Talk:WTA 1000 Series singles records and statistics

The main tables are just unreadable
I'm not sure how you guys can navigate through them, they are confusing as hell. Surely there is a better way to do them? I also have no idea why Indian Wells, San Diego, Philadelphia and Zürich are part of the first header when the tournaments weren't part of the 1990 Tier I series? If they're to stay there then the order of the table should be reversed at least, starting with 2008 instead of 1990. ForzaUV (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There are 2 tables. There were supposed to be 1 big table, but since up to 10 events were held at one point (2004-07) and now there are 9 events, merging the 2 tables would have left 1 empty column after 2008 which would've been visually unappealing. The 4 events' headers are listed because they weren't part of the of the tier i series at the time.


 * There have been 20 different tournaments held so far since 1990. So, the best way to list them in 1-2 tables was to indicate when new events took place with downward arrows (↓ ↓). The series started with 6 events, increased to 8, then to 9, to 10 and then decreased to the current 9 events, that's why events which didn't fall into Tier I/Premier Mandatory category at the time are listed as Tier II/III events aka not held. Instead of having different tables for each period when there were 6, events then 8, 9, 10 held in specific years there were merged into 2 to compensate. All tournament's changes and years of replacements are listed in the footnotes. Hope this clarifies things better. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * |I totally get all of that and I understand why it was implemented in 2 tables. Still, I don't like how the tables are presented, the main header is misleading and makes the readers think the series started with 10 tournaments when in reality it started with 6. The empty headers just do not work here, there are too many tournaments and once I scroll a couple of rows I don't know anymore which tournament the player won. There are also too many notes. It seems to me you wanted to replicate the format of the Masters article for the WTA top-tier series but I don't think it works due to the structure being completely different. Here is my proposal.. ForzaUV (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * New tournaments underlined.


 * Sorry,, but your table goes against WP:MOS guidelines as it needs columnheaders as every table should have and it looks weird. The whole goal was to make the merged tables as simple and clean as possible. I appreciate your input, but you would be undoing a month's worth of work, which was a long time to get tables to look right.Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See relevant discussion. Note this discussion took place before this page was created. The tables, that was agreed upon, serve(d) as a precursor and basis for the stats in this article. Pinging to weigh in on this if they want. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I didn't have any trouble with the tables we have now and I fixed the new variant ! to scope so as not to create poor html. To be honest it is actually easier to read and navigate this new version for me. Could we simply create top column headers with the word "tournament" or "event?" That's the only issue that bothers me. Both versions get the job done so it's what's best and easiest for our readers that is the priority. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If we added simple headers it would look like:


 * New tournaments underlined.


 * Scope=row and scope=col should be used in row- and columnheaders only, per Table's scope. In data cells ! scope=row could be supplemented with a pipe character and . I would also emphasize the individual tournaments' names with big, so they stand out more. I merged the "Tournaments" columnheaders into 1 with colspan. Qwerty284651 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood on the scope protocol. I knew we couldn't use ! in the middle of a table without using scope. I would not use big as it is actually too big. Maybe just bold? Or maybe just one type size bigger? I'm flexible on the whole thing in staying the same or using ForzaUV's change. I would lean towards change only because I think our readers "might" find it easier to keep track of who won what event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the row between 2003 and 2004 I unbolded the recurring events except for the new one in for comparison. resize is more flexible with adjusting font size in %, so I increased the font size in the row between 2007 and 2008 to 110% (big = 125%). I mean it's better to adapt to what the readers might find easier to read. This was a tough pill to swallow but I have to accept new changes and agree with the majority here and possibly implement Forza's design. Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * P. S. Do we keep the footnotes the current tables have for better explanation, or not? Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that to you guys... I don't want to have my finger in too many pies. You two have good heads on your shoulders for finding in-betweens and either way is fine with me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I applied the newly suggested changes to both tables, thereby making them easier to read and navigate, whilst also keeping the footnotes. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you felt the simple suggested changes would be undoing a month's worth of work. All of your work is still there, only the headers were tweaked a bit to improve readability and that's it. Now that you applied the changes I hope you could see the improvement. I'd still remove the footnotes, they're redundant and unnecessary with the new changes except for (a), (m), (n) and the second part of (b). I would also like to see the headers for the mandatory events highlighted. ForzaUV (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Forza, I would keep (j) note since we have a single column for 2 events: Doha and Dubai. As for the Mand. tourn., just highlight the 4 columnheaders: IW, MI, MA and BE with big in the 2nd table. Mandatory as a category was introduced in 2009, therefore highlighting the 1st table's columneheaders would be erroneous and plain right retconing the term. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

New comments
@ForzaUV, would u have the tables nowrapped with overflow-x, or not? Something like this. If you prefer the nowrapped version move the links to a rightmost column titled "Refs" in both tables instead of removing them, citing clutter. Tnx, Qwerty284651 (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I see no difference on my screen so both look good to me. ForzaUV (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the overflow-x param that conceals, well, the table overflowing over the page's width. Try on it mobile and tell me if you see any difference. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * One row was unbolded compared to all the rest so I fixed it. And why would only one row be a different font size? It makes the table look lopsided and unprofessional to my eyes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Tournament combinations section
Given there have been 20 different tournaments held since WTA Tour's inception in 1990, many players have won a plethora of tournament "combinations" in a single season. Would a section listing said combinations be a beneficial addition to this article? And if so, which tournament combinations should be included? Reference points: Tier I and ATP's Masters. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Unlike the Masters, there are no many notable combinations in the WTA Tour except for Indian Wells and Miami. But probably a section about only mandatory events combinations in a season would be a good addition. ForzaUV (talk) 09:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the aforementioned combos if you do feel like doing so. Mayhaps Canada-Cincy or Wuhan-Beijing or another, I'd say, noteworthy tourn. combinations. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

10 WTA 1000 events in 2024
There is a discussion on the Tennis project's talk page about a 10th WTA 1000 event being added in 2024. Other editors are invited to contribute by weighing in on the matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)