Talk:Canadian Open (tennis)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Tennis (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Quebec / Toronto / Sport (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.
 
WikiProject Montreal (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's sport (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women's sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Move? (July 2006)[edit]

See further discussion at Talk:Miami Masters

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move

Canada Masters and Rogers Cup are the same tournaments, Canada Masters is the old name and Rogers Cup is its successor.Gsingh 22:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Most of the ATP Masters Series events have sponsored names. But these names change frequently as sponsors change. That's why all the Masters Series events on Wikipedia have pages titled by their name within the Masters Series. For long-term consistency, that makes sense (particularly since most tennis fans more commonly refer to the events by their Masters Series names instead of the frequently-changing sponsored names). For clarity, their sponsored names are all noted in bold within the opening paragraph of their page (and also in the chart on the ATP Master Series page). Sponsored names should ideally also be redirect pages so that anyone searching using that name will still find the appropriate page. I therefore think that Rogers Cup (tennis) should be merged to Canada Masters, not the other way around. Zaxem 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point, I also agree with that, ive changed the tag to merge rogers cup to canada mastersGsingh 16:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait a minute... That may have been true for the men's tournament but the women's tournament was never a "Masters" event, in name or otherwise. When the men's event was "Tennis Masters Canada" or whatever it was, the women's event was the "Rogers AT&T Cup". — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 17:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Never mind, I see it's consistent with other similar events. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 17:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The result was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move?[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? (July 2011)[edit]

Should this article be moved to Canadian Open (tennis). This tournament was (at least) originally the Canadian Championships, and since '68 it's been open. Only men have Masters tournaments, whereas this is a joint event. --August90 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The official tournament name is the Roger's Cup; having Toronto/Montreal Masters is silly. Morhange (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Rogers is only the title sponsor. Neither we have articles called Sony Ericsson Open or BNP Paribas Open. I didn't mean renaming this as Toronto/Montreal Masters. If this tournament can still be called Canadian Open, then IMO that should be the articles name, otherwise maybe Canada Masters. Even though only men have Masters tournaments, we also have articles about Miami and Indian Wells Masters. --August90 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Violet Summerhayes[edit]

While trying to write an article about Violet Summerhayes, I came across different information regarding her Canadian titles:

  • This article says she won the title in 1899, 1900, 1901, 1903 and 1904, i.e. five times
  • The official Rogers-Cup website says she won from 1899 to 1904 consecutively => 6 titles
  • Tennis Canada inducted her into its hall of fame in 1991 and praises her for winning the "Canadian Open (Rogers Cup) women’s singles title a record seven consecutive times at the turn of the century (1899-1905)." [1]

I checked Spalding's Tennis Annual of 1903, and it says a Miss Hague beat Summerhayes in the challenge round 6-0 6-1, so it supports this article. I quickly looked through the Spalding's of 1906 and it doesn't mention the Canadian championships (which seems to support this article as well). What is correct?--Kompakt (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I let Roger Cup and tenniscanada know of the error/confusion. We'll see if they get back to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for contacting Roger Cup and tenniscanada in this matter. Hopefully we can clear this up.--Kompakt (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
They did not get back with me yet. For 1902, both Spalding's Annual and Wright & Ditson's guides have Hague beating Summerhayes 6-0 6-1. Two sources, so Rogers Cup and tenniscanada are wrong and we are correct. 1905 is hazier. My sources didn't have Wright & Ditson, but as you said, Spalding's writes nothing. But in 1905 the men did play the Championship, so it's possible that the ladies did too. So far our sourcing is better so I'd keep it unless someone can find the 1906 Ditson guide with something different. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
According to Wright & Ditson's 1906 annual Summerhayes won the 1905 International Canadian Championships, played at Niagara-on-the-Lake, defeating Miss Day (Alice Day?) from the United States in the final in two sets, 6–2, 6–3.--Wolbo (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that event. Canada had two tournaments back then. From 1895–1909 the Canadian Championships was held in late July – early August at Niagara-on-the-Lake. But there was a competing event that some players preferred also held at the same venue called the Niagara-on-the-Lake International. This was held in late August to early September. Per the Niagara Falls Gazette of 1905 Summerhayes was to play Miss Day in the finals of the International Niagara-on-the-Lake on Sep 1 1905. Unless these two also happened to compete in the Canadian Championship a few weeks earlier, and also meet in the finals, then we might have an error in Wright & Ditson 1906. I guess they could have moved the Canadian Championship later that year, but otherwise we have conflicting information. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I now just read through the Wright & Ditson's 1906 annual and it says the Canadian Championship was not played and the Summerhayes/Day final was indeed the Niagra-on-the-Lake International tournament. It looks like Summerhayes didn't usually play this event but with the cancellation of the Canadian Championship she obviously decided to play it in 1905. This is also the reason we had an entry for the men in the 1905 championships... it was an error from the Niagara event, not the cancelled Canadian Championships. No doubt the Tennis Canada website made the same error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You are right, I overlooked the sentence "There had been considerable apathy earlier in the season and the Canadian championships were not played." in Wright & Ditson's 1906 annual. What confused me was the 1905 final between Irving Wright and B.M. Stewart which was listed and was part of the same tournament but I see you have corrected that.--Wolbo (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
That entry confused me too. But I guess as long as we eventually figure out the right answer we aren't doing too badly here at Wiki Tennis Project. Thanks for making me get off my butt and look online for some of those Wright & Ditson's annuals... they are absolutely fascinating bits of history. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, those old annuals are interesting. The Wright and Summerhayes finals have now been added to Niagara International Tennis Tournament.--Wolbo (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Fyunck and Wolbo, thanks a lot for your help. As I understand, the 1902 Canadian Championships were won by Miss Hague according to our sources, so there's no doubt both the Roger's Cup website and the hall of fame entry for Summerhayes are erroneous. For 1905, the entry is at least imprecise by mixing up the Niagara-on-the-Lake International with the Canadian championships.--Kompakt (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. But for 1905 I wouldn't be too hard on them. No, there was no official Canadian Championship that year, but players that usually played the Canadian Championship instead entered the Niagara-on-the-Lake International a few weeks later. I wouldn't doubt that many papers and viewers at the time felt it was a Canadian Championship, or at least as close as they could get. So 1902 they blew it, but 1905 they sort of fudged the numbers figuring no one would notice. You did notice, and we set it straight. Thanks again for spotting it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet another move request[edit]

