Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Abbreviation

Football Club Internazionale Milano has never been abbreviated to "Inter Milan"! Milan is the name of the opposite club! I removed that sentence. // CioDu 13:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• If you go to the club's website, you'll see a text in English, which says "WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF INTER MILAN" (bolding by me). So Internazionale is being abbreviated to "Inter Milan", even by the club itself. So the abbreviation belongs in the article. Aecis 15:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Besides, if you google for "Inter Milan", you get no less than 744,000 hits. So it's more than safe to say that Internazionale is commonly abbreviated to Inter Milan. And it would make sense, because Milan is simply the English name for the city of Milano. Calling the club Inter Milan distinguishes it from for instance Inter Bratislava. Aecis 09:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• I accept that the sentence "WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF INTER MILAN" appears on the front page of the website. It does not, however, appear anywhere else on the website. Nor does it appear anywhere on the club badge; it being abbreviated to the more usual Inter. If you are an Interisti (or even if you aren't) you should know that Internazionale aren't referred to as "Inter Milan" by anyone with a smattering of knowledge of Calcio Italia. user:mike1971inter 08:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not an Interisti (in Italy, I like Samp best), but I do have more than "a smattering of knowledge of Calcio Italia." And "Inter Milan" ìs commonly associated with Internazionale. The Google Test in itself is proof enough. Ofcourse it's not the only name associated with Internazionale (Juve isn't the only name associated with Juventus either), but the association is there. Aecis 09:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• The Google test doesn't offer any proof. It merely proves that a lot of people/sites are inccorectly referring to Internazionale as Inter Milan. It doesn't mean they are right however. Forza Samp! (My second team in Italia). Mike1971inter 10:23 19 July 2005
• It doesn't prove that they are right, and it doesn't prove that they are wrong. It only proves that the association is common, which is exactly what the intro stated. Aecis 09:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps the google test proves something: it proves that, outside Italy, "Inter Milan" is a common abbreviation for Internazionale Milano. Given this, my everyday experience in Italy proves that here nobody abbreviates Internazionale Milano to "Inter Milan" so maybe we could simply explain this difference in the article.
  Note: in case you need more proof that "Inter Milan" is not a common abbreviation in Italy, simply google for "Inter Milan" on Italian language pages only: except for the first result (an error of the webmaster, since that page is not in Italian) all the pages refer to Inter vs Milan matches:
  http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=inter+milan&btnG=Cerca+con+Google&meta=lr%3Dlang_it
  // CioDu 10:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Here in Italy we use "Inter" to refer to the club, "Internazionale" or "Inter Milan" or any other names aren't used, they're only official names. It is known that Interisti and many Inter-people (like Moratti, Prisco, Facchetti) dislike the term "Internazionale" and they appoint who use that term. So Inter is Inter, and it's Internazionale or Inter Milan only for the official docs. (this was only to make order in your ideas, sorry for my english)

Move

Please, don't move the page using "cut-and-paste" technique. Use WP:RM procedure instead. Thanks. Monkbel 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

And if you do move it, please sort out double redirects. Or don't move it.--Audiovideo 18:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The complete side's name is Internazionale Milano F.C. so the articles Internazionale and Internazionale Milano F.C. have to be swapped. The standard for all other sport team's articles is to have the complete name on it... why does Inter have to be different? CapPixel 09:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC) The Official name by U.E.F.A is "F.C. Internazionale Milano".

If you're sure that you will gain support about it, you should begin a vote. You could use guidelines from WP:RM. --Monkbel 21:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with CapPixel, however it has to be redirected from "Inter" 'cause an Italian person will never search for Internazionale Milano F.C., in the same way a non-italian person will search for "Inter Milan". It is sure only that nobody will search for "Internazionale"...

