Proposal to reopen the Tables discussion (Multiple titles in a season)
Latest comment: 3 years ago170 comments5 people in discussion
A consensus was reached to include all the Major champions in all instances of two and three Grand Slam title combinations tables in section Multiple titles in a season. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey, there. I want to reopen the discussion regarding the arrangement aka the full layout of the multiple titles section, because I want to re-add the remaining 2 titles in a single season tables for all 6 combinations of two Slams, just like before [1], and not just the Channel Slam, with the purpose to combine the 6 lists of champions per combination (AO-FO, FO-USO, etc.) into 2 tables, separated by Eras. I tried out different versions of the tables layouts, that I want the current to be replaced by, in my sandbox. Here is my proposal:
I prefer both current layouts. Both of your 3-slam proposal unnecessarly messes with the sorting process by separating the instances by eras. And your 2-slam proposals separates the Channel Slam instances while not citing the 3+ slam winners who also won the channel slam. Since the Channel Slam is an achievement on itself, all its achievers should be mentioned together in a single table, regardless of how much slams they won on their respective years. ABC paulista (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I separated the 3+ slam table in 2 tables by eras to sort it triple slam/year winners chronologically...whilst taking into account the two Eras. Adding the 3+ slam winners to the 2-slam winners, would make the list so much longer and hard to navigate through. As for the Channel Slam, my 2-slam proposal does, in fact, include said Slam. I don't understand where you saw that it doesn't include it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
By separating the 3-slam, you made it impossible to sort all winners of each combination together (you can't sort Djokovic's 2021 together with Crawford's 1933 and Hoad's 1956 as the winners of the AO-RG-WB), which I view as a downgrade to the current version, where said sorting is possible. As for the Channel Slam, I said all its achievers should be together on a single table. I don't see Nadal's 2010 or Wilander's 1988 in your Channel Slam tables, for example. ABC paulista (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel like we need to list all the 2-titles instances, there are too many and they can be be found in the main table (champions by year) shaded by yellow. I just don't see the point. The Champions list is also limited to players with 3+ titles because it would be excessive to include everyone. ForzaUV (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
That is what I am saying. Hence my proposed shortened tables, to omit the repeating winners and to stick only to the players who won exactly two slams in any year, and nobody else. The same with 3-title tables. Precisely 3 titles per season per player. And nothing elsе. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
But why is it important to list those who won exactly two slams in a year when we can find them in the main chart of the page? ForzaUV (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Formatting for Multiple Titles idea I've had a think and this is the best I can come up with. Ignore the 4 slam rectangle for the moment (It is my preference that the Grand Slam (4-title table) should be added above the 2&3 tables, but we can discuss that later). I've drawn rectangles representing the tables for each of the slam combinations, and the rough formatting preference. For the Channel Slam (CH) it has 4 columns, Period, Year, Player and Notes, used for identifying if it is part of a set of 3/4 titles in a year, or just a "Normal", 2-Slam Channel Slam. All the other 2-Slam tables have 3 columns (Period, Year & Player), as they are going to include only instances where those were the two slams won by the player in that year. With this formatting, it will recognise the difficulty of winning 3 or 4 slams in a year, as well as winning the Channel Slam (even if it occurs as part of 3 or 4 titles in a year) - whilst still listing the times a player won two slams that were not the French and Wimbledon. I think this alays the concerns of too much duplication, as it covers 3-Slam years (exceptional performance), Channel Slam (in any form), and exact 2-Slam years (non-Channel Slam). I'm interested to know your thoughts on this proposal. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, at first glance, your idea looks kinda ugly and messy, but we could have a better notion of what you thought if you make an example on your sandbox. But I'll advance and say that I'm against the idea of making the 2-slam tables only include instances that won only said titles, while the Channel Slam table would include them all as an exception, because it would misinform the reader into believing that, either those Channel Slam instances won only Roland Garros and Wimbledon, or those instances on the other 2-slam combinations are all intances that have ever did such combinations, and both ideas would be very false, and wrong, and no amount of clarification would be able to avoid such confusion. The only ways to make this work are if all the 2-slam tables, Channel Slam included, would include all the instances who did them (including the ones who won 3 and 4 slams), or if all six tables would include only 2-slam-only instances, having a separated Channel Slam table including all instances. But both options would lead to lots of redundancies. ABC paulista (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
That wouldn't be enough to solve the misinformation and misleading issues that would arise. Honestly, putting the Channel Slam table alongside the other 2-slam-only tables is the worst option possible. ABC paulista (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
And then we would fall again in the redundancy issue. We would have 2 listings for the Roland Garros-Wimbledon double: One for the 2-slam-only winners, and other for the Channel Slam. ABC paulista (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
ABC paulista, No. Did you read what I said? There would be 5 tables in the "Exactly two titles in a single season" - AO-FO, AO-W, AO-US, FO-US, W-US. Then there would be a section after that, called "Channel Slam winners" or similar, which would have the FO-W table, with the Notes column, clarifying if the feat was just FO-W or part of AO-FO-W etc. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Then again, the Channel Slam would serve as a exception to the 2-slam-only rule, leading to the misinformation issues, which no amount of clarification would solve. If all the 2-slam combinations must have listings, all of them should be treated the same way to avoid further confusion and misleading, and this include the RG-W/Channel Slam one. ABC paulista (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
DiamondIIIXX, I have an idea: We could combine all the 4-slam, 3-slam and 2-slam winners into one single table, using the former Three-Quarter slam's tables as the basis of it. We would list their results in all slams of their respective years and the other achievements (Three-Quarters, Surface and Channel) could be either color-coded on each achiever (like the first table here does with the multi-slam winners) or add new colums about them in the end, "checking" the winner for them to be sortable. That would eliminate most of the redundancy presented here, would solve problems with the layout and blank spaces, would give us plenty of oredering options, would list all their their results o n the tournament they didn't win, and would comply with the guidelines. I believe that's the best solution we can come up with to satisfy all parts.ABC paulista (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Break 1
Putting into consideration, what the other participating editors in this discussion have said, I thought things through and have decided to propose a vote. We are practically discussing about 3 options pertinent to the two titles in a single season subsection here.
