Talk:List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players. 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/20100611093447/http://www.atpworldtour.com/~/media/B0EA4F9A31DA436AAC8F00EF5F55F774.ashx to http://www.atpworldtour.com/~/media/B0EA4F9A31DA436AAC8F00EF5F55F774.ashx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Misc

a quick point: on that list of total weeks at no. 1 there is no Pete Sampras. does someone have the figures for how long Sampras was no.1? he has to be in the top 5 at least.--Binnor 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right: he is actually #1, but someone put this guy, "Reyman Nicolas" at his place. This should be changed...--81.144.214.18 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

New Consecutive List

Here is the old table that did not recognize multiple streaks by one player:

Rank	Player	Consecutive
1.	Roger Federer	190
2.	Jimmy Connors	160
3.	Ivan Lendl	157
4.	Pete Sampras	102
5.	Lleyton Hewitt	75
6.	John McEnroe	58
7.	Andre Agassi	52
8.	Björn Borg	46
9.	Ilie Năstase	40
10.	Gustavo Kuerten	30
11.	Jim Courier	27
12.	Stefan Edberg	24
13.	Mats Wilander	20
14.	Andy Roddick	13
15.	Boris Becker	9
16.	John Newcombe	8
17.	Juan Carlos Ferrero	8
18.	Yevgeny Kafelnikov	6
19.	Thomas Muster	5
20.	Marcelo Ríos	4
21.	Marat Safin	4
22.	Carlos Moyà	2
23.	Patrick Rafter	1

Jairuscobb 01:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad title

This article's title Tennis - World No. 1 ranked Men doesn't follow WP:NAME at all, and it is also not precise (world no.1 adult, junior, disabled players?). Better choices would be:

List of ATP Tour number 1 ranked men
List of ATP number 1 ranked players
List of ATP top ranked players

or something alike. No dashes, no arbitrary capitalized words, no ambiguity. If there is no reasonable objection, I will move the article to one of those. rbonvall 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I support the change. I guess the new name would need to include the word "men". "Top ranked" could suggest anyone around the top 10 so "number 1" is necessary too. How about your first option but dropping the word "tour"?--GringoInChile 00:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

List of ATP number 1 ranked players seems better, I agree. I don't think the word men is necessary, since ATP is the men's association and WTA is the women's association. The same change has to be made to Tennis - World No. 1 ranked Women. Let's wait a couple of days for more comments. rbonvall 03:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Article moved to List of ATP number 1 ranked players rbonvall 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

List of ATP number 1 ranked players is still a bad, awkward article title. The title should include the words tennis and men. I suggest these:

Top-ranked men's tennis players (with an intro article explaining ATP system)
List of top-ranked men's tennis players (with an intro article explaining ATP system)
List of ATP top-ranked men's tennis players

I also would suggest that the page should be renamed to contain at least the word "tennis" or a redirection mechanism of some kind should be established. At the moment, searching for "tennis no. 1", "tennis world ranking" etc. will not yield the slightest reference to this page and only lead to the "World number one male tennis player rankings" page. While that page may have its merits, I think users should be given the choice which kind of historical rankings they want and I don't think that all users searching for this page will remember to type the words "ATP" whenever they search for the "official" world rankings. Perhaps it would be the most intelligent solution to install a disambiguation page that links to both pages. In short: the page should be easier to find. Coca-Coela (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Table format

Why is Federer's row in orange here? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

error - Roger -Federer year end #1

why does it say roger has been year #1 every week of the calendar for 4 consecutive yrs?? he only did 3 05, 06 and 07. Even the table says so....04 doesnt count since he didnt get until he won the australian open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil24 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

doubles

Should the list of number one "doubles" players be done? like in the list of WTA number 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WTA_number_1_ranked_players#Doubles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.149.150 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think that would be interesting to see. --Hamiltonian (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I made one.. I did some automatic coding, so it'd be nice if someone could look it over? --Hamiltonian (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed from the request list at the Third Opinion project. The instructions there say:

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute.

Let me suggest that a Request for Comments might be more appropriate to get discussion of the issues started here on the talk page. Other forms of dispute resolution may also be useful. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sortable "Number 1 ranked men" table

I've just made table sortable. Had to use some templates ("dts" and "sort") and remove player numbering to ensure that the table would sort correctly. Also I've added an accumulated total column, so I believe the other streak tables have become unnecessary. I haven't removed them, though, so anyone else either validate my changes and delete those tables, or revert these changes. Hetcenus (Talk) 14:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorting the table by the "Player" column doesn't look correct. Boris Becker is both before and after Björn Borg. I think it is switching back and forth between sorting by first name and by last name. John McEnroe is after Jimmy Connors (obviously it is sorting by first name), but Yevgeny Kafelnikov follows John McEnroe (switched to last name sort). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcM1098 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation for time at the top

Greetings,

I took the liberty to add what I consider to be an organizational improvement to the list, adding numbers when someone was #1 a second or more times. This can allow one to figure out, more quickly, who was #1 for the most times (John McEnroe) and also helps to show the competitive battle, especially in the 1980s, between several players for dominance.Ryoung122 16:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, this system was already in use in the women's list.Ryoung122 17:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Players who were ranked World No. 5 or higher but never World No. 1

I think it is missing several listed as out on the page in Spanish, could anyone verify not want to spoil site is exempt. (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Tenistas_top_ten_en_el_ranking_ATP) Mundialitto (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is not Rod Laver or Ken Rosewall on the list? I know that both of them had rankings in the top 3 from 1973 onwards (and they never got to number 1 on the ATP rankings since 1973). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.233.72 (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just checked them from the ATP site, and you're right. But it seems the list was removed, so it doesn't matter anymore. 85.217.23.230 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be returned. Part of the point is to show that many very good players haven't made it to #1. Not everyone does. This provides context to the significance of the #1 ranking.Ryoung122 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this section was removed without discussion, I have returned it back. Also, Ken Rosewall is on this list already, though not Laver.

