Talk:List of Grand Slam singles champions in Open Era with age of first title

Tennis Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance 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.

Merge[edit]

I think this orphan article is more apt to be in the right place with the integration to the main article!BLUE _DOG^TN 19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Default sort order[edit]

I noticed the sorting was recently changed from the default of chronological tournament order to descending order of age. Then it was changed back to its default. Just wondering what is best. I'm certainly used to the default and have no problems with it, but... the title of this article is "List of Grand Slam singles champions in Open Era by age at first win." Age is a big key here... not the actual tournament. The first line of prose also has "This is a list of Open Era tennis Grand Slam singles champions by age at the time of their first title." So again it says by age, not by tournament. It seems that a default listing by age might be the better choice. Are our readers coming here to initially see a list by tournament or who was the youngest and oldest Major champion? That's the most important question. I guess as long as the categories can be sorted either way it's a minor issue, but should the category of age or tournament be the default? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a definite preference for chronology because it conveys a better sense of Open Era history and continuity over time. And, like you say, it's easy to sort by age. So I just reworded the lede to not imply it should be sorted by age. Thanks for pointing that out. And it'd be better to reword the page title to "...with age of first title", which also would match the Template description.

edit: 2 more points in favor of chronology: a) if age sort have to choose youngest or oldest, each with a bias I don't care for and b) chronology makes adding new champs risk-free, no manual sorting required. -Testpored (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the sorting of the list by tournament date but generally speaking if an article is named 'List of .... by ....' it will probably be interpreted by readers to mean that it is sorted by whatever comes after the word 'by' which in this case is age. Therefore, if we wish to keep the current sorting it would be advisable to adjust the article title. Frankly the bigger problem is that the article was tagged in 2009 (!) for failing to cite any source and in all the years since then not a single citation / reference has been added. That in itself is reason to send the article to AfD.--Wolbo (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added an ITF ref, as the site has all relevant data. (Ya, that is quite a long run of being tagged!) -Testpored (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're all in agreement, I went ahead and moved it. -Testpored (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]