Talk:List of Grand Slam singles champions in Open Era with age of first title

Merge
I think this orphan article is more apt to be in the right place with the integration to the main article! BLUE DOG TN 19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Default sort order
I noticed the sorting was recently changed from the default of chronological tournament order to descending order of age. Then it was changed back to its default. Just wondering what is best. I'm certainly used to the default and have no problems with it, but... the title of this article is "List of Grand Slam singles champions in Open Era by age at first win." Age is a big key here... not the actual tournament. The first line of prose also has "This is a list of Open Era tennis Grand Slam singles champions by age at the time of their first title." So again it says by age, not by tournament. It seems that a default listing by age might be the better choice. Are our readers coming here to initially see a list by tournament or who was the youngest and oldest Major champion? That's the most important question. I guess as long as the categories can be sorted either way it's a minor issue, but should the category of age or tournament be the default? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a definite preference for chronology because it conveys a better sense of Open Era history and continuity over time. And, like you say, it's easy to sort by age. So I just reworded the lede to not imply it should be sorted by age. Thanks for pointing that out. And it'd be better to reword the page title to "...with age of first title", which also would match the Template description.
 * edit: 2 more points in favor of chronology: a) if age sort have to choose youngest or oldest, each with a bias I don't care for and b) chronology makes adding new champs risk-free, no manual sorting required. -Testpored (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the sorting of the list by tournament date but generally speaking if an article is named 'List of .... by ....' it will probably be interpreted by readers to mean that it is sorted by whatever comes after the word 'by' which in this case is age. Therefore, if we wish to keep the current sorting it would be advisable to adjust the article title. Frankly the bigger problem is that the article was tagged in 2009 (!) for failing to cite any source and in all the years since then not a single citation / reference has been added. That in itself is reason to send the article to AfD.--Wolbo (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Added an ITF ref, as the site has all relevant data. (Ya, that is quite a long run of being tagged!) -Testpored (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Since we're all in agreement, I went ahead and moved it. -Testpored (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Age in career evolution table
In the career evolution table, age of for each column is based on the age at the end of the season of the players. It taked me a whle to notice that so I had to revert my changes. But I found it strange. Why not take the actual age of the players ? For example, Wilanders got his frist slam at 17 but in this table, it's only written for 18 because he got 18 later during the year he got the slam. I found it misleading. Also, players born in the early month of a year get an advantage. They are more likely to have more slams at a "younger" age. So why not just take the acutal age of the player for this table ? I think it will be more meaningful. Virkin (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)