Talk:Grand Slam (tennis)

Allison Danzig

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

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

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)

Boxed set table layout

@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)

List removal

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)

They said they never intended to change the definition, that they only wanted to give out bonus money to non-calendar Grand Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 25 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)

As far as the design of the Career Grand Slam chart is considered is concerned. There is an ongoing discussion that is reaching its conclusion, which you've been a part of, @Fyunck(click):.

Here's what a full untrimmed CGS table (ordered then by discipline) would have looked like before a new design was agreed upon.

For chart design, I would continue the discussion on the appropriate page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

And that linked chart is not bad. It's tough with so many names. I do wonder if we need all the linked tournaments. What if it was the same but with a column that said Year of Completion"? I think most readers would only want to know when it was completed. As long as we are only talking about a long Career Grand Slam chart and not the others I'm good with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:44, 23 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)

As time goes and new terms and concepts appear and catch-on, it's not unusual for a bit of revisionism to happen, it happens all the time in all subjects, it's not restricted to the tennis world. Just because it wasn't celebrated back then it doesn't mean that they can't be celebrated now.

Also, per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once something becomes notable it becomes eligible to be presented here per WP:N, it doesn't matter when it gained notability, just if it became notable. ABC paulista (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not about celebrating the achievement, it is about the player knowing what they achieved. If a concept doesn't exist, how can a player achieve it? You can create a list saying these players achieved this, but it should be made clear the term was not in existence. Rosewall and Laver both won all the major pro events in the calendar year, but they didn't win a calendar pro slam. Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court, Graf all won a calendar Grand Slam. They knew what was on the line in the final in New York. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Retroactive attribution is a thing that exists and is applied everywhere when a new concept popularizes. It's not about the player, but the achievement itself, so if some instance fits the bill then it usually is acknowledged, regardless of its timeline or circunstances. ABC paulista (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why the retroactive designation should not be acknowledged as such. I haven't researched the history of the terms super slam, channel slam, three-quarter slam, surface slam etc. (Channel slam was not used often 30 or so years ago and I never heard of the other terms then) but if anyone is interested enough to research these terms, then the years these concepts first existed should be noted. The origin of the term Grand Slam I do know a lot about and this is already noted in the article. Golden Slam dates back to Graf in 1988, the first time it was possible to achieve this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can find sources that trace the orgin of these terms and do point-out the relevance of this retroactive designation, then it could also be cited here. ABC paulista (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't interest me enough to research. Bulk newspaper research is something I have done for years (I have written two tennis books containing hundreds of pages of results/stats. My first book in particular is quite well known). Finding reports of matches using sites like newspapers.com is something I can do quickly. But researching when these terms came into existence would take a fair amount of time (also, many of these terms are modern and would require multiple searches across many websites). If anyone undertakes this research the years of origin of the terms should be noted on this page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, for pinging me, @ABC paulista:. This talk page is not on my watchlist.

Okay, first and foremost, I was the one that moved, NOT REMOVED, both Calendar- and Non-calendar Year Grand Slam charts to List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics with the purpose to have all charts of the same format/design on the same page — list of slam records instead of having them scattered on 2 pages (main grand slam one and the list one) AND to also reduce the main grand slam page's size for faster loading time for readers and visitors.

I ONLY moved the charts, I did not remove any photos of any players. The photos were probably removed in the meantime.

The Grand Slam, Year-End Championship and Olympics section went through an update with the addition of all combinations of (Calendar, Non-calendar, Career grand, golden, and super slams), after the charts were moved (before and after).

I proposed to move the current winners section back in late May. Noone objected, so I moved it a month later.

I have no objection of restoring said charts: Career Grand Slam and Non-calendar-year Grand Slam and the current champions section to their former location. The 2 charts can be restored with their transclusions, like so: step 1, step 2 to AGAIN reduce size, because I, and this is just me, would like to have a one-stop shop of editing all charts on one page instead of having to go back and forth between both pages to update one and then the other. All changes on the list page will reflect to the transcluded charts on the main grand slam page. There will be no need to edit both pages separately. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

My wish is that the list of calendar Grand Slam winners should be on this wikipedia page Grand Slam (tennis). I do not have a problem with other expanded tables on other pages. I think the surface slam, three quarter slam and channel slams sections should be reduced (or even got rid of entirely) on this page. I am glad to hear you have no objection to restoring the charts, Qwerty284651. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

To add: I have no objection of restoring the photos either, not just the 2 charts or section order.

As for the other slam completion combinations: surface, 3/4 and channel, they can be moved to List of Grand Slam and related tennis records with a page split or a transclusion of some sort. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes that sounds good to me. Surface, three quarter and channel slams are recently grown slender branches on the Grand Slam tree, whereas the calendar Grand Slam is the long established trunk of the tree and non-calendar slams and career slams are the main branches. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually think that the mention of all the peripheral slams is a good thing to be here. It's where many readers might look. So in that respect I like what has been done. I do disagree with the terminology being used. At wikipedia if you move something out of the article you have "removed it." Wikipedia does not have sub-pages. If you move it to another section then you have moved it. I'm still confused about what the arbitrary break is between non-calendar Grand Slam, Career Grand Slam, Golden Slam, Boxed Set, Super Slam, etc... Is there some place that separates these terms into different levels or are we making this up as we go along? Some place that says item 4 is more important than item 7? Because if not I'm not sure the reasoning behind it. I can maybe see the non-calendar Grand Slam being separated out, but not Career Grand Slam. Now whether there is a list of current champions is no matter to me. It's fine. What is not fine is it's location in regards to the list of Grand Slam winners. This article is first an foremost an article on the Grand Slam and it's peripherals. Secondly it's also an article on the individual Grand Slam tournaments. The chart location should reflect that as it always has until very recently. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I will look at slimming down the narrative sections instead, if other editors prefer to keep the slender branches (super slam, surface slam etc.). Important to emphasise this is the main Grand Slam page. If you type Grand Slam tennis into a search engine, this is the page that comes up. The first thing I think of when I hear the words Grand Slam are the calendar slam, the winners of it: Budge, Laver, Court, Graf etc. and the four tournaments that comprise the Grand Slam, not surface slams and three-quarter slams, which are mere footnotes. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Do they really need trimming? Most only have a couple sentences which is what Wikipedia wants. The small charts take up more room than the prose in all the peripheral sections. The only one that is longer in proportion to the rest is the non-calendar Grand Slam. Probably because there was some minor controversy in the 80s. It could be cut in half with the links giving the more thorough explanation if readers want more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if its minor trimming, it all helps keep the article length down. I won't remove anything significant. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It seem that we all agree on restoring the Calendar Slam table, but I still have problems with its current format. There are some things that I question about it:

• Are the color codes for the disciplines really necessary? Do these comply with Wikipedia:COLOR and MOS:ACCESS in regarding to colorblind people?
• Should it be organized chronologically, per player or per discipline? Is there an actual need for the the player's name to be mentioned multiple times separately? How to make it sortable in order to give the reader the ability to compare data between instances?
• Is there a real need to mention and link all the tournament slam won in a year? Since the Calendar Slam already implies that it was won in a respective year, its also implied that these tournaments were won in the same year.

