Talk:Louie Bickerton

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Tennis High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing
Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures
Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles.
Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles
Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards.
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project.
Tag more articles with our standard project template.
Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

Australia: Sports Low‑importance

	Australia portal Louie Bickerton is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Women's sport: Tennis Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's tennis task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move: Her name was Louise, not Louie, according to the vast majority of reliable sources

To call the requested move of this article "uncontroversial" on WP:RM was shockingly disingenuous.

(1) Google reports only 40 references in English (14.9%) to "Louie Bickerton" compared to 228 in English for "Louise Bickerton" (85.1%).
(2) Google reports only 4 references in French (16.0%) to "Louie Bickerton" compared to 21 in French for "Louise Bickerton" (84.0%).
(3) The French, Norwegian, and Polish language Wikipedia articles use "Louise Bickerton," not "Louie Bickerton".
(4) Reuters refers to her as "Louise Bickerton."
(5) In American news media, About.com (owned by the New York Times), CBS, Sports Illustrated, and USA Today refer to her as "Louise Bickerton", not "Louie Bickerton".
(6) Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia refers to her as "Louise Bickerton", not "Louie Bickerton".
(7) The consensus on English-language Wikipedia is to refer to her as "Louise Bickerton" (22 instances, 88%), not "Louie Bickerton" (only 3 instances, 12%).
Tennis expert (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Bickerton is the correct title.

The spelling "Louie Bickerton" is supported by primary, secondary and tertiary source information. "Tennis expert" has not, and cannot, present primary and secondary source information in support of their spurious claim that "Louise Bickerton" is the correct spelling. Instead, all the sources are not referenced and are probably derived from the same faulty information - possibly even from a single transcription error. It is easier, after all, to replicate other people's lists, rather than doing the research or transcription themselves... so they simply "copy and paste". Does anyone really believe that all those many websites with tennis lists all transcribed them afresh? AND from a reputable source?

All that "Tennis expert" provides are links to internet tennis lists and Wikipedia articles, that are likely based upon the same data. Tennis lists can be, and are, replicated widely without correction, despite errors. Therefore Google percentages mean little. All it proves is that incorrect data replication is rife on the internet - even on some 'name' sites. But, at the end of the day, it is the quality of information that counts, not quantity.

The Reuters, About.com, CBS, Sports Illustrated, USA Today and Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia are all tennis lists, not biographies. And they are not authoritative. What, for instance, are their sources?

At the risk of sounding repetitive... check some authoritative sources. Go on, humour me. No, don't Google it. Go here:

NSW Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages

Enter the groom's surname of Cozens in the appropriate field. Then enter the bride's surname of Bickerton. Enter the marriage year of 1935 (or a date range from 1788-1957). Click "Search Now" and voila! That is information from their marriage certificate.

If you're still not convinced, then wander along to this place. Search the picture database for "Louie Bickerton" to see a captioned photograph of her:

State Library of NSW

This is another credible source. Neither of these sources are lists copied from other unreliable and unsourced sites.

There are some other interesting local history sites that have actually researched their subjects. Not surprisingly, they spell her name Louie:

Strathfield District Historical Society.

[www.scenenewspapers.com.au/supp/issues/March2006/page12.pdf Strathfield Scene newspaper March 2006].

[rotarnet.com.au/users/9/96933/Strathfield%20Heritage%20Tour%202004.pdf Strathfield Heritage Tour].

