Template talk:Major tennis tournaments

Tennis Template‑class

This template 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

Template

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing
Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures
Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles.
Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles
Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards.
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project.
Tag more articles with our standard project template.
Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

Template name[edit]

This template should be renamed "Major tennis tournaments" or similar. It used to be that way until about 3 years ago (as shown here). It's innacurate to call this a Grand Slam template when only part of what's listed are the four Grand Slam tourneys. -Testpored2 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter that much? The tournaments listed are: 1) Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 2) Australian Championships, French Championships, Wimbledon Championships, US National Championships; 3) US Pro, French Pro, Wembley Pro; 4) World Hard Court Championships, World Grass Court Championships, World Covered Court Championships. Those are all the Grand Slam tournaments of their day, i.e. the Majors. Would the term Majors be more accurate for the template, sure, but I think what we use now is understandable by most. In singles, For 1) there has been three Grand Slams won (one man, two women). For 2) there has been three Grand Slams won (two men, one woman). For 3) there has been two Grand Slams won (both men). For 4) there was one Grand Slam won (one man). I guess I'd need to be convinced we needed a change in the title. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it matters. Here are the definitions of "Grand Slam" from Grand Slam (tennis):

"The Grand Slam tournaments, also called majors, are the four most important annual tennis events."

"The term Grand Slam, without qualification, and also originally, refers to the achievement of winning all four major championships within a single calendar year."

Thus the term only refers to the 4 current majors, not the other historical events in the template. Those can be called "majors" but not "Grand Slams". -Testpored2 (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually winning the US Pro, French Pro, Wembley Pro has also been called winning the professional Grand Slam. The only one I have not seen called that is #4. Technically you are correct, this should all be called simply "Major tennis tournaments". It the early days of this template is was called "Tennis Grand Slams" and included #1, #2 and #3. Somewhere around 2012 #4 was added and the chart title really became wrong by calling it Grand Slams. Remember, the ILTF refused to recognize the US Championship in those early days and the US refused to recognize the ILTF championships. The title had a remedy attempt in 2015 to "Tennis tournament (Majors)" but was soon changed to "Grand Slam tournaments (Majors)." Then some IP editor slipped in a change in 2017 and that's where it stands today. Your solution is the best choice, no question about it, I was only saying I'm not sure it's worth it (though I would support your change). We could also have two templates, one with your title that encompasses all these events, and another with only the four current Grand Slam tournaments. Another problem with the chart is that per the dates in use, anyone looking at it would think that The US Championships, Wimbledon, and Australian Championships are only considered majors starting in 1924... and that is dead wrong per all sourcing today. They are majors from their inceptions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this template until a few days ago when it was added to the GS Records page that I watch. Since we're in agreement here, I went ahead and renamed it. Then I pared it down to just the relevant info without the incorrect dates that you mentioned. It's much cleaner now. -Testpored2 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Wimbledon the other three majors were not majors from inception they were national championships until 1924. The ITF confirms this for example the Australian Open ' At this stage it wasn't designated as one of the majors and only reached this status in 1924'. The only officially sanctioned Majors by the world governing body before 1924 were the three World Championships. Because of US objections the ILTF abolished the older Majors and created 4 New Majors here. This article also confirms what the ITF states. http://www.tenniscollectors.org/journal/number30/The World Championships of 1913 to 1923: the Forgotten Majors The dates on the template you changed were in fact correct.--Navops47 (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the dates were correct, the template is better without them. For the historical events, each article has the date ranges when it was considered a major. So that level of detail is readily available for any curious readers. That's why I grouped them as "former" in the template. -Testpored2 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]