Talk:Hanoi FC

Requested move 15 January 2017

 * 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 to Hà Nội F.C. There is a rough consensus that since the name change most sources seem to be using it. Also I've kept the punctuation as that seems to be the norm with Vietnamese football club articles. Per Andrewa's comments below, it would probably be worth revisiting this to see if we should change Hà Nội to Hanoi, the common English name of the city. Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hà Nội T&T F.C. → Hà Nội FC – The club has changed its name since 2017. Wearehk (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  16:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment no evidence presented, and official site still says "T&T" so worth a discussion. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like the official website has not been updated for hat least half year (still showing matches in May 2016 in next fixtures section). The name is changed on the V.League website. Wearehk (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have found the news about the renaming, but it is written in Vietnamese. Wearehk (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support WP:CONCISE can also apply. Timmyshin (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose but should perhaps be relisted. No rationale in terms of WP:AT, impossible to tell whether WP:CONCISE applies. Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Per below, sources appear to be using the new name.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

 * Move to either Hanoi FC or Hanoi T&T FC. Neither the proposed title nor the current title seem to have significant usage in English. Andrewa (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose diacritics-less alternative - Must be consistent with articles about Vietnamese soccer teams, like Hà Nội F.C. (1956) and Sài Gòn F.C. (redirected from Ha Noi F.C. (2011)). Same with pages from Category:Football clubs in Vietnam. However, I don't mind a central discussion about Vietnamese-related pages, so case-by-case basis wouldn't be necessary. George Ho (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Are diacritics used in reliable English sources to refer to any of these other teams? If so this argument has some merit, but if not... well, two wrongs don't make a right. Our treatment of Vietnamese football clubs doesn't seem consistent... Sài Gòn F.C. on the one hand and Saigon United F.C. on the other. Surely the second name is far more recognisable to most English speakers? Andrewa (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Saigon United FC" has maintenance issues, even when not tagged. The sources are absent, and the notability is indeterminate. As said, you can try central discussion. What about WP:VPP or WT:AT? Unsure about WT:VIETNAM, which is less populated. --George Ho (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a central discussion to precede this one... it can work either way, and this RM being already in process it makes sense to deal with this instance first. If sources do not support the use of diacritics (and the embedded blank and capital N, which are more important), as it seems, then they should be removed, unless there is already a specialised naming convention that addresses this.
 * Feel free to raise these other issues with the Saigon United article, including an RM if you feel that the diacritics should be added there, but again this discussion does not need to wait for these to be resolved. Andrewa (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Switching to neutral toward the alternative. WP:DIACRITICS says use WP:COMMONNAMES. Even "common sense" would usually say no over-stylized diacritics. Consistency would usually say no to the alternative, but I'm now torn. George Ho (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not even recognise Hà Nội as Hanoi when I first saw it. It seems to me that in English they are the same word, styled differently, and that in this case at least the name is commonly styled Hanoi, and is also more recognisable as that.
 * We can and should have an RfC as it seems to have become common in English Wikipedia titles to style these names Hà Nội, Sài Gòn, etc.. This RM result is a key input to that RfC, as in this case the evidence and policy based case for Hanoi is quite frankly overwhelming.
 * The one reason for keeping Hà Nội is the consistency argument. But we do not want to be consistently wrong. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
This move should take place if and only if the renaming is already reflected in reliable English secondary sources. What we want is English sources independent of the club that talk about some aspect of the club other than just its renaming. If these use the new name, that's evidence that the article should be moved. If recent sources use the old name, that's evidence it should not be moved... not now at least and perhaps never. Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * English-language sources are using the new name; 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. Snowflake91  (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * These sources use the name Hanoi not Hà Nội, should we not do likewise? Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Newer English-language sources worldwide:
 * Hanoi FC: FIFA, The Peninsula (Qatar), Vietnam Net (2017)*, Ghana Soccernet*, Manila Bulletin, Yonhap, FourFourTwo, Sports 24/7 (Malaysia)*, Kawowo*, Nhan Dan, Talk Vietnam*, Vietnam Breaking News*, RTHK, Phil Star, Gulf Today
 * Hanoi T&T: Fox Sports Asia, ESPN FC, Sun Star*, Vietnam Net (2016)*, The New Paper (Singapore), Goal.com (Malaysia)*, Xinhua, Korea Times, Tehran Times, Tuoi Tre News (Feb 2016), The Guardian, Manila Times, Khmer Times*
 * Interchangeable: Dantri Intl*

I'll re-evaluate the sources and comment on them. George Ho (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable sources and sources whose notability are not yet determined are recently marked with asterisk (*). George Ho (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Counting just unmarked sources, nine use "FC", and eight use "T&T". Evaluating sources marked with asterisk (*), three Vietnamese sources and three sports news sources use "FC", totaling to six marked sources; one Vietnamese source, one Philippine, one sports news, and one Cambodian use "T&T", totaling to four. George Ho (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation on basis of countries/states would go like this:
 * Hanoi T&T: two Asian counterparts of US sport channels, two from Vietnam, one from Malaysia, two from Philippines, one from Singapore, one from China, one from South Korea, one from Iran, one from UK, and one from Cambodia—totaling to ten countries
 * Hanoi FC: one international governing body HQed in Switzerland, one from Qatar, four from Vietnam, one from Ghana, two from Philippines, one from South Korea, one from Singapore, one from Malaysia, one from Uganda, one from Hong Kong, and one from United Arab Emirates—totaling to ten countries plus one autonomous region of China

I don't know whether we should weigh more on English-languages sources from Vietnam. Some WP articles about news sources do not exist at the moment, unlike Nhan Dan, and proofs of the notabilities of those sources are not yet conclusive. WP:DIVIDEDUSE and WP:NAMECHANGES might apply; however, Naming conventions (sports teams) may be more influential and instructs people to use either a distinctively clear official name or a name commonly used by reliable sources. George Ho (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:George Ho, I should have asked before, what do you mean by notabilities of those sources? Do you mean reliability, or is this notability a new criterion you are suggesting? Or is it already part of a policy or guideline and I've missed it? We consider notability of topics, yes. But sources? Andrewa (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have been clear earlier, so I'll clarify for you: I meant that articles about sources, like Goal.com, Vietnamnet (or Vietnamnet Bridge), Khmer Times, or Ghana Soccernet, do not exist at the moment. Any of the sources themselves might be notable under Wikipedia's definition; the notabilities are not yet evaluated. The sources might still be reliable, even when their notabilities are either nonexistent or indeterminate. --George Ho (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. But doesn't that make their notability completely irrelevant to this discussion? Andrewa (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point about the relevancy. I have to be cautious about weighing on such sources, but... I can use those sources (at care). George Ho (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * After re-thinking, I realize that notability ≠ reliability, i.e. notable ≠ reliable. Outrage (2009 film) is notable, but the film itself is a contentious source to use. I was involved in discussions about using the film as a source for living persons several years ago. We agree about which material about living persons to include and/or omit. The "notability ≠ reliability" thing doesn't imply that a non-notable source is okay to use or avoidable. Nevertheless, I guess we can weigh on non-notable but reliable sources after all. George Ho (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There's an added complication that there is Hà Nội F.C. (1956) which was itself renamed a couple of times, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanoi_F.C.&action=history for some of its page history. Andrewa (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Can I join your team
I 197.211.53.57 (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)