found sources which cover Channel slams, surface slams or three quarter slams etc in any detail or depth. I don't think it's enough to find one or two passing mentions of something, then state in Wikipedia's voice that is a widely understood concept in tennis, then make a list of everyone who we think meets the criteria, when they have never been mentioned in real sources. To me, that is exactly what original research is.
 * In these cases, Wikipedia has become the biggest source for this stuff online, with more information than any reliable source, which is not a good thing. For almost any of the doubles, wheelchair or youth players, I haven't found any reliable sources which state they have won a surface slam or whatever, so I don't think we should be making up these lists. I hope I'm making sense. // Hippo43 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we should expect deep, detailed or extense discussions on each Grand Slam-derived concept, since the are very simple and straightforward concepts that don't warrant such. As long as they are recognized by the tennis community as an achievement and cited by reliable sources, that should suffice. Also, I personally don't believe that each possible instance should be directly stated to have achieved something, they could be cross-referenced by references that state which tournaments they won to see if they fit the defined criteria, because this is obvious information and WP:FACTS state that for such there is no need to reference every single instance. ABC paulista (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If something was such a well-known concept in the tennis world, there would be lots of reliable sources explaining what it is, not just a couple of sources mentioning it in passing. If that's all there is, then it's trivial, and we should not be putting it in an article.
 * You say you don't personally believe that every instance needs to be referenced, but that's exactly what policy requires. Content needs to be significant enough, and needs to be verifiable. WP:FACTS is an essay, not policy, but it even acknowledges that GA criteria require references for statistics etc. This is not a matter of stating that the sky is blue. WP:NOR, specifically WP:SYNTH, is clear on this stuff.
 * When no reliable sources say that (for example) Mark Kratzmann won a career grand slam, why would we publish it? We had something like 152 people listed as having accomplished three quarter slams. Why? No reliable source has ever published that. It's original research. // Hippo43 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are lots of sources referencing Channel slam, and not so much on both Surface slam and Three-Quarter slam, but still I do believe that what was presented here is enough to pass WP:N for them all. We don't need to cite every single instance they are mentioned to prove their significance, that's not how WP:N and WP:V works. About the WP:FACTS, we aren't deaing with statistics, but straight logic facts, and WP:V state that info don't need sourcing as long as "it's not something you thought up and is easily verifiable". All instances are verifiable by checking the list of winners on each slam and comparing to the set criteria for each aciehvement. ABC paulista (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:N relates to articles rather than sections, but its section on lists - WP:LISTN - is instructive. "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". In other words, if sources have discussed the group of players who have done something, it might be worth including. As in my edit above, sources do not discuss the set of wheelchair players who have completed a three quarter slam, or girls who have won the channel slam. It's made up and shouldn't be here.
 * "Checking the list of winners on each slam and comparing to the set criteria for each aciehvement" is OR, specifically synthesis, when no source has stated that player X accomplished Y. In the history of tennis, no reliable source, online or print, has published these sorts of lists, so Wikipedia should not be the only place on the internet that covers this stuff. I would not object to mentioning what these things are, as minor achievements related to the GS, but all these lists cannot be included. // Hippo43 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't expect, or demand, sources discussing "wheelchair players who have completed a three quarter slam", or "girls who have won the channel slam" to validate these concepts because these achivements aren't bound by a particular discipline, but are bound to tennis as a whole (we only divide per discipline to keep the listing better organized) and the presented sources do what's required of them. Otherwise, I can agree with the compromise you proposed, of mentioning the concept of these achievements without listing the achievers and only mentioning a handful of directly sourced ones, but that's just if we apply it to all the other sections, like the Grand Slam completors, Non-Calendar Grand Slam, Career Slam, Golden Slam, Super Slam, Boxed Set, etc. We would indiscriminately remove all unsourced instances for all sections, only keeping/restoring the sourced ones. No cherrypicking, no double-standards, no pedantrism, we would make a full claenup on this article until only properly sourced instances are kept, no exceptions. That's the only way I can agree with your proposal. ABC paulista (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with your first statement - I would expect discussion of these concepts in reliable sources before I included a big list of them, rather than publishing just a short explanation. Second, I think it is worth noting that most reliable sources only talk about Grand Slams and some of these other achievements in the context of men's and women's singles, and sometimes doubles. If reliable sources almost never discuss wheelchair or junior Grand Slams, should we be publishing this stuff?
 * On removing all these lists from every section, I agree. I think it would be a big improvement. I think we should probably keep the Grand Slam ones, maybe only singles, but if you don't think so, they could all go. // Hippo43 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also like sources extensively discussing these concepts, but they don't do. The history of these concepts is pretty uneventful, there's not much to talk about aside from their achievers, and we have to work with what we have. Also, the sources don't state that these achievements are conditioned to some disciplines, but the only give singles' tennis, and doubles' too in a lesser extent, but that's because these disciplines have more weight and popularity than the others, that doesn't mean, or it's implied, that they are specific to them. About the tables, if we are unable to list all possible instances, it's not worth to mantain them in order to avoid misleading the reader into believing that they are all instances that happened, so I'd prefer to remove them all in all sections. In this case, we should only cite a few most notable instances to illustrate what is being stated, being clear that they aren't all. ABC paulista (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

, we just talked with about how everything must be directly and properly sourced, and that only referenced info should stay here. Then you come here and add a lot of unreferenced names, links to unreferenced info and that make no mention of the terminology that they are supposed to refer to. Not only that, you removed legit important info about Borg's three consecutive Channel Slams and clumped tables side-by-side, which in my opinion, makes it harder to veiw for the reader mainly on mobile devices. So, what gives? ABC paulista (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me Goolagong name shouldn't be there with the rest of who achieved the Channel Slam because there was no mention of her in the bleacherreport.com article? That wouldn't be fair. No idea why she wasn't mentioned, most likely the writer missed her name or is there something I'm not aware of? Hippo43 didn't like the lists, all seemed excessive especially for not as notable achievements as the others on the article, I felt the same to be honest. I removed the info of Borg for the sake of consistency, but you can add it back if you think it's important, for me I don't see how it's necessary. As for the side-by-side layout, I though it was an improvement for such a long and kinda messy section. It made use of the white space at the right of the screen and looked nice to see Individual and Team achievements for the double players next to each other. I had also this layout on my mind, tell me what you think about it. --ForzaUV (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem wasn't the inclusion of Goolagong per se, but the inclusion of some info without sourcing. Where's the source in the Three-Quarter Slam section to back-up the claim that "In singles, 11 men and 8 women managed to do so, and some of them did it more than once"? And the two wikilinks you provided for that section make no mention of the "Three-Quarter Slam" term. In the Surface Slam section, where are the sources stating that Graf achieved it in 1988 and Djokovic achieved it in 2021? In the Channel Slam section, where are the sources to back up the claim that 12 men and 10 womend achieved it? Where are the sources to back up the claim that both Goolagong and Djokovic achieved it? Also, you rewrote some sections on the Career Slam, but didn't provide the sources to back up the claims stated there. The Borg info isn't overly necessary, but it was made to illustrate its notability, since we agreed that, instead of including all instances, we'd only include a handful of the most notorious cases of each. About the tables' layout, in my view the side-by-side option made info distinction harder to the reader, the tables almost blend together and cause the entries to occupy more than one line, make viewing more messy that it should be. I prefer the retractable layout. ABC paulista (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok man, I get it, you know what’s written is correct but you have a problem with some names being mentioned with no source to back it up. I’m willing to remove those names, I will exclude Goolagong from the Channel Slam section, and Grad/Djokovic from the Surface Slam section but as you proposed before, we make a full cleanup on all lists (CYGS, NCYGS, CGS, etc) and keep only the properly-sourced instances. Are you good with that? --ForzaUV (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , like I said before, the problem isn't about the names, but all the usourced info presented here, and that includes statistics like "To date, 17 players have completed a Grand Slam, though only five players managed to do it in the prestigious singles titles", presented on the Grand Slam subsection, or the "In Men's Doubles, 24 players have won the Career Grand Slam, including sixteen who achieved the Career Grand Slam with a unique partner. Eight of the 24 men achieved at least a double Career Grand Slam at Men's Doubles, led by Roy Emerson and John Newcombe with triple Slams", presented on the Men's Doubles Career Slam subsection and alike, the whole section of Grand Slam titles across all disciplines is unsourced... The unsourced names are only part of the problem. Everything unsourced should be