Talk:List of Grand Slam men's singles champions/Archive 2

Chart Change
Rambo's Revenge recently made a major chart change in List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions (I reverted it) that I thought we should discuss before implimenting. It was done to condense several prvious charts and the new single chart is neater, table-ized and sortable. The problem I have is that it is busier hard to intersect fatcs and, for me at least, more unusable. The old charts which I restored are used in several tennis articles here on wikipedia and at a glance you can find what you want. The new chart takes me 20x longer to dig the information out of it. I don't really like it. Other thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like both, I am an inclusionist by heart, which means both are great additions to this page, don't delete things, I say keep all! Good Job on both part, I say add Rambo's back and keep Fyunck's as well!69.137.120.81 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rambo's should be called Most Grand Slam winners breakdown chart and leave the hierarchy chart like Fyunck should be called.69.137.120.81 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I also posted this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My problem is that the statistics and trivia sections are visually very unattractive and they do not give much useful information. I realise there may be an inclusionist perspective I come up against but the policy is quite clear.WP:NOT : "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." I wish to reduce the redundancy, develop and hopefully feature this list. Then (with the promotion of French winners) we can have a featured topic. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  12:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yours Rambo is way to complex and cumbersome to edit and to gleen information from! If you are going to do this it does not need to stop at five slam wins, but should go all the way till 1 like they do in golf!69.137.120.81 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

FLAG vs. FLAGICON
Looking back over the history of this page, several users have come along to change the flags only to have their edits reverted by Fyunck(click), who pointed out that the first use of a flag should be FLAG (🇰🇮 KIR), rather than FLAGICON (🇰🇮). (See relevant guidelines .)

Note, this is a guideline rather than policy, and it is one that is subject to considerable debate, specifically in the context of sports tables (see List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions, for example). We need not rigidly follow the guidelines to the letter in every case, and I think this is a situation where using FLAGICON throughout might make the tables clearer and therefore more useful. --Yocko (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is correct. There was an argument amongst tennis editors a year or two back that discussed this very thing. I was on the side of leaving it all flagicon rather than having another column that had the country name every single time. It was pointed out to me by an administrator that (MOS:FLAG) was pretty specific that it was either "flag" every time or "flag" the first time and "flagicon" on subsequent use. Nowhere in mosflag do I see that flagicon can be used exclusively so the nine-ball page is against the preferred policy afaict. It is supposed to be better for people with special needs also. I disagree that this way is less clear and less useful. It is much more clear but the usefulness is 50/50 imho. So while I may agree with you that flagicon would be fine I was shown and told differently by others and I decided to agree with that remedy. That's why I revert when someone changes the first instance of "flag" to "flagicon." I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rod Laver won 11 Grandslams. But here it is mentioned as just 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.22.76.10 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

GRand slam records, slams won by fewest games lost
Can we have that one as well? At least for modern era, post-1972? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.88.43 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Alex Olmedo
The country listed for Alex Olmedo. who won the Australian Open and Wimbledon in 1959. is the United States. But I think that the flag shown should be Peru. Olmedo was from Peru but went to college at USC. He played for the US Davis Cup team in 1958 and 1959, but he was not a US citizen. The rules stated that you did not have to be a citizen of the country, only that you met the residency requirements, which Olmedo did. There are quotes on his own page about how the US press was against him being on the team. They saw it as borrowing another country's player. His page does not specify when he became a US citizen, but I assume it was after 1959.