Option 1: We keep things as they are. No changes are made. The subsection walks away unscathed.
Option 2: We keep 3 titles in a single season subsection unchanged, and change the two titles in a single season subsection according to, either a) my idea or b) DiamondsIIIXX's.
Option 3: We combine both our ideas, my and Diamond's, hopefully someone else's idea, namely, @Fyunck(click) and @Kuinyo as well not just us two's. And putting into account Diamond's formatting idea: 1. We keep the first the subsections, 4- and 3- titles in a single season subsections as they are, unchanged, and modify the third subsection's tables, so that they include all 6 combinations any 2 slams won in a season, but include only 2-slam champs, not 3- or 4- ones. Because that would just make clutter and look too convoluted for the reader. As for the layout of the proposed table itself. Say, we change first column name to Era, instead of Period, and keep the other 3 column header's names: Year, Player and Notes. Albeit, we can just use nested footnotes using efn template as a substitute for the Notes column, and, thusly, only have a 3-column table as the end result.
Option 4: Remove said subsections altogether, to paraphrase ForzaUV: Why have additional tables, when you can get the same info from main table (champions by year) shaded by yellow.
From all these, I'd choose Option 1. But whatever the choice is made, the 3-slam winner must stay as they are because they are tied to the Three-Quarter Slam concept, and the Channel Slam must stay becauuse it is its own achievement. Those would inviabilize option 4, for example, and the options 2 and 3 must forsee this, or it would become a problem. ABC paulista (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I want to go with Option 3. Exact 3 slam table(s), + Exact 2 slam tables (6). Think this is the best option so we aren't duplicating. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
DiamondIIIXX your layout violates MOS:COLHEAD, as the Pre-Open Era/Open Era dividers are effectively functioning as column headers inside the tables, which goes against this guideline. Also, your proposal doesn't have a table that includes all channel slam winners, and we must have one because it's its own achievement, so all its achivers must be tabulated together. ABC paulista (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
ABC paulistayour layout violates MOS:COLHEAD, as the Pre-Open Era/Open Era dividers are effectively functioning as column headers inside the tables, which goes against this guideline. Sure. The fix per MOS:COLHEAD is to split the table into several sub-tables with explanatory sub-headings, i.e. splitting between Pre-Open and Open Era. your proposal doesn't have a table that includes all channel slam winners, and we must have one because it's its own achievement, so all its achivers must be tabulated together. - We are listing them. They just appear as part of the 4-slam, 3-slam and 2-slam combinations involving French Open and Wimbledon. This really is not as much of a problem as you are making out. If you really wanted to, you could add a complete winners table to the Channel Slam section of the Grand Slam (tennis) article. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
DiamondIIIXX Another solution that MOS:COLHEAD give to this problem is to make these subheaders part of its own columns in the table, like the current tables do. Also, listing separately the Channel Slam winners is not a valid option, because as an encyclopedia we have to give information as clear and as direct as possible to the reader, and by spearating the Channel Slam instances you're forcing them to have to figure this information out by deduction and assumptions, and that's not acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. And we can't put it back on the Grand Slam (tennis) article, because it was there before, but after long and arduous dicussions it was decided that all tables (except of the CYGS and NCYGS ones) should be moved to their respective discipline's articles, and that the main article should only focus on the informative side and just link to the tables scattered around, thus the Channel Slam table must stay here. So yes, this really is evem more of a problem than you realize. ABC paulista (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Being compact means nothing if it violates the guidelines. My idea was to join all multiple slam winners in one bigger table, color coding all Channel Slam, Surface Slam and Three-Quarter Slam instances for better information clarity, and to avoid redundancy. ABC paulista (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I would use something similar to this table's layout, but put on emphasis on tye 3 catrgories: surface-, 3/4- and Channel Slam in 1 PLUS the other 2 subsections in another table, similar to said table's layout to portray/convey the difference between players with exact 2 titles and players with 3 titles. It can be done. And I can do it. But I am dealing with doubles tables right now. So, one thing at a time. Will send layout from sandbox when and IF I am finished with a testcase of my own proposal. Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, for the late reply. I am working on multiple table layouts. Will get back to you shortly. It is late here. Need to get some rest. Will continue discussion in 12 hours...ish Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Break 2
Okay, it is finally done. Here is the table:
Version 1
Multiple Grand Slam titles champions
Achievement completed in Open Era indicated in bold. Pre-Open Era lasted from 1877 - 1968. Open Era started in 1968.
^Open only to specific club members of the host country (not counted toward Grand Slam totals)}}
where all 3 sections: Surface Slam, 3 slam winners/year and 2 slam winners/year are put into 1 big table, as per ABC paulista's idea, although I would have much rather just stuck with Diamond's proposal, which is still not opted out. I am still leaning towards the split sections Option 3, but we will see. P.S. Diamond's sketch layout, earlier in the discussion, is almost the same as the
ORIGINAL
Formatting for Multiple Titles idea
The table below is an older version of a 2-slam titles/year table
Winners of two Grand Slam singles tournaments in the same calendar year Note: players with more than two titles are not included here.
