Talk:DHSC (football club)

Proposed merge of USV Holland into DHSC (football club)

This information has more value as part of the DHSC (football club) history. gidonb (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And why has it more value as part of DHSC history? And do you want to merge VV DOS into DHSC as well? After all DOS is the D of DHSC. But then, you might as well want to merge DOS into FC Utrecht since it merged with USV Elinkwijk and Velox to form FC Utrecht. The history for each individual club is now clear. If you merge USV Holland into DHSC you should do the same for DOS. However DOS should then not only be merged into DHSC but into FC Utrecht as well. I see no added value in that process cause the info is already present in the history of DHSC (and FC Utrecht). It's more likely that part of the info on the individual pages will go lost. --Sb008 (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct! We also needed the DOS merger. In the case of USV Elinkwijk, I would recommend strongly against a merger into FC Utrecht. Velox never was more than a redirect into FC Utrecht. SV VSC (Sportvereniging Velox SSVU Celeritudo) would have been a better target IF it existed. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

DHSC (football club) → VV DHSC – The suggested target is the common uncluttered name that is consistent with the names of other football clubs in the Netherlands. VV DHSC is also official. See club's website. gidonb (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 17:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument line:

"The suggested target is the common uncluttered name that is consistent with the names of other football clubs in the Netherlands. VV DHSC is also official. See club's website."

contains 3 statements which are all false.

  1. "VV DHSC is also official"
    No it's not official. Clubs are listed by their official (statuary) name at the KvK. It clearly shows the official name is "Dos Holland Stichtse Boys Combinatie", abbreviated as DHSC. So, to claim "VV DHSC" is official is a false claim, as the facts prove.
  2. "See club's website."
    The club's website consistantly speaks of "DHSC" and not of "VV DHSC". The only mentioning of "VV" is in the URL of the club's website. However there's a logical reason for that, www.dhsc.nl is already taken, so they couldn't use the URL with the proper name and had to find an alternative. Anyway, the claim that the website uses "VV DHSC" is another false claim.
  3. "The suggested target is the common uncluttered name that is consistent with the names of other football clubs in the Netherlands."
    Let's have a look at the names of teams in the leagues:
    So, out of 92 teams from 86 clubs only 10 use VV. That's less than 12% of the clubs and even less than 11% of the teams. If we continue with tier 5 (16 out of 63 use "VV") and further down, the number of clubs using "VV" might even (relatively) increase, but it will always remain a minority. Again we're dealing with a false claim, just over 10% is not what I call "consistent with the names of other". It isn't even the "common uncluttered name" as a simple Google search on both names will tell.

All in all, 3 arguments are presented. All 3 are false. Wikipedia is based on facts and not wishfull thinking. I'm starting to get the impression there're other motives involved. First an attempt was made to get rid of the page by proposing a merger. Now all of a sudden the pagename has to be changed based on bogus arguments.

It won't be a surprise, strongly no Disagree --Sb008 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sb008! I'm going to say this the gentlest that I can: you may want to revisit your claims above. Your opinion seems to support my request to move in the sense that the arguments against do not hold water while, in the middle, you assign to the club precisely the same considerations that I have raised. Best, gidonb (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You sure have an interesting way of interpreting matters. I define all your arguments as false but still I'm supposed to support your request? Too funny!!! You present arguments for the move of which not a single one holds in any way.
  • The only official name of a club is registered at the KvK (Chamber of Commerce). Clearly it's "Dos Holland Stichtse Boys Combinatie" abbreviated as "DHSC". Where is the prove that "VV DHSC is also official" other than in the phantasy of your mind? How does that support your claim?
  • Where on the DHSC website, the club says it's name is VV DFSC? Nowhere!!!! How does that suppoert your claim?
  • "VV" is common for clubs who do have "VV" or "voetbal vereniging" (football club) or "voetbalvereniging" (footballclub) in their official name. It is anything but common for clubs who don't have any of those 3 options in their name. How does that support your claim?
For reasons I don't know you desperately want to get rid of DHSC, first by merging it with another page and now by renaming it. You make up some bogus arguments to support your proposed move. When I define, supported by facts, all your bogus arguments as false, you even dare to claim that I actually support the move. Time to wake up. I do not support the move in any way, I strongly oppose to the move. --Sb008 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sb008, you are misreading key parts of this page and then jump to wrong conclusions. Read again, reason again. Also check the website better. I trust you! gidonb (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"VV" is not part of the name, not official, not inofficial, not in any way. To move the page to a name with "VV" in it, is therefore complete nonsense. --Sb008 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sb008, have you given this page, the website and the KvK record another look? gidonb (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here we go. First of all let me thank User:Aseleste, who gave my buddy Sb008 an opportunity to make his claims. When one makes such strong claims as 3 arguments are presented. All 3 are false and You make up some bogus arguments and similar, one would think that some of what has been written has been checked. If it was, it wasn't checked well.

