Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. | |
According to his article, "He is credited with popularizing the term "Grand Slam", ...".
Worth a mention here? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, because the blurb on his article was not sourced properly. The Hall of Fame only mentions the term "Ace." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Alan Gould first used the term Grand Slam on July 18, 1933, not Danzig. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3052793/moberly-monitor-index/ Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, Gould did not use the term in this way. He stated that Crawford "has a chance for a "grand slam"", the term was at that time used since the 1920s to describe a sweep of any kind in tennis. Notice the quotation marks in Gould's reference. Not the Grand Slam.Tennisedu (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Order of importance
[edit]Similar to what we have in seasonal tournament pages where the tournament winners are listed below the lead section, I propose the list of current champions section, located at the bottom of the page, be placed at the top of the page for ease of access and relevance for the readers.
Instead of having to go through the slams' descriptions and various tournament win combinations just to get to the list of reigning champions at the bottom, the readers can find it at the top for convenience. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Grand Slam
[edit]In the article Grand Slam there is a subsection called "Grand Slam" (I changed the title of the subsection but that was reverted). If the subsection would be about "Grand Slam" then the other sections of the article would obviously be about something else and should therefor be deleted. So something is wrong here. Bob.v.R (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see your point here. I changed the subsection title, but differently than your suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- At this moment, it has a very confusing lead. Would it be a good idea to split this article? I am thinking about an article about the grand slam tournaments and an article about the achievement. The Banner talk 14:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it's confusing. I just changed two or three words, but this is an article on the term "Grand Slam" in tennis, and it happens to have several meanings. They are spelled out in the lead. It's original, and longest used term is listed first. It's mixed use with the term "major" is listed second. We have plenty of articles on the tournaments themselves. I see no reason for a split but perhaps the best thing would be to add a few more articles to the "See also" section? This article is a history of the term as used in professional tennis and the fact it is multifaceted in its use can't really be pulled apart easily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The term "Grand Slam" was used in the press coverage of the majors to refer to several different configurations, for example, sometimes it referred to the Australian-Wimbledon-US championships as "the Grand Slam" first won by Perry in the 1930s. Those three tournaments were also referred to as the "Big Three". It only became a clearly defined term in some of Danzig's writings, and he was alone in this. In 1962 it was clearly referring to Laver's first GS wins. So that term was not cast in stone, although in the old pro tour, the "Pro Slam" events did not clearly stand out as the most eminent tournaments. In some years the US Pro or World Pro fields were much weaker than at Wembley or Roland Garros. Kramer did not provide many pros to the Cleveland event after 1957 and he left Cleveland out of his premier tournament series in 1959 and 1960. Kramer made sure that all his pros played in the 1957-1958-1959 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills, even though it was not the US Pro. So the old pro majors were not always the most important events on the pro calendar. That point should probably be made in this article.Tennisedu (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of that could be details the article should not go into. There were times some of todays majors were not the best fields of the year. The Australian also got a lot of bad wraps in the 60s and 70s. But that's more for a book rather than an encyclopedia. Sure, the term was not always exact, just like horse racings Triple Crown. But lets not kid ourselves either. In 1953 it was clearly today's four majors as the press headlines poured in for Mo Connolly winning a Grand Slam. And the only reason it wasnt prominent in the 1920s was that travel was very difficult and long and expensive for players. Otherwise you'd have had Helen Wills winning three of four straight Grand Slams over journeyman Daphne Akhurst. 