Jump to content

Talk:Women's Tennis Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 June 2021 and 30 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jgfell. Peer reviewers: Laallen2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. I was reading the board and a detail struck me concerning Martina Navratilova's citizenship. I had just read our article on her, and there it says that she became an US citizen only in 1981. The board on this article states that she reached the world n.1 place in 1978, which means that she was still Czech then (a citizen of the late Czechoslovakia). Maybe this would have to be reflected on the board? Perhaps it should be "Czechoslovakia/United States" (although that sounds somewhat ambiguous)? Regards, Redux 22:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Good find! I wholeheartedly agree, and as clumsy as it is it'll be inserted. Any reader can view the Navr. article for more information.--Etaonish 22:03, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have helped. That being the case, I took the liberty of making a similar addition for Monica Seles, since our article on her says that she became an US citizen in 1994, but became world n.1 in 1991. If I had noticed that sooner, I would have included her case along with Navratilova's, in my comment above, but only now I got around to reading her article (I didn't remember if she had changed her citizenship before becoming n.1, as it is the case with Martina Hingis - so we don't need to write "Slovakia/Switzerland" in her slot of the board). Regards, Redux 01:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Along the same lines, the first flag shown for Seles is the current flag of Serbia, which didn't become an independent country until well after Seles had retired from tennis. I would think the first flag shown ought to be the flag used by her country the first time she reached #1, which would be the flag of SFR Yugoslavia. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia --Metropolitan90 05:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking system need some updating...

[edit]

Starting from 2005, there are no tier V tournaments. From January 1st 2006, all quality points will be eliminated. Prize money categories were slightly changed, ranking points were increased for Grand Slams, WTA Championship and a new category for tier I with prize money of 3 milion$ will be added.--Nitsansh 23:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updating is needed again...

[edit]

There is a new ranking points distribution chart for 2007.--Nitsansh 19:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Records section

[edit]

I propose that the records section of this article be moved to the tennis statistics article. Any objections? Tennis expert 17:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings

[edit]

The top 50 list in the Rankings section ought to be dropped - it changes on a weekly basis (and is already out of date in the article). Maybe retain only the top 3/5/10 and add a link to the official website? (http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/rankings/singles_numeric.asp) - Binand 05:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

men's page, dates wrong?

[edit]

if you go to the men's ATP page it states in the opening line: The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) was formed in 1972 to protect the interests of male professional Tennis players. (Female players formed the Women's Tennis Association the year after.)

yet this (women's) page, states: The Women's Tennis Association began in Houston, Texas when the inaugural Virginia Slims event was won on September 23, 1970.

so which is it? i'm obviously more inclined to believe the women's page, but does that mean whoever wrote the men's page, did not check facts? or have they got the dates wrong, and the men's was started even earlier?? anyone confirm? i'm just noticing the difference and pointing it out. Geeness 08:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 Women at bottom of every biography

[edit]

Its outdated by three weeks and was wondering how do I edit it???

Only Top 40!!

[edit]

There isn't a point to having the Top 50, we change it every week. It should be left at Top 40 Sakya23 03:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New ranking

[edit]

Where did did these updated rankings (As of 28 Jan 2008) come from? The official website still has the rankings as of the 14th of January. Paulytlws (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research by certain editors. Good luck trying to keep them from adding this stuff. Tennis expert (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATP vs. WTA pages

[edit]

These two pages are not consistent. What is current ATP ranking? Top 30? 205.143.204.110 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I've previously made it clear, we want both pages to be consistent. The ATP has Top 20 for every ranking, including race to championships. The WTA's race to championships is also top 20. I don't see why WTA rankings has to include top 30?? It doesn't make sense or follow the other format of tennis ranks/stats. Sakya23 (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QLFR

[edit]

May I ask you, what does it mean QLFR in the table of ranking? Thanks --83.208.117.159 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QLFR = qualifier. Tennis expert (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Sony Ericsson request removed

[edit]

I have removed [1] an unsourced strange claim made as the only edit by 211.31.179.87: "The Sony Ericsson have asked for the top 30 ranked women each week below." It sounds unlikely to me that The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour should ask Wikipedia to show a top 30. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament Categories