layout of the 2-slam titles/year tables from 8/9 months ago. This is all I have for now. You are up next, @{u|ABC Paulista}} @{u|DiamondXIII}} Qwerty284651 (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I still have some issues. I see no reason to split it at all into two eras. also PO and OE have no meaning to some.... many don't have mouse-over ability. If it stays it should be written out. And it should be written out as history dictates... not pre-Open Era but rather Amateur Era and Open Era. You also use both FR and FO... it should be consistent as AO-FR-W-US as is usually done, and we need a key to let readers know what those letter combos stand for. USO really looks strange.. when I see it I always think of the United Service Organizations for our military. The Surface Slam is only indicated by the color yellow in the chart. This needs to be changed to a simple symbol like an § or † for those with sight issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The 3 titles and surface slam sections are good as they are, no need to mess up with them. We can restore the 2 titles/year section but I can't say I like the proposed layout that much and it certainly needs some tweaking. ForzaUV (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The version 1 is undoubtely the only option we have if we want to include all instances, in order to avoid redundancies and reader confusion. I'm not seeing the Channel Slam and the Three-Quarter Slam being highlighted algonside the Surface Slam, but that's easy to fix. Also, the "n titles per year" subheaders should be eliminated and transformed on their own colums, and the table should be sortable. Also, I don't see the point of bolding the OE instances to didive it from the POE/AE ones, when the "Period" column already does that. That's truly the best compromise we can reach, maybe the only one possible. ABC paulista (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I do like version 1.1 but I added a required symbol for the Surface Slam. I'd put the symbol inside the box if I knew how. I wouldn't separate the eras but it's a minor issue. The problem I have with 2 T/Y is that it is not in chronological tournament order. What tournaments are placed where seems to be done by jigsaw puzzle piece size rather than any sense of order. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You can add symbols/text in the legend box by adding the |text= parameter in the {{Legend|#ffebcd|text=§|Surface Slam}}}} to the list to produce
You add a text or any symbol inside the legend box by adding the |text parameter and it adds the symbol/task. If you want to add a symbol inside a white color background cell, then just change the color to #0 and then text=§. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I like version 1.1. I think in both versions, it is confusing how (for the Australian-US double) it says 10 players but only two are listed. I also thought listing the round the player departed the failing tournaments was interesting - not just listing L. These are easily fixed - the first one just requires another table clarifying the total winners for each double. The second one just requires the same colour formatting as the first table by Qwerty. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that and it is confusing as heck. What is? Is it the extra players that have won more than three titles? If so dump that number and say "Players with exactly three titles are listed here" Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I like the version 1.1, but I don't see why the 3-slam and the 2-slam instances should be separated, it makes it harder to tackle the Channel Slam concept, and I don't see the Three-Quarter slam being mentioned at all. Also, the Laver's and Budge's Calendar Slam years should also be included because they also involve the Channel Slam. The 2 T/Y is plain bad, it's just full of misleadings, misinformations and inconsistencies without tackling the redundancy issue that well. Of the ideas presented until now, I said before and say it again: It's the worst idea to solve this whole issue. ABC paulista (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The three-quarter slam and 3 major titles in a singles season is the same thing. Adding repetitive winners to the list is redundant in and of itself for the Channel Slam, just so could include all tables. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Qwerty284651 That's why I prefer a unified table, so the redundancies would be reduced to the maximum possible. Some redundancies are unavoidable, otherwise it would lead to data incompleteness, and incompleteness of information is more harmful than any redundancy could ever be. ABC paulista (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Putting into account Diamond's proposal of listing all of the losing player's round of play and added explanation for the number in (brackets). No need to have any column sortible, because when sorting a table with merged data cells, the sortment unmerges the merged cells making it look like one big mess. So, using sortible or mw-sortible parameters is ill-advised. Anyway, here is my list:
Version 1.2
Three titles in a single seasonPlayers with exactly 3 titles are listed here.
^Open only to specific club members of the host country (not counted toward Grand Slam totals)}}
But we can scratch the 2T/Y table and just use the old table instead. It is redundant to list the same players, who completed the Channel Slam in the 3-title chart, in this one. Or any other slam combo, because it would just clutter up with repetitive players, who won 3-slams in a single year. Also, Fyunck suggested we list the 2T/Y tables in alphabetical order by tournamnt combo, which is a good idea.
What do you, guys, think? Do we keep the old 2T/Y table or stick with the longer, new one? Also, the whole listing every single round loss, instead of using L, is up for debate. Either the individual rounds of losses are named or we just use L in the table. Qwerty284651 (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Version 1.2 Comments
It's a tough call on whether we should have an L or the actual round listed. But I'm glad that "if" we keep the table with two winners that the brackets are explained. And I agree that we really don't want or need the table sortable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Since it's about the titles, the results of other tournaments don't matter and keeping an L is better for readability because it's consistent and the color usage is limited to two colors instead of 5. But honestly I think we should just stick to the 2 T/Y layout, the old one or the new. They're simple and easy to read and they take advantage of the horizontal space. ForzaUV (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
And I don't see why add an extra column in the table explaining the two Eras, Amateur amd Open, when you can just add a note under the subsection's name somewhere along the lines of: "Amateur lasted from 1877 to 1967, Open Era from 1968 until Present." And with that you save yourself a column for all the tables involved and easier for readability, and as ForzaUV said, it takes advantage of the horizontal space aka uses the full width of the article page. Qwerty284651 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer the old 2T/Y layout, because it is simple and straight to the point. Don't know why it was removed it the first placed. Yes, we are trying to fine tune the new layouts with separation the table by Eras and other criteria/statistics, but, frankly, just the Slam combination, winner and year is more than enough for me, anyway. Don't know how other editors feel about this. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
For me, as long as the Surface Slam, Channel Slam and TQS have all their respective instances accounted for and tabulated together, and that all the 2-slam and 3-slam tables follow an unified criteria, I'm okay with everything else. ABC paulista (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I still don't see the benefits from separating the 3-slam winner form the 2-slam winners, and it seems the the "Tournaments" column and the Slam results' ones are redundant to each other, with little to differ from one another, so either could be removed in order to open more space. And in order to include all relevant achievements, I have some ideas:
This one above would be if we want to include the results of these instances in each slams. Just putting if the pplayer won or lost doesn't seem enough to justify such inclusion. The other one below would be used if we don't want to include them:
I 'm not sure if it's necessary to include the Grand Slam and the Three-Quarter Slam on the achievement's columns, I wouldn't object their removal. What do you all think? ABC paulista (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It's just that we've gone from very simple charts that work, to the 1.1 charts that work but have more info, to the 1.3 charts that are so busy it's hard to read anymore. I would much rather keep the original charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Fyunck here. There is so many empty data cells in the 1.3 versions of the tables and the checkmarks with done is redundant. And all the tables that I have come across are nowhere near like this. This is just plain wrong and redundant. I say we stick with the originals, maybe version 1.2...maybe....this whole discussions is just getting out of hand....too many variations...we went from something simple and 1 version to something convoluted and unnecessary...We should just tone down the 3 T/Y and 2 T/Y tables as much as possible. No doubles repeaters aka those who have won 3 slams in one season, just mention them as a total number in (brackets) in the 2-slam combo tables, don't actually put them in rows...You get what I am trying to say....This is my opinion on the matter so far. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Or just scratch the last 4 columns in the 1.2 version tables and have only the 3-slam and 2-slam combos players listed, with eras, years, and player's name listed. After all, I am the one that added the last columns with individual rounds per slam success, SF or QF...It was accepted and worked upon, but I take it back. It overcrowds the table. Keep the rest of the tables intact with the notes, footnotes and whatnot. I would separate this suggested simple 2T/Y table into 2 tables side-by-side using either (col-2) template or inline-table parameter. Left table would include the first four 2-slam combinations, and have the last 2, FR-W and W-US, in the right table. So, by length they turn out around the same. I would do the proposal. But I don't have the time. Am busy. Someone else could do it for me. And that's it, really. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I never said to go back. I do like 1.2, though I wish it didn't narrow it down to eras. And your old format is fine too. Chart 2 T/Y is really poor because it's in some crazy order. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You can't use color to define eras like that. Some people can't see color. Also the bright green for Open Era and use of the term pre-Open Era instead of Amateur Era is a problem. If using this format i would rather we stick with "Old 2T/Y layout." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
That's why I said partially completed. I have only done from Grand Slam to Three Titles (see difference in formatting). A symbol could be added to distinguish the two eras further, if need be. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I would have three titles done the same as two titles... have every background white with no symbols needed. Do we need color if we have a symbol? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click) If we have a symbol, the background color isn't needed. The symbols are there for accessibility, but I thought the color difference was a nice touch to make it easier to see the two eras. I chose light grey to represent closed/amateur, and light green because every tournament was much more accessible. By the way, it's the same light green used earlier in the article, in the massive list of winners demarcating the boundary of Amateur and Open.
I was getting to it. In case you didn't already know, ABC Paulista said earlier that having the Amateur Era/Open Era as rows inside the table violates MOS:COLHEAD, so it will have to be changed (to what I have for Grand Slam and Three Titles tables), at the expense of readability. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
That is false to a certain extent. Column headers are using the ! to make a column header. I've known that for years and have fixed all the recent tables everyone here has been making so they don't use ! in the middle of a table. It is however fine to use ! with the scope command or not use ! at all. We have double checked with every screen reader to make sure they work, and have been assured they all do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know the intricacies of that what you know about the screen readers, so feel free to take what's on my /2 sandbox and make it all compliant + the same style. As you can see, I've also re-ordered it to have the season achievements come before career, and added the grand slam to the season instead of Grand Slam (Grand Slam Achievements was renamed to Career achievements and the required changes were made). DiamondIIIXX (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click), We have double checked with every screen reader to make sure they work, and have been assured they all do. Who is we? And how many screen readers are there on Wikipedia and where can you find them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
When we created certain charts for Tennis Project (not these particular charts) we asked those with screen readers to tell us if there were issues. When we found an issue we tweaked it till there was no issue. There were two prominent screen readers at the time, and i think one person used a lesser brand. None of them actually had an issue with using ! in the middle of the table, it just rendered it differently. My guess it that passage was written before screen readers became more sophisticated. nevertheless, we follow it. However, per MOS, using ! in the middle is permissible with the scope command. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), like I explained to Forza on my talk page, MOS:COLHEAD isn't about the formatting, but about the purpose. A cell that might not be formatted as a column header, but in practice it is still functioning as a header for the way it visually separates some instances by a defined criteria, and as such it's still a MOS:COLHEAD violation. It's not the formatting that defines the cell's purpose, but the other way around. ABC paulista (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
That thinking is wrong per what has been told to me many times. How it functions does not matter. What matters is putting in an actual header statement symbol "!" that actually turns it into a header. Without that header symbol screen readers fly through the table with the greatest of ease. Actually screen readers fly through the ! in the middle of tables with the greatest of ease since that section is long long outdated. And as was pointed out by someone recently, MOS tells us that using ! with the scope command is perfectly fine as long as it uses a scope command. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Fyunck(click) If that was the case, the simple substitution of the "!" argument for a "|" would have been an way easier solution than the ones that MOS:COLHEAD propose, and certainly it would have been recommended there. The fact that it isn't shows that the formatting isn't the only problem that violates this guideline. ABC paulista (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
However all the bad choices it gives include the ! with no scope. We had our tables 8 years ago gone over and over with screen readers and assessibilty editors and there was no problem with using |. I see no issue at all. Color alone in a legend is the bigger issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