About the trimming of info, honestly I don't see the need for such, since these are fairly small subsections that only state what's necessary to understand the concepts. Some of them list some of the most notable champions in their prose though, and I could see them being removed without loss of information. ABC paulista (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Are the color codes for the disciplines really necessary? Do these comply with Wikipedia:COLOR and MOS:ACCESS in regarding to colorblind people? You can check for AA levels using the contrast checker listed in c:Commons:Map_resources#Accessibility and map colors. If the background colors don't pass, more accessible ones can be picked with a RGB color picker. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Non-calendar Grand Slam and Career Grand Slam are closer related to the original concept than the others, have been established for more time than the others and are more talked about than the others, so the have more Wikipedia:Notability than the others, so they deserve a bigger proeminence than the others. And having their own sections won't interfere with the Calendar Slam proeminence, since it already spans the whole article. ABC paulista (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Where did you get that info? Career Slam looks to be invented in the 70s per ngrams and Boxed Set was before that, and I don't feel they are more closely related than Boxed Set, Surface Slam, or Channel Slam is. Not sure when non-calendar Grand Slam was invented. And color is a big issue for colorblind when it is the only method to convey data. So I see no big problem to the longstanding format. Your point is well taken about the need for each linked major. Just a year could suffice. And sortability seems un-needed in this table. But with your point, what could change is to do it chronologically per discipline, dump the "major" column, but keep the notes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Both Boxed set and Channel slam seem to be as old as the Career Slam or the Non-Calendar one, but the Boxed Set is only really talked when a player is close to achieve it, which is extremely rare especially nowadays, and the Channel Slam is a lesser, "redux" version of the Grand Slam, so it doesn't hold the same prestige as winning all 4 slams in any way. As for the Three-Quarter, Surface, Golden and Super slams, they are more recent developements compared to the rest, with the Three-Quarter and Surface ones having similar lesser status like the Channel one, and the Golden and Super being sporadically talked about like the Boxed Set.

About the tables, contrast between the text and the background is something that has to be considered, and i think that sortability is important to give the readed the freedom to organize the table the way he wants, but the idea to ditch the "majors" column does solve that one. ABC paulista (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The 3/4 Slam is so rare in usage as to be in it's own category. I have never heard it except in the sources just given, and even one of those sources was really saying he has 3/4 of the majors he needs, not that he has won a "3/4 Slam." I would bet that is what many sources on the subject are actually saying. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Many of these terms didn't come into regular usage until recently. When Agassi won the Career Grand Slam at the French Open in 1999, this was a big deal. John Barrett mentioned it on TV commentary a few seconds after he beat Medvedev and listed all the players that had won it. When Andre was one match away from winning the channel slam at Wimbledon that year, I don't recall it being mentioned (it was certainly no big deal). The surface slams and super slams etc. are modern inventions. They are a product of the modern internet driven world of sensationalism, where every small achievement is trumpeted from the rooftops. During the Big Three era, after every slam, for several years the winner of the event was proclaimed the G.O.A.T. This has died down this year, because Djokovic has established himself as the clear G.O.A.T. (even the Big Three of the past Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver wouldn't have won 24 majors if open tennis had been around throughout their careers). So the sensationalists have moved on to Alcaraz. He has four majors at a reasonably young age, so the sensationalists are proclaiming him the potential G.O.A.T. and the best thing since sliced bread! This whole circus bores me and I don't like that wikipedia is buying into this sensationalist garbage (I understand why, because if something can be reliably sourced it is listed, but I don't like it). The difference in achievement between a calendar slam and a three quarter slam is huge. Like you say Fyunck, whoever even heard of a three-quarter slam?! Probably started by someone on twitter or something similar. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Term usage and notoriety can come and go as time passes, but per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, once a subject gains notability it is elegible to be included here regardless of previous or subsequent status. In the case of the Three-Qurater slam, it seems it was used since the 90s at least, like how Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun described the wins by Seles in 91 and Graf in 94, respectively. ABC paulista (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The LA Times is calling it a 3/4 Slam only because she chose not to play Wimbledon. It's specific there. Shall we use that as a criteria too? The other article I'm blocked from reading without a subscription. I won't fight its inclusion but I don't think it's notable and I still think it's silly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no "because", they just noted she won the 3 slams she played, there's no correlation or causality inferred in the article. And even if that was the case, the other sources don't make such distinction, which matters per WP:WEIGHT. ABC paulista (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I see it in several articles listed. I can't look at all of them because of restrictions. "she played"... not a fourth one she lost. And notability is a fickle thing. We can find all sorts of stuff on Serena Williams shoe size but we don't include it because this is an encyclopedia. I don't think winning the 3/4 Slam is a notable entity in tennis lexicon that we should include it here. It's one thing to have a chart showing players that have won three of the four majors (it's not an easy feat), it's quite another to call it the 3/4 Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Well you have my vote to remove three quarter slam. Notability and common usage are different things. In the case of channel slam, this was a known term 30 years ago, just no big deal (most of these terms are no big deal). The three quarter slam is the sort of thing a great player will achieve if they have a great season (even Wilander achieved it). Borg and McEnroe would almost certainly have achieved it if they had played the Australian more in that era (even not playing the Australian they were both one match away from achieving it, in Borg's case several times). I would find Serena's shoe size more interesting than some of these terms. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Serena's shoe size is trivia that falls onto WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the three-quarter slam is not, because it's covered by sources like offical agencies in the tennis world or the mainstream media, does satisfying all Wikipedia's core policies regarding WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.

Honestly most of the arguments presented for their removal seem to fall on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ABC paulista (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Serena's shoe size was mentioned in People Magazine, Nike, Good Morning America, etc... but I agree it is trivial. I also think the 3/4 Slam is trivial. I have no idea what consensus is here on the 3/4 Slam... do you? I never advocated to remove it but if it ever came to some discussion I doubt I'd support it being here. I'm just saying you have determined by yourself that Career Grand Slam should be listed with Grand Slam rather than with "Other related concepts." I disagree with that. And no matter what happens here editors are going to tinker with the article... we don't own it and we have no lock on how it is displayed. It's going to change from time to time. This is so important an article that nothing major should have ever changed without first presenting the final product to Tennis Project for a look-see. That ship sailed and it's not required to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, I was talking in tennis terms, where I never saw her shoe size being brought about in any relevant way in the tennis world, that's why it's trivial. Unlike the Three-Quarter, which is mentioned by organizers, media, specialists, etc.