I saw the previous arguments against moving this article to Rogers Cup (tennis), and personally think they are incorrect

It has been the Rogers Cup for ten years now, and said sponsorship rights have been extended to 2020, meaning that Rogers Cup is now a common name and, despite claims to the contrary, has not changed on a year-to-year basis. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If the name changes every 10 or 20 years, it can be moved then. I've never heard anyone refer to the tournament as the Canadian Open. No official or unofficial materials call it that either. It hasn't been called the Canadian Open since the 1980s. It's time to switch the name. Personally I'd love if they called it the Canadian Open, or the Rogers Canadian Open. But they don't, and nobody calls it that either. It's confusing. mikeman67 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You mean other than the Philadelphia Star, and ticket agencies, and tennis websites and ESPN? Then of course it's long history as the Canadian Open like at the NY Times, and Getty historical archives. It really is the Canadian Open but sponsored by Rogers. Each seasonal article is linked by it name that year such as in 2014. There also the problem of Rogers Cup also linking to the Canadian soccer championships. One idea.... the Rogers Cup sponsorship in soccer ended in 2009 and Roger Cup (soccer) averages 2 hits a day per Wikipedia article traffic. Rogers cup (tennis) averages 80 hits a day. Under actual page names Canadian Soccer League championship final gets about 4 hits a day, and Canadian Open (tennis) gets about 200 hits a day. I think it's an easy call to make "Rogers Cup" redirect to the Canadian Open (tennis) article. No one cares about the old soccer event. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's any rule that something needs to be referred to unanimously one way for it to be moved. Take a look at WP:COMMONNAME. Page should be known by its common name, not its historical or infrequently used name. If you search on Google News, you'll see that Rogers Cup is much more frequently used, and it's not even close - "Canadian Open" + tennis brings 65,000 hits, "Rogers Cup" brings 890,000. mikeman67 (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I just redirected "Roger Cup" to the tennis event (which should have been done long ago), since imho the tennis event is far and away the primary topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
So how about actually making it the article title? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it's best (and per guidelines) that it stay at Canadian Open. Remember that the article also encompasses 134 years of tournament play, of which only the last 10 have been the sponsored title Rogers Cup. For 115 years it was Canadian Championships or Canadian Open and it is still often called that. The individual yearly events being called Rogers Cup should be enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There's no guideline that I'm aware of that says because something was known a certain way for a long time, it must stay that way. Take a look at WP:COMMONNAME. For example, our page on Myanmar isn't titled Burma, even if it was known as Burma for well over 100 years. On the contrary, policy says that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." I don't think anyone would dispute that this tournament is referred to as the Rogers Cup by the vast majority of reliable English language sources. mikeman67 (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a guideline that we don't use sponsored names if at all possible, because they change. You have to remember this article encompasses ALL the Canadian Open events... even the ones that were never known as Rogers Cup or Rogers Masters (114 prior tournaments). Rod Laver never won the Rogers Cup... he won the Canadian Open. Same with Bjorn Borg and Andre Agassi. Patrick Rafter won the du Maurier Open, not the Rogers Cup. But they all won the Canadian Open. And in the mid-late 2000s it was mostly known as the Rogers Master (except in Canada). You see we have info on who won the most titles and most final appearances? That wasn't at the Rogers Cup... that was at the Canadian Open. It's makes it easy for readers to follow here. And not only here... when a player has a listing of tournaments won in a column in a table, we often list how many times a particular event was won. We use the non-sponsored name there too and say Ivan Lendl won 6 Canadian Opens, numbering each win with a 1,2,3,4,5,6. If we keep changing the name in the column (because of sponsorship differences) it confuses readers when we number the victories. That is why consensus decided non-sponsored names work best, and to redirect a sponsored name if it gets more and more popular... which we have done with this article. I hope that helps in the understanding. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)