Talk:Croydon F.C.
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 12 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Croydon F.C. (England). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
External links modified (February 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Croydon F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416174533/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/35720918/MEMORANDUM-OF-PROCEDURES-FOR-DEALING-WITH-MISCONDUCT-OCCURRING to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/35720918/MEMORANDUM-OF-PROCEDURES-FOR-DEALING-WITH-MISCONDUCT-OCCURRING
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 12 January 2024
edit- 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: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 03:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Croydon F.C. → Croydon F.C. (England)
- Croydon FC (Australia) → Croydon FC (Australian soccer)
- Croydon Football Club → Croydon Football Club (Australian rules football)
– I don't think any of these are obvious primary topics. Two clubs play in Australia in different sports, so further disambiguation needed. Aussie rules football clubs widely use "Football Club" in title rather than FC, but given FC/Football Club mean the same thing, I don't think it's an obvious disambiguation, same as F.C vs FC which previous RMs have concluded RedPatch (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. RedPatch (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see too much of an issue, you're just creating longer names when I don't think you need to. The Croydon Football Club one doesn't look like it passes GNG, if that's deleted that leaves two. And you can sort it out between a top note. Govvy (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think 'Croydon F.C.' is a PRIMARYTOPIC and should stay where it is, but I'm happy with the two Australian moves. GiantSnowman 19:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment A ninth division team being a primary topic? Even though it gets many more views, getting 50 views daily versus the Australian which gets 10 daily average. When the numbers are that low, 50 vs 10, it would seem that neither is an extremely clear primary topic (to me primary would be something that would be like in the hundreds vs a lower amount amount, not 50 vs 10 which are both fairly low). RedPatch (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – Because Australian rules football is a restricted topic. To establish the primary topic, the number of views would need to be consistently higher. Svartner (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and I would suggest moving Croydon FC (Australia) to Croydon FC per WP:SMALLDETAILS; as long as all the articles have appropriate hatnotes and there is a DAB page, I don't think there is an issue here. Number 57 10:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's not feasible. Any abbreviation can use full stops or not. In fact, the British convention is also not to, so the English club will also be commonly written "Croydon FC". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the difference between "FC" and "F.C." doesn't distinguish and I'm a supporter of SMALLDETAILS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, that's not feasible. Any abbreviation can use full stops or not. In fact, the British convention is also not to, so the English club will also be commonly written "Croydon FC". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)