Talk:ATP rankings

message: As far as I know, Olympics results count in the point ranking, shouldn't be added?
The points are:
400 - Winner
280 - Finalist
200 - Third place
150 - Fourth place
100 - Quarterfinalist
50 - R16
25 - R32
5 - R64
--200.45.96.108 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympics results count in the point ranking 

message: I'm fairly certain these ranking points are wrong as they changed at the end of the 2008 season. The new rankings can be found in the rule book - www.atpworldtour.com/en/common/trackIt.asp?file=/en/players/2009_Rulebook.pdf - on page 168  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.61.71 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Ranking Points for 2009 

message: There is a disagreement between the ranking system as described here in comparison to the official ATP site. Here they talk about 13 main tournements 4 Grandslams and 9 ATP 1000 tournements, but the ATP site says only 8 ATP 1000 tournements can be counted and no more than 4 ATP 500 tournaments, which is true? Why are there 9 ATP 1000 tournoments if only 8 count?Eranus (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ATP 1000 series tournament in Monte-Carlo is not a mandatory event.  130.225.62.31 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking system disagreement 

message: Ken Rosewall of Australia was also ranked #2 in the atp rankings, according to the ATP site. He should be added, but I won't be messing with those tables...82.141.74.22 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ken Rosewall of Australia 

message: Although this article explicitly informs how the ranking system is, the "current rankings" template is present in several articles and it has a "Move" column. Although tennis followers and those who have read this article will know that the Move column is for position moved from the previous week, does any one agree that the template should have a note* at the bottom mentioning that the ranking updates on a weekly basis? - xpclient Talk 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify position moved from previous week 

message: The WTA has the rankings in the main WTA article. I imagine this is because the ATP article is significantly more comprehensive and had parts of it broken out to prevent it from being too long.
That being said, after stumbling on the WTA rankings, I had trouble finding the same chart for the ATP because I expected it to be in the ATP page.
There are three obvious ways to deal with the inconsistency ("obvious" means "obvious to me" - I'm not ruling out other options):
# Move the rankings back into the ATP article - Bad!: the ATP article is long enough.
# Move the WTA rankings to a separate WTA rankings article page - Mediocre: The WTA article isn't very long to begin with and splitting it makes it....
# Accept the inconsistency. There is already a pointer in the ATP article and, while it took me more than a single quick scroll through the ATP article to find the rankings table, I did find it when I looked closer - Mediocre: I feel the ATP and WTA articles should follow a parallel structure.
The perfect answer would be to beef up the WTA article such that pulling the rankings out makes sense. But the Wiki is volunteer powered and beefing up the WTA article would be hard work so I omitted it as an suggestion. The options I offered are simple editorial changes only.
I'm not particularly passionate about this. I just had some troubles and thought I'd note them so that others could decide what, if anything, to do about it.
Neil Smithline (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency with WTA 

message: Does anyone knows where I can find the players that have been ranked top 20, top 30, etc, as in the section  "Players with highest rank 2-5"? thanks --Tommy The Wise (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 20 and beyond 

message: Why does Ferrer have 7220 points? Didn't he lost the first round at the 2013 Topshelf Open? --SteGrifo27 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ferrer 

message: Article needs update for new rules in 2016 - Davis Cup and Olympics no longer get points.  I am happy to do the update unless someone else feels ownership. Cdm5599 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update for 2016 

message: added sentence to the summary stating olympics doesn't offer points (with citation). I'm a bit of noob and couldn't work out how to change the table though!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:193E:600:AD5F:3466:281A:2AA3 (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  olympics no longer gives points 

message: I was just looking at the Rankings pdf file on the ATP site and there is paragraph on points awarded to losing players of qualifying rounds -  
Grand Slams 16 points for a last round loss
8 points for a second round loss
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 16 points for a last round loss (8 points only if the main draw is larger than 56)
0 points for a first round loss
ATP World Tour 500 10 points for a last round loss (4 points only if the main draw is larger than 32)
0 points for a first round loss
ATP World Tour 250 6 points for a last round loss (3 Points only if the main draw is larger than 32)
0 points for a first and second round loss 
Pj quil (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing para on points awarded to losing players in first and second round qualifying matches 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on ATP Rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141231175147/http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2013-02-15/201302151360936685683.html to http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2013-02-15/201302151360936685683.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don’t know enough to fix this;
For the Davis Cup points, from 2009 until 2015, point were distributed for the World Group countries. Instead of having an exact drop date they were gradually updated at each phase of the cup (compared to the results of the player from previous year and arranged his total sum of Davis Cup points to it. E.g. if a player played two matches in a semifinal but plays one the next year only that one missing match will be extracted from his points).[7] 
The “points, point” duplication, and the meaning of “(compared to...” MBG02 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: --Wolbo (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennis editor needed 