It might not lead ot thechnical problems anymore, but its still a format not supported by the guidelines. It still lead to some issues, especially on sortable tables. ABC paulista (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with ABC Paulista's suggestion. We use the women's singles champs version of the tables from a few months ago, then edited by Fyunck. I suggest we just that, implement the final version of the two tables, 3T/Y and 2T/Y, for all 5 wikipedia pages, Men's singles, women's singles, Men's doubles, Women's doubles AND Mixed Doubles, regarding the Grand Slam champions, so, it is unified across the board. Which, in my opinion, would be the best solution. Don't you agree? Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Qwerty284651 That's the ideal outcome, and what I was envisioning with this whole discussion since the start. Unfortunately, it doesn't seems that the other editors seem to be considering the other disciplines on this. ABC paulista (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I at least I am not alone in this one. I am sure someone else will join the endeavour. It's so much easier now that we have a finished layout for the 2 tables. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused so help me out. I see you saying that women's singles champs version of the tables from a few months ago is our best compromise. I have no issue with that choice even if it may not be my first choice. In the same paragraph you post to implement the final version of the two tables, 3T/Y and 2T/Y. I don't see a final version of 3T/Y anywhere and the only version of 2T/Y is the one under Break 2 which is improper order that I could never agree to. What am I missing? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I am putting the cart before the horse and jumping to conclusions before they are actually getting finalized. So, scratch my last comment. Until we reach a final conclusion, the two table's layouts are still up in the air. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Version 0
Surface Slam
Players who won Grand Slam titles on three different surfaces: clay, grass and hard courts in a calendar year.[a]
I agree with Qwerty, the best compromise at this point is the original layout. It's not perfect but like he said it's simple, easy to read and straight to the point. ForzaUV (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Guys, after going back and forth with the tables, I am finally complacent with the current layout and I wish it stayed that way. After countless hours staying up late into the morning hours to submit, like, 3 different versions of the 2T/Y and 3T/Y versions, I am at long lost satisfied with the outcome and final simple, yet concise outcome, the final product, which is the original layout of these tables from previous editions, which have been around for years, before they were removes for some reason. I am glad they are back. And let's keep up this way. I am grateful that I re-opened the discussion on the Multiple champions section's tables and actually it came out the way it was meant to be. I could not have done without you four, ForzaUV, Fyunck(click), DiamondXIII and ABC paulista. Thank you. This has been a long and arduous discussion and I am glad it is slowly reaching it's conclusion. One heck of a ride. SIMPLE IS BETTER. :)Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
P.S. As far as the tables is concerned. I noticed the year of completion link back to the ATP Tours per year...I suggest we replace those links with the ones linking to only the Grand slam. The readers don't care about the whole season. They just want the Grand Slam champions list. Therefore, instead having (for example [[2015_ATP_World_Tour|2015 ATP Tour), have it to link to 2015 Grand SlamONLY site for the year 2015, to avoid clutter with unnecessary tournament info. Yes, it gives into perspective the whole season, but all the average reader that usually clicks on 2015, would be Grand slam-based records, information, nothing more. I am repeating myself here. Also, the page itself needs some modifying, so it lists the winners Major by major, instead of by event, men's singles, doubles,...etc, but that can easily be fixed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Simplicity and perceived "prettiness", or "elegance", cannot excuse inccorrectness, inconsistency, and misleadings, and the Version 0 is full of them, like I pointed out many times before. At least the previous women's singles tables had enough "empathy" for the readers, with the 3-slam and the 2-slam subsections keeping some WP:COHERENCE with its tables following an uniform criteria, and both the Surface Slam and the Channel Slam tables being made separated from the others for having their own selection criteria. Correctness and coherence improves readability more than plasticity will ever be able to do, and for that I currently prefer DiamondIIIXX's proposal. ABC paulista (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
ForzaUV Yes, yes there is and I've pointed them out multiple times on how joning the "exclusive" 2-slam tables (only including instances that won said slams) alongside the all-including Channel Slam would misinform the reader into believing that, either those Channel Slam instances are the only ones who ever won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, or those instances on the other 2-slam combinations are all intances that have ever did such combinations, and both ideas would be very false, and wrong, and no amount of clarification would be able to avoid such confusion (that little disclaimer Players with 3+ titles are not included here except for the French–Wimbledon (Channel Slam) list. is nearly not enough to avoid suc confusion). Also, others have pointed out that the number of players counted on the end of each table doesn't match the amount of names cited on them, and that would futher contribute to reader's confusion and wold force them to look for the correct information and to manually count the instances in different datasets, which is not recommended. As an encyclopedia, we have to give information as clear and as direct as possible to the reader, and by spearating the Channel Slam instances you're forcing them to have to figure this information out by deduction and assumptions, and that's not acceptable by Wikipedia's standards. ABC paulista (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
You posted the older women's version, [2], which has the Channel Slam listed after the other 3 and 2 slam lists, which I thought looked fine. Because in the doubles tables it's only those two (FO and WB) and then the special case of the Channel Slam is listed after showing ALL the winners. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I did not post the old women's version. Fyunck did. I was just proposing we make the layout of the tables same across the board for all 5 disciplines, AFTER we have reached a conclusion here. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the one I have made. It's as simple and as non-redundant as possible whilst including all relevant information. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Qwerty284651 and DiamondIIIXX, the Channel Slam is only being mentioned twice because the "French—Wimbledon" table was mislabeled as Channel Slam on its header. That label should be removed, otherwise it could mislead the reader into believing that these are all instances who achieved it, when in truth some 3-slam and Calendar slam winners also achieved that. The "Channel Slam" term being only mentioned on the legend is enough. ABC paulista (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Basically it's a harder to read Version 0, all those colors and symbols are unnecessary. And no need for the Grand Slam in this section. ForzaUV (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, the colours make it easier to see which era is which, and the header adds contrast. The symbols are required for accessibility, as discussed earlier. The Grand Slam is also a Season achievement, so it should be arranged with the other season achievements, 3 and 2 slams in a year. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to include the Grand Slam into the 3- and 2-slam per year tables, than start another discussion then. This one is about the 3 and 2 slam ones ONLY. Don't mix 4-slam winners tables with the 2 and 3 slam winners. They are not compatible. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Qwerty284651 and ForzaUV, the 4-slam winners also won the Channel Slam, and future instances will likely also achieve the Surface Slam, like Graf did in 1988, and so they must be also accounted on these achievements. ABC paulista (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
The ones who achieved a Calendar Slam also achieved a Channel Slam, and the ones who did it post-1978 also achieved a Surface Slam, that's how these achievments are defined. And as such, they must be mentioned, somehow, on the respective sections of these achievements. ABC paulista (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Good point regarding the Surface Slam so I readded the section to Version 0, but The Calendar Slam as Qwerty mentioned belongs to another section. Budge and Laver are in the Channel Slam list already. ForzaUV (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The fact that Channel Slam list is alongside the other five 2-slam tables, following a distinct inclusion criteria from the others, is still an issue that must be addressed. All 2-slam tables should follow the same inclusion criteria for better readability and coherence. ABC paulista (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually there are six tables, it's just that the Channel Slam replaced the "French-Wimbledon" one, and since the CHannel Slam follow a distinct criteria from the other ones, it creates an inconsistency that should be avoided. Either all the other 2-slam tables start following the Channel Slam's criteria, or the Channel Slam table is reverted back to the French-Wimbledon 2-slam-exclusive one, and the Channel Slam have its own separate subsection like the Surface Slam has. I personally prefer the latter, because it leads to less redundancies than the former. ABC paulista (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you just found the best solution for the Channel Slam conundrum of ours. Just put it in a separate subsection. I 100% agree witht his idea. Also, is there anyone with any other tables layouts they want to propose, or is that pretty much it? I am asking, because we need to make a choice on which version will take over the current layout? Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
ForzaUV moved the CHannel Slam table to its own section, which I appreciate, but he completely removed the French-Wimbledon double from the 2-slam section, which I don't agree since it leads to data incompleteness and a slight incoherence, both can be easily avoided. So I took the liberty and included it back, with only the instances that exclusively won these two. ABC paulista (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The cells are coloured to make it easy for people to see when the Open Era began. And the blue headers are there because grey ones blend in with the Amateur Era colour. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
You should not color the headers or the subheaders, for that matter, with any other color other than the default set for any Wikipedia table. Tell me, have you ever noticed on Wikipedia anywhere, not just on tennis-related articles tables with colored subheaders? Probably not. And if you ARE adamant about using colors, at least use color-blind friendly colors. As for whether the Channel slam should stay in the current "Two titles in a single season" subsection or in its own NEW section remains to be determined. I propose, it stays in its current format as is, without overcrowding the TOC and the article page, in general, with yet another subsection just to divide the discrepancies, which could just be done by keeping in the current subsection as it currently is. We already have made too many subsections for every little "stat combo", which is redundant, in my opinion. If you disagree, please, state your case. If, for some reason, we cannot reach a common ground, then a vote should settle the dilemma. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The Channel Slam is not a little "stat combo", it has it's own discussion on the main article, which denotes its notability. If anything, the other 2-slam combinations are the "little stat combos", which have nothing to prove their notability, and I'd rather get rid of them if we cannot show them in a coherent and complete way (i.e. having all combinations and them including instances by the same unified criteria). ABC paulista (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you have sources to back-up your claims? If that's true, then there should be some that give the same amount of attention, to each specific combination, that the Channel Slam receives. ABC paulista (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
ABC paulista, I don't appreciate how you don't want to make any compromises at all. We don't need another list for the French/Wimbledon double when there is a whole section for it. No solution is perfect here but making 2 lists for the same title double is silly. We can keep the list in the two titles section but then there is no need for the channel slam subsection. ForzaUV (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not silly, it's necessary because of Wikipedia's policies, and to attend the objective of an encyclopedia to be coherent and clear on its information. Altough the Channel Slam table and the French-Wimbledon table tackle the same combination, the inclusion criteria is distinct since the former is all-inclusive, and the other is exclusive to these two titles. And for the sake of readability, we have to work with there two premisses:
1) All talbles within a (sub)section should follow the same inclusion criteria and include all its instances, for better comparative data completion and better quality of information;
2) The Channel Slam table should include all the instances that achieved it, to satisfy the main article and the discussion we had back then (of moving the tables to their respective discipline's lists);
If we can satisfy both conditions, then both lists can be combined into one. If not, then there should be two separate. I can concede something, as long as it doesn't involve guidelines and/or policies, which is this case. By your logic, the Calendar Slam and the NCYGS tables shouldn't exist, because they are both included on the Career Slam achievement. ABC paulista (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
ABC paulista, you are looking too much into the Wikipedia guidelines and rules. By abiding to the policies, you are disregarding others' opinions in this discussion, because you only see the information, presented before you, through the Wiki guidelines lenses. You should be more lenient with the rules. You always play by the book, I get that. As a word of advice, I suggest you take it easy with preaching to everyone about what section/subsection follows or does not follow which rules and why...blah blah blah....Even if it is not by the book, so what. No Wikipedia article is perfect and the more you try to convince other editors to stick by the rules, you are only pushing them away with your ways. Just let it slide. Even if it is picture perfect, just let it be. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I something mix the two, policy and guideline, which are as you state two very different things. Just a small feedback on your be careful with the word choice, which I support your argument. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Qwerty284651 Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are here to give us order and coherence, in order to improve the site's reliability and to help us to achieve its objectives, and if they weren't here all of this would fall into utter chaos and anarchy, rendering this whole site useless. The guidelines give the editor's plenty enough space to be creative and proactive, there's no need to break, or warp, rules and violate guidelines to achive the desired results, otherwise WP:IAU would be claimed everytime and that just don't happen. When you say for me to "just let it be", because "No Wikipedia article is perfect", that's a textbook WP:OTHERCONTENT i.e. not a valid argument. If people are pushed away by my ways, so be it, I'm here to be WP:CIVIL and useful, not to be empathetic or friendly. IMO, it seems that sometimes the people here in this discussion are more concerned with the aesthetic side of things without giving much though on the functional side of them, and completely ignore rules and guidelines (mostly because of lack of awareness of them, it seems) to give space for personal preferences, and I'm serving as a counterpoint formuch of this. And as far as I'm concerned, most of the points I brought here were evaded rather than being directly confronted, which seems to show that my reasoning is being somwewhat sensical. Guidelines and rules > Editor's preferences and opinions, period. ABC paulista (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Although wikipedia guidelines get overruled every so often. They are guidelines in a general sense and they simply can't account for every difference in topic. That is why the are called guidelines rather than policy. Try to abide by guidelines, but use common sense in doing so (which is also a guideline). I always fall on the side of what's best for our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the guidelines are "overruled", it's just that we have many conflicting guidelines (mostly essays) and some are left vague enough to give space for subjective interpretations to promote editorial creativity and to enable case-by-case decision making, in order to acomodate for all possible necessary deviations to the common practices. ABC paulista (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Break 3
Okay, this discussion has deviated from the topic for too long. Let's cut the chase, stop beating around the bush and get straight to the point. Over the past 11 days we came up with 5 different version of the 3 titles per year(3T/Y) and 2 titles per season(2T/Y) tables for the Multiple champions section. Here are those 5 version/options. I propose we vote for one:
Option 1: Version 1
3T/Y (1.0)
Multiple Grand Slam titles champions
Achievement completed in Open Era indicated in bold. Pre-Open Era lasted from 1877 - 1968. Open Era started in 1968.
No they aren't. I've already explained multiple times before on how the inclusion criteria on the Channel Slam differs from the "French-Wimbledon" table and from the other doubles, and how it's incompatible with the "Two titles" section. Mixing criterias within a section is not recommended. ABC paulista (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
How can they actually differ? French Open-Wimbledon double IS THE SAME as Channel Slam...End of discussion. Whether we include only the 2-slam winners in the table or all instances of the Channel Slam, including thise who won 3-slam titles, along with the Channel slam is up for debate, up to us, the editors, to decide. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the achievement itself, but about these tables' formatting, especially on how they differ on their inclusion criteria. The Channel Slam table includes all instances that achieved it, be it a 2-slam, a three-quarter or a calendar slam instance, while the "French-Wimbledon" table include only the 2-slam instances, and this is what makes them differ. They might tackle the same subject, but they differ on their methodology. ABC paulista (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Some of the versions changed since I discussed them. Striking out the names in option 5 is a no go for me and terrible for wikipedia.... it's as if the players were disqualified. Otherwise Option 5 is best. Option 3 (either 3ty or 2ty) also works for me but it would need a separate "Channel Slam" table section. The absolute worst version of the tables is option 4. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Option 5 but with one French-Wimbledon table, not two. It's confusing to have the same title double with different names. Please choose your prefered variation from here
Version 0 Variations
Variation 1 for me. I'd be ok with Variation 2 but not 3.
I agree with ABC Paulista on this one. Either we have Channel slam in its own subsection or in the 2-slam winners subsection, but having only the 2-slam winners, not the 3-slam ones and most certainly not the 4-slam winners, who happened to win FO and Wimbledon in the same year. If anyone disagrees, start a new discussion on this talk page, but not in this thread. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
That's how I feel about it, variation 3 with two different lists for the same two tournaments is too confusing for the readers no matter how you look at it. ForzaUV (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Confusing is having 5 tables following a certain criteria, and having another one following another one, making data barely comprarable. Not only confusing, but misleading, giving the false impression that either the Channel Slam is more common (or doable, or likely) than it is compared to the others, or that the other combinations are less common than they are. You simply can't have two distinct datasets and expect the readers to figure things out, that's not how an encyclopedia operates. ABC paulista (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Variation 3. But then I'd probably dump all the 2x charts except the Channel Slam. Option 3 (3T/Y 1.2) isn't bad but it needs an extra Channel Slam chart or dump the 2x winners from that Option and only have the Channel Slam chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Variation 3. Either that, or an option where all 2-slam tables include all the instances that made each of the combinations, be them 3-slam or 4-slam, following the same inclusion criteria of the current Channel Slam, then we could have only one table for the "French-Wimbledon" combination, this being the current Channel Slam one. Either of these would be leagues better than either Variation 1 or 2. ABC paulista (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
To illustrate my point, I've created Variation 4. I still prefer Variation 3, but I'd find it an acceptable secondary choice. But I think that Variation 4 would work better if it's sortable, so an reformatting would be necessary. ABC paulista (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Guys, lets just stop complicating things and reach a decision already. This discussion has been going on for way too long. Variation 4 is dreadful. ABC Paulista what were you thinking to illustrate with this one. The whole point of having short tables is to keep it short and simple, not "have everybody"...we are going backwards with Var. 4...what the heck? Just choose between Variation 1 or Variation 2 and be done with it. Qwerty284651 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Because those are the two worst variations of the four variations. They are either lopsided tables or tables out of place. There's always back to version 3 as long as we include a separate Channel Slam table, if you don't want to "go backwards", but otherwise Version 0, variation 4 is the one most can live with. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Qwerty284651 Variation 4 is an alternative for Version 3 in order to just include just one table that tackles the Roland Garros-Wimbledon double i.e. Channel Slam. Variations 3 and 4 makes it possible that all tables within a (sub)section to have an unified inclusion criteria and include all the combinations done, and also make it possible to include a Channel Slam table with all the instances that achieved it, including the 3-slam and 4-slam ones. Variations 1 and 2 don't do either of them, and for such are actually the worst ones here. An option that either doesn't make possible to apply an unified inclusion criteria for the 3-slam and 2-slam tables, or that doesn't include a full Channel Slam table is not acceptable. ABC paulista (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Option: Combo 1.0 or 1.1
I keep listening so I might as well add to the pile. Qwerty is correct that variation 4 is a bit of a step backwards, but without a separate Channel Slam table some of us are left with no choice. Perhaps we should re-examine a table put forth early on by Qwerty and tweaked by Forza but with the Channel Slam table included. I'm not saying it's the best, but it takes into account many quibbles, yet adds a few interesting things. I have removed some aspects of the original tables and coding and reformatted the Channel Slam table to match the other tables. This is a "moving forward" style that retains something I consider essential... the Channel Slam and consistency throughout each section.
