Talk:Oldham R.L.F.C.

message: Assessed as "Start" standard with "High" importance. A section on amateur RL in the area may be useful, as would some photographs (particularly any from previous eras) and a section on notable players. Details of recent results/seasons need to be written more generically (don't use "last season", use "season 2006" as this doesn't date) and kept to a minimum (unless of long term significance) Tim Fellows 03:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

message: According to rugbyleagueproject.org a Mike Edwards played for Oldham in 1995-96 and USA in 2006, is this the same Mike Edwards? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Edwards - Oldham and USA? 

message: :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: no consensus. This is basically an argument between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. The !votes are split, so unless someone can give a compelling argument for following OFFICIAL or ignoring COMMON (i.e. changing someone's mind or invalidating the someone's argument) this is probably going to never reach a consensus. I'm not opposed to further discussion proceeding (either here or elsewhere) but I'd suggest waiting a bit before trying yet another RM. In light of that, I'm going to leave the "discussion" section un-hatted (for now). Who knows, consensus might actually arise out of it. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oldham Roughyeds →  – Following the discussion at Talk:Toronto Wolfpack regarding ignoring sources we know are factually wrong, I believe it's time to take another look at renaming this article. At the Wolfpack talk page, it was decided that although several sources claim that the club is the first trans-Atlantic professional sports club, we would not include this line in the article due to the fact it is clearly wrong as several other examples of trans-Atlantic pro sports teams can be provided. This issue here for Oldham is, some sources still refer to the club as Oldham Roughyeds as if it's the clubs official name, yet we *know* from several other sources, including the club itself, that the name of the club is Oldham R.L.F.C., with Roughyeds being the clubs official nickname. To put this into context, it's like having the Hull City A.F.C. article at Hull City Tigers or back in RL terms, having the Halifax R.L.F.C. article at Halifax Blues. Some sources: Official Oldham RLFC Twitter displaying the clubs name while using the nickname as the handle, Official club website again using the nickname as a handle, while clearly displaying the offical club name at the top of the page and Love Rugby League, widely used by Wikipedia as a reliable source for RL articles, using the clubs proper name – Just a quick final note, the reason I'm proposing the "R.L.F.C." suffix instead of "RLFC" is to conform to the standard on Wikipedia as per Hunslet R.L.F.C., St Helens R.F.C. and Hull F.C. etc.. Skemcraig (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

text: It's probably best if this is brought up centrally at WPRL, as any comments here are likely to be repeats of the recent discussion.Fleets (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue with the proposal is that the article name doesn't need to be the same as the official name. So while I don't think anyone disputes the official name of the club is Oldham R.L.F.C, this debate needs to focus on what the WP:COMMONNAME is. Mattlore (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The big problem with that  is that the "common name" for St Helens R.F.C. is Saints, so by your logic that article could/should be Saints (rugby league). It seems a bit pedantic to me to use the official name for every other clubs article, but yet use a known incorrect name here for the sake of some people in the media, who probably barely even follow Rugby League, mistakenly referring to Oldham R.L.F.C. by their nickname. Skemcraig (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If most people were trying to find St Helens by searching for Saints (rugby league), then yes that is where the page should be - but I do not believe that is the case as I don't believe that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Mattlore (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: For me, it follows from the football (soccer) clubs MoS, Burnley F.C., Sunderland A.F.C. etc... and our own sports Hull F.C. too. Skemcraig (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

text: That should be neutral then if you think neither side has put forward a good enough argument? Skemcraig (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that I was against it before, and the same or similar arguments put up, why would that when coming to a vote put me in the neutral camp. Was only making sure it didn't squeak through because I didn't vote. I'm not 100% against the move, but the only solution is the one that I've put forward previously.Fleets (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

text: 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.
===Discussion===
The rationale seems based on the claim that ignoring sources we know are factually wrong is supported by consensus at Talk:Toronto Wolfpack. I see no such consensus, and such a decision would be contrary to current policy in any case.
The support seems based on the official name and the contributor's personal opinion. This again has no basis in policy. These opinions do matter, but not enough to justify this proposed move. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

