User:Alistairjh/WikiProject Tennis arguement



One of the biggest battles in tennis history will take place, not on a court, or on any surface, but on the internet...

' The Miami Masters / Sony Ericsson Open / Kay Biscayne /Oh, just forget it! naming war 2007-09'

Coming soon to a computer screen near you!

Background
A debate started on the talk page of Rafael Nadal's article about the use of tournament names. The first comment by an anonymous IP adress to attract Tennis expert's attention was: -1st) You want to use names like "pacific open, rogers cup" instead of "master series miami, master series indian wells"... -2nd) You want to put "Key Biscarne, Florida" on the MASTER SERIES MIAMI. After no solution could be found on the article's talk page, the debate spread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis, and featured briefly in Talk:German Open (tennis). Basically, sometimes in here sponsorship and actual location arguments are fused together. After an unbelievable amount of arguing and everything else, we continue today... (And this doesn't include the datelinking row that was so dishonest )

Earlier discussion in 2007

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

no move. — Mets501 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested moves
Reasons: These are the official names, they apply to both men and women tourneys, while the name Masters is only appropriate to the men's tournament. It's common practice on Wikipedia to name sports events after their sponsor, so these are not exceptions.Nitsansh 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Miami Masters → Sony Ericsson Open
 * Indian Wells Masters → Pacific Life Open
 * Rome Masters → Internazionali BNL d'Italia
 * Canada Masters → Rogers Cup (tennis)
 * Cincinnati Masters → Western & Southern Financial Group Masters and Women's Open

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .

Survey - Support votes

 * 1) --Nitsansh 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

 * 1) Strongly oppose. I am not sure why the move requestor believes that it is "common practice" on Wikipedia to name sports events after their sponsor. For example, the Wikipedia article for the Australian Open does not have "Kia," the tournament's major sponsor, in the name of the article.  The moves would be a radical departure for tennis articles and are completely unnecessary.  Tennis expert 04:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples:
 * Acura_Classic
 * Bank_of_the_West_Classic
 * Bausch_%26_Lomb_Championships
 * Family_Circle_Cup
 * JPMorgan_Chase_Open
 * Legg_Mason_Tennis_Classic
 * Mercedes-Benz_Cup
 * Pilot_Pen_Tennis
 * Regions_Morgan_Keegan_Championships_and_the_Cellular_South_Cup
 * SAP_Open
 * Also see:
 * List_of_tennis_tournaments
 * List_of_tennis_tournaments
 * It seems that all articles on tournaments on the ATP and WTA tours are using their official name, EXCEPT the Masters series.--Nitsansh 04:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Some events on the ATP and WTA tours have never really had a proper name other than a sponsored event title. These include some of the examples listed above by Nitsansh, and in those cases titling the Wikipedia article about them by their sponsored name does make sense. However in cases where a more stable name which is still considered official other than the (sometimes often-changing) sponsored name is what it is more generally used by both the public and the press, it makes sense for the Wikipedia article to use that name as its title. After all, it's not Wikipedia's job to promote the sponors. We do still try to include all current and former names of the event - including sponsored ones - in bold in the text of the article for the sake of clarity, and have redirect pages from other names for the event in case anyone types one of them in. Despite their sponsored event titles, all the Masters Series events (inclduing their WTA counter-part events) are still often referred to by the public and press as the "_____ Masters". On the other hand, changing the title of "Cincinatti Masters" to "Western & Southern Financial Group Masters and Women's Open" would make that page look a real mess and may put the casual reader off. The current naming system is neat, clean and easy for any reader to follow. We're not ignoring the sponsored names, just putting them in the text rather than the title. Zaxem 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, most people that I know refer to tournaments by their location, but that doesn't seem to be the norm here. The problem that I see with these 5 (and not other Masters tournaments) is that they are men and women tournaments, and the term Masters should be used only for the men's tournament. BTW, It's ridiculous to call the Cincinnati events one tournament, as they are a month apart in the calendar.--Nitsansh 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is your only objection, then perhaps you should instead suggest naming the articles, for example, the "Cincinnati ATP and WTA Tennis Tournaments." But don't put the sponsor's name in the title.  I still would prefer to leave things as they are.  Tennis expert 04:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like Miami ATP Masters and WTA tournament would be more occurate IMO, but if you look for consistency, then all tournaments should be renamed _____ ATP or _____ WTA.--Nitsansh 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

I’ve redirected the Miami Masters page to the NASDAQ-100 Open page in order to reflect the fact that this is a fully integrated men’s and women’s tournament, unlike any of the other Tennis Masters Series Events. I’ve tried to make this distinction clear on that page, and have also included information about both the men’s and women’s results. The NASDAQ-100 Open page will obviously have to be redirected if the title sponsors of the event ever change. Zaxem 06:06, 26 June 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Got it wrong. Indian Wells Masters is also a fully integrated combined event. On second thoughts I think it's better to keep this at the Miami Masters page. Have redirected NASDAQ-100 Open back to here. Zaxem 09:05, 26 June 2005 (UTC)

The name Miami Masters refers only to the men's tournament. The official name is Sony Ericsson Open from 2007.--Nitsansh 23:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Canada Masters
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". &mdash; stickguy (:^›)&mdash; home - talk - 17:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see it's consistent with other similar events. &mdash; stickguy (:^›)&mdash; home - talk - 17:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Tennisexpert, discuss here about the problem.
There are 2 problems here:

-1st) You want to use names like "pacific open, rogers cup" instead of "master series miami, master series indian wells"... -2nd) You want to put "Key Biscarne, Florida" on the MASTER SERIES MIAMI.

Those are the 2 problems. You suddently (from like 2 weeks ago) changed the normal names to those, because it seems you wanted to. if anyone is coming to the article to learn something, if he doesn't know what sony ericsson open, etc. names mean, he wont understand anything. Otherwise, if he finds "Miami master series", he will understand it at first.

About the second problem, as far I am aware, the OFFICIAL "Master Series Miami" is called "Sony Ericsson Open". I don't know why are you using the key biscarne thing instead of Miami, cause if someone read this:

13 may - Sony Ericsson Open - Key Biscarne - federer, etc.

If he doesn't know the name of the Miami Master Series, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO IT. I'm not accepting a wikipedia without the official master series types, and I am sure 99% of the people either). The Key Biscarne thing is unnaceptable and unrelated. (if you like that then go to Barcelona tournaments and put Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, UE; please, its the equivalent of key biscarne, florida, u.s.

What I mean is that if a Miami Master Series win must be show in a table, it may appear "pacific life open", okay, but not ONLY that, the Miami M.S reference MUST appear also. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about verifiable facts. One may have an opinion about what a proper name for these tournaments are. But on ATP's Masters Page (a source that can be used to verify the names), one sees that the names of the tournaments indeed are, e.g, Sony Ericsson Open, MIAMI (nothing about Key Biscane there) etc. Maybe we could use this as a source?--HJensen, talk 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've said I know its called Sony Ericsson Open and yes, I accept that to be on the table, of course. NOW, the key biscarne thing doesnt belong there at all, and there MUST APPEAR the "Miami" name since, after all, its the "Master Series Miami" (as sourced on the page.). Maybe some format like this on an entry:


 * .#DATE - Sony Ericsson Open (MS Miami) - #SURFACE - etc.


 * I don't know but I think the s.e.open and the miami things MUST appear, and the "Key Biscarne, Florida, U.S" things not because I told you, if you want to put that, you would have to put 6 names to the Barcelona one (I live 10mins away of the court actually)... 62.57.212.101 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way: I'm talking about the entire career table. Because for the Grand Slam tables, only "French Open, Wimbledon, etc." should appear (LIKE NOW), and for the Master Series Finals Table, it should appear only "Miami, Indian Wells, etc." the pacific live open and such should appear on career there is no point on putting 'em on the ATP MASTERS WIN/LOSES TABLE. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) The fact is that the Sony Ericsson Open is contested at a tennis complex located in Key Biscayne, Florida, which is not a part of Miami, Florida. So, regardless of how the Sony Ericsson Open is marketed, the tournament is not held in Miami. See the relevant Wikipedia articles for Sony Ericsson Open; Key Biscayne, Florida; and Miami Florida and this website. This is an encyclopedia; therefore, we should be concerned about facts, and your analogy to "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain" is inapplicable. (2) The ATP Masters Series table should include the official names of the tournaments along with their locations in separate columns, for the same reason that the Career table should include both of those columns. There is no logical reason to distinguish the two tables. If you have a problem with knowing that the Pacific Life Open is held in Indian Wells, California, all you have to do is sort the table by location. Couldn't be simpler, really. Tennis expert (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't one argue that one should use the name that is most recognizable? I understand the editor's concern about the Miami tournament. This is known as such (as has been for a long time), so I am wondering whether one can actully ignore how it is marketed? (The now defunct ATP topurnament "Copenhagen Open" was not held in Copenhagen, but in the city of Frederiksberg, yet marketed as being held in Copenhagen.)--HJensen, talk 06:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum In terms of verifiable facts one also get the inconsistency as one reads that Nadal lost the Sony Ericsson Open Final in 2005. That is factually wrong. He lost the Nasdaq 100 finals. How is that to be resolved? Also, Do we go back every time a new sponsor takes over an rename earlier year's tournaments? That would seem as a strange route to follow (and inconsistent with WP:V). --HJensen, talk 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do. This is why we have separate columns for tournament names and tournament locations, why we make tables sortable, and why we put small numbers next to the tournament names to indicate how many times the player won or was runner-up.  See, e.g., Lindsay Davenport and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, check this out, there is a COMMERCIAL name and a Tournament name, we should go with the Tournament name, like Madrid Masters NOT Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid...I guess commercial names are used because a lazy person finds it easier to link it to the tournament page Yosef1987 (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lazy? Link to tournament page?  I am not and do not.  Where can we find these tournament names?  (Wikipedia links are not acceptable sources.)  Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say two things. (1) AMS Miami is colloquially known as Key Biscane. It was a name that many tennis commentators and tennis players in the past used as reference to the 5th Slam. I'm too lazy to look up some blogs where it is still used like that. However, my opinion is that colloquial names should not be used. (2) Don't use commercial names, because in order to be accurate we need to track back all the commercial names of the past. Also, the ATP website doesn't list the commercial names in a players match record and I see no need to do so here. However, the proponents of Masters Series Miami should realise that next year the Masters Series won't be called Masters Series anymore, but 1000s or something vague like that. What is your plan to resolve that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlyazNasrullah (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that the Sony Ericsson Open is held in Key Biscayne, Florida. It is not a colloquialism.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We need this to be settled down, how does it work here??? An administrator? Or what? The rational mind says we should go with normal names (NOT sponsors) Yosef1987 (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To make IlyazNasrullah's point stand out: here Yosef1987 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ALSO as another small example: ''...The event was initially known as the Lipton International Players Championships. In 2000 there was a change of title sponsor and the event was renamed the Ericsson Open. In 2002, the event became known as the NASDAQ-100 Open. In 2007, the tournament was renamed the Sony Ericsson Open in a deal where the company will pay $20 million over the next four years.'' ... IT IS SETTLED I guess, no more sponsors' names Yosef1987 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject_Tennis/Article_Guidelines Yosef1987 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It does not take an administrator to solve these things. Editors should calmly try to reach a consensus. As I have tried to explain, on wikipedia we rely on verifiability. Not what an editor feels is right. So a) you are not making a good argument, referring to the "rational mind". Two rational minds may have different opinions. b) You cannot use other wikipedia articles as sources. Definitely not to "settle" anything. Let this be discussed calmly (bolding text is btw considered shouting and is discouraged in discussions). I would think that the tennis project page would be the natural place. The link you provide was drafted over a year ago. As of this writing I don't know when the naming convemtions were last discussed. Let's find out together. --HJensen, talk 13:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I'm seeing ev1 but tennisexpert thinks like me, but anyways, he went to Nadal's and Federer's articles hours ago and put the key biscane thing again there, I'm reverting it for the 10th~ time. I would use "Miami masters" only, because as people say here, sony ericsson open is called in 2007, not others years... and please, talk on consenssus before turning it back again cause you're alone on that position. And btw, excuse me ev1, but while this is not solved im taking war by my hand and undoing it everytime hes changing it again. I hope we all meet a consensus.62.57.212.101 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't deduce like this, as this is a discussion held in a confined space (there could be people disagreeing with you that do not watch the Nadal page). This should be definitely be a discussion held at another place. Another thing, it took me a while to figure out what ev1 meant. Not to sound like an old fart, but it is encouraged on Wikipedia to write words in full; also to avoid boldface. The whole discussion here looks like some teenagers screaming. :-) In any case, I definitely think this page is the wrong place to discuss these matters, as it is an issue pertaining to all tennis bios. --HJensen, talk 13:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, 62.57.212.101, I don't think like you. And I have no idea what "ev1" means.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * reply to HJensen: sorry didn't know about the bold thing, anyway I agree to take this someplace else, but for what's it worth, here is a good reference: http://masters-series.com/ sponsors change, names do not, each tournament's name is there under each box Yosef1987 (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No problems at all. Here is where the discussion can continue.--HJensen, talk 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tournament names
New-comers to the discussion Yosef1987 (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In the bios, should it be like Miami Masters or Sony Ericsson Open etc?? Taking it to the right place from the wrong place Yosef1987 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In deciding on this, we should also take into account that ATP has planned a change in tournament structure from 2009 and onwards. So, it would be great if we could reach a decision that could "be ready" for this. Also, I think we should strive for some consistency such that we should not need to change tournament names whenever a new sponsor takes over (as of now - or at some point in time around now - Federer is listed as winning the Sony Ericsson Open in 2005; but the Miami Masters was the Nasdaq 100 that year), or whenever a new tournament structure is implemented (it would in my opinion be silly to make changes to the Agassi article if tournaments change status and/or name).--HJensen, talk 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lindsay Davenport and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario should be the standard we follow. Those articles use the name of the tournament at the time it was held, and the name is linked to the corresponding Wikipedia article (which does not change).  In addition, the tables have separate columns for tournament location and tournament name, and the tables are sortable.  Finally, the tables have small numbers to indicate how many times the player won the tournament or was runner-up.  All these features minimize the chances of confusion while faithfully reflecting the historical facts.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm the same dude that uses the 62.57 ips and reverted tennisexpert lately reverts like a half dozen times. Just didn't want to mix into this, but i got bored finally. First of all, I will remember my 2 points:


 * 1st) The "Master Series Miami" MUST, must, M U S T appear on the table. It's the tournaments reference.
 * 2nd) The "Key Biscane" information is irrelevant here. The only important thing is USA and maybe (I think not) "Florida".


 * Now, I would like to ask tennis why are u telling us to follow a standar which like everyone finds wrong cause we want all-time references and not old or soon-old tournaments names. Yeah lately you and a few more have changed all historical tennis player articles to this style and now you clain they're the reference. Thats not true, they are not, cause you didn't make any consensus with the rest of people to get into this. Everyone here but a few of you wants easy info and just the relevant one. In this case this info is "Miami Master Series", thats the info someone in 10 years will need, nor "Pacific Open" or the name it had 3 years ago or will have in 5 years. You are wrong on that position, because we want useful info. And no, you're an expert and maybe you memorized all the tournaments names the last 10years but someone who comes to an encyclopedia to get info is because he doesn't know the same than you. Wikitestor (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, after a single post tennisexpert think he has a lot of people supporting him and changed back everything, so reverted again. This will take years if he keeps being so preopotent. Wikitestor (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis Expert is entitled to his opinions. Here and below you are being quite rude and personal; please read WP:CIVIL. Such argumentation is ad hominem and is not acceptable. I don't think writing the word "must" three times in different ways is a way to present your arguments. It surely doesn't convince me. And declaring a war as you do further down has never helped here on Wikipedia. It is really a dead end.--HJensen, talk 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I dunno if this will ever end, here it is again http://masters-series.com/, sponsors' names change, tournament names do not, each tournament's name is there under each box on the official site, I am with the non-sponsor names, eg: Madrid Masters NOT Mutua Madrileña Masters Yosef1987 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also with the non-sponsor names, if anyone didn't notice it. I tell this because tennisexpert said on roger federer's history page (when he put again the key biscane thing for 8th time) that I was alone defending my position and he had 3 people with him, when at least 3 people were defending me and I dunno if anyone defended him... Just make sure about a thing. If this never ends, it will be because someone like him doesn't want to have any consensus, if you don't trust me go to Rafael Nadal's and Roger Federer's articles and check how while this discussion is opened he made the changes 3 or 4 times, everytime saying he had reason when no consensus was taken and moreover no one supported him yet. If there's a war, I'm gonna fight till the end. Wikitestor (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I started a while back I am with the non-sponsor naming, I won't have an edit war, I'll have my last words said again here, if there is one good explanation that says the following is non-sense, I will apologize and stop talking about it
 * "http://masters-series.com/, sponsors' names change, tournament names do not"
 * Also it is better to follow this: Edit_war and see how such things are settled, I'll do my part and read it soon, all I ask is PLEASE let's cooperate for a better information delivery, no matter how small or big the topic is, thank you all very much Yosef1987 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The link you provided uses the sponsors' names. Enough said.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The ATP calendar for 2009 also uses the sponsors' names. Tennis expert (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you see? he is kinda prepotent "enough said". Enough time, going to revert your last changes again. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to Tennis expert: Did you look carefully at the site? Look at the bottom of each box please, sponsors change, that's what they normally do actually Yosef1987 (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Josef1987 there is no point trying to talk with someone like him, as you see he wont ever answer to anything, just be prepotent to the rest. So there will be a long war. 62.57.212.101 (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Playing "tit-for-tat" does never work on Wikipedia. If you think someone is behaving in a wrong way, you will not achieve anything by copying that behavior. It is just childish, and nobody takes such behavior seriously in the long run. (For example, this intervention after Yosef1987 direct reply, is ruining the discussion.)--HJensen, talk 07:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, please hear me out, this is not my reference, I've already gave you a link and you refused to check it out carefully, so here's what I'll say, check this out, and this here, also you'll find out a page says: "The 2008 Miami Masters (also known as the Sony Ericsson Open for sponsorship reasons)...", it is a de facto as well as the site I gave you that sponsors change, like when Miami MS was called: Nasdaq 100, I don't know how else to explain, you don't try to explain it to me what you think, which I am willing to hear but not like this: ''The link you provided uses the sponsors' names. Enough said, because The link I provided uses the sponsors' names and the tournaments names as well'' !!! Thank you Yosef1987 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing please to "Tennis expert", Official calender, let's see what it says: "Pacific Life Open – Indian Wells", but a few years back it would have been "Another sponsor – Indian Wells". Same for Miami/Sony/Nasdaq and the whole gang Yosef1987 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

....also, all the templates, every where on tennis articles, do not mention sponsors, because they change, copy and paste from Indian Wells Masters, the ATP Masters Series Tournaments template: Indian Wells · Miami · Monte Carlo · Rome · Hamburg · Montreal/Toronto · Cincinnati · Stockholm/Essen/Stuttgart/Madrid · Paris. Please refer to all my replies before replying, because definitely this reply is not a reference, just proving a point, because consistency is mandatory to Wikipedia Yosef1987 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, stop trying, check down: he has replied to the other discussion about the 500s etc changes on 2009 and he even made a comment totally irrelevant there, with a single line (like here) ignoring all of us. He replied there and can't reply here, he has no point to win this, he had no consensus to change it and he wont put it again, slowly we are going to change all the tennists articles to a consensed style, not the style HE, and ONLY HE, wants to impose. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't refer a discussion that is less than 24 hours old as a "war". It is in extremely bad style, and damaging for the project.--HJensen, talk 07:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yosef1987, please refer to the Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and Lindsay Davenport articles for the best way to handle the official names of tennis tournaments that can change every few years. (I referenced those articles earlier in this thread and explained my reasoning.)  Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should end like this, I am not mad at anyone, I am proving my point for a better Wikipedia. Oh forgot to say, the sponsor name for Monte-Carlo MS is Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters not just Monte-Carlo Masters :):):) I have asked for a support, should be on the way from the Tennis Project members hopefully, that is extra opinions, 3 won't do it Yosef1987 (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, remember that edit warring is a blockable offense. I recommend that we stick to resolving this matter before deciding to change this naming convention. Personally, I feel that the historical name (with a piped wikilink to the current name) of a tournament should be used. The Gdansk Vote is an example of where it was determined that the historical name of a geographical entity would be used in articles written about an era in which the historical title was prevalent. For example, articles which refer to Saint Petersburg from 1924–1991 would be piped as Leningrad, since Leningrad was the official title of the city during that era. I believe the same naming convention should be applied with tennis tournaments. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't taken part in the edit war except in the talk page, the right way to do it, thanks for joining us and please stick around for a while, about your suggestion of piping(?), I dunno, still will confuse readers and won't help the consistency, like the Nasdaq 100 problem and many other like it Yosef1987 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nishkid64 for the reasons I've already provided in this thread. Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's natural that readers click or scroll over links to clarify their confusion. Besides, this encyclopedia isn't designed to make things as convenient as possible for the present-day reader; we're here to make sure everything is written with historical accuracy. Piped links are historically accurate and clarify any confusion a reader may have over the tournament name. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, I agree. Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With the many players' bios and the tournaments, and the eras, it will be a nightmare, inconsistent, and pointless, we are here for the tournaments not the sponsors and sponsors' history, don't you agree? Yosef1987 (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm totally with Yosef1987. Mixing the sponsorships names here will just go in one direction. But you could improve even more in that direction: just delete all tennis-related articles. It's the same way, but faster. I am sorry but If I need help (because that people enters wikipedia..) and I find names not related to the original tournament names, im leaving wikipedia and going google. That's the truth. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, lots of debate here. Why don't we formally settle this with a vote, ala Gdansk Vote. --Armchair info guy (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:POLLS. Voting/polling is not a substitute for discussion and achieving consensus.  I am opposed to a vote on this particular issue.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously because you are alone on that role.81.184.70.220 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Erh, no. I oppose a vote as well.--HJensen, talk 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For new-comers
For new-comers to this discussion, here is what's going on: each tournament has 2 names, a name that doesn't change over time and is basically the host city's name (e.g. Miami) and we have the sponsor's name, which changes whenever a new sponsor takes over, now which name to use in the biographies, remember that a player's career can witness sponsor changes, and it is good to point that templates here and the tables and the statistics use the simple name (e.g. Miami)

Example:
 * Monte Carlo Masters / Masters Series Monte-Carlo presented by ROLEX
 * Cincinnati Masters / Western & Southern Financial Group Masters
 * Madrid Masters / Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid

Consistency and accuracy is the target, thank you Yosef1987 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC) --- Only skimmed the debate, but my two opinion: I would see things continue as they currently are at Canada Masters and 2004 Canada Masters, i.e. Additionally (and this is where the debate seems to be focused), I think the tennis player articles should avoid sponsorship names as well. Now, as for why: the ATP seem to often use the sponsorship title, but not always (e.g. here). If the ATP consistently used the sponsorship names, I'd agree with Nishkid64, but sometimes they use non-sponsorship (because sometimes it's less confusing!), hence in my opinion both are acceptable, and hence I'd go for the less confusing option, i.e. the non-sponsor names. As for the "1000 Series", well that's a different matter... rst20xx (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead of main says "The Canada Masters (also long known as the Canadian Open), currently sponsored as the Rogers Cup...
 * Lead of 2004 says "The 2004 Canada Masters (also known for the women's event as the Rogers AT&T Cup for sponsorship reasons)"...
 * Main has a section explaining the event name at various times.