Not having this on here is like not having nominations on Oscar night, or not recognizing runner-ups in tennis Grand Slam finals.Ryoung122 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Grand Slam men's singles champions includes Grand Slam champions only, without any mention of runner-ups in Grand Slam finals. Q.E.D. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This list has been removed again. Should we have a discussion about its inclusion? --Hamiltonian (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This table should not even be in the article to begin with. The sole focus of this article is to account for "ATP number 1 ranked singles players" (as per the very title of this article). Being close to becoming number 1 (i.e. what the table encompasses) doesn't cut it. "Close" players don't merit inclusion into a list of World No. 1 players only. If anyone insists on including the table in this list, I'd say it's only right to make it a requirement that the title be completely altered, as the entire scope of this list is changed with the addition of this table. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Now just because a small peripheral item is here I'm not sure warrants changing the article name...sometimes it would simply be too small to stand alone and the main article is the best fit possible. That being said, I would have to agree that this series of tables is pretty darned trivial/silly and takes away from the article. If the only chart were #2s that didn't make it to #1 it would still be trivial but I could live with it as a compromise, but having 3s, 4s, and 5s seems completely ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also be willing to compromise by keeping players ranked #2 (even though I still think it isn't the greatest idea). However, everything else must go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason I deleted these tables back in May (and I believe also once longer ago) is pretty much as explained by Bloom6132; it is directly in conflict with the title and scope of this article. I also don't see a justification in the reasons given by Ryoung. Of course "many very good players haven't made it to #1" and that is exactly why they are not part of this article and why they should not be. The comparisons with 'nominations on Oscar night' and 'runner-ups in tennis Grand Slam finals' are not valid as in those cases, in contrast with this article, title and scope include the 'nominations' and 'runner-ups'. While I'm always in favor of a sensible compromise to move things forward I think the case as stated here is clear and we should be consistent in maintaining the scope of the article. That's why I do not favor adding any non No.1 overview. A little bit wrong is still wrong. --Wolbo (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sort of neutral on the whole thing, but what about a "List of ATP top 10 ranked singles players" article? Entries would just be of the first time players reached their career high rank (and not everytime they changed rank) sort of like the top 5 list. I think that top 10 is a more natural cutoff because there is often specific media attention given to entry into the top 10, but nothing special usually in the case when the transition is between 5 and 6. --Hamiltonian (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now the lists are here: ATP Rankings#Players with highest rank 2–5, which I think is a good place. Gap9551 (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Previously, there was no mention of where the information was sent. I believe this information is useful and relevant, especially at a time when it is so difficult to get to #1 or even second place. Nadal spent more than 150 weeks at #2 ranking, consecutively. Perhaps a mention at the top of the article "for players ranked 2-5, see (article X). I do think a top-ten article is a good idea. No need to overdo things, but let's be honest: people want to know how far players like Murray and Tsonga have gone. To know that they topped out at #2 and #5 is useful information, where-ever it is placed.Ryoung122 15:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a disambiguation notice and a new lede. The first paragraph was too detailed and not a summary. I believe we need an introductory sentence, at least, whether or not a disambiguation link is added. Wikipedia articles are often overloaded at the start, and fail to use the summary to highlight what the main point of the article is about.Ryoung122 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Consecutive weeks at No. 1

Presently, only streaks that are 30+ consecutive weeks are shown. Previously, it showed 20+ weeks (I don't know who deleted them). However, 76.189.98.15 undid my edit of mentioning 30 instead of 20 and claims, "The chart was created for streaks of at least 20 wks, not 30. This lets editors know that future streaks of 20+ may be added to table." In its present form (i.e. without any past 30 week streaks in the table), mentioning 20 weeks instead of 30 is false and misleading. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bloom, read edit comments before making unwarranted edits. And rv without comment violates WP policy. The consecutive weeks table was created for streaks of at least 20 weeks, not 30. The fact that there are currently no streaks on the table of 20-29 weeks is irrelevant. If there are any between 20-29, they may be added. But by incorrectly changing 20 to 30 as you did, you erroneously indicated to other editors that streaks of less than 30 are not allowed to be entered. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, you seem well appraised of Wikipedia for someone with only a handful of edits. In any case, can you say which "policy" is being violated, and can you stop edit-warring and continue to discuss here with Bloom6132 please. Many thanks. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