text: So to clarify, the policy of Wikipedia is to use the official name for every sports club in the entire world, except Oldham R.L.F.C., who must be known on this website by their nickname because some people in the media are ignorant of their factual error... Interesting policy that. Oh btw, my "personal opinion" has nowt to do with this. These official and correct sources that are being willfully ignored DO matter though. Official governing body website, Offical club website (note the difference between the official club name and the clubs use of it's nickname) and  Club's verified Twitter account (again, note the difference between use of official name and nickname – As for the common name argument, the only people, some of whom are journalists I agree, that are still using the name "Oldham Roughyeds" are now proven to be factually incorrect. For me, sticking with a proven factually incorrect title here on Wikipedia because some sloppy journos cannot be bothered to check their information is correct before publishing is a truly terrible outcome for this project. To put it simply, everyone who knows anything about UK Rugby league, knows that the title of this article is wrong and sticking with it because of 'common name' is just plain daft and actually counter-productive to Wikipedia IMHO. Basically, my reply to WP:COMMONNAME is: We know the name of the club is Oldham R.L.F.C., we have several official sources to back that up, yes a lot of people in the media get it wrong, so common name has to be addressed, but not bound to! Skemcraig (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you are left with no option but to write to every media outlet and get them to stop calling them by their informal name. I would take your issue up with COMMONNAME and see if their is something habitually wrong there, but it is what has been decided here on two separate occasions. I can see merit in both sides, but I don't think you'll gain any traction, best to right the system, if the system is wrong.Fleets (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME here is the rugby union article Harlequin F.C.! Everyone and I mean everyone calls this club Harlequins, that is the "common name" for the club, yet that article uses the clubs official name, like I'm advocating here. (Ps: before anyone tries to cite it, the essay other stuff exists holds no weight with me as it's usually used as an excuse to shut down discussions rather than answer the valid arguments made.) Skemcraig (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be more than one claim to the title Harlequin, and thus I imagine that the FC would be preferable to any rugby people meeting a disambiguation page. To my knowledge Roughyed is a local word to Oldham to let people know they're not a Manc.Fleets (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Also the addition of the term rugby to the end is something alot of rugby clubs do have, such as Munster and Gloucester. Harlequins don't and as such I imagine they arrived at that article name many moons ago.Fleets (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My point Fleets, is that a precedent for ignoring COMMONNAME has been set at Harlequin F.C. – There it's because of the reasons you cite, here it's because we know the media use of Oldham Roughyeds is wrong. A precedent for not being bound to COMMONNAME when it goes against common sense exists, and I think that's important. Skemcraig (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't agree that it would be a precedent, but I haven't investigated how they ended up at that name. I wouldn't say it would be a precedent because they are apples and pears, both different, but both fruits. I can understand where you're coming from as the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles are not where anyone today would search for those teams, but they are a historical blend that is accurate of the clubs whole names. I would say the current position is far from perfect, but it does try and respect history and COMMONNAME for those searching.Fleets (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 March 2017 