I brought this up because of the current futility by the US men in Grand Slams. The old record listed here shows that the longest stretch was 30 slams form 1955 to 1963, this has led me to believe that Olmedo should be displayed under Peru's flag, not the US's. 1906cubs (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The flag has no bearing on citizenship at all. It is a marker of what country one plays for in international events (such as Davis Cup, Wimbledon, etc...). Both Wimbledon and the Australian Open officially record Olmedo as a United States winner in 1959. It's possible the article from CSN (AP news submission) that you source was specifically talking about a US citizen... if not, they blew it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking to each major tournament pages
It would be nice to link to each major tournament page for quick reference. As the name of the player is used to link to his own page, perhaps linking the number of the major (i.e. 1/3) to the a actual tournament page. This would require that each major winner have this option, even single major winners (i.e. 1/1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luds (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Country name/flag
Next to some player's names (like Ivanisevic) you have the flag and the country name. That's obviously nonsense and should be changed, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.203.8 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * the first usage per wiki guidelines is to use the flag with name or abbreviation. Subsequent usage can be name free, as with this chart. I hope that helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an explanation, but I still think it makes the whole thing a lot less unreadable/enjoyable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.255.7.254 (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Everyone knows the countries represented by the flags anyway, and if somebody does not, they can still hover over the flag or click right on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.185.147 (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all software works the same way especially for the physically challenged. Just like color banding alone is not allowed to describe a player detail... it must have some sort of symbol for those who are colorblind. But I didn't write wiki protocol, administrators have simply pointed out to us how it should be. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Putting the name next to the flag on the first usage in this list is pointless and looks like a random inconsistency. People do not read the list from the beginning, remembering the country name for each new flag in case they encounter it again. Instead, people delve into the table in all sorts of random places, and if they see a flag they don't recognise, they are hardly likely to search through the table looking for the first instance of it in order to find out the country. 86.160.208.252 (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy Murray
Please change 'Andy Murray (1/1)' to 'Andy Murray'
 * ✅ Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Federer's wins-by-surface
I removed «[Federer] is one of only three players to complete a Career Grand Slam comprising matches on three different surfaces» from an image caption, because, one, wins-by-surface is a statistic not mentioned in the article, thus unsupported in any visible source; two, at first glance there seems to be more than 3 such players (but maybe I am neglecting surface changes over the years); three, having 17 wins is more than enough to be worthy of the first image in the article (adding unsupported statistics adds litle to that, except for some 'noise') - Nabla (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Usual form of name
For consistency with Pete Sampras, Andy Murray, Jim Courier et al, I suggest that "Patrick Rafter" be changed to "Pat Rafter". I don't think I have ever heard him called "Patrick". 86.160.208.252 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting... maybe it's regional. In the USA I always heard him referred to as "Patrick Rafter." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Make surface visible on main champions chronological table
Its important for all tennis fans/historians to know that USOpen was played on grass until 1975, and Australian Open was on grass courts until 1986.

While color highlighting is already in place for multiple-winners for given year, court surface can be easily displayed (just like nationality with nationflag icon) with a tiny colored icon along side the winner name (use rectangle icon instead of triangle, I couldn't find a rectangle icon wiki syntax). Not taking anything away from great Rod Laver's achievements, but its also a good differentiation to know that winning on 3 different surfaces in single year is a quality achievement too as it displays consistency and adaptability of the player.

Federer first title
Please remove the SUI before Roger Federer for his first title at the Wimbledon Championships 2003. Also other UK USA before every first winners. It does not look clean and people should know their flags or just click on them if not. Thanks
 * Personally I agree, but it should be noted that there is a Wikipedia guideline regarding this, Manual of Style/Icons. That's not to say there isn't a better way to display the information. -- Racer X11 Talk to me Stalk me  14:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I was not aware of this guideline; makes sense but there must be a cleaner way. Have a great day.

