Talk:List of Grand Slam women's doubles champions

WHCC Listing
TennisExpert... It's not a question of explaining it. This is not allowed by wikipedia. You have substituted another tourney and represented it as a "Grand Slam." You can't do that here. Show me an encyclopedia or an almanac that transposes that event for the French Championships. This article is Titled "List of Grand Slam Women's Doubles champions" and other sources will pick this this up as gospel. We owe it to this encyclopedia to get it correct and not add another tourney no matter how worthy we may find it. I agree that the WHCC is certainly better qualified as a slam than the pre-1925 French but we can't use our own research to add it here and represent it as a slam. The 3 pro championships from 1935-1968 are certainly better qualified as slams than the AO,FO,Wim,USO were at the time but we do not use them either no matter how many wish we would. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, I guess, but with 7,000+ edits, I was already aware of these fundamental Wikipedia principles. This is not "original research."  See, for example, World Clay Court Championships, Champions of the world ... on clay courts, and French Open singles.  It's weird that you accepted the inclusion of pre-1925 results from the French (closed) Championships in the List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions article even though you thought that those results were not properly from a "Grand Slam" tournament, but you are unwilling to do the same for the WHCC.   Before deleting the WHCC, which has been in this article a long time, there should be consensus to do so.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are already aware then why would you break the rules and add non-sourced material? And I'm not a dunce... it is not original research in and of itself... but it is to include it as a grand slam event under this heading in wikipedia. You have no source for it. Find me a source that includes the WHCC as a grand slam event. I did not add the French pre-1925 material to the men and argued to remove it. As a compromise it was left as "greyed-out" but shows the pre-1925 french champions, not another tounament's champion. Your listngs are interesting but also do not show any modern source of a slam listing. Heck the last one doesn't even know why there were a couple British players in the pre-1925 French Championships. (they were living in France and had joined that particular French tennis club). There is no need for a consensus if the addition isn't even the French Championships and no source considers it a grand slam. It's so wrong I'm amazed you of all people would be against its removal. You are obviously tennis savvy and wiki experienced... how can you accept this with no backing on any piece of paper? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who would like to weigh in please do so since a consensus in these tennis groups, as we've seen in the past, is hard to come by. I obviously feel the WHCC has no business being listed on a Grand Slam page that should only include the AO, post-1925 FO, Wim and USO tournaments, like all other encyclopedias. I've never seen any source to the contrary and it seems against wiki policy in my opinion. Tennis Expert (who actually added the info himself a little over a year ago) feels it is a very worthy tournament to fill the void from 1900-1924 and in his opinion should be used as a slam in this article, though with an asterix. He has listed sources that say it was a world-class event but no sources that consider it a grand slam. Opinions??? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! I noticed this issue on WP:THIRD, and I'm here to offer a third opinion.  For what it's worth, I'm a longtime tennis fan; long ago, I did some sportswriting, and my master's thesis was on a topic of sports sociology.  Not that any of that really helps here !  I just wanted you to know that I know a little something about sports and tennis....  I am not necessarily convinced that this is best described as a question of original research by Tennis expert.  He does offer a creative view of what should be listed under the French Open heading.  I think this is really just a question of what's the most accurate way to convey information.  And every source I consulted—and I consulted several, including almanacs, the WTA media guide, and Bud Collins's Total Tennis—began listing French champions in 1925, when the event was no longer the closed national championship.  This is an encyclopedia, not a place to offer/record an idiosyncratic view of commonly accepted facts.  Moreover, we all strive for accuracy here at WP, and it is not accurate to list WHCC champions under a French Open heading.  Therefore, my considered third opinion is that only French champions from 1925 and after should be listed.  Indeed, it is my view that the contrary view is so out-of-the-mainstream that it would take a startling amount of consensus in that direction to justify it.  By the way, I want to thank both Tennis expert and Fyunck(click) for their attention to tennis articles.  I am aware that both editors work hard on articles, and I greatly appreciate it.  Best wishes to both of them.  GreenGourd (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

List Order
In the French Open and Wimbledon it has Doris Hart top and Shirley Fry Irvin on bottom but in the Us Open it is reversed. Why is this?Perfectamundo (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be alphabetical by last name. I think it was originally put in as Shirley Fry which was changed to Shirley Fry Irvin, but the order didn't get adjusted at the US Open. Whether it should be Shirley Fry or Shirley Fry Irvin is debatable, but we should be consistent on top or bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tournament Not Created
In the list of champions prior to this event being created there is one term used "Event not created" which is applicable for the AO and FO in some years but after it was created the comment shopuld be "Event not created" or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antipodenz (talk • contribs) 07:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)