I think that the Surface Slam should have its own section, because we have to forsee that, in the future, a male singles' player might achieve it and the Calendar Slam at the same time. If this format is applied in other disciplines this would be already an issue, like on the Women's singles' (Graf's 1988) and doubles' (Navratilova's and Shriver's 1984, Hingis's 1998) ones. Also, I don't think that's necessary to mention the Channel Slam on the "Two titles in a single season" section, since this achievement has its own section just below. Mentioning it in two distinct contexts might be kinda confusing.
The surface slam didn't have it's own section in any of the versions except Version 0. And I'm not going to make a new chart on the basis of what might happen. I don't find it an issue right now. As someone had mentioned in another thread, with major tournaments there was already a surface slam done in 1913. That's not included here either. Also one usually tablizes things because they become a bit unwieldy in prose. Only two have done it so far. I left the Channel Slam in the two discipline section because no one had said they didn't like it and that's how I found it. If everyone wants it gone I have no issue. I mean, I don't like that every group in the two tournament column has (10 players), (12 players), etc... Yeah there is a note about it but I think readers will find it confusing. However that's they way I found it so I left it. I tackled it as I saw it and listened to everyone's wishlist. That's where I was coming from when I created this combo set of charts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
But the Surface Slam currently has its own section, so including it in your version would be an easy copypaste from this article, a non-issue at all. The supposed "1913's Wilding's surface slam" is considering the old "World Championships", which aren't the same as the current Grand Slam tournaments and as such aren't conisdered part of this achivement, thus not being pertinent to this discussion. Just bacause something was there before, it doesn't mean it can be changed/adapted now. The Channel Slam link on the 2-slam table is redundant and unnecessary when there is a better placement for it just below. About the enumeration, yourself and I complained about it, and I don't remeber anyone directly asking for it, but you removed the Era division, something that multiple editors wanted to stay, so I'm not sure if you really "listened to everyone's wishlist". ABC paulista (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
But I included a notation of the two eras. And I looked at my own wish-list too. No one had made a chart with the useless eras removed. It was the same thing over and over...Amateur Era/Open Era/Amateur Era/Open Era... over and over. Just one note saying the date the Open Era started is all that's needed. We could get rid of an entire column. Certainly we could keep things as they are in 1.0 and add the Surface Slam and call it 1.1. It needs a tweak since it's not totally accurate using the term slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I prefer version 1.1 because it can be applied to ther other disciplies as well, without much issues. But maybe we could make them sortable, especially the 2-slam one, since it has many repeating names, and some could find it useful to sort by this criteria, or to organize it chornologically. ABC paulista (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I thought we all have agreed to go with Option 5 in Qwerty's survey, and we even started to discuss its variation and now we're back to square one? Sorry but no, I stick to Option 5, variation 1, 2 or 4. The combos are long and more complicated with many unnecessary colors, W's, F's, SF's, 3Rs etc and there are two lists for Wimbledon-French in them which I still find confusing. ForzaUV (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Querty didn't agree, so it seems that Fyunck is still trying to reach a common denominator. Honestly, this seems less and less likely. ABC paulista (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Exactly what I'm trying to do. I have no issue with Option 5, Variation 4. Querty hated it. But both Querty and Forza had also given us the chart style I offered in Combo 1... so I assumed they liked the styling. I had no issues with that styling, just the content and coding so I tweaked it to see if it would satisfy both myself and ABC P. It looks like it I might have been able to satisfy myself and ABC, but we lost Forza... and Querty hasn't responded. I'm just trying to see if we can all agree to something. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Guys, this discussion thread has veered off course for too long. I stated my opinion and preference about Option 5 Variation 1 or Variation 2. But it seems things got more and more convoluted with combos and whatnot. So, I have decided to give up on this discussion altogether. What ever conclusion this ordeal comes to is the same to me. I just don't care any more. Best option is to leave the subsection on the main article as it is currently, without implementing the options discussed here....Anyway, to heck with this...I am out. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I noticed one thing on Variation 4. The Surface Slam is plainly marked, but not so the Channel Slam. It should be marked in some way other than a link. Otherwise I'm good with it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll publish it and you guys can edit it as you wish or revert it or whatever. Qwerty is right, we need to put an end to this ordeal. ForzaUV (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I've abstained from this discussion for a while because of how long it has gone on and the seeming rejection of valid proposals, as well as the constant argument about whether to include Channel Slam duplication or not. Can we please just settle on Combo 1.0 by @Fyunck(click) and move on. @ABC paulista @ForzaUV @Qwerty284651DiamondIIIXX (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I still prefer Version 0 (either Variation 3 or Variation 4), but I could settle with Combo 1.1. Combo 1.0 would lead to some issues when applied in other disciplines, and thus I view 1.1 as a superior option. ABC paulista (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
