Talk:2000 du Maurier Open

Page name
A little while back, Mayumashu moved this page from 2000 Canada Masters to 2000 Canadian Open (tennis), reasoning that this was "nearer to [the] actual name used at the time". The talk page discussion between Mayumashu and Plafond that went with that move is given below, in the box: 

Hi, I saw your recent move of the 2000 Canada Masters page to 2000 Canadian Open (tennis), but I fail to understand it. The choice of having 'Masters' in the title has nothing to do with the official name of the event, but has to do with the Series of which it was part of. And whereas I do get your point in changing the names of the '94 and '95 events since the 'Masters Series' didn't exist at that time, the 2000 event was already part of the 'Tennis Masters Series' and therefore it is just as correct to have 'Masters' in the 2000 article's name as it is for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 events. (There were some comments here on the naming of the Masters events.) I'm going to wait for your answer, before changing again the page's title. Cheers, --Plafond (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just seen your modifications to the Canada Masters tournaments. Understand that what I've said above is only for the 2000 event - of course, the 1999 event and the previous ones will not be named 'Canada Masters'. --Plafond (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah, this is a tough one. My general bias is for naming pages is to reflect, when specific to a specific time, what they were or would likely have been named at that time. I may be wrong, but my take on this one is that, even though the tourney became part of the Tennis Masters Series in 2000, it was in that year refered to in the media (apparently - from googling) as the 'du Maurier Open' or 'Canadian Open (-) Tennis Masters Series'. This and given that it had been known as the Canadian Open since the 1960s, I strongly suspect that if it were year 2000 now, we would name the page 'Canadian Open' without hesitation - this was my thought process. Then by 2001, the concept of the series had become entrenched and the name of that year's edition of the tourney /reference to it, at that time, in the media, reflected this. Mayumashu (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense, but on the other hand, the 2008 event that starts today is more often referred to in the media, and on the ATP website, as the Rogers Cup, and yet it is named 'Canada Masters' on Wikipedia - a proof that we don't always use the most common name. And perhaps if the 2000 article had been created in 2000, we would have still decided to use 'Masters' in the title to reflect the event's then recent inclusion in a new 'Masters Series'. (It will be interesting to see what the events will be called next year - 'Canada 1000 Series', 'Canada 1000' ?) Anyway, I'm not entirely opposed to your idea since your reasoning makes sense, but I still believe that having 'Masters' in the title is better to emphasise the fact the Series already existed at that time - perhaps we should address the issue on the WikiProject Tennis discussion ? --Plafond (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that Mayumashu's argument is a fairly iffy one, based on simply googling and seeing what comes up more. The generally accepted policy is to go for the official name that doesn't involve sponsors (where possible), so before 2000 that'd be "Canadian Open" and from 2000 onwards that'd be "Canada Masters". Hence, I've moved it back - rst20xx (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...If anybody replies to this, I request you notify me on my talk page, as I'm no longer watching it - rst20xx (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)