Talk:Baloncesto Málaga

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Basketball

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject BasketballTemplate:WikiProject BasketballBasketball articles

Fair use rationale for Image:Unicaja Malaga.gif

Image:Unicaja Malaga.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page

I moved the page to Baloncesto Málaga, the official name as it appears at ACB.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzaka (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 July 2015

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. Redirect from proposed title created. Per Andrewa, if you want me to reopen and relist make a case on my talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baloncesto Málaga → Unicaja CB – Despite being Unicaja the sponsor, this is the official denomination following its official website, as the bank is the owner of the club. Unicaja has been the name of the club since its foundation and the name of "CB Málaga", despite being the society created for the ACB team, has not been used practically never. Unicaja's profile at ACB.com hasn't been updated since 2007 and there were a lot of changes in these eight years.

There are more teams in Europe with the sponsor as part of the name, like BC Lietuvos rytas or several German clubs. --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Asturkian (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively oppose. Sponsors (even when they also own the club) change over time whilst the club stays the same, from what I've seen the naming convention seems to prefer the club name over a sponsor name (see Italian clubs, which are also a great way to see how even historic sponsors change throught time). A redirect of Unicaja Malaga is sufficient in my opinion. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no evidence has been presented, the nomination appears based on the common misunderstanding that the essay on official names specifically addresses. Is it worth relisting again, perhaps? I'm of two minds, but it certainly shouldn't be moved without a better case being made. Andrewa (talk) 09:37, 19 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.