1938 newspapers are filled with Don Budge and his "Grand Slam" of todays four majors. In 1951 McGregors name was all over the press in winning a Grand Slam. And in 1956 the papers were filled with Lew Hoad's failure at winning a Grand Slam. And back in 1933 the papers are filled with Jack Crawfords failure at winning a Grand Slam. So while "some" sources may have thought differently, the term Grand Slam was pretty well cemented in the 30s and 40s. The Big Three you referred to were the big three grass events of their day. Very special to win it. In 1951 the "Big Three" was mentioned with Dick Savitt winning those three grass events, but by the time Ashley Cooper did the same in 1958 I see nothing mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It may be cemented today, and since 1962, but it was certainly not cemented in the 1950s. The press often used the term Grand Slam for something other than the 4 majors we have today. In the late 1920s the term was used whenever there was a tennis sweep of anything, not just tournaments but matches. It simply meant "sweep" and was used to describe some of Tilden's matches. The term "grand slam" was used in 1932 to describe Helen Jacob's quest for all three titles (singles, doubles, mixed) at the US championships. Here is a good summary of how the press used the term https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/grand-slam.416473/ Budge was referred to as a "Grand Slammer" for winning the Wimbledon, US, and Davis Cup crowns in one year...the year was 1937! And Hoad claimed that he never heard of the term before he arrived in New York in 1956 prior to the US championships and saw the Sports Illustrated article about his quest, which he did not know existed up to that point. Hoad himself was aiming for what he called "The Big Three", which was the same as Savitt's 1951 "Big Three" "Grand Slam" (Australia, Wimbledon, US). At that point, the Australian championships were getting stronger men's fields than the French due to the huge US-Australia Davis Cup matchup which dominated the public attention to the game in those decades. Most American players not only skipped the Australian, they also skipped the French. The US Davis Cup team often skipped the French. Kramer never played there in the forties. After long distance planes changed the game in the fifties, Americans would try to play Wimbledon. The Australian team also skipped the French in some years like 1955. Rosewall skipped the French in 1956. The French had no more status than the Australian. It was a different world from today when players aim for the majors and play many fewer matches than in those days.Tennisedu (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, Gould did not use the term Grand Slam for Crawford's campaign in 1933. He simply stated that Crawford had a chance for "a "grand slam""...in other words "a" meaning one possible "grand slam", not capitalized, not "the" Grand Slam. Just one way of using the term, which in 1933 was already well known to refer to a sweep of some sort.Tennisedu (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- When I started scanning newspapers in the 1950s a Grand Slam meant winning all four major tournaments. Everywhere I looked. In my book that is cemented. Hoad not knowing could mean his reading skills were poor since I can find it all over the place well before then. Of course not like today and the internet. Or he could be like 20 year old tennis players today don't know who Pete Sampras or Stephan Edberg is. Plus it doesn't happen a lot and the term only comes up when someone gets close. The 40s were all war all the time. As for fewer matches now, I'm not so sure about that. Sure the pros had their tours so they played lots. But otherwise I look at tournament match totals and they seem to play a lot more today. Probably so they can keep making money. Helen Wills barely knew what matches were outside the majors... sort of like Serena Williams for many years. Tilden played 969 matches in his 18 year amateur career. Djokovic has played 1336 in his 21 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In response to the latest deranged fantasies from Tennisedu about the origins of the term Grand Slam. He claimed that Hoad said he didn't know what the Grand Slam was before arriving in New York in 1956. This is from an article in The Birmingham Daily Gazette on 10 July 1956: "Just after last Christmas 21-year-old Lew Hoad solemnly announced that his target for 1956 was the tennis Grand Slam of the four major championships in the world- a feat last achieved by Donald Budge". There were many articles in UK press in early July 1956 that referred to Hoad winning the Australian, French and Wimbledon championships and "now only wants the American title at Forest Hills in September to win the Grand Slam". Of course, in the 1950s a Grand Slam meant winning the four major championships the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US. There are many newspaper articles in the 1950s about the Grand Slam (including specifying the well known four events comprising it). That list of articles from krosero was interesting and well researched, but has been wilfully misinterpreted by Tennisedu. The prime example is the following: August 20, 1960. An AP story in the Baltimore Sun, reporting on the semifinals at the Newport Casino Invitation Tennis Tournament... "Laver is seeking an unprecedented grand slam of Eastern lawn tennis tournaments." That is not saying that the Grand Slam of Eastern tournaments is the same as the Grand Slam (of all tournaments) we all know and love. You could have a Grand Slam of Wimbledon warm-up tournaments, this merely means they are the premier Wimbledon warm-up tournaments. Also, the Australian was clearly the weakest link of the slams, not the French, just examine the level of press coverage of the Australian outside Australia and the quality of draws. The French was behind Wimbledon and US, but clearly ahead of the Australian. In a few years in the pre-open era the Australian had decent draws, but these were the exception rather than the rule. Tennisedu once again trying to make out the exception is the rule. