This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
I find it amazing that there is no talk page discussion for this article.... ever! No disagreements on formatting? colors? Anything? I'm cool with it but it's hard to believe. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Grand Slam men's doubles champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This is bizarre. So there is only one couple who have the GS in men's doubles but the way you read this the most important achievement is the career Golden Slam (all names linked so it looks nice too, even down to the nick names), and then McGregor and Sedgman get a mention (no name link though) but it's qualified by making clear about how great the Bryan's are. I am holding back my inner McEnroe. Antipodenz (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Big titles Sweep
Qwerty284651, there were discussions on the same subject on the singles' talk page, and all the reasoning presented there applies here, so ehat's your reasoning for having a different view on this issue here? ABC paulista (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: My issue is, it is pertinent to this article's scope, therefore it should remain here. If you are still adamant about removing at least move it elsewhere in a tennis article which it belongs, not outright remove it. Thank you very much. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
List of men's Grand Slam, Olympic and ATP Tour Finals and Masters Series doubles champions. ABC paulista (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@ABC paulista Oh, really? I had no idea it was moved. Well, at least it has been relocated somewhere, I guess. Better than being removed altogether. At least it exists in some tennis article...I am complacent with that. This topics I hereby declare closed. Over and out. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple slams, Channel Slam and Surface Slam
A consensus was reached to include all versions of 2- and 3-slam combinations and highlight the repeating ones with corresponding color and symbol. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@ABC paulista Because singles already have long lists, adding all the 4- and 3-slam per season combinations in the 2-slam/season combination makes the already long tables, egregiously longer and unorganized. Maybe highlight the 4-slam and 3-slam titlists in the 6x 2-slam combo tables, as well as the 4-slam winners in the 3-slam combo, so they stand out and avoid clustering... Like we did for the surface slam...I propose this background coloring be applied to the rest of the related articles, which have all 6 2-slam combo tables. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerty284651, honestly I'm failing to see how your proposal differs much from the changes I promoted. Maybe you could provide an example on a sandbox, so I could properly visualize your idea. ABC paulista (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista I used your version of the tables, but also highlighted all the 3-slam combos that appear in the 2-slam tables, and Sedgman/McGregor's 4-slam combo that appear in the 3-slam and 2-slam combos. So that one can distinguish which of the combos were 2-slam ones ONLY or there are some who have been repeated in the 2-slam tables going with the logic to include all higher slam combos in the lower ones, as you suggest it should be done. I explained it as accurate as possible. Hopefully, you understand where I am going with this.
Qwerty284651 I'm fine with you proposal. The only changes I'd propose is that the first two items on the Legend should be called "Grand Slam" and "Three-Quarter Slam", respectively, while linking to their respective sections on the Grand Slam page. ABC paulista (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the color changes one bit. How it looks now in the article as far as color is just fine. This really looks busy. Symbols are fine but way too dark this way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck(click), colors are easy to fix, they can be made lighter in order to look less obstrusive, like on the first table of this article. ABC paulista (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But one of the problems is overkill on color. Take the first section here ... Three titles. Since that is the section name, we need no color on the three title winners... and on the surface winner and four title winners we'd only need the symbols. The same with the Two titles list. Since all the three title winners are in the prior list all we care about is the fact they won two titles... a symbol would do, no color needed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click) and ABC paulista: I made the 2-slam and 3-slam tables to fall in line with the 2 singles pages, pertinent to the topic, excluding the repeating combinations in the lower tables, 4-slam in 3- and 2-slam tables and 3-slam in the 2-slam ones. However, since ABC paulista is so adamant about including all the combinations in all the tables, I requested a discussion be opened to settle the differences and the misunderstanding.
So, to avoid that here is my proposal: My idea was to include only the 3-slam combos in their namesake tables and 2-slam combos in the 2-slam tables, EXCLUDING the repeating combos. But given paulista's determination I proposed a compromise. Now to the matter at hand: the colors can be omitted in the 3-slam tables by using symbols only, as proposed by Fyunck. As for the 2-slam tables...Highlight only the years, where said instances of repeating combos are included, instead of highlighting the whole row, with symbols, of course. OR remove the repeating combos altogether and just leave the original, non-repeating ones there. That is all I have for now. What are your thoughts on this? Qwerty284651 (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerty284651 What if we only highlight the years in all 2-slam and 3-slam tables? I don't see the need to color the namespaces, since they can span multiple years with distinct achievements. Highlighting only the years can avoid possible misundertandings, and it would reduce any possible visual pollution, whetever they're colored or not. ABC paulista (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ABC paulista This is a plain version with the symbols added, but no background colors on the years rowheaders, excluding the namespaces. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbols without year highlight
Multiples titles in a season
Three titles
▲ Player won all 4 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.
‡ Player won 3 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.
§
Surface Slam
(major titles on 3 different surfaces in the same season).
In this version I added bgcolor just to the year cells and not the namespaces, as suggested. However, there are 3* questionable exceptions, which I just did not know how to deal with. Namely, 2-slam tables:
2nd table: AO-WIM 1950 Bromwich
3rd table: AO-USO 1987 Jarryd
4th table: FO-WIM 1998 Eltingh
All 3 have won 3 slams in said years, but with different partners. They are listed with the partner, alongside whom they won 2 titles, in such and such combo. BUT I did not know how to emphasize them besides adding a symbol. Maybe split the year, one highlighted with a symbol, the other plain; to avoid highlighting the namespace....I don't know. Just throwing ideas out there. Anyhow, this is the best I have got. Also, I am tagging @ForzaUV and DiamondIIIXX:, the participants in the previous discussion related to this one, to weigh in on the matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbols with year rowheaders highlighted, with 3* exceptions.
Multiples titles in a season
Three titles
▲ Player won all 4 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.
‡ Player won 3 Grand Slam tournaments in the same year.
§
Surface Slam
(major titles on 3 different surfaces in the same season).
Qwerty284651 I like the solutions you gave to these exceptions. I think that you could still color the years, to indicate that something was achieved there, but keep the symbol with the name, to show who did that and indicate that the other didn't achieve the same. ABC paulista (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: Here are 4 versions just for the 3 exceptions: Any of them work for me. How about you? Which one, in your opinion, would best fit in the 2-slam tables? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But these are mere technicalities, I won't sweat over any of the options chosen. ABC paulista (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista I'd give the final vote to put an end to this, but I am gonna wait for others, Fyunck(click) and co., see what they prefer. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]