 * I'm semi-new to tennis (like 3 years), and when I see sponsor names I get totally lost. I know the masters for Miami, Madrid, Indian Wells, etc. If someone comes wikipedia needing help and find the sponsorship names, we won't help him at all, he will confuse and go search for help on other page. 81.184.38.161 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever you are confused, all you have to do is look at the tournament location, which is the column right next to the tournament name. Really, how difficult is that?  And if you find that too difficult, just hover over the name of the tournament to get the name of the linked article.  So, you have two easy options to remedy your confusion while preserving historical and factual accuracy.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What if it was really old? Why dig out the sponsor's history for that particular tournament? Yosef1987 (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not difficult to do. And the task is necessary to have an accurate encyclopedia.  That's something you want, right?  Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just one thing, I don't have to know that the Miami masters is held on Key Biscane, I don't have to know it, it's not relavant info. 81.184.70.220 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is utterly irrelevant what a two-edit anonymous user has to know.--HJensen, talk 13:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure the MILLIONS of visitors (obviously 99% of them anonymous) doesn't deserve any knowledge. Then why would they search on wikipedia if they're not welcome? 81.184.70.220 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you just argued against getting certain information, and now you sarcastically say 99& doesn't derserve knowledge. What are you getting at? I never implied anyone was not welcome.--HJensen, talk 22:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert: Won't say much so my point becomes very simple: Sponsors change over time, so to maintain accuracy and factuality would be impossible in all bios bec of the different eras and we saw that happen even in the recent era (the Nasdaq 100 thing) Yosef1987 (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not hard at all. In fact, it's a very simple task.  The Internet is full of information about past tournaments, including their former sponsored names.  And their are newspaper archives on the Internet that would show those names.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure it's that easy. I've looked for names for a few men's tournaments, and while you can find a few years here and there, it's far from complete.  For women's tournaments, it's easy: there's a PDF file on the WTA website with basically everything. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are newspaper archives that make it easy. I use them all the time.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert: in Arantxa Sanchez Vicario and Lindsay Davenport: are you referring to the piping? Actually there isn't much on those articles, mainly only the grand slams...am not against piping, but here's a question, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? Example: 2006 Miami Masters - Men's Singles...I guess if we settle this it'll be over... Yosef1987 (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We're talking about tables here. See these tables in the Arantxa Sanchez Vicario article and this table in the Lindsay Davenport article.  These are perfect examples of what we should be doing in all tennis biographies, for the reasons I've already stated.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Something everyone has forgotten is that using the official sponsored names of tournaments is something we've been doing for a very long time. I did not just "invent" the idea. See List of tennis tournaments, for example. So, what's the big deal? Tennis expert (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting, Tennis expert, that you're completely ignoring the fact that I pointed out above that the ATP doesn't always use the sponsor names itself. "Historical accuracy", yeah right. Either are acceptable, you just find yourself entrenched behind one and not the other, and that one just happens to be the less logical, more confusing and harder to maintain - rst20xx (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * dead on, Rst20xx, and I don't know how to go further, I have said all I've got, and the replies are never direct to my simple questions, and I'd yet ask it again, just C&P:
 * but here's a question, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? Example: 2006 Miami Masters - Men's Singles, for Wikipedia...not for me, please please consider Yosef1987 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it because sponsors change? and city names are actually official as shown under each box on the official site, but they show the sponsor, because they need the $$$...That answers my question, why complicate matters? And have flaws all over the biographies? Yosef1987 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the triple replies, trying to make a point, Rst20xx summed it in: less logical, more confusing and harder to maintain Yosef1987 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Simple. Wikipedia is not a sponsored website.  It is an encyclopedia that reflects facts.  If the real world fact is that a tournament has an official name with the sponsor in that name, then Wikipedia should reflect that fact.  I don't know why you believe that showing facts is a "flaw".  And I've tried to answer all your questions.  Your disagreeing with my answers does not mean that I've failed to be responsive.  Tennis expert (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rst20xx, see this, where the ATP provides the locations of tournaments and then the official names of those tournaments. That's good enough for me.  How is using the official names of tournaments in an encyclopedia "illogical"?  How is having a column with the official name right next to the column showing the location "confusing," especially given that the official name will the linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article?  Finally, you really should WP:AGF and not presuppose anything about my internal thought processes.  OK?  Tennis expert (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this: add the sponsored names (where available) to the tournament pages (like the French Wiki does, but leave them off the player biographies? IMO, it's interesting information to have on the tournament profile, but who the sponsor was doesn't really matter when looking at one player's results. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * TennisExpert: LOOK! The ATP uses both. What do you have to say to that?!? Anyway, I would support Spyder_Monkey's suggestion, which is funnily enough what we were doing before TennisExpert decided to change a few things - rst20xx (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Spyder Monkey as well. —M.C. (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's do a brief survey of what the English-language news media does around the world. And let's use the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida as the example. (1) New York Times: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (2) London Times: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (3) Sydney Morning Herald: uses the official sponsored name (4) International Herald Tribune: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (5) Times of India: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (6) Dawn (Pakistan): uses the official sponsored name (7) Reuters: uses the official sponsored name (8) USA Today: uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami) (9) Tennis.com: uses the official sponsored name (10) Xinhua (People's Republic of China): uses the official sponsored name (11) The Star (South Africa): uses the official sponsored name. (12) Pravda (Russia): uses the official sponsored name (and Key Biscayne, Florida not Miami). Tennis expert (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Let's do a brief counter-survey of what the English-language news media does around the world. And let's use the Miami Masters as the example again. (1) New York Times: uses "Miami Masters" (2) The Times: uses "Miami Masters" (3) Sydney Morning Herald: uses "Miami Masters" (4) International Herald Tribune: uses "Miami Masters" (5) Times of India: uses "Miami Masters" (6) Dawn (Pakistan): uses "Miami Masters" (7) Reuters: uses "Miami Masters" (8) USA Today: uses "Miami Masters" (9) Tennis.com: uses "Miami Masters" (10) Xinhua (People's Republic of China): uses "Miami Masters" (11) The Star (South Africa): uses "Miami Masters". (12) Pravda (Russia): uses "Miami Open"?!? I have to say, that is the most pointless activity I have ever been forced to carry out - rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What we're actually talking about doing here
Here are two tables based on the Roger Federer article that illustrate what I am advocating. The first table is the status quo. The second table is my proposal. As you can see, what I am advocating is neither radical nor unreasonable.

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14)

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14)

Tennis expert (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a news delivering agency, sponsors should be mentioned as they are at the top of each tournament's article (or in the history), otherwise, no, and I am glad many agree with me, I don't have time to go any further on this, but I hope, I only hope for Wikipedia, that what's logical, and less confusing and easier to maintain is chosen and done, thanks all for your time and I'll look here every now and then, and oh yeah, comparing the two tables, a player wins a championship, not a tournament name. Yosef1987 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) I agree that Wikipedia is not a news delivery agency. But I don't see how that makes a difference.  (2) You've already stated your personal preference several times.  But then you throw in the logic argument without ever saying what makes the proposed table illogical.  Actually, there's nothing illogical about it.  (3) I've already addressed the maintenance issue, which is a red herring. (4) No where does the table say that a player "wins a tournament name."  Geez....  Tennis expert (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it is over, but what does the "red herring" expression mean? and about the "wins a tournament name", isn't it the wins/runner-ups tables we are talking about? Tennis expert, through out the discussion I meant nothing bad and I know you are doing a good job to Wikipedia, like changing the names of the players to English letters, again thanks for your time Yosef1987 (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, consensus is clearly against your opinion here. Several editors have voiced opposition to your opinion, presenting well reasoned arguments that both names are acceptable, but the latter is preferable as it is simpler. If you do not respect consensus, I will be forced to take this issue to some kind of higher body - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is a discussion and you're already threatening me with taking the "issue to some kind of higher body." What would satisfy you?  My shutting up and leaving the discussion?  Please let me know what would make you comfortable!  I definitely don't want to cause you Wikistress by just talking about things....  Tennis expert (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Several times have I pointed you to the fact that the ATP uses both types of name themselves, and yet you consistently ignore this, instead repeating your argument that only one name is "official". More recently you tried to demonstrate that several news agencies use the sponsor name, however I counterdemonstrated that those news agencies also use the non-sponsor name. That whole exercise was utterly pointless as you really should have checked whether they used both names or not yourself when you were initially constructing the argument.
 * This discussion has been going in circles for ages now due to your consistent refusal to acknowledge that the ATP and other bodies uses both names, and as a result I feel that the whole thing is becoming utterly pointless. So yes, if you choose to continue arguing for your position against demonstrated logic (the logic is simple: Both names are acceptable, one is easier) and also against consensus, then I will seek broader consensus, and leave it up to a higher body to decide which argument makes the most sense - rst20xx (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it! The more people who participate in the discussion, the better the ultimate consensus will be.  And please cite me the Wikipedia policy which says that people are not allowed to make their arguments on a discussion page, even if their arguments are in the minority.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was more saying that I think consensus has already been established, and that you are refusing to acknowledge this - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another reason in favor of the proposal is that it helps with sorting. The proposal would allow people to sort by official name or by tournament location while the status quo allows sorting only by location. This is especially useful in the career results tables (not shown above). Tennis expert (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a third possibility that preserves sortability and data that many of us would like to see:

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14) Tennis expert (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to compromise on this, however only if the links are on the Tourney and not Sponsored Tourney names. After all, this is where the articles are - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And also I'd want the (3) s etc on the Tourney names as well (though I see no reason why they couldn't appear on both names) - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good! See above revisions.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think linking the sponsored tournament name constitutes overlinking, but this is minor and otherwise I would be happy with this compromise (or with not including the sponsored name at all) - rst20xx (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * a) I think this is too big a table. I think one title should be enough. And I would go with the "X Masters" name. The sponsored name need not be there (that can be read about in the tournament article; the table is about a given player's performance), and location need not be there either (that can be read about in the tournament article, and mostly it is a repetition of tournament name - except for the particular case of Miami/Key Biscane :-) ).
 * b) I have never understood why bios should be plastered with repetitive tables. A summary table with the Slams, olympics and Masters in terms of W, SP, and so forth is fine. But I never understood the need for having a special section for detailed Slam finals performances, Masters Series finals performances, in additional to one for all finals (where great care is made into singling out - yet again - slams from masters and so forth). A lot of repetitions. --HJensen, talk 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with relying on the sponsored name of the tournament being in the text is that the next proposal undoubtedly will be to substitute "X Masters" for wherever the sponsored name appears, which means that the sponsored name would disappear completely. That's not acceptable, in my opinion.  As for repetitive tables, I agree with you to some extent.  But I also believe that the consensus for including the various tables is overwhelming at this point.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean the text of the players. But only on the touurnament page itself. As for repetitions, maybe it has never been properly discussed? Sometimes consensus just grows out of passivity. I think it is silly when looking at it now: all those things being repeated.--HJensen, talk 10:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I do like the new table, the official and the sponsored names appearing is a good idea. But I think that the LOCATION column should be taken out, like:

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14)

But I find a problem with this: When Madrid masters place was taken by another masters and when Canada changes between Toronto/Montréal... But I don't think a location column should be there since in mostly case it's replicated information. 81.184.38.52 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The tournament location column is not repetition. For example, the Rogers Cup is held in Montreal and Toronto in alternating years.  Without the location column, the table would not say in which city that tournament was held.  Aside from that, not everyone will know that the "Hamburg Masters" is held in Hamburg, Germany or that the "Indian Wells Masters" is held in "Indian Wells, California". (How many people actually know where Indian Wells is?)  I still don't understand what you're saying about a Masters event "taking the place" of another.  As I have said before, there is a difference between a Masters tournament moving from one city to another and a tournament losing its Masters status at the same time that another city receives Masters status.  In the latter case, there is no "taking the place" of another.  And in the former case, it's merely a change of location.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think location is mostly repetition but also not needed for the purpose. If people don't know where Hamburg is, they click on Hamburg. That's the beauty of wikilinks. Also, when clicking on Canada Masters they will learn that it alternates between cities. And so forth. Nice information, but information that I think is secondary to the player whose results are being described.--HJensen, talk 11:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I really like this new table, but if I may ask a question, I was meaning to improve Nadal's article and maybe, just maybe, it turns out to be good, otherwise reverted, in the article itself (not tables), the name used would be the non-sponsor, right? Thanks everyone and I hope it was a helpful discussion for Wikipedia. Yosef1987 (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the discussion can be declared as over (as you almost seem to imply). This is about major changes, so some time should be allowed to pass, and other editors whould have their words.--HJensen, talk 12:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but atleast we are getting somewhere now, just a Q please, I do like the new table, because it has both names and thus solves problems, but, here's the catch, I am not a table editor, won't it be hard to modify all tables in case we settle on this? Yosef1987 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * HJensen, the last table above does not have a direct link to "Hamburg, Germany". The links are all to the Hamburg Masters article.  So, anyone who wants to know something about that strange Hamburg (or Indian Wells) place would have to go through multiple links and possibly get lost in the vastness of Wikipedia.  That's why there should be a location column.  It costs nothing, really.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose the current table while the sponsor names are wikilinked, as this constitutes overlinking - rst20xx (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First you were OK with it: "I think linking the sponsored tournament name constitutes overlinking, but this is minor and otherwise I would be happy with this compromise...." Now, you're opposed to it.  Flip-flopping gets us no where.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and also, it appears this debate has spilled over to Talk:German Open (tennis). I'd appreciate if we could keep the discussion of that away from here, though, as otherwise things here are going to get even more complicated - rst20xx (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the person that linked the two, through postings on that discussion page and a completely inappropriate and incivil message on my talk page. Now you want to keep that discussion over there....  Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Half joke
Or well, if you want we may have a completed info table (this is a half joke)

ATP Masters Series singles finals (23) Wins (14)

As you see, the info on the table should be minimal, otherwise we can put something like this. 62.57.197.139 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't you supposed to be blocked for a week? Tennis expert (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are u blind? I've answered that question 5 lines under this one. 81.184.38.42 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to break the news to you, but people who are blocked are not allowed to edit or otherwise contribute to discussion pages. Tennis expert (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally a solution? Maybe / No, "mistakenly saw something"
Check this out everyone, from from the french wiki, where tennis is a featured article, this is Federer's career, you'll need to expand the tables, it uses both names in the table, I like that, and I guess that's great for everyone, even Nadal is like that on wiki fr and everyone else, ha? What do you think everyone???

Leaves out the career details, which I guess we'd go for non-sponsor name, for all the reason's I've discussed Yosef1987 (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about, it only uses the the sponsor's names in the "Titres et finales" tables... rst20xx (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My bad, very sorry, I mistakenly saw something, forget about the above (sorry for the bold, doesn't mean shouting) Yosef1987 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, I just read Spyder_Monkey's reply, that's what I have been saying, so what is it gonna be? Yosef1987 (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is even worse than tennisexpert table's, only the sporsorship names and even no location. I find perfect the first table tennisexpert put here and not the second one. But this is taking so long and a decision should be made. 81.184.38.52 (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, check this edit on the FR version of the page someone put there: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palmar%C3%A8s_et_statistiques_de_Roger_Federer&diff=32724016&oldid=32697725
 * they changed the names to the sponsors this week............................ 81.184.38.52 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't you blocked for a week? Tennis expert (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyways I'm able to edit on talk pages, but as ever, im kinda doggy to log in. 81.184.38.52 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are we now?
Hey everyone, it is getting confusing now, where are we now please? Thanks Yosef1987 (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See below - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Right, well I think the consensus is either to have both sponsor and non-sponsor names, or to just have non-sponsor. I'm going to set up a straw poll on this, as despite some opposing such a move, I think it would demonstrate clear consensus for one and not the other, thus concluding the argument; I think the fact that we haven't done this is part of the reason that this discussion has dragged on for so long - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So, to be clear:

Survey
Please state your position below - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: To be completely clear, the intent of this vote is basically just to see whether we should have just a "Sponsored tournament name" column, just a "Tournament" column, or both. Nothing more, nothing less - rst20xx (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for Candidate a)

 * Support a) - I wouldn't oppose b), but I think it's a bit too unwieldy, and all the information it provides can be found by clicking through on b) anyway. It's been demonstrated that the ATP uses both names, so any arguments that one is more legitimate than the other are, in my opinion, rendered moot - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support a) - Sponsored names are superfluous info on wikipedia. And what's with all this "Key Biscane" nonsense from TennisExpert. Most everyone knows it as Miami and if you apply the same convention the Cincinnati Masters is held in "Mason, Ohio" but nobody ever feels the need to mention that. --Armchair info guy (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support a) - Vote from Wikitestor, I know unknown Ips doesn't usually count on a vote, but remember I was the one that started all this. There's no need to have the sponsored names. 81.184.38.42 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) / Wikitestor (blocked but im talking on the discussion I started).


 * Support a) - Same as rst20xx, but I suggest losing the location Yosef1987 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also with Yosef1987's idea of losing the locations. 81.184.38.42 (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Support for Candidate b)
Support b) When I am looking up information about a tennis player, I find it very useful to be presented with the tournament they won and the name of the tournament at the time they won it. It would be possible to find this information using the wikilinks, but table b) displays the information I want at a glance. Coyets (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral/Comments
I realise that straw polls are not a substitute for establishing consensus through discussion, but I hope that support for a) will be so overwhelming that it will demonstrate that there is broad consensus, and that opposition is small (one?) but highly vocal vocal - rst20xx (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

62.57.197.139 kinda brought it up with the "joke" table, but I just don't see the need for separate columns for the tournament name and location. The only reason I can come up with for having two is for sorting separately, but the names and cities are usually the same. The exception is Montreal/Toronto, and sorting by city could cause confusion there, since they are the same tournament. Only one column seems just fine:

Another thing: is this only for the Masters table, or for the complete results table as well? Because most of the regular tournaments' articles are the sponsored names, do we care about putting the tournament name in that table, too?

