Talk:FC Metalurh Donetsk/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about FC Metalurh Donetsk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Name
Shouldn't it be spelt Metalurg Donetsk in English, that's the way I've seen it spelt. Yonatanh 13:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The team's English language website uses a third name, "Metallurg (Металлург in Russian) Donetsk. Sorry for the ukrainian nationalists, but the majority of the Donetsk's population are Russians, not Ukrainian. 86.101.113.73 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Requested move (Jan. 2008)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.
Result was move.--Riurik(discuss) 06:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:NC#Sports_teams, the question is whether the official name of the sports team under consideration has "no ambiguity" or "some ambiguity".
I think that the team's name is ambiguous, because it does not have an English-language website/section, nor is it broadly recognizable, and it is easily confused with another team FC Metalurh Zaporizhya.
Therefore per above naming convention, which states and I quote: “ (2) in cases where there is some ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the name most commonly used by the English-language media should be used (as determined using the number of hits at Google News) ”
This name seems to be: FC Metalurh Donetsk
Results:
"fc metalurh donetsk" [1] - 202 with uefa
"fc metalurg donetsk" [2] - 3 with uefa
Without uefa:
"fc metalurh donetsk" -uefa [3] - 13
"fc metalurg donetsk" -uefa [4] - 0
Because of above, the article should be moved to FC Metalurh Donetsk.--Riurik(discuss) 21:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - as nominator per reasoning explained above.--Riurik(discuss) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - per above. --Ceriy (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - The results are clear. Ostap 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support per predominant usage -- Greggerr (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.