Talk:List of male singles tennis players

message: Is the list ordered in any particular sequence ? Jay 13:25, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to sort it alphabetically then. Jay 09:56, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it be by last name? -- Jao 19:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

text: yes, pls do it! Jay 10:33, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List order 

message: I generated a list of all players who have won four or more matches in the Open Era and filtered it into red/blue links. The good news: 490/755=65% of the links are already blue. The bad news: there's still 265 red links, and no guarantee that all the blue ones link to the correct articles! See User:Dantheox/players --Dantheox 01:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Open-Era list 

message: Federer doesn't hold record for most consecutive weeks as No. 1, he "just" holds record for most consecutive weeks as ATP No. 1 : the ATP ranking has first been published on August, 23 1973. Tennis has existed at least a century (born between 1858 and 1870 and not in 1874) before the ATP ranking was created. Players such as Gonzales or Tilden or Laver have been No.1 for 7 or 8 years but at the time there was no computer and weekly rankings. So Federer's records are just last quarter century records but not all-time records. Some players have been No.1 before 1973 and for very long periods (see World number one male tennis player rankings).
Carlo Colussi 12:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed records 

message: ok for all without McEnroe !
Fred30 13 (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: candidate for greatest player of all time

message: There is not a birth year for some notable recent or quite recent players, Anders Järryd (retired 1995), Felix Mantilla (active), Todd Martin (ret. 2004), Jarkko Nieminen (active) and Tommy Robredo (active). Each one's article has the year. Why not this one? 85.217.51.162 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: info is incomplete, still (page should be tagged as such) - pitch in if you wish Mayumashu (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth years? 

message: There are: ranked among the top 25 singles players in the "Open Era"; been ranked in the top five prior to the Open Era and ranked World No. 1 in singles or doubles
There is no need to furthermore list #1 in singles, as they all must be within the top 25 or top 5. Or am I wrong? 85.217.41.210 (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I've edited this out Mayumashu (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant criterias in the header? 

message: The present criteria don't have ATP World Tour Masters 1000/ATP Masters Series/Tennis Masters Series/Mercedes-Benz Super 9/Championship Series, Single Week/Grand Prix Tour Championship Series title wins as a criterion, but it very likely should.  Will add it at some point unless there are objections.  (Suggest just mentioning, in the notes right column, the number of such titles won without listing them.) Mayumashu (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would overcomplicate the article, in my humble opinion. Rovingrobert (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masters Series event titles should be an additional list inclusion criterion 

message: the list when complete will be too long.  why don't we limit it to grand slam singles semi-finalist or better?  also, maybe we should say top 20 instead of top 25 ranking? Mayumashu (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  grand slam semi-finalist instead of quarter-finalist as criterion? 

message: I think so, but won't add it at this point. List is at Major professional tennis tournaments before the Open Era Mayumashu (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre-1968 "pro grand slam" tournament finalists/titlists inclusion too? 

message: For the sake of greater brevity, this list definitely needs to includes a player's best performance at a Grand Slam rather than all of their quarterfinal-or-better appearances. Otherwise, why not include every period for which the player had been ranked in the top 25 as well? Which, of course, would make little sense. Rovingrobert (talk) 07:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I 100% agree. I'm not sure why the lengthy lists started happening. However if their best performance at a major is equal in 2 or 3 of them, which do we use? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, and only then, we could use all of those results. Just as on their individual Wikipedia profile, it only shows their best result(s). Rovingrobert (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say go ahead and do it... it sounds logical. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the confirmation. You have been very helpful. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: shorten criteria

message: This list was gratuitously complicated by having singles and doubles players in the same article. I split the article in two: "List of male singles tennis players" and "List of male doubles tennis players". Need help removing Doubles references from the Singles article, and vice versa. Rovingrobert (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate articles for singles and doubles

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Oppose - they are two different disciplines and the notable players are very different. Having two different lists is appropriate. However, the lists have wrong players - Leander Paes is notable in doubles only, and Grigor Dimitrov is notable in singles only. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: the List of male doubles tennis players has now been completely updated, i.e. (singles) players who did not meet the inclusion criteria have been removed and the contents of the inclusion column has been updated  to reflect the player's performance in the doubles event. Not sure why this necessary clean-up was not done, or at least initiated, after the article split in October 2015. As a result of the clean-up the article has almost halved in size.--Wolbo (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   I guess I initiated the cleanup on the singles side only. My bad. I actually don't mind the new article format. I can live with it. Don't bother saying that you have completely updated the article. Just be honest and say that most of the work has been done. You would be surprised what singles players evade one's notice. They will go with time and as more editors see the page, so it doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong, you did a great job and it wouldn't be something I would have had the nerve to carry out. Rovingrobert (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It is a lot of work, but I would start with highest ranking and highest ranking's year.
When create columns for GS, AO, RG, WIM, USO, OLY and Finals
Also, I think all doubles information should be removed:
Name	Birth	Death	Nation	    	 		                        	                       	                       	                       	                       	                       	                       	Criteria for inclusion
    	1970 	–    	      	2011	1		data-sort-value=8152636 	data-sort-value=4040607	data-sort-value=1030509	data-sort-value=1020507	data-sort-value=2061013	data-sort-value=1000000	data-sort-value=1040600	
    	1967 	–    	      	2003	1		data-sort-value=6101823 	data-sort-value=2020204	data-sort-value=304    	data-sort-value=3070911	data-sort-value=1010404	                       	data-sort-value=3080900	
    	1956 	–    	      	1987	1		data-sort-value=11161721	                       	data-sort-value=6060607	data-sort-value=5060608	data-sort-value=40506  	                       	data-sort-value=3080900	
    	1972 	–    	      	2008	2		data-sort-value=1040813 	data-sort-value=10303  	data-sort-value=1020204	data-sort-value=1      	data-sort-value=10305  	                       	data-sort-value=10100  	
    	1988 	–    	      	    	6		data-sort-value=1020410 	data-sort-value=101    	data-sort-value=1      	data-sort-value=10104  	data-sort-value=1010204	                       	                       	
    	1952 	–    	      	1998	1		data-sort-value=8153141 	data-sort-value=1020202	data-sort-value=408    	data-sort-value=2061114	data-sort-value=5071417	                       	data-sort-value=3041200	
* of course, some template is needed to produce  from .
Update:
Here it is: 
Ilyan (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, we have articles that cover these types of records. I'm not a big fan of this article but this is only a list of players with simply a column that proves why they are included. I think the rest of those stats are overkill and make the table incredibly wide. So I'd be in favor of keeping it as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nationality can be cut, also only part of the columns can be left, e.g. highest ranking + data and total GS data. Ilyan (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

text: "Death" is also irrelevant column.
Please don't keep editing this list here... use your sandbox. I moved this stuff to your sandbox so you can work on it but I doubt many will want the change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split criteria to sortable columns 

message: There currently are no citations, so are citations actually needed? If they are, to verify what information? CharlesTStokes (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This article needs additional citations for verification."