First, had Bloom read prior comments regarding the 20 vs. 30 issue, no discussion would have been necessary as it would have easily clarified his misunderstanding of the table's purpose. Per Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Edit_summary, edit summary is to be completed on reverts. I have also seen many administrator warnings to users who have reverted with no explanation. Your assumption that I am "someone with only a handful of edits" is inaccurate. I have been editing for years. As is any user's option, I choose to use my IP instead of an account. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I asked which policy were you referring to? I didn't see that in your response, I saw some links to help pages and recommendations, but nothing vaguely related to a "policy". And yes, your IP does only have a handful of edits (as I said) so I wasn't "inaccurate" in any way. Perhaps you change your IP, voluntarily or otherwise, but it's straightforward enough to link them together, so I look forward to working with you! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We also need he exact policy/guideline that requires alphabetical order on ties in charts as most tennis articles are based on date achieved when there is a tie. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is the exact policy/guideline that requires date-achieved order on ties in charts? Look at the "Consecutive Titles" table at WTA Singles Titles and Finals. It shows a five-way tie for number 7 and the names are listed in alpha order, not by date-achieved (Sandra Cecchini, Margaret Court, Lindsay Davenport, Conchita Martínez, Arantxa Sánchez Vicario). Also, if alpha order was not used, logic would dictate that a still-active player should be listed before a retired player because, obviously, the still-active player could break the tie, but the retired player could not. If first-achieved is a set policy, in writing somewhere, I have no problem with it (even if I disagree with it). --76.189.98.15 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You are the one saying there is a guideline and then reverting. If you know of one then please anti-up and show us. If not it's simply your opinion. Each of these articles stand on their own merit and don't have to follow each other like a cookie cutter. I prefer ties to be broken by earliest date of achievement but I'm not saying it because it's policy. There are many tennis articles that are built that way as opposed to the chart you show. So I'm asking again, please show me the guideline or policy that ties in chart order MUST be broken alphabetically. Heck there might be one I don't know about. If you can't then please stop using that wording in your edit summaries. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you said "And rv without comment violates WP policy", so first up, show me that policy please. There are many, many problems with these articles, many of which have been perpetuated by editors who have been site-banned who insist on "my way or the highway". Of course, I'm not suggesting IP is one of them, but we shouldn't edit-war over content, we should discuss it here. Of course you know that, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will no longer participate in a conversation with an administrator who repeatedly uses sarcastic and condescending language (the most recent being, "Of course you know that, don't you?"). Administrators are expected to offer friendly, professional support to users, not condescension, particularly to users who have made sustained and sincere efforts to help the project. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you need to explain which "policy" you were referring to. You need to understand admins aren't "professional", we're all volunteers. You need to understand that as a new IP editor who clearly knows his way around this project, it may be conceived that you are hiding from something during your edit warring. Log into your account and let's start again? (Can you show me where you made "sustained and sincere efforts to help the project"?) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't tell me and other users what we "need" to understand. Apparently, you are the one who does not understand; I was referring to you _behaving_ professionally, not acutally BEING a professional (as in, being paid). You stated previously that since Wikipedia does not pay you, you do not need to be professional. I have no doubt that many users, and especially administrators, would advise you to rethink that position. And what may be conceived is irrelevant. Reality is what's important. My participation in the project for many years has spoken for itself. I do not need to prove my good faith efforts to you, nor does any other user. And as you well know from prior discussions, I choose, as is my option, not to have an account. Yet you still tell me, as if you have the authority to do so, to log in to my (non-existent) account. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC) 19:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't make it clear enough. Your "participation" doesn't speak for itself if you edit as an anon, because we have no clue what positive contributions you've ever made. Indeed, since you're editing in these types of articles, you're well aware of disruptive and indefinitely banned editors who have been nothing other than a negative influence on the project and have held it back for years and years, preventing success and objecting to driving towards excellence. Some of these editors, indeed, have spent months and years finding ways to engage in further damaging edits to Wikipedia anonymously. I would hate to think that your "good faith" edits from your anon IP would be reverted by any number of editors who are aware of similar editing patterns. Of course, registering an account would be one step to the good, but in the meantime I guess we'll just deal with your edit warring one step at a time. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As an administrator, it is sad that you feel speaking to a user in a sarcastic, insulting, condescending and unprofessional manner is appropriate. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware with your years of contributions, you know that I'm speaking as an editor who is aware (and wary) of IP editors who appear from nowhere, claiming years of history (without justification) and misunderstanding "policy". I'm sure you won't be insulted when I say that you have all the hallmarks of a few previous contributors who have since been indefinitely banned so you must understand my caution. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your continued passive-aggressive harassment speaks for itself. It's administrators like you who give all the great admins a bad name. --76.189.98.15 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the main point, that is discussing the content of this article. Please make your proposals here and we can see if we achieve a consensus. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether we label it 20 or 30 seems to be a derivative argument of the real issue: the sudden undiscussed shrinking of the list on July 8. But a trimming was eventually necessary anyway, so maybe we need to be talking about if the table should start at streaks of 20 or 30. Or alternatively, maybe the list should be the 20 longest streaks or some other arbitrary number. For the elegance of parallelism, I suggest 25, as the sister chart is currently that length.Balder Odinson (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Updating to future dates

Please do NOT update the rankings into the future. This violates the Wikipedia: Crystal Ball policy.

Thank you.Ryoung122 02:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody seems to care about this. Such a shame. 82.141.127.210 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To the editors who make future updates thinking someone's ranking is mathematically certain for some time into the future: a player can at any time retire from the game and request to be removed from the rankings. (and of course, there are the rules) Gap9551 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It is again a week ahead. But why limit it to next week only? I'm sure Djokovic has secured the #1 spot a lot longer than that. Either put it all or put nothing. 85.217.39.127 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, please do not update this list into the future. A player could be killed in a plane crash. A player could fail a drug test and be removed. Or, as stated above, a player could retire at #1 (like Justine Henin did). No one knows for sure if Player X will be here in the future..or us, for that matter.Ryoung122 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The same is happening all over again. The list says Roger Federer is current #1. Well, he isn't until tomorrow, ATP site also still has him as #3, and Djokovic #1. 82.141.66.248 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we all come to a consensus as to when the rankings should be updated? Right now, there is no strict limit, so basically anyone could potentially update it once it turns midnight Monday in their location. The time zone I'm proposing is 00:00 GMT/BST (since London is where the ATP Executive Offices/headquarters are located). But I'd like to hear other proposals before we come to a consensus. Any other ideas? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Universal time is usually a standard most editors understand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As an alternative, I'd propose whenever the ATP website it updated-- sometimes, for instance, a Grand Slam might have a Monday final which might in turn determine the #1. --Hamiltonian (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with that suggestion is that we do not actually know when on Monday the ATP website updates their rankings. That would make the update time purely arbitrary. By setting an exact time, we can make sure their is a set standard every week. However, the last point you bring up is extremely valid and true. I think we can all agree that an exception can be made to any Monday final that can determine the #1 ranking (not just a Grand Slam final). —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually think having the rule be "wait until the ATP website is updated" is better because it removes the arbitrariness. Simple rule: if the wikipedia list is updated before the ATP list it should be removed. Why? The rankings could be "finished" say on Sunday night, but if someone requests their name be taken off Monday morning before the ATP update then they were from an official viewpoint never on the list to begin with. The only real source for ATP #1 rankings is the ATP website-- people's calculations could be wrong, something else could happen. I actually don't think it's official until the ATP updates their site. --Hamiltonian (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Hamiltonian. If we update the Wiki-list here before the ATP has updated their list, it's original research and thus against one of Wikipedia's core principles. Aside from the rare but potential death, retirement (Henin retired at #1), or Monday final, there's also the issue that ATP points are often capped if players have too many tournaments, and also when points from "last year's tournament" fall off is also an issue. Due to scheduling, sometimes there is a gap of three or four days between when last year's points are "lost" and this year's points are "added". It would be a lot easier just to wait for the ATP to officially update.Ryoung122 19:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that will be acceptable. Consensus has been made, so this list will only be updated when the ATP website updates their rankings. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, sensible consensus and hopefully it will prevent, or at least decrease, the reverts due to premature updates. Should we add a comment line explaining this consensus at the top of the edit page?--Wolbo (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In order to enforce this update rule, do you guys think it would be a good idea to penalize users who repeatedly violate this update consensus. I'm thinking a three strike rule would be appropriate. Currently, no one is being deterred from violating the no premature update rule. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You know I haven't really noticed... is it a lot of the same editors doing it over and over again? If so, and they've been warned, it's vandalism and should be reported. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

About crystal balling: It is one thing to make a guess with 100% probability, the other with 99% and something completely else to do that with 50% probability. At this moment 29.10.2012, Federer spent 301 weeks, 17h, 12min at number 1. Why then in every place it says 302? It is not important WHEN atp updates their site, it's important what are the facts!!! So why 302 and not 301? Bcs there are not theoretical chance that Federer won't be number 1 till next monday and record 302nd week. Unless "he is strucked by car, he retires or some other incredible event". And what is chance for that to happen? 0.0001% So reasonably you have 302 weeks everywhere and not 301. Wikipedia is not History book, it's a growing, living thing and must reflect most probable condition. Or it will lose most valuable property, its interactivity! So, on 5th. November 2012, Djokovic will become new (old) number 1 and stay there till end of Australian Open 2013, 27th January, even if he never again touch tennis ball or racquet in his life. That is 12 more weeks at number 1. Unless "he is strucked by car, retires or some other incredible event". I use same expression on purpose for Federer, not yet achieved, 302 weeks and Djokovic, not yet achieved, 12 more weeks at number 1 place. What is a difference? Just in time needed to achieved that numbers. Both informations are false at this moment my friends. And why everybody think it's ok to push number 302 instead of 301? Bcs it is very probable to happen! So it is not crystal balling to presume Djokovic is NOT going to be killed, NOT retire in 26th year of his life or NOT going to be suspended by ATP in next 3 months. And I'm claiming that with 99% probability. On the other hand, if you want to make Wikipedia a History book, pls put number 301 by Federer's name till next Monday when it becomes 302. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.230.115 (talk)

Federer has been ranked #1 on 302 Mondays including today, which is what is meant by 302 weeks in the article. Today's ranking is official: [1]. Even if Federer retired today, he would still have 302 weeks. Djokovic may very likely add at least 12 weeks at #1 as you say, but that is not official. If he retired and requested to be removed from the ranking tomorrow, he wouldn't get those weeks. It doesn't matter what the probability for that event is. In the article we simply list what the ATP has officially announced. Gap9551 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 302 Mondays and not weeks. If he is about to die tomorrow (can't belive i'm using this bizarre logic), you think that in his career statistic would stand 302 or 301 weeks at number 1? Nowhere on atp site exists information about week count. You should ask Greg Sharko of ATP how many weeks Federer is on top... That's a fundamental flaw of statistics on many wiki sites concerning tennis. If you have software digital counter (for purpose of programming for example), number on it would be 301 and increment +1 would happened on next Monday at 00:00, so someone who doesn't have a clue about tennis look at this page and think: Federer hangs on top 301 weeks and counting and not mistakenly 302 and counting. It doesn't seem important, but difference between 301 and 302 weeks counted 1 week earlier is the same as difference between Novak's 53 weeks total and 65 weeks counted 3 months earlier - for statistician. Your logic is inconsistent, therefore wrong! But I don't want to be Don Quixote fighting windmills, think about it or ask someone who plays with statistics professionally. Enough said. All the best with crystal ball law enforcement :) 178.148.230.115 (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Whereas you are technically right that at this moment Federer has only completed a small fraction his 302nd week at #1, this ATP article [2] states that Federer had 300 weeks at #1 two weeks ago, so when extrapolating, he has 302 weeks today. This is how these weeks are always counted. It's mostly a matter of definition. As for a possible inconsistency, Djokovic hasn't started his 54th week yet, and no ATP ranking has been released with him as #1 since his first 53 weeks. So his situation is different. Gap9551 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read that article carefully it says: Federer BEGINS his 300th week at number 1, not achieved. So it is really a counterargument. That article is like celebrating a sprinter crossing a finishing line, but his finish lasts for 7 days! Nothing to do with a fact in that moment Federer spent 299 weeks at number 1. And this is all about facts. The Rambling Man understands and he made a fair decision. I've already apologize to him and of course those who are trying to make Wikipedia better. 178.223.194.201 is not my IP address and I don't agree with person who puts 65 weeks for Joker 3 months ahead time, just I was provoked with inconsistency. No excuse for edit war though. Sorry for that, bad temper. :) I will register when I find more time for Wiki... 178.148.230.115 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just three quick comments: (1) It is an obvious case of crystal balling to put in anything about Djokovic becoming #1 again at any point in the future. (2) If you read back to the top of the discussion in this section (from 2011) you will see a consensus to this affect was already reached by several editors in collaboration. (3) Wikipedia is not in the media business where "breaking" a story matters. It is an encyclopedia. As such, it is better that it be a week behind in updating new events (as it is right now) than to try to predict the future by even a few hours. We all expect Djokovic will become #1 again in five days time, but let it actually happen before insisting that it be included here. 99.192.57.57 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

present = ?

The first table has the end of Nadal's reign as "present", while the next table's lead section has "May 5, 2014". So May 5 is current? It is not even March today, so I don't agree with that. Date should be February 24, but what about the weeks? 120? 85.217.15.230 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Some anon IP added erroneous post dated stuff, which has been corrected. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Now there is February 17. So no ranking published Feb 24? 85.217.15.230 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you know you can look up the info yourself and post the results here. Most articles aren't updated weekly... that's why we have dates so you'll know when they were last updated. This isn't a newswire, if you need instant updates, bookmark the source at ATP Rankings so you can stay on top of things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked and there was a list at Feb 24, but I have no idea what the week count should be. My guess was 120 above. 85.217.15.230 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea the week counts either. It has no source so I have no idea where it comes from. It could be way off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nadals third reign was actually for 41 weeks not 39

his consecutive reign was for 41 weeks, which makes his total 143 weeks

citation : http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/07/29/London-Finale-Nadal-Bryans-Qualify.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.46.12 (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I search, and do the math and the result is 39 weeks. I think ATP is not accurate at all, search at Nadal's ranking history and you'll find that is not showing all weeks.Kleyw (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

citation : http://www.tennis-x.com/stats/atprankhist.shtml — Preceding

No.1 vs. No. 1

Is there a policy on this? I have been trying to enforce consistency on this, but I notice that while "No.1" was the dominant usage in the article itself (and now the consistent one), "No. 1" seems to be the dominant usage in our actual sources, at least as they are listed in the reference section (there is apparently a single usage of "No.1" in the sources as we currently list them). The template of ATP top-ranked players (given at the bottom of this article and elsewhere) also uses "No. 1" with a space, as does the parallel WTA article. Personally, I would prefer to have the space. Is there any reason not to put it in? Is there some rule we are following by not having the space? Or some usage in our sources that should be considered as determinative? LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@LacrimosaDiesIlla: It is "No. 1" (with a space) and No. is always capitalized. Also, if it is preceded by the word "world" it should be written as "world No. 1." It is proper English and by consensus from years and years ago when many were also using #1 and we wanted to be uniform on using # or No. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Great. I just fixed it throughout. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

281 vs. 282 weeks as #1

The new Wikipedia user Ikonovak/130.204.169.12/Misa.tomasev (he is likely creating multiple accounts that started the 17th of March of 2020, and following the same modus operaidi with all of them) is constantly trying to edit that Djokovic has 281 weeks as #1, and lists Djokovic as having 282 weeks as # 1. He also does not add any explanation for his changes in the summary of editions. As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and must be verifiable. Subsequently, Djokovic has 281 weeks as #1 according to the ATP. We should respect the ATP and list Djokovic as having 281 weeks. After all, this article is named "List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players" and the ATP is the only one reliable source that indicates the number of weeks as #1 for this particular article.

Ikonovak/130.204.169.12/Misa.tomasev could you please explain the reason for your edits ignoring ATP sources? Thank you. James343e (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with you. We don't update mid-tournament of a two-week major because the ATP/WTA sources don't. We shouldn't be doing it now either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I dont know English, I am from Georgia, It is true that Djokovic has 282 week now because Indian wells ending 22march and there was not any possibility that Novak lost N1 position, sorry for ugly English Ikonovak (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You are true if the ranking count two week Ikonovak (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The ATP Tour was suspended for six weeks from 16 March to 26 April, 2020. Those weeks may never count. We just have to wait and see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Fyunck.James343e (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Atp updated 282, you can check Ikonovak (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes they have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Decades begin on 01/01/xxx1

A common misconception is that decades begin at 01/01/xxx0, but the calendar decades begin on 01/01/xxx1 instead. So the statistics in the "Weeks at number 1 by decade" section are wrong. --87.116.190.214 (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually there is a lot of debate on that. For computational reasons, astronomical year numbering, and the ISO 8601 standard, we designate years so that AD 1 = year 1 and 1 BC = year 0. I'm not saying that there is no case for what you say... perhaps most people agree with you. But it is an open debate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

0 to 9 decades are by far the most common usage. Gap9551 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Named decades run from xxx0 to xxx9. You cannot seriously believe that 1960 was part of the '50s, do you? The confusion stems from the fact that decades are named by cardinal numbers, while centuries and millennia use ordinal numbers. Thus, decades do not line up with the centuries. --Khajidha (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Most weeks at No.1.

Surely Djokovic now holds this record, it should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.1.141.190 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Miscalculation in sums

The accounts do not add up, 282 + 35 weeks, they do not give 318 weeks. But 282 + 36 yes, please correct. 186.97.0.34 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --ForzaUV (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Open-era record"

At the start of the table in the "World No. 1 ranked players" section, there is a key that says the double-dagger is used to indicate an "Open-era record". But the rankings have only existed in the Open Era. It would make more sense to just have the double-dagger indicate "Records". The more restrictive language suggests that there might be players before the Open Era who exceeded these numbers, which isn't possible. 159.2.43.167 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's the fact that players were ranked number 1 long before the Open Era. They may not have been ATP No. 1, but they were No. 1. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so then who has the records for most consecutive weeks and most total weeks being ranked number 1 in tennis history, ATP ranking or otherwise? I am not aware of any weekly rankings that existed before the ATP started doing it. But regardless, I would think that "ATP ranking record" makes more sense than "Open-era record" even if there were weekly rankings before the ATP and someone had more weeks at number 1 under a different ranking system. 159.2.43.167 (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Done ForzaUV (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Table with consecutive weeks

Hi everyone,

One of the tables that was on this page for many years has been removed only a few weeks ago. I have been trying to reinstate it but it keeps being deleted. This table portrays significant records in context of durability as No. 1. In its most recent format it only included the stints of 50 or more weeks. I suggest this could be changed to a minimum of 1 year, that is 52 weeks, as this is a considerable stint in terms of historical records.

Furthermore, I don't see why Roger Federer is singled out in this section under 'miscellaneous' when his maximum stint is clearly indicated in one of the tables just above. This is one of the consistent criticisms mentioned when trying to reinstate the table with significant stints - I was told that 'this information is already there in other tables' etc... I could keep deleting this mini section 'miscellaneous' based on the same argument and principle, but I have not been doing that, unlike others who have been consistently deleting the table I have been attempting to reinstate.

Please let us be consistent and fair and treat everyone equally. None of us are 'all-seeing' and we can only share our limited perspectives and what is important to one may not be important to the other, and vice versa.

I consider the table with the stints an important record that deserves attention on this page. Please respect this perspective and leave the table on the page. I suggest further that the recent change to this section be re-edited and to have two separate tables - as it was the case for many years before it was changed only last month - one table for most weeks at number one, and another separate table for most consecutive weeks at number one, including only the stints that lasted at least a year, that is 52 consecutive weeks or more as number one. These two tables portray two different types of records, and so should be kept separate. Let us do this for the sake of clarity and please show respect, fairness and equal treatment of all involved in this matter. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.120.10 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. You’ve been told multiple times, nothing significant has been removed recently. There were three tables in the "Time Span" and "Age" sections, one was removed and the other were merged into one. There were two tables in Weeks at No. 1 section which were merged into one complete table as it lists each player with his total AND most consecutive weeks. As for why Federer’s max stint is singled out, I though that would be obvious. It’s the most significant "stint" number, it should be highlighted in one way or another, I think.

Number of stints can be found in the first table of the page, inside the parentheses, next to each player’s name. Number of weeks in each stint, can be found in the fifth (Weeks) column which can be sorted. So, really, all data is there. Thank you. ForzaUV (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this section has become biased. I have followed this page for so many years and it has always been fair and representative of the significant records. While Federer was the top number 1, this page suited Federer's fans. What a strange coincidence that as soon as Djokovic became the historic top number 1 in March 2021, suddenly in March 2021 the format of this section has been substantially changed, now showing a bias towards Federer. Point 1: the table that clearly showed Djokovic as the historic number 1, has been amalgamated with another table which can be now wrapped to show actully Federer as the first name in this table, even though he is not the historic number 1 anymore. Point 2: as if this was not too obvious already, someone decided to put a new 'miscellaneous' section that, what a surprise, shows Federer as the top number 1 yet again, even though, yet again, he is not in that position anymore. Point 3: the table with consecutive weeks/stints was merged with the first table - why? This table already fairly represented Federer as the leader in consecutive stints - credit to him, where the credit is due. But this is a totally different record if compared to the record of spending most weeks as Number 1 - that is the whole point of this section and Djokovic should be given credit where the credit is due, in a clear and fair manner. Moreover, this table that you have removed, and I have no idea under what authority apart from your own self-appointed authority, was showing unique records in terms of significant stints. And, strangely, another coincidence yet again, at this time when Djokovic is due to go on that list one more time in a matter of weeks, his consistency and longevity over the past decade represented by the numerous year-long stints is not visible anymore. This clearly shows prejudice against Djokovic and a biased favouritism of Federer. So again, please do restore the original pre-march 2021 format of this page which was fair, otherwise I will have no other option but to accelerate this dispute to whomever is the proper authority on Wikipedia. My complaint is against unfairness, bias and misrepresentation. This is not Federer.com website but Wikipedia for everyone. Thanks again.

As my latest comments on this Talk Page have been ignored and dismissed, and my latest edit has been deleted from the page in question, I am informing you that I have moved this matter to the dispute resolution centre seeking a 'Third Opinion' form an unbiased third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.120.10 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Out of courtesy I am signing in with a user name. Gugi guliver

I think you should chill out, man. I really don’t see how the section shows any bias towards Federer or how Djokovic is not given credit for his accomplishment. Djokovic tops the list as he should be. It’s clear for anyone he’s at the top with the most weeks at No.1 and the current record holder as indicated in the two tables. ForzaUV (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

No need for baseless accusations of bias, see on of our core principles: Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Besides, I disagree that recent edits are favorable towards Federer. First, recently a table plus graph with a timeline of leaders was added right at the moment Djokovic became the leader, showing him prominently on top. That table was never there when Federer held the total weeks record. Second, the prominent table with consecutive weeks, with Federer listed first with 237 weeks, was removed and merged, i.e., made less prominent. The separate miscellaneous mini-table you mention in your Point 2 was created instead, to give the 237 weeks record due weight, but it is less visible. To relate the removal of the consecutive weeks table to Djokovic possibly achieving another 50+ week stint 3 months into the future (far from certain) is quite a stretch. The fact that several changes have been made to the article isn't a "strange coincidence" – that is quite common when the article subject is gaining a lot of attention (in this case because Djokovic broke the record).

As for whether a "max consecutive" column should exist in the total weeks table (your Point 1): the table with total weeks still clearly shows the leader on top; an extra sortable column doesn't change that. You can also sort by Player placing Agassi on top, but nobody in the past considered that option unfair towards Federer when Federer was the leader. The default version of the table correctly has Djokovic on top.

As for whether the table with consecutive weeks should be a separate table (your Point 3), I don't think sources put a lot of emphasis on player's second- or third-longest stints, so it might not be warranted if there is a "max consecutive" column in the total weeks table.

Nevertheless, personally I have a small preference for having separate tables for total and consecutive weeks, like it used to be. If there are two tables, I don't have a strong opinion on whether the "max consecutive" column should still exist in the total weeks table. On these topics you have a legitimate case to argue and what we really need is more editors weigh in. Gap9551 (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and your balanced input - much appreciated. Guliver Gugi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugi guliver (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

So my contribution has been deleted yet again without any consideration or conversation. I do not understand why would this contribution be considered as disruptive - I am simply trying to restore the old format with two separate tables, which has been universally accepted through a general consensus for many years. The new format, however is not universally accepted - it is not accepted by myself, and there is at least another user 'Gap9551' who has at last a small preference for having separate tables. Two separate tables are fair and square and give equal attention to Federer and Djokovic.

