Talk:Tennis players with most titles in the Open Era

message: I just would say something about the following articles "Tennis players with most singles titles", "Tennis players with most titles" and "Tennis statistics" : they mainly (if not absolutely for the first two) concentrate on open era tennis and not on the whole story of tennis so their titles are inadequate.
I am writing an article called "Tennis, male players statistics" (that I've written in the French version of Wikipedia and that I will tranlate in English) that takes into account statistics available since July 9, 1877 when the first tournament match has begun. Unhappily just few statistics are available because many have been lost or never registered nevertheless this is absolutely unfair to restrict tennis statistics only to ATP statistics that are even uncomplete in the beginning of the open era : you will see in my list that even the modern players as Connors or Lendl or McEnroe or ... have won more titles than the ATP "officially" lists. I guarantee you that for instance the ATP hasn't listed many New South Wales Championships (Sydney) as those of 1973 (Anderson winner) or of 1974 (Tony Roche)...And naturally there isn't anything about the pre-open years : what about Budge or Drobny ? Absolutely nothing.
Carlo Colussi 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate titles 

message: merged from Talk:Tennis players with most singles titles --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'd rather see a career span. GregorB 23:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan column 

message: You only choose players whose career ended after 1968 : you don't take into account all the players of the pre-open era which lasted a whole century whereas the open era has not yet 40 years in duration. This is why I've changed the title of that article. Carlo Colussi 14:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inadequate title (bis) 

message: Tennis players with most singles titles was redirected here. You can now find the discussions from its talk page here - rst20xx (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived discussions 

message: I like the enthusiasm with this project, but the list is getting a bit long and I fee like we should impose SOME kind of limit. 35? 30? Suggestions? Alonsornunez (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut-Off? 

message: The atpworldtour.com website says Jimmy won 108 titles, not 109.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men - Wrong # for Jimmy Connors? 

message: Novak Djokovic and several others have less than 30 titles. Why are they in the list? Naki (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They were added in April by an IP  and a new editor with no other edits . I have removed them. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Players with less than 30 titles? 

message: The women's titles list is inconsistent --- for some women, it counts WTA and ITF tournaments; for others, it does not.  It would obviously be best to be consistent.  Is there any consensus as to which it should be? (I would prefer not counting ITF events, as the equivalent are not counted for the men.  --Hamiltonian (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example, Justine Henin is listed at 43S/2D, which matches her WTA stats, but she also won 7S/2D at ITF events.  Kveta Peschke is listed at 11S/21D, but she won 1S/18D at the WTA level and 10S/8D (which doesn't even add up to the listed total) at the ITF level.  Why this is a 'concern' is just that there are some women on the list who did not win 30 titles.  (There are actually some inconsistencies with the men as well, but I'm working on those.) --Hamiltonian (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On first glance I would say you need to count them all as per the article title. The WTA formed in 1973 so if you only included WTA titles that would be from 1973 onwards. If you go back to the Virginia Slims that started in 1970 so you could only go back to then, but the ITF/ITLF has been around since before 1968. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most ITF titles on the women's tour are currently the equivalents of Futures/Challengers on the men's.  Should we include those as well? (That will change the tables quite a bit, and make many more players eligible if the cut-off is kept at 30.)  I have no major objections either way, but am just curious about consensus.  Otherwise, should we also include mixed doubles (they are organized by the ITF) as a separate column? What about team titles (Fed/Davis Cup, Hopman Cup)? --Hamiltonian (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I have no prob with a mixed doubles column. As for futures/challenger equivalents that a tough one. Either choice I would mention it right up front in the opening paragraph that this includes them or doesn't include them so future editors know, but consensus is always tough in tennis articles as only a few people regularly edit them. You might post it in talk on the tennis project page but I'd guess you'll get 4 people posting to the query. As for team titles it wouldn't be fair to add those to the individual totals. I'm also wondering, we have multiple articles on the open era so try to keep from overlapping existing information elsewhere on wikipedia. Good luck in the endeavor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's titles 

message: This article title is pretty specific and that's fine and dandy. But then shouldn't players like Billie Jean King and Margaret Court only count the titles they won since 1968? It looks like their titles are all-time which would include many titles much earlier than 1968. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Margaret Court's article says that 92 out of her 192 titles were won during the Open Era.  Not sure how reliable that number is, since there's no source in the article backing it up.  If the number is correct, then her stats would be Open Era only. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennis titles since 1968 

message: The header says "This is a list of the male and female tennis players who have won at least thirty official events on the tennis tour since 1968 (singles and doubles combined". That is really vague since there was no tour that far back. If it's any pro tournament then that would include ITF wins (they are official) and there would be heaps of other unknown players who pile up many victories in the smaller but more numerous tournaments. I believe the WTA website numbers include ITF wins in their totals. I don't care any particular way it gets handled but it would seem to me we need more preciseness in this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What are tennis events?