removed, be it name, statistics, data, etc. About the tables, personally I'd never have removed any of these lists, but since the WP:OR argument was brought up there's no going back on it, for consistency's sake. However, in my view, it would be better to remove all tables in sections that we are unable to reference and list all their eligible instances, just mantaing a handful of instances to exemplify what's being stated. Mantaning the listing without all instances presented would mislead the reader into believing that the names presented are all that got those respective achievements, and we should avoid that. If we're unnable to list all instances, then we should ony mention 2 or 3 of the most nostables instances (the first achiever, the one who achieved it the most, the one who did it the most consecutively, etc), unless we're dealing with achivements with few achievers, like the Pro Slam and the Boxed Set, where citing all of them would be easy and concise. ABC paulista (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would really disagree with removing most of the data. This isn't a bio of a living person. I think all of it can be sourced. I recall when I first started editing here I removed some things in a different subject that were unsourced and I got raked over the coals by administration for doing so. If it isn't contentious, if it is likely correct, if it is longstanding, you owe it to do a little research yourself to find a source. And if that doesn't, work tag it "fact" tag to see if others can do so. Again, it's a lot stricter if it's the bio of a living person. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with your proposal, if we bring back the tables from the Three-Quarter, Channel and Surface Slams under the same premisse. All I want is an unbiased, equal solution for all the sections in this article, no double-standards. ABC paulista (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't really care whether they are there or not, but let me say this. Every section of an article is not weighed the same. 3/4, channel, and surface slams are minor iterations of what a Grand Slam is. Yes, they exist, but they don't seem to get tallied the same way as winning a Grand Slam does. Sort of a bronze medal compared to gold. I had never ever heard of a 3/4 slam till you pointed out a few sources. The Channel Slam seems to get mentioned once a year during Wimbledon. Whoever wins the French Open that year, if they get far enough at Wimbledon, the press will mention the Channel Slam because of the diversity in the two surfaces (though it's nowhere near as much of a difference as it was before the 1990s). All three surfaces have been homogenized. If something exists, we don't always create a chart for all happenstances. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tallying is not about weight, but about notability and rarity, and weight doesn't always correlate to difficulty or rarity, but more with how they're acknowledged by the organizing bodies, experts and enthusiasts. All of the achievements presented here are notable by varying degrees, with the Channel slam arguably being more recognized than the likes of the Super slam, the Triple Crown or the Boxed Set, the Three-Quarter slam section had been presented here since shortly after the creation of this article, and the Surface Slam being the rarest of the three and having less entries than other more famous achievents, like the Career slam. Usually the presence of tables is avoided in an article if their existance makes reading too cumbersome for the viewer, and I don't think that any of them reached such level, and that could be avoided by applying retractable tables, like did with the Career slam ones. ABC paulista (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The content of the article as it is now looks good to me and I wouldn’t want to change it much but I’m not against removing everything unsourced. Three-Quarter, Channel and Surface Slams are just not as notable or significant as the other achievements on the page so listing each instance in every discipline for them is unnecessary. The article title is Grand Slam, let’s keep the lists about the winners of the four Grand Slam tournaments. The lists for the CYGS, NCYGS, CGS and Boxed Set are a must imo. Everything else, not so much, not on this article at least. You can decide with Fyunck whether we remove the unsourced instances or leave them. Either is fine with me. --ForzaUV (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is that WP:OR doesn't discriminate by WP:WEIGHT or WP:N, but only by WP:V, so we shouldn't be double-standardizing its application on a article. We can't apply it on some sections because they aren't as "notable" or don't "hold the same prestige" as the main topic, and leave original research on others based on a subjectively perceived bigger prestige. Lists are as notable as the topic they are inserted into, individual instances can't be less notabe than the achievement on itself. WP:LISTN state that "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable", so the notability of the term on itself already justifies their inclusion. ABC paulista (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And those other instances are about those four Grand Slam tournaments. How could you say they are not? Without the Grand Slam events the terms would not be possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Greyed out and boxed up???
