Talk:Evergreen FC
Latest comment: 3 years ago by BD2412 in topic Requested move 26 February 2021
 | The contents of the Evergreen FC page were merged into Northern Virginia FC on April 15, 2021 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Requested move 26 February 2021
edit- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was: merge and rename to Northern Virginia FC. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a consensus that these are merely different iterations of the same entity, and should be merged under the proposed target name. BD2412 T 04:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Evergreen FC → Northern Virginia FC – Name change. Club will be operating as Northern Virginia FC, but that currently is set up as a redirect to the league page. Confirmed in this link RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 05:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge&Rename proposal:Upon some research, this club is actually the continuation of Northern Virginia Royals that after an ownership transfer in 2015 became Evergreen FC per source. Also this shows its under the same grouping/merger/association now. This article should probably just be re-directed/merged to that article, with that article taking this rename. RedPatchBoy (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is an uncontroversial move because of the source. Could even start by adding a history section to the article (since it needs some prose) and the change (if nothing else) can be discussed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Merge the articles on Northern Virginia Royals and Evergreen FC (we do not create new articles every time a club changes name) and then move that article to Northern Virginia FC to reflect the new name. I presume that Northern Virginia United FC is nothing to do with this? GiantSnowman 13:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, NVU is a separate club. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sources cited are primary sources. Redirect from the new official name is exactly what is required until and unless the new name is demonstrated to have become common usage. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: I mean there are other sources out there confirming the name change if you bothered to check... GiantSnowman 22:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that this is a reliable secondary source for the name? Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here are some more secondary sources from a quick google search: Press of Atlantic City, Our Sports Central, Berks Community TV, Front Row Soccer, Florida Elite, The Villages RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- The first of those reads Northern Virginia FC (formerly known as Evergreen FC), is that correct? That suggests that they think that the club is still widely known by its former name, does it not? Face it, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel if that's the best you can do. Do you and GiantSnowman really expect me to do your homework for you? I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I find his comment suggesting I had not bothered to check embarrassing as a Wikipedian. But then personal attacks are in practice no longer contrary to Wikipedia policy (and we wonder why editors leave). If the evidence was there, shouldn't you and he have come up with it by now? But please check your other sources, and give me your best one. And I will check it for you. Or is that one it? I have no time to check them if you don't seem to have bothered to do so. If you just cite a list of ghits without checking them, it proves absolutely nothing. We want to know that the recent and relevant ones favour the new name. That's all, but that's necessary. And we are not there yet. Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your original comment stated that the article for the name change was a primary source and not a secondary source. So I provided additional secondary sources that verify the name change. Now, you are stating that the articles all mention the old name, so it cannot be the common name, which is not the same as your original request (unless I misinterpreted it). I provided those sources specifically because they mentioned the former name to verify the name change, so your claim that I just googled a bunch and posted them without reading them is incorrect. There are articles that refer to them as just Northern Virginia FC such as Reading Eagle, Brotherly Game, EPSL, Ocean City. As for your claim that I "hadn't done my homework" on this name change, I feel I did. I've never had to provide 10 sources to back up a name change before, until now, one or two usually suffice. I don't feel like I made any personal attacks, I feel like my comments have been very civil in providing the requested sources. You claim I'm "scaping the bottom of the barrel" for sources - it's a fourth division club in the USA, so it's not like there will be CNN or ESPN sources, but I've still been able to provide several. Four users feel it is very clear and uncontroversial that it is their new correct name. It feels as though you are opposing simply to oppose. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you question my motives. I don't question yours. But when someone wastes my time as you did by simply not checking the so-called evidence they present (perhaps just assuming that others will not check them either, and that's not questioning your motives, just an observation about human nature) I give up on checking it for them. Others may wish to check your "evidence" and I will read their comments with interest, and may change my !vote according to their comments. But I think I have wasted enough time on yours.