Merges A long series of mistakes could happen because something in the general environment bothered and inadvertently obstructed one's deduction and induction cycle. Here we encounter the seemingly unrelated claims to this discussion but returning claims that First an attempt was made to get rid of the page by proposing a merger. and For reasons I don't know you desperately want to get rid of DHSC, first by merging it with another page. This mistaken impression may have bothered the user, who is usually very reasonable, to the extent that his other claims also do not hold water. Luckily I can put all these worries to rest: all merge proposals were INTO this page. Meaning the opposite of these claims is true and all merges strengthened the DHSC page.

The overall premise Before I get into the unnecessary exegesis of my text – unnecessary both because it is always better to formulate one's argument in a positive way and because every word in my rationale is backed up by facts – it makes sense to step back one moment and look at the greater picture.

The consensus approved proposal was to move DHSC (football club) to VV DHSC. This process is called natural disambiguation. Natural disambiguation is often mandated by a series of policies and guidelines, among which WP:NATURAL and MOS:ACROTITLE. User:Sb008, when he is not claiming how wrong I am, makes a vivid argument for DHSC over VV DHSC. This is a classic case of false equivalents as the name DHSC is nowhere near an option for the article. In order to choose that name over VV DHSC, one would have to claim that the club name DHSC is significantly more important than the abbreviation of the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the abbreviation of the Doctor of Health Science. Even against the Department of Health and Social Care (Isle of Man) VV DHSC would have an uphill battle.