Two or more open era titles
On the equivalent page for female players, those with two or more titles in the open era are included and have been for over a year. So for consistency, I added the same information to the men's page. Five or more titles on the all-time table is fine, however there is plenty of room to add those players with two or more titles to the open era table. Also, it means that the open era table provides additional information. As it stood (with the exception of Laver and Newcombe) the open era table was essentially just repeating information already mentioned in the all-time list. L1975p (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The ladies page could also conform to this article. And the ladies are actually down to singles winners, belittling the section title of "most." For my money we would have a single list, not a split list. Note the heading of the section Most Grand Slam singles titles (5 or more) or as you changed it Most Grand Slam singles titles. That usually wouldn't start with two. It would tend to be a chart of players who won a significant number of titles. Charts of 5 or 10 are quite common in tennis... but 2's are not. Why not 3 or 4 or 1? This has been stable for a long while but if people want to have a discussion here on what the best number should be with some sound reasons I'm all for that. But we don't put the cart before the horse. A stable version has been changed and objected to... wiki protocol dictates removal and discussion about this proposed change, not the other way around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would not have 3 or 4, or 1, because I would have both open era lists being for multiple winners (2 or more). You could just as easily ask why 5? There are numerous sports tables that list all multiple winners, including the wiki pages for Wimbledon singles titles. The open era table on the women's page is for those with 2 or more titles (with the one time winners underneath, but not in the table). Displaying all multiple winners gives additional, useful and encyclopedic information, which is what wikipedia is supposed to be. On both male and female lists, less than 30 have 2 or more open era titles (similar to the number who have 5 or more all-time titles), making it significant. L1975p (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But there is nothing significant about 2. If you look at wins each decade more players have 2 or more wins than have 1 win. 1 win is less common and this is a chart of most wins. If you want a chart that has far more meaning to readers and one that is followed far more often at wikipedia, make it a top 10 rather than an arbitrary number like 5. That way if someone is tied they would also be shown. Even a top 20 would be better for both charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that a ranking list would be good, although even top 20 would result in men with 6 titles and women with 5 titles in the all-time rankings not being listed. Top 25 would allow them to be included. L1975p (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who is included or excluded, what matters is it would be a top 20. Top 10 would be better but top 20 I can live with. It would shorten one chart and lengthen another. And 6 wouldn't be included because there are 20 players with more than 6. That's probably more than enough. I guess we could have one chart only with a top 30 in history. And remember that wiki isn't a cookie cutter. Maybe the ladies chart works fine being different than the mens... they don't have to be the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would top 10 be better? why is providing less information better than providing more? especially when there is plenty of room for it. Surely it is noteworthy to include male players with 6 all-time titles. Top ten would also exclude those with 7 (which I do think matters). Also, I think it's quite important that the male and female pages are very similar, since they are two pages of information on exactly the same subject (except for gender). L1975p (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the actual number is that important, that's why it was made for those with 5 or more titles. Remember it's those with the most in history... so the top ten players with the most is pretty impressive. Even the top 20 is pretty impressive. Everyone who won two or more is already numbered in the very first chart so these two charts are sort of a best of the best, not a rehash. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can see why it was made for those with 5 or more titles (it was you who described 5 as "arbitrary"). I have no problem with five or more for the all-time list and would be happy to keep that table as it is, or at least as a top 25, which would keep the 6 time winners on the list. What I don't see, is the problem with having the list of open era winners slightly extended. As I said before, why provide less information, rather than more. As it stands, the open era list is essentially a rehash of the all-time list and rather than scrapping the open era list, I think that providing that table with a reasonable amount of additional information is better. L1975p (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Slightly extended is one thing... down to 2 cheapens the chart to the extent of why bother to have a "most" in the open era... at least for me. I don't recall, when those charts were initially made, if I commented one way or the other... but many charts have been compacted through the years when others have wanted to include almost everything. Wiki is not a collection of data but rather a summarizing of important facts. Would I have one single chart if it was solely up to me, yes. But it's not, and we have two stable charts of 5 Majors minimum. To me that works pretty darned well. Perhaps this needs be presented to the entire Tennis Project where greater minds than mine can weigh in on what works best for "most singles titles in history" and whether that should include players with two wins. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For the open era, the title could be multiple wins, so 2 or more get included (but not those with 1). As you mentioned, the page is for most in history.. and tennis grand slams have a long history. I don't think it's too expansive to have a top 25 list for all-time and open era, which (at the moment) would include 2 time winners in the open era. The page already has 29 names on the all-time list and my initial edit took the open era table to 29 names. This on a page for a subject that goes all the way back to 1877, doesn't seem excessive to me. Maybe other minds (greater or otherwise) could help. I think wiki can be both a summarizing of important facts and something that also includes a reasonable amount of data and I think that two tables with around 30 names each, (similar to the equivalent female player page) on a subject that goes back over 130 years, is a reasonable amount. L1975p (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And I would be 100% opposed to having the open era list go down to players with only two wins. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If only you said that a few hours ago, rather than saying you were open to discussion on "what the best number should be". What about 3 for the open era? L1975p (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had said that 2 cheapens it for me and I would not have reverted if I approved of the original change. I thought that was understood? I'm not sure about the two charts being different; with a historical chart vs an open era chart it makes some sense that an open era chart would be smaller since it covers less time. I just opened this up at Tennis project for others to comment here so perhaps they'll all agree with you and perhaps they'll like it as it is. Perhaps it's such a minor issue that no one will care (which happens all too often). I am always open to discussion and especially compromise when I'm not convinced of something. Looking at it top 20 for both charts would take alltime to 7 and open era to 3. If it's going to be changed I would rather do that but I think the project needs to know what is being discussed in case they want more or less under a category of "Most wins in history." Remember also that when I said it needs discussing here I didn't mean just you and me. It's only a day and we may need a week of other folks inputs to get a feel for what we should do. I knew we would disagree and perhaps find compromise but maybe I'm out of touch on the word "most" and TP will think differently. let's see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I do get what you mean on the word "most". I was just looking to add more information which I do think improved the page. I liked the idea of a ranking list though, in a top 25 list, 2 titles would have made the open era table. Funny thing is, while I'm happy for the players with 2 titles to miss the cut in the open era list, I would be sad to see the 6 title guys being removed from the all-time list (and that wasn't even the list I was editing). A top 20 list for both is fine though. Also, I should have said earlier, thanks for replying. L1975p (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The art of wikipedia is the art of listening and trying to come up with alternatives that editors can live with and move on. Thanks for keeping things on an even keel. Let's see if we get any bites on perhaps other solutions we didn't think of. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2013
I would like to send a request to edit the List of Grand Slam men's singles champions page since there has been an error in the Winners of two Grand Slam singles tournaments in the same calendar year section for quite a while now. Although Rafael Nadal is mentioned as having achieved the French-Wimbledon feat in 2008, it has been omitted that he repeated this two years later, in 2010. Hence, this needs to be edited as shown below:
 * '''French—Wimbledon:
 * 1925 🇫🇷 René Lacoste
 * 1935 🇬🇧 Fred Perry
 * 1950 🇺🇸 Budge Patty
 * 1978 🇸🇪 Björn Borg
 * 1979 🇸🇪 Björn Borg (2)
 * 1980 🇸🇪 Björn Borg (3)
 * 2008 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal
 * 2009 Roger Federer
 * 2010 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal

DIYmit (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done with thanks, Nici  Vampire  Heart  08:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Different players by country
Can you add to the list of Grand Slam singles titles by country (open era) the number of different winners?: USA (12); Sweden (3); Australia (7); Spain (7); Czechoslovakia (3); Germany (2); Argentina (3); Russia (2); other countries (1 each).--90.163.60.224 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Charts need to be clearer about December Australian Opens
A few extra lines could clarify when these Australian Opens were played. Reading the chart from left to right gives the impression, for example, that the 1982 AO, held in December of that year, was held in January 1982, before Wilander's victory at the '82 French. One solution would be to split the row for 1982 into two rows, with a horizontal line. The French, Wimbledon and USO winners would appear in the top row. The December AO winner would begin the second row, with blank cells directly to the right, underneath the winners of the French, Wimbledon and USO. The cell containing the year "1982" would not be split and could remain whole, as a heading for both rows.

This solution would present, visually, the correct sequence of GS events, when reading from left to right.

Something similar could be done for the 1919 Australian (played in January 1920, shortly before the 1920 Australian) and for the 1923 Australian, played in August between Wimbledon and the US Nationals.

Krosero (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

novak needs updating
now has 9 titles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.42.234 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Novak Djokovic currently has 7 Grand Slam men's singles titles. —Lowellian (reply) 19:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014
Please change column heading under "Champions by year from 1877" "Wimmbledon" to "Wimbledon" because it is spelled incorrectly.