I've already post the move proposal on WP:RM, but nobody is voting it. There's another swap to be done: Talk:A.C. Ancona Calcio. CapPixel 09:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You should read the procedure on WP:RM; you should put the vote to this page. --Monkbel 09:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Move request fulfilled. Rob Church ^Talk 11:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent statistical report?

can you at least cite the source of that survey? this is an encyclopedia, not an Inter fan site. If the anonymous "recent statistical report" deserves to be in the article, than surely the fact that Milan has more trophies than Inter does too. Milan and Inter have an intense rivalry and it MUST be noted that Inter is the less successful of the 2 big Milanese clubs. -Kane December 05.

If the assertion that Milan is the more popular club than Inter is to be included, could there at least be some link to the reference that proves this claim. The statement about Milan having won more cups than Inter is true, but is there a need for this to be mentioned here? Are we to state on Milan's entry that they have won more cups than Inter, or that they have won more than Ipswich Town? It seems unnecessary to me. Mike1971inter 10:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As I explained above Mike1971, Milan and Inter have an intense rivalry, they share a stadium, and there is much animosity between the supporters of the 2 clubs. The fact that Milan has more trophies than Inter is relevant the same way any discussion of Manchester City should include the fact that it is the less successful of the 2 big Manchester clubs. The same goes for Real/Atletico, Roma/Lazio, Spurs/Arsenal, etc. As far as the Lombardy/Global popularity claim, there is more that goes into a club's popularity than attendances at home matches. in the area of television rights, ratings, kit sales and overall global brand recognition can you really dispute that Milan is ahead of Inter? To take nothing away from inter, which is one of the great clubs in all the world, but Milan clearly is more popular. Regardless, I find it curious that you want a reference for the popularity claim, but don't seem to need one for the "recent statistical report" that says Inter is #2 in Italy in terms of popularity. Inter's web site is www.inter.it. There you will be able to find a biased take on the club and it's history. However, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and doesn't necessarily have to present the facts most favorable to Inter Milan. That being said, I propose both claims be left out until either one can be backed up by some FACTS. -Kane December 05.

Thanks for the patronising history lesson. I'm fully aware of the rivalry between Inter & Milan, and the existence of Inter's website. I'd have thought that my name would have given the game away, but nevermind. To pick you up on a couple of points: Inter and Milan both have the same TV rights deal with SKY Sports Italia. You claim that TV rating and kit sales are higher for Milan? I'd like to see you prove this erroneous assertion. Attendances for Inter home games are consistently the same or a little higher than Milan's. I agree with you about the 'recent statistical report', it shouldn't have been added by the contributer concerned. One final point: I think you have got your points a bit mixed-up at the end of your comment about Inter's website and the encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia. Mike1971inter 09:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike thanks for correcting me on the "impartial" mistake. What I meant to say was "partial" or better yet "biased." Mike, I don't have time to look up the stats you want me to look up. That's why I haven't added my claims to the article recently. However, I want to ask you man to man, are you really disputing that AC Milan is more popular throughout the world than Inter? Just answer me yes or no then I'll know for sure whether I'm dealing with a rational person or a rabid Interisti who will never acknowledge the truth. The only recent era where that might have been true was when Ronaldo was on the team. As an Inter supporter, why would you even care if your club is more popular or not? It's just the obvious truth, man. I know it in my gut the same way I know Man U. is more popular than Milan, and Real is the most popular of them all. I don't need any statistics or data to know that. The same way I know that Sheva is a better striker than Martins. That being said, I will leave my claims out because I do not have the data.

My intention was not to be patronising. If that's how it came across, I apologize. It's just that it would be a shame to see Wikipedia's football club articles become holy shrines of the respective clubs. For example, why is there no mention that despite the record spending on players by Inter over the last decade or so, eclipsed perhaps only by Real Madrid and post-Abramovich Chelsea, Inter has not won a single scudetto or Champions league(or even come close for that matter, except one year or two in the league, I believe, and of course the semi-final defeat in the Champions to Milan). Inter has consistently had the deepest team talent-wise in all of Europe (and the world) over the past decade, yet have virtually nothing to show for it. Don't you think that deserves more than a passing mention? Should I go to the Milan article and erase the part about Istanbul? There are places all over the internet(team site, fan sites) where we can show and talk about Inter in the most positive way possible. People come to Wikipedia to learn, and if the articles don't have any balance to them, they will walk away with an incomplete story. -Kane December 05

Just an addition here, Inter's fan base in Asia and Africa is absoultely huge especially in China, I have articles to back that up just not on the web I shall research it and comeback to you. To be honest Im not to sure who is more popoular but it is very close and with Inters huge exposure with their youth development camps in Africa and Asia certainly adds to Inters case. Harry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.231.3 (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great.Stonehawkmilleneum (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Youth players in the squad

I am going to remove all the players who are part of the youth squad and, thus, have not played any match for the first team. The article is a mess as it is now, if someone wants to add this terrific list, please join this discussion: anyway, I will not support it. --Angelo 08:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Inter Youth

I strongly agree with Angelo this article needs some major clean up and I believe that the youth squad should have there own article. The Inter Youth article could have the current youth players along with the Youth titles. Any other opinions on this topic? Abreuzinho 14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just like Real Madrid Castilla & FC Barcelona B. And should include some result of Primavera Cup & Primavera league. Matt86hk talk 05:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So what should the article be named? Abreuzinho 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a subtle but relevant difference between the Real Madrid Castilla and the Inter's youth team: the first one plays a professional league, whereas the Inter youth team is part of a parallel, youth-only, tournament, which actually has no kind of interest from both media and fans. My opinion is we should remove all the youth team squads, since its players usually do not agree the notability principles. Instead, I guess a paragraph about the youth organization of the team (without the squads) inside the current article would be an acceptable idea. --Angelo 16:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The article also mentions Youth Trophies in my opinion it should go as well, this article is about the first team not the youth ones. Abreuzinho 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's neither any difference or separation between the main team and the youth one in Italy; should we make an article for each youth team? It's not just Primavera, there are several grades (Allievi Nazionali, Allievi Regionali, Giovanissimi, and down to the 9-years-old Pulcini), so the comparison with the Spanish teams is simply impossible. Sorry but I can't see how an article solely dedicated to Inter's youth levels could be notable enough even for surviving a deletion process. Just a paragraph for a not-so-exceptional youth team (you know, the better ones are Juventus, Empoli, Atalanta, Torino and others) is far enough for the issue. --Angelo 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Or just keep Primavera, On Liverpool F.C., Celtic F.C. they have a reserve/youth squad list. And Manchester United F.C. Academy is a subpage. Matt86hk talk 04:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact the "Man Utd academy" article now seems to have been submitted for deletion. In addition, I do not agree with the opportunity to include the youth squad lists in any football club article, except if the team plays in a pro league (such as Real Madrid Castilla), since it's merely a list of non-notable players. That's all. --Angelo 11:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There is Liverpool F.C. Reserves also. Matt86hk talk 14:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at that article, and then tell me what kind of content a standalone article would add. I don't see any kind of possible expansion in it (as in a supposed Inter Primavera article), so a paragraph is quite sufficient. --Angelo 14:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo Bonucci

He's listed twice under the U-20 team, under different shirt numbers - unless he's cloned himself... which number is correct? If I had to guess, I'd pick the higher one (after all, since he made his 1st team debut this season, I would assume he was given a higher number to reflect his status), but I don't follow Inter one bit, so I can't say. ugen64 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is outdated. It is 05/06 season. Half of the team loaned out. Just wait for 06/07 squad and update all. Matt86hk talk 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Transfer 06/07

Should it include Portuguese U-17 international striker José Manuel Barbosa Alves "Coelho"signed form Porto.? He would likey play for youth team.

And who is Rafi Cohen (from Hapoel Petah Tikva).

rafi cohen was israel's national team goalkeeper several years ago but surly isn't on a verge of joining inter- it's simply a joke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.1.221.81 (talk • contribs) 7:20, 24 August 2006 UTC.