Also, to raise a broader issue, do we need a separate table to Masters/Tier I events? The information in any of the tables discussed would just be repeated in that table. The Masters and Grand Slams are already highlighted in the full table with color and (in some cases) bold text. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)ç


 * I also raised that point above. It is silly to discuss the format of a table that just repeats a lot of information from the career tables. Masters and slams are singled out anyway at the end in the performance timeline. The table should be deleted in my opinion--HJensen, talk 22:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Those all sound like good ideas to me. The intent of the vote above is basically just to see whether we should have a separate "Sponsored tournament name" column, nothing more, nothing less. In summary: Delete the separate Masters/Slams tables, merge the name and location columns. To answer your questions, firstly I think for both Masters and other results, and secondly, for the name, I think generally we should use the space that the tournament is located at, in other words don't use any piping. Some tournaments don't have non-sponsored names, and so we have to use the sponsored. Most that DO have non-sponsored names are located in the non-sponsored place. As for those that DO have non-sponsored names but are in the sponsored place, I would like to try to move those one by one, but that's a subject for a later debate - rst20xx (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I still don't find the location necessary but anyways it would fit a lot like this table instead of a separate column. Btw the idea is to adapt this format for all the tables (MS+career) but Grand Slams, which is currently fine actually. 81.184.38.42 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I refuse to participate in a poll (straw or otherwise) that violates Wikipedia policy because it is being used as a substitute for and early terminator of discussion and the subsequent establishment of consensus. Plus, b) is not even my proposal; so, this "poll" doesn't allow people to choose from among all the available proposals. Finally, even if polling were a valid method, which it is not, 81.184.38.42/Wikitestor and all his sockpuppets are not allowed to vote because he has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to see straw polls just as a means to bring the discussion forward. I don't like a) and b) either. And I am certain that everybody discounts the "votes" of 81.184.38.42/Wikitestor (can't we get the guy kicked completely?). My general worry is that so few are participating in something that could have consequences for all (at leat male) tennis bios. Should be put out "alerts" on talk pages on player talk pages?--HJensen, talk 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't bring forward the discussion. Rst20xx has artificially limited our choices to a) and b) without bothering to explain that those are the two he finds most acceptable to himself.  This gives the totally false impression that the only two choices we've been considering are a) and b) or that somehow, we've already narrowed the possibilities down to a) and b).  Neither is even remotely true.  And no real consensus is going to be reached here given that only 4 or 5 editors have bothered to participate when there are hundreds of editors who regularly edit tennis biographies.  As for alerts, that would be fine so long as there is no canvassing in violation of Wikipedia policy.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we have both commented on this. So that is a step forward (big or small). I can't see that anyone could think that a) and b) are the "final contestants". Never mind, let's get more onto this issue. How can we avoid canvassing? Isn't it permissible to just write something like "On the Tennis Project page a discussion has been started on the tournament names and table formats for tennis player bios. Hopefully as amny tennis editors as possible will join in, so a broad consensus can be reached"?--HJensen, talk 09:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis expert: I shall quote what I wrote above, right at the start of the survey: "To be completely clear, the intent of this vote is basically just to see whether we should have a separate "Sponsored tournament name" column, nothing more, nothing less". These are not meant to represent what we are going to go with, this is just a poll on whether we should have a sponsored name column at all. I accept that most people wouldn't be happy entirely with either of the tables, but we're not picking the tables here, we're picking whether to have a sponsored name column. Once we have done this, we can move on to other parts of the tables.
 * Now, as far as I can tell, no-one has suggested so far that they would have just the sponsored name column, even you were in favour of both before. Hence my excluding just the sponsored name column as an option. If you think this is wrong, I would happily add it as option c), but to be honest, I can't help but feel you're kicking up a fuss mainly because the results are showing strongly against your positon - rst20xx (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No one can help you with your internal thought processes or what you infer from others. The fact is that your so-called poll does not show any opposition to my position because your poll does not reflect my position.  You left out my position when you unilaterally chose a) and b).  It's weird that you think you can somehow direct this discussion toward your predetermined outcome.  But that's the inherent problem with polling instead of discussion.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why can't you just assume good faith, since you're an experienced editor, and come up with your preferred suggestions instead of just saying that you don't like a) and b)? I don't support them either, and I will soon present my own suggestion. Call it a poll, call it a discussion, call it anything but get things going. That's my intention, and we are actually discussing here! (Did anybody care to invite others in? Cf. my proposal above.) --HJensen, talk 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tennis expert: But I explained how this is just meant to be about the sponsored name, not the rest of the design, and pointed out there are 3 positions on this: include both, include one, or include the other. And seeing as how you yourself were the one that proposed both, I didn't think that just sponsored was still under consideration. So you've completely failed to explain what's wrong with my poll, instead just saying that you "don't agree with any of the options", despite the fact that the only option it doesn't include is one that I had good reason to believe no-one would support. I have added option c) now, so vote for it if you like, but if you're still not happy then I can only assume that you do not understand the clearly stated intent of this poll. To state it again: To be completely clear, the intent of this vote is basically just to see whether we should have just a "Sponsored tournament name" column, just a "Tournament" column, or both. Nothing more, nothing less - rst20xx (talk)


 * I've already explained what's wrong with polling. But I'll WP:AGF and just assume you didn't read it yet.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. You have now told that you don't like the discussion here. Could you instead please state what your opinion the the matter discussed here is? You want the status quo, or?--HJensen, talk 07:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I already have stated my preference, here and here. Tennis expert (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (reset) Soooo... that's candidate c) then - rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm not participating in your poll that's in violation of Wikipedia policy and designed to short-circuit discussion and force consensus in the direction you want. Tennis expert (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tournament tables
I suggest that we eliminate having separate Tennis Masters Series, Tennis Masters Cup, and WTA Tour Championships tables in all tennis biographies and instead have a "Career Finals" table with appropriate color coding. (The Grand Slam tournaments tables would remain.) Here's an example of what I am talking about using the data for Rafael Nadal:

Wins (31)

Tennis expert (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with eliminating the separate tables. They're just repeated information.  However, as above, I don't really see the need for two separate columns.  I also don't see the need for the sponsored tournament names in the player articles (I do think they should be added to the tournament articles), as they don't really add any further understanding to the player's biography.


 * (legend omitted for brevity)
 * {| class="sortable wikitable"


 * No.
 * Date
 * Tournament
 * Surface
 * Opponent in Final
 * Score in Final
 * 1.
 * August 15 2004
 * Sopot, Poland
 * Clay
 * 🇦🇷 José Acasuso
 * 6–3, 6–4
 * 2.
 * February 20 2005
 * Costa do Sauípe, Brazil
 * Clay
 * 🇪🇸 Alberto Martín
 * 6–0, 6–7(2), 6–1
 * 3.
 * February 27 2005
 * Acapulco, Mexico
 * Clay
 * 🇪🇸 Albert Montañés
 * 6–1, 6–0
 * - bgcolor="#dfe2e9"
 * 4.
 * April 17 2005
 * Monte Carlo, Monaco
 * Clay
 * 🇦🇷 Guillermo Coria
 * 6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5
 * }
 * Granted, this is basically what we have now, except that the piped tournament link contains both the city and country. I think that adding the sponsored names here, in addition to not improving the quality of information, would be too hard to find and maintain, especially before 2000 or so.  It also may cut down on mistakes; for example, in the proposal above, the 2005 Barcelona event is named "Open Sabadell Atlántico", when it was actually "Open SEAT".  I'm not trying to call you out, Tennis_Expert, I'm just saying that those types of mistakes are easy to make and hard to find.  To wit: I spent about 45 minutes last night moving a bunch of "Next Generation Adelaide International" articles to just "Adelaide International", because the sponsor didn't exist before 1999.  If we do decide to go with sponsored names in these tables, I would favor something similar to how the French Wiki and my earlier proposal do it. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 🇦🇷 Guillermo Coria
 * 6–3, 6–1, 0–6, 7–5
 * }
 * Granted, this is basically what we have now, except that the piped tournament link contains both the city and country. I think that adding the sponsored names here, in addition to not improving the quality of information, would be too hard to find and maintain, especially before 2000 or so.  It also may cut down on mistakes; for example, in the proposal above, the 2005 Barcelona event is named "Open Sabadell Atlántico", when it was actually "Open SEAT".  I'm not trying to call you out, Tennis_Expert, I'm just saying that those types of mistakes are easy to make and hard to find.  To wit: I spent about 45 minutes last night moving a bunch of "Next Generation Adelaide International" articles to just "Adelaide International", because the sponsor didn't exist before 1999.  If we do decide to go with sponsored names in these tables, I would favor something similar to how the French Wiki and my earlier proposal do it. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with one column including both the name of a tournament and its location is that the location is no longer sortable. This is a huge hindrance, in my opinion.  And, no, it's not hard at all to find the sponsored names of tournaments before 2000, as I've said before.  But if mistakes are made, correct them.  That's what editors do on Wikipedia.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sorting function is a nuisance that should be eliminated (when one sort under one criteria, one gets, by unsorting, often not back to the beginning; i.e., the chronological order). Maybe tournaments could be interesting to sort, but as long as the sort function also makes the table sortable for dates (in strange formats), results, I think it should be dropped. Does anybody know if it is possible to make only some columns sortable?--HJensen, talk 10:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When sorting messes things up for you, all you have to do is reset the table by sorting by number (the first column). Couldn't be easier!  Tennis expert (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For tables that do have the number that works. I think I was aware of that. For the others we are looking at here there are no numbers. In any case what is the argument of sorting on scores, dates and so forth? And to everybody else: Does anybody know if it is possible to make only some columns sortable? It is not a good thing to present a sorting option on everything in my opinion. I dare not say it, but I have reverted the sorting facility in many bios, and it was not challenged. Isn't it consensus then?--HJensen, talk 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My last suggestion includes the number column. I sort tables constantly by date, tournament name, tournament location, surface, and/or opponent for research and other purposes.  Having all these columns is invaluable and crucial to my work on Wikipedia and costs nothing to people who don't care about having all that sortable data readily available.  I simply do not understand the opposition, other than the "I don't like it" argument.  The French-language Wikipedia has got the sponsored name thing exactly right except that the tournament location needs to be in a separate column instead of combined with the tournament name.  By the way, sortable columns is everywhere in tennis articles now.  It appears to be the consensus to allow it.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I like Tennis Expert's Idea and am completly 100 percent behind him; however, I also think that I am against Spider Monkey's idea with only having the city it is located. I am pretty sure that most people will not realize what tournament it is if they only have the city and country there. I know that there are many tennis stadiums in Paris and it will be hard for newcomers of tennis to differ between French Open and the Paris Intl. Championships. Reply to my talk page for any more ideas or comments! Hurricane06 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC).

I like Spyder_Monkey's table, but would prefer to still have the (non-sponsored) tournament name visible, as it makes the tournament much easier to identify. So, in an ideal world, I would have this:
 * (legend omitted for brevity)

Note not Artois Championships, but Queen's Club Championships - rst20xx (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you do have sponsored names in there: Orange Prokom and Telcel. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I know, but as far as I can tell, those two tournaments fall into the small category of those with no clear non-sponsored name. There are some tournaments like that, and in those cases I feel that we have to settle for using the sponsored name - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hence, I think the simplest way to do it would be to make sure all tournament articles are moved to the non-sponsored name, if possible, and then we can avoid piping as much as possible - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's completely ridiculous! Let's have sponsored names for some tournaments but outlaw them for others.  And who exactly will determine whether a particular tournament has a "clear non-sponsored name"?  Oh, that's right.  You will.  See the Qatar Telecom German Open naming fiasco you initiated and have perpetuated.  Tennis expert (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, whatever consensus is, when there's a survey for each proposed move. Oh, and it looks like consensus is for German Open (tennis), not Qatar Telecom German Open, so maybe it wasn't me that decided after all, but the community :) rst20xx (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your proposal, Tennis Expert. Why do you mix sponsored names with non-sponsored names? E.g., in 2005 Nadal won the "Synsam Swedish Open", but you only write Swedish Open. Why is that? (I hope not that it is a "naming fiasco" :-) ).--HJensen, talk 18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not my intention. The sponsored name should appear in the table whenever there is a sponsored name.   Tennis expert (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Table legend
(split from the above general discussion --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

Also I think the colours could be a little bit stronger, as they're hard to see on some monitors (except of course the Olympic colour). Not intrusive though, more like this: Chars, rst20xx (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Slovak Wiki has a dedicated template for this legend (sk:Šablóna:ATP legenda) and for each of the colors, e.g. sk:Šablóna:ATP legenda/ATP International Series, to place within the table. Check it out, and you'll see what I mean.  That would help keep the colors consistent across all articles.  We could add the number of tournaments to it as well.


 * Whatever colors are used should be commonized as much as possible across both men's and women's tables (e.g. the Masters Series color would be the same as Tier I). We should also consider Accessibility and Colo(u)rblindness compatibility. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a really good idea. It kind of mirrors what I recently did with Template:Draw key, but is even more sophisticated because of the colour thing - rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The French Wikipedia already has one that integrates the number of tournaments: fr:Modèle:Titres simple joueur de tennis. So I think it should be gone ahead with - templates were made for this kind of purpose. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I see tennisexpert keeps IGNORING EVERYONE and just posting the tables with this style, I will post how the tables were BEFORE they started changing them all, like they are now:

This means, NOT SPONSORED NAMES, like we talked in the discussion above, the tournament names and the country, theres not more info needed. 81.184.39.254 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't you blocked for a week? Or does blocking not matter to you?  Tennis expert (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, look
It seems the sponsored names in tables thing is somewhat going in circles. My reading of the discussion so far is that every editor except Tennis expert would prefer not to have sponsored names, but have non-sponsored names instead, where possible. Tennis expert claims that the fact he opposes non-sponsored names means there's no consensus for non-sponsored names, but I think almost all editors would consider that one voice opposing something is not enough to override consensus in favour of that something, and that's really the crux of the issue we're having here - rst20xx (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion is ongoing. There is no consensus yet for anything.  And we need to get more people involved.  Four or five opinions are hardly enough for such an important and far-reaching decision.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bloody Hell, can we at least stop changing pages whilst this discussion is ongoing?
Tennis expert is still going about changing the tables from sponsored to nonsponsored, citing the edit summary as "copyedit". Look at this edit he made today. I would expect editors involved in the above discussion to cease all changes directly related to it until its conclusion, and I think this is seriously disruptive behaviour - rst20xx (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean from non-sponsored to sponsored :S I dunno what to say Yosef1987 (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, that's what I meant - rst20xx (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's work out a consensus here before changing articles. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. --HJensen, talk 10:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tennis expert's edits are continuing, but he's changed tack slightly. Looking here for example, he appears to instead be (1) removing tournament locations and (2) carrying out the bizarre practice of linking to the French Wikipedia, where no English article is available. I still think these edits are somewhat disruptive - (1) is directly under discussion, and I think any changes to the tables at all now should clearly be brought about through consensus, which there is not for either (1) or (2). I have taken the preliminary step of notifying Tennis expert of this discussion on his talk page, here, and if his edits continue, then I feel we need to report him - rst20xx (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Bizarre? Hardly.  See this. It should be obvious to you that there is no consensus in this discussion about anything.  So, the pre-existing status quo about editing tennis articles still exists.  I didn't remove any tournament locations from the Manuela Maleeva article.  More misrepresentations of fact by you.  Was that intentional or just pure negligence?  Either way, stop doing it.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While I think consensus is forming to be against your opinion, whether consensus is established yet or not is irrelevant, the fact of that matter is that while a discussion is ongoing, all activities related to the subjects of the discussion should be suspended, as they may end up to have been made in the wrong direction - rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not the way Wikipedia works. Should consensus form, any edits not in conformance with that consensus can be reversed or changed appropriately.  No edit is irrevocable.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get the point yet: he doesn't care about this discussion, he keeps doing the things he wants, look up: we have been like 2 days on the discussion and like everyone doesn't want sponsored names, and now he opens a new discussion for the general table with the same sponsored style again. He should be taken out of this discussion since he is not interacting with the other people. 81.184.39.254 (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't you supposed to be blocked for a week? Tennis expert (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Tennisexpert is changing all the old articles to his sponsored style
... even when we are trying to get a consensus and mostly everyone doesn't want his style.

I don't know if we can do anything about this because instead of being quiet and talk properly on the discussion, he is changing old players articles to sponsored styles (and probably later he will use this to reason to put the new ones like them). I think this should be reported since he is thinking that he owns the wikipedia or something, ignoring all the rest of us. 81.184.39.254 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Besides, aren't you supposed to be blocked for a week?  Tennis expert (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just know you've nothing to say because I can find the same thing 4 times on this page lol. 81.184.39.254 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know but maybe it is rst20xx pointed to? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Courier&diff=prev&oldid=235782913 Yosef1987 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

New WTA season
I think we are going to have some problems with singles performance timetable for women, because there are big changes in tournament categories (there are no Tier I, II, III, and IV). We have 3 mounts to design new disign for singles performance timetables! Does someone have ideas! :) --Göran Smith (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have ideas (see sandbox), whether they're any good... obviously, looking at what I've done there, the "Premier" and "International" colours would have to be made a bit less abrasive. I added a link to WTA Tour, hopefully so that people can find out about the changes that went on (there's nothing at the moment). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thats easy to add! I meant Singles performance timetable, because there are too many premiere tour., and only four "special" premiere tournaments. --Göran Smith (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess just the four get continuation in the 2009 column (with the rest saying NH or Not Held or nothing at all), and then younger players would only have 4 columns to start with. Maybe the four special tourneys should also get a special colour in the legend, too - rst20xx (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should wait until the points structure is issued, to see if the four mandatory premier events award more points than the other premier events. If those events award more points, then I would be in favor of singles performance timelines tracking the results of only those four events.  If that is not the consensus view, then the timelines will either have to track 20 events (ugh) or we will have to come up with criteria (original research?) for determining which events to track.  The following is my suggestion if we're going to track only the four mandatory premier events:

Tennis expert (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well broadly speaking that looks good, except for the all-too-predictable attempts to substitute in sponsorship names, and Key Biscane for Miami - rst20xx (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've said many times before, the Sony Ericsson Open is held in Key Biscayne, Florida, which is a separate legal entity and is not part of Miami, Florida. For someone who is so squeamish about official sponsored names, I'm surprised that you are in favor of saying in an encyclopedia that this tournament is held in Miami.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be surprised. On the WTA homepage (which you should refer to as the Sony Ericsson WTA page), they place the tournament in Miami (and don't call it Sony Ericsson Open): http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/PlayerActivity.asp?PlayerID=311710 So it is verifiable. I have said it many times before, but the defunct ATP tournament Copenhagen Open was not held in Copenhagen, but in Frederiksberg, a different legal entity. I would do WP:OR if I wrote that it was being held in Frederiksberg instead of Copenhagen. Because practically nowhere it says so. In this WTA case, many sources place Miami in Miami; so don't be surprised. --HJensen, talk 07:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Current consensus is Miami as well, and we all know how important that is to you, Tennis expert - rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * HJensen, it's not WP:OR to reflect the fact, which is noted in countless news media around the world, that the Sony Ericsson Open is held in Key Biscayne, Florida. I have no idea whether the media is as factually correct about the Fredericksberg tournament.  Rst20xx, just because you say that consensus exists does not mean it in fact does.  Tennis expert (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was never mentioned to be held in Frederiksberg. So I would do OR if I changed that (I wasn't talking about the Miami tournament, just mentioning that WTA and ATP "place" it in Miami, Fl.). As for consensus, I guess we have all understood that we all have to wait for you to declare one. So I am pulling out of the Tennis Project in the meantime.--HJensen, talk 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This table seems appears to be the best solution. Points scoring may present itself as a suitable qualification, but I think that the wisest option would be to only include the mandatory events - they're mandatory to ensure a higher quality field, and removing five or six from this category will likely see a degradation in quality, or varying levels compared to the madantory four (And the main performance timeline is meant to show a player's performance at the highest levels of competition). There's also the much higher prize money (the $4.5m is an aggregate prize money with the men's, but so are most others that are $1m+). I assume the current Tier I tournaments, like the men's Masters Series, are mandatory (the Williams sisters always seem to have a reason to excuse themselves). If they aren't mandatory (I don't know, but think it unlikely) that would seem to show that players follow points and that that qualification should be continued. I'll strike this if I find out they are mandatory; are they? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very complicated subject. Tennis expert (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wider Input on Sponsored Names
'''As this page is under semi-protection, IP users may not be able to add their comments to this discussion. If you would like to, please feel free to place comments on my talk page and I will transpose them here (provided they're not from the offending user that caused the block.''' Gnowor (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have invited wider input, and notified all WP:Tennis members, and request that the conversation moves to this section.