[edit]

The site still classifies tournaments as "Tier" tournaments. The classification changed for 2009, and I was hoping someone could change it. Same with the ranking point system. January 4, 2009

Titles (WTA versus ITF)

[edit]

I assume there's one fan in particular that's responsible for this, but ITF titles should not be included in the total of a player's amount of WTA titles. Both Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters have greater titles here than they did in actuality. Just as junior and ITF wins do not count towards a player's ratios or totals, so should titles not either. (This is the format followed by both the WTA and the ATP) Alonsornunez (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. According to the sources I have cited (have a look at them), the WTA counts ITF tournament victories and match wins in a player's tournament and win-loss records. One cannot assume that the WTA and ATP follow the same policies. Tennis expert (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are included in a player's biography, but no one, EVER, counts small ITF titles as part as a professional WTA player's career stats, unless specifically talking about ITF tournaments. No one ever says that Justine Henin has 48 career titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source (the Women's Tennis Association) does, for both tournament titles and wins-losses. What you personally prefer is irrelevant. Tennis expert (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Look, it's not about personal preference. It's about the precedent set by various record keepers, as well as teh WTA itself. I think I'm confused here because you are conflating the WTA titles of players with ITF titles that they won, which is not standard when citing statistics for players. Can you at least tell me why you are doing this? For example, when looking at Henin's bio on the WTA website, it lists her with forty-one titles; though it factually includes her ITF titles, it does not conflate them with her WTA titles to reach its total. The same occurs with Kim Clijsters. Alonsornunez (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I would respectfully ask that you discuss this with me first before reverting my correction again. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs) 21:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again. The source cited in the article (click on it if you don't believe me) is the source for the data in the article. That source is the Women's Tennis Association (WTA). Career match wins includes ITF matches. Career tournament titles includes ITF tournaments. Both of those are according to the WTA itself. You, however, are changing information in the article without sourcing the change. That's not allowed by Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What though about the link that I provided below, leading to Henin's official WTA bio which stats that she had 41 titles? I understand that you have a reference point, but so do I, and I believe that the precedent of tradition (which has been to only include WTA titles and Grand Slams) still rests with me.Alonsornunez (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to source your changes. And you will have to change the rest of this article so that it excludes ITF matches and tournaments. Every other section of this article includes ITF matches and tournaments, per the sources currently cited in this article. Finally, there is no "precedent of tradition" about this. Wikipedia routinely includes ITF matches and tournaments in women's tennis biographies. Tennis expert (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My change IS sourced. I used the official WTA bio pages for Henin, Cljsters and Conchita Martinez to get that information. No one ever, ever says that Henin had 48 titles when discussing her career. How would you repsond to my source? Alonsornunez (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WTA itself does. See the source cited in the article. Tennis expert (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What though about her own bio page, which states that she had forty-one titles in her career? And the article which I linked to. The WTA has a multitude of references, and it seems to me that you are cherry-picking one in this case.Alonsornunez (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are using the sources that are consistent with the rest of the article about tournament titles and match wins/losses. As I have said repeatedly, this article includes ITF results, per the WTA sources cited in the article. You are not allowed to change the article without sourcing your changes in the article itself. Nor should you change one section of the article to make it inconsistent with the rest of the article. This really isn't that complicated a concept. Tennis expert (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please refrain from ad hominem attacks. I am a big tennis fan and I am just trying to rectify what I believe to be a mistake. The WTA lists in various places 41 titles, and on the PDF that you linked to 48. I am not trying to be needlessly compicated here, it's just that it's very odd to see these ITF titles conflated with the WTA and Grand Slam titles. What of the fact that in other places the WTA states 41, and not 48?Alonsornunez (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What ad hominem attack did I make? I've already said several times why we are using the sources we have cited. See my last post. Tennis expert (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted to previous editor's change. I still think that this 'version' is A)also valid (because of citation by the WTA itself on various pages, and B)this is the set of statistics that without disagreement is cited by all outside sources, including experts, commentators and fans and casual readers of encyclopedia's such as this one. Edited table note to comply. Alonsornunez (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third opinion. According to the WTA bio of Henin, Henin has 41 WTA singles titles and 7 ITF singles titles: the two categories are separated. Do you have a WTA source saying "48 titles"? I don't see any external links from Tennisexpert to support your claims. (And I just saw Alonsornunez's link below, which seems dispositive.) THF (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WTA itself says that she has 48 titles, as the source cited in the article (a PDF file) plainly states. Also, the WTA counts ITF wins and losses in a player's win-loss totals. Moreover, the WTA does not publish separately a player's ITF record. When this article talks about wins and losses (overall or by surface), those wins and losses include ITF matches because there is no citable source that excludes those matches. The article would become internally inconsistent if tournament titles exluded ITF tournaments while the wins and losses sections of the article continue to include those tournaments. The article as it currently exists is fully sourced, and I invite you to take a look at the sources at your convenience. Tennis expert (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that this "48" number is found nowhere else on the WTA's website, nor is it cited by any outside sources; however, "41" is referenced on various WTA pages, and unanimously by tennis journalists and staticians. This info is available for viewing at one's convenience. Alonsornunez (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unanimously" has been and continues to be an unsourced and unproven allegation by Alonsornunez, who wants to substitute his own opinion about which tournaments count in lieu of the WTA's judgment. Aside from that, Alonsornunez has never addressed the internal inconsistency problem I listed above, nor the fact that there are no reliable sources for win-loss records that exclude ITF results. Tennis expert (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with leaving the win-loss records as they are; there are various ways of looking at win-loss (counting/not counting Olympics, Fed Cup, ITF, et al. Oy vey) and a better man than I can jump in that pit of snakes if they want! I simply think that the WTA info stated on the players' Bio pages, on various WTA media releases (Henin's retirement, etc.) and by various secondary sources (Sports illustrated, Tennis.com, etc.) should stand. Please give a second source for the 'counting ITF' numbers. Alonsornunez (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I'm not fine with settling for inconsistency in our articles. Tennis expert (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike you, I'm not fine with settling for inconsistency in our articles." (Non personal attack version) Okay, there, that's better. It seems like we should go with the most common way of citing this information, which is non-ITF, since the WTA contradicts itself and cites both versions on its website. Alonsornunez (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTA States Henin's total upon retirement.