On transfer list cannot found his name. Matt86hk talk 04:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Starting line-up

I think 06/07 line-up is crystal box. I changed some names per 05/06 Appearances. Matt86hk talk 12:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Vieira

I'm not sure why it was changed in the first place and now reverted back to Patrick Vieira now playing for Inter. The news was already reported weeks ago that he will move there so there was no point in keeping him on Juventus. Next time try to be more aware of what you're actually doing when you revert what has been placed.

-- Kallenovsky 09:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

lega-calcio.it, juventus.com and inter.it announced today (2nd August). Newspaper not a good source. Matt86hk talk 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get information from the newspaper, thanks. Also Coco, Choutos, and many others have returned to the club. This one you can find over at the football transfers website. The Lega Calcio website is not a very relibale source as they do not update quickly enough. You're doing a good job monitoring otherwise. Thank you for your hard work.

-- Kallenovsky 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

How do you know the player numbers they havent even been released yet?! Unless you actually do know them put TBD or something else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.66.162 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 August 2006 UTC.

Are the players' numbers official? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodbrother (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 August 2006 UTC.

The person who is doing this page is making it all up. Diego milito will NOT wear the number 9 shirt, he was presented with the number 22 shirt on Thursday !! Mario Balotelli will NOT wear the number 11 shirt either, he will continue wearing the number 45 shirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdim (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Some Topics

I have a couble of topics to talk about in this article.

• First of all, the famous player section has an over done amount of players, there should be only around half as much, some players aren't even notable at all but are still included.
• I realy don't think the championship squad for each title should be listed, it's too much. If the information is to be included make an article for Inters title and list the information there, ex. FC Barcelona in Europe.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abreuzinho (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 August 2006 UTC.

Q's

Why do Inter have a England flag on their shirt (back of neck)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.14.61 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 October 2006 .

It's not the English flag, it represents the coat of arms of Milan. --Angelo 21:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Line up

What is the meaning of this line-up? Did they really started all of their 10 league games with this line-up? Where are thereferences?--BaldClarke 17:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed since the lineup can and will change every game. // Laughing Man 17:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I will like to add Inter formations at football-lineups as line-ups references --Jor70 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Juve fans bitter?

"Juventus fans will be bitter to see their star players, such as Patrick Vieira and Zlatan Ibrahimović leave for Inter.." Is there any source for this? Why would Juve fans be bitter? In fact, we (Juve fans) consider them traitors. That's a well known fact. 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think its fair to assume that a club's fans would be bitter to see their star players go straight to their rivals! You can be all macho and consider them "traitors" to soften your disappointment and enter a mild state of denial. Especially as both players were performing very well for Juventus at the time, unlike Ronaldo going to AC Milan after leaving Inter after his peak and then moving to them from Real Madrid. Mussab Al-Khairalla 10:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ended winning streak

the winning streak ended tonight, at 17 consecutive victories. the "ending" match was the 1-1 draw with udinese at san siro. --82.59.132.121 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Period in Top Flight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Milan#Other_historical_information

There it claims that Inter have lasted 99 years in the top flight, the longest of any club in the world. However, I can go to the Celtic history page where it claims that Celtic have played in the top flight of Scottish football since 1888, which with a few presses of the calculator comes to more than 100!

Have I misinterpreted what's being said or is what is being written here needing altered/clarified? --Ryan86 23:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's wrong, who wrote that probably didn't care too much about the Scottish Premier League. Fix it. --Angelo 00:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Calciopoli Controversy

I couldn't believe the Telecom Italia controversy, Vieri's illegal tapping, Moratti subsidizing La Gazzeta's dello sport didn't mentioned in the article. What is this? An anti Inter controversy article? 222.124.158.180 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Away Uniform??

The away uniform does not have an English type flag on it. I cannot find a way to fix it.
its not "England flag" its the symbol of the City of Milano

JDrossoneri09 16:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)JDrossoneri09

It does have a St. George cross on it - see pic. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC).

