Talk:Mt Kenya United F.C.

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Football in Africa portal This article is supported by the African football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Africa: Kenya Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kenya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Mid-importance).

Requested move 9 June 2019

Moved (non-admin closure) Interstellarity T 🌟 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Nakumatt F.C. → Mt Kenya United F.C. – This source confirms the club has changed names, further supported by their Facebook page. Alternative spelling of the new name is Mount Kenya United F.C. (see eg Soccerway) but more sources (and official Facebook) favour 'Mt' and I think so should we. Once moved we should create redirects at Mt Kenya United FC, Mt Kenya United, Mt. Kenya United F.C., Mt. Kenya United FC, Mt. Kenya United, Mount Kenya United FC and Mount Kenya United. Giant Snowman 17:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The change of official name is not a valid reason for a move, nor is the use of the new name in primary sources. Has the common name changed? But agree that redirects would be good. Andrewa (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: yes, the COMMONNAME has also changed, as shown by the Soccerway link... Giant Snowman 09:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems likely to be a primary source that simply reflects the official name. Andrewa (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a primary source. Giant Snowman 10:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note we had an article on the website but it was deleted. Has it been discussed elsewhere?
Please note also this point at the relevant Wikiproject talk page. Andrewa (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Soccerway is not a primary source. Respectfully, you don't know what you're on about here. Giant Snowman 19:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a no, it hasn't been discussed or even considered. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. [1] So to blandly say that Socccerway isn't a primary source shows no understanding of the policy. Best. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Search the WT:FOOTBALL archives or ask @Struway2: for info about Soccerway. Giant Snowman 07:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa and GiantSnowman: Seeing as I was pinged here... Soccerway is a WP:RS for playing stats, teams' fixtures and results, and to some extent player personal details (dob, height): it's published by a reputable media organisation with a reputation for fact checking, it accepts sourced corrections, and it doesn't accept corrections if it doesn't think the sourcing is adequate. As far as I'm aware, that's what most editors use it for. I've never considered using it to source a club's exact official name (to be fair, I only remember one occasion when I've wanted to source a club's official name), and wouldn't use a general football database for common name because all databases have their own house style. It lists club names in their native language e.g. FK Crvena zvezda Beograd, where our common name is (after umpteen RMs) Red Star Belgrade. In the Nakumatt case, I'd expect it to reflect the name change as per the club's media or that of the appropriate governing body, and its orthography to follow that of its source. Which does make it effectively a primary source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ (change of !vote). Relevant evidence has now been provided, see discussion. I remain concerned about the possible canvassing... again see discussion. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support (change of !vote) as we now have multiple recent sources using the new name. Andrewa (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support We should change as the name changed, as has been done for many clubs and the consensus on Wikipedia (does anyone use Manchester City F.C. as the common name?). Would also add redirect from Mount Kenya United F.C.. --SuperJew (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the name change. Number 5 7 11:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The Kenyan Premier League uses Mount Kenya United. I take them as an authority on the names of the clubs that play in their league. Jts1882 | talk 11:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support a change, not sure which orthography. The club's badge has "Mt. Kenya", the KPL has "Mount Kenya", news searches favour "Mount".
The previous name, Nakumatt, was that of the club's owners/sponsors, a supermarket company: see Capital FM. When the club was sold to new owners, the name was changed in November 2018 away from that of a company that no longer owned/sponsored it.
Google News searches restricted to this calendar year (i.e. since the name change) and including KPL, the acronym for the league in which the club plays (to restrict the results to football-related), show a decent number of results including Mt Kenya United, considerably more results including Mount Kenya United, and only a few results for Nakumatt with or without either new name, a fair proportion of which are using Nakumatt appropriately to refer to the club's activities before the name change. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We shouldn't use Soccerway for this, but the name change is easily found. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is likely to be based on a press release. If so it's another primary source (far more clearly than Soccerway in fact, which at this stage is a maybe). The evidence we need is articles etc that refer to the club by its new name in discussing something else rather than in discussing the renaming itself. And we now seem to have these. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming you're right about the press release (which I don't think is accurate) see also [2] [3] [4]. As I said, this is easily found. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if supporters of the move would read the relevant policies and provide relevant evidence such as that there would be no problem at all. Andrewa (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I love that you're dismissing every source as primary and assuming that they get their info from a press release? You're the only person opposing it. Maybe take the hint? Giant Snowman 07:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that this post above was made after I !voted to support. And I was not dismissing every source as primary, that is similarly false. An unhelpful addition if ever there was one! Andrewa (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please note this edit and the following discussion there. It may or may not be considered canvassing but it should I believe be noted.

Please note I don't object to the initial heads-up listing this discussion at the Wikiproject. But I think the discussion section at the Wikiproject talk page was unfortunate. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More important, we still seem to be relying on primary sources above. Note that a source can be primary for some information and secondary for others. If it just repeats the club's official name and automatically changes that whenever the club changes it, then for that information it's a primary source. Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That last !vote does finally provide some relevant evidence! Note wp:NAMECHANGES which supports preferring recent sources as has been done. Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not canvassing. It's encouraging participants to discuss, given that (despite being listed on the relevant WikiProject's disucssion list, there were 0 particpants for over 2 weeks. Giant Snowman 19:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline IMO. It appears to have been a response to my !vote, five minutes later. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the post is that this move should have been uncontroversial (and judging by the outcome, this held), but considering the first !voter opposed after two weeks of no attention whatsoever, more eyeballs were needed to make sure we got the correct outcome, as opposed to GiantSnowman pushing any POV. No reason to waste any more energy on this. SportingFlyer T·C 08:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm disappointed that this hasn't been closed as move some time ago. It could certainly have been closed as soon as I withdrew my oppose !vote, immediately after the first source was provided, in fact IMO it wan't even necessary to wait for me to do that, as my rationale had lost its validity. So we had strong consensus to move. Suggest everyone read wp:closing. Why has it taken so long? Because instead of providing these sources, contributors chose to argue that they weren't necessary, post a duplicate heads-up at the Wikiproject, suggest that it was my job to find the sources, and even that I needed to change my !vote after I already had. And as a result we now have a long and daunting discussion that will take even longer to find a closer. But it will happen. We did get there.

Had the sources we now have been provided by the nominator, I would have closed it as move rather than even !voting. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.