Talk:2024 French Open – Men's singles

QF delete

Qwerty, I don't agree with you. 2022 French Open. Holger Rune became the first Danish man to reach a major singles quarterfinal in the Open Era. Ruud became the first Norwegian man to reach a major quarterfinal and beyond (surpassing his father Christian), and the first Scandinavian man to do so since Robin Söderling in 2010. This include in page about 2022 edition. Why you delete information about De Minaur (I'm redacted only the link, because added information about fourth round in 17 years pass, the qf pass pasted someone else). DenZaUNITY (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@DenZaUNITY, greetings there. I happened to see you topic here, because I opened another discussion otherwise I would not have seen it. I am not watching this page.

Next time you can ping me or anyone another editor by using one of the following templates {{ping}}, {{u}} or {{replyto}}. See how I mentioned you in the top.

I don't remember removing de Minaur's paragraph/sentence. As for the 2022 French Open which I assume you are talking about how the first <nationality> man to reach <major round> records were kept? Right? And wikilink to pages to help other editors better understand what you are referring to. You can wikilink by encapsulating a link with double square brackets [[ ]]. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Vying for record mentions

@Fyunck(click):, you removed Djokovic's attempt to overtake Margaret Court and equal Steffi Graf's quadruple grand slam. In your edit summary you say: "if he is vying for a record. We don't include "what-ifs" when they never happen. Otherwise we have to include this same stuff every year"

Also, Serena when she clinched her 23 slam at 2017 AO, she had numerous mentions of attempting to equal Margaret Court's 24-slam tally (, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and Graf's 4x career grand slam (1).

There are numerous instances of players "vying for a career grans slam for all 4 slams", 4 of which are in the other 4 disciplines at 2024 FO (check draw pages' info leads). See complete list of active players chasing for the CGS.

1. Jean-Julien Rojer MD AO
2. Desirae Krawczyk XD – AO
3. Novak Djokovic MS – FO (4th CGS)
4. Angelique Kerber WS – FO
5. Elise Mertens WD – FO
6. Mate Pavić MD, XD – FO (2x)
7. Stan Wawrinka MS – WIM
8. Bethanie Mattek-Sands WD, XD – WIM (2x)
9. Hsieh Su-wei WD – USO
10. Barbora Krejčíková WD – USO (2nd CGS)
11. Kateřina Siniaková WD – USO (2nd CGS)
12. Ivan Dodig XD – USO

And they get mentioned from year to year.

I would revert Djokovic's mention you removed. Given the scope it is worth a sentence in the lead. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerty284651: In my opinion there are so many things wrong with it. One, we don't talk about men's records vs womens records... they aren't on the map and shouldn't be mushed together. And do you realize we have to put that in every major he plays in as a "what-if?" That's crazy. He didn't even make the final. It's something that gets put in the lead before the event but afterwards if it didn't happen it gets removed in a shot. That's something that belongs on their own article and even there i wouldn't mention it every time it's viable. Those players going for career majors shouldn't be in tournament articles unless they complete it. My goodness, as long as Wawrinka plays we have to mention him in the Wimbledon article??? We have to retroactively add him to any that don't mention him? How many external articles are being written about Ivan Dodig going for a CGS? And the whole concept of more than one CGS is silly. You either have one or you don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, the first 4 mentions of Serena chasing Court were where she lost in finals, yhen 2 more when losing in earlier rounds (see links 5 and 6 above). For the 4x slam shr lost before QFs, still got mentioned. For future editors not keeping track of CGS or being aware of its existence, they are going to know whether one is chasing a set of slams or not. It serves, in a way, as a reminder. Although, there will always be editors aware if one is chasing any slam sets in any discipline (main, senior, wheelchair)...

This begs the question. Do we then remove former mentions of failed attempts at CGS or leave what was written behind and refrain from mentioning it moving forward if not the completion was not successful?

I agree with you on the men's and women's not mixing. No argument there. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The whole multiple career grand slam concept was started by us the editors on wiki and others just kept adding every instance ever of a career grand slam in the respective 5 articles on the main tour. Do we keep them or eliminate them? Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

When I see trivia, and I have the time, I remove it. Sometimes it just get's added back. Do we retroactively add 10 years of Australian Championship text that says "Helen Wills" could have easily completed a CGS but chose not to compete"? Same with 12 years of Margaret Osborne duPont at the Australian? And we don't do it for 10 years of Evonne Goolagong at the US Open, and she kept making it to the finals! I might not have deleted it because she made the finals and it was really viable... though I wouldn't mention it every time she made the final. Once would have been enough. Monica Seles competed seven times to win Wimbledon and complete a CGS... nothing, and she made the finals and multiple QFs. I find editors adding everything but the kitchen sink "because they can" not good copyediting. The lead should have the very most important aspects of the event, not fine details. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Can't argue with that. Keep it short and concise.

Looking at slams/masters articles nowadays, this event included, where do we draw the line with details? I see a lot of fluff with youngest/oldest from XY country to reach this and that round for the first time since X year...repetitive but I don't remove in the lead. And other trivia. It will only be matter of time before after removing the trivia, it gets added back. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we need some flexibility on this. Some players will certainly be more notable than others so a line in the sand might be too much. If everyone is reasonable it can work. Going for a first CGS is far far more notable than any multiples but we are going to need several press reports talking specifically about it. And if a player is a win away it has more bearing than early rounds. For me, most trivia is obvious. It's those boarderline ones that I'd rather let go and work on something more dire. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Stupid redactors

You are some strange editors, you restored the same information and deleted it again probably 5 times, let’s not add anything at all. Let's just leave how poor, injured Nadal lost the first round for the first time in a long time (which, in principle, was already obvious). And, well, yes, for some, the Australians reach the quarterfinals at Roland Garros every year, why add this, the first one in 20 years has reached it - it’s better to remove it, because some standards of a semi-active user, who himself, like Murray, will soon end his career. News sites and various information trackers (Opta, various ambulances, etc.) quietly add it and everything is fine, and we insert it as a fact of how rarely this event occurs. Damn nonsense, in short, continue editing yourself, I’m not going to get into this page anymore. DenZaUNITY (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What I would do with Nadal, since this is his last French Open, would be to write something like. "In what was expected to be his last French Open, an injured Rafael Nadal lost in round one." Nothing more than that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Trivia

Honestly, I suggest this user Fyunk or whatever start removing these unnecessary pieces of information they mention from every single fucking tennis grand slam final article, otherwise there is no reason to do only here. 2804:1020:6C11:1200:869:973C:E473:F03B (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

We are, but it takes time. Tone it down a notch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)