- I did offer to check one more source for you. I note you have not taken that offer up, and I now consider it to have lapsed. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- I had initially decided to ignore this, but I must say I find it ironic that you claim to be anti-personal attacks, but then proceed to attack me by essentially calling me an inadequate editor (saying my work was "embarrassing", "scrapping the bottom of the barrel", and "didn't do my homework"). You claim it was an "observation", but I fail to see how your comment directed at me was any different than GS's in tone, which you stated was a personal attack as opposed to an observation by them. My "inadequacy" was evidently sufficient for the other users in this discussion to illustrate why this is the preferable outcome, as this is a singular continuity for the club and therefore should be contained in one article. Furthermore, you claim I did not check my sources, when in fact, I checked each one and provided each of them because I am satisfied with all of them. They are different is scope, so I provided them all since I was not sure which one you would prefer. Instead, you say I'm "wasting your time", when instead I feel as though you are wasting my time, since you asked for sources, were provided them, then decided not to look at even one.RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. I looked at one, which was a dud, and reluctantly decided, considering my repeated and I think patient attempts to clarify for you what reliable secondary sources are, that you were wasting everyone's time. I certainly did not accuse you of being an inadequate editor. Everyone makes mistakes. But I'm not convinced that now checking the other links you have provided, when the ones I have checked have all been duds, is good use of anyone's time. If others would still like to check them, that is of course fine, I'm interested in their conclusions and I said that before but we seem to have no takers. And if there is a consensus to move I will certainly go along with it. But you have provided no evidence to support one, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- You continue to state that I'm wasting everyone's time, but no one else has expressed that sentiment. Furthermore, in this page there is unanimous support from four others, some whom have have re-comfirmed their support as well as the most recent Support vote which came after all the previous discussion. If this is such a clear waste of time, no one else seems to share that opinion, yet you continue to state the word everyone. You mention your "repeated" and "patient attempts to clarify what secondary sources are", but your first response directed specifically to me does not demonstrate that given your word choices (quoted in my previous reply) and jump straight to stating a refusal to look at anything else I will provide. I'm legitimately surprised at how this has not yet been closed as consensus considering it's 5 in favour (4+me) and 1 oppose (being yours). Your opinion is I've provided no evidence, conversely, in my opinion, I believe I've provided more than enough evidence, especially with the agreement of other editors in their Support votes. That's fine, disagreements happen, but what I do not like it the negative comments directed at me (you state that you have not called me inadequate, but that's how it reads to me based on the words used). RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Further evidence and explanation for move:I will make one final attempt to demonstrate this based on precedent and evidence. I will cite some primary sources, but per WP:PRIMARY #3 PS are acceptable when "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Northern Virginia Royals has always been Northern Virginia FC (Royals was the men's first team nickname/Majestics was the female team nickname) old website link - see header. They did operate their USL2 team under the name Evergreen Hammers FC for a few years (same source). That's not uncommon in North America. Pickering FC did that for a few years with their L1O team operating under the name Durham United, before changing it to match the club name (just like this case - a new article wasn't created since it was the same team, they just changed the name of the semi-pro team). London TFC's semi-pro team uses the name FC London for its L1O team (in that case the article is called FC London to match the name of the notable team). In both those examples, the wikipedia article uses the name of the semi-pro team because that is the notable team and new articles aren't created every time there is a name change, as GS stated above. Another one of the sources I provided outlines this and even references their first team playing as Northern Virginia Royals in pro leagues and as Virginia Hammers in USL2 (Evergreen was occasionally referred as that as well). That article is about a lower tier level team in the club, but does reference the top team (whom this article is about), which started as NVR, became known as EH, and now goes by NVFC to match the name of the club. Below you say we have separate articles for i) mergers (this is not a merger - one linear history of this senior team whom the article is about), ii) different clubs have similar names (this is not that, again one linear history of team that has always been NVFC) and iii) identical names at different times (this is not that either - it's a return to using original name). The Northern Virginia Royals article (< old wiki revision link) already included all of the Evergreen stats before this merge request and prior to any edit by me because it was the same club and continuity.
- Further, to answer your response to Walter below about the "barely notable", according to the notability standards of WP:FOOTY Notability, a club is notable if they played in a fully professional league or appeared in a national cup. During this club's time under the name NVR they did play fully professional and appeared in the national cup (notable on both counts). During the same club's time under the name Evergreen, they did not play in a FPL nor did they ever appear in a national cup (not notable on both counts). If re-names required new articles (they don't), then Evergreen wouldn't even qualify. Hence, that is further evidence an independent article for Evergreen should not exist and why a merge is the best solution (since it is still the same club as NVR). Plus all of this is information is already in the NVR article. Further, when you open the club's current website (before the video starts playing in the background) it shows the original 1998 NVR logo (here's a screen capture before the video plays). NVFC's alternate logo is there as well (a lion with a crown representing "Royal"). As such, since the USL2 EH are now referred to as NVFC (rename) and NVR has always been NVFC (merge), this merge and rename proposal remains the ideal situation. Sorry for the length, but this is a thorough explanation of the history RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- You continue to state that I'm wasting everyone's time, but no one else has expressed that sentiment. Furthermore, in this page there is unanimous support from four others, some whom have have re-comfirmed their support as well as the most recent Support vote which came after all the previous discussion. If this is such a clear waste of time, no one else seems to share that opinion, yet you continue to state the word everyone. You mention your "repeated" and "patient attempts to clarify what secondary sources are", but your first response directed specifically to me does not demonstrate that given your word choices (quoted in my previous reply) and jump straight to stating a refusal to look at anything else I will provide. I'm legitimately surprised at how this has not yet been closed as consensus considering it's 5 in favour (4+me) and 1 oppose (being yours). Your opinion is I've provided no evidence, conversely, in my opinion, I believe I've provided more than enough evidence, especially with the agreement of other editors in their Support votes. That's fine, disagreements happen, but what I do not like it the negative comments directed at me (you state that you have not called me inadequate, but that's how it reads to me based on the words used). RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. I looked at one, which was a dud, and reluctantly decided, considering my repeated and I think patient attempts to clarify for you what reliable secondary sources are, that you were wasting everyone's time. I certainly did not accuse you of being an inadequate editor. Everyone makes mistakes. But I'm not convinced that now checking the other links you have provided, when the ones I have checked have all been duds, is good use of anyone's time. If others would still like to check them, that is of course fine, I'm interested in their conclusions and I said that before but we seem to have no takers. And if there is a consensus to move I will certainly go along with it. But you have provided no evidence to support one, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I had initially decided to ignore this, but I must say I find it ironic that you claim to be anti-personal attacks, but then proceed to attack me by essentially calling me an inadequate editor (saying my work was "embarrassing", "scrapping the bottom of the barrel", and "didn't do my homework"). You claim it was an "observation", but I fail to see how your comment directed at me was any different than GS's in tone, which you stated was a personal attack as opposed to an observation by them. My "inadequacy" was evidently sufficient for the other users in this discussion to illustrate why this is the preferable outcome, as this is a singular continuity for the club and therefore should be contained in one article. Furthermore, you claim I did not check my sources, when in fact, I checked each one and provided each of them because I am satisfied with all of them. They are different is scope, so I provided them all since I was not sure which one you would prefer. Instead, you say I'm "wasting your time", when instead I feel as though you are wasting my time, since you asked for sources, were provided them, then decided not to look at even one.RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Your original comment stated that the article for the name change was a primary source and not a secondary source. So I provided additional secondary sources that verify the name change. Now, you are stating that the articles all mention the old name, so it cannot be the common name, which is not the same as your original request (unless I misinterpreted it). I provided those sources specifically because they mentioned the former name to verify the name change, so your claim that I just googled a bunch and posted them without reading them is incorrect. There are articles that refer to them as just Northern Virginia FC such as Reading Eagle, Brotherly Game, EPSL, Ocean City. As for your claim that I "hadn't done my homework" on this name change, I feel I did. I've never had to provide 10 sources to back up a name change before, until now, one or two usually suffice. I don't feel like I made any personal attacks, I feel like my comments have been very civil in providing the requested sources. You claim I'm "scaping the bottom of the barrel" for sources - it's a fourth division club in the USA, so it's not like there will be CNN or ESPN sources, but I've still been able to provide several. Four users feel it is very clear and uncontroversial that it is their new correct name. It feels as though you are opposing simply to oppose. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- The first of those reads Northern Virginia FC (formerly known as Evergreen FC), is that correct? That suggests that they think that the club is still widely known by its former name, does it not? Face it, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel if that's the best you can do. Do you and GiantSnowman really expect me to do your homework for you? I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I find his comment suggesting I had not bothered to check embarrassing as a Wikipedian. But then personal attacks are in practice no longer contrary to Wikipedia policy (and we wonder why editors leave). If the evidence was there, shouldn't you and he have come up with it by now? But please check your other sources, and give me your best one. And I will check it for you. Or is that one it? I have no time to check them if you don't seem to have bothered to do so. If you just cite a list of ghits without checking them, it proves absolutely nothing. We want to know that the recent and relevant ones favour the new name. That's all, but that's necessary. And we are not there yet. Andrewa (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here are some more secondary sources from a quick google search: Press of Atlantic City, Our Sports Central, Berks Community TV, Front Row Soccer, Florida Elite, The Villages RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that this is a reliable secondary source for the name? Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: I mean there are other sources out there confirming the name change if you bothered to check... GiantSnowman 22:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support the merge + rename AussieBoy5 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Question @Walter Görlitz and Andrewa: your views on merging Evergreen FC into Northern Virginia Royals? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not the name of the club. Should be Northern Virginia FC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Do you mean that this is not its common name, or not its official name, or neither? Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- COMMONNAME, yes, the fact that they are all barely notable individually, it makes no sense to have separate articles for each. Keep it at the current club name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I do not think barely notable is a useful distinction here. Merging articles on two non-notable topics doesn't make a notable one, surely? Andrewa (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- COMMONNAME, yes, the fact that they are all barely notable individually, it makes no sense to have separate articles for each. Keep it at the current club name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Do you mean that this is not its common name, or not its official name, or neither? Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think that in cases like this it's best to have separate articles. There is often strong club loyalty involved, seeking to preserve and emphasize a particular and sometimes historic name for a sporting club. It's not uncommon for there to be conflicting loyalties, particularly but not only when two clubs have merged in some way, or when two different clubs have had very similar names, or even identical names but at different times.
- We avoid a lot of this by having different articles, linked by hatnotes and inline references (preferably both IMO). Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not the name of the club. Should be Northern Virginia FC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support Merge and Rename Paul W (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2021 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.