While it's true editors often discuss about the info presented, the decisions made should never supercede the core pillars of wikipedia, otherwise it all falls at the mercy or WP:OR and WP:POV, the discussions should be concentrated about how the info is displayed or what is truly relevant, but not if an reliable, verifiable and notable info should be even displayed.

And discussing about the position of the info is what we are doing now. You belive that the Non-calendar and Career slams should have the same prominence than the other concepts, while I (and maybe Tennishistory1877 too) see that these two have a bigger prominence than the others. But they can't have the same prominence than the Grand Slam, because it already spans the whole article, so the oly wayfor the two to have it is if they acquire their own articles, which seems unlikely for now. ABC paulista (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The calendar Grand Slam should be the main feature of the page Grand Slam (tennis). Non-calendar Grand Slam and Career Grand Slam are both closely related concepts (as is boxed set). Golden Slam is an adaptation of Grand Slam, but a highly publicised one (the "Golden Slam" term was everywhere when Graf achieved it). It is possible that the Super Slam could be elevated to the level of the Golden Slam if someone achieves it in one year and this term is used frequently to describe the achievement, but at present it is still a rarely used term. The others are lesser achievements. I will re-add Fyunck's Grand Slam winners list. Please alter the table format as required. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Diede de Groot did it in 2021, and it got some recognition from the organizations and mainstram media, but I don't think that has enough traction yet. ABC paulista (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Wheelchair tennis doesn't have much press and TV interest. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Another core wikipedia policy is consensus. Even if three quarter slam is mentioned, editors choose the level of prominence to give it. Whilst calendar Grand Slam, non-calendar Grand Slam, career Grand Slam (and even boxed set) are important long-standing widely used terms that deserve substantial sections, these minor terms like channel slam, surface slam and three quarter slam deserve no more than one paragraph for the whole lot of them. Currently they take up more room than they deserve on this page. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Do they take up more space than they deserve, or is that the Calendar, Non-calendar and Career slams are actually underdeveloped and should have more information than they currently present?

Instead of cutting information from the formers in order to aritficially reinforce a perception of prominence between these, maybe our energy could be better spent developing the latter sections in order to make them stand out more naturally.

But overall, I cut agree on removing the small lists of players who achieve them from the prose, since the tables already cover that info and link to tables dedicated to them. ABC paulista (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I changed the page to how I believe it should look. This includes all tables, but cuts down on space and reduces the narrative length and gives due weight to what are minor concepts (the wording can be altered slightly if required). I have said all I want to say on the subject for now. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I tinkered a little bit to make it more reader friendly. The tables shoud be together form the concepts in order make it easier to identify and relate each other. ABC paulista (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I hope that the return to this page of the list of Grand Slam winners and photos will happen soon, as there seems general agreement on this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I restored the Non-calendar-year grand slam (NCYGS) table and its photos and moved the "Grand Slam" section above the "Current champions" one per request.

Both tables, Grand slam and NCYGS, were replaced with their transclusions from the slam records list to keep page's size at bay. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Qwerty284651. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@ABC paulista, ABC paulista, Fyunck(click), and Tennishistory1877:, just a friendly reminder that no need to include the full wiki markup of Non-calendar-year Grand Slam and Grand Slam tables only their labeled section transclusion code: {{#section:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records|NCYGS}} and

{{#section:List of Grand Slam and related tennis records|Calendar Grand Slam}}, respectively using labeled transclusion.

All updating and editing of the actual tables happens on the source page: List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Grand Slam and List of Grand Slam and related tennis records#Non-calendar-year Grand Slam, which are labeled with section labels and then transcluded/reflected to the target page Grand Slam (tennis) using the above code. It is pretty much, like, set and forget for updating it on 2 pages. One-stop shop, really.

P.S. No need to lose one's temper if someone added the full code by accident of (one or both) of the aforementioned tables. Simply refer them to this discussion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Important that the tables are updated in one place. There is always room for error and forgetting to update one table but not the other if there are two duplicate updates needed each time. Incidentally, that other page is in need of a lot more citations than it currently has. As soon as it is adequately sourced I will remove the citations needed tag. I hate putting these on the page but huge chunks of that page arent sourced at all. I see editors have started to provide sources, which is good. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest starting a discussion on the other page's talk page to inform others that providing additional citations is welcome.

Bare in mind, long lists with many records and statistics have very few citations. From the grand slam and number 1 to open era, all-time and 1000s records pages...you just can't back up every singles stat listed in every section with a source.... If we followed the verifiability rule down to a t, many of those pages would be severely shortened or tagged for deletion...to be honest. Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many sections without sources and Wikipedia should be sourced properly. The number one complaint I hear about wikipedia tennis pages from viewers of it (not editors) is they aren't sourced or the information is outdated or wrong (some are more abusive in their condemnation than that!) This is a tennis specific issue longstanding and I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular. That page with the gs records is a good case that illustrates my point. In theory a page could become overburdened with too many refs, but in practice it isnt (not in the case of either that page or this), and its a bad thing to argue if there isnt an issue. Sections without any sources are a major issue. Editors should always look to add sources (proving they are valid), not to remove them unless there is an issue with a page not displaying due to being overlong (or someone may link to the same specific thing again and again though I have never seen this). This really is making me ill. I dont hate any of you, so please lets calm down. One editor thinks a rule says something, I say it says something else. I can handle the fact we dont agree and I have suggested a way of resolving it. But this outrage that I want to source wikipedia properly by putting original sources to the Grand slam, one of the most important achievements in tennis, is ridiculous and it is not in proportion at all. Wikipedia suggests talk to resolve things, I get that and do it mostly, but there is nothing to be achieved by repeating the same thing again and again (I am aware of doing it myself and I don't like it and I don't like others doing it). It is not in wikipedia rules to destroy each other. Getting angrier and angrier to the point of self-combusting achieves nothing and I will not engage any further with people who cant be calm and rational (I do not mean you Qwerty and neither is this intended as a sly dig at anyone, its a plea for calm). Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As a comparison as to how difficult a three-quarter slam is compared to winning the calendar slam: the Big Three between them won the three-quarter slam multiple times when they had dominant years, but none of them won the calendar Grand Slam. I accept all these terms can be sourced (although three-quarter slam was not in common usage in the 1990s I am not disputing someone said it somewhere). Personally I would either not list these minor terms (three quarter slam, surface slam etc.) at all on this page or alternatively just mention them all briefly in one paragraph, but I accept others take a different view. If dates can be established for when a term was first used it should be noted on the article. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Because that's what the "Three-Querter slam" means: winning 3 slams in a year. If that was what the soruce was stating, then it is coherent to the definition set for the Three-Quarter. ABC paulista (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Repetition of information