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12: 55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- When I started scanning newspapers in the 1950s a Grand Slam meant winning all four major tournaments. Everywhere I looked. In my book that is cemented. Hoad not knowing could mean his reading skills were poor since I can find it all over the place well before then. Of course not like today and the internet. Or he could be like 20 year old tennis players today don't know who Pete Sampras or Stephan Edberg is. Plus it doesn't happen a lot and the term only comes up when someone gets close. The 40s were all war all the time. As for fewer matches now, I'm not so sure about that. Sure the pros had their tours so they played lots. But otherwise I look at tournament match totals and they seem to play a lot more today. Probably so they can keep making money. Helen Wills barely knew what matches were outside the majors... sort of like Serena Williams for many years. Tilden played 969 matches in his 18 year amateur career. Djokovic has played 1336 in his 21 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of that could be details the article should not go into. There were times some of todays majors were not the best fields of the year. The Australian also got a lot of bad wraps in the 60s and 70s. But that's more for a book rather than an encyclopedia. Sure, the term was not always exact, just like horse racings Triple Crown. But lets not kid ourselves either. In 1953 it was clearly today's four majors as the press headlines poured in for Mo Connolly winning a Grand Slam. And the only reason it wasnt prominent in the 1920s was that travel was very difficult and long and expensive for players. Otherwise you'd have had Helen Wills winning three of four straight Grand Slams over journeyman Daphne Akhurst. 1938 newspapers are filled with Don Budge and his "Grand Slam" of todays four majors. In 1951 McGregors name was all over the press in winning a Grand Slam. And in 1956 the papers were filled with Lew Hoad's failure at winning a Grand Slam. And back in 1933 the papers are filled with Jack Crawfords failure at winning a Grand Slam. So while "some" sources may have thought differently, the term Grand Slam was pretty well cemented in the 30s and 40s. The Big Three you referred to were the big three grass events of their day. Very special to win it. In 1951 the "Big Three" was mentioned with Dick Savitt winning those three grass events, but by the time Ashley Cooper did the same in 1958 I see nothing mentioned. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The term "Grand Slam" was used in the press coverage of the majors to refer to several different configurations, for example, sometimes it referred to the Australian-Wimbledon-US championships as "the Grand Slam" first won by Perry in the 1930s. Those three tournaments were also referred to as the "Big Three". It only became a clearly defined term in some of Danzig's writings, and he was alone in this. In 1962 it was clearly referring to Laver's first GS wins. So that term was not cast in stone, although in the old pro tour, the "Pro Slam" events did not clearly stand out as the most eminent tournaments. In some years the US Pro or World Pro fields were much weaker than at Wembley or Roland Garros. Kramer did not provide many pros to the Cleveland event after 1957 and he left Cleveland out of his premier tournament series in 1959 and 1960. Kramer made sure that all his pros played in the 1957-1958-1959 Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills, even though it was not the US Pro. So the old pro majors were not always the most important events on the pro calendar. That point should probably be made in this article.Tennisedu (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why it's confusing. I just changed two or three words, but this is an article on the term "Grand Slam" in tennis, and it happens to have several meanings. They are spelled out in the lead. It's original, and longest used term is listed first. It's mixed use with the term "major" is listed second. We have plenty of articles on the tournaments themselves. I see no reason for a split but perhaps the best thing would be to add a few more articles to the "See also" section? This article is a history of the term as used in professional tennis and the fact it is multifaceted in its use can't really be pulled apart easily. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@ABC paulista:, I merged both instances of Margaret Courts "Career Boxed sets" to add a sticky column for better navigation for mobile users (sticky headers (rows and columns) should not contain col-/rowspan, i.e. merged cells, in tables because the cells are skewed when horizontally scrolling).
