Talk:List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions

Amazing
I find it amazing that there is no talk page discussion for this article.... ever! No disagreements on formatting? colors? Anything? I'm cool with it but it's hard to believe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025005050/http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/mdchamps.html to http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/mdchamps.html

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) 02:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph
This is bizarre. So there is only one couple who have the GS in men's doubles but the way you read this the most important achievement is the career Golden Slam (all names linked so it looks nice too, even down to the nick names), and then McGregor and Sedgman get a mention (no name link though) but it's qualified by making clear about how great the Bryan's are. I am holding back my inner McEnroe. Antipodenz (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Big titles Sweep
, there were discussions on the same subject on the singles' talk page, and all the reasoning presented there applies here, so ehat's your reasoning for having a different view on this issue here? ABC paulista (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My issue is, it is pertinent to this article's scope, therefore it should remain here. If you are still adamant about removing at least move it elsewhere in a tennis article which it belongs, not outright remove it. Thank you very much. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't pertinent here just as it's not pertinent on the single's article, the same reasoning applies for both lists. And it was already moved to the List of men's Grand Slam, Olympic and ATP Tour Finals and Masters Series doubles champions. ABC paulista (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @ABC paulista Oh, really? I had no idea it was moved. Well, at least it has been relocated somewhere, I guess. Better than being removed altogether. At least it exists in some tennis article...I am complacent with that. This topics I hereby declare closed. Over and out. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple slams, Channel Slam and Surface Slam
, there was a lenghty discussion about how the tables should be arranged on the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions' talk page, and it was decided that including every eligible player/instance was the better optino. Than this decision was also applied on the List of Grand Slam women's singles champions, so why this page should handle it differently? ABC paulista (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @ABC paulista Because singles already have long lists, adding all the 4- and 3-slam per season combinations in the 2-slam/season combination makes the already long tables, egregiously longer and unorganized. Maybe highlight the 4-slam and 3-slam titlists in the 6x 2-slam combo tables, as well as the 4-slam winners in the 3-slam combo, so they stand out and avoid clustering... Like we did for the surface slam...I propose this background coloring be applied to the rest of the related articles, which have all 6 2-slam combo tables. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , honestly I'm failing to see how your proposal differs much from the changes I promoted. Maybe you could provide an example on a sandbox, so I could properly visualize your idea. ABC paulista (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @ABC paulista I used your version of the tables, but also highlighted all the 3-slam combos that appear in the 2-slam tables, and Sedgman/McGregor's 4-slam combo that appear in the 3-slam and 2-slam combos. So that one can distinguish which of the combos were 2-slam ones ONLY or there are some who have been repeated in the 2-slam tables going with the logic to include all higher slam combos in the lower ones, as you suggest it should be done. I explained it as accurate as possible. Hopefully, you understand where I am going with this.
 * P.S. Feel free to experiment further in my . Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Three titles
{{Legend|#FFD1DC|Player won all 4 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.|text=▲}} {{Legend|#FFEFD5|Player won 3 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.|text=‡}} {{Legend|#0|Surface Slam (major titles on 3 different surfaces in the same season).|text=§}}

Two titles
{{Legend|#f2ffe6|Channel Slam (French and Wimbledon title double).|text=^}}


 * I'm fine with you proposal. The only changes I'd propose is that the first two items on the Legend should be called "Grand Slam" and "Three-Quarter Slam", respectively, while linking to their respective sections on the Grand Slam page. ABC paulista (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not like the color changes one bit. How it looks now in the article as far as color is just fine. This really looks busy. Symbols are fine but way too dark this way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , colors are easy to fix, they can be made lighter in order to look less obstrusive, like on the first table of this article. ABC paulista (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But one of the problems is overkill on color. Take the first section here ... Three titles. Since that is the section name, we need no color on the three title winners... and on the surface winner and four title winners we'd only need the symbols. The same with the Two titles list. Since all the three title winners are in the prior list all we care about is the fact they won two titles... a symbol would do, no color needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the 2-slam and 3-slam tables to fall in line with the 2 singles pages, pertinent to the topic, excluding the repeating combinations in the lower tables, 4-slam in 3- and 2-slam tables and 3-slam in the 2-slam ones. However, since ABC paulista is so adamant about including all the combinations in all the tables, I requested a discussion be opened to settle the differences and the misunderstanding.
 * I don't want to have another taxing and arduous discussion, like we did back in September:List of Grand Slam men's singles champions' talk page.
 * So, to avoid that here is my proposal: My idea was to include only the 3-slam combos in their namesake tables and 2-slam combos in the 2-slam tables, EXCLUDING the repeating combos. But given paulista's determination I proposed a compromise. Now to the matter at hand: the colors can be omitted in the 3-slam tables by using symbols only, as proposed by Fyunck. As for the 2-slam tables...Highlight only the years, where said instances of repeating combos are included, instead of highlighting the whole row, with symbols, of course. OR remove the repeating combos altogether and just leave the original, non-repeating ones there. That is all I have for now. What are your thoughts on this? Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What if we only highlight the years in all 2-slam and 3-slam tables? I don't see the need to color the namespaces, since they can span multiple years with distinct achievements. Highlighting only the years can avoid possible misundertandings, and it would reduce any possible visual pollution, whetever they're colored or not. ABC paulista (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a plain version with the symbols added, but no background colors on the years rowheaders, excluding the namespaces. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a plain version with the symbols added, but no background colors on the years rowheaders, excluding the namespaces. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Three titles
{{Legend|#FFD1DC|Player won all 4 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.|text=▲}} {{Legend|#FFEFD5|Player won 3 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.|text=‡}} {{Legend|#FFF5EE|Surface Slam (major titles on 3 different surfaces in the same season).|text=§}}