Whilst I endorse the restoration of the tables, it should not be necessary to repeat the same information again and again. It's one of the aspects I most dislike about some wikipedia pages (it may be necessary to say things twice but not three or four times). We already know Budge was the first winner of the Grand Slam, it is written in the history, says it on the photos (which already list every singles winner of the slam) and lists it in the tables. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Guess what. It does not say it in the history, and it does not say it in the photos. The photos say nothing about the first and there are not photos of every winner. Readers know nothing from the photos. It's in a table but not in prose (which is far more important). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No I see it doesn't say it in the history (I assumed it did), I was about to correct that when you replied. It does list all the singles winners in the photos and the tables though. Three times in one section is overkill. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It does not say those are all the singles winners in the photos... you'd need to search the table for that. And words under photos are never a substitute for prose anyways. Wikipedia MOS discussions are always telling us less tables and more prose... we don't want to do the opposite. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is, that information is listed (Budge, singles in 1938, Connolly singles in 1953 etc.) Actually it almosts lists some names four times, because the tables with numbers in them link to a page with all the names. This is silly and not necessary. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Listing the numbers of players to achieve this in each discipline is also pointless, as the numbers are listed in the table linking to the other page. It is needless repetition. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Big difference between "Don Budge won a Grand Slam" and "Don Budge was the first player to win a Grand Slam." The line you removed was the only prose that said it. And the fact we are talking about the term "Grand Slam" it's not a bad idea to head it off in prose with the first to do it. You should always have some prose to back up the tables. Remember also that table is unsourced per wikipedia rules. Linking to other articles is not proper sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Tables display on all devices. What I and all other readers of this page are seeing is the same thing replicated three times in one section and linking to a fourth repetition. Budge 1938, Budge 1938, Budge 1938. Number of players winning each discipline of the slam, same numbers listed in a table. I don't think wikipedia rules suggest repeating the same information again and again in one section and I can't see editors flocking in outrage to this page to complain if this additional waffle in the narrative section were to be removed. If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I can't think of any encyclopedia that repeats the same information three or more times closely together. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, it is not as if this page is full of tables and has no prose. There is plenty of narrative on this page already. Lets see what other editors have to say on all this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, photos at wkipedia never take the place of prose, so they are ignored for that purpose. Many readers skip right over them. Then the prose gives the highlights of what's in the table. We mention the first and a few other tidbits, and then present the table. I see no issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What I am seeing is the same thing written three times very closely together (others will see that too). I am not changing my mind on adding the Grand Slam winners table, because it is a necessary and very good thing (the photos are good also, to show the readers what these players look like), but I assumed that with the table added the introductory paragraph could be slimmed down to an absolute minimum. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it even necessary to point out the first one to achieve it? Is it notable enough to have to be explicitally stated in the prose instead of being inferred in the table? What's the historical relevance of it and, in any, shouldn't it be moved to the history section?

About the table itself, the ITF source can be used to directly attend WP:V, without needing a prose for such. The prose is necessary to explain what's the table's about, and that's it. Any highlighting should only be done with sources properly conveying the reason why they should be highlighted. ABC paulista (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An article about a Grand Slam... the highest achievement in the sport of tennis. The first one to achieve it is historical, is notable, and in my opinion must be present in the article. And what better place to mention it than the section "Grand Slam?" And what ITF source do we have for that table? It should be with the table. The notes section could be listed as notes and refs, with a ref for each instance. The column that could be looked at as overkill could be the "major" column. Do we really need each major win listed and linked? Removing it would also allow us to dump the key. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The table already shows Budge is the first winner (if this must be re-stated and I don't personally think it should, it should be in the main narrative history section, not right next to two other instances where Budge 1938 is listed). Also, there is no need to say how many players in each discipline won the Grand Slam when exactly the same thing is in the table at the bottom of the section. It makes the page look like cheap propaganda rather than a serious encyclopedia. It may seem trivial to some, but this sort of repetition intensely annoys me. I can add any sources required to the table if that is concerning you. On another note, I see that in the Golden Slam section under Olympic youth medal someone has put a dubious-discuss tag. I assume this is in reference to it not being an actual gold medal. Youth Olympic should either be removed or the dubious-discuss tag should. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

While it is very important to be mentioned, you are correct that it needn't be in that paragraph. While I like it there I'm also open to moving it in another section. As far as sourcing, it can certainly be done with the ITF chart listed below by ABC (probably with a listed page number). Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly because the Youth Olympics has no source that relate it ot the Golden Slam. Maybe it should be removed. ABC paulista (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not up to us to determine notability, but the sources shoud be the ones to denote it. If it's mentioned as mere passing notes or part of a bigger list, with little highlighting above the rest, than I would question it, but I think that looking a little bit deeper would yield more than enough sources to denote its notability, like the HoF does. But my main point is how is Budge's win is treated by the sources: They just mention it as significant or unprecedented, or there are sources that contextualize the importance of Budge's achievement in its era and its ramifications beyond? That's what should tell us its proper placement.