message: The rationale seems based on the claim that ignoring sources we know are factually wrong is supported by consensus at Talk:Toronto Wolfpack. I see no such consensus, and such a decision would be contrary to current policy in any case.
The support seems based on the official name and the contributor's personal opinion. This again has no basis in policy. These opinions do matter, but not enough to justify this proposed move. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So to clarify, the policy of Wikipedia is to use the official name for every sports club in the entire world, except Oldham R.L.F.C., who must be known on this website by their nickname because some people in the media are ignorant of their factual error... Interesting policy that. Oh btw, my "personal opinion" has nowt to do with this. These official and correct sources that are being willfully ignored DO matter though. Official governing body website, Offical club website (note the difference between the official club name and the clubs use of it's nickname) and  Club's verified Twitter account (again, note the difference between use of official name and nickname – As for the common name argument, the only people, some of whom are journalists I agree, that are still using the name "Oldham Roughyeds" are now proven to be factually incorrect. For me, sticking with a proven factually incorrect title here on Wikipedia because some sloppy journos cannot be bothered to check their information is correct before publishing is a truly terrible outcome for this project. To put it simply, everyone who knows anything about UK Rugby league, knows that the title of this article is wrong and sticking with it because of 'common name' is just plain daft and actually counter-productive to Wikipedia IMHO. Basically, my reply to WP:COMMONNAME is: We know the name of the club is Oldham R.L.F.C., we have several official sources to back that up, yes a lot of people in the media get it wrong, so common name has to be addressed, but not bound to! Skemcraig (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you are left with no option but to write to every media outlet and get them to stop calling them by their informal name. I would take your issue up with COMMONNAME and see if their is something habitually wrong there, but it is what has been decided here on two separate occasions. I can see merit in both sides, but I don't think you'll gain any traction, best to right the system, if the system is wrong.Fleets (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME here is the rugby union article Harlequin F.C.! Everyone and I mean everyone calls this club Harlequins, that is the "common name" for the club, yet that article uses the clubs official name, like I'm advocating here. (Ps: before anyone tries to cite it, the essay other stuff exists holds no weight with me as it's usually used as an excuse to shut down discussions rather than answer the valid arguments made.) Skemcraig (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be more than one claim to the title Harlequin, and thus I imagine that the FC would be preferable to any rugby people meeting a disambiguation page. To my knowledge Roughyed is a local word to Oldham to let people know they're not a Manc.Fleets (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Also the addition of the term rugby to the end is something alot of rugby clubs do have, such as Munster and Gloucester. Harlequins don't and as such I imagine they arrived at that article name many moons ago.Fleets (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My point Fleets, is that a precedent for ignoring COMMONNAME has been set at Harlequin F.C. – There it's because of the reasons you cite, here it's because we know the media use of Oldham Roughyeds is wrong. A precedent for not being bound to COMMONNAME when it goes against common sense exists, and I think that's important. Skemcraig (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't agree that it would be a precedent, but I haven't investigated how they ended up at that name. I wouldn't say it would be a precedent because they are apples and pears, both different, but both fruits. I can understand where you're coming from as the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs and Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles are not where anyone today would search for those teams, but they are a historical blend that is accurate of the clubs whole names. I would say the current position is far from perfect, but it does try and respect history and COMMONNAME for those searching.Fleets (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: On the club's website it appears that the club's actual name is now firmly "Oldham R.L.F.C." rather than the 'Oldham Roughyeds' name.
Does that mean this page's heading should reflect the website name of "Oldham R.L.F.C."?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.128.83 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The website may still have the same name, but opposition clubs have now moved away from Roughyeds in 2017, the RFL and numerous other places have them as Oldham R.L.F.C. It is up for debate I guess?Fleets (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to move the page if there is support for a move.Fleets (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Support from me in buckets.  Hunslet Hawks (their proper name) dropped the Hawks suffix in the recent past and quietly moved their page to simply Hunslet.  It makes sense that Oldham, who have never been called Oldham Roughyeds, have the correct name for their page. Caramboo (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Support from all of us fans at Oldham Rlfc for this name change. The correct name is Oldham RLFC. Roughyed36 (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved.Fleets (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: It's been moved back. If I wasn't on a truth crusade before, I am now. Caramboo (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: WP:COMMONNAME League Express Total RL Forums, Love Rugby League, The Rugby Football League, Serious About Rugby League, Sky Sports,The Oldham Times, The Oldham Chronicle.  I could go on.  Industry publications who know their sport know what the club is called and that should be reflected in the page title.  It really is the most common sense approach.  Change it back please. Caramboo (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Feel free to start a new WP:RM if you think the common name has changed, but as it’s been through RM before, it shouldn’t be moved again without a new consensus.—Cúchullain t/c 12:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Done that (I think).  The links I found and listed above are all Rugby League sources, all of whom understand that the club is not called Oldham Roughyeds (OR).  It's Oldham, Oldham R.L.F.C or to use the club's longstanding nickname, The Roughyeds.  A stumbling block is the Wikipedia page.  It perpetuates the false belief that OR is the name of the club; I've had personal experience of being shown the page on a mobile device as proof the club is called OR.  In 2018, it's clear that (from my links) the term OR is being abandoned and the club called by its proper name, the only one it's ever had.  I propose that this move take place.  Caramboo (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

text: You need to start a new WP:RM discussion, you can’t just move the page unilaterally. In the RM you’ll need to show that RLFC is the WP:COMMONNAME.—Cúchullain t/c 13:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oldham Roughyeds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20111002175703/http://www.rugbyleagueforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?tid=19392 to http://www.rugbyleagueforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?tid=19392
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified