Worth discussing, though I imagine it would mean at least two new sections, i.e. men's doubles & women's doubles, and it would probably mean about 50% more threads (albeit shorter threads) at any one time, which could be frustrating for those of us who usually start out at the Recent Posts screen, given that threads updated in the last 24 hours already tend to take up around a page on that view.

The pros are fairly obvious, as Jaggy has said, i.e. people primarily interested in one or the other don't have to read through things they're not interested in and doubles might actually benefit from discussions about it appearing on dedicated threads. It also avoids the waste of time (for singles 'specialists') of clicking on a tournament thread that has new posts only to find out that the only new post is the day's doubles results.

Pros of the current system include finding all of a player's results at any given tournament on a single thread (you often get more context that way), keeping the total number of threads on the go at any one time at a reasonably manageable level and, presumably, making things easier for those who post both singles and doubles results - their opinion is pretty vital here since I wouldn't want to make it any harder for those who are kind enough to do that.

I mainly follow (and tweet about) singles and can't be bothered to follow the early rounds of doubles very closely, which is why I quite like the idea of a singles/doubles split ... yet I do like to know about significant doubles achievements (by which I mean ATP/WTA SFs, Challenger finalists & Futures title-winners) and I'd probably overlook those altogether if doubles was on separate threads, which would be sad.

In essence then, I can see both sides of the argument but I don't have a strong view either way (perhaps a slight preference for retaining the status quo, but only slight) and I'd be interested to see what others who come to the forum for different reasons (fans of singles, fans of doubles and fans of both) think, and most of all interested in the views of those who give their time to do the work around which the threads are built, i.e. those who post the results and next round draws most regularly.

Enjoy both the dubs and the singles, although I often skip through the posts re the early rounds of dubs in futures.  But I do like the completeness of having both together, it gives more context as to how a player in the lower levels is doing overall.  My preference is to retain the status quo.  The dubs posts in the lower events don't take up a huge amount of space to deflect the singles-only fans and are easy to skip over / ignore.  At the higher level many of those who only post about singles in lower events, also post re dubs so I assume there is more general interest there.  And I think most (although clearly not all!!) of us like to celebrate dubs finals / wins and they would be missed by many if sent into their own threads.  The distinction between dubs and singles is less striking than between men, women, juniors as they involve largely the same set of players at the same events in the same week.  Also, at the futures level it would mean SO many more threads, as one who follows both it would be much more cumbersome to use the site compared to the inconvenience of a singles fan skipping over a couple of posts that are clearly dubs results.

So far people seem to be in agreement, and I concur that the doubles should remain with the singles - apart from the slams of course where the events are so much bigger. I don't follow a lot of mens doubles, but have no problem in skipping posts that don't interest me. Keep the status quo.

Prefer things as they are too.
It's easy to just 'blip' over any topic you don't care to read, both at the thread and post level.
If doubles were an entirely separate tour, at different locations, with entirely different players, then it would make more sense to me (i.e. Rugby League vs. Rugby Union), but these are the same players at the same locations, and I find keeping the entirety of the efforts of any player for any given week all in one place, together, significantly more preferable.

I don't really like the 'new' individual player threads section, as it means I 'have' to go over there and check for itms that are often actually related to the weeks current events as covered in the tourney threads, but fair enough, there is some discussion of a players other generalities that have some separation (e.g. Mr. Evans current situation). If every one else prefers it, then fair enough, it's not so onerous a burden to check there that it would dissuade me from using the forum. Same applies to doubles.

Lost count of the number of times I have clicked on the "Individual Player" thread when aiming for the "Men's Discussion", simply because it is the 3rd one down the list. Old habits die hard, as they say.

As for doubles threads, I don't really see the need. It is easy enough for me to ignore the posts that don't interest me and I think that two more dedicated threads would make the board more cumbersome. So add me to the list of those who are for the status quo.

For the Bastad thread, it's only Anna Smith playing there, and this may happen, hopefully, increasingly frequently as Anna looks set to be able to ply her trade exclusivelt on the WTA tour for the foreseeable future. Now that's she's no longer teamed with Joss, she might go to some stops n the tour that British players don't traditionally frequent (like where she won her title, on clay in Nuremburg; or Biel). No other players are likely to be there in singles.
As the WTA doubles draws are almos always released with a clear separation from those of the singles, or singles qualif If that is the casesying, it will be easy to tell if Anna, or Joss, are our only representative across all competitions. If that is the case, one could append the thread title with something like '(Doubles Only)' or 'WD', to keep everything as it is, but also aid identification for those, like Jaggy, who have no interest in non-singles activity.
e.g.:
instead of the current, Week 30 - WTA International ($227K) - Bastad, Sweden - Clay
use, Week 30 - WTA International ($227K) - Bastad, Sweden - Clay (WD)

NB: Bold italics added only to show the change, not as a suggested format for the title.

That is, if people don't think it would make the thread title too messy or non-uniform?

For ITF's, it is rare that we only get a doubles player at an event, Soumeya & Natasha have had a few recently, and occasionally Tara would pop up to play with Conny, or in the past Nik Slater, but it's much less frequent.

Love doubles, but it would make it tricky to trace a player through an event - same old