But I have a bigger gripe with that second paragraph, which is most comprised of WP:TRIVIA which the source presented doesn't highlight in any meaningful way. Let's remeber that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATA, they should hold some significance, they should be emphasized by the sources in some way. The only source presented for it is the ITF one, which is the one I said that could be used to source the table, althoug it should be updated like this one ABC paulista (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing, perhaps it might be beneficial if I put contemporary newspaper sources to each "Grand Slam" on the page. This also clears up any doubt (not that there should be any) that there were contemporary references to these events. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's WP:TOOMANYREFS, the ITF website already lists all Grans Slam achievers, and they update it regularly. This one alone is already enough. ABC paulista (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is good to have contemporary references too. It stops a certain biased editor claiming that people didn't know that they were winning the Grand Slam when they clearly did. Only a few weeks ago he was running that one up the flagpole. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I find it strange that the ITF does not include all the Grand Slams (Smith 1965 and Hingis 1998 are absent). Also the ITF link is a dead link archived so is not updated Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't need a note with all those sources, we don't need the contemporary ones. Just use the updated ITF page that ABC listed which has the Hingis Grand Slam (but not the Court Grand Slam of 1965). Then add a second source for the Court 1965 Grand Slam (Tennis Hall of fame shows all her major championships). I think that's all we really need. The Hingis miss in the first ITF link is surprising but the Court Grand Slam of 1965 gets missed in many sources because the final of the Australian was never played. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Those citations take up no room in the main text area and are important to retain. They show nearly all the Grand Slams being reported as such at the time. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't just a question whether we think it takes up too much room or not. Wikipedia "Policy" says not to do it. If we have a good source that shows it all in one place, that's all we should use. So the ITF chart and something like Tennis.com for Court should be just fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It is against wikipedia protocol to list a lot of references in a long line, but I have collected them together and they only appear as one. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's still cluttering the Edit mode, which WP:TOOMANYREFS point out as a problem (adding too many can cause citation clutter, making articles look untidy in read mode and difficult to navigate in markup edit mode.). We should avoid putting more than 3 sources, until absoulitely necessary, which I don't think is the case now. ABC paulista (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Each of these sources refers to a different instance of the Grand Slam. If there was a table on this page (rather than displaying text from another page), the references would all be seperated by a line of text and the complaint might be there were too few refs! There wouldn't be more than 3 sources, but one source for each line. Wikipedia pages should be sourced properly. Most wikipedia pages are untidy if you read the source and are full of citations or formatting. I found it remarkably easy to navigate in edit mode compared to many pages I have worked on (I am an experienced wikipedia editor of many years). This page could potentially have considerably more citations than it currently has. There is certainly room for a lot more. You added several yourself which I agreed with. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Policy is that we don't even use it in a footnote... unless it is to prevent an obvious edit war of some sort. You placed it in good faith in your explanation but I don't think it has been proved it is need. Two or three sources should be just fine. If it turns out there is a need, like we actual see an edit war on the sentence, then we would use your footnote style. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The citations I posted are contemporary references. Not something someone at the ITF has cobbled together (and not even listed correctly). Important contemporary sources proving how the Grand Slam was reported at the time. As I said, one for each Grand Slam is not oversourcing. If you don't like them here I will post them on the original page the table is from and the sources will each be seperated by a line of text and will look no different to a lot of the other tables on that page some of which have a source on each line. These sources are important to have, not only to counter one biased editor who already tried to get a load of baloney about what events constituted the Grand Slam onto this page a few weeks ago (which I disproved on this very talk page with contemporary sources), but also important for historians or those interested to see how the Grand Slams were reported at the time. These are more valuable citations than a badly put together page of an ITF manual. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not as important as you seem to indicate for contemporary sources. If none of them called it a Grand Slam back then, but they all do now, we would too. This is not a historian page, but an encyclopedia of highlights, and I think it's overkill. If we couldn't find any sources that show them all together, sure, use them. But we do have sources that show them, or most of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tennishistory1877, my sources were more spread out than your current attempt, in which you just crammed a dozen in one spot, and this is not ideal. Also, it's not uncommon for sources to be cited multiple times on an article to back-up variuos info spread apart, without others accompanying them, ding the job in the place of many others.

Your "biased editor" argument work on hypotethicals that might or not pass, but this kind of solution should be remediary, not preventive, especially since the said editor didn't stay here for too long and we should also always assume WP:GOODFAITH. Your other argument that "historians" is countered by Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Other views and solutions, in its first point.

Also, I would refrain form trying to discredit the ITF website just because they don't mention the 1965's Court Mixed Slam, because we can't be sure if they really forgot that instance or if the actually don't consider it a proper Calendar Slam, we just don't have any official position on the matter from them. Of course, it's not also a reason to this instance's removal if so, per WP:WEIGHT.