To reiterate, this discussion is about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I shall now attempt to provide a brief summary of the arguments made so far: Thanks for any input you can provide - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pro-sponsored says that the sponsored name is more official, pointing out that it is the one the ATP uses in most cases, however anti-sponsored has pointed out that sometimes (e.g. here) the ATP uses the non-sponsored name, for simplicity and to avoid confusion.
 * On that note, anti-sponsored argues that using sponsored names makes tournaments harder to identify, and also that as sponsored names change regularly (e.g. see here), this further compounds the identification problem. They also point out that the name changes mean that editors are more likely to make mistakes when editing the tables.
 * Pro-sponsored has tried to argue that sponsored names are more common in the media, but anti-sponsored has so far been able to demonstrate that most media sources use both names.
 * For some tournaments there is no clear non-sponsored name, in which case, all editors agree that the sponsored name must be used.
 * One related thing worth thinking about is where these articles are actually located, for example, at Rome Masters, not at Internazionali BNL d'Italia (which is a redirect). It seems to me that most tournaments that have non-sponsored names are located at the non-sponsored name. I would imagine that most anti-sponsored people would advocate moving any articles that have a non-sponsored name to be located at that non-sponsored name (e.g. if Rome Masters redirected to Internazionali BNL d'Italia, they would want to see that reversed).
 * Both sides seem to agree that the articles being linked to should themselves mention both names (a la 2008 Canada Masters says: "The 2008 Canada Masters (also known as the Rogers Cup for sponsorship reasons)...").
 * There was a discussion about simply including both names in the table, but most seemed to agree that this made the table too unwieldy.


 * I'm going to have to vote anti-sponsored. This is based on standardization from other sports, i.e. the Bowl Championship Series of NCAA Football, as well as being more concise and easier to follow based on changing names.  I'd vote for Anti-Sponsored on player tables, Anti-Sponsored article names (w/ sponsored redirects) and a history (table?) on the tournament articles indicating sponsor tournament names/years.  I agree that sponsored sounds more official and may be what's used in some cases, but taking a page from someplace I can't identify, shouldn't a goal of an encyclopedia be ease-of-use/reading?(Debate this last statement on my talk page as I'm sure we won't have room here.) Gnowor (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The goal of an encyclopedia should be factual accuracy, based on verifiable, reliable sources. The problem with using any tournament name that is not the official sponsored name is the lack of verifiable, reliable sources for the unsponsored name.  Needless and energy-sapping disputes among Wikipedia editors would arise whenever the official sponsored name is ignored and editors are searching for an alternative.  There is no question that the organizations running the professional tennis tours for both men (Association of Tennis Professionals) and women (Women's Tennis Association) far more frequently use the official sponsored name.  There is no reason to ignore their usage, especially given that the news media also uses the official sponsored name most of the time.  Despite what others have said or implied in this discussion, the short-hand names preferred by them, such as "Indian Wells Masters", are not generic, either.  The word "Masters" is itself a trademarked, commercial term.  So, the opponents to using official sponsored tournament names are completely inconsistent in their reasoning.  They're willing to use "Masters" and similar commercial terms but balk at using the full sponsored names.  That is irrational and faulty thinking.  Aside from all these problems, many men's tournaments that are "Masters" today existed before tournaments started being designated "Masters" events, e.g., the Italian Open, now known as the Internazionali BNL d'Italia.  What should we call those tournaments?  The irrefutable fact is that tournament names change from time-to-time, just as their locations occasionally change.  There is no easy solution to this.  Ignoring official sponsored names does not fix this problem in the least.  Tennis expert (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See reply below - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * this issue annoyed me for quite a while and I'm glad there is some discussion raised right now, I certainly would prefer the name of tournament to stay non-sponsored as those names could constantly be changing and they are highly unfamiliar with Tennis fans and people interested in Tennis, I believe leaving the names as "Canada Masters" or "Rome Masters" is better and more encyclopedic IMO. Habibko (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "Masters" is a commercial term just like the official sponsored name of a tournament is. Why do you believe it is OK to use one commercial term but not another?  Tennis expert (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and so is "Wimbledon". It is the name of a commercial tennis tournament. I think the difference is that "Masters" is not closely related to a product I can buy. Neither is "Masters" a firm that produces a product I can buy. I cannot buy a Wimbledon either. But "Pacific Life", e.g., is the name of an insurance company that provides services I can buy. Indian Wells Masters is a commercial tennis tournament, but it doesn't sell products (aside from merchandise). So I guess there is a difference between sponsors and the name of commercial tournaments. Probably you can come up with borderline cases where the tournament name originates in a sponsor's name; in those cases I think common English usage should be the deciding factor. As for "Canada Masters" or "Rogers Cup", both are used by the ATP, and if we should chose only one, I would go with the first, as it indicates clearly what series of tournaments it belongs to. Also it is probably more stable than the sponsored name.--HJensen, talk 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can buy the product of a "Masters" tournament! When you buy a ticket to the event or a souvenir t-shirt, you are buying something from the tournament.  And "Canada Masters" is not a stable name for the event.  It's not even the name of the tournament.  The tournament has been a "Masters" event only since the Masters Series was started.  The tournament itself is far older.  Aside from those facts, on what basis do we choose "Canada Masters" over "Rogers Cup"?  In other words, what are the criteria that English-language Wikipedia should follow?  Are the criteria based on our squeamishness with commercial activities?  In other words, is it the "smell test" or "I'll know it when I see it"?  We appear to be OK with the official sponsored name of a tournament if that is the only name available.  But I guarantee that for every tournament that's ever existed, I can find (probably accidental) variation in the news media about how they referred to the tournament.  So, the "only name available" criterion will fail in every case.  The only viable alternative, to avoid endless debates, is to use the official names of tournaments.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rst20xx, there are several problems with your summary. (1) Your summary should include a very brief disclosure about your position on these issues so that people new to the discussion can determine for themselves whether your summary is accurate and impartial. (2) Please don't censor the request for discussion by prematurely denigrating one of the options, as you did in your last bullet. That option is still on the table. (3) A big part of this debate is whether the separate tables for Tennis Masters Series tournaments, the Tennis Masters Cup, and the WTA Tour Championships should be deleted in favor of having just one table that covers all kinds of tournaments plus one other table that covers just Grand Slam tournaments. (4) Your summary fails to disclose that the official sponsored names of tennis tournaments is already frequently used in English-language Wikipedia articles and is the standard in French-language Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the current consensus appears to be that whether official sponsored names is used in a particular English-language article is up to the editors of that article, which makes perfect sense to me and avoids widespread and unproductive edit warring.

