Jump to content

Talk:Oldham R.L.F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

I'd like to extend my support for the page to be corrected per the clubs official name. It seems that the official name is distorted and misquoted by some incorrectly. I'm aware this isn't about the clubs official website or other official references rather it's encumbent to prove Oldham RLFC is the common name.

It would seem to me that over time the clubs nickname and official name have been somehow mutated into one name. However I believe the majority of media outlets do quote the clubs name correctly Oldham, Oldham rlfc or the Roughyeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonty1978 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The common name for Oldham Rugby League is Oldham RLFC. The name roughyeds is simply a nickname. You wouldn't call Everton FC Everton Toffees would you???? NO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7802:B900:F4DF:EFC8:8550:7DCA (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Edwards - Oldham and USA?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 23 October 2016

[edit]
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. Bradv 23:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham Roughyeds → Oldham RLFC – Roughyeds is the club nickname, but unlike most other clubs, it is usually just referred to as "Oldham RLFC", even on the club's own website (below search results in 669 Google hits versus 279 J Mo 101 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 10:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are the Oldham Roughyeds. They were the Bears and before that just Oldham FC. RLFC would be on the end of many club names, for legal purposes, but it would be wholly inappropriate to override the widely known name, and replace it with part of the legal name.Fleets (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it inappropriate? It's the official name of the club and should be reflected as such (the league table on the RFL's website doesn't include the nickname either). Roughyeds was the 'traditional' nickname for the old club before the Super League existed. The re-formed club has adopted this as well, but have either since dropped it from their official title (similar to other clubs such as Halifax, Hull, Doncaster etc.), or never used it to begin with. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. I was going to support, as I find the league table and the precedent of Halifax RLFC convincing. However, it seems the BBC still refer to them as the Roughyeds; [1][2]. Do you have some independent sources to support that it is usually referred to as RLFC? Mattlore (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Sports tend to refer to them without the nickname ([3], [4]). Agree that the usage tends to vary depending on which website you visit, but based on the guidelines, I believe we should be using the official name. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Article titles I would say the current name ticks the five boxes, as the only real query is over precision and that is still up for debate until someone checks their Oldham's legal trading name, and even then it a potential change falls foul of the other four tenets for article names.Fleets (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The official name is on the club website as already pointed out, and unlike other clubs, they don't include their nickname. There are specific guidelines for the naming of sports teams articles per my previous comment. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The club postal address does not necessarily indicate, and certainly does not confirm it being their legal trading name, especially when it is found upon www.roughyeds.co.uk, in their words Oldham Roughyeds official website.Fleets (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The website clearly states the name is "Oldham Rugby League Football Club" both in the page title and the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could well be that as a legal name, but per Wikipedia:Article titles it would still be the name at the top of the website. That is unless there is to be a shift across the board to legal trading names and not the current status quo.Fleets (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is to use the official name. Hopefully the clarification from Caramboo below has cleared up any doubts and people are happy to support this now. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the guidelines you've cited particularly relevant, as it seems to be aimed at spelling issues for non-English based clubs, and not for these type of "nickname or not" debates. Which takes me back to WP:CRITERIA. To me, I think both options go somewhat to satisfying all five criteria, however I am still finding more independent sources using "Roughyeds" in their articles, so this pushes me in favour of the status quo per WP:COMMONNAME. Confusingly, the Oldham Evening Chronicle has a "Roughyeds News" section, but using just Oldham in the articles[5] - while the Manchester Evening News has a "Oldham RLFC" section, but uses "Oldham Roughyeds" in its headlines and articles! [6]. There does definitely not seem to be enough evidence to change from the status quo. Mattlore (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both Oldham Football Club and Oldham F.C. (long and short version of a former name) redirect here. Redirecting the misused and incorrect Oldham Roughyeds to a correct Oldham RLFC renamed page would be a very sensible solution and clarify the nomenclature for readers. There is no such entity as Oldham Roughyeds RLFC and its use is misleading. Caramboo (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a telephone conversation with the person responsible for authoring the majority of Oldham RLFC articles in the Oldham Evening Chronicle. The confusion brought about by their use of the incorrect Oldham Roughyeds and then correctly using Oldham RLFC, or just Oldham, is easy to explain if not understand. The articles are written and edited by members of the publication's sports desk. More general articles, including navigational elements of the site itself, fall under the auspices of the news desk, members of whom fall into the trap of wrongly naming the club. Properly titling this article may eventually have an influence on a real world print publication and improve their own editorial accuracy. Caramboo (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is relevant in the sense that we should be using the official name where possible (common name isn't always preferable), so I believe we should reflect the name being used by the RFL. Roughyeds is Oldham's traditional nickname, similar to Warrington being called the Wire, Hull KR the Robins etc., but for some reason this has caught on as being part of the new Oldham club's actual name in some news outlets, which appears to be inaccurate. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In this BBC report of the recent Super League Grand Final, Warrington and Wigan are interchangeably called by their full club names, town names and modern suffixes. In Warrington's case they're even referred to by their old nickname. It's no wonder readers become confused. Use of the proper Oldham RLFC title on this page would provide clarity, the confusion of the different names could be described therein. Caramboo (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I'm part of the media team at Oldham Rugby League Football Club. The legal name of the club can be seen by the club's Companies House entry. Roughyed is the long standing nickname for a person from Oldham (I'm a Roughyed) and was the adopted nickname of the original club. The tradition continued at the foundation of the new club in 1997. The logo present at the top of the current club website did indeed unfortunately read Oldham Roughyeds and no doubt added weight to the belief that the club operated under that name; it doesn't. That logo has now been changed to reflect the proper name. This proposed rename would be supported by Oldham Rugby League Football Club. Caramboo (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation has dried up a little over the proposed move of name. Can I propose that the name change should occur since it seems an appropriate course of action. Maybe J Mo 101 should be the one to effect the change? Caramboo (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be consensus from other editors in order for an admin to make the change. I have amended the article lede for now, as regardless of opinion of the title, "Oldham Roughyeds RLFC" is clearly incorrect. Hopefully additional editors will weigh on this so a decision can be made either way. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, just noticed this discussion after reading the main article. The chairman of Oldham RL was a guest on BBC Radio Manchester's "Rugby League Extra" earlier this year and I tweeted him a question asking if Oldham were "Oldham Roughyeds" or "Oldham RLFC". His quite passionate response was that since reforming after the Bears days, the club has always officially been "Oldham RLFC" and Roughyeds is a nickname only. He actually said it annoys him that some media outlets call the club "Oldham Roughyeds" as if it was the clubs full name. Hope that helps you guys. 2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:6D47:266A:AEDF:B1D5 (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it might annoy the club and the chairman, the name of the article should reflect the commonly used name by independent sources, and not the legal name of the entity. Mattlore (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we know the name is being reported inaccurately? Admittedly the club itself was guilty of doing this, but as they have now amended this on their website, shouldn't this should be treated like any other club name change? As already mentioned, the RFL is independent from the club and is already using Oldham RLFC anyway, and I feel the name used by the official governing body should be given more weight than whatever the news websites say. This seems to be the norm for NRL club articles for example (e.g. Manly Warringah Sea Eagles, even though they're more commonly known as just Manly Sea Eagles). J Mo 101 (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you do change the title and I think you should, it should be changed to Oldham R.L.F.C. as that is the correct title format. 2A02:C7D:89A3:F400:DC5:F197:D975:6644 (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 22 March 2017

