Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions (reverse chronological order)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam Women&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

See this discussion RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 17:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see the "hangon" tag in this revision of the article for an explanation of why the duplicate version of the list exists.  Basically, the two Australian Opens held in 1977 make the list not sort correctly when the button is pressed to sort it by year (also, the line saying "Open Era"  ends up in the wrong place).  No one who understood why the second list was created seems to have participated in the discussion for the men's list.  I'm not sure if overcomming this sorting issue is enough of a reason to justify having two lists or not. Calathan (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason no one participated in the men's list was vacations and such. This page was created as a compromise (see: Talk:List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions) because sorting does not work on the table and this particular order was best for the viewing public. This was the way the page had been for years...newest first as it looks better and conveys the most relevant information right off the bat. I don't know how many times I quickly flip to this page to see the last 2 or 3 slam winners and rarely do I look to see who won in 1884. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider myself part of the "viewing public", and I much prefer the chronological order tables, even when I want to know recent information. It just seems odd to me to view the tournaments in reverse order of when they occured.  Also, it seems simpler to me to scroll to the bottom of the table than to click on a link to go to a separate article. Calathan (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have talked/worked with members of the press and also writers who actually use this article, and they would disagree with you. I would bet that 99% of the people who look for this article want to know who are the current title holders or when did Graf win her last tournament, or who won in the years Serena didn't. It is much better for the vast majority of users to keep such a long list (120+ years) with contemporary first. Fyunck(click) (talk)
 * If that's the case, replace the current chronological ordered table with the reversed. I still don't see a reason to keep both tables. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did and I fixed some of the sorting problem but it keeps getting deleted. That's why we need a link to the other table... deletions! Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't keep getting deleted, convention is to list in chronological order, and sort to reverse if one wants. You keep changing from chronological to reverse, and that's what's being deleted. That's a discussion for the talk page of the article, and not a reason to maintain a redundant page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Convention in tennis slams has been the reverse. They didn't always have sorting. The article has always been newest on top UNTIL the redundant page was made when we editors agreed that as long as there were 2 charts we would not contest the less useful chart being on the main page. We felt we worked it out in a manner that these days seems rather foreign to wikipedia.... through compromise without resorting to Mediators. Everyone was happy until unbeknownst to me the Men's 2nd chart was deleted and now the ladies chart is in the same dilemma. This time I happened to notice. This has already been discussed on the talk page and two charts was the solution. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The solution to such problem shouldn't be two tables. It's just useless to have a full article for a list that already appears in another article. In addition, it really isn't hard to scroll down to the end of the table and read its end, and saying some might want to read it in reverse chronological order is just not enough of a reason to keep the table. You want to know who won the last Grand Slam? you can either scroll down to the end of the table and 'waste' two seconds of your life (which is wasted anyway when you click on the link to the other table), or you can go a news site, rather than an encyclopedia. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing about what or what shouldn't have been the solution... that was the solution. I warned at the time that wiki frowns on extra pages and that in the future when someone starts making a fuss about it we will have to go back to the standard table. And your argument about the order and scrolling works both ways... anyone who really wants to see who won in 1889 can scroll down in 2 seconds, but most won't. It's faster to go to another table than to scroll down since not everyone has a 24" monitor. Newest on top looks better (no blank spots right off the bat) and is more information-friendly because the info most people want is right on top. I read everyone's suggestions to make the main page as sortable as possible so if we can agree it works just fine this way then I could agree the secondary page could go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete "The table format we chose to use breaks sorting" is not a valid reason to fork an article. Find a better way to present the information. Resolute 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply remove the rowspan 2 for Year 1977 and include both Aus Open winners in one row. The only problem you'll then have is the Open era arrows will go to the top if you sort, if you really want to fix that, then remove that from a row and add a note at the top of the table. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That didn't work because of 1968. I took your advice though and combined 1977 in one row (thanks) and then did a work around for 1968 so the sorting will work. I don't like the 1968 line as well but it does work with sorting now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Resolute. Chidel (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.