Aside from the problems with your summary, I have the following additional comments. (1) The most directly relevant article to this discussion, List of tennis tournaments, has long used the official sponsored names of virtually all current tournaments and for most tournaments from the past that are no longer being held. An English-language Wikipedia ban on official sponsored names would require a complete rewrite of that article, which is one of the most useful tennis-related articles on Wikipedia. (2) See my previous comment here, which emphasizes how important official sponsored names are to some editors and how including them is costless. (3) See this perfectly reasonable suggestion. (4) I have said before, "The problem with one column including both the name of a tournament and its location is that the location is no longer sortable." That's a huge problem for frequent tennis editors. Tennis expert (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See reply below - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One addition to this correction of the summary. I have raised the issue that no tournaments should have special tables. I favor no repetition. So, Grand Slams should in my opinion also just be in the big tournament table. (They get special treatment in the infobox and performance timeline in any case.).--HJensen, talk 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, I left that out though as I think it's unrelated to the sponsorship discussion and also no-one seemed to be arguing with it - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have said, there is substantial disagreement about whether Grand Slam tournaments should continue to have a separate table. Tennis expert (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite happy to see it decided on a case-by-case basis - I don't see the need for either a uniform endorsement or ban of sponsor names. In similar situations in football articles, sometimes the sponsored name is by far the most common (Veikkausliiga, Tippeligaen, Setanta Sports Cup, Emirates Stadium, FC Red Bull Salzburg) and in other cases it is not (Baltic League not Triobet Baltic League, Copa Sudamericana not Copa Nissan Sudamericana, CAF Champions League not MTN CAF Champions League, Premier League not Barclays Premier League).  Just pick which is the most common over all media in each case separately. Knepflerle (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that non-sponsored names are (without exception) more common, though no doubt Tennis expert would dispute that til the cows come home - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Knepflerle about there not being a ban on sponsored names. But I would go an additional step.  In all English-language Wikipedia articles about tennis, the current official name of the tournament should be used except in articles that are describing a particular historical period about a tournament (such as an article about the 1957 Italian Championships).  Whether the official name has a sponsor in it should be wholly irrelevant.  Determining the official name of a tournament should be based on verifiable, reliable, English-language sources.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's where we disagree with each other, and where your proposal disagrees with policy. There is nothing in policy to prefer official names over common ones if they differ - WP:NAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME are unequivocal that the single binding factor is frequency of usage if there is no ambiguity.  Any notions of officialness are deprecated. Knepflerle (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here I ask again, since the articles themselves here are non-sponsor named, why use a sponsor name to link to a non-sponsor named article? I am with the non-sponsored names. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that having both sponsored and non-sponsored names in the table would make it a little large. How about non-sponsored name being the standard for the "tournament name" and another column simply listing "sponsor".
 * Regarding the list of tennis tournaments, although you don't appear to be a "main editor" for that article, I do see quite a few of your fingerprints on it from back in February and previous.
 * Another proposed resolution I'd have is that if we go "non-sponsored" we drop a link at the bottom of the table out to this list, so people have a reference for sponsored name.
 * Final new proposed compromise would be to use non-sponsored names for Masters series (and slams of course), and use sponsored names for all other tournaments. It seems that all the articles on the masters series are listed under non-sponsored names, where-as sponsored names becomes much more frequent after that.  I'd also agree to this compromise.
 * I am definitely in favor of only having two tables per article (one for grand slams, one for all others). Hope I didn't bring too many more options to the table. Gnowor (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is really quite simple
I was pre-warned that this was "a long and muddled discussion", and I have to agree. The answer is very simple: Use the non-sponsor version, per WP:SPAM (we're not here to provide free advertising), WP:NOT (WP is not a commercial billboard, in this case), WP:UNDUE (the commercial sponsor has no direct relevance to the sport or the nature of the event), etc. And simply (per WP:SENSE) because the commercial sponsor can change again and again and again, in the space of a quite short span (see Premier League Snooker for a wild but real example), not to mention that many events have more than one sponsor. The only draft guideline specifically on this topic so far (initially written for cue sports but intended to eventually be genericized to an all-sports style guide, since we badly need one), WP:CUESPELL, spells this all out pretty clearly. The commercial-sponsor-name-of-X-time-period version of the event's name is not important in a table or list like those above. Simply enumerating the sponsor versions of event names in the event articles and making sure redirects exist from those names to the articles is entirely sufficient. PS: I am not watchlisting this, as the discussion here has been too noisy and circular to be productive, and we have guidelines for a reason; I don't see any WP:IAR-actionable reason to ignore them at play in this case, which isn't special. If I'm needed for a clarification of this rationale, please drop me a note at my talk page. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Tennis expert's point is valid regarding the name of some sponsored events being the only heavily documented name of those events. In talking about player performance tables, if we were to eliminate certain common sponsored names, people might miss the info they're looking for, as they might miss the tournament since they don't know the non-sponsored name.  I would think readers being able to easily find information they're looking for should be a reason to possibly ignore all rules if that's where consensus lies. Gnowor (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of a tournament with both a sponsored and non-sponsored name where the sponsored name is much more heavily documented? rst20xx (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The SAP Open, Mercedes Cup, Tennis Channel Open, and Heineken Open (tennis) are all tournaments for which I was unable to locate a non-sponsored name. My search was only cursory, but it's in situations like this where I think the above names should prevail. Gnowor (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most tennis tournaments have only officially sponsored names. And for those tournaments that some editors here want to rename in English-language Wikipedia, e.g., substituting "Indian Wells Masters" for "Pacific Life Open", the problem is colloquialism and determining the most widely used name based on verifiable, reliable English-language sources.  More fundamentally, this would become an article-by-article exercise, which really is the status quo.  So, why are we having this discussion at all?  The reason is that some editors here want to ban officially sponsored names for tennis tournaments throughout English-language Wikipedia except for perhaps one sentence in each tournament article.  In tennis biographies and lists, they would prohibit officially sponsored names.  Why we would want to do that is beyond my comprehension.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Ah, Gnownor, I see what you're saying now and I'm sorry but you misunderstand the anti-sponsored side slightly. To quote my opening post: "For some tournaments there is no clear non-sponsored name, in which case, all editors agree that the sponsored name must be used." You just gave four examples of such tournaments. So, I repeat my question: "Can you give an example of a tournament with both a sponsored and non-sponsored name where the sponsored name is much more heavily documented?" rst20xx (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Was trying to keep this as civil as possible on my end, despite the general leanings of this argument. I apologize if my comments here start to stretch those bounds.  First off, I did understand your initial statement and had difficulty, outside of the masters series events, finding examples.  The reason why I didn't include the masters series events is due to the fact that for the most part, the masters series are already listed under the non-sponsored name, despite the fact that they are more frequently known by their sponsored name.  (See numbers below from Tennis expert.)  Additionally, from personal experience, I know that I hear and refer to the masters series tournaments by their sponsored names more frequently than the non-sponsored names.  If you feel that the ticket sites are the cause of the discrepancy, I suggest you get some numbers to that effect.
 * Regardless, I've input my two cents, and I'm going to leave this discussion for the rest of you all to duke it out. In the meantime, I'm going to actually start editing some player pages and finishing the succession box chains for the ATP Awards.  Oh, mind editing and correcting the spelling of my name above? Gnowor (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's assume just for purposes of this little exercise that "Indian Wells Masters" is the non-sponsored name of the tournament in Indian Wells, California. For the English-language only, Google shows "about 293,000" hits for "Pacific Life Open" but only "about 9,480" hits for "Indian Wells Masters".  Tennis expert (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's extend this exercise. "About 48,400" hits for "Rome Masters" versus "about 41,000" hits for "Internazionali BNL d'Italia".  "About 259,000" hits for "Sony Ericsson Open" versus "about 18,300" hits for "Miami Masters".  "About 42,700" hits for "BNP Paribas Masters" versus "about 43,400" hits for "Paris Masters". "About 509,000" hits for "Rogers Cup" versus "about 17,400" hits for "Canada Masters".  "About 126,000" hits for "Western & Southern Financial Group Masters" versus "about 181,000" hits for "Cincinnati Masters".  "About 77,200" hits for "Mutua Madrileña Masters" versus "about 65,000" hits for "Madrid Masters".  Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We both know that search engine tests don't necessarily work, for example in this case the sponsored names are the one used by ticket vendors, and ticket vendors make up about half the results of "Pacific Life Open"/"Western & Southern Financial Group Masters"/etc. And this isn't even looking at official ATP pages. But if you count just the news and fan comments then you'd probably get a different picture painted - rst20xx (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know no such thing, and please quit speaking on my behalf. OK?  As for your "half the results" statement, what is your source?  Did you actually look at all 293,000 hits concerning the "Pacific Life Open" and 126,000 hits for the "Western & Southern Financial Group Masters"?  For some reason, I doubt you did ... but I could be wrong about that.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * &#91;Reply to Gnowor's "I think Tennis expert's point is valid regarding the name of some sponsored events being the only heavily documented name of those events...", copied here from my talk page&#93; If it's the only name, then it's the only name. The point isn't "hate sponsor laden names, for they are the work of the Devil", but rather, "prefer non-sponsor-laden names as more neutral and less likely to 'break' over time". Agree in part with the rationale in your final sentence; if an event is not commonly known by its generic name, then having the more common but spammy could arguably be good in the table. But I don't think this generalizes to an "always use both" maxim.  Partly for the same reasons you give yourself, in a sense: If an event has had 5 different major sponsors over the last two decades, it is a certainty that some subset of readers are familiar with it under particular names, but we should not include all 5 of them, plus the generic one, in a list of tabular data. The way out of this seems to me to remember that we have articles and links to them, so if something were known as the Marlboro Bowlin' Shootout for sponsorship purposes but was really the ABA Charleston Bowling Masters Tournament, there's no practical problem referring to it as the latter, or even a shorter version like Charleston Masters.  We can't account for every possible name someone might know an event by and have to trust that they know something about the event (e.g. where it is held), since it isn't realistic to include every possible name in a table.  If the reader has really no idea about any detail of the event other than "Marlboro", they probably wouldn't have gotten as far as they had already anyway, and would instead use the search feature for "Marlboro bowling", and found the article, at ABA Charleston Bowling Masters or whatever.  Short version: Don't try to navigate for the user in articles, especially summary list/table articles; we have categories and search functions for a reason. :-) —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is really not simple
No, it is not a simple issue. The bottom line is that this issue depends on what editors want to do. For many reasons, including verifiability and reliability of sources, the official sponsored names of tournaments should be used. This is common practice on English-language Wikipedia and appears to be almost universal practice on French-language Wikipedia. Also, I do not understand the squeamishness with using official sponsored names. Tennis tournaments are business enterprises that rely on sponsorship (and certain other revenues) to survive, which makes the sponsorship directly relevant (your criterion) to the tournaments. When we refer to a tournament's official name that includes a sponsor, we are reflecting real world facts. For example, it is an irrefutable fact that the official name of the tournament in Indian Wells, California is the "Pacific Life Open". To ignore that name in favor of something like "Indian Wells Masters" is unencyclopedic because that name is not factual. Do you also object to the name of the ExxonMobil article? If so, what should we call it? Something like Biggest oil company in the world or Corporation responsible for the big oil spill in Alaska? If you don't object, then what is your criteria for saying that business names are fine for some article names but not for others? By the way, no tournament has more than one sponsored name. We are obviously not talking here about listing all the sponsors for each tournament. Tennis expert (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is long. Tennis expert, in reply to your various comments: I think HJenson dealt with your comments about "Masters" sufficiently, but I'd add an apt comparison in that the use of the name "Masters" is like how it's called the "Premier League" nowadays and not "Division 1" (ironically this change happened around the same time, too). As for what to call the Masters tournaments before they were Masters, we should just call them by their non-sponsored name at that time. For example, 1987 Paris Open already does this. Yes, this does require a name change, but it is just one name change, and it is easy to know when the name change occurs as the Masters were started in 1990 and so that's the end of that. And hence using non-sponsored names is still a damn sight simpler than using sponsored names.
 * Right, onto the numbers. (1) (the first no (1)) Yes, okay, I do support non-sponsored, but if we're going to have full disclosure, let's look at exactly what everyone's opinions were in the discussion that occured before I invited wider input. Against sponsored names were myself, Armchair info guy, Wikitestor (admittedly banned at the moment), Yosef1987, HJensen and Spyder_Monkey. In favour of sponsored names was... you.
 * (3) Yes, removing duplicate tables was also being discussed, but my aim here in this "Wider Input on Sponsored Names" section was to separate out the issue of sponsored names, and deal with that first. I would rather we dealt with the sponsored names first, and then move on to the tables, and that was my intention with this section (I thought quite clearly, considering the name of it).
 * (4) You say that sponsored names are more common on en.wikipedia, but I would refute that, as I think the overwhelming majority of articles that have a non-sponsored name are at the non-sponsored namespace. Further, I would say that consensus can change, and that if there is an implicit consensus through repeated use in favour of sponsored names, then in that case, this discussion is looking to overturn that implicit consensus.
 * (1) (the second no (1)) The List of tennis tournaments article is a special case, and I think most editors would probably be in favour of seeing both sponsored and non-sponsored names being recorded there. It could actually become a good reference for how names have changed over the years, if we allow it. (3) and (4) See my reply to the last (3). On ExxonMobil: I can't believe I'm having to say this, but ExxonMobil is not the sponsored name of the company, it is the name of the company!
 * Right, to finish up: You say "The bottom line is that this issue depends on what editors want to do". Well, with the addition of opinions from new editors, I would say that consensus is turning against the use of sponsored names even further - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope I'm not trampling on toes here, but to put a little bit more concisely. The name of the company ExxonMobil uniquely identifies that company, and is a vital piece of factual information about that company.  The name ExxonMobil in the name of a sponsored tennis tournament, although factual, would not be the most important, nor a vital piece of factual information for most readers looking at that article regarding the tennis tournament.  Gnowor (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but, as has been pointed out above, "Wimbledon" is the official name of a tournament and no one would argue about that name being needed when readers are looking for the article about the tournament. So, we're apparently in agreement that many English-language Wikipedia articles should refer to tournaments by their official names (sponsored or otherwise).  Yet, some editors here would make exceptions for other tournaments and prohibit, Wikipedia-wide, the use of their official names, which often includes sponsorship information.  This would be completely illogical.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is simple. We are choosing the non-sponsored official name over the sponsored official name. Wimbledon has no sponsored name in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * However, Wimbledon is the trademarked name of the tournament, just as the "Pacific Life Open" is the trademarked name of that tournament. Whether a sponsor appears in the official name should be irrelevant.  What we should be concerned about is the official name, not colloquialisms that only lead to endless debate and confusion.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What was, for example, the official name of the Internazionali BNL d'Italia tournament before 1969? That's right, tournament names have changed (and tournaments have come and go) since tennis became an organized sport, not just in recent times.  What should be the name of the Wikipedia article for the tournament in Rome?  "Italian Championships", "Italian Open", "Rome Masters", "Internazionali BNL d'Italia"?  All these possibilities except "Rome Masters" have been the official name at some point.  So, why would an encyclopedia, which is supposed to reflect fact, choose "Rome Masters" over the others?  Obviously, "that's not the end of that".
 * (1) List of tennis tournaments is not a special case. It is a Wikipedia tennis-related article just like all the others.
 * (3) "I can't believe I'm having to say this, but", for example, the Pacific Life Open is the name of the tournament! As for duplicate tables, this apparently is a controversial issue as not everyone agrees on how many tables there should be, more particularly whether Grand Slam tournaments should continue to have a separate table.  So, this needs to be discussed now, too.
 * (4) This is neither a "vote" nor a "poll". See WP:POLLS.  Five or six people here cannot overturn the consensus of hundreds of tennis article editors.  And I would appreciate your not attempting to influence the outcome of this discussion with ongoing observations like "consensus is turning against" whatever.  You've repeatedly done this, and it's totally unconstructive, especially for someone who has professed to summarize what everyone has said already.  Also, the point of this discussion is to have a discussion about important issues, not to "overturn ... consensus".  Whether this discussion results in the overturning of consensus remains to be seen.
 * (5) Please don't reorganize this discussion again, i.e., do not move people's comments from one place to another. You are not the moderator, and your last reorganization has resulted in everything being hard to follow.  Tennis expert (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Rome Masters" is an official name, it is used by the ATP. It is also the common name, which is much more important. And finally, I would say the main article should be positioned at the current non-sponsored name, e.g. Rome Masters, and then the year articles at the non-sponsored name that year.
 * (4) I never said "vote", or "poll". And if you don't think this discussion is possibly going to overturn the consensus of articles, then why the hell are we even having it?!?!?
 * (5) Well I found my moving of two posts from one place to another made things much easier to follow, and you're hardly one to talk as you continuously change indents of other people's posts, and oh see too. But I'm not going to comment on this any more as it is completely irrelevant to the discussion and therefore should not be being discussed on this talk page - rst20xx (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you know that "Rome Masters" is the common name? What are your sources?
 * (4) I'm all in favor of ending this discussion now and pretending it never happened. It's pointless and, as you know, I didn't initiate it.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote from you: "...we need to get more people involved. Four or five opinions are hardly enough for such an important and far-reaching decision." So much for that, eh? rst20xx (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion is pointless because it goes around in circles, gets expanded, gets contracted, gets "summarized" by an editor who is advocating a particular outcome, gets reorganized by that same editor, etc. No one can keep track of it.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that you won't respect the result of any consensus that comes out of this discussion? rst20xx (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should spend some time studying WP:AGF. Tennis expert (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NAME seems to explicitly support naming Wikipedia articles after the most easily recognizable name, the commonly used name. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct. Knepflerle (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert, you write "Five or six people here cannot overturn the consensus of hundreds of tennis article editors". Where are all these editors? You appear to be saying that as long as you oppose something, then a new consensus cannot be formed. How many people would it take to make you accept a new consensus (as you know, consensus can change)? Well, for the record, I am not against sponsored names per se, and does not fall into a hypothetical group of squeamishness people having some inherent preference against sponsors. I just want to foster recognizability and continuity in tables. And in terms of the Masters Tournaments that started it all I find it unsatisfactorily and confusing for non fans that the same tournament (in terms of location, ATP-status) changes name in tables (Nasdaq 100 some years, Sony Ericsson the next, and so on). I am all for verifiability, and looking at the official calendar from the ATP for 2008, here, wee see that the ATP names the Masters Events by their sponsor (and, incidentally, they place Sony Ericsson Open in Miami ;-) ), but a Masters tournament held in Indian Wells doesn't have a name; what do we do there? In any case, for a given year the sponsor names will of course be used by the ATP. When they show results for players, however, they identify tournaments without sponsor names: (Nadal 2008). So by ATP logic, when presenting player results, we should use the non-sponsor name? I think it is a matter of choice, as both kind of names can be verified, and I would favor the way ATP presents the player's results (Google counts are particularly poor here; if they did not "favored" the sponsored name, it is time to find a new sponsor!). The performance tables would become much more easily readable. Moreover, I think a player should only have one table for wins and finals, with tournament types appropriately distiguished by color. No seperate Slam or Masters tables. And let us, in accordance with recent wikipolicy, get rid of the ugly wikilinked dates in first (or second) column. Whether there chould be a separate location column, I am indifferent towards. I can live without it, but it doesn't harm. --HJensen, talk 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with all of that (though see below) - rst20xx (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) I have no idea what editors are doing every second of the day. They don't check-in with me.  (2) It's absurd to infer from anything I've said that a consensus cannot exist without me.  But a handful of people on one side of an issue versus a handful of people on the other side cannot change or create consensus.  This leaves us with the status quo, however undesirable certain editors may believe that to be.  (3) You and I agree about wanting to foster recognizability and continuity in tables.  I also want to promote and preserve research tools for longtime tennis editors like you and myself.  That's vital for Wikipedia.  (4) Lots of things are confusing in life, and Wikipedia is not responsible for most of them and should not be in the business of trying to resolve them.  Sure, tennis is confusing because tournaments come and go or change names or locations.  And Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should reflect that state of affairs by recognizing the official names of tournaments at the time they were held.  This is what French-language Wikipedia does, for example.  There hasn't been a meltdown over there, to my knowledge.  (5) I'm glad you are willing to accept a separate location column.  That is very important to me (and probably others).  (6) I'm also glad that you believe this issue is a matter of choice, presumably decided by interested editors article-by-article instead of through some sort of cross-Wikipedia prohibition created here by a handful of people.  (7) I am happy to read that you would not support a cross-Wikipedia ban on sponsor names in tennis articles.  (8) I don't understand your point about Google.  It's an Internet indexer/counter that doesn't favor tournament sponsors.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the Google issue: It is a high priority of commercial sites to design them so as to get noticed by Google search robots. So good sponsors are those who are good at making the product they sponsor visible on the internet; i.e., being picked up by Google bots. Others, like fans sites, often don't have those ressources, so they will often be lost by Google robots. Hence, all things equal, there will be more hits to terms involving sponsors than terms without (unless, as said, the sponsors are poor advertisers on the net).--HJensen, talk 14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if what you're saying were generally true, you're making a big leap to say that this has had a huge effect on the Google numbers I've found for the tournaments I listed. You're merely assuming it has without citing any evidence.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On the "hundreds of editors": Sure you can't track them. Neither can or should I. My point was that some of them inadvertably "reach" a consensus as something they do are not challenged. Look at the Ferrero article. A fairly stable one. Note how the Masters are presented there: Juan_Carlos_Ferrero. This must also reflcet the consensus of hundreds of tennis editors of Wikipedia. Or? --HJensen, talk 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the tournament in Indian Wells, Pacific Life no longer is sponsoring the tournament beginning in 2009 and no substitute title sponsor has yet been found. That's probably why the ATP is not showing a sponsor for that tournament.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My point was that they don't show a name at all.--HJensen, talk 14:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I said, HJensen, and I explained why nothing is shown. Tennis expert (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (2) Sorry, who else is there on your side apart from you? There are a couple down the middle, but I don't see anyone else for example advocating that Masters tourneys should be under sponsored names - rst20xx (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I don't attempt to summarize the posts of other editors. I let them speak for themselves.  I invite you to re-read what they have said so far.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) HJensen, you and I are pretty much on the same page. I'm also not against sponsored names entirely, just in the player biography tables.  If an editor wants to refer to the "Pacific Life Open" in the body of the biography, have at it.  I like our current naming structure for tournament articles, and I think each year's sponsored name should be added to the results page on the tournament articles (á la Français), because it provides context about the subject of the article (the event itself).  In a player's title summary, having a sponsored name for each tournament doesn't contribute to the understanding of the player's career; it provides no context.  I believe that sponsored names would be confusing to anyone who wasn't intimately familiar with the tournaments at hand.  To give an example: Agassi won Miami in 1990 (Lipton Int’l Champ’s), 1995 & 6 (The Lipton Champ’s), 2001 (Ericsson Open),  2002 and 3 (NASDAQ-100 Open).  If all of those, in addition to his many other titles, were in his title table, and one were to sort by the sponsored name, his 6 wins at that one tournament would be spread out all over.  If only city and country (linked to the tournament article, like here) were in the table, it would make it much more straightforward.  The fact that the ATP does it this way should carry some weight, too.
 * Also, as a general note to everyone, let's discuss the issues, not the discussion.--Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that then there's no wikilink to the location, or if there is, it truly is just a repetition of the tournament. Hence, we should have location, and something else, be it sponsored, non-sponsored or article location (the last of which I am now advocating below) - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not see the evidence of "consensus" which "a handful of editors" are breaking. Tennis expert does not present any Wikipedia policies that favor his support for using obscure business-sponsored titles. Wikipedia is intended for everyday readers who usually has never heard of "Internazionali BNL d'Italia." Apparently the amount of edits that did not attempt to rename the article is evidence that the majority of users are in support of his idea. Well then I guess this means that editors should simply edit as much as they like to show their stance before discussing to form consensus to avoid edit war. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They're not "obscure business-sponsored titles," as the Google counts plainly show. Tennis expert (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Tennis Expert, frequently mischaracterizing debate opponents' views as extremist when they are not is known as a straw man fallacy. Repeatedly referring to editors who prefer that non-sponsor event names be used when possible as trying to "ban" or "prohibit" sponsor names in event article titles across the entire encyclopedia is precisely such a handwave exaggeration. Knock it off please. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I already knew what the straw man fallacy is, and it doesn't apply to anything I've said. The fact is that some editors specifically have said here that they dislike official sponsored names because Wikipedia shouldn't be an advertising vehicle.  Sorry that you missed those comments.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A simple proposal
Tennis tournament articles should in theory be located at their common name location. If they are not, they should be moved there. (Obviously, any such moves would have to be via formal proposals.) Similarly, the links in the tables should show the common name.... see where I'm going? Howsabout the links just reflect the location of the tournament articles? And then if any articles are located in the wrong place, we simply need to propose the moving of the articles, and then the links can be updated too. This would be a much more sophisticated way of doing things, as it would handle things on a case by case basis, whilst at the same time it would remove any need for piping - rst20xx (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the same proposal, just repackaged, and with the same problems we already have discussed. I oppose the ambiguous references to "common name" and I don't understand the opposition to piping, which is a normal procedure in Wikipedia.  As for moving tennis articles, are you willing to promise, without exception, that you will follow the "controversial moves" procedures prescribed by WP:RM?  And are you willing to undo the move of the Qatar Telecom German Open (and associated articles) as a good faith measure?  Tennis expert (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. In saying "it would remove any need for piping", I wasn't opposing piping per se, just raising the point that it's easier to edit when you don't have to pipe than when you do. 2. Yes, I am promising to follow the "controversial moves" procedure from this point onwards if you are. 3. No, I am not, as Talk:German Open (tennis) shows it's 3 to 1 against moving it back. Thus, it would breach the "controversial moves" procedure to move it back (and further, even if I did switch my vote it'd still be 2-2 and so no consensus, hence, it's out of my hands).
 * Now, are you against this proposal? I think it is very reasonable, as surely by the logic you have been applying thus far, you would also see the tournament articles moved, and I am simply deferring the decision to the location of those articles, with the decision to be made on a case by case basis - rst20xx (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sorry that this is response is out of date/time order, but putting it here seemed to make more sense given that you specifically asked me a question.) Of course I'm against your ambiguous proposal, Rst20xx, for the reasons I've already given.  And you are perfectly free to propose moving back the Qatar Telecom German Open articles, based on changed circumstances or whatever other reason you would like to give.  Your refusal to even propose it is telling, in my opinion.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not free to lie and say it shouldn't have been moved, both due to my conscience, and also as any proposed move back would have to go through the controversial moves procedure, and like last time it would fail. I cannot believe that you are proposing I try to undermine the system in such a manner. And I don't see how proposing that there is no piping is ambiguous, but I feel that you are not going to change your mind on this so I shan't try to explain it to you any more - rst20xx (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that you lie, and to infer that I said anything of the kind is disingenuous, just like your repeated misstatements and mischaracterizations of facts in this discussion. I'm suggesting that you try to undo the damage that you initiated.  Obviously, if you don't try, it won't happen.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And eqaully obviously, as I was in favour of the move in the first place, so if I were to do this move back, it would involve me lying - rst20xx (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd hate to go down the same road that the French Wiki did (I sure do mention them alot) with their tournament naming. Everything is at sponsorless names like "Miami Open", "Amelia Island Tournament", "Indian Wells Open".  I think this just creates more problems than it solves (try to figure out, at a glance, which Tokyo tournament is which).  If we do go towards a naming scheme that uses names like these, it kinda removes the need for any separate tournament name column; "Indian Wells Open" would always be next to "Indian Wells, U.S.". --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal didn't suggest doing that, it suggested deferring the decision to the location of the articles! rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also no offence but that's slightly misleading. A slight clarification: They call them Masters for the men's - rst20xx (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to mislead anyone. I picked the women's tournaments because there were more of them.  They use separate pages for men's and women's events, even if they're combined.  IW and Miami could just as easily be "Masters" here, but I think you get my drift - the non-sponsored names there often have little to do with the actual tournament names and, in my experience trying to navigate those pages, only serve to make things more confusing, especially when more than one tournament has been in they city.


 * I guess I don't really understand what your proposal is. If the articles are at names like "Indian Wells Masters" and "Los Angeles Classic", the table would look like:

...or if using the two-column format:
 * Correct me if I'm wrong; that's how I interpret it. It just seems repetitive to me, and since we aren't referring to the city, but to the tournament, do we even need to link to the city/country? --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well take the Masters case in your table. How is that any different than using the non-sponsored name there, something you were earlier supporting? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your problem is more with their being a separate link for the tournament from the location, and the repetition that results from this. But I think the repetition that results is more visual than actual because the links go to different places - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A case-by-case evaluation based purely on predominance of usage in reliable sources is exactly what I and all our naming policies support. The predominant name should be chosen whether it contains a sponsor name or not. Knepflerle (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO, WP:COMMONNAME would seem to support using just the city. When talking about a tournament, I rarely find myself saying "He did well last year at the Western & Southern Financial Group Masters", or even "He did well in the Cincinnati Masters", but most often "He did well at Cincinnati".  Obviously we can't use just the city name as the article's title, but we could add some necessary identifier, like "ATP Cincinnati", "WTA Charleston", etc.  I would favor doing all the tournaments a similar way to keep things consistent and less confusing.  I'm envisioning 150 different arguments discussions on each article's talk page going on all at once.--Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dutch wiki did something similar. See this archived discussion. —M.C. (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Like another editor who already has posted here, when thinking of or talking about a tournament, I use the official sponsored name. That is the "commonname" to me.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the common name is the one predominantly used in a range of sources. As far as WP is concerned, the common name is not merely name which comes first to one particular editor's mind.   WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAME explain this unambiguously. Knepflerle (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to restate my proposal because I think it's got a bit muddled above. It's basically that the tables should in theory use the common name, and the articles should in theory be located at the common name, therefore the tables should be the same as the article location. And if anyone disagrees with any article location, because they think it's not at the common name, then they can request the article be moved through the usual WP:RM controversial moves process, and if the move is carried out, the tables can be updated to reflect the new article location. (Correct me if I'm wrong but) I think Spyder_Monkey finds for himself that the common name for most tournaments would just be its geographic location, but I think others disagree. As Tennis expert says, he sees the common name as the official sponsored name. I myself see it as the non-sponsored name, where one exists, and the sponsored name were there isn't one, and this isn't always just the location (at the very least, it would include "Cup", or "Open", or "Masters", or "Championship" or something) - rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposal. Do it article by article, without any unneeded a priori notions of what the common name should or should not contain.  Common usage is varied and inconsistent with regards to sponsors and other matters, and the naming will reflect this per WP:NAME. Knepflerle (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And what exactly would you do with a tournament that does not have a non-sponsored name but that has gone through many sponsored name changes over the last 37 years? This is the ultimate flaw in your proposal.  It is historically accurate for the tables to reflect the name of the tournament at the time it was actually held, with piping to one (and only one) Wikipedia article about that tournament for the last 37 years.  This would be supplemented with a separate "tournament location" column in the tables to allow readers to sort by location (which has not changed) if they get confused by the tournament names (despite the uniform piping).  This is a simple proposal and far less complex than the singles performance timelines that are virtually impossible for inexperienced editors to edit correctly.  Those timelines get more complicated by the week, and arguments against increasing complexity based on editing difficulty or error frequency were rejected in that context and should be rejected here.  Tennis expert (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such problem. You use the most common name for the time-period in question.  Still no a priori assumptions about sponsors' names are required.  This is exactly the same as any other subject in Wikipedia where the naming has changed over time.  There is nothing special or distinguishing about tennis in this regard which means special rules running contrary to WP:NAME are required. Knepflerle (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, exactly - rst20xx (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Knepflerle. The women's tennis tournament in Los Angeles started in 1971 and has morphed through several name changes.  The most common name of that tournament in each year of the last 37 years is the official sponsored name of that tournament at the time it was held: Billie Jean Invitational, Virginia Slims of Los Angeles, Avon Championships of Los Angeles, Virginia Slims of Los Angeles (second time), Acura Classic, estyle.com Classic, JP Morgan Chase Open, and finally East West Bank Classic.  The results tables should reflect these common names.  As for the name of the one-and-only Wikipedia article concerning this tournament, that is something for interested editors to agree upon through normal consensus-making processes.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. Would anyone apart from Tennis expert have any problems if we declare this consensus that: If so, we can move on to other things, such as whether there should be a separate location column - rst20xx (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) articles should be positioned as per WP:COMMONNAME
 * 2) no piping should be used in tables, as WP:COMMONNAME should apply here, too


 * I would. For (1), I think we need consistency more than anything.  If each tournament is decided on its own, we're probably going to end up with a mish-mash of sponsored names, tournament names with the sponsor removed, names that closely resemble the tournament name, and maybe even something else.  It would just be a mess to try and navigate.  Further, I can envision 150 discussions similar to this one spread out across as many talk pages.
 * As for (2), I still don't see the need for having the tournament name in addition to the city, particularly if we go with some common name. It just seems too repetitive to me. But, if I'm alone on that point, I'll let it go.  Also, let me make my position on sponsored names clear: I don't think they should be used in the player bios (it doesn't make any difference who sponsored the tournament that that player won), but I do think the should go in the results tables of the tournament articles (as on the French Wiki), regardless of what the article is ultimately named. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But don't you see? (1) is Wikipedia policy, so we don't really have much choice in it, and with a few exceptions it's actually already implemented now! As far as I see it, this is effectively the same as the non-sponsored proposal, the results will be the same, the proposal is just reformulated to remove any inherent bias against sponsored names, i.e. it makes it clearer that where there is no non-sponsored name, the sponsored one is used. Arg, holding up the whole damn thing - rst20xx (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How does my proposal for consistency go against WP:COMMONNAME? Where in COMMONNAME does it state that each article in a series must be discussed separately?  Why do you not think we should strive for consistency?  And, I am terribly sorry about expressing my opinion and making you miss your deadline. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 01:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if we follow WP:COMMONNAME on each article, then there won't necessarily be consistency, will there? So consistency clearly goes against WP:COMMONNAME - rst20xx (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I guess my opinions don't count after all.... There is no consensus, Rst20xx, for your very ambiguous proposal that could have severe unforeseen consequences, as can plainly be seen by re-reading everyone's contributions to this discussion. By the way, I would still like to hear your solution to the naming of the Wikipedia article concerning the women's tennis tournament in Los Angeles. Tennis expert (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * East West Bank Classic for the main article, as it is the common name for the tournament at this time. The individual year articles should use the name that year - rst20xx (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved this article from "German Open (tennis)" to "Qatar Telecom German Open" to ensure consistent naming of articles relating to this women's tennis tournament, including the year-specific articles such as "2007 Qatar Telecom German Open". I specifically requested that any move back of this article be discussed first. However, Rst20xx reversed the move without discussion and said in his edit summary, "Please discuss such moves, instead of engaging in provocative behaviour". He also posted an incivil message on my discussion page, ridiculously accusing me of stalking him and "making edits you know I clearly am going to oppose" in violation of WP:OWN.