76.187.197.26 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks for spotting this. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Inconsistency in tables
Is there any reason why the table in "Winners of four or more consecutive singles titles at one Grand Slam tournament" only lists players' surnames, whereas all the other tables on the page give their full name? If there's no good reason for this, should this table have the first names added? Grutness...wha?  08:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been a week, and since no-one's raised any objections, I've been bold. Grutness...wha?  22:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015
For Novak Djokovic, change '1/7', '2/7' ... '7/7' to '1/8', '2/8' ... '7/8' respectively, because he has just won his 8th grand slam.

167.220.196.21 (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Wolbo (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Update section 2.9
Add Novak Djokovic (2011) to the winner of Wimbledon--US Open in the same calendar year TennisDoc305 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)TennisDoc305

Multiple Grand Slam Winners with negative finals record
Andy Murray 2-6

89.201.181.25 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

❌ please obtain consensus for a new category such as this before making such a request - Arjayay (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2015
Stan Wawrinka's full name is Stanislas. Changing it to this for the 2015 French Open would make the Tennis major winners list more consistent as he is listed as Stanislas for his first major win, the 2014 Australian Open.

32.213.210.19 (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He goes by Stan. That's per the ATP, ITF and the French Open. I changed the AO to reflect that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As Fyunck said, we use someone's common name instead of their official name. See WP:OFFICIALNAME for more details. Stickee (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

 * '''French—Wimbledon:
 * 1925 🇫🇷 René Lacoste
 * 1935 🇬🇧 Fred Perry
 * 1950 🇺🇸 Budge Patty
 * 1978 🇸🇪 Björn Borg
 * 1979 🇸🇪 Björn Borg (2)
 * 1980 🇸🇪 Björn Borg (3)
 * 2008 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal
 * 2009 Roger Federer
 * 2010 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal(2)


 * '''French—U.S.:
 * 1927 🇫🇷 René Lacoste
 * 1928 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet
 * 1977 🇦🇷 Guillermo Vilas
 * 1986 Ivan Lendl
 * 1987 Ivan Lendl (2)
 * 1999 🇺🇸 Andre Agassi
 * 2010 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal
 * 2013 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal (2)


 * '''Wimbledon—U.S.:
 * 1903 🇬🇧 Laurie Doherty
 * 1920 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden
 * 1921 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden (2)
 * 1932 🇺🇸 Ellsworth Vines
 * 1936 🇬🇧 Fred Perry
 * 1937 🇺🇸 Don Budge
 * 1939 🇺🇸 Bobby Riggs
 * 1947 🇺🇸 Jack Kramer
 * 1952 🇦🇺 Frank Sedgman
 * 1960 🇦🇺 Neale Fraser
 * 1967 🇦🇺 John Newcombe
 * 1981 🇺🇸 John McEnroe
 * 1982 🇺🇸 Jimmy Connors
 * 1984 🇺🇸 John McEnroe (2)
 * 1989 Boris Becker
 * 1993 🇺🇸 Pete Sampras
 * 1995 🇺🇸 Pete Sampras (2)
 * 2004 Roger Federer
 * 2005 Roger Federer (2)
 * 2006 Roger Federer (3)
 * 2007 Roger Federer (4)
 * 2010 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal
 * 2011 🇷🇸 Novak Djokovic

72.33.131.13 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Not sure what the request was since you didn't follow the "replace x with y" requirement. If it's to make one long column, the answer is no. What it really needs is to be tablized. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2015
The list of Wimbledon-US Open winners (under Winners of two Grand Slam singles tournaments in the same calendar year) needs to be corrected; Roger Federer did this four years in a row, from 2004 to 2007, but the current entry lists him as only having achieved this in 2005.

Etkaiser (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added Federer to the Wimbledon—U.S winners from all years 2004-07. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Featured list
I'm going to aim to improve this list to featured status in the coming weeks. The format I'm going to follow is that based on featured content such as List of Grand Tour general classification winners and List of UEFA club competition winners. Just thought I'd give people a heads up so it could be discussed etc, but it would be great to get the Grand Slam men's singles champions to featured topic status, which is easily achievable I believe. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Winners of 4 consecutive grand slam tournaments
Djokovic is listed as winning 3 consecutive grand slam tournaments for 2015/6. This is now 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.14.179 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017
Update consistency of flag icons Markturvill (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format instead of pasting the whole article here. regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  14:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Grand Slam men's singles 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/20060901230004/http://www.usopen.org/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/web/20150122021225/http://m.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Nadal-Grand-Slam/US-Open-Monday-Final-Nadal-Completes-Career-Slam.aspx to http://m.atpworldtour.com/News/DEUCE-Tennis/Nadal-Grand-Slam/US-Open-Monday-Final-Nadal-Completes-Career-Slam.aspx

