Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed doubles

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move to new titles according to the original proposal. Due to the sheer number of moves this will involve, I haven't bothered to move anything; please get a bot to do it, or someone with AWB and time on their hands. Consensus was against the secondary proposal to move to sentence case after the dash.-- Aervanath (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking final sentence and replacing with "No consensus exists for the secondary proposal that all letters after the dash should be lowercase." Thanks to Dicklyon for pointing out the issue.-- Aervanath (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed Doubles → 1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed doubles
• 2005 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles → 2005 AIG Japan Open Tennis Championships – Women's doubles
• 2021 Aberto da República – Men's Doubles → 2021 Aberto da República – Men's doubles
• 2010 Beijing International Challenger – Men's Singles → 2010 Beijing International Challenger – Men's singles
• 1969 New South Wales Open – Women's Singles → 1969 New South Wales Open – Women's singles
• 2009 US Open – Wheelchair Men's Doubles → 2009 US Open – Wheelchair men's doubles
• 2019 Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair Quad Doubles → 2019 Wimbledon Championships – Wheelchair quad doubles
• 2015 Australian Open – Wheelchair Women's Doubles → 2015 Australian Open – Wheelchair women's doubles
• 2011 French Open – Legends Under 45 Doubles → 2011 French Open – Legends under 45 doubles
• 1915 U.S. National Championships – Men's Singles → 1915 U.S. National Championships – Men's singles
• 1958 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Singles → 1958 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' singles
• 2016 French Open – Legends Over 45 Doubles → 2016 French Open – Legends over 45 doubles
• 1962 U.S. National Championships – Women's Singles → 1962 U.S. National Championships – Women's singles
• 2007 Sony Ericsson Open – Boys' Singles → 2007 Sony Ericsson Open – Boys' singles
• 2019 Wimbledon Championships – Senior Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles → 2019 Wimbledon Championships – Senior gentlemen's invitation doubles
• 1930 French Championships – Seniors Over 40 Singles → 1930 French Championships – Seniors over 40 singles
• 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' Invitation Doubles → 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Ladies' invitation doubles
• 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Invitation Doubles → 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's invitation doubles
• 2017 Wheelchair Doubles Masters – Quad Doubles → 2017 Wheelchair Doubles Masters – Quad doubles

– These are a random sample of about 5000 page titles with over-capitalized sub-event subtitles, all of which are included by extension. To make tennis events internally consistent, and consistent with other sports (e.g. table tennis, badminton, bowls, etc.), and consistent with title and style guidelines, these subtitles should be changed from title case to sentence case, since things like "men's singles" and "women's doubles" are overwhelmingly more often lowercase in sources, in sentence context (most capped uses are in title and heading contexts). Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• WT:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? – most recent discussion, showing support at project level.
• WT:AT#RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events
  – recent RFC at which this was viewed as the minimal fix needed by most.
• Talk:The Championships, Wimbledon#Requested move 2 November 2021
  – RM precedent for fixing tennis event titles to sentence case after dash.
• User:Sod25m/TennisRM has a comprehensive list of 5425 moves (all articles that use the relevant infobox template).
  • Note to closer – with consensus here we can easily arrange bot help to execute all the moves from this list, and then a few template tweaks and AWB or bot for most of the cleanup work. You can start with the ones listed, or move nothing on close and we'll handle it all. Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and polling

• Question. Why would the first word after the dash be capitalized but not the rest? It seems like it should be "Men's Doubles" if it's a part of a proper noun, like the first part of the title, or "men's doubles" if it's just a descriptive phrase we've added. Station1 (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See the RFC linked above. Many of us favored more downcasing, but also more opposed that. And there would be about 50,000 moves needed, affecting many project areas (most sports treat it as descriptive, but cap the first word like a subtitle). So that question has been punted down the road. That's why I say the current proposal is "minimal" to get to "consistency". It might be good to entertain new ideas on "two part titles" or "sub-topic titles" at

  WT:AT. Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support full lower-casing of the part that is not a proper name, e.g. "1912 World Hard Court Championships – mixed doubles". Otherwise, support the proposal as-written, as second choice. More lower-casing is better per
  MOS:DASH. There is no reason for capitalization after a dash, and WP uses sentence-case titles (do not capitalize anything that is not a proper name).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't disagree, but that would be a very different discussion, and the RFC suggests it would probably not reach a consensus. So this instead. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Backwater RfCs that are almost entirely participants from a single wikiproject don't determine our article titles (cf.

  WP:CONLEVEL); RM does that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Right, the RFC determined nothing, so we're having this RM discussion. I proposed the way I think can get consensus; if you want to expand the scope by an order of magnitude, we'd need to at least notify some projects by adding a few of their articles so they'll get the relevant article alerts. I have no prejudice against trying that, but I thought I'd try something more likely to reach consensus, with an amount of work that I can imagine handling, first. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as originally proposed. A new "standard" for such articles was determined by the recent Wimbledon RM, and we should stick to that. Effectively this is a two-part title, with the first part being the tournament "1912 World Hard Court Championships" and the second part being the individual competition "Mixed doubles".  — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One RM doesn't set a standard; a long series of them does, and this one may get broader discussion this time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposed per Amakuru. Sod25m (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - More natural to have both words capitalized, and can be sourced with both words capitalized. No real reason to change thousands and thousands of articles and templates. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your first claim is entirely subjective (and contradictory to our site-wide sentence-case title style), and your second is irrelevant (WP does not capitalize that which is not pretty much uniformly capitalized in sources).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fyunck(click): You had said elsewhere that you'd be OK with this if nobody else at the Tennis project opposed. So can we make it unopposed? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You misunderstood or I failed to be clear. I don't want major things done without all eyes on it. I don't want thousands of changes happening to tennis articles without support of tennis project. I will always be against that and will always push for more involvement before major changes happen. That doesn't mean I will change my mind of what's best for our readers and articles. My oppose will stand on this issue and it will simply be one of many through the wikipedia years that gets overruled by consensus. I'm ok with that as long as the process has a chance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fyunck(click), the discussion appears to have gone stale. There have been no new commenters to the proposal since mine (on 11 Jan) and I deliberately withheld mine to see where things stood. Perhaps there has been some miscommunication between yourself and Dicklyon (above). I might rephrase the question. Is the consensus apparent? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, To me the consensus is apparent to change to "Mixed doubles" etc... Hardly any tennis project volunteers have commented but it's not like they didn't have a chance to comment. No idea why unless they don't care which way it goes and so stayed out of it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all per nom and the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposed but ... I support the proposal: to change the subtitle from title case to sentence case. I also support the scope of articles identified. There have been several discussions now touching on "Mens' Singles" etc as proper nouns IAW
  MOS:SENTENCECAPS. So, while I support the proposal, I would also take this a step further. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for your support. As you can see, Station1 and SMcCandlish and I agree that more complete downcasing would be good. But let's take up that bigger step later. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In case there is any uncertainty, I am, at the very least, supporting the RfC as proposed. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]