[edit]

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/3/newsroom/stories/?ContentID=2255

There we go. WTA states that Henin had 41 titles, counting seven gran slams but NO ITF events. Alonsornunez (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Concerning ITF Titles

[edit]

It still seems silly to me that we are using numbers that no one ever references. Why? I propose that the section should be changed to read '...counts only Tour level events'. This excludes the ITF titles explicitly and keeps the numbers in line with the reality of how careers are measured. Alonsornunez (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inconsistent with the many other sections of this article. Plus, there are sources for much of the data in this article only for ITF-included matches and tournaments. Tennis expert (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems bizarre to me that no one refers to these numbers except one WTA page and this wiki page. Players themselves, other WTA players... nada. Gotta be a more sane way to have this. Anyone else wanna chime in? ...Please?... Alonsornunez (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Expert, please respond: Justine Henin's retirement article (official WTA article) and various outside articles cite 41, not 48. Miho understood this same evidence to exist as well. I would ask that you please provide me with one article that cites the conflated WTA/ITF numbers for establishing players' standings in regards to career titles. I do not believe there are any outside of that one WTA page Alonsornunez (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Sisters Rivalry

[edit]

I would ask that an editor (or a few) please look at the Williams Sisters rivalry page. Tennis Expert nominated the page for deletion, the page was voted to 'Keep' (thanks to everyone who chimed in!) and now this user seems intent on changing and editing the piece without allowing for Consensus and without following WP:BRD. I would please ask a third (or fourth) pair of eyes to take a look at the page and let me know if I'm missing something. Thanks. Alonsornunez (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely upgrading the article and eliminating ambiguity and awkward phrasing, which you are responsible for. But you are now insisting, in effect, that you WP:OWN the article and are blindly reverting, which is your typical behavior. How unfortunate but not in the least surprising. Tennis expert (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this for my recommendations for the article. Alonsornunez has reverted every attempt I have made to improve the article; therefore, there is no point in my continuing to be involved there. Tennis expert (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user should be honest and inform other editors here that, on a page he tried to have deleted a week ago, he has tried to blind delete the 'Exhibitions' section w/o discussion, insert his POV about the Serena Slam, and made edits that I believe were in good faith but that interrupted the flow and internal structure of the article (these edits were worked into subsequent edits, minus awkward phrases and POV). Alonsornunez (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally false: "These edits were worked into subsequent edits, minus awkward phrases and POV." I explained to you why your addition of the exhibitions section was irrelevant. But you edit warred to keep the section in the article, completely ignoring WP:BRD. And what POV did I insert about the "Serena Slam"? None - typically disruptive/unconstructive comments by you to enforce your ownership of the article. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm following the precedent set by the Federer-Nadal rivalry page and have set a space for inclusion of notable exhibitions. Exo's are of course not counted in a player's career totals, but can be noted (as this one has been) when of a competitive nature. I leave it to my fellow editors, do we leave in exo's of note (ala Federer-Nadal's "battle of the surfaces" or Venus-Serena at the BJK Cup last month)? Alonsornunez (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No tennis exhibition is notable or encyclopedic. And you will have a tough time finding a source to prove that any particular exhibition involving the Williams sisters was "of a competitive nature". Tennis expert (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Jean King

[edit]

Both the WTA bio for BJK and her page at the ITF Hall of Fame list her open era (or 'professional') titles at 67, not 84. I changed the list accordingly. Alonsornunez (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to change the article, then you have to change the sources cited in the article. This really shouldn't be that hard a concept to understand. Have you ever actually clicked on the PDF file cited in the article? Whenever you get around to doing it, you will see that King is not mentioned in the file. Therefore, if you're going to change the statistics about King in the article, then you must add a source to the article to support the change. Tennis expert (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If you're going to change the article, then you have to change the sources cited in the article. This really shouldn't be that hard a concept to understand. Have you ever actually clicked on the PDF file cited in the article? Whenever you get around to doing it, you will see that King is not mentioned in the file. Therefore, if you're going to change the statistics about King in the article, then you must add a source to the article to support the change." (Needed the non-snark version, sorry)
Edited 'source' reference to represent accordingly info for Court, Goolagong, King, and Wade. Alonsornunez (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, actually "I" did that. Tennis expert (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad those player bios were of help! Alonsornunez (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

[edit]

The new Original 9 article essentially is a duplication of this article and, therefore, should be merged with this one. Tennis expert (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Original 9 article ought to be renamed Virginia Slims Circuit and rewritten slightly, or it ought to be merged into this article and Virginia Slims Circuit ought to redirect to this article. Coyets (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone edit the table for Prize money earnings? Kim Clijsters actual wiki page says she has over $16m in prize money, this table says she still has $14m.Melrosepark (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing templates

[edit]

How do you edit the templates in this article? The rankings for women's singles say that Venus Williams is no. 4 and was previously no. 2, but it also says that she only moved down by one rank. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you fixed it [2] just before i got there. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dying Sport

[edit]

The following was added by 92.0.5.90 in a section called Dying Sport. I have reverted it with edit summary "Unsourced essay-like POV section". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Women's tennis has witnessed a sharp decline in popularity in recent years. Many hold the WTA responsible. Critics point to the fact that the tours main stars are aging with most of its best players approaching retirement (i.e. the Williams sisters, Clijsters, Henin, etc), and worry about where the next generation of great players will come from. At one point in 2008/09, with both Williams sisters having problems with injuries and Henin and Clijsters having both retired, there was an almost farcical period where a succession of so called world number 1's became number 1 without having ever won a grand slam (i.e. Jankovic, Safina, etc). With little new talent in the pipeline, once the Williams sisters, Henin, and Clijsters have gone, the WTA faces an enormous problem in attracting money into the sport without big name players. Critics believe the problem resides in the WTA's Age Eligibility Rules which artificially restrict the number of tournaments young players can play, thereby stunting their development. It is no coincidence that since these rules came in 1994, nobody under age of 20 has broken through in quite the same way Graf, Seles, Hingis, Evert, Austen, used to before they came in. And there lies the problem. With no big names to replace the Williams sisters, Henin, Clijsters, anywhere in sight, the game faces a crisis once they have gone. Quite simply, the WTA are overseeing a dying sport."