Seemingly contradicting his own arguments, the user also claims that the club uses exactly the same natural ambiguation as I proposed, not having DHSC as an option: However there's a logical reason for that, www.dhsc.nl is already taken, so they couldn't use the URL with the proper name and had to find an alternative. The fact that the club uses VV DHSC as the official URL, could have led to the conclusion that VV DHSC is an official name in and, with a bit of searching, well beyond the official URL of the club. Writing more soon. gidonb (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not dealing with "natural" disambiguation, but with "parenthethical" disambiguation. Gidonb claims that my statements weren't checked.
  • Claim 1: "VV DHSC is also official"; There's only 1 source for official names, amd that's the registration at the KvK. And that registration is very clear: KvK. The official name is "Dos Holland Stichtse Boys Combinatie", abbreviated as DHSC. How clearly do you want it to be checked. On the other hand, Gidonb doesn't provide any proof for his claim that "VV DHSC" is official. Probably he can find a source somewhere which uses that name, but that doesn't make it the official name.
  • Claim 2: "See club's website"; From the website: About DGSC, Contact, DHSC 1 .... DHSC 12, DFSC 35+1, DHSC 35+2, DHSC VR1 & VR2 and "DHSC © 2021" Not checked?
  • Claim 3: "The suggested target is the common uncluttered name that is consistent with the names of other football clubs in the Netherlands", In Tier 1 to 4 compeat 92 teams from 86 clubs (6 are reserve teams). Out of the 86 clubs only 10 use "VV". That's less than 12% of the clubs and even less than 11% of the teams. In Tier 5, 16 out 63 clubs use "VV", just over 25%. So a minority of the clubs uses "VV". Not why I call common. If we ignore draws (32 matches), from the games in which there was a winner, West Ham won 25 out of 94 matches against Liverpool, or 26,6%. According to your logic it would be common for West Ham to beat Liverpool. I think the bookmakers would love betters with such a logic.
I didn't chek? Seems to me I did check very well and you just made claims without checking. In Dutch we have a nice expression for your type of arguments. "Uit je duim zuigen" (literal translation: suck out of your thumb, common translation: dream up, make up). Arguments without any proof. And as far as the url is cocerned, parentheses are not allowed in a domain name, you can't compare a domain name with a wiki article name. So, for those who don't do proper research, a false interpretation of an url could indeed lead to a false conclusion about the official name. Again, you're making a lot of false claims without providing any evidence. I can't wait for the "more" to come. --Sb008 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there will be more. In the end I recommend hiding the entire discussion because obviously there was a problem in your reasoning. I think it all started with a misunderstanding about the direction of the mergers. In the text above you again make a case for using DHSC instead of VV DHSC as the name of the club but DHSC is not and never has been an option for this article's title. Obviously there would have been nothing against this non-option but a non-option is not an option. This makes VV DHSC and DHSC into false equivalents for title choice. One is an option. The other not. The club in precisely this case, by your own confession, uses VV DHSC. gidonb (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it never was an option, how come it's the current name? If there're more entities with the same name they have to be distinguished in some way. WP:QUALIFIER lists the options. For the UK, I agree that the Department of Health and Social Care would be the primary topic. Even though that article has the full name as title and not DHSC, it means the football club has to be disambiguated. An option to do so would be "natural disambiguation". There's only 1 name which qualifies as a name by which the club is addressed as well, it's full name. It certainly isn't "VV DHSC", just like Feyenoord is never adressed as "VV Feyenoord", Vitesse never as "VV Vitesse", "Go Ahead Eagles" never as "VV Go Ahead Eagles", De Graafschap never as "VV De Graagschap", NEC never as "VV NEC" and I can name probably name another 50 clubs. Another option is "comma-separated disambiguation", this method mostly relates to place names. A third option is "parenthetical disambiguation". This option is already used for "Department of Health and Social Care (Isle of Man)". So, the most logical way to disambiguated the football club would be DHSC (football club), the current article name. So there are 2 option for renaming the page 1) DHSC, since the departsments don't use an abbreviated article name and there wouldn't be a conflict. 2) DOS Holland Stichtse Boys Combinatie, the full name of the club. Among the disambiguation options, there's nothing listed about use a "phantasy name" based on a false claim of it being an official claim and a false statement that it's the common uncluttered name, consistant with other football clubs. The only thing that's common about "VV", that for clubs who have "voetbalvereniging" (as 1 word) or "voetbal vereniging" (as 2 words) in their name, this/these word(s) is/are abbreviated as "VV". It's anything but common for clubs who don't have this/these word(s) in their name, to phantasize them into the name so we can use "VV".
And I see no reason to hide this discussion in the end. Why should we? So you can try to rename the page again in a year or so, and it wouldn't be convenient at that time if people could read the facts as well? --Sb008 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to embarrass you in any way. I appreciate you and your contributions to Dutch soccer. I was hopeful you would find the answers to your remaining questions yourself! DHSC is obviously not the current name. The current article name is DHSC (football club). DHSC and VV DHSC are false equivalents for the title name. Much of what you wrote was making the case for DHSC over VV DHSC. There would be nothing wrong with DHSC proper only that it was not, is not and will not be not an option. gidonb (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sb008. There has been no concrete evidence presented that "VV DHSC" is either the registered name, or in any way the WP:RECOGNIZEable WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. As such, although it might be more natural, it fails on the other title criteria. Overall, the present name is very clear and identifies the subject precisely while deferring to the club's common name of "DHSC", and I think it's the best one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DHSC_(football_club)&oldid=1205587046"