Talk:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records

Other slam records
, you can replace the prose in List of Grand Slam and related tennis records with tables for individual non-calendar or calendar super/golden slam in the "Grand slam achievements" sections in the articles listed in the Template:Grand Slam champions navbox (bottom row). In my opinion, listing all possible instances is unnecessary but I am not goinf to split hairs because of it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I can do that, but I'm having issues editing these tables since I can't see the changes I make, because of the scrooling that is necessary to see all entries, and I don't know how to temporarly remove it. If you teach me a way for me to visualize it whole, I'd appreciate. ABC paulista (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is much harder to edit scrolling tables and I'm not sure we need to scroll all of them... only really lengthy ones and ones that are likely to grow exponentially. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ABC paulista, how do you usually edit tables? Mobile or desktop? VE or source? Best way to edit them is to temporarily remove the scrollable add in use or uc above the table being edited during the edit session for ease of, well, editing.
 * I contained them with a div scroll to reduce vertical scrolling for all long tables on the page., Temporarily remove them, edit and then restore. Code in question is  or  . Just remove those to see the whole table and then edit accordingly. I made this, primarily, to save up on scrolling and for mobile users. If you do not like it in this article, feel free to revert this or all instances. I don't mind. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Did some testing: the fastest way to disable the scrolling containment is by changing 40vh -> 100vh (vh—width of an element (table) to be of X % of the viewport’s height). Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try that later. I usually edit in my laptop because I prefer keyboard and mouse than touchscreen. ABC paulista (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Golden Grand Slam, Golden Slam issue
This section is a mess. Both terms "Golden Grand Slam" and "Golden Slam" are in use today; Golden Slam more so, hence the name of the section. Both both must be mentioned as our readers will me seeing both in mainstream media. Also, de Groot and Alcott won the four majors in 2021 while winning the 2020 Olympics. It was not the 2021 Olympics! The people who qualified for 2020 Olympics did not need to requalify for 2021. I'm not advocating their names be removed, but this is an important aspect of the record and should be mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * , the issue with the terminology is that this is not the article to elaborate on it. This article is just to list "who achieved what and when", if the reader wants further information about the achivement itself they should head to the Grand Slam (tennis) article, so the only information that should be contained here is the most known name of the achievement and it's criteria, anything else is to be further informed there. Trying to cite both here would mean that they have similar relevance, which is untrue per WP:COMMONNAME, so doing so would be WP:UNDUE.
 * About the 2021 Slams, while is true that the Olympics were supposed to be played on 2020, by all intentions and purposes it was played in 2021. It started in 2021, played in 2021, ended in 2021, was part of the 2021 calendar of both ATP, WTA and ITF and pretty much all media, specialists and relevant people and organizations consider it a 2021 title. I've never seen anyone questioning this, and these that actually do are probably part of a vast minority. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They didn't have a selection committee for the 2021 olympics, they did it in 2020. The Olympics themselves say it was the 2020 Olympiad. That should be noted here and to do otherwise confuses our readers when they see 2021 on the four majors and 2020 on the olympics. And it is quite simple, since this is a stand-alone article to make sure the readers know that the terminology for GoldenGrandSlam/GoldenSlam is used throughout our sources. Golden Grand Slam is not some archaic term... it is used today. Readers could be scratching their heads and saying what about Golden Grand Slam I heard on the news today? My small addition covers that and yours leaves them confused. And your WP:COMMONNAME site... that links to a discussion of titles, not prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how the Olympics call or see themselves, or when the qualification was held, since the subject here is solely about tennis, and for the tennis world the Tokyo Olympics were part of the 2021 season. We don't even need to cite the year in which the event was branded, since 2021 Olympics also disambiguates there, and on the tables it can be linked via 2021 just fine.
 * About the terminology, "Golden Grand Slam" is way, way less common than "Golden Slam", and not that used on the mainstream media nowadays, so the reader is less likely to hear about the earlier than the latter. And the ones that do use the former tend to use both interchangeably, like France 24, for example. Even the organizations like the majors tehmselves, ITF and the associations refer more as Golden Slam than Golden Grand Slam.
