Talk:Bryan brothers

message: Can someone specify if they are fraternal or identical twins? Achen00 04:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fraternal. Assume this if unspecified as only a small minority of twins are actually identical. Wipkipkedia (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand the use of identical when referring to twins. Identical twins is the more common term used to refer to monozygotic twins and not only to 100% identical twins. Fraternal twins is the common term used to refer to dizygotic twins, which obviously the Bryans are not. Tvx1 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fraternal or identical twins?

message: As I see it there is no need for individual pages for the members of a doubles team unless they also have singles careers. These two don't do they? aLii 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in fact, there is the need of individual pages too. As they both are playing mixed doubles too and are performing well. Bob is currently seeded No. 1 with Lisa Raymond. So sooner of later we will run into the conflicts and will have to put their separate pages. So better not disturb the set-up right now and hang with the current situation without changes. Vivek 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They may be brothers but they are both public and are both individual, hence the separate articles are justified.
I think this page should be merged into Bob Bryan and Mike Bryan. They are notable as individuals, not just a team, and having in essence three pages for two people is overkill. Kolindigo 19:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that three pages is overkill.  I think these players each deserve their own page based on their individual accomplishments, and their doubles success deserves it's own page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.101.250 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with having three pages is that many people are notable both individually and in groups. Having individual and group pages for all these people would be terribly confusing. I think that this page should be merged into the two individual pages. This wouldn't mean any less content or "celebration"--both pages could have a section on their doubles accomplishments. MrVibrating 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say having individual and group pages for people would be confusing but a lot of musicians without solo carreers have individual pages and band pages too. 172.158.101.28 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: For what it is worth, I agree that this page is unneeded and should be merged/split into the two existing articles for each of the individual brothers. Dcs315 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The brothers have done almost nothing alone, save a few mixed titles. Having three pages is superfluous. Besides, does anyone really come to this page looking for info solely on Bob or Mike Bryan?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.125.86 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The current setup is great as far as I'm concerned.  They have a page for the doubles team, and then small pages for their singles and mixed doubles careers.  We do the same thing for comic duos like Abbot and Costello; this is the same as far as I'm concerned. - Atarr (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: :Image:1993-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:1993-1.jpg

message: They are both individually notable. Furthermore, they do not compete only with each other, so this is not a case of dealing with people who are only notable with each other. Right now, there are three pages to discuss two athletes. There should be a page for Bob Bryan and a page for Mike Bryan. Kolindigo (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that they may be individually notable, but I do think that they are best known as a tandem. It's not like, for example, Venus and Serena Williams, who are better known for competing against one another than with one another. Personally, I see no problem with either keeping the three articles, or just keeping them as one combined article, with separate sections on their solo efforts. Samer (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Samer. They're better known as a team than as individuals. There is precedent for keeping three articles for a doubles team—just look at The Woodies, Todd Woodbridge, and Mark Woodforde. Woodbridge had a substantial career as a doubles player with other partners after Woodforde retired. — Dale Arnett (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: Currently trying to find other examples of "how" twins and/or syblings are handled for other projects.  If you have examples, please leave a link here...Mjquin_id (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twins/Syblings 

message: Outcome	Year	Championship   	Surface 	Opponent in the final                    	Score in the final
Winner 	2002	Canada(1)      	Hard    	Mark Knowles</br> Daniel Nestor          	4–6, 7–6(1), 6–3
Winner 	2003	Cincinnati (1) 	Hard    	Wayne Arthurs</br> Paul Hanley           	7–5, 7–6(5)
Winner 	2005	Paris (1)      	Hard (i)	Mark Knowles</br> Daniel Nestor          	6–4, 6–7(3), 6–4
Winner 	2006	Canada (2)     	Hard    	Paul Hanley</br> Kevin Ullyett           	6–3, 7–5
Winner 	2006	Madrid (1)     	Hard (i)	Mark Knowles</br> Daniel Nestor          	7–5, 6–4
Winner 	2007	Miami (1)      	Hard    	Leander Paes</br> Martin Damm            	6–7(7), 6–3, [10–7]
Winner 	2007	Monte Carlo (1)	Clay    	Julien Benneteau</br> Richard Gasquet    	6–2, 6–1
Winner 	2007	Hamburg (1)    	Clay    	Paul Hanley</br> Kevin Ullyett           	6–3, 6–4
Winner 	2007	Madrid (2)     	Hard (i)	Mariusz Fyrstenberg</br> Marcin Matkowski	6–3, 7–6(4)
Winner 	2007	Paris (2)      	Hard (i)	Daniel Nestor</br> Nenad Zimonjić        	6–3, 7–6(4)
Winner 	2008	Miami (2)      	Hard    	Mahesh Bhupathi</br> Mark Knowles        	6–2, 6–2
Winner 	2008	Rome (1)       	Clay    	Daniel Nestor</br> Nenad Zimonjić        	3–6, 6–4, [10–8]
Winner 	2008	Cincinnati (2) 	Hard    	Jonathan Erlich</br> Andy Ram            	4–6, 7–6(2) , [10–7]
Winner 	2010	Rome (2)       	Clay    	John Isner</br> Sam Querrey              	6–2, 6–3
Winner 	2010	Madrid (3)     	Clay    	Daniel Nestor</br> Nenad Zimonjić        	6–3, 6–4
Winner 	2010	Canada (3)     	Hard    	Julien Benneteau</br> Michael Llodra     	7–5, 6–3
Winner 	2010	Cincinnati (3) 	Hard    	Mahesh Bhupathi</br> Max Mirnyi          	6–3, 6–4
See!69.137.121.17 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on this 

message: The Davis cup section in the 3rd paragraph lists a "20–3 record in doubles matches" and "Their three losses" ... then says they lost once in 2005, once in 2008, and twice in 2013.  It's probably not necessary to list all of their losses individually in the first place, but if they're going to be there, they should add up.Inukshuk8 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected it. Well spotted. MiniFats01 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davis Cup losses don't add up. 

message: At the moment it says that the Bryan Brothers hold the record of 6 Year–End No. 1 for individual players' ranking between 2005-2011. I believe that this is no longer true as Mike Bryan alone actually holds the record of 7 after 2012- I've put a note by the record for now explaining this. However, I think that this particular record should be removed as it is now held by Mike Bryan and not by both brothers. Any thoughts? MiniFats01 (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the quick response- I'll remove it now. Fantastic username by the way haha MiniFats01 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year–End No. 1 for individual players' ranking record 

message: I think we need to clarify a distinction between a "DNQ" and an "Absent" for the performance timeline. In 2018, the Bryan brothers did not qualify for the ATP Finals. The reason for this is Mike Bryan and Jack Sock were ranked higher in the race than Bob and Mike Bryan, and by going down the standings, the Bryan brothers were ineligible to qualify because Mike Bryan was already in the tournament. Contrast this with the 2019 ATP Finals, where the Bryan brothers were in a qualifying (top 8) position but elected to withdraw. In 2018, the Bryans did not have the option of competing and could not have done so even if they wanted to. That is a "DNQ". In 2019, the Bryans had the option to play and chose not to. That is an "Absent". 2605:E000:1309:CD88:F8FC:73A:DB46:C5D4 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 ATP Finals