I really like the new away jersey. It's a bold statement, claiming to be #1 in Milan. This flag with red cross is in fact the flag of St. Ambrose (Bishop of Milan from 374 to 397). Maybe the St. Ambrose cross was inspired by the St.Geroge cross or the other way around, I really heave no idea, input anyone? St. Ambrose is the Milan city patron and also the saint whome the Milan Cathedral (3rd largest church in the world) is dedicated to. --Dubcat se 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I Need Help

i need help to complete List of F.C. Internazionale Milano players I've done all the nationality except Italy Wael.Mogherbi 17:43, 19 August 2007 (GMT)

Failed Talents

I personally dont think that this should be excluded, the overpaid ridiculous signings are a big part of Inter's recent history. Furthermore, the likes of Dennis Bergkamp, Matthias Sammer, Kanu, Mikel Silvestre etc etc etc who may have flourished elsewhere in the world failed miserably at Inter. They were overpaid and well no other word can describe them but failures.

As an Inter fan I don't like the way that these players have escaped the fact that they were very very poor at Inter Milan. The list is huge and if it is not going to be recorded on the actual wikipedia page then I shall name and shame them here.

Bergkamp, Kanu, Silvestre, West, Gresko, Pancev, Shalimov, Simic, Jonk, Vampeta, Caio, Rambert, Gilberto, Blanc, Jugovic, Sammer, Ze Elias, Rivas, Vivas, Camara, Kone, Frey, Farinos, Batistuta, Sousa, Sforza, Schifo, Winter, Mboma, Sukur ETC ETC ETC

There are probably a whole lot more there but like I say, Batistuta regarded as footballing legend worldwide was absolutely awful at Inter. Inters ridiculous obsession with signing any old big name in the 1990s early 00's is a major part of their history and I think there should be more emphasis on it for the page.

Thanks Harry Bobnashus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.231.3 (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

First, a list of "ridiculous signings" is blatantly POV, and highly subjective. Secondly, this is trivia content and it should instead be integrated into existing sections, read WP:TRIVIA for details. In the end, the Football clubs MOS does not allow space for this kind of content. --Angelo 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

mario ballotelli has scored

i am a big inter fan and i know ballotelli has scored 4 goals for inter all 4 of them in the coppa italia 2 against reggina and 2 against juventus can somebody put this in i tried but it was put back to 0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.58.182 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Goran Slavkovski's Nationality

Goran has confirmed he is playing for the Macedonian National Team on the 15-06-2008 I think you need to ammend the Swedish flag next to his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.117.153 (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He did not play for Macedonia yet, so his "sports nationality" is still Swedish (he played for Sweden at the youth level), a fact that definitely overrides a simple declaration. Feel free to switch it to Macedonia once he makes his debut for that team. --Angelo (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Paramithiotti, he is the first president of Inter not the one you incompetents have put over there. He is originally from Paramithia which is in Epirus(Cameria), at the time Albania.

Mario Balotelli is Italian, not from Ghana !!!!

In the line up it previously had the flag of Ghana next to Mario Balotelli. Mario was born in Italy not Ghana. His parents are from Ghana !! Mario has also stated that his desire is to play for Italy and Italy only as thats his country of birth and where he grew up !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.25.171 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mario Balotelli still has no Italian citizenship, as you probably know, so he cannot be considered as an Italian just because he is not. He will be able to require Italian citizenship once he turns 18 (on next August). --Angelo (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you know that he has Ghana citizenship? Maybe no flag until August 12? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.99.1 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He is Ghanaian, he acquired the citizenship from his parents and was even called some time ago to join the Ghanaian national team, but he refused. Needless to say you can't be called to the Ghanaian team if you're not a Ghanaian citizen. --Angelo (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When he'll be 18, he will gain the italian citizenship--Wiwi1 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Enrico Alfonso! any please put him under the loan section as he was loaned out to serie B team Pisa according to the official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.157.29 (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Inter edit: Out on loan. Philippe Coutinho

Hello (sleep *cough*)

My username is Fuwikepedia, this does not reflect anything else other than boredom when I first signed up.