One solution for it is to distribute the sources within the table itself, sourcing each respective row. Maybe even creating a own column for them, like the tables in the Treble (association football), or some located on the List of Pacific hurricanes. ABC paulista (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I am discrediting the ITF site for not mentioning Hingis. And your statement indicates you clearly do not know the editor in question like I do nor do you know the long acrimonious history between us. He didn't stay long on that occasion partly because he faced a united front against him plus the evidence, which I (as usual) found to counter his baloney. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The site does mention Hingis (1998: Martina Hingis (SUI) (Australian Open with Mirjana Lucic (CRO). French Open, Wimbledon and US Open with Jana Novotna (CZE).) And yeah, I don't know him, but even if I knew I'd assume Good faith, because we aren't to judge editors by what we might think they'd do, but by what they actually made, and be reported by such. And there are better ways to "protect" the info than source dumping it. ABC paulista (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It is important how history is reported. The entire page would be different if there were no contemporary sources for the Grand Slam. Imagine if Budge didn't know what he was winning at the time and it was later designated a Grand Slam by the ITF 20 years later. A fictional statement by Budge in this scenario: "I just played Australia for a lark and didn't think it important, then 20 years later they tell me I have won a Grand Slam. In the final in New York me and Mako decided to toss a coin to see who would win the match, as it was only a meaningless exhibition tournament and we were good friends. Then 20 years later they tell me it was an important event. A major no less and I won that was for the Grand Slam they tell me! And it was just luck I won. I wasn't even trying". This is why contemporary accounts are important. It isn't about going into every small detail like a historian would in a book. I am never one for writing long explanations like I would write in a book on a wikipedia page, you know me well enough by now to know that. In fact I often am in favour of slimming down over long text. Stick to the core details is my motto. But using contemporary evidence is very important. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if these comtemporary sources were used for something more than just reinforce an idea that a couple sources already do, but they aren't. And even so, the idea you're trying to convey would be better placed on the history section than here. It's not that different from the whole Budge's discussion prior. ABC paulista (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The Budge issue was not resolved well. Suppose we add an edit that Budge was made famous in 1938 by winning The Grand Slam despite that being clearly in opposition to contemporary sources. Do we accept a bogus recent account which is contradicted by the evidence? We should make some attempt to be consistent with the facts, which were that Budge was given credit for winning "a grand slam of the four major national titles" in 1938. Not the same thing. Tennisedu (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Plus that happens a lot in all wakes of life. Horse Triple Crown winners didn't know what they did till years later. In tennis, players would skip majors to be ready for Davis Cup. Had they known the importance in 2024 that might have been different. There are always what ifs. But Wikipedia rules dont care about what ifs. Current sources are fine and two or three of them are plenty unless you can show an edit war over it. On Budge's wiki article, use the contemporary source for helping with that article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And changing the chart on the other page is kinda bad faith here... since no one agrees with you, especially Wikipedia policy. And no agreement is there to completely remove the other paragraph. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Properly soiurcing wikipedia is a fundemental principle. I have already adapted the sources so they are not bunched together, as ABC paulista suggested, as per the rules. I see no issue at all with this now. I do not need to seek permission from you for every edit I make on wikipedia and neither do you from me. I will seek consensus where it is required and do so and comply by the rules, but I will not be impeeded from editing by you. You are the one breaking wikipedia rules now, not me. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You are NOT properly sourcing, you are over sourcing against policy, as we pointed out. We are discussing this chart and you change it against two editors complaints.... you damn well cant do that! That is not working with others, that is going it alone. Please stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I did what ABC paulista suggested (I was doing it anyway). There is no justification whatsoever for saying it is oversourcing. No you need to stop right now. You know full wikipedia should be sourced properly (actually that is a poorly sourced page in large parts). This looks like wikibullying to me and I won't stand for it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"Won a title after saving match points" has more references than the Grand Slam section, most instances individually sourced with one source. This is no different from what I have done. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep up the bullying comments and you'll see how fast administrators jump on you. Knock that crap off. You are abusing the system. This was being discussed and you have jumped the gun. That is not the way wikipedia works. Refs wouldn't go in a notes section anyway, so that would also need to be discussed. I'm not sure why the tantrum from you but it has got to stop. The section is properly sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not need to discuss sourcing wikipedia properly. Rules should be complied with, as I have done (not bunching references together). This never was an issue of oversourcing, it was the way I presented the sources and I have rectified that. "Won a title after saving match points" has more sources than the Grand Slam section, all of the exact type that I have posted, one per line for each listing (one of the few properly sourced sections on that page). You didn't target that section. If sources need to be moved next to the names rather than the ref column, that can be done. I didn't want to get into a row with you about it, but I won't be cross-examined on every edit I make and criticised for doing what is standard wikipedia practice and has already been used without issue on the same page. On a broader point, there is a widespread perception amongst many tennis fans that the wikipedia tennis pages are poorly sourced and contain wrong information. I have seen this said on forums many times and people have said to me privately. I have done my best to rectify that since editing on here, but there are still many pages I have not edited at all or very little. I think the complaints always were a little exagerrated to begin with as there were some modern players pages that have had well sourced pages for many years, but there is no doubt there are still many poorly sourced pages with wrong and outdated information (someone sees one bad page and they tend to think they are all bad, that is human nature I am afraid). This is particularly the case with pages containing things such as match wins. I think as a long term aim, this needs to be addressed. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a ongoing discussion, and per WP:BRD the edits must cease and the article to stay in its previous, original form and only resumed when a consensus is reached. You've been editing a lot during this one, which is not recommended. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the ITF and Hingis, you were talking cross-purposes. I was referring to the archived link of the ITF manual which does not list Hingis. That was a sloppily put together manual. I am not surprised it was an unintentional error, thats what I assumed. I am not sure about Court 1965 though, there seems very scant evidence this was actually a Grand Slam (no contemporary sources found so far and I did look) and the Hall of Fame (modern source) says it is but few others. This is questionable because the Australian final was not played and should be asterixed with a note. So important to have contemporary evidence. Just after I had said all those points, Tennisedu appeared and reinforced some of the points I had said about the need for contemporary sources in the first place to counter nonsense claims. Regarding the main issue, there is nothing more to say on this. Fyunck states this is overlinking, I say this most certainly isnt. There was an issue with the way I listed the citations together, which I resolved, hence the several edits I made. I will always try and resolve issues. But I won't be told something says something it doesn't say. The way these sources are now is in line with the page they are on. There are more sources in the titles won from match point down section, exactly of this type, and no one is questioning this. This is when it starts to looks personal (I accept it may not be intended that way). Trying to inhibit someone's editing for no good reason is not acceptable. If you have issues with the perceived overlinking take it to an admin and get a ruling. Personally I feel there are more pressing issues, like adding sources to many sections on that other page without any sources and adding more sources to wikipedia generally. I dont intend editing this page much now (its done to my satisfaction, though there are still room for a few more links, its not urgent). Ironically these sources were intended to be my last edits on it and I never expected all this nonsense. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states this is overlinking, not just Fyunk. And it is not acceptable that you subvert wikipedia rules of conduct. You added the sources and were reverted. You do not add them back without resolving them here. That is wikipedia 101. Now we have a mess with permanent templates stating as such. The rest of us also won't be told what we can and cannot edit, you aren't alone in that. The difference is as ABC says, to put it back the way it was, discuss the proper sourcing, and then after all the discussion to add the best sources. Now we have two articles that are a mess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The main problem is that you people having been putting too much importance to the whole "comtemporary" stuff, when the sources presented don't mention it as a important, or even relevant, concept. Notability is valid the way through, so it doesn't matter if it was recognized in the past or just recently, just that notability was attained.

And that's even more for the table, since it's only purpose is to list who achieved a grand slam and who didn't, it doesn't matter how they were regarded at their time, so Tennisedu's arguments don't hold up to this case, and cn be easily counterargued without resorting to "minefield" the whole table.

The history section could use some comtemporary souces for context matter, but the rest is pretty much a matter of notability and relevance, and the table just if the instances meet the criteria or not. ABC paulista (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty spot on. We need a source or two for the table as a whole and the other sources don't matter. If someone created the table with 2/3 of the Grand Slam winners missing, and simply added a contemporary source for each instance, we wouldn't know if the list is complete or not. What we look for first and foremost is the simple solution of finding a reasonable source that does list them all together, just like our chart shows. We are in luck that some do. We put in one or two of those sources, enough that readers know we didn't make up the chart, and we are good to go to do the same for another section. Some times we don't find those full charts in sources. Then we have to do it differently. I thought maybe we'd find a list of singles winners, a list of doubles winners, a list of mixed winners, and a list of physically challenged winners. We would have need four sources, but instead we found what we needed in two. That's great as we needed less clutter, didn't have to rely on original research, and didn't bump up against toomanysources or break other policy edicts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly you seem calm ABC paulista. Please see my comments above. You havent responded to some of my arguments and I am not understanding the motivation behind some of yours, its like we arent even speaking the same language at times. Tennisedu: There is no personal animosity between he and I despite how it may appear. We would get on well if we met I am sure, but not on here. I could write a book on him, but your remark about his arguments can "be easily counterargued" is very far off the mark (I dont blame you, you dont know him well). To cut a long story short, another editor (no longer editing sadly) once compiled a list of all Tennisedu's outright falsehoods that were reverted from wikipedia. It was a very long list. I would be very glad to think you will prevent all his nonsense from entering wikipedia pages. Reality tells me that will be down to me to do most of it with contemporary sources playing a key role. Secondly, I did not only put those citations onto wikipedia to counter him (partly, not solely). Contemporary evidence is very important to see how things were perceived at the time (particularly in the case of the Grand Slam). You seem to not understand the importance of contemporary sources. Are you interested in tennis history or is it just a peripheral interest? (not a snide remark, I genuinely dont know). All the people I have corresponded privately with with knowledge on tennis history think contemporary evidence is very important (I cant think of one that doesnt). That is not to say they solely rely on contemporary sources of course. Its baffling to me why any editor would argue over removing a well sourced section of a page just like another section on the same page with more sources that no one is arguing about. And yet other sections of the same page have no sources at all. You have quoted a lot of wikipedia policies so you must know it is enshrined in wikipedia policies how important it is each page/section is sourced. I cant understand why you have spent hours arguing with me on this. Its not even an argument over the wording of any text. I havent added any. As I said, I probably misunderstand your motivations but please try and see how it looks from my perspective. Maybe try and explain further your motivations to me. Why is it so important good sources are removed?! Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I won't dive much further on the Tennisedu's issue, because I don't know the full story and I don't like judging from afar, but from what was shown here his arguments were easy to counter if one doesn't overrate the concept of "contemporaneity", which is my main issue with all this. And if someone behaves like you claim that Tennisedu does, they can be reported, the admins exist for such cases.

