Talk:Team Coop–Repsol (women's team)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 15:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hitec Products UCK → Hitec Products – New team name; target page has been protected from creation Severo (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Besides of that the 2nd line of the article is: ''It is sponsored by Hitec Products [1], a Norwegian owned company with head office in Stavanger. The company develops and delivers control systems, electro-hydraulic systems and chemical injection systems to the international energy industry.'' So people who want to know what the company is, they will find it (but they won't find anything at this time, because there is no article). Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The name Hitec Products was formerly used for an article on the Norwegian company, Hitec Products, which makes oilfield equipment and sponsors the team. It is desirable to find a name for the team article that won't have to be changed if the company's article comes back. Since the team's own website at http://teamhitecproducts.no/ refers to it as 'Team Hitec Products' I suggest that might be considered. Another option is to append a disambiguator like '(Cycling team)'. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto: Hitec Products with no other words or initials added is a manufacturing firm, not their racing cycling team. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not an uncommon problem for cycling team this as teams are named after their sponsors but they usually disambiguate themselves by combining two sponsors or adding "Pro Cycling Team" or something similar in their official name. In this case, Hitec Products is the official name as we go with what they have registered with governing body, the UCI, and it's Hitec Products. That said, the company would normally be notable enough to have an article itself so we would disambiguate with (cycling team). I'm not sure about this one though as it seems odd to have a disambiguator without a main article... Severo (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME:
 * "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change."
 * The article currently has three references, all referring to "Hitec Products UCK" as the team name, so until a new name is adopted by reliable sources, the move is premature. We should not pre-empt the change just because of an official announcement (WP:CRYSTAL).
 * If reliable sources adopt the new name, and there is no article for Hitec Products as a company, then perhaps the title should be used for the cycling team. Under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it is relevant to consider whether someone would go to the Wikipedia page titled "Hitec Products" expecting to find the cycling team rather than the sponsor company, and if so, it would be the primary topic and should use that title.  However, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is part of WP:Disambiguation, so it is not strictly applicable unless the company (or another topic) also has an article for the same title.  Even if most users would expect to find an article about the company when they go to "Hitec Products", if no such article exists (because the company fails WP:NOTABILITY), then the title should still be free for the cycling team — perhaps with a hatnote clarifying that the article is about the team and briefly referring to the name-sake sponsor in the article — but it would then need to be moved if the company's article is re-created.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On a G News search, Hitec Products gets all the results - it was probably the common name before if anything. Severo (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to Hitec Products. Indeed on Google news, the cycling team gets all the results. The team didn't compete yet in a 2014 cycling race, so there are so far not many articles referring to Hitec Products. There are some good ones: 1, 2, 3, 4. I think during the 2014 season many will come.


 * Weak oppose Normally I'd say sure, this is the only thing called "Hitec Products" on Wikipedia, but my hunch is that the company is notable. I'm even ok with redirecting the proposed title here until a company article is written, for readers' benefit. I'll go ahead and do that. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, to summarise, there are two options with both its pros and cons.
 * a. moving the page to "Hitec Products (cycling team)" and redirect Hitec Products to that page until the page of the company will be created.
 * b. moving the page to "Hitec Products" and if someone in the future wants to make the page of the company, the cycling page should be moved to "Hitec Products (cycling team)". Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A bit of a mess. It should first be pointed out that the official name is not terribly relevant (and that's policy, the essay just attempts to untangle it a bit as most people seem to guess wrong at first), so the initial rationale for the move above is similarly irrelevant. The lack of a Wikipedia article at the target and the possible non-notability of the company are relevant points, but the overriding consideration IMO is that the proposed new name would be insufficiently precise to be recognisable. Andrewa (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, support redirect. The team's "official" name is less relevant until it becomes more widely used in primary sources. Until that time, the redirect implemented during discussion serves the practical purpose of sending readers to the only existing article, whilst also maintaining the placeholder name for the company itself, about which an article should probably be written. Xoloz (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2014 (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.