Talk:AC Milan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 18 May 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. Most of the opposed votes and comments were regarding the initial large list of pages that were inserted. The list of requested pages for the move discussion has been significantly narrowed to 3 pages, and thus these 3 will only be the ones being evaluated for. After evaluating each comment, I find that there is consensus to remove the the dots per MOS:POINTS. Other concerns that were raised, i.e. SSD Acireale Calcio 1946 vs ASD Città di Acireale 1946, sending articles to AfD, etc, can be dealt with separately and should not be constrained by this RM discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• A.C. Milan → AC Milan
• A.C.R.D. Acicatena → ACRD Acicatena
• S.S.D. Acireale Calcio 1946 → SSD Acireale Calcio 1946

– In short: 1) removal of dots per MOS:POINTS and to a large extent supported by WP:NCST, 2) removal of A.S.D. and S.S.D. per WP:NCCORP.

1) Manual of Style and Naming conventions gives us that, for acronyms, [m]odern style is to use /.../ no full point with an acronym (MOS:POINTS; MOS:POINTS links to the WP article acronym with the broad definition of the word) and that sports team name spelling should be based on what is used on the English-language section of the club's official website and is adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media (WP:NCST). It can be questioned if the full stops are included in spelling, however media and most clubs support move.

For clubs with international recognition:

• When organisation-type prefixes and suffixes are used, clubs are usually referred to without dots in English-speaking sources: AC Milan on BBC, AC Milan in The Guardian, SSC Napoli in The Guardian, AC Milan on CNN, AC Milan on Sky Sports
• Most don't use dots themselves: Bologna FC 1909 website, AC Milan website, AS Roma website, SSC Napoli website, Torino FC website; Genoa CFC website (Italian only)
• A couple use dots on their website: S.S. Lazio website, U.C. Sampdoria website; however English-language sources don't: SS Lazio on AP, UC Sampdoira on AP
• UEFA doesn't use dots: SS Lazio on UEFA, Torino FC on UEFA

2) it:Associazione sportiva dilettantistica and società sportive dilettantistiche are legal suffixes for sports organisations in Italy and help create article titles like A.S.D. F.C. S.S. Nola 1925 and A.C. Pavia 1911 S.S.D.. These can be removed per WP:NCCORP. In the proposal this is done, except when the result would be another existing article or ambiguous.

Similar discussions: Talk:AC Milan/Archive 2#Requested move 2 December 2019 with no consensus and several on opposing side procedurally against because it would have broken a de facto naming convention.

There are also 570 are season articles, not included here for technical reasons.

Kaffet i halsen (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: this move request includes many pages, more than 600, as shown in the talkpage history. They have been removed to the page history because they incurred too many expensive parser function calls. Should be understood that the vast majority of proposed page moves will not be tagged with the RMCD bot template. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: nomination reduced to full stops only as complexity took focus from intended discussion. Original list here. Article tags will be updated if this format works. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose Overkill, and multiple instances of going against WP:COMMONNAME]. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  NOTE: this oppose is irrelevant after the nominator limited the request to three pages only Red Slash 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  NOTE: this oppose is irrelevant after the nominator limited the request to three pages only Red Slash 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Straightforward oppose- not every point will have support/oppose from user's opinions/common sense (including me) and I don't have the time to list which ones to support/oppose based on the removal of dots or abbreviations. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  NOTE: this oppose is irrelevant after the nominator limited the request to three pages only Red Slash 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – Agree with Iggy. I support the principle of removing the full stops and being consistent about it but there are just too many articles in the request to properly discuss it. An RfC would have been more appropriate. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok. It says RfC should not be used for (specific) page moves so I didn't know how to format it. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Should've been a but clearer. An RfC on the concept as ModernDayTrilobite mentions below. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose-Agree with Stevie. I would sport removing the dots. That must be the first discussion. The other changes must be discussed. I don't agree with many of those.Rpo.castro (talk)

21:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – Per above. Kante4 (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  NOTE: this oppose is irrelevant after the nominator limited the request to three pages only Red Slash 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. If this just about removing the dots from the FC names, then I would certainly support, that's long overdue and we've already seen it at FC Barcelona etc. This should be done for English clubs too, and RM is absolutely the place to do so, it is not a matter for an RfC. However, if other unrelated changes are being snuck in for some of the entries in this long list, then I also can't support, per above. Suggest this be remodelled to concentrate on the periods only.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Updated Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Very much Overkill and WP:BLUDGEON. There are too many clubs listed in this request to say anything meaningful about all of them as a whole. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  NOTE: this oppose is irrelevant after the nominator limited the request to three pages only Red Slash 21:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Per nom after the update. I had some doubts about SPAL but even the club itself uses it like this in its own website. The dots in clubs name aren't frequently used in press nor in UEFA. I think removing the dots makes its por precise and more concise.Rpo.castro (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support, this would reflect how it's commonly spelt and fall in line with other football articles conventionally.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as above - this is against the LONG established naming convention for Italian clubs, and this discussion will no doubt turn into a clusterfuck. What an absolutely colossal waste of time, from both the nominator and also all those poor souls who have to deal with it. GiantSnowman 18:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in current form. I have no opinion about the idea, on its own merits, of renaming these pages. However, given the sheer number of pages this RM affects – even after its reduction – I think an RfC on the general question of "should periods be removed from the titles of football club articles" would lead to a more informed and coherent discussion on the topic. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  @ModernDayTrilobite: that makes no sense whatsoever. Requested moves is the established venue for discussing title issues, and those interested in that process with expertise on titling policy follow it, and the affected pages are automatically tagged with RM templates. RfCs are for other matters. Probably with this it's best to start with a subset, e.g. the Italian top-flight clubs, and then establish the principle that we can remove the periods, which I think many would support. Then go from there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  My thinking with the RfC suggestion was principally that the RM was predicated on the desire to overhaul an implicit naming convention on the topic, and that it would be more effective to discuss the naming convention itself rather than to hold an RM for all of its implementations en bloc. However, now that the scope of this RM has been narrowed again to a much more comprehensible size, I feel like my previous concerns on the matter have been resolved; I now plan to strike my original !vote and replace it with a new one based on the merits of the proposal. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  With the new updates to the scope, I now support this proposal. I agree with the nom's interpretations of MOS:POINTS and WP:NCST, and after some quick Googling, I also agree that no-period spellings are sufficiently common in English-language media to justify the proposal. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - now that the RM is a sensible length, and the proposal is clear - eliminate the dots from the club names only, no other changes, I'm happy to support. Let's start with overturning the "convention" for Italian clubs and then proceed to others from there. Usage in sources is overwhelmingly not to include periods in names such as these, as we see here: [1] - and is consistent with Wikipedia's advice at MOS:POINTS, which recommends them for shortenings but not for acronyms. I see no other reason not to do this, and certainly arguments such as "we've always done it this way" should be rejected when usage doesn't match. Otherwise, if there are any genuine exceptions for individual clubs, then I'd be happy to hear why, but for AC Milan and common other examples this is straightforward. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment What's with the mass changes? I don't like all the chopping and changing to the talk page. You shouldn't be messing around with posts like this in my opinion. Too many cooks! Govvy (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Suppose that falls on me, editor Govvy, so please accept my apology for any inconvenience my edits have caused. My first decision was to simply close this RM because of the high number of expensive parser function calls it generated. Then I chose to reopen this RM in simplified form, so that the nom's issue could be scrutinized properly. Again, sorry for the chops and changes that were necessary to remove the function calls. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