Having source(s) is essential, I think that nobody here questions that, but quantity doesn't always mean quality, and even if the quality is there, it doesn't mean much if its used in pretty ordinary ways, and currently these contemporary soruces are doing the same job that any other source can do, but with more cluttering.

Throughtout the article itself we can't find instances where "contemporaneity" is cited in any relevant way, so why should we deem it relevant ourselves? I shouldn't be the one to "understand the importance of contemporary sources", their importance should be demonstrated in the article, and that's currently nowhere to be seen.

And your argument that people think contemporary evidence is very important can be countered by both WP:TOOMANYREFS and WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e. sources should have purpose within the article, and the "contemporaneity" should be proven important. It's not the readers that decide what's important to be presented in an article, it's WP:NOTABILITY the deciding factor.

Just to be clear, I'm actually neutral about the amount of sources presented on the table, my issue was about how they were included there (that's why I suggested a way to reduce cluttering). And as you can see, it does bother me how "contemporaneity" is being brought up when the article and sources don't present it as a relevant concept at all. ABC paulista (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Two years ago there was an ANI complaint underway with myself and two other editors against Tennisedu (hence the long list of reverts, this was evidence). Tennisedu and I reached an agreement so the ANI did not proceed. Reading your answer I still am no clearer as to your motivation. I wasnt asking you for a quotation from a wikipedia policy document, I was asking about your personal motivation (if I cant understand what motivates you its difficult for me to understand your actions). My personal motivation is clear (I hope). That contemporary articles about how a Grand Slam was won are important to see how it was perceived at the time. You will see also that Tennisedu is always talking about contemporary evidence. A modern source like the ITF says little on the Grand Slam, it counts as a source, thats its only purpose. I note you say you are neutral about the amount of sources presented in the table. That seems strange to me that you would spend so much time arguing about something that you are neutral about. The information on that other page looks mainly correct, but its difficult for users to have faith in something if no sources are attached to some sections. People do look to see if pages are sourced, this is important and should be addressed. This past few days has not been a productive use of my time. Sometimes talk threads are necessary, but being dragged into an endless debate that goes round and round in circles takes a toll on my mood. Some editors enjoy this debating side, I dont. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:POV we shouldn't consider our wishes and agenda when edidting here, especially if it leads to conflicts with the policies and guidelines, so it doesn't matter what my "personal motivation" might be, if any at all, because being as impartial as possible is required. My only goal is to make the articles I have an interest to be better and as informative as possible.

You state that "contemporary soruces are important to see how it was perceived at the time", and yet I don't see them being used in the article this way, there's few to none mention to these "perceptions" stated in the article. In fact, pretty much the comtemporary sources are being used the same way any other source is being used here, they aren't bringing much context ouside what the modern sources already do. Actually, the #Non-calendar-year Grand Slam section seem to make the most use of the comtemporary sources.

And that brings to my main point about all this: Wy does it matter how these concepts were regarded at their time? Sure, I know that these views provide a context that can help the article into constructing a timeline of their creation and "evolution" over the years, but what matters the most is the today, the nowadays, how they are regarded right now. WP:AGE MATTERS, concepts and contexts evolve over time, what was considered back then might not be as valid right now and vice-versa. Both these concepts and the WP:notability they have don't include "comtemporaneity" as one of their criteria, and the sources themselves don't cite it as an important part of the whole idea. So, if the sources don't bring "comtemporaneity" into the conversation, why should we?

And that's even more visible for the table: The only purpose of this table is to list who achieved a Grand Slam i.e. who won all 4 slams in the same year. It doesn't care when they were acknowledged, only if. The table only ask who and which year, that's why the comtemporary sources don't do a better job at sourcing them then the modern, ordinary ones. I don't think that the inclusion of the comtemporary sources is bad for the table or anything else, but if I were the one sourcing it I wouldn't have done it that way, since one source alone can provide the same sourcing that all these sources do together. Note that I'm not advocating to leave the table without sources, only that the way it was done was not the best and it could have been more efficient, but the way it is currently, I don't see a reason to change it again.

Another thing that I found concerning was how in previous discussions the "comtemporaneity" argument was seemingly used to undermine recent developements about the concept, especially about its derivatives like the Surface and Channel Slam, with some undermining their notability just because some instances weren't labeled as such comtemporarly. If this line of thought catched on, it would create issues with future expansions within this concept that could lead to the article's stagnation. Recently there are other concepts slowly gainig traction, like the "Career Surface Slam" or the "Big Titles Sweep", and that would be obstacle for updating the article for such inclusions if they stick around enough to gain notability. ABC paulista (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The point I made above is simply that we cannot be totally uncritical about recent sources whenever they obviously misrepresent the events described. That especially applies to this article which promotes the idea that The Grand Slam was a concept which emerged in its current form cast in stone from 1938. That is clearly inconsistent with contemporary sources from 1938 which only used the term "a grand slam" consisting of the four biggest national titles as one type of grand slam. Trying to ignore or misrepresent the record on this creates a weak and ill-informed article. Tennisedu (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any source that shows how the term Grand Slam could be interpreted in another manner, that was considered at that time? Or a source that state when the current concept really catch on? If not, then the current concept is the only one we have to go on, which was used at the time in some shape or form. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

To put it as briefly as possible, the term is listed in 1933 by Gould. There were some different interpretations between 1933 and 1938 before the term was cemented. After that (ignoring 1940-45 when most of the majors werent held) the term is what it is today. It might be accurate to say something like "before Budge won his Grand Slam there were several different interpretations of what the Grand Slam was" listing citations but this is not true after Budge. The Budge slam was a big thing. Saying an event was part of a Grand Slam of the eastern US tournaments is not saying the same thing as the Grand slam of the four major tournaments. Any suggestion that people thought the Grand Slam was anything other than what it is post-war is not accurate. You wont find any history book that states this. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That's why I asked for sources from him, to see if he can back up his claims, that's what determines their validity per WP:V. And if he can, these could be valuable resource to enrichen the article, especially the "history" section. If he can't, then it's just plain WP:OR that can be refuted. ABC paulista (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