On the other hand, the new format has been constructed in such a way that with a click of a button Federer can be the number 1 again in the main and now the only table, because it has now been made sortable. Moreover, for some reason Federer has been singled out again at the end of this section as the top player in the 'miscellaneous' section. And this substantial format change took place exactly at the time when Djokovic surpassed Federer as the player with most weeks at number one, in March 2021, right at this pooint in time after all these years. Couple this with the fact that my contributions are being persistenly deleted and my sugegstions dismissed, this just proves my point that we have reached the point where only the fans of Roger Federer are allowed to edit this section - thus, making it biased towards Federer. I don't know, perhaps I am the only one who can see this, and it is open to interpretation but in any case I would appreciate it a lot if my voice can be heard by all and I can be reassured that there is still a possibility for fair treatment here. Otherwise, what is the point of Wikipedia. Thanks everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugi guliver (talk • contribs) 11:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So even after Gap9551’s very well-put comment, you still insist the edits were made in bad faith to favor Federer. That’s a shame.

It doesn’t really matter if Federer (by sorting 4th column) or Agassi (by sorting 2nd column) can top the list, the DEFAULT table has Djokovic on top and as #1. And even when Federer tops the list with the click, he’s not "the number 1 again" as you claim, the 'Rank' column shows he’s #2. You’re also wrong about the new format not being universally accepted. It’s actually officially accepted https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/former-no-1s. Is this one also made by Federer fans?

I don’t mind two tables but there is no need for it. One table is more than enough and it’s more meaningful to have all players with their longest streaks than to have a table listing the second and third longest steaks of a few. If you care that much about Djokovic’s multiple 50+ streaks, you can add a sentence at the end of 'ATP records and particularities' section. Something like this:

"John McEnroe held the No. 1 ranking on a record 14 occasions, and Sampras is the only other player to have held it on 10 or more occasions with 11 stints. Djokovic has the most stints with 50+ weeks (3)." --ForzaUV (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey

Should 'Week at No. 1' section have one complete table, or two separate tables.

One table: I don’t mind two tables but I prefer to go with one complete table for two main reasons

One table listing all the players with their total weeks and longest streak is more meaningful than having another table listing only a few of them with their second and third longest stints which don’t really matter that much. Federer’s second longest streak is 48 weeks but never heard or read anyone mention it, the one which is truly significant is the longest (237), same goes with every other player. Having the longest streak of players like Borg, Murray and Kuerten is more interesting than having 2 stints of 100+ weeks for Connors and 3 stints of 50+ weeks for Djokovic imho.
The list with multiple streaks (second table) can be generated for anyone who's interested in that kind of info by sorting 'Weeks' column of the first table in the page. Check this out https://i.imgur.com/mdIDg8K.jpg.

Really, I don’t see why there is a need for the another table. I, also, feel the section layout with the one main table is nicer but that’s subjective and probably doesn’t matter. ForzaUV (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

One table - it looks cleaner to me, but it's not a big deal either way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Two tables - I would prefer the original two tables: weeks at number 1 table and the consecutive weeks table, with stints up to 50 weeks, stayed separate, since the two tables have always been there ever since I started following tennis statistics on Wikipedia, and would like for it to stay that way. Having only one table, which merges both total weeks and longest streaks atop the rankings for each number 1 player, looks weird and unappealing to me personally, which is subjective, I know, but wanted to add my opinion on the matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Two tables (the status quo) for easy viewing of the two separate records that are talked about. Agree with someone above that it should be 52 not 50 weeks minimum threshold for the consecutive table, not that it changes anything. Somnifuguist (talk)
One table: I realized I'm late to the party, but I thought I'd add my two cents for whatever it's worth. Honestly, I didn't expect to like the one table look, but when I compared them, I thought it made the section as a whole look better. It's more streamlined, and honestly anyone who needs all that extra information about the players who had more than one 50+-week long streak can get it by sorting the main table in the previous section. So to me, having seen the option for the combined table, I think it's a much better look and eliminates some of the redundancy of the separate table for just "consecutive weeks." LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Time spans holding the ranking

Currently, there are two tables in this section: Between first and last dates No. 1 ranking was held, and Between first and last dates No. 1 ranking was achieved. The latter lists dates that players became No. 1 (that is, they were not No. 1 in the preceding week).

I'm pinging editors who have added or removed these tables: @Qwerty284651:, @ForzaUV:, @LacrimosaDiesIlla:, @Yimingbao:, @Pie86ml:, @Fyunck(click):, @84.196.86.191: (who first added these tables in January 2018).

Personally I'd keep only the "held" table, and remove the "achieved" table. There is nothing remarkable about losing and regaining No. 1 compared to holding No. 1 the entire time. For example, if player A holds No. 1 for 5 straight years and never again, whereas player B holds No. 1 for 5 straight years, loses it for 1 week, and regains it for 1 more week, I don't think it's interesting to put so much emphasis on player B achieving No. 1 that second time. Players A and B have an almost identical record at No. 1, but player A wouldn't even appear in the "achieved" table. Losing No. 1 for a week is not a positive achievement, but holding No. 1 is positive.