See the difference in the "Boxed Set" table with sticky headers: without merged cells (revision) vs. with merged cells (revision) in mobile view. You can toggle between desktop and mobile version on desktop/mac by adding .m to en.wikipedia.org -> en.m.wikipedia.org. Qwerty284651 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a way to solve this issue without merging them back? If not, then manybe the player name could be cited in every row in such instances. ABC paulista (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I merged both instances initially to avoid using row-/colspan because it causes issues with sticky headers. An alternative to that would have been to split the merged rows "2" into "2" and "2" or "2" and "=" and as you mentioned cite the player's name in every row. Luckily, I found a solution. The templates used for sticky headers {{sticky table start}} and {{sticky table end}} have a class for that issue
sticky-table-unsticky. I added it to the cells that were overlapping during scrolling. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I merged both instances initially to avoid using row-/colspan because it causes issues with sticky headers. An alternative to that would have been to split the merged rows "2" into "2" and "2" or "2" and "=" and as you mentioned cite the player's name in every row. Luckily, I found a solution. The templates used for sticky headers {{sticky table start}} and {{sticky table end}} have a class for that issue
List removal
[edit]Something seems really really strange to me with this article now. I'm not talking about streamlining the boxes, I'm talking removal of info. This is an article on Tennis' Grand Slam. Listed first (and priority), winning all four majors in the same season. Secondly, another name for the four majors. We have a list of current major winners for the four majors, but the most important aspect and reason this article exists is gone. No list in prose or whatever of those who won the Grand Slam. We used to have photos of the four singles Grand Slam winners and now we have nothing. The main reason we have the article and readers can't see who won it? That is mind boggling to me and that can't stand. To be honest, no readers comes here to see the number of players who won things and the year they won those things. They want to know the names of the players who won things. And that table of Grand Slam winners should be well above the current winners table since that's what this article was founded on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree to restore list of players names and years won for winners of the calendar Grand Slam. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- No one wants to see a list of numbers of how many won what event... they want to see names. And remember, Wikipedia does not have sub-articles and each article must stand on it's own. extra details can send you to a detail page but the essence of what the article is about must remain. Heck the list of current winners isn't that important... we could link that away also and have no names in the entire article. The first table should be the list of tournaments... which we have. The second table or tables should be the list of Grand Slam winners, which is gone. Then a list of current major winners which is the second aspect of the lead. Then perhaps a section on all the periphery Grand Slam accomplishments. I might put Career Grand Slam and non-calendar year Grand Slam under the "Other related concepts" section. As a side not the 3/4 Slam is ridiculous... no one uses the term. Yeah you can find a couple sources but you could probably also see a couple sources with 1/2 Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I re-added the vitally important missing info and pictures. Singles is probably 100x the notability of all the other disciplines combined. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) While I do see your point and kinda agree with some of it, I still find this backtracking kinda funny when you were onw of the most proeminent users that led to the whole transformation that this article wnet through some time ago, with discussion and implementation spanning a long, long, long, long time, and it was decided that the tables should go away. While I'm not against a change of heart and I see some benefit to bringing back the Calendar Slam table, I don't think that its current format is the best to go by, it's kinda ugly and not that funcional, since it samples from the tables that are already shown in each respective's disciplines' articles. It would be better to make an example in a sandbox before changing everything else. ABC paulista (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at all those discussions I said there are too many charts. I also said we don't get rid of all of them... we trim some. I guess that seeded to mean we get rid of all of them. This is not a list article... this is the real deal on winning a Grand Slam. We have to have the chart for that. The others are probably ok. They link to the more thorough article. I do think that stuff under the current champion chart looks a little funny there rather than in a "see also" section on the page bottom. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That looks much better now the list is back. I saw that strange table with numbers in it a few weeks back when I was editing the page and it took me a couple of minutes to work out what the numbers meant (with doubles players sometimes only one player in the partnership wins the calendar slam). As you say, people want to see who achieved the calendar Grand slam. I am not a fan of 3/4 slams either, this is something some wikipedia editor thought was a good idea to list (I don't know who) but doesn't have a lot of relevance. Also, I think there is far too much waffling prose on pages like this. Maybe I will have a go at reducing it some time. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The numbers show the amount of players that achieve it. In case of doubles, if only one player achieve it, than it's counted once, but if both do it together than they are conuted twice. It's not by the amount of players who did it, but about the amount of players who achieved it. It's also important to note that each number linik to the respective discipline's list, so the reader can check the details about it. ABC paulista (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I get what it is, but it did take a couple of minutes when I was looking at it a few weeks back. Frankly I do not care what Fyunck did or didn't say a couple of years ago. I care about the info on this page and he is right on this. People want to see the names of the winners of the calendar slam (photos are a nice addition also). To not include the full list of winners of the calendar slams when there is so much nonsense that is on the page seems crazy to me. I could easily reduce this page in size by keeping the list of calendar slam winners and removing some of the other nonsense. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- IMO, the redundancy in reintroducing the calendar slam table when there are similar lists in each discipline's articles and this one should be addressed. There might be a way to display the info in a way that doesn't overlap with the other tables.