message: I've noticed Mark Philippoussis is not on this list despite his 11 career singles titles and 3 doubles titles.
Can this be updated?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.235.140 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: - Then his total would be 14 events won on tour. This article's lead specifically says "This is a list of the tennis players who have won at least thirty official events on the tennis tour." So Philippoussis does not qualify. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Players 

message: It seems logical to me to put the list of women players first because this is an article ranking individual players by titles won, and the women have the winningest players in each category. The women were listed first prior to an edit with no comment/edit summary by an unregistered user on 22 June 2015 in which the only edit was to move the men before the women. This was nothing more than an "undo" of my edit from 2013 without explanation. Can anyone give a reason why the winningest players shouldn't be listed first, given the title of the article? Should we consider merging the lists to provide a better overall ranking, and leave it to separate articles (such as the Tennis male players statistics article mentioned under "See Also") to rank players within a particular format (m/w singles, m/w doubles, mixed doubles)? Scienceandpoetry (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why the ladies shouldn't come first. The only reason someone might want it men first would be because men comes before women in the alphabet. I do think it best to keep the ladies and men separate though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

text: That's probably for the best, actually. Keeping this article the same ordering as all other dual-gender articles does make the most sense. So I've crossed-out my comment from last year. -Testpored (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Order 

message: The article criteria was tagged "why?" by Rovingrobert to inquire why mixed doubles is not included. I prefer omitting mixed because it cleanly separates men's and women's results. Also, mixed is such a minor side-show event only at Slams and now the Olympics; it's about as close to exhibition as it gets for official pro events. So I prefer keeping this article as-is. --Testpored (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... I hadn't thought about it. My first thought now is that mixed should also be here. I don't think it's a sideshow at all. heck, doubles itself has been considered a lesser event in recent years because the top singles players don't play it anymore. The Bryan brothers would have far less titles if top pros also played. Mixed is officially sanctioned by the ITF as official events of the Majors and Olympics and they probably should be included here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither until it was tagged. Not too long ago I did add the "non-mixed" label to make it quite clear what the criteria are. It's also worth noting that this page's criteria haven't changed one bit since it was created over 9 years ago (permalink to very first edit). -Testpored (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about this a bit more, the fact that mixed is official does lend credence to its inclusion here, regardless of its actual significance. (And I do agree with Fyunck that doubles has waned in significance over time too.) My argument of gender separation doesn't really preclude it either; of course the 2 lists should remain separate for men & women. I won't protest further if others want to add it. -Testpored (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I support including mixed doubles titles in the article, and suggest having a separate column for mixed doubles in the table. It is a separate tennis discipline (one of the main five) so it shouldn't be grouped together with single-sex doubles. A separate mixed doubles column is also used here: List of Grand Slam related tennis records#Most titles across all disciplines (all time). Gap9551 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with a separate column. It's very different than doubles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:    I'd be perfectly happy to research the information and emplace it, but I've no idea how to add another column. It seems like another column would preclude the inclusion of the inset photos. Perhaps we can squish the 'country' column in a bit, since some of the listed countries already spill onto a second line. Rovingrobert (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rovingrobert. I think the country column can be removed if space is needed. Maybe flagicons can be used in front of the player names instead, as is done in e.g. Open Era tennis records – men's singles. Gap9551 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're jumping the gun a bit. Not all on onboard with removing columns and such. Do it all in your sandbox and let us have a look at it first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  So in other words, I copy the article to my sandbox, fully edit it, then ping you guys? Rovingrobert (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's how most major edits are done instead of piecemeal. And you don't have to ping us... if you post the link here we have this on our watch list and will reply relatively soon. For instance, the centering should go, and I'm not sure about removing the country row. I would use flagathlete rather than just flagicon if it gets removed. Remember also that we all can edit your sandbox page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. Here is the link. I will say that Flagathlete seems like a real pain as it inserts the country name in brackets after the athlete's name. Rovingrobert (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For flagathlete there is a long and a short option:  produces , and  produces . Here is a list of 3-letter country codes: ISO 3166-1 alpha-3. Gap9551 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your time, but I don't know if I'd want the country name listed after the applicable flag and player name. For me, that nullifies the purpose of the flag, and simultaneously chews up space. Rovingrobert (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also not a fan of the flagathlete template in a table where width may be an issue, but Fyunck(click) suggested it, and therefore I mentioned the short version as a possible compromise between having a separate country column and no country listed at all. Gap9551 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just a suggestion. It was more to show RR that it would be best to work on this in user space, bring it to our attention, and then we can tweak it more or not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, Olympics medals do not count as won titles, do they? Rovingrobert (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: only Gold medals count as titles -Testpored (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I'm currently having a hard time differentiating between exhibition and official mixed doubles title wins. See Martina_Navratilova_career_statistics#Non-Grand_Slam_mixed_doubles:_6. According to that list, Navrat has had 6 non-Grand Slam mixed doubles title wins. One of them, Watsons Water Champions Challenge, purports to be an exhibition event. Not sure about the others. Rovingrobert (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  Thanks. Sorry I couldn't be of much help. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