[edit]

'Billie Jean King was a major figure in the early days of the WTA.' This seems completely out of the context, at least in its current place. 82.141.65.90 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

WTA has a new logo we can keep the old one in the article, but someone needs to find the new logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.200.30 (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated File:WTA Tour.png from http://www.wtatour.com/namedImage/12781/WTA_Tour_Logo.png so the old logo cannot be displayed currently and should probably be deleted as unused fair use image. If we write commentary about the old logo then there may be reason to keep both. Was that your intention? The old logo doesn't seem so important now. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race to the WTA Championships?

[edit]

Mid-way on Marion Bartoli#2007 was a sentence that ended in "As a result of her Wimbledon performance, she rose to a career high of 11th in the Women's Tennis Association rankings and RACE[disambiguation needed]." I thought I'd chase down that RACE and decided to use "the Race to the WTA Championships" based on the Talk:Women's Tennis Association#ATP vs. WTA pages comments left on this talk page in 2008 and http://www.wtatennis.com/page/RaceToSECSingles.

On the men's side we have the ATP Race and so it may be worthwhile to create a similar article for the WTA. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current rankings

[edit]

WTA Rankings (Singles), as of July 4, 2011[14]
This has a cite [14], however, when I checked it, it still has June 20 rankings. It will be source on Monday, but it seems not be accurate right now. Is it original research, or is there actually a source? 85.217.35.155 (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premature updates of ranking points are probably original research in most cases, and often wrong. I just fixed more errors [3] after somebody had inappropiately written a correction on the article itself.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premature Rankings Updates

[edit]

How did the women's top-ten rankings get updated a day before the WTA has updated their page? Such updates are violations of WP:OR and WP:Crystal Ball. However, it's not clear who made the edits.96.25.189.9 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A persistent problem at wikipedia. I do my best to stay on top of many premature updates but I can't catch them all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Women's Tennis Association. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament structure

[edit]

It would be good to add section "Tournament structure through history" to have in one place overview of tournament categories so it's easier to navigate through historical data. Something like this table below, which I think needs further refinement (Elite Trophy awards more points and money than Premier category tournaments). I was thinking of the following rule Tier of the tournament group is based on the amount of points awarded to the winner. Tournament groups from different periods that are in the same tier did not neccesarily award the same amount of points., but there is a problem with that because it is a fact that Premier tournaments replaced Tiers 1 and 2 and International replaced Tiers 3 and 4 so that information should be somehow incorporated into the table. Setenzatsu (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tournaments − ?−'08 2009−'11 2012−'14 2015−
Tiers I Grand Slams Grand Slams Grand Slams Grand Slams Grand Slams
II WTA Finals WTA Finals WTA Finals WTA Finals WTA Finals
III Tier I Tier I Premier tournaments
Premier Mandatory
Premier Five
Premier
Premier tournaments
Premier Mandatory
Premier Five
Premier
Premier tournaments
Premier Mandatory
Premier Five
Premier
IV Tier II Tier II
V Tier III Tier III International tournaments International tournaments WTA Elite Trophy
VI Tier IVa Tier IV International tournaments
VII Tier IVb
VIII Tier V
IX WTA 125K series WTA 125K series
Possible but a couple of changes. Combine 2009-2014 sections and dump the WTA 125 series. The 125s are not part of the WTA Tour proper, they are the challenger level events. Winning a 125k is not winning on the tour. Change "Grand Slams" to "Grand Slam tournaments". Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Political Science Research Methods POLS 2399

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 1 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gaon.g (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Coolturtle11, LostCause17, B.manpas.

— Assignment last updated by B.manpas (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women%27s_Tennis_Association&oldid=1216753928"