Talk:2009 Wimbledon Championships: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Mjquinn id (talk | contribs) m Assessing B-Class; Full draw, Full results; maybe some historical reference |
LeaveSleaves (talk | contribs) m demoting to C, nowhere near B class, contains useless stats without significant prose or references |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPTennis|class= |
{{WPTennis|class=C|importance=mid}} |
||
== Ballgirl == |
== Ballgirl == |
Revision as of 19:13, 5 July 2009
Tennis C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
Ballgirl
I have no idea how to edit references, can someone add this for the ball girl story in section 2, please? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6571986.ece sicaruma | contribs 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the ball girl story should be there at all - it is certainly not notable, it is more like trivia, which is discouraged on wiki. (There seems to be sime obsession with ballboy/ballgirl stories and Wimbledon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.140.187 (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Daily summaries and notable stories
Shouldn't these sections be placed below the Seniors section?--Innerproduct (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)