 * And even if they indded came here for "Golden Grand Slam", they should be redireceted to Grand Slam (tennis), the section that properly explain the similarities about the terminologies, not here. Remeber that we have to be WP:SUCCINCT and try to relay the essential information that belongs to the scope of this article. If readers come here, it's probably because they already have a grasp on these concepts, otherwise they should be redirected to where they can properly learn about it.
 * Also, WP:COMMONNAME applies also for the sections per MOS:HEAD, and it'd be pretty weird to show one name on the title and other on the prose. ABC paulista (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is less common but not way way less common. It's on the Wimbledon website which is going on right now. The Australian Open website had an article on it in May of this year. And Tennis Now put out an article June 26, 2024 on Steffi's Golden Grand Slam. And yes commonname applies to section headings also, but that hasn't changed in the article. Prose is always more specific and explains the concept in much more detail. And again we aren't talking about showing one version in section heading and another in prose. We are talking about showing the most common in section heading and both terms explained in prose. Huge difference that is being censored. And it's not a question of what we can do to hide the fact it was 2021 for the four majors and 2020 for the Olympics, it's what should be explained to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not about censorship and/or hiding information, it's about importance and relevance.
 * Yes, Golden Grand Slam can be thrown here and there sometimes, but overall the Golden Slam terminology is more proeminent than the former (Google Search presents 10 times more "Golden Slam" results for either Graf or Djokovic than "Golden Grand Slam", for example). By these metrics, terms like "calendar golden slam" and "calendar-year golden slam" also show for a relevant number of times, closer to "Golden Grand Slam" than it is to "Golden Slam" per se.
 * But here we are dealing with a list article, and these should contain as little prose as possible, only having the absolute essential for the reader to understand what's being talked about on the tables, and the terminology is not one of these essential info. There's a proper place where the terminology can be explained and properly expanded: Grand Slam (tennis), not here. We don't have to mention both terms every single time the Golden Slam is being mentioned, only the most common name is enough, is already recognizable for the majority of cases, such as this.
 * About the Olympics, we shoudn't treat the readers as babies or dumb, idiots, they understand the concept of "links" and know that they can click on verbatims to go to an article on a specific subject, and one of the first information contained there is how the 2020 Olympics were held in 2021.
 * But if you so insist, I woudn't complain if you add a note, like ITF did:, but your previous dismissal of the Wheelchair Golden Slam, or attempt to "asterisk" them, for this reasoning was not acceptable per WP:OR.
 * TL;DR, avoid WP:TOOMUCH. Everything has its own place, and these are irrelevant to this article, one doesn't need to overexplain everything everytime everywhere everywhen. People know links and understand its function and usage, our purpose is to facilitate this navigation. ABC paulista (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We can agree on some of this. I could see making that part on de Groot and Alcott as a note exactly as you mentioned. That can work just fine. But I didn't see any metric by wikipedia to curtail prose, especially on something that has two connotations in real life usage. This is a section on the Golden Slam. The prose we add that says Golden Slam should be accompanied by Golden Grand Slam on first mention since they are used interchangeably in sources. We treat the fact the elementary kids read these articles also... not dumb, not babies, not idiots... but kids and also adults who are drawn here from watching Wimbledon. Or folks who come here after reading about Graf at the Tennis Hall of Fame. The mention of Golden Grand Slam should stay as I wrote it. It takes up barely any space and is quick and to the point..."A player who wins all four majors and the Olympic gold medal (or a Paralympic gold medal) in a single season is said to have achieved a "Golden Slam" or "Golden Grand Slam"." I see no issue with that at all but I will acquiesce to your note on the other item. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You act like Grand Slam (tennis) page doesn't exist, and that this one is the first that people enter when looking for information about the Grand Slam and its related concepts, but its actually the opposite: As shown in the Wikidata, the Grand Slam page has almost 10 times more traffic than this one, when searching for "Golden Grand Slam" on Google, the Grand Slam (tennis) page is the first Wikipedia's one to appear, on the first page, and when searched here, that page is the first to appear, and this one is only the fourth one to appear, so it's way more likeky that someone would end up there than here when searching for these terms.
