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. 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. Clear consensus that this is the common name. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• AZ (football club) → AZ Alkmaar
• AZ (women's football club) → AZ Alkmaar (women)

– This may technically be a tautology, but it's also far and away the club's WP:COMMONNAME. Unlike Inter Milan, this name also has official usage; see the club Twitter or Facebook, for example. It's also used by independent, reliable, English-language sport sites such as ESPN, Sky Sports, UEFA, and Transfermarkt (does that last one count as English?). And for the men's team, at least, WP:NATURAL applies. This raises the question: do we follow an "error" if everyone else makes it, the subject included? Per WP:RS, WP:TRUTH, etc., I would say yes. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, if we don't rename the page, we'll probably want to rename 2004–05 AZ Alkmaar season, 2011–12 AZ Alkmaar season, Category:AZ Alkmaar and its subcats, and possibly some others. --BDD (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the rename suggestion, but do not like the inclusion of "(women)" for the women's team. What about AZ Alkmaar Women (similar to Seattle Sounders Women, Paris Saint-Germain Féminines or Arsenal L.F.C.. See also Olympique Lyonnais (Ladies) which is at least capitalized. Hmlarson (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lyon example doesn't seem right. Is that an official form or something? I based the women's proposal based on consistency with other members of Category:Women's football clubs in the Netherlands. Directly translating the name used in the lede would give us AZ Women, but that doesn't seem to be used by sources. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The search results presented to me via the Google search you provided are mostly Arizona-related as I am located in the United States. Can you tell me what wording is used by the sources you are seeing and perhaps provide some direct links? It looks like Telstar (women's football club) also uses the existing structure, which I personally prefer over "(women)." Hmlarson (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was getting too. I don't know if it would be any different with google.co.uk, but it's not like regular ol' American Google hides soccer teams. az -wikipedia also tends toward Arizona topics—but so far, it seems we all agree plain "AZ" isn't the WP:COMMONNAME here. But since article titles should be concise and consistent, I'm not keen on a different disambiguator than the other Dutch women's teams. --BDD (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the men's article change as per the sources. Not sure the suggested women's format is quite right, but agree AZ Alkmaar should appear in both article titles. Eldumpo (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support for the men's article. Unfamiliar with the way RS's refer to the women's team. Red Slash 00:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support More sensible disambiguation. Number 57 23:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - appears to be both COMMONNAME in English, as well as used by the club themselves. GiantSnowman 12:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with nominator. NickSt (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2013 (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.

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: not moved. Users supporting the move doesn't give any policy-based reason why it should be done. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AZ Alkmaar → AZ (football club) – There has been a discussion here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football about tauntologies. This started as I piped clubs like Seinäjoen Jalkapallokerho to "SJK Seinäjoki" and similar pipings but they were not liked as they were tauntologies. One argument was Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) is just as good as WP:COMMONNAME. I was told it was best to go here to get consistency as we already have N.E.C. (football club) and clubs like ÍF Fuglafjørður would be better at ÍF (football club) to avoid these tauntologies. Qed237 (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Qed237 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, as nominator — we should have consistency and remove tauntologies. Qed237 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I notified all editors in the WikiProject Football discussion, all editors in the previous move request and editors in related discussions on this talkpage, about this discussion at their usertalks. Qed237 (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Whilst both options meet most of the WP:NC, the current title has the advantage of being WP:NATURAL, and I think also more recognisable than simply AZ (although it is a tautology, AZ Alkmaar is how the club is commonly known (see last RM above) even by the club itself). The counter argument in football club naming debates (e.g. around English clubs using the F.C. suffix/prefix) is often consistency (as QED has stated above), but there does not appear to be any consistency within Dutch football club naming to fit this into. Also perhaps worth noting that N.E.C. (football club) is a bit of a red herring, because the disambiguation is unnecessary given that N.E.C. redirects to it. Number 57 11:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Number 57. The last RM was pretty comprehensive. This may look funny to Dutch readers or pedants, but it's quite obviously the common name in English, which is what matters here. --BDD (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Number 57. Club is known better as AZ Alkmaar. Kante4 (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Two of the three different article sources use the current name, although that's not much in the way of sources - what about other references? Eldumpo (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and ESPN also use current name. Soccerway uses Alkmaar Zaanstreek/AZ. Eldumpo (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I would normally oppose tautologous page moves, however it looks as if the club do indeed 'AZ Alkmaar' themselves, along with many other sources. GiantSnowman 18:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -The A in AZ stands for Alkmaar, So in English it reads as 'Alkmaar Zaanstreek Alkmaar' when it actually the fusion of two clubs. I understand they are known as AZ Alkmaar in the English speaking World, but it is incorrect, just as PSV Eindhoven (Eindhoven is not part of their name either). Clubs which do in fact have the name of their municipality included in the Netherlands, do so because they were bailed out economically, and it was a stipulation in the bail out. Such as Sparta -> Sparta Rotterdam, NAC -> NAC Breda, SC Heracles -> Heracles Almelo or Roda JC -> Roda JC Kerkrade. AZ's acceptance of this writing form reflects the clubs International ambition. but in the Netherlands it is simply AZ. Which is how I prefer it. Alkmaar Zaanstreek Alkmaar is also not preferred by the followers of FC Zanstreek prior to the merger either. Just my 2 cents. (Subzzee (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • "in the Netherlands" would be an appropriate argument on the nl.wiki, but not here. See also: PSV Eindhoven. Number 57 09:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eindhoven is not part of the name of PSV either. The club name is simply Philips Sports Vereniging (Philips Sports Club) I don't know who or when it was decided to add Eindhoven to the name, but the city name appears nowhere in the official name of the club. So why not call others Arsenal London or Schalke Gelsenkirchen or better yet HSV Hamburg or PSG Paris, it looks wrong right? Because it is. That is how these name variations look in my view as well. Cheers. (Subzzee (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
      • We don't call Arsenal "Arsenal London" or PSG "PSG Paris" because that's not how they are commonly known. On the other hand, PSV and AZ are commonly known by the names that include their cities. It's fairly basic stuff. Number 57 13:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. PSV are officially registered as PSV N.V. with the chamber of commerce. (KvK 17104199) There is no Eindhoven in the name. Simple. Regards. (Subzzee (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    • P.P.S. Same goes for AZ, they are registered as AZ N.V. (KvK 41238026) this how the club is officially registered and addressed and is the correct name. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
• Support - As Subzzee has pointed out, the name "AZ Alkmaar" is a tautology and therefore wrong. It doesn't make sense to call the team "Alkmaar Zaanstreek Alkmaar", which is effectively what the current title reads as. The club may have ostensibly accepted this incorrect name (although I don't currently see any evidence for this on the club's official website, even the English language version), but that doesn't mean we should. AZ (football club) served as a perfectly good title for the article for a fair while, and there's nothing wrong with having AZ Alkmaar as a redirect to the correct title. – PeeJay 22:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - There seems no clear rationale for moving. The link to the official twitter feed above indicates it is far from clear what the global "official" name is. What the club is referred to in the Netherlands itself is irrelevant to this discussion, WP:COMMONNAME is what we need to look at and I don't see a clear outcome one way or the other. The arguments for moving based on it being a tautology are irrelevant as well since the club use it in their twitter account. Tautologies exist everywhere and it is not enWiki's role to eradicate them because of editor's opinions that they are wrong. By the logic shown above we should start an RM to move Torpenhow Hill on the basis that it is a quadruple tautology. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2015 (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.