- Also, what are the changes that you believe that should be made to improve the article, aside from the reintroduction of the calendar slam table? ABC paulista (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- All kinds of Wikipedia articles have some overlap, and it's no big deal. But to cut out the heart and soul of this article, winners of a Grand Slam, was way too much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it can work since I plan to substitute the current Grand Slam table for a more streamlined one that Qwerty284651 currently developed for the Career slam there. But I don't think that moving the Non-Calendar and Career Slam sections into the "Other related concepts" is a good move, they are arguably as relevant as the Calendar slam, at least more relevant than the other concepts. And also questioning the Three-Quarter slam seems weird when there are many sources backing it up. ABC paulista (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are not nearly as relevant as a Grand Slam, which is the title of the article. All those concepts should probably be together. What is the non-arbitrary cut-off for that? I'd have to see the streamlined chart for this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Non-Calendar and Career Slam are much more talked about that the others, they are way above in terms of mainstream exposure that the others. Also, for a long time the Non-Calendar slam and Calendar one were considered to be the same achievement for the ITF, and even nowadays there are discussions abuot it. And the Career Slam is more talked about since it happens more that the others, while also involving all 4 tournaments. That does matter in terms of WP:N, thats why they deserve their own sections. ABC paulista (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The ITF corrected the wrong assumption of the two being the same, so that is not true. And for most of my life no one talked about a Career Slam, but they talked about boxed-sets. But this is trivial compared to the missing stuff and the chart of current winners above the Grand Slam winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- They only changed their definition to match the most accepted definition there, they never stated that they were "wrong" or that someting was corrected. That's your own POV on the matter. About Career Slam, I do remember being talked about for Evert and Navratilova, but it certainly was talked about Agassi. ABC paulista (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The ITF corrected the wrong assumption of the two being the same, so that is not true. And for most of my life no one talked about a Career Slam, but they talked about boxed-sets. But this is trivial compared to the missing stuff and the chart of current winners above the Grand Slam winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Non-Calendar and Career Slam are much more talked about that the others, they are way above in terms of mainstream exposure that the others. Also, for a long time the Non-Calendar slam and Calendar one were considered to be the same achievement for the ITF, and even nowadays there are discussions abuot it. And the Career Slam is more talked about since it happens more that the others, while also involving all 4 tournaments. That does matter in terms of WP:N, thats why they deserve their own sections. ABC paulista (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the Career Grand Slam Chart, in this case it's much better chronologically by year, as most of our charts are. It is more intuitive scrolling down the page. I could see it being done by discipline and then chronologically. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but I don't think that linking all tournaments is necessary. Maybe just mentioning the player, discipline and year is enough. ABC paulista (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are not nearly as relevant as a Grand Slam, which is the title of the article. All those concepts should probably be together. What is the non-arbitrary cut-off for that? I'd have to see the streamlined chart for this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it can work since I plan to substitute the current Grand Slam table for a more streamlined one that Qwerty284651 currently developed for the Career slam there. But I don't think that moving the Non-Calendar and Career Slam sections into the "Other related concepts" is a good move, they are arguably as relevant as the Calendar slam, at least more relevant than the other concepts. And also questioning the Three-Quarter slam seems weird when there are many sources backing it up. ABC paulista (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Channel slam, three quarter slam, surface slam, frankly I couldn't care less if these are listed (years ago I never even heard these terms, they are modern inventions). What most people think of when the words Grand Slam are mentioned is the calendar slam, not surface slam or channel slam or three-quarter slam. Whether other pages also list this information is irrelevant. The premier page on the subject should list the winners of calendar slams. Sometimes people dont have time to visit other wikipedia pages. I always assume people have as little time as possible on wikipedia so lets cut to the chase. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- While WP:TLDR is important to keep articles neat and proper, it's not an excuse to cut relevant, notable and relevant info about closely related concepts within this subject, per WP:COHERENCE. And also WP:REDUNDANCY should not also be ignored. ABC paulista (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The editor did not bear that in mind when removing the list of Grand Slam winners. I think notability and recency bias sometimes overrides common sense. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's why we have talk pages, discussions and WP:BRD. ABC paulista (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am still waiting to see the discussion where editors agreed to remove the list of Grand Slam winners. Anyone who thinks long sections on channel slams, surface slams and three-quarters slams are merited, whilst arguing the list of winners of calendar slams should be excluded needs to ask themselves what most people first think of when the words Grand Slam are mentioned. Do they think of Rod Laver's calendar Grand Slam in 1969, Bjorn Borg's channel slam in 1980, Mats Wilander's three-quarter slam in 1988 or Rafael Nadal's surface slam in 2010? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- In 2021, from June to September were lots and lots of discussions to remove ALL the tables that were here and make this article prose-only, and of course that included the Calendar slam one. And it was not a exclusion, but a WP:SPLIT, it's not like the info was completely erased from here, but moved to list articles. This article would explain and contextualize the achievements, and the lists would... list them. ABC paulista (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- And yet there was still a table here.... a table that doesn't need to be here. And many other tables that just show numbers. I don't see where every table was supposed to be removed... especially the table this whole article is about. We were supposed to compact, not eliminate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, then I will have to accept that a consensus was established for removal. But I will put on the record now that I think the list of Grand Slam winners should be reinstated (nothing else, just that list and the attached photos). Also, I find it necessary that when someone achieves something, they should know what they are achieving. All the winners of the calendar Grand Slam knew they were winning it. There are countless contemporary references for all calendar Grand Slam winners going back to Budge. Show me the references to Crawford or Hoad winning a "three quarter slam" or Wilander attempting to win a "surface slam" at Wimbledon 1988, these are modern terms. The channel slam was a term used in the past, but very rarely, and it was certainly no massive deal when one was achieved. Also, whilst there is good evidence to show the three pro majors were US, Wembley and French Pro, there are no contemporary sources mentioning the calendar pro slam when Rosewall and Laver won all the pro majors in a calendar year in the 1960s. There is a difference between saying Rosewall and Laver won all the major pro events in a year to saying they won the calendar pro slam. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- In 2021, from June to September were lots and lots of discussions to remove ALL the tables that were here and make this article prose-only, and of course that included the Calendar slam one. And it was not a exclusion, but a WP:SPLIT, it's not like the info was completely erased from here, but moved to list articles. This article would explain and contextualize the achievements, and the lists would... list them. ABC paulista (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am still waiting to see the discussion where editors agreed to remove the list of Grand Slam winners. Anyone who thinks long sections on channel slams, surface slams and three-quarters slams are merited, whilst arguing the list of winners of calendar slams should be excluded needs to ask themselves what most people first think of when the words Grand Slam are mentioned. Do they think of Rod Laver's calendar Grand Slam in 1969, Bjorn Borg's channel slam in 1980, Mats Wilander's three-quarter slam in 1988 or Rafael Nadal's surface slam in 2010? Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's why we have talk pages, discussions and WP:BRD. ABC paulista (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The editor did not bear that in mind when removing the list of Grand Slam winners. I think notability and recency bias sometimes overrides common sense. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- While WP:TLDR is important to keep articles neat and proper, it's not an excuse to cut relevant, notable and relevant info about closely related concepts within this subject, per WP:COHERENCE. And also WP:REDUNDANCY should not also be ignored. ABC paulista (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- All kinds of Wikipedia articles have some overlap, and it's no big deal. But to cut out the heart and soul of this article, winners of a Grand Slam, was way too much. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I get what it is, but it did take a couple of minutes when I was looking at it a few weeks back. Frankly I do not care what Fyunck did or didn't say a couple of years ago. I care about the info on this page and he is right on this. People want to see the names of the winners of the calendar slam (photos are a nice addition also). To not include the full list of winners of the calendar slams when there is so much nonsense that is on the page seems crazy to me. I could easily reduce this page in size by keeping the list of calendar slam winners and removing some of the other nonsense. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The numbers show the amount of players that achieve it. In case of doubles, if only one player achieve it, than it's counted once, but if both do it together than they are conuted twice. It's not by the amount of players who did it, but about the amount of players who achieved it. It's also important to note that each number linik to the respective discipline's list, so the reader can check the details about it. ABC paulista (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fyunck(click) While I do see your point and kinda agree with some of it, I still find this backtracking kinda funny when you were onw of the most proeminent users that led to the whole transformation that this article wnet through some time ago, with discussion and implementation spanning a long, long, long, long time, and it was decided that the tables should go away. While I'm not against a change of heart and I see some benefit to bringing back the Calendar Slam table, I don't think that its current format is the best to go by, it's kinda ugly and not that funcional, since it samples from the tables that are already shown in each respective's disciplines' articles. It would be better to make an example in a sandbox before changing everything else. ABC paulista (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)