Talk:2019 WTA Tour

Where is the Statistics Leaders
section?

--Loginnigol 19:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ??? It looks just like the 2019 ATP Tour article. What exactly is missing this year? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, the WTA articles have included an extra section called Statistics leaders. All based on the WTA Match Stats website. Probably tough to keep up on those but in the past it looks like the sections on the WTA Tour articles were created by . Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

OMG... shot's of the month awards???
Everyone needs to realize that the awards section that contains shots of the month, players of the month, and breakthrough of the month, aren't actual awards. It's simply trivial fun the WTA sets up on their website. Most of those are simply given out by the number of fans that respond to the questions. They probably add in facebook results too. Way over-the-top trivia stuff so I removed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Three large tables with all candidates and vote percentages like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_WTA_Tour&oldid=883269794#Awards] seems excessive. But it is called "WTA Player of the Month" on the official site, "WTA Breakthroughs of the Month" and "WTA Shots of the Month" . I think it's at least worth a small table showing the winners like this for 2018 after mentioning how it's determined:


 * Finalists are selected by wtatennis.com. Winner is then determined by a fan vote on wtatennis.com.


 * Gotta be one of the silliest things I've seen at this encyclopedia. It's not a real award... it's fun stuff for fans to vote on. What's next, the Tennis Tv Bag Check Award? Just because they have it at WTA doesn't mean it's encyclopedia worthy. Has any secondary source (like the press) picked up on these so-called awards and republished their importance? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easy to find some mentions by using Google on the award name and a winning player. I quickly found a reliable looking independent source for all tested combinations, e.g. about an ongoing vote at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at that in Romanian Business review, it's essentially a get-out-the-vote campaign for Simona Halep. And they say the results of the inquiry will be announce on Friday. This isn't an award, it's a fan poll to push Halep into the win. I guess the category could be changed to Fun fan votes as opposed to awards, but it's still not encyclopedia worthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Business Review obviously isn't a tennis fan site. There is no sport on their main page . I chose that example to show the awards sometimes get media interest before they are even awarded. There are far more mentions afterwards. The 30 award wins in the suggested 11-line table have hundreds or maybe thousands of total mentions in independent sources (most of which may not be in English). That's more than the typical Wikipedia content of the same size. Shot of the Month seems like the least significant of the awards. I chose Ons Jabeur from Tunesia as the player least likely to get attention in English sources and I easily found several. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are certainly more mentions than I had thought, thanks for those links. A couple of things. Paddy power is a betting site, www.syndigate.info is an Arabic original content site with the story picked up by MSN, and gentnews.com I have no idea what that is. Here's the thing... what happens is a player gets a mention in one of these fun things that the wta is doing for fans, and of course sites that want to promote that content pick it up so fans will vote or some such thing. Do you really feel this is encyclopedic material? I'll put my reverts back if you really think that and ask at tennis project and outside sports projects for input. I'll tell you thouigh, there is no way these are "awards" in any kind of a strict sense of that word, and it denigrates true awards won by players. That section title needs to be changed to something that fits the fan polling the WTA uses to generate these achievements. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "hundreds or maybe thousands of total mentions" was for the 30 winners together and not each in case it was unclear. wtatennis.com selects 3 to 6 candidates so it's not like fans can get random players to win. I don't say they are important awards but when we can list 30 in a short table, I think it's worth including. I still oppose the three long tables we have in many articles. I made the above winner-only table for this discussion and haven't seen the format in articles. It reduces the length by around 85% compared to three separate tables listing all candidates. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I put the originals back, with a header fix. I do like your table better. It's tighter looking for such a minor achievement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Which of these should we show:
 * Nothing
 * One table with all winners (like above example)
 * One table including all candidates (maybe bold winner followed by other candidates in the same cell)
 * Three tables with winners
 * Three tables including all candidates (like now in e.g. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2018_WTA_Tour&oldid=890548838#WTA_fan_polls])
 * Something else?

PrimeHunter (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Show one table with all winners. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll go with your compromise of one table with all winners. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You could probably have just done it. I was the one objecting to all of it and it only affects 5 articles. If someone then objects to your smaller chart we could discuss more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You wrote "I'll put my reverts back if you really think that and ask at tennis project and outside sports projects for input." I parsed "ask at tennis project" as belonging to "you" but maybe it belonged to "I'll". Now that the project is notified, let's see if there are other opinions. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did write that, but you changed my mind on keeping it. Opinions are very limited at the project lately, but we'll see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)