Talk:Metropolitans 92
Latest comment: 7 years ago by JFG in topic Renaming the category?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metropolitans 92 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 5 July 2017
edit- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved. Not sure about the category, though. See comment below. — JFG talk 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Paris-Levallois Basket → Levallois Metropolitans – Le Paris Levallois devient les Levallois Metropolitans (English: The Paris Levallois becomes in the Levallois Metropolitans). So, the article shall be named as the the current name of the club. Also, the template (Template:Paris-Levallois Basket current roster → Template:Levallois Metropolitans current roster) and the category (Category:Paris-Levallois Basket players → Category:Levallois Metropolitans players) should be renamed along with the article. Vasconia (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Survey
edit- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support This kind of moves should not require a survey. There is an official source, so, do it directly. Asturkian (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support The article should be re-named. EuroCup only uses the current official full names of the clubs. So it definitely changed names then.Bluesangrel (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Oppose.Please read the article naming policy. The official name doesn't count for much, and neither do primary sources. Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)- Neutral (change of !vote) see below. And we move on. Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support. As we already saw earlier this year, I think this is going to become a frequent source of friendly disagreement between you and me, Andrewa...
According to me, and according to my reading of WP:OFFICIALNAMES, it's not true that the official name "doesn't count for much"... in fact it counts for quite a lot because the fact that the organisation itself uses the name means that it is in contention for common name, (and primary sources count towards that reading of WP:COMMONNAME as well as secondary). In my experience, when a name changes it is more likely that a majority of other reliable sources will use that name. Not always, but in more than half of cases. In this specific instance it is highly unlikely that the team would rename itself but reliable sources would continue using the old name, particularly when the next season starts and they're reporting on matches. And yes, from a quick news search we can see already that French news sources are using the new name: [1][2] English sources seem to be quite scarce for this team under either old or new name, but I don't think it violates WP:CRYSTAL to think they will follow the French. — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- The only violation of wp:CRYSTAL is that nobody has been able to provide any evidence from English sources. But that is a violation IMO, and I'd have preferred to wait until such occur. Meantime I get almost 30,000 ghits for the old name (that's supposed to be English results but I see a few in French). I would also like to see some sign that WP:AT has been read. But not worth relisting IMO, so I will defer and change !vote. Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: Fair enough, so your main beef is more that people bring nominations forth, citing the official name change, without necessarily understanding all the detail of the WP:AT policy beforehand. Personally I say it's great for you to bring that up in your comments, and the RM itself is a good chance to help educate the nominator on those points, but ultimately WP:VOLUNTEER should apply, as well as WP:BITE. We can't compel people to read up on all the policies, and we shouldn't give their requests less airtime because they didn't do so. That's why if I see a nomination citing official names I don't just oppose and say that the official name is irrelevant, I try to take the time to go away and evaluate what the WP:COMMONNAME situation really is, and if it has followed the official name or not. I suspect we both end up at roughly the same place anyway, so no biggie! — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- I hope I don't insist on people understanding all the detail of the WP:AT policy beforehand, let alone that they read up on all the policies, see wp:creed#bold. But I would like to see some attempt made at understanding the basics of WP:AT, and IMO any nomination or !vote that is based entirely on a recent change of official name, with no evidence of its adoption other than in primary sources, shows a failure to do this. Andrewa (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Right. And I wasn't meaning to imply you were biting BTW, just thinking about the issue abstractly, and how we should treat our Wikipedian colleagues, both new and old... — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- I hope I don't insist on people understanding all the detail of the WP:AT policy beforehand, let alone that they read up on all the policies, see wp:creed#bold. But I would like to see some attempt made at understanding the basics of WP:AT, and IMO any nomination or !vote that is based entirely on a recent change of official name, with no evidence of its adoption other than in primary sources, shows a failure to do this. Andrewa (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: Fair enough, so your main beef is more that people bring nominations forth, citing the official name change, without necessarily understanding all the detail of the WP:AT policy beforehand. Personally I say it's great for you to bring that up in your comments, and the RM itself is a good chance to help educate the nominator on those points, but ultimately WP:VOLUNTEER should apply, as well as WP:BITE. We can't compel people to read up on all the policies, and we shouldn't give their requests less airtime because they didn't do so. That's why if I see a nomination citing official names I don't just oppose and say that the official name is irrelevant, I try to take the time to go away and evaluate what the WP:COMMONNAME situation really is, and if it has followed the official name or not. I suspect we both end up at roughly the same place anyway, so no biggie! — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
edit- Any additional comments:
- The club profile at EuroCup website is named with the new denomination. Asturkian (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2017 (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.
Renaming the category?
editNot sure we should move the category or create a separate one. Players who were registered in Category:Paris-Levallois Basket players were known under the former name. Only current players should be placed into Category:Levallois Metropolitans players. Will let editors of this article sort it out. — JFG talk 14:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)