[edit]
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)[reply]


Oldham Roughyeds → Oldham R.L.F.C. – 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)--Relisting. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The big problem with that @Mattlore: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

A bit late to this discussion, but I completely agree with Skemcraig here. Policy is important, but there does need to be some common sense applied as well. Stubbornly sticking with an article name that we know to be incorrect goes against improving the project, in my opinion. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Happy to move the page if there is support for a move.Fleets (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Moved.Fleets (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 February 2018

[edit]
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: move to Oldham R.L.F.C. Per WP:COMMONNAME "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" so while Roughyeds may return more, but not necessarily a significant majority of, search results than either Oldham Roughyeds or Oldham R.L.F.C. continued use of an incorrect name for an organisation would not appear to be justified. Nthep (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Oldham Roughyeds → Oldham R.L.F.C. – The following links show that Oldham or Oldham RLFC is the name in common use for Oldham Rugby League Football Club. The name Oldham Roughyeds is a misnomer and has never been the name of the club. League Express Total RL Forums, Love Rugby League, The Rugby Football League, Serious About Rugby League, Sky Sports,The Oldham Times, The Oldham Chronicle All rugby league sources, all using the common name Oldham (RLFC) and not the misnomer Oldham Roughyeds. Caramboo (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roughyeds is the nickname, it's cool, we like it, I am one. The club uses it as a domain name. But it'd be like saying Arsenal Gunners. Gunners gets a lot of hits from searches. The name of the the Oldham club should be used for the title, it's in common use and sure we could split hairs on which name gets more hits but let's allow some common sense here. Caramboo (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not comparable to "Arsenal Gunners", which is much less common in the sources than "Arsenal FC". The WP:COMMONNAME trumps the WP:OFFICIALNAME.--Cúchullain t/c 15:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So we move to Roughyeds. The club then turn up at away grounds and the opposition programme maker has looked us up on Wikipedia for the squad and details, and he's not going to use just Roughyeds, he's going to put Oldham Roughyeds. I tell him, with a heavy sigh, we're not called Oldham Roughyeds, we're called just Oldham or Oldham RLFC. Out comes the phone and we go round again. The radio commentator picks up his mic, refers to his programme for the team and starts using the name at the top. All because Wikipedia. All that can be stopped just by changing the name of a page from an incorrect title to one that's in common use, the proper name of the club and not one it's never been called. The alternative is that I have to add riders to emails saying "Oh by the way, please use the correct name of the club, it's not Oldham Roughyeds." Caramboo (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really relevant to the article titles policy.--Cúchullain t/c 16:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's very relevant. The fact that the page title uses the incorrect name adds to the problem of the club being referred to by the misnomer. It's self perpetuating and adds weight to the common name argument with its own misinformation. Fleets took the step of moving the page last night, a common sense move. The word Roughyeds still appears in the article, the misnomer title would still redirect to the moved page and no-one would have batted an eyelid. Caramboo (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mooretwin (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In previous seasons other clubs used the name Oldham Roughyeds as when referring to the opposition. Whether this was right or wrong is now immaterial. This has now stopped, the club correctly identifies as Oldham RLFC and the governing body recognises as only Oldham R.L.F.C.Fleets (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A BBC Radio Manchester Podcast from February 23, 2018. The RL correspondent Jack Dearden interviews the Oldham Chairman Chris Hamilton, referring to the common name(s) Oldham and Oldham Rugby League club in the intro and outro (43:26 and 50:28). Sport at Six - Rugby League No mention of the misnomer title at all. Caramboo (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oldham_R.L.F.C.&oldid=1203612463"