The fact of the matter is that this tennis tournament is now officially known as the "Qatar Telecom German Open" and Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia, should reflect that undeniable fact. Tennis expert (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a blatant fabrication of the sequence of events. Look back through the move history of this page, as well as 2007 German Open (tennis), 2008 German Open (tennis), 2007 German Open - Singles, 2008 German Open - Singles and 2008 German Open - Doubles. As you will see, there was a mixture in the location of the pages, some being at "German Open" and some being at "Qatar Telecom German Open". Hence, I moved the pages which were at "Qatar Telecom German Open" to be at "German Open" or "German Open (tennis)" (as appropriate). I thought these moves would be uncontroversial, as having sponsorship names in tennis articles is far from standard practise. Now, this occurred whilst there is a debate between Tennis expert and others (myself included) happening over at WP:Tennis along broadly similar lines (though not to do with this specifically). Hence, my accusing him of stalking me; he looked at my contributions, saw the moves, undid them, and made a couple of other changes while he was at it that I didn't even make in the first place. I then undid the moves myself and requested him to discuss it here. I don't see how what I did violates WP:OWN, it's the fact that Tennis expert was making these moves when he must have known that I'd oppose them if they were made unilaterally that I was objecting to, which violates the procedure at WP:RM.
 * Anyway, I refuse to discuss how this vote came to be any further as I've had my say, and I hope people will vote for what they think would be best, not because of how this vote came to be - rst20xx (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The "fabrications" (and assumptions) are all yours. Take responsibility for them.  And your utter failure to WP:AGF, not only here but in your incivility on my discussion page, is breathtaking.  By the way, this is not a vote.  See WP:POLLS.  Tennis expert (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Rst20xx's move of this article from "Qatar Telecom German Open" to "German Open (tennis)" was contrary to the clear consensus for naming Wikipedia's articles concerning women's tennis tournaments. He moved the article in violation of that consensus, and his allegation that "having sponsorship names in tennis articles is far from standard practise" is false.  The consensus is that Wikipedia articles concerning those tournaments include the sponsor's name.  See, for example, the following articles: List of women's tennis tournaments, Toray Pan Pacific Open, (a Tier I event), Family Circle Cup (a Tier I event), Kremlin Cup (a Tier I event), Qatar Total Open (a Tier I event), Open Gaz de France, ASB Classic, Abierto Mexicano Telcel, Acura Classic, Advanta Championships Philadelphia, Ameritech Cup Chicago, Bank of the West Classic, Barcelona Kia, Bausch & Lomb Championships, Bell Challenge, Boodles Challenge, Cachantún Cup, Commonwealth Bank Tennis Classic, DFS Classic, Dreamland Egypt Classic, ECM Prague Open, Fortis Championships Luxembourg, Gaz de France Stars, Generali Ladies Linz, Grand Prix SAR La Princesse Lalla Meryem, Hansol Korea Open Tennis Championships, JB Group Classic, J&S Cup, Lion's Cup, Mondial Australian Women's Hardcourts, Moorilla Hobart International, Ordina Open, Pilot Pen Tennis, Porsche Tennis Grand Prix, PTT Bangkok Open, Sunfeast Open, Toyota Princess Cup, 2008 Bank of the West Classic, 2008 Banka Koper Slovenia Open, Regions Morgan Keegan Championships and the Cellular South Cup, Virginia Slims of Albuquerque, Virginia Slims of Nashville, 2008 East West Bank Classic, 2007 East West Bank Classic, 2008 Family Circle Cup, 2007 Family Circle Cup, 2008 Family Circle Cup - Doubles, 2008 Family Circle Cup - Singles, 2007 Family Circle Cup - Doubles, 2007 Family Circle Cup - Singles, 2007 Kremlin Cup, 2008 Medibank International, 2008 Medibank International - Women's Doubles, 2008 Medibank International - Women's Singles, 2008 Qatar Total Open, 2008 Qatar Total Open - Singles, 2008 Qatar Total Open - Doubles, 2008 Nordea Nordic Light Open, 2007 Nordea Nordic Light Open, 2008 Nordea Nordic Light Open - Singles, 2008 Nordea Nordic Light Open - Doubles, Proximus Diamond Games, 2007 Proximus Diamond Games, 2008 Proximus Diamond Games, 2008 Proximus Diamond Games - Singles, 2008 Proximus Diamond Games - Doubles, 2007 Toray Pan Pacific Open, 2008 Open Gaz de France, 2008 Open Gaz de France - Doubles, 2008 Open Gaz de France - Singles, 2007 Open Gaz de France, 2007 Mirage Cup.  Tennis expert (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me point out that there are hundreds of tennis tournaments. Most can be found in Category:ATP Tour and Category:WTA Tour. The fact that you pulled out 33 (and bizarrely their associated year and draw articles), many of which have no clear non-sponsor name, does not demonstrate that the sponsor name position is common - rst20xx (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) More false and unconstructive statements from Rst20xx. There are not "hundreds" of women's tennis tournaments.  Exaggeration gets us no where fast.  (2) Every article I cited above (and there are many more of them) is a separate article, including the draw articles like 2008 Family Circle Cup - Singles.  Therefore, every article I cited counts as part of the preexisting Wikipedia consensus that RST20xx so blatantly and bizarrely ignored.  (3) I have no idea what he means by "many of which have no clear non-sponsor name".  There is "no clear non-sponsor name" for the Qatar Telecom German Open, which is the subject of this very discussion.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Booting up AutoWikiBrowser and filtering out the individual events (e.g. 2008 German Open (tennis) and 2008 German Open - Singles), leaving just the tournaments (e.g. German Open (tennis)), tells me that there are in fact 98. So OK, not hundreds, but a 2 to 1 majority. And German Open does have a clear non-sponsored name, look at the history of the sponsored names, here. Anyway, this is going in circles, so I will say no more on the matter - rst20xx (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you would filter out the individual event articles on Wikipedia, i.e., ignore them, because they do not support your position. That's part of your strategy here.  But those articles are part of Wikipedia consensus just like any other article.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay then, I know I said I wouldn't reply any more, but let's do this once more, and then this is truly it from me: To include the individual tourney/event articles, you list 66 sponsored ones above. There are 1605 articles of this type in total, or excluding the Grand Slams, 433. 66/433 = 1 in 6.5 - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I made no attempt to list them all. That's what "See, for example" means.  The fact remains that you moved these articles without bothering to obtain consensus ahead of time.  And when you were reverted, you moved them a second time and provided unconstructive and borderline incivil edit summaries (plus the incivil post on my talk page).  I'm sure you've heard of WP:BRD.  But you forgot step 3, namely "discuss".  Tennis expert (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Oppose. The official name is not important unless it's also the common name. Just because Qatar Telecom bought naming rights doesn't mean we have to use it as an article title. German Open is more consistent over time, more likely to be searched for, and is used by Reuters, the BBC, the N.Y. Times, AFP, and Xinhua. It's also consistent with German Open (badminton) and German Open (snooker), which do not use their current sponsored names as article titles. Station1 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * News media that use "Qatar Telecom German Open", for example: Washington Post, Xinhua, TimesOnline (London), Associated Press, Gulf Times (Doha), Yahoo Sports, Sky Sports, Tennis Week, USA Today, FOX Sports, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Tennismag.com (Australia), On The Baseline, ESPN, IOL (South Africa), Tennis-X.com. Tennis expert (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Last time you cited a list of websites using sponsorship names, I cited every single one of them back to you using non-sponsorship names. We've been through this before Tennis expert, and I'm not going to do it again - rst20xx (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With the exception of Xinhua (which uses both forms), Tennis Week, and Gulf Times, these all appear to be schedules or lists of various types, not articles - fwiw. Station1 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, what's the point? Schedules or lists are published according to each news media outlet's style guide just like articles.  Tennis expert (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A minor point. But I give more weight to a news article written by a professional reporter and reviewed by one or more editors at the NY Times than to a press release reposted on On The Baseline or something off the wires on YahooSports. Station1 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. This is merely a sponsorship deal. It's a classic case of one of the reasons naming conventions doesn't give much weight to official names. News sources do seem to use official names, this seems to be the convention (and I've some theories as to why they do this but perhaps now is not the time to describe them). That doesn't mean that other English speakers will follow this convention. Andrewa (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above reasons - rst20xx (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
It's curious logic to request any reversion should be discussed, and to then unilaterally move the article. Controversial moves should of course be listed at WP:RM. To do a unilateral move in the hope that there will then be no consensus to revert it, and that as a result a move that would have failed to get consensus if listed would succeed would be gaming the system, and I think we should take a dim view of it. But hopefully that's not what was intended here. And of course in any case it wouldn't be any excuse for other infringements of behavioral guidelines alleged above. All a bit disappointing. Andrewa (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the move histories and discussion pages of 2007 German Open (tennis), 2008 German Open (tennis), 2007 German Open - Singles, 2008 German Open - Singles, and 2008 German Open - Doubles. You'll see that Rst20xx moved all of them without prior notice and without prior discussion when any reasonable person would have know that those moves had controversy written all over them, especially for someone like Rst20xx who has been involved in the WP:RM process in the past.  When I moved them back and requested discussion of any third moves, Rst20xx just moved them back to what he, alone, wanted and left unconstructive, uncooperative, and borderline incivil edit summaries scattered all about (and an incivil message on my discussion page).  It was only after I reversed Rst20xx's initial moves that I noticed this particular article had inconsistent naming versus the other Qatar Telecom German Open articles.  That's why I moved it (and it alone).  Tennis expert (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree that the edit summaries Please discuss such moves, instead of engaging in provocative behaviour and Moving it in line with the other articles; please initiate the discussion yourself if you disagree weren't ideal, but I think there's fault on both sides frankly. It was developing into a classic edit war, and I do give you credit for bringing it here rather than continuing with it. Andrewa (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2008 (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.

A new issue
First off, I don't know why the persistence on the sponsor name with no strong reasons, but here is a new issue, the sponsor names like: Mutua Madrileña Masters Madrid and Internazionali BNL d'Italia are not English names, I cannot even pronounce them, and that is for sure against some policy of the English Wikipedia and I guess from all my posts my English level is clearly not weak and yet English is not my mother tongue

We need a poll of 4 simple choices, not about the table format, but about the information it self
 * Sponsor alone
 * Non sponsor alone
 * Both names

...and some how we decicide on the location column (which is extra useless information) Yosef1987 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, those are not the only options. We don't have to pick unsponsored for all or sponsored for all - we can just pick the more common of the two for each article individually.  Which incidentally is exactly what WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME say we should do.  Quite fortunate really.  Considerations of ease of spelling or pronunciation don't come into it. The articles on Jászfelsőszentgyörgy and Chkhorotsqu are in exactly the right place; those are their names, and sometimes names are hard for speakers of other languages. Knepflerle (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ATP Uses "Common" City Name in Tables
The ATP site itself uses the City Names to refer to tournaments in tables: [Andy Murray's Ranking Breakdown Page at ATP Site] ShabbatSam (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we should use the non-sponsored name since many people watching tennis, including me, don't know who is sponsoring the tournament. Also, if the tournament is sponsored by a group, then they should be acknowleged in the commercials or even on the court itself (like the Australian Open (Garnier is one of the sponsored groups)) If anyone has more say to having the sponsored name on our tables, then we will need to find a way to communicate which tournament that one is since most people, if you say "Internazionali BNL d'Italia", they won't think "Rome Masters". Heck, I didn't even know that the tournament was even sponsored. The sponsored name will only confuse people. Hurricane06 (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

tennis_expert keeps doing the same with anonymous IPs
This time, he's using 75.34.102.227

I am tired of the "Key Biscane, Florida" instead of Miami, like it should be, so I'm going to take out the key biscane for all the articles related to the Miami master series. I know they're like a hundred or even more, but they are going to be changed, even with tennisexpert reverting continuously. Korlzor (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As we've discussed about 50 times already, Korlzor/Wikitestor, the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida, not in Miami. That is a verifiable fact.  See, for example, this.  Aside from the location of the tournament, the women's event has never been a "masters" event.  Never.  And don't edit war about these issues.  Wikitestor has been blocked indefinitely for abuse of editing privileges.  Your sockmaster account, Korlzor, could be next if you persist in being disruptive.  That account already was blocked for 12 days and then 1 month in October 2008. Tennis expert (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The tournament is called "Miami Masters" on both ATP/WTA and shortly it's called Miami, and it will be on Wikipedia. You both are the only ones defending the KB,F spam. We are taking it out. Btw, weren't you supposed to be retired? Korlzor (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kolzor/Wikitesor/Numerous anon IPs: Your attitude is very disturbing - your blind and threatening behavior is very damaging for Wikipedia. You have been evading blocks as much as you could, so don't throw around accusaitons. Let it rest, for gods sake.--HJensen, talk 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * haha sure, the one that "because he wanted to" started to delete the grand slam and ms tables, on his own. Not even paying attention. Korlzor (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Where did I say "because I wanted to"? Your attitude is exceptionally hostile, and very unhelpful. What do you actually mean by "Not even paying attention"? --HJensen, talk 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And for 100th time, the Key Biscayne spam war starts again
Now the 2009 season will start, tables are being changed and Key Biscayne is starting to being spammed replacing Miami again.

So we are going to have the 100th Anti Key Byscaine Spam war. I don't give a shit what are u going to say TE, It's just I dont care where it is hold. It's called Miami. DOT.

Korlzor (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to all involved parties: Korlzor has been blocked for one month for hypocrisy (accusing Tennis expert of using IPs to edit war when he's been proven to have done the same), unnecessary hostility, incivility, and edit warring. Thanks. Glass  Cobra  17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call. While Tennis Expert can be difficult to "dance with", he/she never resorts to the direct obscene incivility that Korlzor uses. It highly depreciates the value of his/her input 8 also the repeated use of IPs like this). As for the subject my stand is:
 * The physical location of the tounament is Key Biscayne, not Miami. However, even the tournament uses Miami as the postal address on its |official web site. So I guess it is one of these occasions where a suburb hosts a turnament, but one uses the large city (like Copenhagen Open which was held in Frederiksberg). But I was told on Tennis Experts talk page that my source was wrong (see here, which, by the way, is a censored version of the full debate).--HJensen, talk 18:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And as HJensen points out, this is true for the many tournaments which bear the name of a nearby city, rather than that of their actual locations : Copenhagen was played in Frederiksberg, Estoril is played in Oeiras, 's-Hertogenbosch is played in Rosmalen, Cincinnati is played in Mason, Monte Carlo is played in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, etc... --Oxford St. (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite his/her incivility, Korlzor has a point (say, half a point). The tournament's name is indeed Miami, since 2000. This can be seen on the ATP calendars (here) or on the ITF website (choose you start/end dates and search for Miami here). But the tournament of course takes place in Key Biscayne, as Tennis expert points out. So, using Miami or Key Biscayne depends on the context. You can say that Davydenko won Miami, or that he won in Key Biscayne, but saying he won Key Biscayne is as wrong as to say he won in Miami. Am I obscure here or is it understandable ? Miami is played in Key Biscayne. So Tennis expert is wrong to write Key Biscayne in the performance timelines, where you have only the tournaments' names (US Open, etc...) and not their locations, but Korlzor is wrong to replace Key Biscayne by Miami in the course of the text (as he/she has done here on Roger Federer), where it's perfectly alright to say Davydenko/Nadal or Federer played in Key Biscayne.


 * I couldn't have expressed this better myself. Excellent summary! --HJensen, talk 12:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that was kinda true. My problem is not seeing Key Biscayne on the prose, but the SPONSORED TOURNAMENT NAME. Anyways, the problem is also that if someone new to tennis reads the article, if he does read "He won in Key Biscayne, Florida", he won't have any idea about what tournament are we talking about. If he does read "He won The Miami MS", he will clearly know what tournament is is.62.57.197.191 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the tournament is the "Sony Ericsson Open", not the "Miami Masters". So, it's not valid to argue that "Miami Masters" is the name of the tournament and the tournament is held in Key Biscayne. This encyclopedia is concerned with verifiable facts, not with marketing strategies. Fact #1 is that the tournament is held in a tennis complex in Key Biscayne, Florida, a separate city from Miami. Fact #2 is that the name of the tournament is the Sony Ericsson Open. As for the Kolzor sockpuppet's argument, Key Biscayne creates no ambiguity for our readers given the links we provide. Tennis expert (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder why u ever change Miami for Key Biscayne but never change Cincinnati for Mason. Do you live in Key Biscayne actually? 62.57.212.67 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you partially on a technical level Tennis expert, you have to consider the fact that to a general reader this sort of technicality can cause confusion. And if we decide to follow your example and decide to point out actual locations of the tournaments as shown by Oxford St., this would only increase the confusion of the reader. The whole point of writing an article is that the reader should have an instant understanding of the type and location of the tournament.
 * And 62.57.212.67, please refrain from making personal attacks. If you are incapable of continuing discussion assuming good faith, please do not contribute to the discussion. Leave  Sleaves  05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that our general readers are important but not so important that this encyclopedia should include factual errors. As for Oxford St.'s list of alleged factual errors, those should be fixed, too, if they really are errors.  Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest, 62.57.212.67, that you immediately stop using sockpuppets to evade the 1 month block that was imposed on you lest the block be extended. See this block and this extensive list of Korlzor suspected sockpuppets.  Tennis expert (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, now we need a solution that is both technically correct and at the same time understanding. Now Key Biscayne is a village near Miami that very few people have heard of. So I guess what we can do is add both when using it in the prose description. However when using in tables etc., we use only Miami, as this gives a clear idea to the reader of general location of the tournament. I guess this same rule can be applied to other similar cases as well, where the actual town/village of the tournament is not well known. I know that this description may not be geographically precise (e.g. Key Biscayne isn't exactly party of Miami city), but I think that it would be sufficient compromise that would achieve both our goals. Leave  Sleaves  06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LeaveSleaves, nice attempt but TennisExpert isn't a person that actually reads and makes any peace with anyone, he considers that wikipedia is his duty, some articles like this one are owned by him and such... He NEVER asks to change anything, he comes in, changes it, and then reverts the whole people trying to put it back. He can even continuously break the 3RR rule, that he won't be banned (happened me twice, he reverted me, then I got banned and he just got a warning that he completely ignored..). It's pointless to argue with him, he is going to answer you "Wikipedia must have true information" and "Miami Masters is held on a complex on Key Biscayne,_Florida" (and the fun part is that he actually links to the Key Biscayne city into Key Biscayne (Key Biscayne,_Florida"), not to the Key Biscayne part where the tournament is held Key Biscayne).62.57.239.182 (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop IP hopping and once again, quit making personal attacks. Make a valid contribution if you can. As for me, I have an ability you can't seem to understand. Leave  Sleaves  06:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your premise, LeaveSleaves. Key Biscayne is a well-known city in Florida, and the tournament itself is often reported in the news media as occurring in Key Biscayne.  (See, for example, Bud Collins's 2008 tennis encyclopedia where he says the tournament occurs in Key Biscayne.)  And Key Biscayne is not connected with Miami in any way whatsoever.  They are entirely different legal entities.  As for using a mixture of Miami and Key Biscayne in articles, I believe that would be even more confusing to readers.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. Key Biscayne, Florida, at least as given in the Wikipedia article is a village, not a city, in Miami-Dade County. In fact it is located no farther than 20-30 miles from Miami city. And as I said earlier, I'm not claiming that my suggestion is geographically (or legally for that matter) precise. What I'm trying to do is reach a solution that would satisfy both technical necessities and necessity of an ordinary reader anywhere in the world who has minimum knowledge of US or Florida geography. To such a person Miami is definitely an easy pointer compared to Key Biscayne. To summarize, a description that looks like this: Key Biscayne, Miami.