You cannot leave the sentences greyed out and blocked just because they require sources. You would put a citation needed template at the end of the sentences. It was absolutely horrible looking for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes I can, since Template:Citation needed span allows us to do it. The problem is that in some places just a part of a sentence is unsourced, so highlighting these instances make it easier to identify what exactly needs to be sourced. And in other places, where whole phrases are unreferenced, it allow us to lump them all togehter in one --ABC paulista (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)"citation needed" temple, instead of adding multiple ones for each sentence. But if you don't like, we can work on another method. Just please, don't go removing everything indiscriminately, a added lots of sources and new info, and those shouldn't be just removed without a good reason. ABC paulista (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well you're going to need to convince others that this horrendous view is needed. It really looks bad and is confusing as all get out. And it is not indiscriminate editing. I tried to revert the offending sections but everything was intertwined together... it wouldn't let me with a full redo. You need to put it in your sandbox where we can view all the changes and keep those you want. Then we can re-add it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was indiscriminate because you removed a lot of changes that has nothing to do with the aspect you didn't agree, and you had the possibility to manually change what you didn't like, but chose to not do so and went with the easier, more destructive option. I won't try to convince you that this format is the best option, I'll just change the traditional one, since that's easy to change and can be done in one go. There's no need for the sandbox for such, and your unwillingness to manually redo the templates is not an excuse for what you reverted. ABC paulista (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If I could do simple reverts I would have. I'm not going to take 30 minutes to make corrections of things that were not a problem prior to your edits. That is for you to do. If something needs a source put the tag after it. If a section has an issue you tag the section as needing more sources. Do not leave the dashed-line boxes and greyed out words. It is quite hard to read and I believe a problem for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically this is still not a problem, you're the one who's making it to be one. But still, there's nothing on wikipedia stating that the one who created a "problem" should be the one to fix it. In fact, WP:BOLD state that the one who spot a "problem" should be the one to do it if they can, and if they can't than they should alter nothing, or maybe you could've asked someone else (me, for example) to do it for you instead of removing significant improvements that have nothing to do with the "problem" in question. Like I've said you, I'm willing to do these changes you asked, but I can't tackle them in one go because of my laggy old computer, I'll have to do them in parts and for that to work I need to restore the changes I promoted earlier (I can't edit section-per-section on previous versions, and copying that whole version somewhere else is not feasible for me). Right now I don't have the time to do it, but I'll have on the weekend. Maybe earlier, but I can't guarantee, but on the weekend is a sure thing. ABC paulista (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you create a problem, why the heck should others be required to fix it? That's not the way we work. If you boldly make an edit that someone disagrees with and reverts, you do not re-add it. You work things out on the talk page. That's the way it has always been done. Now, you are telling me that your computer has issues. Ok... that at least is understandable. But It takes seconds to put the entire article in your sandbox. That uses wikipedia power, not your computers power. I can do it for you to work on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is how we work. Fixing problems is not about who created them, but who spotted them and is able/willing to solve them. But by trying to solve your issues, you created additional problems by removing sources and new info, restoring sections to is previous unsourced state, thus violating WP:RS and WP:V, and without giving proper justifications for them. And enven about your problems you were vague, never explaining how it was problematic or why readers would have an issue about it. I know full well how WP:BRD works, I try to enforce every time and way I can, but you are failing hard on the "discuss" aspect of it, you are not legitimizing your "revert" part and not giving me/us material to work with. About my computer problems, opening an edit page increase the usage of its memory, and the bigger the page/section, the more memory it consumes, thus making the computer slower. My computer is more than 10 years old, working on a section like the Career Slam already put my computer on a critical level. ABC paulista (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion happens "before" the changes. You seem to want the cart before the horse. If someone does not like your changes you must discuss it "before" you put it back. The only other thing I could have done is replace all the bad prose sections with the prose from before your edit. Copy and paste over the damage. I can still do that if you prefer. Then you could work on each prose section one at a time so as to save computer power. What I'm not going to do is fix each and every sentence you changed into a box and greyed out. Someone else can do it, but it really should be you. With it in your sandbox you should have no issue only opening up one prose section at a time to do the editing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:REVTALK, WP:REVEXP and WP:UNRESPONSIVE state that all the changes promoted, specificially reverts in this case, should be well explained on the summary, which you failed to do for everything you reverted, even being kinda vegue about the template one. And WP:CAUGHTUP state that the user should avoid to remove beneficial changes in order to remove the contentious ones, preferably removing the contentious ones manually. You removed everything without any regard. ABC paulista (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I created it at User:ABC paulista/sandboxGrand Slam. When you finish it, if it's an issue with your system, I can move it back. Just ask. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave up and took the 20+ minutes to correct the issues myself. I didn't want to keep going back and forth on this. You can ask for a sandbox page deletion since it's no longer needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See, I told you it was easy, just a bit time-consuming. But still, you only included the tags at the end of each paragraph, when they should be included on the the end of every unsourced claim, which means that some paragraphs will have various tags throughout it. ABC paulista (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I left them in the same place the were. I didn't add a tag to the interior sentences. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, I can do that on the weekend. ABC paulista (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And if you have time, try to look for a couple of the sources. I'm busy this weekend but next week I'll try and look for some more through old newspapers and such. That way we can get rid of all the needed sourcing for this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)