message: Is there a reason why wiki can’t have the rankings history??  Even if you had a table with the players in Column1 and their ranking every 4 weeks (if weekly is too much) - and even if it was only those that made the Top10. I’m sure there’d be thousands (or millions) of interested readers. 
Ditto for WTA Rankings. MBG02 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I'm sorry, but I didn't figure out how to edit yet. Félix Auger-Aliassime nationality is wrong at the top 20 ranking list. It says he's from USA, but even his profile page says he's from Canada. It needs editing on both the flag and the country abbreviation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feliperls (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Félix Auger-Aliassime nationality is wrong at the top 20 ranking list (need to replace USA with CAN) 

message: Since August 5th 2019 there are new point allocations in Futures tournaments, which were made retroactive. ATP neglected to update their FAQ, hence I added link to ITF article on the subject
EgorKulikov (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futures points update 

message: Hello, regarding the tables including the players who spent the most weeks at any particular position in the top 10, I was curious about the calculations that led to the given amounts. There are a few discrepancies that could be explained by the methodology used by the ATP versus the one used by the author of that section. For instance, as of writing this comment, the amount of weeks spent in the top 10 for Roger Federer are indicated as 968, while on the official ATP profile, the data only suggests 908 weeks. The difference could be attributed to the weeks where no new rankings are published, such as the month post-ATP finals, and the 2nd week of events lasting a fortnight. Was the number determined using calendar weeks, regardless of ATP publications? And would that make the numbers on this page, or those on the ATP website the valid ones? 24.201.209.161 (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting Total Weeks in ATP Rankings 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: pages moved. (non-admin closure)  Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:CAPS:   The ATP is not independent of the subject. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 April 2022 

message: If something like this comes up again, see also MOS:TM (we do not engage in "capitalization shenangigans" to make trademark holders happy), and WP:OFFICIALNAME (we do not care what the "officialese" spelling of something is, we use what dominates in the  source material, with a strong preference for major general-audience sources like news).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Post hoc'' commentary

message: There is no encyclopedic reason to remove flag icons for lists including Medvedev and Rublev. This is not a forum for protest against Russian invasion of Ukraine. 174.208.192.158 (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The only place Russian flags should not be shown is when it concerns an individual event where the flags are banned. These rankings encompass the entire year and they were not banned the entire year. I have corrected it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian flag icon for appropriate players 

message: Can the computation method be used to backtrack previous rankings unofficially before ATP did it? 2A02:2F0B:B507:AB00:79B3:5D07:FE0B:6843 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To a point but we couldn't use them at Wikipedia. We can only use things that are published in other places, we can't do original research. The problem if you do it yourself is what points and data could you use? They change now every decade. Plus players know what to strive for ahead of time now... you'd be putting up point finish lines that the players had no idea existed. And the point system doesn't always get it correct even today. Look at 2017. No chance in years past that Federer isn't deemed No. 1 by every ranking expert over Nadal whether it's 1910, 1940, or 1970. But Nadal had more points in 2017. At Wikipedia we simply stick with sources as best we can. We do have the sourced expert picks for No. 1 at World number 1 ranked male tennis players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: What existed before 1973?

message: Does anyone know where you can find the official information about players ranking history? I mean - Where can you find the information about how many weeks (for instance) Zverev is in the top 10 or top 5? I don't see it on the official ATP site, but maybe I'm not looking correctly... It's a litte bit off topic, but I'm looking for this for quite a while. Thanks in advance. Sportfan82 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get all the player info from their bios at the ATP website, For instance here are Zverev's official week by week rankings. Of course you have to total them all or sites like Ultimate Tennis Statistics and other pay sites will do it for you. It is supposed to be sourced in the articles as to where they got the info though alas that's not always the case. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a question on ranking history sources 

message: Ruud and Sinner ATP Finals cells are round the wrong way. 146.198.145.101 (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of points distribution error 

message: ATP Releases Pepperstone ATP Rankings Breakdown Updates, but this for some reason only affects singles tournaments while in doubles the system remains unchanged. What is the best way to reflect this in the table - create separate tables for singles and doubles or just add another row for doubles at every level (GS, ATP 1000, ATP 500 etc.)? Deinocheirus (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATP changes point allocation for singles tournaments