 * And that's how this stuff should work, since this list is supposed to be accessed by people who already have a grasp about these concepts, so it doesn't make sense to elaborate further on concepts that are already covered by an article that exists for this. If we keep adding info that don't aggregate to the understanding to these lists, it could have adverse effects to it:
 * Per MOS:LONGSEQ, prose should be limited to what's necessary to understand the subject, otherwise the prose format should take precedence over lists and tables, per MOS:USEPROSE, and if that's the case than the subject doesn't belong here, since this is a List article so by definition its info should be formatted to be a list.
 * It could open a precedent that could bloat the article overall with other denominations. Aside from "Golden Slam" and "Golden Grand Slam", there are other denominations used to refer to this achievement, so we coud end up with phrases like, and etc. And we have to consider that all the other concepts also have alternative denominations, with no good counter-argument to impede it. The Grand Slam concept is especially notorious for having multiples names and acronyms.
 * It could lead to here becoming more and more similar to the Grand Slam (tennis) article, and that would be WP:REDUNDANT, and that could lead to a undesired merge for WP:OVERLAP. Honestly, one could already argue that all these sections without tables could be merged back into the Grand Slam (tennis) article, since there's no information here that is not already stated there.
 * Even if someone, for whatever reason, end up here first with no prior knowledge on the subject, the can easily navigate their way to the proper articles, as long as they are properly linked here. We don't need to spoon-feed the reader, they can feed themselves as long as the info is kept properly organized and connected. Even elementary kids undertsand the concept of links and know how to use them, sometimes even better than proper adults. ABC paulista (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not have sub-pages. This should be a standalone article and the subject matter, if possible, should be explained. This is such a simple thing that I have no idea why you would object. This is not an expose on the subject, this is short and sweet. And readers get directed here for Novak Djokovic' article, Jannik Sinner's article, Chris Evert's article, and heaps of others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No article exists within a bubble, all of them are supposed to be inteconnected to give the reader the option to move into anoter topics, in order to either gain better understanding or related concepts that they had little or no prior knowledge, or to expand futher on specific subject that they found particularly interesting, because every subject requires knowledge of related concepts in order to be properly understood, but it's not their purpose to explain on those, so they link to those that do expand on them.
 * No article is supposed to go futher beyond its own scope and since this is a WP:STANDALONE list article, its scope is limited to the understanding of the data that it display. The List of FIFA World Cup finals don't need to cite that the sport is also known as "soccer" in some countries in order to properly convey its contents, since there's a proper article that covers this question for those who might need, or the List of the most intense tropical cyclones doesn't need to cite why they are called either "Cyclones", "Hurricanes" or "Typhoon", because that's the kind of knowledge required for one to understand the information displayed there, but that knowledge itself has no bearing on that content per se, thus explanation for the different terminology is displayed in its proper article.
 * Also, remember that 3 years ago we agreed to move the tables that were previously on the Grand Slam page to here and the ones specific to each discipline, in order to better organize the contents. And with that the functions were divided with that one becoming a prose article focusing on explaining the concepts (terminology included) and this one serving to display notable data about these. ABC paulista (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We appear to be polar opposites on this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I created a redirection on Golden Grand Slam‎, that leads to that article's Golden Slam section. ABC paulista (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as a head's up. The following wiki markup

{| class="wikitable sticky-header"
 * -class=sticky-row
 * is reserved for containing long tables in div scroll to save up on vertical scrolling (for aesthetic purposes), not for short tables. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Career Grand Slam table
Should we add a table for the Carrer Slam instances? Although that would seem to be the proper way to go since all the other Grand Slam-related tables are included here, I'm concerned about the size of such, which could be 4 of 5 times bigger than the current Carrer Golden and Super Slams are. ABC paulista (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)