    Agree with Govvy here - articles should not be added and removed during the RM process. This is just making it more of a clusterfuck as different editors are commenting about different things...! GiantSnowman 20:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not a perfect situation with hundreds of pages under consideration here that don't receive a move request template at the top of their articles. It's an unprecedented request, and since you've been around longer than I have, and have seen more, how would you have handled it differently? Should I have just left it closed? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of restoring the original list of pages, close the discussion and restart a new one with much fewer pages to discuss. This section has definitely changed (and messed around with) a lot since my last edit on this talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say close this one altogether. More thought needs to go into this discussion than the original or this reincarnation. Keep it simple, clean and precise. Govvy (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This proposal was a response to the 2019 discussion mentioned in the rationale where a couple of opposers saw, following WP:AT, a one-club move challenging its similar articles. I tried to propose all articles in the category to discuss this occasion of the somewhat arbitrary using of full stops for football clubs between different countries on Wikipedia, a use that is not supported in English-speaking media or WP:MOS. The combination with another naming convention was not fruitful.

As many clubs in the category have no English-speaking reliable source mention, would, later after other discussions, a new discussion including the articles with "significant English mention" (presumably present and former Serie A clubs and present Serie B) be leading? Ending with a question, it would be strange to withdraw the nomination at the same time, so withdrawal to follow. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Restoring the original list of pages would only restore the massive number of expensive parser function calls, and just closing the discussion does not get rid of them. The large list of proposed page moves had to be erased from this page and relegated to the page history in order to stop the expensive parser function calls. Again all this is unprecedented, so I'd like to see what editor wbm1058, who has done a lot of work with the entire RM system, would advise in this case. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Support per MOS:POINTS. Acronyms and initialisms shouldn't use full stops. Thank you to Kaffet i halsen for considering all feedback and adapting the proposal. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as for @Amakuru, ModernDayTrilobite, and Stevie fae Scotland: I think it definitely makes sense to tidy acronyms up. Oltrepier (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment It was normal to put a dot down to show it was an initial of a word or name. I guess you have your modernisms, but still, need I point out that non of these are acronyms, as it's only part of a name being shortened. So again, why are you running an acronym argument for shortening, when they are not acronyms??? Govvy (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:POINTS doesn't say anything about it only applying if the acronym is the whole name. In this case, "A.C." and "F.C." and all that are clearly acronyms, so fall under the purview of the guideline. As you say, it is a bit of a modernism but I don't personally think it's a bad thing. The dots kind of get in the way and aren't really needed. And in any case, Wikipedia follows trends it doesn't set them, or attempt to stick to superseded styles just for the sake of avoiding change. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

So, technically AC and FC aren't acronyms, they are initialisms (essentially because you say each letter individually). However, MOS:POINTS treats acronyms and initialisms as the same. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I've long been a proponent of removing all dots from initialisms such as these. – PeeJay 12:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom, technically per CONCISE and NATURAL, and also because the dots look stupid.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason. GiantSnowman 21:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  • [Already !voted above]. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support AC Milan. Send to AfD A.C.R.D. Acicatena as it is not notable. Oppose Acireale, as the correct move target should be ASD Città di Acireale 1946 or similar. It also is clearly notable, but needs better sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposed; WP:CONCISE controls Red Slash 21:31, 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2024

The spreadsheet under "Chairmen and managers lists "Giuseppe Farina" as chairman from 1982 to 1986. The provided link redirects to the Wikipedia article of Giuseppe Farina a racing driver that died in 1966. The link should be changed to the Wikipedia article of Giuseppe Farina (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Farina_(footballer)), the footballer and (according to a quick Google search) the actual chairman of AC Milan from 1982 to 1986. 79.219.36.150 (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The footballer and the chairman are different people. --Tenebra Blu (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We'd probably need a reliable source to establish which Giuseppe Farina is which here, although I'll go ahead and remove the link the to racecar driver. PianoDan (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we discuss the New York Yankees ownership of AC Milan here please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.64.167 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2024

They are no longer tied for second most successful in Italy, as Inter now has more Serie A titles than AC Milan. That hasn’t been updated yet 174.73.45.66 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sgubaldo (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

They also do not share the record of UEFA champions league titles with Real Madrid, which (currently) has 15. They hold the second place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.8.158 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)