Talk:Scotties Tournament of Hearts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:RM[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move - 2005[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was no move

Talk:Scott Tournament of Hearts -- Scott Tournament of Hearts → Canadian Ladies Curling Association Championship --Having the title sponsor in the name is promotional of a specific company. 132.205.15.43 03:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"
  • Oppose Earl Andrew 02:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose 41k hits for "scott Tournament of Hearts", 1.5k hits for "Canadian Women's Curling Championship" (which would be a better alternative), 1.2k hits for "Tournament of Hearts" -scott, and 4 WP mirror hits for "Canadian Ladies Curling Association Championship". Niteowlneils 01:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---Add any additional comments on the "Requested move" below this line ---

    • Having the title sponsor in the name is promotional of a specific company. 132.205.15.43 03:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • No, it is not called that. The actual tournament is called the Scott Tournament of Hearts. Plus your proposal is politically incorrect. Earl Andrew 04:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Why is it PI? Last I heard, calling a woman a lady was not politically incorrect. OR are you saying that people other than women compete in the Tournamnet of Hearts? 132.205.15.43 04:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Lady is PI, that's why they dont use it anymore. It distinctly says that in a curling book I have. Earl Andrew 04:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Girl is PI, Lady is anachronistic, there's a difference. Like saying Gentleman 132.205.15.43 04:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Well maybe they changed it because it was anarchronistic then. BTW, some great curling edits you have made, I need some help expanding curling pages on wikipedia. Earl Andrew 04:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have reformatted the "Requested move" in line with the recommended WP:RM format as it is not clear to me who supporting and opposing this proposal. I am also moving the comments added to the RM:WP page to here as that is now the agreed policy on that page. Philip Baird Shearer 11:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed form the WP:RM page:

    • Stupid idea, everyone calls it the Scott Tournament of Hearts. No one calls it the Canadian Ladies Curling Association Championship. For one thing, that title is not even politcally correct. Earl Andrew 03:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I hear Tournament of Hearts more than I hear it with Scott attached, in conversation. It could be called Tournament of Hearts alternatively. Why do you say it's p.i.? It's not like men or juniors compete in it. 132.205.15.43 04:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia teems with similarly "promotional" names, such as Qwest Field and FedEx Field. Niteowlneils 01:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Move decision[edit]

Not enough consensus to move even after time extended. Left here. violet/riga (t) 12:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopen name discussion[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was no move

I think that since the name has changed it is worth having this discussion again. My opinion is that the article should just be named Tournament of Hearts. That way the article will be stable regardless of whatever name the sponsor chooses. This is also a popular common name, just as the the men's tournament is known as the the Brier. Nobody but the sponsor calls it the Nokia Brier or the Tim Horton Brier. The same should apply to the women's tournament. --Atrian 15:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC) I agree with the above reasoning. Geopipp 03:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout we don't reopen this discussion for the third time. It's already been settled. Give this a few years, and people will be calling it the Scotties Tournament of Hearts just like people are beginning to call the Brier the Tim Hortons Brier. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea of calling it the 'Tournament of Hearts'. I was going to sugget that actually. I would have participated in this discussion before if I'd known it was happening.--Anchoress 05:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - such a move would be redundant because "Tournament of Hearts" is itself a Kruger trademark and hence cannot be used in a generic sense as can "Brier". In other words, if they drop their sponsorship (however unlikely that may be), the "Tournament of Hearts" name will probably disappear with it. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 20:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were to be moved, then it should be called Scott Tournament of Hearts because I have never heard of called Scotties Tournament of Hearts. Mr. C.C. 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer called that. As it says IN THE ARTICLE, it just changed names. Of course you've never heard of it, because they haven't had one yet. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 06:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The formal name IS the Scotties Tournament of Hearts. Also, oppose per the comment on the previous discussion mentioning the naming of arenas, etc. Pengrowth Saddledome is the Olympic Saddledome's proper and formal name today, so that is what its article is called. the STOH is no different. Resolute 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Fair use rationale for Image:Stohlogo.PNG[edit]

Image:Stohlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stohlogo.PNG[edit]

Image:Stohlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

Any input on a separate section for the champions, all-star teams and award winners? I think they would make quite good lists, and I would be willing to work on them if there is no major objection. Canada Hky (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll get the ball rolling with them. Canada Hky (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I caught your work, already. It's some good stuff. Just a note though, Carmody's position is more accurately described as "fourth". -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I struggled with what to do with her for a while. Canada Hky (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made up a table in my userspace with the intention of splitting off the champions page, but I am wondering if anyone thinks the page will be too short if that's the case. If so, I'll just scrap that and pull the All-Stars out. Canada Hky (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, the list of champions should get its own page, but I'm not sure if we're at that stage yet. The way you have it on your sandbox page is a step backwards imo, as it doesn't show runners-up. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I haven't finalized it yet. Without having finalists for all the tournaments, I find the table to be inconsistent, which is frustrating so I left them out for now, and I was trying to track down further information. Canada Hky (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Information on the finals of the other tournaments is not available on the internet, from what I've been able to track. I know in regards to the Brier, they didn't have Finals before Labatt bought the rights to the tournament, but iirc, there were finals for the women's. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update, according to this: [1], 1979 was the first tournament with a finals. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership[edit]

It would be nice to see what the demographics and numbers are for viewership of the tournament. I understand it's a big deal in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.7.25 (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Champions[edit]

The chart does not list Jolene Campbell has having won the title. And yet, she did compete. I understand that historically alternates have not been considered apart of the team, but in this case she did actually play during the tournament. Why is she not listed?--SargentIV (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either we include all the alternates, or none of them. And, it's tradition on these types of lists not to include alternates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1985 3rd place[edit]

It has Northwest Territories/Yukon as a 3rd place winner on the all time winner chart, 1985 they were listed as the 3rd place but finished outside playoffs 209.171.85.96 (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was for 1983, not 1985. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scotties_Tournament_of_Hearts&oldid=1212952632"