Talk:Margaret Court

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Y Done - article moved per consensus. Neıl ☎ 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should be renamed "Margaret Court"

The article should be renamed to Margaret Court. That is what she is most commonly known as, that is what the tennis arena was called,[1] and that is what she calls herself.[2] Peter Ballard 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

She does call herself Court these days because that's her husband's name and she's no longer in the tennis limelight. However, she's notable for one thing and one thing only - her tennis career. Had that career never happened, we wouldn't have an article on her at all. For most of the entire period of that career she was known as "Margaret Smith". Towards the end, after she married, she became "Margaret Court". As this is an article about a tennis player, if we're going to go to one surname it should be "Smith" rather than "Court". But it's quite standard for married female sportspeople who change their names to refer to them as <first name> <original surname> <married surname>, eg. Chris Evert Lloyd, Melinda Gainsford Taylor, et al. I don't see a case for changing the article, sorry. -- JackofOz 04:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever other female sportpeople call themselves is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) is clear: "But in all cases, a woman should be called by the name she is most widely known under." "Margaret Smith" is an interesting choice but she married about halfway through her career (not right at the end like, say, Shirley Strickland), so she is much better known as "Margaret Court" and won many titles under that name. The tennis arena is "Margaret Court Arena", the Australia Post stamp called her "Margaret Court", as do any other number of good sources I might find. And she calls herself "Margaret Court". I think it's a pretty clear cut case. Peter Ballard 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with "Margaret Court" - she may have been known to many at that time as Margaret Smith, but when she makes her biweekly pronouncements against whatever she's pronouncing against or running a 40-strong rally outside Parliament House in Perth, it's always as Margaret Court. She's been known as that for at least two decades, probably a fair bit more. As a curiosity, I went to school with her kids. Orderinchaos 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As another curiosity, I grew up in Albury, where Margaret Smith (as she then was) played amateur tennis. At one match that my Mum attended, Smith lost her cool during a match, and flung her racquet away, which landed in the crowd, right in my Mum's lap. Smith came up to retrieve her racquet, and apologised to Mum for her behaviour. -- JackofOz 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been no further discussion, do I take that as consensus? I propose renaming it in a day or two. Peter Ballard 02:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, there is no consensus to change the name of this article. Tennis expert 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So what arguments are there against moving it? The argument for moving is pretty clear: (a) WP policy is to use the name by which she is most commonly known; (b) She is most widely known as Margaret Court. Peter Ballard 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My argument was stated above. But as this is a borderline case, I won't be expressing any further objections to the proposed move. -- JackofOz 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the proof that she is "most widely known as Margaret Court"? And there are hundreds of references in WP to "Margaret Smith Court," which is irrefutable evidence of no consensus among WP editors to shorten her name. I strenuously object to renaming this article. There is no consensus to do so. Tennis expert 04:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be moved. http://www.margaretcourt.org.au/ is evidence that is what she is known as and is what she wishes to be known as. A simple Google test shows "Margaret Court" an comfortable winner. —Moondyne 04:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What WP editors call her is irrelevant. What is relevant is what name she is best known as in the real world. She calls herself Margaret Court. Tennis Australia called the arena "Margaret Court Arena". The Australia Post stamp called her "Margaret Court". (See refs above for those). Take a look at the 4 external links in the main article: all call her "Margaret Court" either exclusively or at least for part of the article; and none call her "Margaret Smith Court". I think it is obvious that she is best known as "Margaret Court". Peter Ballard 12:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So, consensus is relevant to you at 02:35 today but not at 12:30 today. And what is "obvious" to you is not necessarily proof. Tennis expert 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, consensus is always relevant to me. What I was saying is that when answering the question, "what name is this person most widely known under?", we look in the real world, not just WP pages. Peter Ballard 03:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Real world examples of "Margaret Smith Court": International Tennis Hall of Fame [3]; Encarta encyclopedia [4]; Encyclopedia Brittanica [5]; U.S. Open [6]; USAToday[7]; The Tennis Channel [8]; Reuters [9]; CBS (American television network) [10]; Wimbledon [11]; ESPN [12]; New York Times [13]; Sydney Morning-Herald [14]; BBC [15]. There are many others. Tennis expert 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent). Those real world examples are not as reliable as Court herself or Tennis Australia or Australia Post. Because reporters make mistakes. When you name a tennis centre, or produce a stamp, you are more careful. In any case, your examples are flawed:

• International Tennis Hall of Fame [16] - Wrong. It calls her "Margaret Court-Smith" and "Margaret Court". It never calls her "Margaret Smith Court"
• Encarta encyclopedia [17] - true.
• Encyclopedia Brittanica [18] - Inconclusive - also calls her "Margaret Court". A sloppy article which can't even decide what her name is.
• U.S. Open [19]; - Cherry picked - according to google, usopen.org uses "Margaret Smith Court" 13 times and "Margaret Court" 13 times, so that site is inconclusive.
• USAToday[20]; Cherry picked - usatoday.com has "Margaret Smith Court" 49 times and "Margaret Court" 80 times, so that site slightly favours "Margaret Court".
• The Tennis Channel [21] - Inconclusive. The heading says "Margaret Smith Court", but the text says "Margaret Court".
• Reuters [22]; - Cherry picked - reuters.com has "Margaret Smith Court" 10 times and "Margaret Court" 18 times, so that site slightly favours "Margaret Court".
• CBS (American television network) [23] - True - google results favour M.S.C. 12-4.
• Wimbledon [24] - Cherry picked - wimbledon.org overwelmingly favours "Margaret Court", 32 to 2.
• ESPN [25] - Cherry picked - espn.go.com favours "Margaret Court", 134 to 118.
• New York Times [26] - Inconclusive and Cherry picked - the article uses both, and in any case nytimes.com favour MC 685 to 67
• Sydney Morning-Herald [27] - Cherry picked - smh.com.au overwelmingly favours "Margaret Court", 81 to 5.
• BBC [28] - - Cherry picked - bbc.co.uk overwelmingly favours "Margaret Court", 155 to 18.

So of the 13 examples you offered, only 2 favour "Margaret Smith Court". Many of them are cherry picked and actually favour "Margaret Court". "Margaret Court" is her name, it is the name she has used for over 40 years. It is supported by the best sources. Peter Ballard 08:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the International Tennis Hall of Fame article? You must not have, as here's a quotation for you from the very first sentence: "For sheer strength of performance and accomplishment there has never been a tennis player to match Margaret Smith Court." As for the consensus issue, here is what you said first: "There's been no further discussion, do I take that as consensus?" Ten hours later, you said this: "What WP editors call her is irrelevant." I see no logical way to reconcile these statements. Tennis expert 05:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the HOF article is Inconclusive, because I admit that first sentence, I only checked the title ("Margaret Court-Smith", LOL), then scanned. Also I admit Britannica and The Tennis Channel slightly favour MSC. So 5 of your 13 sources favour MSC, 8 favour MC. What is signficant is the 5 are all American. The Australian sources (and the BBC) overwhelmingly favour MC, as do a few of the US sources.

Correction: usopen.org was tied 13-13, so that's 5.5 for MSC, 7.5 for MC. But I still stand by my point that the best sources - those closest to her - call her MC. smh.com.au hugely favours MC, as do other mainstream Australian news sources like abc.net.au and news.com.au (all with ratios about 10:1). Peter Ballard 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, I was talking about different things. When I said "What WP editors call her is irrelevant" it was in determining the answer to the WP guideline "what name is this person most widely known under?". In that case we look in the real world, not just WP pages. Peter Ballard 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is titled "Margaret Court Smith" and then the lead para confusingly says "Margaret Smith Court". From then on she referred to simply as "Court" ((six times). I'd say the inconsistency there says a lot about that HOF editor. —Moondyne 05:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reopening this move discussion by placement of the move template at the top of this section as well as listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Moondyne 12:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that only two reasons were given to oppose the move, and both have been answered:

1. "That the naming convention <first name> <original surname> <married surname> is quite standard." I pointed out that WP is not bound by this standard and WP policy is to call a person by her most common name. This argument has not been raised since and I think it is fair to say no one is advocating it now.

2. "Margaret Smith Court is actually her more common name". I think I answered that convincingly above on 31-Oct and 1-Nov.

In conclusion, I think there are no outstanding reasons not to rename. "Margaret Court" is what she is most commonly called, and what she calls herself. Article should be renamed "Margaret Court". Peter Ballard (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that 1 or two new people can weight in with their views also. —Moondyne 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Aside from every other reason not to rename this article, there is not and never has been consensus to rename it. Tennis expert (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What reasons? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't know what Tennis expert's idea of consensus is, but it is not necessarily represented but unanimous agreement. I count 3-1 in favour of the move, with sound arguments presented to do so. Perhaps he/she could summarise for us the arguments to keep the current name. —Moondyne 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. She was Smith, and now she's Court. --DeLarge (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCP. She is most commonly referred to as Margaret Court. I hate to also include my own WP:OR but I have only ever heard her referred to as Margaret Court as well. EJF (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.