 * In the United States, the name of a municipality (city or village or whatever) has no consequence. What is relevant is whether it is an incorporated entity.  Key Biscayne is, and it is not "in" Miami.  I am opposed to intentional imprecision in an encyclopedia.  That's OK, I suppose, for a commercial website like the ATP's or WTA's websites.  But not for Wikipedia.  Tennis expert (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd once again like you to consider that the reader is not necessarily familiar with the geography and municipality system of US. Our focus is not on defining the settlement which holds the tournament but to give the reader a general idea of its location. And I'm not asking for removing mention of Key Biscayne, but to club it with Miami. Or do you also disagree with the fact that Key Biscayne is part of Miami-Dade County? Leave  Sleaves  14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to combine Key Biscayne with Miami, then it must be combined with the official name of the county, which is not "Miami". And I disagree with your assumption about our focus.  This is an encyclopedia that needs to focus on facts.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may disagree, but the point on such a project is to get a global opinion of the situation (the so called consensus), and we just have to read the giant-discussion above about the sponsored vs non-sponsored articles, and to read this small one, to discover you are the only editor defending that, and thus you're forcing an entire community to be against you on such purposes. Keita24 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What about a new approach to listing the Masters tournaments that are factually correct: This would also avoid wikilinking to a redirect which is discouraged at FACs (as Key Biscayne does). Also, I don't understand the inconsistency of Tennis Expert: this edit uses different names for the Miami Masters. That is rather confusing. Well, I don't expect that any of this will be taken seriously, even it n>>1 support it and one doesn't. --HJensen, talk 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Current tournament name (XXX Masters)"; which in this particular case would lead to
 * "Sony Ericsson Open (Miami Masters)"
 * @Tennis expert- If you carefully notice my links above, I am linking it to Miami-Dade county in my links and only hiding it by piping it with Miami, which I believe is a valid move because Miami-Dade county is very commonly referred to as Miami as well. I fail to understand why you choose to put your personal preferences above understanding of a common reader. Leave  Sleaves  01:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your premise is incorrect. Why are you personally opposed to "Miami-Dade County"?  That's the official, factual, legal name of the county, not "Miami County".  Tennis expert (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've zero personal preference on the entire matter. I'm trying to reach a solution that is conducive on two levels as I have mentioned above. And please check the links carefully: Key Biscayne, Miami. I'm linking to Miami-Dade County in the second term. I'm only piping it with Miami, once again because Miami-Dade County is not a commonly known entity. I'm imploring you to show some level of compromise here and meet me halfway. The linking is factually and geographically correct. Only the appearance is slightly altered, and which is politically correct (no pun intended) by the way, to meet the second requirement. Leave  Sleaves  12:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have zero personal preference, then you shouldn't mind using the correct "Miami-Dade County" and not the incorrect "Miami County". I don't know why I have to continue saying this, but Wikipedia should reflect the true facts.  Key Biscayne is in "Miami-Dade County".  There is no such thing as "Miami County".  Therefore, piping to "Miami County" should not be done.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite my lack of preference, I have some sensitivity towards the common reader. And I'm not referring it to as "Miami County" but simply as "Miami", which is completely common way of referring to Miami-Dade County. And don't forget that this achieves the goal of pinpointing the location of the obscure Key Biscayne. What I don't understand is why you have excessive and compulsive insistence on geographical accuracy at this place where it is perfectly feasible to convey the information in the simplest way possible that satisfies our major concerns. Leave  Sleaves  20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about, HJensen? Tennis expert (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that was rather clear. But I will try again:
 * a) A new suggestion (to be used for all Masters Tournaments). OFFICIAL TOURNAMET NAME followed by its ATP MASTER SERIES NAME
 * b) Expressing a concern that in your edit you let "Miami Masters" be the name at some places, not at others (where you use Key Biscayne which is not the name).
 * c) Referring to a wikilinking issue. Using a link like Key Biscayne, as you have used in the Nadal article, is effectively a hidden link to a redirect, as "Sony Ericsson Open" is redirected to "Miami Masters". That is confusing the reader (and is not recommended by the MOS, see WP:EGG—and yes, I know it is a guideline not a policy; but I think guidelines should be ignored for very good reasons).
 * d) I end by anticipating that my input will not be taken seriously. --HJensen, talk 13:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know I should probably wait for Tennis expert's response, but I can't help but say this. While you (Tennis expert) are continually asking me to remain factual and legal, I am appalled to notice that you are circumventing clear cut guidelines to suit your personal judgments and whims. Leave  Sleaves  14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should have waited, LeaveSleaves. I still have no idea what you are talking about, HJensen.  Post a diff of an edit I've made to make yourself clear to me.  If you don't like Key Biscayne, Florida, then I suggest tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida.  That should solve your easter egg guideline concern.  By the way, none of the following is an "ATP MASTERS SERIES NAME" of a tournament: Miami, Miami-Dade County, Miami County.  So, again, I have no idea what you're talking about.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I partially retract my comments. But I'd like to point out that your solution does not fit EGG. You are using redirect as a the main link, a usage which is discouraged. Leave  Sleaves  20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Retract further. Looks like I misread things. Leave  Sleaves  20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did provide a link to your edit I commented on. If you don't understand this and the rest I have stated twice, I am sorry. I don't want to repeat myself again. If anybody else wants to comment on my suggestion they are more than welcome. (Why "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" should solve an Easter egg concern is beyond me - the reader is led to the "Miami Masters" article - but you need not respond.) --HJensen, talk 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't. You provided a link to a previous version of the article, not to the diff of an edit I made.  I can't see what edit of mine you're objecting to without seeing the exact diff of that edit.  But if you don't want to clarify your objection, you of course don't have to.  As for the easter egg problem, the "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" is the tournament described in the "Miami Masters" article; therefore, problem solved.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It is still an easter egg. And do you seriously suggest to introduce "tournament in Key Biscayne, Florida" in the performance timeline tables? If so, I would object (not that I think my opinion matters).--HJensen, talk 07:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

At least could we stop making such changes while we are discussing this? I mean, suddently, Tennis expert changed the tournaments name on Novak Djokovic to sponsored style again (this edit)). We are not reaching anything this way. Keita24 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It "is" Miami...ATP says so
Just joined you guys, the tournament is in Key Biscane, okay, but it is called Miami 1000/Masters, this is what the ATP calls it and this is what the TV shows, and the commentators say (official ATP English audio), someone please fill me in with the update and the summary of the discussion, from what I understand from the Wikipedia rules, the following is needed, a reference, and consensus, and of course no socket-puppets. From the ATP tournament profile, "Sony Ericsson Open | ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A. | March 25 - April 5, 2009"

Key Biscayne is an island located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, United States, may be that's the reason behind the ATP calling it Miami, that could be a reason, but we need to stick to sources, stick to the ATP please. (The county seat is the City of Miami.)

Also from the ATP website: Rafael Nadal, who is coming off his 13th ATP World Tour Masters 1000 title at the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, looks to win his first title at the Sony Ericsson Open. The two-time Miami finalist is looking to become the sixth different player (since 1991) to accomplish the Indian Wells-Miami title sweep.

The bold to show my point, no shouting here what so ever, make Wikipedia better and please stop the wars.

And lastly, from here: ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A. | Sony Ericsson Open | ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Yosef1987 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. Having watched tennis for about a year now and getting familiar with all the tournament names I have noticed that the official tournament name and the masters series event names differ. The name that should be used is Miami since it is the Masters event name and that is what should be listed in players' statistical table under the heading of Tournament. For the 5th day now i have watched the Miami Masters on tv here in Africa and never once have i heard them mention Key Biscayne as the tournament name.


 * Therefore i think all players profiles should list Miami instead of Key Biscayne as i have noticed this error in Nadal, Federer and Sampras' pages just to name a few I have checked for. Saviour73 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree. I do think this should apply only to the men's events and not the womens though. It seems to me to a common usgae issue, and the ATP has successfully pushed the idea of the 'Masters' series of events, whereas there is no such equivalent (i.e. no one talks about the 'prestigous Tier I series'). The Masters Series (ATP) events should be referred to by their common usage name (the name that the ATP uses and that the general public knows them by) and the WTA should use the general, current sponsor name (as no overriding 'Series' identity exists).


 * I do think though that commo usage applies to the women's events in terms of location, i.e. Miami, not Key Biscayne. This reflects both common usage, and a consistency with the men's events which seems generally preferable. Alonsornunez Comments 15:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who believes that this tournament is being held in Miami instead of Key Biscayne is just plain wrong. We have discussed this several times before, and it is a fact that the tournament is located in Key Biscayne.  As for what the news media is reporting, do a Google search and you will find that much of the media is reporting the correct location.  See, e.g. this.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should be factual, not reflect some marketing gurus who want to mislead people into thinking that the tournament is in downtown Miami or something.  Tennis expert (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear TE, I agree with the correct location, but there is a tournament name we need to stick with, that's all, mention the location in the tournament page, that would be stating a fact, but not forcing a new tournament name (we need to contact the ATP for that). Would you rename this article's name: Miami Masters? Yosef1987 (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your argument is specious. The tournament name is Sony Ericsson Open, and if we had any common sense, the name of the Wikipedia article would be that, too.  Tennis expert (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd have to disagree, because sponsors change, now BNP Paribas has what? 2 tournaments in 2009? Irrelevant here. It is not a matter of common sense sir. Official non-sponsor names, wasn't a hard find. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yosef1987 here, and it seems clear to me that Key Biscayne is, in common usage, considered a part of Miami; if I'm not mistaken it is considered a part of the 'Miami metropolitan area'. Additionally, we need to go with references and sources and those clearly favor Miami. Just look around. Alonsornunez Comments 03:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Inaccuracy doesn't help anyone, Yosef1987. There is the BNP Paribas Masters in Paris and the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, California.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wherever KB is located, it is not the point, we have an official name (besides the ever changing sponsor name) that we need to stick to, cannot be a simpler option, if I may say something, with all my respect to all the wonderful editors here, those edits made without consensus and by a mere personal opinion, I consider it a destructive editing. To change a tournament name we'd need to contact the ATP for that. Again I mean the best for Wiki. And I hope we reach somewhere soon, because this really cannot be serious, for a second I thought maybe it was an April's fool joke. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the note below the table on this page, and I am sure there are more examples, it has nothing to do with a location, they don't hate KB, but they've chosen an official name for it, and that is a verifiable reference, as well as it IS played in KB, but we are talking about the tournament and not the place, a player wins Miami Masters and not KB Masters. I really didn't add anything new here, just confirming my point of just pointing out the real location only in the tournament's article itself. Yosef1987 (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents please
Having just watched the QF between Fed and Rod, on the back of the court, where it says 2 big "Sony Ericsson", below it near the ground it says Miami all over the place

If there is a tournament in Cairo, Egypt and ATP decided to call it New York City Masters, for the encyclopedic entry, it would be named NYC masters, but it'd mention in the tournament's article that it is played in Cairo. I don't see Key Biscayne mentioned in the Miami Masters article (would you rename the article?); what I am saying is, mention it in the article's page, and that's it. And for what it's worth, Key Biscayne's county seat is the city of Miami. Stick to the official tournament names for an encyclopedia's sake. Now whoever is making those edits, would you please let me know in a clear fashion where I went wrong? And those who support/would like to add something, please do. Thank you! Yosef1987 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Added bolds, is not shouting, sticking out the points only. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to do it right please
Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute. Other dispute resolution mechanisms include mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration.

From what I know, stick with references, from governing bodies, official names exist besides the sponsors, as mentioned a bit above. Yosef1987 (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding a link to another Miami reference, this one from noted journalist Peter Bodo. Alonsornunez Comments 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now what?
If this is going no where for now, I'd suggest reverting the edits made, because clearly a consensus has been reached(???), and I doubt(???) we'd need a poll for such a thing.


 * The case is not only with Miami Masters, but as demonstrated, with others
 * There is an official tournament name (other than the ever changing sponsor name) that we need to stick to, as demonstrated
 * The correct location must be added to the tournaments' articles, that's for sure, and TE helped point out that
 * From now on, as the rules say, we should discuss first before starting an edit-war
 * Let's get to somewhere please quickly Yosef1987 (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't ask any questions, which is apparently why you received no responses. In any event, the official name of the tournament according to the Association of Tennis Professionals is the "Sony Ericsson Open".  You linked to a webpage that merely provides a series of links based on tournament location, not based on tournament name.  No where does that page say "Miami Masters".  Also, the official ATP tournament calendar says "Sony Ericsson Open", not "Miami Masters".  Tennis expert (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have asked for your input in the "Alone" section, anyway, the "calender", C&P: ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, the bold to show what was click-able, before FL, USA. Let's please not argue that there is only sponsors' names. Also where is Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin (Monte-Carlo :)) and all the others. Also there is a drop down menu for the tournaments on the ATP website, check the naming.


 * To sum up, it IS played in KB, okay, but the ATP chose to call it Miami Masters (de facto) and (who ever sponsors) 2009, same for most of the tournaments, in the singles performance time-line tables, the column reads Tournament and not Location, and we cannot use a sponsor's name because by common sense they change every other year. What we would and should do, is mention Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin and all the others in the tournament's articles, waiting for your feedback. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ""Edit: The section is called "Now What?", and I got no response; until a consensus is met, all edits should be reverted, and if I am wrong, please let me know, because we cannot war and talk, and I, myself, don't war nor play games. Yosef1987 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) Encouraging others to edit war is disruptive and could get you blocked. Don't go down that path.  (2) I have already demonstrated that the ATP did not choose to call this tournament the "Miami Masters".  Why do you not understand what's specifically written on the ATP website?  (3) The fact that the tournament sponsors change periodically is inconvenient but irrelevant.  (4) I have no objection to your changing any tennis tournament article to reflect the true location of the tournament.  In fact, I encourage you to do so because the change would reflect the factual basis of this encyclopedia.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Encouraging others to edit war??????? Me?!!!! Yosef1987 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alone
Am I the only one on this? I have changed it on Nadal's page, TE changed it back, without saying anything here. Please TE when you get here, the simple 4 points above, I need a direct reply to each one, thank you. Yosef1987 (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are not alone in this. It seems to me that Mr. Expert is unwilling to budge on this, and that we should proceed with a rough consensus (dating back to January as seen above). I think that this is easily solved by modifying all Key Biscayne references to Miami, is as commmon usage among most tennis articles and the tours themselves, and include a note on the article page (which is already called 'Miami Masters'!) stating something along the lines of '...is played in Key Biscayne, a small village so-and-so miles off the coast of Miami'


 * This solution is also easily applied to the various tournaments at which it is applicable. Alonsornunez Comments 13:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just checked the articles of the top 20 players in the world and all have been nicely changed to Miami Masters with all other masters series events using the word "Masters". This is the way it should stay. I have also become involved in the mediation for the Miami Masters. Saviour73 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Miami Masters
<div class="plainlinks" style="margin: 2px;text-align: right; font-size: 75%; width: 21%; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; float: right; padding: 4px;">request links: view edit delete watch

Filed: 13:29, April 4 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party
 * : you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.
 * : you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.
 * : you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.
 * : you must serve all of these editors with notifications. See here for instructions.

Articles involved

 * plus all WTA articles
 * plus all WTA articles
 * plus all WTA articles
 * plus all WTA articles
 * plus all WTA articles
 * plus all WTA articles
 * plus all WTA articles
 * plus all WTA articles

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

 * On the following link, we got a consensus to use non-sponsored names and Miami on August 2008, and TE completely ignored it:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis
 * User_talk:Tennis_expert/Archive_1


 * : Please ensure you have fully read this guide before filing.

Issues to be mediated

 * The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.


 * There is an official tournament name (other than the ever changing sponsor name) that we need to use, despite of the tournament's location, and that's in the performance tables; the problem has been going on for over 3 month now.

Additional issues to be mediated

 * Other parties can use this section to list any others issues they wish to include in the mediation. Please do not modify or remove any other party's listing. Please sign all additions to this section if there are more than two parties involved in this case.


 * Additional issue 1.
 * Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.


 * 1) Agree. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 18:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. Saviour73 (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Disagree. Tennis expert (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section ; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.
 * Reject, parties do not agree to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION
Requests_for_mediation/Miami_Masters, feel free to add yourself and sign. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that didn't work out, as Mr. Expert seems unwilling to mediate on this issue. Any more experienced users out there know what the next step should be? We should really address this issue with finality and then move on. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If he has refused mediation and all the other things that sane people do, is it bad to request a block? He is disrupting our work, disregarding consensus and anything else we can do. Block?  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we have some sanity and resolution on this?
I just wish to note two things;

Tennis expert, your refusal to accept mediation on this long running dispute is both unhelpful and disruptive. You are not doing yourself or Wikipedia any favours in continuing this series of reverts against others wishes. Wikipedia can only work by consensus. Personal crusades, no matter how right you believe you are, ultimately get you nowhere. If you genuinely care about the content of these articles, then please accept mediation.

