Talk:Al Hilal SFC

Requested move 26 November 2019

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 22:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Al-Hilal FC → Al Hilal SFC – The following is the official name of the club (Al Hilal Saudi Football Club --> Al Hilal SFC), as per the AFC (see 1 and 2). No "-" is present between "Al" and "Hilal", and the "S" is present in the acronym. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom and sources, although some refer to it as just 'Al Hilal FC'. GiantSnowman 09:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nomination --Less Unless (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 June 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks ping me! 12:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Al Hilal SC → Al Hilal SFC – Club is listed as Al Hilal SFC on AFC's website and by FIFA. The club's official twitter handle is Al Hilal FC. So I don't see where "SC" came from Tshak13 (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support as this was the result of the previous RM above, which was stable. The bold move made in the past few days needs more support than an edit summary of "Official name", and the edits leading up to it and subsequent edits have not added any references that support the claim, either. -2pou (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support, it's Al Hilal Saudi Football Club, definitely not a sports club to use "SC".Jõsé ^hola
• Support I assume there was some sort of controversial move here as it was moved to SFC awhile back? SportingFlyer T·C 16:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 20:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and sources. GiantSnowman 20:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 27 June 2025

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. {{u|Taxman1923}}'s argument seems persuasive, but I'm not sure there's consensus, so leaving the door open for another go at this in the future. (closed by non-admin page mover) Ivey (talk - contribs) 21:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Al Hilal SFC → Al-Hilal SFCAl-Hilal SFC – The usage of a hyphen throughout the article is inconsistent, as some have hyphens (as in Al-Hilal), while some do not (as in Al Hilal). So, should the article's title include a hyphen or not? GTrang (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic#Definite article which says

  Al-" and its variants (ash-, ad-, ar-, etc.) are always written in lower case, also when forming part of proper nouns, except when beginning a sentence. It is always separated from the following word (which takes the upper case when it is a proper noun) by a hyphen"

  (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 08:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support – Per above. Svartner (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above. Cocu15 (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Support, per above. NipponHSS1 (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: While the WP:MOS supports the proposed grammatical structure, an article title should should first follow the guidance at WP:COMMONNAME. In the case of a proper noun, i.e. the name of a club, we need to determine the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources). ESPN calls the team Al Hilal. Fox Sports is inconsistent. The BBC is inconsistent. Yahoo! Sports uses Al Hilal. DAZN uses Al Hilal. The New York Times uses Al Hilal. The Sporting News uses Al Hilal. Al Jazeera uses Al Hilal. beIN Sports uses Al Hilal. The Associated Press uses Al-Hilal. CNN uses Al-Hilal. Reuters uses Al-Hilal.

I don't believe my non-comprehensive search has proven that there is a prevalence of either name being reported by a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources. Before there is a WP:PAGEMOVE, it should be demonstrated that The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, e.g., it is not a common name of the subject or is overprecise or The title has been misspelled, does not contain standard capitalization or punctuation, or is misleading or inaccurate. Here, it appears that both Al Hilal and Al-Hilal are common names. So, that criterion for moving the page is not met.

While inserting the hyphen into the article name might correct standard grammar, there are many examples on Wikipedia of articles named for proper nouns using non-standard spelling or grammar. See Al Jazeera Media Network, Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera Arabic, beIN Sports, Starz, Chick-fil-A, Cheez Whiz and Publix. Therefore, leaving the article title at the status quo is not breaking new ground.

Given that Al Hilal and Al-Hilal are both common names, we should consider how the team wishes to be identified in English. On the club's English-language website, it identifies itself consistently as either Al Hilal or AlHilal (only once in the name of the team store). See Stay up to date with Al Hilal, Al Hilal official online store, Al Hilal men's first team, Go beyond the pitch. Explore stories, players, and the spirit of Al Hilal, Al Hilal is proud to present Saudi Arabia on the global stage, Be part of the Al Hilal journey — sign up now to receive latest news and AlHilal Official Store. There is content appearing on the page with Al-Hilal used as the team's name, but this is all clearly linked from outside sources and not created by the club.

Although it is not a secondary source, the Asian Football Confederation identifies the club on its website as Al Hilal. Similarly, FIFA's website calls the team Al Hilal.

Given that we have two common names, one of which is the name by which the team wishes to be identified and used by international organizations governing the sport, and the other of which is grammatically correct, I believe Wikipedia ought to use the name by which the club wishes to be known in English. Adding a hyphen to the name would be appropriate only if Al Hilal ceased to be a common name for the club. None of the criteria at WP:PAGEMOVE are met. Taxman1913 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Extending the discussion for feedback on the oppose entry. – robertsky (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Saudi Arabia and WikiProject Football have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. Taxman's oppose rationale makes a compelling case that there is not a clear single WP:COMMONNAME for this team among English-language RS. When the COMMONNAME question alone is inconclusive, MOS:TM guides us to prefer the more grammatically standard option—which, per MOS:AR#Definite article, would be to use the hyphen. On an intuitive level I found myself preferring the no-hyphen spacing, and I tried to write a rationale to ground that thinking in PAGs, but it made some pretty tortured leaps of logic that I struggled to even convince myself with. Ultimately, when putting aside what I just like, I think it is actually better aligned with policy to adopt the hyphen here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  @ModernDayTrilobite: I appreciate your thoughtful comment. At MOS:TMRULES, I note that it says: Do not "correct" the spelling, punctuation, diacritics, or grammar of trademarks to be different from the reliably sourced spelling – the name should be recognizable as referring to the topic. The MOS says the reliably sourced spelling. Here, we have already concluded that there are two reliably sourced spellings. However, this section of the MOS applies to trademarks. Although I have no idea whether the club has registered a trademark anywhere, it is clear that it intends to use the unhyphenated version, when the name is written in the Roman alphabet and used in English-language prose. The earlier conclusion I reached was based on the existence of two common names, and the lack of a sufficient reason for a page move, because the hyphenated name is simply not more common than the unhyphenated one. I also expressed a preference for how the club identifies itself. However, after consulting the MOS trademark rules, I am further convinced that they support not moving the page. These rules literally explain why we have pages such as Al Jazeera English, which has an identical grammatic deficiency. While MOS:AR#Definite article expresses a general preference for hyphenation, it stops short of a mandate. This contrasts with the trademark rules that say: Do not "correct"... I believe more firmly now than before that the page should not be moved. Taxman1913 (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Fair point, that interpretation of the guidelines seems plausible to me—in light of that, I think I'm going to shift to neutral on this proposal. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

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.