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) 06:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2017
"Andre Agassi was the first player to complete the Career Grand Slam on three different surfaces, and the first male player in history to win the Career Golden Slam (winning the four Grand Slams and the Olympic Gold Medal in singles)."

Please replace "Andre Agassi was the first player to complete the Career Grand Slam on three different surfaces,"

with Andre Agassi was the first male player to complete the Career Grand Slam on three different surfaces,

as his current wife Stephanie Graf most certainly completed that achievement well before Andre did.

Please add the following: 'Andre Agassi was also the first male player to complete the Career Grand Slam on four different surfaces since the Australian Open was played on "Rebound Ace" which was a rubberized hard court during the time period of his career, a significantly different surface from the U.S Open's Deco Turf II hardcourt.' Bloozman12 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I added "male". As for distinguishing types of hard courts, that's not usually done in terms of statistics etc. the ATP for example maintains lists of hard court achievements but does not do this for the various types separately. Gap9551 (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017
since he has won two Grand slams this year AllKindsOf (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me what change you'd like to see. Gap9551 (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to color Roger Federer's background in the list of winners for 2017, since he won 2 Grand Slams. --94.18.190.38 (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, someone has done this by now. Gap9551 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017
In the section: 'Winners of two Grand Slam singles tournaments' in the same calendar year:

In the French—Wimbledon column, the 2010 entry for Nadal needs to be inserted: PLEASE CHANGE:
 * '''French—Wimbledon:
 * 1925 🇫🇷 René Lacoste
 * 1935 🇬🇧 Fred Perry
 * 1950 🇺🇸 Budge Patty
 * 1978 🇸🇪 Björn Borg
 * 1979 🇸🇪 Björn Borg (2)
 * 1980 🇸🇪 Björn Borg (3)
 * 2008 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal
 * 2009 Roger Federer

TO
 * '''French—Wimbledon:
 * 1925 🇫🇷 René Lacoste
 * 1935 🇬🇧 Fred Perry
 * 1950 🇺🇸 Budge Patty
 * 1978 🇸🇪 Björn Borg
 * 1979 🇸🇪 Björn Borg (2)
 * 1980 🇸🇪 Björn Borg (3)
 * 2008 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal
 * 2010 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal (2)
 * 2009 Roger Federer

In the French—U.S column, the following Nadal entry needs to be inserted (and consequently subsequent win number suffixes need to be increased): PLEASE CHANGE
 * '''French—U.S.:
 * 1927 🇫🇷 René Lacoste
 * 1928 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet
 * 1977 🇦🇷 Guillermo Vilas
 * 1986 Ivan Lendl
 * 1987 Ivan Lendl (2)
 * 1999 🇺🇸 Andre Agassi
 * 2013 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal
 * 2017 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal (2)

TO


 * '''French—U.S.:
 * 1927 🇫🇷 René Lacoste
 * 1928 🇫🇷 Henri Cochet
 * 1977 🇦🇷 Guillermo Vilas
 * 1986 Ivan Lendl
 * 1987 Ivan Lendl (2)
 * 1999 🇺🇸 Andre Agassi
 * 2010 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal
 * 2013 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal (2)
 * 2017 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal (3)