text:  Minor detail, but some of the title hauls for careers that began before the Open Era are incomplete. I'll have a look over soon. Rovingrobert (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what? Not disputing, but curious. The current numbers are from ATP profiles (though few are listed as such in the ref column) but any extra data (e.g. Laver & Rosewall) would have been sourced from old print books, as are listed on the Laver & Rosewall wiki stats pages. edit: come to think of it, perhaps there are other situations like Rosey Casals where a different website lists stats. -Testpored (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure exactly where the info derives from or can be found in detail, but I think Margaret Court for instance won more titles including pre-Open Era wins. Her Wiki page lists 100 more singles titles, not sure about the other columns. Rovingrobert (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mixed doubles 

message: Up til now (permalink) the lede stated "Only titles won during the era are included here, though entire spans are listed for careers that started before 1968." So that's what was listed in the "Span" columns of the tables. 5 women and 13 men had spans starting before 1968.
This has caused some confusion, however, and some recent edits (already reverted) adding pre-OE titles. I can now see how the confusion could arise, especially if directly linking to the Men/Women section from another page (I've added several such links). So I think it's best to keep "Span" entirely to the OE. I went ahead and made this change today. -Testpored (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Span changed 

message: Are players with most mixed doubles titles on this list, the players with most mixed doubles titles?? Through history mixed doubles were not only played on GS tournaments. And also while it's clear that when sorted, first lets say ten on the list in doubles/singles are in reality people with most doubles/singles titles and in that order, that is not clear or even true for mixed doubles. So I would like that the list is expanded so it incorporates top5 most successful in mixed doubles regardless of the criteria .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.51.159 (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the emphasis of this article is total combined titles. 30 minimum is the threshold. -Testpored2 (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking at this query I do have a question. I'm looking over Lists of tennis records and statistics. The player with the most singles victories can be found at "All-time tennis records – men's singles" or "Open Era tennis records – men's singles" for the men. The ladies are the same: "All-time tennis records – women's singles" or "Open Era tennis records – women's singles." Whether it most doubles titles or most mixed doubles titles.... where are we putting those records? While the current charts on this article shouldn't be altered, should we add charts for most singles titles only, most doubles titles only and most mixed doubles titles only? They should be somewhere in our articles. And we'd also need and all-time chart for these records. Where is the best place for these items or do we need to find a new place? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest an All-time doubles records page that covers everything: men's, women's, mixed. Bottom-line: there's much less interest in doubles than singles so putting them all together would be sufficent and easiest to maintain. -Testpored2 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that there is less interest in those disciplines, but wouldn't it then make sense to incorporate them into another article rather than make a whole new one? This article is called "Tennis players with most titles in the Open Era." When I see that title I think to myself what I would expect to see in such an article if I was a reader. I guess I would expect to see a list players with all titles combined, a list of most singles titles, a list of most doubles titles and a list of most mixed doubles titles. I would also expect to see a list of most wheelchair titles if that discipline is ever contested outside the Majors. I don't think it is, but I'm not sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text: No, the emphasis of this article is total combined titles. 30 minimum is the threshold. You clearly didn't understand. Tennis players with most titles is the title. You have combined sortable column. When you sort by mixed you very possibly give the WRONG information that the person in the list with most mixed title indeed has most mixed titles. 30 threshold works fine for singles and doubles as it clearly ranks those with 30 and more in each category (those with less than 30 does not). it does not work for mixed because there is nobody who has 30 mixed titles to say that for sure. So as it is now you probably give wrong info. The solutions are: unsortable table (that is sorted by total) - which would be a shame because it would waste good data and memory or add as I already recommended most successful mixed players with some note.   213.149.62.221 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed doubles 

message: What use of adding single, double, and mixed and that way ranking the players? Far more are competitive singles matches than the doubles, the doubles than the mixed. So adding different competitiveness makes no sense to me.--24.135.13.63 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The ATP sums up only the money earned and separates single titles from the doubles for each player. In addition, the former years and decades were less competitive than the latter ones. No reason for summing up numbers of 250, 500, 1000 etc points tittles for a single player then ranking the players that way.--24.135.13.63 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total? 

message: A centralized section for all-time titles sources. Submit any reliable source you've got. ForzaUV (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A title change might be in order if the scope has been expanded to all-time. Letcord (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is mainly about the overall titles and we don't have reliable all-time data for that. We don't even have it for the singles lists unfortunately. But maybe you could move the article to a "List of" one. List of tennis title leaders in the Open Era is probably neater than what we have now. ForzaUV (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Winning an exhibition match should not be considered a "title." This entire list should taken out as not relevant. Reliavble sources do not refer to it, just a site behind a subscription wall. 2607:F140:400:141:91D6:37CF:AA3C:313B (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-time titles