Talk:2009 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles

Seedings in Men's Singles Draw for Wimbledon 2009

Hello, this is the first time I'm posting on a Wikipedia talk page, so I'm sorry in advance if I forget a key rule of Wikipedia here.

While reading this article, I noticed that in the seedings for Gentlemen's Singles, Roger Federer has been given a seeding of 1, while Nicolas Kiefer has been given a seeding of 33. It seems to make logical sense that the seedings should go either 1-32 or 2-33. Should we use 1-32, keeping Federer as 1, and Kiefer moving to 32, or should we use 2-33, meaning Kiefer remains at 33, but Federer moves down to 2. I checked the official Wimbledon website, and they use 2-33, so I'm inclined to change it to that, but I'm not sure if that is convention on Wikipedia, so I was hoping people more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines could help me here. Habaxterous (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to WP ! You're right actually, the correct seeding is 2-33. Federer will act as the highest seed, but remains 2. The earlier version of the page you saw contained a mistake, I've corrected it. --Don Lope (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Diacritics

All accents/diacritics on the names are gone. In my opinion they ought to be there, simply because it's the correct spelling. We've had the same discussion already at the French Open 2009... (Though actually not a discussion; just people saying "Hey, why are there no accents?") MatrixCL (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the first principle of Wikipedia is that it should be ACCURATE. Diacritics must be included. Mjefm (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Why is it completely random who is in bold in the first round of the draw? Seeds in bold throughout the draw and non-seeds not in bold surely?!

It's not random. Winners are in bold. --Don Lope (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That dude was shut down. 64.141.133.22 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Records

A lot of records were broken in the final (longest final set, most aces in a match, etc)... can they be listed! Fig (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See Longest tennis match records 19:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

and now Tennis records relating to aces 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Separate page for the Final?

Should there be a new page made for the 2009 Men's singles final? I personally believe there should as it was an instant classic, and since the 2008 final has its own page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.129.90 (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Errors

There has to be an error regarding the third round match between Haas and Cilic. It says that Cilic won 9-7 in the fifth set when clearly this is not possible since Haas reached the semifinals. Im reluctant to change it though because i dont know the exact results of the matches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.233.152 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles. 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/20090621230658/http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/19062009/58/wimbledon-nadal-pulls-wimbledon.html to http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/19062009/58/wimbledon-nadal-pulls-wimbledon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)