In the Wimbledon—U.S column, as above the following Nadal win needs to be inserted: PLEASE CHANGE
 * '''Wimbledon—U.S.:
 * 1903 🇬🇧 Laurence Doherty
 * 1920 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden
 * 1921 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden (2)
 * 1932 🇺🇸 Ellsworth Vines
 * 1936 🇬🇧 Fred Perry
 * 1937 🇺🇸 Don Budge
 * 1939 🇺🇸 Bobby Riggs
 * 1947 🇺🇸 Jack Kramer
 * 1952 🇦🇺 Frank Sedgman
 * 1960 🇦🇺 Neale Fraser
 * 1967 🇦🇺 John Newcombe
 * 1981 🇺🇸 John McEnroe
 * 1982 🇺🇸 Jimmy Connors
 * 1984 🇺🇸 John McEnroe (2)
 * 1989 Boris Becker
 * 1993 🇺🇸 Pete Sampras
 * 1995 🇺🇸 Pete Sampras (2)
 * 2005 Roger Federer

TO


 * '''Wimbledon—U.S.:
 * 1903 🇬🇧 Laurence Doherty
 * 1920 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden
 * 1921 🇺🇸 Bill Tilden (2)
 * 1932 🇺🇸 Ellsworth Vines
 * 1936 🇬🇧 Fred Perry
 * 1937 🇺🇸 Don Budge
 * 1939 🇺🇸 Bobby Riggs
 * 1947 🇺🇸 Jack Kramer
 * 1952 🇦🇺 Frank Sedgman
 * 1960 🇦🇺 Neale Fraser
 * 1967 🇦🇺 John Newcombe
 * 1981 🇺🇸 John McEnroe
 * 1982 🇺🇸 Jimmy Connors
 * 1984 🇺🇸 John McEnroe (2)
 * 1989 Boris Becker
 * 1993 🇺🇸 Pete Sampras
 * 1995 🇺🇸 Pete Sampras (2)
 * 2005 Roger Federer
 * 2010 🇪🇸 Rafael Nadal

Source: The same Wikipedia page itself in the 'Champions by year' section, which details that Rafael Nadal won the French, Wimbeldon and US Open in 2010. Dabraham81 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Players with more than two titles are not included in that section. Nihlus 11:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Grand Slam men's singles 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/20101125044006/http://www.wtatour.com/player/steffi-graf_2257889_2718 to http://www.wtatour.com/player/steffi-graf_2257889_2718

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) 10:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Headline change
The headline needs to change. "List of Grand Slam men's singles champions" represents only two people, Don Budge (1938) and Rod Laver (1962 & 1969).

“Despite all the careless usage of "slams" in the press and on TV, the fact remains that a genuine slam is — the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US within a calendar year.” Bud Collins

It was an Aussie, Jack Crawford who inspired the term grand slam. In 1933 "Gentleman Jack", as he was called, won the Australian, French and Wimbledon titles. He battled to the US final, prompting New York Times columnist John Kieran to write that if Jack won he "would be making a grand slam as in bridge, taking all the tricks". However, there wasn't enough left in his tank, and he was beaten in five sets by Englishman Fred Perry. Bud Collins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparemail (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * While true about the current/original use of the term "Grand Slam", by repeated misuse Grand Slam is also used for each individual Major. It really should be "Grand Slam tournament" rather than just "Grand Slam", but the improper term has entered into English lexicon and there's no walking it back now. I use the more correct term "Major" whenever possible but "Grand Slam" has become interchangeable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018
Update based on Rafael Nadal's winning today's French Open, his 11th French Open and 17th Grand Slam Major Title. Bobespirit2112 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ This looks like it was done by others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Grand Slam counts
Good to see the (1) return to Grand Slam counts.

Consider the following:

--a reader is reading the list, but for the first Grand Slam win, there is no (1) for it. The reader does not know if the player won a second, third title, etc.

--a reader is reading the list, but for the first Grand Slam win, the result is delineated as (1/1), (1/2), etc.

The reader then knows whether the player won again, and how many.

Good to see this user-friendly approach restored. Ryoung 122 01:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
There's no need for the "SRB" in front of Djokovic's name in the chart of winners by year--specifically, in the entry for the 2008 Australian Open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.58.91 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Linking Grand Slams Together
Can someone put in the info box a link to the previous and following year's singles events straight from the Men's and Women's yearly pages directly? Makes it easier to navigate around if you're only interested in those much more high profile tournaments than the doubles, mixed, etc.