If we really want to list something related to achieving No. 1, I'd rather see a table with the total number of stints at No. 1. Gap9551 (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The "achieved" table is very silly in my opinion and should be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gap. I'm the one who removed the table recently as I thought there was nothing significant about it and the "held" table is the one with the more accurate time spans anyway. I'm not sure why it was added again with no explanation. As for stints, I don't think a table is needed to be honest. There is an info in the particularities section about McEnroe and Sampras having the most No.1 stints, should be enough I think. ForzaUV (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reactions, I removed the (currently outcommented) table again. Gap9551 (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gap9551: Sorry I haven't been around lately. I am impressed with the research you did to figure out who had added or removed these tables over the years. It took me a few minutes to determine that I had added the "held" table more than three years ago. (It appears I may actually have created the table myself, but I don't recall.) I said at the time that it seemed like the more meaningful of the two to me, and that I would delete the other one (the "achieved" table), so I am pleased to see that some bold editing and a consensus has finally resulted in its removal. Good work, team! LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer if we merged the "Time span between first and last dates No. 1 was held" table with the "Age at first and last dates No. 1 was held" table right underneath. Unless 6 columns makes the new table too wide? Time span, Name, First date, Last date, First age, Last age. Rank and Birthdate can be left out. Gap9551 (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Since they cover the same players, I don't see why not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I merged them. Gap9551 (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A unanimous consensus was reached to not merge the two Wikipages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ForzaUV, Fyunck(click), Dddenilson, Mrf8128, Xc4TNS, Gap9551, and ABC paulista: I propose merging List of ATP number 1 ranked doubles tennis players (A) into List of ATP number 1 ranked singles tennis players (B) with the purpose to have both the men's singles and doubles ATP number 1-ranked tennis players located in one article instead of two, since they fall in the same category. In the same way both the WTA ranked no. 1 players singles AND doubles are listed on the same tennis page. The proposed merger should not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the singles page (B). Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The article would get a bit messy I think. I prefer them to be separated as they currently are. ForzaUV (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes,I think it's better to keep the two categories separated. Gugi guliver (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timelines

Qwerty284651, why did you remove the timelines I added from the French wikipedia? The tables don't give a good grasp of the time spans involved as Rafter's 1 week at number 1 for example takes up the same space as Federer's 237 weeks (1 row). Timelines makes these time spans crystal clear, so there is no redundancy as you claimed in your edit summaries any more than the "Weeks at No. 1" tables are redundant to the main tables (you can just sort the weeks/total columns to get those lists).

Already a user on a tennis forum has made a post referencing the timelines which indicates that the general public finds them useful. Looking at the edit history, it seems you have been making many large formatting changes to the article and reverting others' edits. A read of Wikipedia:OWN might be in order. 220.244.90.74 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed the timelines, because they don't belong here. They add unnecessary, excessive clutter to the page. Weeks at No. 1 tables are important to have a clear picture who has been number for how many weeks and longest streaks as well. I have been editing the article so it falls in line and is consistent with the other No. 1 player-related tennis articles, where applicable. Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A "clear picture" is what the timelines literally give of who was number 1 and for how long over the decades, so the timeline is equally "important" to have as the redundant Weeks at No. 1 tables by your own standard. They are no more "cluttered" than the "Time span between first and last dates No. 1 was held" table, which is an obscure record nobody talks about. 220.244.90.74 (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that at all and agree with Qwerty here. It's basically adding info already on the page in a different format, a format that really looks busy and cluttered. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That argument has already been rejected -- the weeks at number 1 tables are also "on the page in a different format" and yet their redundancy has evidently been tolerated because the standalone tables make viewing that info convenient and add clarity. The exact same is true for the timelines. "busy and cluttered" are entirely subjective and therefore not worth debating, but "useless", "trivial" and "redundant" have been thoroughly repudiated here and on the other page. Nonetheless it's 2 v 1 and minor Wikipedia discussions like this are always ultimately numbers games so it's not worth my time continuing here. For future readers of this talk page, the men's timeline is here: Special:Permalink/1071576179#Timeline, and women's here: Special:Permalink/1071749355#Timeline. Please re-add them to the articles once you too have recognized their patently obvious utility. To that person: may you have warmth in your igloo, oil in your lamp, and peace in your heart. 220.244.90.74 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

None of those have been rejected or repudiated at all, only you feel that way. That busy table really has no place here or other articles and they will not be re-added unless a heap of others agree with you. Perhaps they will over the course of a week but so far you have zero agreeing with you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a graphical timeline, not a table. That you have such a fundamental misconception/can't distinguish the two renders any further discussion pointless. No counters to my rejections of the use of the terms "useless/trivial/redundant" have been given, so they remain repudiated, regardless of whether others choose to join the discussion. 203.217.80.13 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Syntax error?

Hello User:Qwerty284651, please re-visit your last edit ("removed ... whitespace"). I think it causes syntax errors. Thank you in advance. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to remove First/last date as no. 1 section

@Fyunck(click), ForzaUV, and ABC paulista: I am requesting the removal of the Between first and last section, for it adds no additional relevant information to the article, plainly redundant and obsolete. Maybe relocate elsewhere, if consensus is reached to keep, but not in this article, albeit it fitting the scope, it adds balast to the page, overall. Looking forward to hearing others' opinions on the matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it but I don't care that much if it gets removed as long as the youngest and oldest No. 1 players are mentioned somewhere in the article. I do find it a bit strange though that you think this chart is obsolete and adds ballast to such a short article but you didn't like the idea of removing the trivial and redundant youngest/oldest Masters finalists in the other bloated article. =\ ForzaUV (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@ForzaUV Well, I guess you could say I am biased in that perspective. I, and this is just me, I prefer that all articles that are fall in the same category, for example: Number 1 players for men's and women's singles and doubles or the 5 different List of Grand slam winners tennis pages, have all the same sections across the board for consistency. If one has something the others do not, I add to it, so it's equalized. And remove where applicable if a consensus is reached, like I am doing for this section. With Masters it's only 1 page; yes, there is the doubles page but compared to the singles one, it's heavily lacking in records and stats, which on its own is sufficient, but more can be added over time if wanted/needed. Qwerty284651 (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not yet?!

Alcaras is NOT YET no1, until tomorrow! 94.189.159.37 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)