Talk:List of WTA number 1 ranked singles tennis players

INFORMATION ABOUT WORLD RANKINGS BEFORE 1975

hello everybody,

i have a question - perhaps somebody can help me: I m Working on the german version of tennis world rankings. very often i read that there was also a list during the really early period (wills moody, lenglen). does anybody have informations about these early rankings?

thank you in advance!

airmaxxxer

How is anyone supposed to use this information? What are the last two columns for? It's pretty ridiculous. What do the numbers in brackets in the last table mean? Honestly, I couldn't even guess. pfctdayelise 00:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad title

This article's title Tennis - World No. 1 ranked Women 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 WTA Tour number 1 ranked women
• List of WTA number 1 ranked players
• List of WTA 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 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Article moved to List of WTA number 1 ranked players. rbonvall 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats with the bold? I cant figure out what the bold means... Jabencarsey 05:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither can I. Maybe we could be bold and remove the bold. rbonvall 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tennis expert's reversion to "accurate updates"

I offer this (note edit summary: "rv original research and jumping the gun on updated rankings that the WTA has not yet issued"). Just looking for clarification as to what has prompted his/her change of view in a month. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Because in this case, it's not original research. The Women's Tennis Association and the news media have widely reported what is going to happen on Monday, that is, Ivanovic will become World No. 1. In past cases where I objected to premature updates in this article, there were no such reports. Editors did the calculations of the new rankings themselves. Tennis expert (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because you haven't labelled it original research this time doesn't mean it isn't. It's exactly the same issue you had problems with in the link above. I haven't touched reports as to what is likely to happen with the rankings tomorrow (though I will, since they are unsourced); I've only removed information which, at this point in time, is incorrect. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dudesleeper. There is a standard to uphold here. If she is number one tommorow then place it. You cannot factually say she is yet. Just wait until it is true before presenting it as such. NeuGye (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The arguments of both of you are ridiculous. (1) It was not the same problems as before, as I already discussed. (2) If reliable sources like the Women's Tennis Association and reputable news media report that so-and-so is going to be ranked such-and-such on a specified date based on what's already happened, then that new ranking is postable on Wikipedia. Simple as that. Tennis expert (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Plus, I don't recall seeing a reference anywhere. Apart from that, though... -

It is a moot point now. But the principle is the same. In a factual article you cannot include information even if it is predicted well by reliable sources. It is not the job of Wikipedia to guess events to come, even if they are 99% sure of thier guess. Wait until it is a fact before saying so. I know Bush will leave the White House on January 20th, but I cannot say Bush is not in the White House. I cannot say he stopped being President. There is nothing wrong with waiting for events to happen before including them in an Encyclopedia, even with reliable predictions and mathmatical models. NeuGye (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What would be ridiculous is a reversion of a Wikipedia edit saying that President Bush will leave office on January 20, 2009, on the pretext that the date for leaving office has not arrived yet. It is equally ridiculous to revert a Wikipedia edit saying that Ana Ivanovic is going to become the World No. 1 on June 9, 2008, just because it's now June 8, 2008, if the future event is well-supported by reliable sources. That was completely the case here. Sorry you missed the overwhelming publicity in the tennis and sports world about Ivanovic moving up in the rankings. And your statement about factual articles not being able to include future information even if predicted well by reliable sources is just false on its face. Tennis expert (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. Saying that Ivanovic is in line to be number-one in the text is fine, if it is supported by a source; updating the WTA rankings before they are officially released, however, is not. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded Trivia

Please quit adding info about how a player got thier ranking. Every number one has a backstory about how they got there. Please do not add the astrisk about why the current number one is there. It is unneeded trivia. This article is a list of all number ones. Someone's name goes in the list. That's all. NeuGye (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Tennis expert (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not "the story of how she got to number one". It means she is not the women with the best results this year, regardless of her no. 1 ranking. If you agree to this statement, please bring my comment back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.190.83 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree to your statement 82.166. Ana has the most points of any active player. She is the only one who is ranked number one. Henin did retire, therefore she is out of it. Once retired, tennis moves on without her. Since she officially has no points, the astrisk is unneeded trivia. NeuGye (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it isn't necessary to mention that Henin retired and that's the reason why Ana and Maria are number one. If so, from now on, all number 1 players had to have an astrisk following their name! We can put a note saying that Henin was the first player to retire at number one!! Flipocb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The ranking should not be influenced by the players' statements - only the results should count. Therefore Henin was still no. 1 for 13 extra weeks, regardless of the fact that she said she is retiring.

Well, whether it "should" or "should not" be, the fact is that it is. Justine was taken off the rankings. This article is supposed to list the OFFICIAL WTA rankings, not what they "should be". And according to official WTA rankings, Maria regained the no.1 on 19th May and Ana became no.1 on 9th June.

http://www.onthebaseline.com/2008/05/15/its-official-maria-sharapova-will-take-over-no-1-ranking/ http://www.onthebaseline.com/2008/06/09/sony-ericsson-wta-tour-rankings-june-9-2008/ http://www.onthebaseline.com/2008/08/11/sony-ericsson-wta-tour-rankings-august-11-2008/ http://www.onthebaseline.com/2008/08/18/sony-ericsson-wta-tour-rankings-august-18-2008/ Nightandday (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WAIT

It doesn't matter if some nerd with a calculator figured out ahead of time who the new number one will be, you still have to wait. Wait for it to be official before including it as fact. Even if the math lines up right, it is speculation until made official. This article should contain fact. NeuGye (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it is official, see: [1] --Göran Smith (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The article mentioned has said she will not be number one until August 11th. Since she is not the current one she cannot be listed as so. Since Wikipedia cannot predict the future then adding her with the future date (one that the reader knows has not happened) will not work. There is no harm in waiting. Accoding to your own link, the official rankings have not yet been published, so it is not official yet. I cannot add things to facual lists until they are indeed facts. Please wait. NeuGye (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When Ana won French Open on Saturday, we didn't wait until Monday to add her No.1 template. I think we must add Jelena, but we also must make a note, that she is not yet No.1, because we can't ignore the fact. --Göran Smith (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We can wait to do so. I am against any future fact being presented in any article as fact. The current number one is still the number one upon anyone checking the article. Not until the new rankings are officially published is the new number one a fact. This list is for the factual number ones. You cannot say something is completed until it is so, even if it will be. Please state a reason she must be included before it is official? No official means no fact. No harm for it to wait. NeuGye (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jelena Jankovic

How come Jelena Jankovic's page on wikipedia lists her as a former World #1 (as does SportsNetwork) but she is not on this list? Mecil (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Because whoever wrote the article didn't do their homework. Justine Henin certainly wasn't the no.1 player until August 2008. She announced her retirement on 14th May and asked to be taken off from the rankings. Maria Sharapova, who was no.2 at that moment, automatically regained the no.1 spot, but soon lost it to Ana Ivanovic, around the time when Ana won Roland Garros. Ana has spent most of June, July and August as the world no.1, but briefly lost the spot to Jelena Jankovic, for just one week. Ana is now back to the no.1 spot. Someone should correct this. Maybe I will, if I find time to find the exact data and do it tomorrow... Too busy watching Us Open now. ;) Nightandday (talk)

Thanks to whoever updated the info! Nightandday (talk)

FA status

I tried (maybe I'm not that good at goggle), but I think if we could find some good references for this article, it could be FA list. Can someone try? :) --Göran S (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Court

Why is MC listed as one of the players who never reached No 1? The Margaret Court article indicates her highest rank _was_ number 1. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about rankings issued by the Women's Tennis Association. Tennis expert (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

tie?

How could Graf and Seles be number one the same time for 64 weeks? Does not make any sense. 94.21.98.27 (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Seles was granted honorary No.1 ranking on her return to play in 1995 - as a compensation for the horrific stab in the back Seles received from a Graf fan in 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snerrir (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Last Update in Future

The sections "World No. 1 ranked players" and "Weeks at No. 1" currently show a last updated date of Sept. 28, 2009. As of this writing, that is 5 days in the future. Mikesflowers (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is because the rankings don't change every day, they change once a week, so each update will be accurate for 7 days in to the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.46.180 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Updates

There reads this under the 'Weeks at No. 1': As of: July 11, 2011.^[2][3]
However, when I click the cite [2], it has only 38 weeks for Wozniacki. And the cite [3] has only list of links to many PDF's. So, something is not right. 82.141.119.182 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

An editor was getting ahead of the official source and added a future week Wozniacki is certain to remain No. 1. She is actually certain to remain No. 1 into August but I think we should follow the source and only say what she already has so I have reverted.[2] If we should have any information about future projections then I think it should be sourced and only mentioned outside the table. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Again. Now there is an August 1st date added, even though August begins only next Monday. 85.217.45.223 (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)