While it was pretty much etched in stone, that doesn't mean it was universal. There are articles in 1952 about both Sedgman and Connolly going after the "Grand Slam" by winning the Wimbledon-US championships. That was an important doublet. Of course the next year Connolly won a true Grand Slam. You have to remember that it had only happened once in singles so the term could waver at times. Since Budge it was always the four majors we have today, but it could also be used for other important tennis milestones. Look what happened in modern times. It happens so infrequently that the term has now also morphed into the individual tournaments instead of the long-used term of "majors." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes but again we need to look at the exact terminology used. A "Wimbledon-US Grand Slam" is not the same thing as the Grand Slam (of the four majors). Neither is a "Grand Slam of the three Wimbledon titles" the "Grand Slam". "Grand Slam" applied to each of the four tournaments is just a lazy shortening. The key element in the chronology is Budge's win. The Grand Slam does not automatically become defined because Alan Gould writes a column in 1933, although writers seem to latch on to the term applying it to tennis. There were several variations put forward over the next few years (in the mid 1930s the majors tend to be the four we know but not always). Budge talks about this in his autobiography how he popularised the term. Because he not only won it, but he set out to win it (there are reports of this in 1938). This is where it becomes enshrined in history. There are articles referring to Budge's 1938 Grand slam several years later. This is a historic event. There is doubt whether the non-calendar slam should be regarded as a true Grand Slam and that is explained in the article. None of these other variations of the Grand Slam post-war (like "Wimbledon-US Grand Slam", "Grand Slam of Wimbledon titles", "Grand Slam of Eastern US tournaments") has more than a few citations each, they arent recognised terms, never were, they were just writers wanting to jazz up their articles a bit. Very important the context here. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

We could at least acknowledge that the term "Grand Slam" was applied to describe other combination of tournaments, or in conjunction with said combinations. Doing so could provide the reader with further context about how it appeared into the tennis lexicon and how it settled as the current nomenclature. Provided with sources, of course. ABC paulista (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

True... but as TH says, the terms for other combos came and went quickly. Sort of like 3/4 Slam. A writer wrote of it to spice up his article but it has no real fortitude as far as tennis is concerned. One source for Wimbledon/US Grand Slam is by the United Press... right here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also a "U.S.-Wimbledon Grand Slam" and "Grand Slam of Wimbledon titles" are not the same as saying the "Grand Slam" (no appendage). They may be attempting to create a second definition, but they are not denying the first one (actually I don't think they are even doing that, they just want to spice up the article). If there was genuinely an established (even for a short time) alternative definition of the Grand Slam (with or without appendage) after Budge won it, then I would support the right for its inclusion, but there was not. The only questionable thing is whether the non-calendar Grand Slam should be regarded as the Grand Slam, there are quotes describing it as a Grand Slam going back to Budge. But most of that is covered in the article anyway. The three-quarter slam is the definition of winning three majors in a year, but as Fyunck says, a rarely used term. That is why it is so important to look at articles written when these were achieved to see if the term is used. I was a child just getting into tennis when Graf won the Golden Slam, I remember the term well. I don't recall hearing a three-quarter slam mentioned when Wilander won the US Open that year. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, they don't always use an appendage. Mercer Beasley coach of Vines talking of Wimbledon/US Championship doublet: "Nobody can realize unless they've been in the situation what a tremendous nervous strain it is to try and clinch the grand slam. The closer they come the more difficult every shot becomes. Look how few times it has been accomplished. And you'll understand what I mean." It goes on that "only six men and but three women have been able to score the grand slam of the courts. Big Bill Tilden, Fred Perry and Don Budge, three of the immortals, did but twice each. And superstars Jack Kramer, Bobby Riggs and Vines managed it only once." And at the end of 1958, top 10 sports stories of the year, we have at number 10 "Althea Gibson first negro to score tennis grand slam." She only won two majors, Wimbledon/US Championships. So while it is almost always talked of the Grand Slam as the four majors, there were instances where other meanings would creep in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying absolutely every article in the history of tennis since 1938 does not contain an alternative attempt to define the Grand Slam, but the vast vast majority define it with the four tournaments known today. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

That is 100% accurate. Maybe even three vasts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats is good to hear you agree with me, because this article could turn from a good article to a laughing stock with the addition of one wrongly phrased sentence on this issue. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing for each possible alternative definition to be individually mentioned, but aggregate them as a whole in order to demosntrate that he term was used to either describe, or accompany, other combinations of titles before the concept was fully established. This part of the history, how the term came to be fully accepeted and attached to the titles and tournaments, is kinda lacking on the article. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I already said in this thread I would agree to a statement that says "before Budge won his Grand Slam there were several different interpretations of what the Grand Slam was" and providing citations. But I do not accept there was an alternative interpretation after Budge. Budge's win was huge. Tennisedu keeps arguing against an invisible enemy on this. I think this article is pretty accurate and well sourced. I was just looking at the Grand Slam golf article. The history of golf is something I know quite a lot about. In the article it stated that Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam as it was defined in that era, but it did not mention that nearly all the top players were professionals by 1930 and the Grand Slam as defined then contained two events only open to amateurs. This should be stated every time the 1930 Grand Slam is mentioned, its a Grand Slam for amateurs only. I just made several adjustments to it. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There were about six tennis writers who described Budge's 1937 achievement "a grand slam", some from December 1937. Krosero listed them in the reference I gave above. Allison Danzig used the same term to describe Budge's 1938 achievement, "a grand slam". No capitalization or definite article. Budge did not "call" or announce his intention to win "a grand slam" in early 1938, in fact he said that he mentioned it to no one. Tennisedu (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Try reading the set of references you quote rather than ranting.

"May 13, 1938

Seeks Tennis “Grand Slam”

Before going on the court, Budge put himself at the disposal of interviewers in the clubhouse. He stated definitely that he would not play in Germany because of the fact that his friend Von Cram [sic] cannot play against him. He has his heart set on adding the French, British and American crowns to the Australian championship to become the first player in history to win the four major tennis titles of the world in the same year." That article from The New York Times.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

All of white h is summed up by Danzig that same year when he stated that Budge was the first tennis player to win "a grand slam of the four major national titles". No capital letters or definite articles. Those only came much later. Tennisedu (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)