How about published sources? Well, they spell it Louie too. Here are a couple of oldies, but they're goodies:

Metzler, Paul (1979). "Great Players of Australian Tennis", Sydney, Harper & Row. (page 89)

Matthews, Bruce (1985). "Game, set, and glory: a history of the Australian tennis championships, Hawthorn, Five Mile Press. (page 18)

Contemporaneous newspaper articles? Well, they spell it Louie, of course. Here's a quotation from one article (of many):

"Miss Nell Lloyd and Miss Louie Bickerton, with the chairwoman, Mrs. R. J. Conway, asked Mrs Warburton to accept their thanks on behalf of the women tennis players." (Sydney Morning Herald 14-Feb-1935, p. 20, "Tennis Pioneer"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.111.60 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Louie Bickerton

This article, currently at Louise Bickerton, recently (July 2008) went through several moves to Louie Bickerton and back again. The "move war" with this article has subsided, but I have come across this talk page and see that the evidence in favour of Louie Bickerton, provided by 203.221.111.60, is strong, and cogent, and persuasive. Human nature, especially when it comes to the internet, plays a hand here: we must admit that "Louie" is an odd name for a female, and there isn't much argument in speculating that she may have got her own name wrong on her marriage certificate, or that it's just a coincidence that Paul Metzler goofed the name Louise in his Syndey, Harper & Row-published book. There has to be a reason to lose the s; whereas there need be no reason, other than a person's own assumptions, to add the s; suggesting that Louie is the correct name. It is similar to an argument that I used in support of moving October Guard to Oktober Guard. A lot of the sources were (by the very nature of the action figure genre) those of collectors running personal websites for their own collections, and they invariably spelt it Oktober, but these weren't considered "appropriate" sources. But they have the action figure, something has to persuade a handful of, say, Americans, to spell something wrong. If it wasn't on the packaging, or wasn't in the comic book, they'd have spelt it October. This might not hold true for a lot of words, especially those that are commonly misspelled by the masses, but Louise and October very rarely are, even with typos reigning on the web in general.

The solid web evidence and printed evidence provided by 203.221.111.60 may be sparser than that provided by Tennis expert, but keeping this article at Louise Bickerton would rely too heavily on "google hits"; Tennis expert has shown that the references to Louise are more common than Louie, but not necessarily correct. 203.221.111.60 has invariably proved a case of error replication.

If there is opposition to my moving this article to Louie Bickerton, please discuss it here before reverting! Maedin\^talk 20:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have discussed this controversial move at WP:RM before you moved the article. That's where this issue was handled before, resulting in this article being moved back to Louise Bickerton. See, e.g., this. The issue was settled then in accordance with established Wikipedia procedures, not as part of a move war. You bypassed those procedures with your move, which is very unfortunate. Tennis expert (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the dicussion at this review and noted that there was no consensus. I do not consider Parsecboy's lone agreement (as the only uninvolved contributor to the discussion) to be the final word, and therefore don't understand how the issue was "settled" there. In any case, his answer to his own argument is flawed, as he appears to base his decision on "what can be verified, not necessarily what is true" (as per WP:V), but Louie is both verified and true.

I don't feel that this move is controversial and I didn't bypass procedures, as WP:RM is not required. If this were a controversial move, I almost certainly would have taken it there. As it is, strong evidence has already been provided for Louie, which in an encyclopaedia (even if it is an online one) should outweigh Google hits. Maedin\^talk 11:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course your move is controversial. That's why there was an extensive discussion about how this article should be named and why there is conflicting evidence about her name in the real world. You chose to believe evidence that points only one way, unilaterally concluded that the other evidence is not credible, and then ignored the outcome of a previous WP:RM to force this article to reflect your opinion. That's very unfortunate and should be reversed. By the way, how do you know that "Louie" is "true"? Your personal opinion about truth is irrelevant and is WP:OR. Tennis expert (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was not 'extensive' and only one editor was in agreement with you. You also appear to believe only evidence that points one way, although I do you the benefit of guessing this instead of stating it.

