Talk:List of WTA number 1 ranked singles tennis players

Sequential number

Why? Could you please explain? My version is sourced, while your revert doesn't even have an edit summary. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it. While she was one of 16 players ranked number one at the time, she was NOT the 16th player. She was the 2 nd player to be ranked number one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No, she was the 16th player to be ranked number one. Read the sources. (As far as I understand, WTA didn't want to rewrite history. When in 2007 they discovered an error in old calculations, they declared Goolagong the 16th number one.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I read that source and that's not what it says. That column is in order of the No. 1 ranking, not the announcement of a mistake that was being corrected. You'll have to convince others to change it and go against logic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

That column in its current state is unsourced.
It goes against logic to reinvent history by assigning new numbers to everyone on the list. It was widely known back at the time that, for example, Venus Williams was 11th number one, Henin 13th, Sharapova 15th. I can easily source all these numbers. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It is simply a chronological list of players who were number one, starting with Chris Evert on Nov 3, 1975. "Back at the time" has changed since new data came to light with the WTA. They corrected themselves and we correct that data here. I can't fathom why you have trouble with this except perhaps a language issue for a non-native speaker? I'm not sure. If Goolagong was No. 1 on April 26, 1976, then she was absolutely the second No. 1 player in WTA history. Of course there were a couple dozen No. 1 players before 1975, but the WTA in 2007 corrected their mistake. And surely they would say at the time that Goolagong was the 16th player to reach No. 1, but the meaning is clear that they meant we have 16 players that have reached No. 1 and Goolagong is one of them... not that she was #16 on a list of 16 players. Chronologically she is number two. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

incomplete section

This section is incomplete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WTA_number_1_ranked_tennis_players#Weeks_at_No._1_leaders_timeline and isn't it redundant anyway? Isn't the first section a timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.218.150 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WTA records and particularities

On the corresponding ATP page there is a section called "ATP records and particularities". In this you can find the following information: "Novak Djokovic has the record of 16,950 ranking points, the most ATP points ever accumulated by any player." Does anyone know if there is a corresponding information for the WTA? For example, as follows: "Serena Williams has the record of 14,720 ranking points, the most WTA points ever accumulated by a player." I've already searched half of Google, but haven't found any corresponding information anywhere. Also, I would appreciate if there was a list (ATP and WTA) with the maximum points accumulated by the different players (e.g. the best 10).--Gilbertblake (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

List of WTA number 1 ranked singles tennis players and Russia

The link you gave at WTA Tennis says nothing about rankings. It says the events they play in. All the WTA has done on their website is remove flags from every Russian and Belarus player. Forever. Even events that happened years before have the flags removed... should we do the same for the 2015 US Open and remove the flags of Russian players? There is a software limitation on this particular issue for their website. You need to find a source that says to remove flags from rankings because other sources still have them. This has been explained to you many times now. If anyone finds a source where the WTA/ATP is quoted that they are also removing nationality from rankings then we have a different situation, but right now there site is dubious on this because of software limitations. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)