Talk:2015 WTA Finals

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2014
Please do not do the semi-protected that all users can edit it.

111.250.63.194 (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.  Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 10:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

TBD?
Why the TBD? WTA schedule does have the dates: "OCT 25 - NOV 01", it reads. Though it's possible those were added just today... 212.50.203.198 (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ending at #26
Is this random or what? Why is #26 the magical cutoff? From my understranding the Zhuai Cup is 11 players from #9-19 and 1 wildcard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.218.136.96 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok so as of March 17, someone put the cut off at #25. We should establish a rank. That way the page is not subjective to include our favorite players ( I noticed Bouchard was #26, It doesn't matter whos #26 or whatever, it should include a set number, either 25 or 30. Personally #25 makes most sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.218.136.96 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The table is mainly edited by GAThrawnIGF who may be able to say whether it already follows a system. I don't know but there might be something like: If some of the top-19 don't play the current week then add a corresponding number who do play and may enter the top-19. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, all! The reason I chose to include #26 is because whoever was at #25 became one spot lower due to another player's results. But because both were still active at the same time, it made sense to just leave it until everyone's results leave just the top 25 again. It had nothing to do with picking favorites (Bouchard is far from my favorite player). This way we don't have to continually edit it and re-research all the information every time #26 wins a match and re-enters the top 25. This is also why I had the cutoff for the table be #25, because if it was just the top 20, then we'd be editing it nonstop and it would become increasingly painful as the calendar rolls on. Another solution is to have #26-#30 hidden and then swap it out for whoever when their results change, or even #21-#30, only I don't know how to make a table fit within the <! tags. GAThrawnIGF (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The table is already full of comments with tournament names, and comments cannot be nested inside eachother. Another system could be used to deactivate some rows, for example putting them in . This dumb looking code says: If an empty string is non-empty then display  . PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll let someone else handle that. Knowing me, I'd break the entire page (and probably the internet) by trying to do that :P GAThrawnIGF (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If  is the unwanted rows then simply write this around them:


 * If it looks right in preview then you don't break the Internet by saving. (Certain problems may be concealed if only a section is previewed) PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Total Points
Why do the points under "total points" not match with the sum of the points in the tournaments?--Intimidator (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't maintain the table but I examined one case in :


 * The sum of the shown points is 1647. The listed total is the 1755 she has in the official standings at http://www.wtatennis.com/road-singles-leaderboard. Women's Tennis Association says: "A player's ranking is determined by her results at a maximum of 16 tournaments for singles and 11 for doubles and points are awarded based on how far a player advances in a tournament. The basis for calculating a player's ranking are those tournaments that yield the highest ranking points during the rolling 52-week period with the condition that they must include points from the Grand Slams, Premier Mandatory tournaments and the WTA Championships. In addition, for Top 20 players, their best two results at Premier 5 tournaments will also count.". The WTA Championships (former name for the WTA Finals) never count in the qualification for next years WTA Finals. There are two reasons she has more points in the official standings.
 * Reason 1) She played the qualification tournament in the Premier Mandatory in Madrid and got 2 points. The detailed rules in say it's only mandatory in the rankings if you play the main draw. She didn't, so in the official standings she can omit the 2 and instead count a seventh other where she got 55. Our table assumes that 4 Grand Slams, 4 Premier Mandatories and at least 2 Premier 5 must count, so it only has columns for 6 others in the 16 tournaments that determine the ranking.
 * Reason 2) The Premier Mandatory in Beijing hasn't been played yet but it will be mandatory in the rankings when the actual qualification for the WTA Finals is determined. Our table leaves a blank cell until then and shows points in less than 16 tournaments. The official standings instead count another result, in this case 55 from an eight other tournament.
 * 1647 - 2 + 55 + 55 = 1755, so this explains the difference for her. I haven't examined other players. What should we do about it? Maybe just add a note. Most players with a chance to qualify for the WTA Finals will eventually have 10 tournaments which must be included. I don't think we should spend time maintaining more than 6 others during the season when all or nearly all will just be removed later. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this complex answer! I now understand much more of this system and its far more complex as I thought it is. I don't know how to deal with this in the article but I think it would we good to have some remark that, at least at this time of the season, most total points are not the sum of the tournaments listed. But if there is no Problem with people "correcting" the "wrong" numbers it could stand as it is as well. But your wonderful explanation should stay on the talk page. I have one more question PrimeHunter. Lets stay with Mladenovic. When she plays in Beijing one of the 55 points will be dropped. But as she cannot make points at Madrid anymore the other 55 points will remain till Singapore? So every slot in Grand Slam, Premier Mandatory or Premier 5, where a player has zero points could be filled with the points of an other tournament? --Intimidator (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Her ranking seems certain to qualify her directly for the Beijing main draw so yes, whatever she gets there will replace one of the 55. And the 2 in Madrid will never count. The other 55 will either remain or be replaced by something better in a future tournament. As mentioned, results from Grand Slams and Premier Mandatories can only be replaced if the player didn't enter the main draw. And participation is mandatory so if a player with sufficient ranking to enter the main draw is not present due to injury, it counts as a 0 that cannot be replaced. All mandatory tournaments have so many spots for high-ranked players that it's unusual for a potential WTA Finals player to have any such event which is allowed to be replaced because they didn't reach the main draw. Note that Mladenovic is only 25th and will probably not qualify for the WTA Finals. However, the WTA Elite Trophy for number 9–19 plus a wild card is a new event in 2015. Players in contention for that event are more likely to have non-counting mandatory tournaments where they only played qualification or not even that. Maybe this will force us to add more than six "Best other" for some players. If Mladenovic ends in the top-19 it will look bad to not list one of the events which qualified her. I still haven't examined the other players. There are also potential complications for the two best Premier 5 which are only non-replaceable for top-20 players. However, at least 2 of the Premier 5 results will usually be good enough to be included in the 16 even if they aren't forced to count by the top-20 rule. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

0-pointers
Agnieska Radwanska has a 0-pointer from Rome that has to be counted in her ranking as one of her 16 tournaments. 2.110.116.187 (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read chapter "Total Points" above. Premier 5 results can be replaced.--95.222.226.38 (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Better read the rule book. Same happend to Kerber in 2013.
 * Actually you are both right and wrong, You have to record at least 2 premier 5 events and they can be replaced, however players that end in the top 10 that year has to commit to 4 premier 5 events for the next year, if they miss one of this commitment tournaments they will get a zero. Dencod16 (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Strange rule for WTA Trophy entrance rules
Please see Talk:2015 WTA Elite Trophy. Any comments on this, please? Naki (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 WTA Finals. 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/20141106123130/http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/0527_WTA_Finals.pdf to http://www.wtatennis.com/SEWTATour-Archive/Archive/PressReleases/2014/0527_WTA_Finals.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)