IP editor; I don't care who you are or if you have been previously blocked or not. Your jumping between IPs to edit war is a clear breach and evasion of Wikipedia rules and policies. That alone makes your contributions unwelcome and disruptive. If you genuinely care about the content of these articles, then please register an account and contribute to the discussion in an upfront manner without this edit warring. I would also urge other editors to refuse to engage this editor in discussion until they register. If, once they register, they prove to be a banned user, then so be it. If you disregard Wikipedia policy you lose the privilege of contributing to it. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition I would urge fellow editor to look at the articles for the year-specific Miami Masters (here, here, and here) where TE is clearly acting in bad faith and disrespecting the opinions and processes of the community by making changes (Miami to Key Biscayne, of course) at a time when the community is trying to come to a consensus on the issue. Very bad form. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 12:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TE (or someone else, the history is not clear to me) did the harm again, on Nadal's page AFAIK, which part I don't get, don't we need consensus first?!!!! Please someone take an action. Yosef1987 (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, EO, but I'm under no obligation to accept formal mediation on this issue. Therefore, it's bad faith for you to claim disruption for exercising a right that Wikipedia plainly allows.  The people who won't accept the fact that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne and the fact that the official name is the "Sony Ericsson Open" and the fact that "Miami Masters" is not the name of any tournament anywhere are just being irrational.  This encyclopedia is about verifiable facts, not personal opinions.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So all these newspapers are clearly wrong then.. Perhaps you should write to them and put them right. Please go and read Wikipedia naming policy.  Specifically where it says "Use the most easily recognized name" and "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another."  Your edits on this page are plainly disruptive as it results in a page being named one thing, and the article, with no explanation at all, calling it another.  The reader is therefore left mystified.  The name you prefer has only been in use since 2007 and common usage is still Miami Masters.   The title "Sony Ericsson Open" is important, and should be mentioned in the lead. It should even be a redirect. But your actions are simply causing a confused mess.
 * On the subject of mediation. If you refuse mediation what exactly do believe will bring about resolution? Do you think resolution will come about when everyone gives in and simply does what you want?  Do you honestly believe this is likely?  Do you think resolution will occur after six months of tiresome edit warring and everyone else gets sick of it? What do you believe is best, not for you, but for Wikipedia?
 * And if you are so convinced that you are right, why do you believe mediation will not bring about a resolution on your terms? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when is a Google hit count conclusive? But if you want to play that game, "Sony Ericsson Open" has about 700,000 hits while "Miami Masters" has about 370,000 hits.  Maybe you should consider sending corrective e-mails to the persons responsible for the roughly 700,000 hits.  I'm certainly willing to go through WP:RM to change the name of the article to "Sony Ericsson Open".  Perhaps that would alleviate your "mystification" concerns - let me know, please.  As for mediation, I've already said what the next course should be: article-by-article consensus building, given that there is no consensus here.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you show me where you have sought consensus for your changes on articles? Apologies if you've being doing this, but I am having difficulty finding any amongst the hundreds of reverts in your edit history.
 * Please do not get diverted by some irrelevant Google hits count. My point was not to demonstrate that "Sony Ericsson Open" is wrong, or that "Miami Masters" is right.  I'm saying that "Miami Masters" is the "most easily recognized name" as per policy.  It also has been the name of the article for some time, and should not be changed without good reason, as per policy.  Could address these points of policy, and explain why it does not apply here?
 * If you are willing to go through WP:RM to change article titles, would it not make much more sense to leave your changes until this has happened?-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Google counts is never a reference (nor newspapers), I guess I don't have to explain how search engines work, secondly, you cannot use WP:RM because the name would change every other year, and we are not playing games here, if something affects all the tennis bio articles, it should be discussed here, not article-by-article, that would be just time consuming, and destructive, and please, all edits should be reverted to the original until a resolution is met anyhow. Yosef1987 (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) When we talked about this before (see the archives), the conclusion was to use the name of the tournament as it existed at the time the tournament was held. In fact, most Wikipedia tournament articles use the sponsored names.  The Sony Ericsson Open is among a handful of exceptions.  (2) As far as WP:RM is concerned, of course that's the right method for making a controversial change to an article name.  You're not liking that procedure is irrelevant.  And aside from that, I'm surprised that you would oppose WP:RM while being in favor of mediation.  Care to explain?  (3) Your not liking article-by-article consensus building is irrelevant and conflicts with the way Wikipedia works.  Aside from that, a consensus for a particular article prevails over a consensus that purports to cover all articles.  If you have any questions about that concept, let me know.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have presented no evidence whatsoever (except your personal opinion based on who-knows-what) that "Miami Masters" is the "most easily recognized name". You used Google to find a few newspaper articles to support your claim.  When that was refuted, you said essentially to ignore Google.  Well, you can't have it both ways.  Try again.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yosef1987 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit: I have an inquiry now to TE, please discard what I stroke out, I'll get back to this soon. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/Warring
If this is considered vandalism, we can do it the right way, first warn him/her/they on their talk pages, and then, if they don't respond, this will definitely help. Yosef1987 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He has been warned, do not add another warning. Yosef1987 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He has undone my warning, and he is still not talking here. Yosef1987 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No matter how many warnings we give him, he will ignore it. I don't usually call for this, but I think a ban is the right choice. Sorry.  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already talked here and in many other places about this issue. No consensus has ever been reached here, as the preceding discussions clearly show.  So, that leaves article-by-article editing and discussion.  I invite you to take up this issue in those places.  And Yosef1987, stop plastering warnings that have no basis in fact.  That's disruptive.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would second (third?) Alistairjh and Yosef, though (being relatively new) I don't know the procedure. He is being extremely disruptive and does not seem to be acting in good faith, IMO. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tennis Expert, I am not being disruptive, I have the best intentions for this website, as for the warning, clearly there is an edit war, and you are not cooperating enough, the least I've asked is a direct answer to simple 4 points, you might very well explain yourself to everyone here by answering them, and I, would very much appreciate that, and if we still don't agree, we'd need a third-person's opinion, but not go ahead and start editing, if a consensus is not reached, I suppose you know Wikipedia more than I do, then take the right steps to convince all of us that you are right. Please do Wikipedia a favor, thank you very much and best regards, and your time is much appreciated. Yosef1987 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tennis Expert, you recieved a warning about your edits to Rafael Nadal (history). The warning seems to be perfectly valid, so you cannot accuse Yosef1987 of "plastering warnings that have no basis in fact" (see above).  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't know what you're talking about, which perhaps is due to your extreme youth. Just because a warning is given does not mean that it has any validity.  If you have any questions about that concept, let me know.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, procedure for solving this can be found here. Apparantly arbitration is the last step, and hopefully something we won't have to consider.  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>09:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Keeping everything above board, just letting everyone know that I have (again) reverted TenEx's changes to the various Miami Masters year-specific pages regarding this very issue. I am not engaging in a edit war, just keeping things 'as is' until a consensus is reached. TenEx, please act in good faith and stop reverting until this issue is concluded (As an aside, you said that you are going for consensus instead on individual pages, but after I reverted you ignored BRD and instead changed again instead of taking the issue to the talk page. I read that as rather disingenuous.) <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 14:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know what a blind reversion is? If not, I suggest you read up on it because your reversions are blind and constitute vandalism and disruption.  This is but the latest example of your problematic behavior.  When will it change?  Tennis expert (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what he did exactly, but shouldn't we settle this before we make changes? And by settle I mean the way it was? I could be wrong? Yosef1987 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * TenEx, please stop changing/editing these until we solve this issue. And again, you said that you are going for consensus instead on individual pages, but after I reverted you ignored BRD and instead changed/edited again instead of taking the issue to the talk page. I read that as rather disingenuous if you are trying to start a dialogue. You are acting rather disruptively here and clearly against the betterment of the articles and the respect of the community. Funny also that you speak of me being disruptive in this! Kettle, teapot? <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 03:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's "Tennis expert", OK? You still don't know what a "blind revert" is, do you?  It's when you throw the baby out with the bath water by mindlessly and lazily reverting a series of edits because you disagree with just one of them.  That's what you've been doing.  That's vandalism and disruption.  And it's just the latest example of your unconstructive editing on Wikipedia.  Tennis expert (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again TE you are being disingenuous. My reversions (on pages (here, here and here) were not of a "baby/bathwater" nature. They were reversions of edits by you dealing specifically and singularly with the Key Biscyane/Miami location issue, which we have been discussing here. Your edits seem to me very disruptive and against community good faith in light of this ongoing discussion. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 04:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that, well, we might have a chance to stop editing all these pages to discuss the matter here? I suppose, the way things are going, we are not going to reach a consensus, but if we do your edits and your revertions may have been for nothing, so can we just discuss here and instead of making the pages look the way you want them to. (If you have any GA or FA reviews, this is probably going to stop them promoting the article)  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>Why, after two years, has this war not been resolved? Why? 07:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My Inquiry to Tennis_expert
I now understand your urge behind KB, but I have got few questions which would clarify things to me.


 * KB is the location, but not the tournament name, right?
 * If Miami Masters is not a tournament name, how come it is shown on the ATP official TV coverage, news articles etc? Of course besides Sony Ericsson
 * For the factual accuracy of an encyclopedia, I am supporting you, as I have said before, to mention the correct locations in each tournament's individual article, why isn't that good enough? And for the enough part, the following point:
 * We cannot put Sony Ericsson of course in the Performance Timelines, but we also cannot put Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, the column if for the tournament not the location, and the tournaments are not named after the exact correct location, where did I go wrong here? (I am asking)
 * They are named after the closest most famous city, do I have proof? No, but a pattern is clear no doubt. Tell me where I went wrong also here.

I would very much appreciate your answers. Thanks. Yosef1987 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: as for the "encouragement to war", it was never meant to be like that, and I hope you find my good faith in my edits, what I meant is to keep things as it was till we resolve the matter, and by that I wanted your confirmation as well on this, am not asking for anything wrong. Yosef1987 (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (1) This is what I was writing for WP:Tennis right before you struck your comments: "The Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) says that the name of the tournament in Monte Carlo is the 'Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters', not the 'Monte Carlo Masters', the 'Roquebrune-Cap-Martin Masters', or anything else. You are confusing two different issues: (a) the official name of a tournament; and (b) where the tournament is held.  I am in favor of always using the official name of the tournament, e.g. 'Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters', and saying where that tournament actually is held, e.g., 'Roquebrune-Cap-Martin'.  I am not in favor of 'changing the name of the tournament'.  For example, in a Wikipedia article, I always say, 'Andy Murray won the Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida.' ".
 * (2) I am not aware that the term "Miami Masters" is used on television or by the ATP or the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) in any official capacity. The ATP and the WTA are businesses and want to keep their sponsors happy; therefore, they are highly unlikely to use anything other than "Sony Ericsson Open".
 * (3) Wikipedia editors have gone wrong about tournament locations. The site of a tennis tournament is a geographical fact and can be verified independently of the ATP or WTA.  For example, the Grand Canyon is clearly in the United States and it would therefore be erroneous to rely on a source claiming that the canyon is in Canada, regardless of how often the source said that.  However, the name of a tournament is a commercial or business decision made by tournament organizers and secondarily by the news media.  We (Wikipedia editors) have to rely on verifiable reliable sources to determine tournament names.
 * (4) We may put whatever information we want in performance timelines, subject to Wikipedia policy about verifiability. Therefore, we could put "Sony Ericsson Open" in a timeline, just like we could put "Roquebrune-Cap-Martin" there.
 * (5) The decision by the ATP and tournament organizers to say (erroneously) that the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters is in Monte-Carlo merely reflects their marketing objectives. Whenever a marketing campaign misstates independently verifiable facts, Wikipedia must ignore the campaign and instead rely on the actual facts.  And the actual fact is that the Monte-Carlo Rolex Masters is in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin even though the official name of the tournament uses "Monte-Carlo".  Tennis expert (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion
Tennis_expert, is right about these answers, TE has talked sense about the issue into me, give it time to read it, you'd feel the same, and as for the Wikipedia rules, TE is dead on. My suggestion to keep everything right, that is to name the tournaments in the performance time-lines by the real location, (e.g. Key Biscayne and Roquebrune-Cap-Martin etc) and having after it between parenthesis the widely known misled name, (e.g. Miami, Monte Carlo etc), on the other hand, we'd go for the sponsors names, which follows this very well. Keep it cool, because we are moving in a circle now. Yosef1987 (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: And please, for the meanwhile, no further edits to be made until this is resolved in a good manner. All suggestions and comments are welcome, keep them direct to the point and cool please. Yosef1987 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that it is actually in Key Biscayne, after looking at Google Maps showing that it is very close to Key Biscayne and miamidade.gov giving the address of the centre as 7300 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida. Really the only confusing thing was that ATP said Miami.  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>17:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

An additional option: many older fans refer to this tournament as "Key Biscayne" (or even as "the Lipton"). A parenthesis near the top of the article--as for other sports events and venues whose official name has changed--could clarify that this tournament was for many years sponsored by Lipton and for many years referred to commonly as alternatively "the Lipton" or "Key Biscayne". Of course, considering what goes before on this page, I don't dare change a word on the main page! C. Cerf (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Steps Towards Consensus?
I had just a quick question about consensus. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis there's been a months-long discussion between various editors about whether to use Miami (the county name and name used by most media sources) or Key Biscayne (the village location). Everyone has agreed on the former save for one editor, though I know (through reading about this) that numbers alone don't make consensus. An editor just tried for Mediation, but that one editor disagreed and refused mediation. I am just wondering what the next step should be towards resolving this issue and moving forward. Thanks in advance for help. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 04:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Numbers alone don't make consensus, but a lone editor opposing what would otherwise be consensus doesn't necessarily break that consensus. Other options mentioned in WP:DR would include an RFC about either the article or the single holdout if his/her behavior has gotten disruptive. WP:MEDCAB could provide informal mediation on this topic; being informal they don't have the strict process that the mediation committee has. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I'll look into these. I don't want to disregard anyone's opinion, but at the same time I want to be able to constructively move forward, and these look like good ways of making that happen. Thanks again for the quick reply. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 05:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit War/ Ignoring ongoing discussion
(rolled this thread into the previous one as they're intricately related &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding wikipolicy here, in advance. Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis we have been engaged in a discussion about the location names for various tournaments. My question actually deals with the actions of one involved user (Tennisexpert) who is continuing to edit articles relating to this discussion (here, here and here). This seems disruptive in light of the ongoing discussion I mentioned. He has stated that he has turned to the individual pages to build consensus, but when I reverted his change he did not take the discussion to any of the Talk pages (which, under BRD, seems like the next productive step). Am I misunderstanding something here? He has refused mediation, which is within his right, but seems (IMO) to be acting against a consensus rather than towards. Help! <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 04:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite several requests to stop, Alonsornunez is continuing to vandalize and disrupt tennis articles through blind reversions. This user does not like the official names of certain tennis tournaments and would rather use Wikipedia-created and unverifiable names.  Despite having expressed only this one disagreement with my edits, he reverts all my edits, apparently out of laziness or perhaps to make a point.  See, e.g., the following edits of his: 2007 Sony Ericsson Open, 2006 NASDAQ-100 Open, 2000 Ericsson Open.  This user has been disruptive for months and exercises unconstructive ownership of articles he has created, such as the Williams Sisters rivalry article, where he edit warred my suggested improvements into oblivion.  He also publicly trashes the motives and edits of other editors, despite being warned not to do so, and then lobbies to ban those he disagrees with.  Another example of his disruptive behavior is his use of false edit summaries, where he claims to be merely reverting a previous editor's edits but in actual fact he is introducing and disguising his own changes.  Tennis expert (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * TE, I think this would be a whole lot easier if you just accepted mediation. Things like article names are determined primarily by consensus, and from Alonso's description of the situation, the consensus has not been in your favor. If you think you're correct from a wider point of view (i.e., preexisting consensus of the naming guidelines), then mediation would help your case. Alonso is obviously frustrated, and consider things from his perspective; refusing mediation in this situation seems like you're just telling him "fuck you, it's my way or the highway".
 * I strongly advise you both to stop reverting until the dispute is settled or you may find yourselves blocked or the involved pages edit protected. If you can, try to start discussing this from a blank slate; drop the issues of incivility and revert warring for now and try to resolve the content dispute that triggered this whole issue. If you can't do that, then I think mediation is your only option. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that an RfC has been posted about this dispute. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Resolving Miami/Key Biscayne Dispute
The question here generally relates to the location of tennis tournaments, and whether references by various media sources and tennis' governing bodies (ATP, ITF, WTA) are to be followed are to be followed in regards to the above. The specfic issue here in the Miami Masters and its location in Key Biscayne (a small village in Miami-Dade county and considered part of the Miami metro area) versus the various references to simply 'Miami' (by the above mentioned sources) Questions include a)whether there is suitable reference to use Miami and not Key Biscayne, b) whether such reference is to be respected, and c)how to proceed in a manner honoring both the sources and a reference to Key Biscayne (if such an outcome is possible). Salient points are in this talk section above, starting in January 2009. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't make things so complicated. There are just two questions.   What is the name of the tournament (Sony Ericsson Open versus Miami Masters)?  And where is the tournament held (Key Biscayne versus Miami)?  Tennis expert (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the location issue, let me ask this- is it in the same location every year? And if so, is the address where the tournament takes place officially (i.e., by the local government) said to be in Miami or in Key Biscayne? If it's actually in Key Biscayne, it may be best to say "in Key Biscayne, near Miami", or "near Miami in the village of Key Biscayne".
 * There was an issue similar to this recently at Natasha Richardson as the location of a funeral parlor was officially (by their address and by news reports) in Millbrook, NY, but the actual location was 5 miles away in Lithgow, NY. My suggestion had been to say "xyz funeral parlor near Lithgow", though the article currently reads "near Millbrook".
 * Regarding the naming issue, I'm really not sure. If it were the case that the sponsor name changes every year it might be appropriate to pick a general/neutral name for the overall tournament. WP:NC says articles should generally use the most easily recognized name, determined by what it's called by reliable sources. WP:NCON appears to suggest using the current official name of the subject, and to prefer a "self-identifying term"- thus if the tournament calls itself xyz instead of abc, we should probably use xyz. Maybe that helps. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The location has been the same since 1986. The objective, reliable evidence (not the marketing propaganda) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne, Florida.  As for the name of the tournament, it certainly does not change every year.  The tournament has had four names in the last 25 years.  See the Wikipedia article Sony Ericsson Open for more information about that.  Tennis expert (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, well I'll ask this; are there a significant number of sources that would pass WP:RS which state the location as being Miami? If so, it would still be appropriate to mention that the tournament is "in Key Biscayne, near Miami" or something similar. In any case, something this simple and straightforward doesn't need to be verified very strongly. It may be worth mentioning that the tournament is frequently billed as being located in Miami, especially if that detail is mentioned in secondary sources.
 * As to the name of the tournament, I'm starting to believe that per WP:NCON the article on the overall tournament should be titled by its current name, unless there's strong support in the media and tennis community for referring to the historical tournament by a generic title such as "Miami Masters". It may be worth mentioning Miami Masters as an alternative title in the article ("..., sometimes called the Miami Masters,...").
 * I will say however that I have not fully read up on what's happened here, nor have I done all the background research that should be necessary. I'm just doing a meta-analysis based on the arguments I've seen thus far in the RfC and in my dealings with this at WP:EAR. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mendaliv, thanks for jumping in with this. Part of the issue (I think for the community as a whole, though I'm not sure) is that the tournament is referred to/'nicknamed' "Miami" by the ATP, the WTA and various aticles. (i.e. "So-and-son is defending champion in Miami this week", "So-and-so is six-time Miami champion", etc.) There are absolutely enough sources for "Miami" to pass muster. I have no problem with either location given lead in a joint article reference, but I think that 'Common Usage' would seem to dictate that Miami is used (for example of this, the official ATP Miami page mentions Miami twice and Key Biscayne not at all) In addition, while being a tricky subject, it would help TenEx if you did not infer an attempt to obfuscate on my part by stating that I am "making things so difficult". The questions as you phrased them above are disingenuous and specious. <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You really should stop being disruptive. The questions I listed are exactly the two questions being discussed here.  And this is not a "tricky subject" at all.  As for the location of the tournament (question #2), you keep ignoring the fact that the ATP is mentioning Miami as the tournament location for marketing reasons, not for the sake of accuracy.  There are hundreds of reliable sources to support the indisputable geographical fact that the tournament is held in Key Biscayne.  Examples from all over the world include, but are not limited to, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ESPN, the Seattle Times, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Boston Globe, the Palm Beach Post, the Daily Mail, the New York Times, the Pakistan Observer, the San Jose Mercury News, the Hindustan Times, the Shanghai Daily, MSN India, SportExpressen (Sweden), the Jerusalem Post, the Dispatch Online (South Africa),  Korea, The Age (Australia), the Japan Times, the Times (London), SportsYa (Spain), the New Zealand Herald, and the Miami Herald. Finally, take a look at these Google search results for "Key Biscayne" on the ATP website itself.  Tennis expert (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's all just concentrate on the issue at hand here, and leave issues of incivility for later if they need to be pursued. As to the issues at hand, I take it we're near the end of the location issue... as the actual location of the tournament is Key Biscayne (which is simply verified), the article should state the location as Key Biscayne per WP:ASF. Whether it should also say "near Miami" or go into a more elaborate discussion of how a lot of media sources treat the tournament as being in Miami is a matter for later debate, I think.
 * As to the naming issue, for whatever reason, ATP and others treat the tournament's location as Miami, and thus generally consider it a Miami tournament. Without reliable sources that try to explain why this is the case, or at least discuss what would seem to be an unusual difference between the name and location, I'm not sure what we can do. My understanding of Alonso's argument is that "Miami" should be given preference in the article lead because of common usage. However, I don't think that's a valid point- WP:NC refers to article naming and not to handling source discrepancies. There isn't any limit to the number of synonyms for the tournament we can represent in the article.
 * If there really are sources out there that support the name "Miami Masters" to refer to the tournament in a historical sense, it may be appropriate to use that term for the article title. However, barring evidence of a dispute over the tournament's official name or disagreement over what it's called in the media, we should probably go with the current name per WP:NCON. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should say Key Biscayne, near Miami (possibly the Miami part in brackets) - after all, the tennis centre's address is, according to miamidade.gov, 7300 Crandon Boulevard, Key Biscayne, Florida, but many of the reliable sources use Miami, which doesn't make sense when I think about it.  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>07:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that just the competition is held in Key Biscayne, while all the organization, temporary residence, and other support activities take place in Miami? I really think there might be an explanation somewhere, and hopefully we can find a source for it. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already provided the explanation. It is a marketing strategy that most of the news media ignores because the strategy is not based on fact.  Tennis expert (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mendaliv, agreed. Finding some explanation (and reference has been difficult thus far). As with similar tournaments taking place in small villages or towns in metropolitan areas it seems fairly consistent that both tours identify the tournament by the larger city/county name (Miami in this case). I agree that the village/smaller location name needs to be identified, particularly in the tournament article. I think however, and the rough consensus among editors seems to be that the 'recognized' name (Miami, not Key Biscayne in this case) be used on the performance timelines, or similar cases where a tournament is abbreviated by name, not identified by location ('Player X won the Sony Ericsson, which is played in Key Biscayne' as oppposed to 'Player X is the five-time defending Miami champion') So far the most that seems to be able to be established (and this is only numbers) is that Miami is more common when identifying the tournament (as opposed to the tournament location, if that makes sense). Whew! <font face="Arial Black" color="Black">Alonsornunez <font face="Arial Black" color="Gray">Comments 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So say Key Biscayne (near Miami) in the main articles, but in the player biographies say Miami. Please tell me it's that simple. Also, rough consensus can be broken after a long argument, although I think that the 'recognized' name should be used on the performance timelines, as more people would understand it.  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>08:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Tennis expert, can you provide independent verification of that?
 * Alonso, you're right- to an extent that's up to the WP:TENNIS community.
 * Alistair, I hope it is that simple. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the situation enough to really comment on anything beyond this one article. I suppose that's up to those of you more into tennis to figure it out. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that much to do with tennis actually. If we look at WikiProject Rugby Union, we had a dispute over the location of the Stade de France, because it was in Saint-Denis, but most people thought it was in Paris. It was really confusing because it was in the Paris metro area, but we eventually decided that it was in Saint-Denis. You can see the discussion on the WikiProject Rugby union talk page and on the 2009 Six Nations Championship talk page, although it does say in most of the reliable sources that it is Saint-Denis. Here, reliable sources say Miami and Key Biscayne, but the address says Key Biscayne, so the ideal solution is Key Biscayne (near Miami).  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#fff;background:#B22222;">On  <font face=Stereofidelic><font style="color:#B22222;background:#fff;">Holiday      <font face=Stereofidelic>16:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
We haven't got anything yet. I looked back two years, and still we continue...