Two titles
{{Legend|#f2ffe6|Channel Slam (French and Wimbledon title double).|text=^}}


 * OR
 * In this version I added bgcolor just to the year cells and not the namespaces, as suggested. However, there are 3* questionable exceptions, which I just did not know how to deal with. Namely, 2-slam tables:
 * 2nd table: AO-WIM 1950 Bromwich
 * 3rd table: AO-USO 1987 Jarryd
 * 4th table: FO-WIM 1998 Eltingh
 * All 3 have won 3 slams in said years, but with different partners. They are listed with the partner, alongside whom they won 2 titles, in such and such combo. BUT I did not know how to emphasize them besides adding a symbol. Maybe split the year, one highlighted with a symbol, the other plain; to avoid highlighting the namespace....I don't know. Just throwing ideas out there. Anyhow, this is the best I have got. Also, I am tagging, the participants in the previous discussion related to this one, to weigh in on the matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Three titles
{{Legend|#FFD1DC|Player won all 4 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.|text=▲}} {{Legend|#FFEFD5|Player won 3 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.|text=‡}} {{Legend|#FFF5EE|Surface Slam (major titles on 3 different surfaces in the same season).|text=§}}

Two titles
{{Legend|#f2ffe6|Channel Slam (French and Wimbledon title double).|text=^}}



I like the solutions you gave to these exceptions. I think that you could still color the years, to indicate that something was achieved there, but keep the symbol with the name, to show who did that and indicate that the other didn't achieve the same. ABC paulista (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are 4 versions just for the 3 exceptions: Any of them work for me. How about you? Which one, in your opinion, would best fit in the 2-slam tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 4 versions of 1 exception
 * {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

!Version !Year !Team
 * rowspan="2" align=center|1
 * 1950
 * rowspan="2" |🇦🇺 Adrian Quist 🇦🇺 John Bromwich
 * bgcolor=FFEFD5|1950‡
 * rowspan="2" align=center|2
 * 1950
 * rowspan="2" |🇦🇺 Adrian Quist 🇦🇺 John Bromwich‡
 * bgcolor=FFEFD5|1950‡
 * rowspan="2" align=center|3
 * 1950
 * 🇦🇺 Adrian Quist
 * bgcolor=FFEFD5|1950‡
 * 🇦🇺 John Bromwich
 * rowspan="2" align=center|4
 * 1950
 * 🇦🇺 Adrian Quist
 * bgcolor=FFEFD5|1950‡
 * 🇦🇺 John Bromwich‡
 * }
 * , all four are fine by me, but I was thinking of something similar to this:
 * {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
 * 1950
 * 🇦🇺 Adrian Quist
 * bgcolor=FFEFD5|1950‡
 * 🇦🇺 John Bromwich‡
 * }
 * , all four are fine by me, but I was thinking of something similar to this:
 * {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
 * {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"

!Version !Year !Team
 * align=center|5
 * bgcolor=FFEFD5|1950‡
 * 🇦🇺 Adrian Quist 🇦🇺 John Bromwich‡
 * align=center|6
 * 1950‡
 * 🇦🇺 Adrian Quist 🇦🇺 John Bromwich‡
 * }
 * But these are mere technicalities, I won't sweat over any of the options chosen. ABC paulista (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * }
 * But these are mere technicalities, I won't sweat over any of the options chosen. ABC paulista (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @ABC paulista I'd give the final vote to put an end to this, but I am gonna wait for others, and co., see what they prefer. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)