Certainly, active editors may feel free to move or take to WP:RM, or actually state disagreement here. If the move was controversial, I am sure someone else will point it out. Maedin\^talk 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus to keep article at this title.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tennis expert at WP:RM, where this move is listed, are misleading for a number of reasons. First, I'm female. Second, this page was moved twice by an admin (Anthony Appleyard) to Louie, at which point Tennis expert requested comment on the decisions, here, at this "review". The only contributors to the discussion are the IP who originally requested the move to Louie, Tennis expert who opposed the move, and Parsecboy who voiced agreement with a move back to Louise. Tennis expert continues to calls this a conclusion to the matter (see above discussions) even though one active editor at WP:RM (Parsecboy) disagreeing with the original admin who made the moves (Anthony Appleyard) is not what I consider a conclusion. Third, I am not obligated to request moves at WP:RM and did not do so because I examined the evidence and found it to be clearly verifiable and in favour of Louie, not because I "personally believe" it is correct. Furthermore, Parsecboy invites IP 203.221.111.60 to present his evidence in favour of Louie, which he does on this page (see this section) and which appears to have been unilaterally ignored thus far. Tennis expert has not yet explained why he thinks his Google hits bear more weight in this argument than published sources, government records, and researched articles. I invite you to examine the evidence, and the references I have added to the article itself, and make comment either in Opposition to the move, to keep the article at Louie, in spite of my disruptively BOLD actions, or support a move back to Louise. Maedin\^talk 10:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the move reflects your personal belief. "I examined the evidence." I "found it to be clearly verifiable and in favor of Louie." Those are your words, reflecting your personal analysis and conclusions. Instead of respecting the previous WP:RM discussion, you ignored the conclusion of the previous discussion, acted unilaterally without prior notice, omitted the WP:RM process from your decision to move the article again, and are now being disingenuous about exactly why you've done what you did. You should undo the move pending the outcome of a new WP:RM. Tennis expert (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move on the grounds of evidence of actual name, not traditional misspellings. I see that the previous RM was inconclusive and that there has been edit warring. However, neither of those should influence the rationale basis decision now requested at WP:RM. --Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Virtually all primary and secondary sources agree her name was Louie. The arguments of User:Maedin and 203.221.111.60 are very convincing. In addition, Bud Collins in Total Tennis: The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia refers to her as Louie. Station1 (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which secondary sources are you talking about? Tennis expert (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those listed above, especially the Metzler and Matthews books, the Sydney Morning Herald of 1935 and 1998, and, perhaps slightly less reliably, the three Strathfield references and The Grapeline], as well as the Collins book (although one might argue that last is a tertiary source, it is reliable and her name is given as Louie in the running text). Station1 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for reasons already stated. Tennis expert (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ghits are all very well but the alternative written authoritative evidence supplied above is more than convincing. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Faith in Wikipedia restored!

This is 203.221.111.60, who tried to change Louise to Louie all that time ago. I must confess that I had given up the cause as lost, having provided such authoritative references, and still not convinced other contributors at the time. Until now I hadn't checked the page, but was relieved to find that the correct name has prevailed (I notice that the number of other websites adopting the correct name are on the increase. Such is the influence of Wikipedia!).

Other resources, such as old newspapers that have been digitised, are increaingly becoming available online. The following are some further references to Louie Bickerton from old Australian newspapers, provided on the National Library of Australia site:

The Argus, Melbourne, 12-Dec-1916 page 5 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1617754?searchTerm=%22Louie+Bickerton%22

The Argus, Melbourne, 13-Dec-1918 page 4 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1410420?searchTerm=%22Louie+Bickerton%22

The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, 19-Jan-1934 page 9 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1161589?searchTerm=%22Louie+Bickerton%22

The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, 23-Jan-1934 page 10 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1163058?searchTerm=%22Louie+Bickerton%22

The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, 27-Jan-1934 page 10 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1164633?searchTerm=%22Louie+Bickerton%22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.111.186 (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 203.221.111.60, we finally made it! I had a fight of it, too, to get the page changed to Louie Bickerton, but it worked in the end! Thank you for the sources, I'll see if they can be incorporated into the article. Thank you for all of your legwork, previously, too. The research was a big help. Maedin\^talk 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]