Also at the bottom there should be a link to the other grand slams in that calendar year. Take a look at 2019 Masters Tournament for both examples. Golf has it right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.137.149.82 (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is Wawrinka listed as "Stan"?
He won AO 2014 as "Stanislas Wawrinka". That was his name in the draw at the time and probably AO trophy inscription has that name on it? He only requested name change prior FO 2014.

https://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/05/french-open-be-first-tournament-stan-wawrinka/51543/#.VYdmK0ZWL9A

So from then onwards, he should be "Stan". Why is he retroactively listed as "Stan Wawrinka" for AO 2014? The links lead to his wiki site anyway, no need to rewrite history. If we want to be punctual, he was "Stanislas" during AO 2014.

Similar example is Djokovic 2008 AO title. A flag next to his name is Serbian flag (variant used 2004-2010), which is how it should be. All other titles he won from 2011, are accompanied by newer (2010-present) flag variant. But it looks messy, two types of Serbian flags for the same country.

If we apply stuff retroactively for Wawrinka to make it look more aestethically pleasing and we use "Stan" only, can we do it for the Serbian flag in 2008 too, and use only newer variant instead?

What's the policy on this? I think the examples are quite similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.14.72 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think these are comparable at all. Having a mixture of "Stan" and "Stanislas" is just confusing. The same can not be said for the flag variants. Further, it's not necessarily a case of "what name was he entered under", but "what name is he commonly referred as".
 * I simply don't see justification for change. SSSB (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes what we do, is at the individual event we might use the name of the person at the time... but in a chart where they might get listed multiple times we stay consistent so our readers don't get confused. She is usually referred to as Chris Evert throughout Wikipedia when she went by Chris Evert Lloyd from 1979–1987. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but I don't think you understood me. I agree it makes sense to list her as Chris Evert, even though she was Chris Evert Lloyd at some point which was probably the name insribed on her slam trophies. Technically it's wrong but I understand consisteny. But why don't we apply same principle for the flags? Serbia "went" by certain flag for 2004-2010 period, and it would be simpler and more consistent in the artivle to use just the new flag.

If you insist on using 2004 flag for 2008 AO, why aren't there 2 flags next to Djokovic's name in total slam list, like they are with Lendl or Seles? Why are there no two flags for South Africa in the list for most slams won during open era? Why is that South Africa can go by one flag, post 1994 one, yet Johan Kriek won his slam under old flag? Also why are there no labels for French and Wimbledon being held in reverse order in 1946? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.85.52 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Marker needed to define court surface change in Australian & USOpens
Grass court was the surface for USOpen till 1975. Australian Open adopted hardcourt after 1987 and used grasscourt prior to that.

having a color marker | can help distinguish the two significant events for counting surface expertise and variety in slam counts.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.99.118 (talk) 14 September 2013

Winner of grand slam in all 3 different surface in same calendar year
Nadal's picture comment should mention his achievement of 2010 where he won slams in all 3 different surface in same year. He is the only player to achieve so, hence it deserves to be mentioned in his summary written below his picture. its also worth noting that he is youngest player to achieve career golden slam.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.99.118 (talk) 9 July 2016

New Entry in Table of Grand Slam Winners
Could we list every tennis player that has won 4 and more grand slams rather than 5 grand slams. This makes more sense as there are 4 grand slams in a year and 4 grand slams is considered a milestone. For example listing Ken Rosewall, Guillermo Vilas and Jim Courier as 4 time Grand Slam Open Era Champions.

Why is Nadal's picture 4th in the list?
Nadal has already equalled Federer's record and Nadal's french open record is far superior than Federer's wimbledon. Shouldn't Nadal be listed alongside federer in the order of pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.181.145 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

He is Latino, and you know that is the invisible racism in US, where LA has more than 1/2 of Latinos but never come on their movies beyond the usual drug dealer, in wikipedia where the brits won the empire on the high seas, including its Times World atlas (where the map of south-america occupies a 'corner' of the page dedicated to Brazil, LOL no esta hecha la miel para la boca del asno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.107.225 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is relevant, how? Are you seriously accusing the editors of this page of racism, because that is what it looks like? As for the issue at hand, I don't have a problem with swapping Nadal and Federer. SSSB (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)