I recently have tried and tried to edit the out on loan part of Inter with no success. Someone keeps on deleting my edits. It is only one, it has to do with Philippe Coutinho from CR Vasco da Gamma. He was bought last year at age 17 by Inter and has been left in the club for a while until 2010 for him to develop and then he will be brought to Inter.

Thus I ask, Is there something wrong that I am doing? I put a very credible quote is #10, it is from FIFA and I think it should be allowed to stay. I am not vandalizing the page, I am just adding and contributing to the players that are indeed out on loan.

Why is my contribution of Philippe Coutinho keep getting erased?

Much regards

You can contact me back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuwikepedia (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Coutinho is not on loan. He was signed by Inter on a permanent basis, provided that the move will be effective when he will be 18. It cannot be defined as a loan due to the fact he is not a Inter player yet, so Inter just cannot loan him to some other club; this can be compared to what happened when AC Milan signed a 17-year old Alexandre Pato, with the only difference the signing club decided for Pato to join AC Milan's squad immediately, even if he was not technically an AC Milan player yet. --Angelo (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. But I thought it would fall under that category of loan since the article I got from fifa said that he had been bought...thus he is a property of Inter....he can play rigt now... technically I guess.... since they do own him...but they just chose to leave him be for 2 year at vasco da gamma.... anyways.. thank you so much for your insight.

much regards I love f. coutinho man...he is wicked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuwikepedia (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He can't actually play with Inter until he turns 18, as stated by FIFA's Article 19 on international transfers involving minor-age players: "International transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18." [1]. --Angelo (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, someone put Kerlon in Inter Milan as well and I edited this player, he is in chievo verona and someone put him in inter....is this a joke? or someone just playing around?

Kerlon is the best.

Kerlon is not on Inter he is in Chievo Verona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuwikepedia (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello so I found out that he has been bought by Inter... is it true that this guy KERLON has had 2 knee surgeries?? wow!... is he going to last on Inter with that many surgeries at age 19?? 16:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)16:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)16:18

DIEGO MILITO WILL WEAR THE NUMBER 22 SHIRT ACCORDING TO THE INTER WEBSITE.

IF YOU CLICK ON THE NEW SHIRTS FOR SALE IT HAS A LIST OF SHIRTS AND NUMBERS FOR PERSONALIZATION. THE ONLY CHANGES COMFIRMED ARE IBRAHIMOVIC WILL WEAR THE NUMBER 10 SHIRT AND MILITO THE NUMBER 22. MARIO BALOTELLI WILL STILL WEAR THE NUMBER 45 SHIRT, WHY HAS IT GOT ON THIS PAGE THAT MILITO WIL 11 SHIRT ?

Note: previous owner of no. 22, goalkeeper Paolo Orlandoni, will switch to no. 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.202.164 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

LUCIO WILL NOT WEAR THE NUMBER 3 SHIRT- THAT NUMBER HAS BEEN RETIRED BY THE GREAT FACCHETTI

WHO IS PUTTING ALL THIS RUBBISH WHEN IT COMES TO PLAYERS AND THE NUMBERS. NEW SIGNING LUCIO CAN'T WEAR NUMBER 3 BECAUSE THAT NUMBER HAS BEEN RETIRED !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.25.171 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Grande Inter paragraph

The ending of the above mentioned paragraph seems a bit odd to me: Inter`s run of success under Trappatoni didn`t end with the Scudetto of 1989. The UEFA Cup triumph of 1991 at least deserves to be mentioned. After all, the competition was usually much higher rated back then, in the pre-Champions League era, than it has been in more recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.168.201.122 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the page should be expanded for the 70's and 80's I agree Trappatoni's side was very strong, but it is not comparable to Herrara's team in the 60's. 3 league titles 2 champions cups 2 intercontental cups and 3 runners up in serie a, runner up in the coppa italia and also another runner up in the champions cup. Cannot and will not ever compare to a serie a title, italian supercup and uefa cup....therefore if mentioned a separate section should be created for each decade.

Thanks, Harry Bobnashus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.65.224.248 (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving/Renaming article

Per NCA#Acronym_usage_in_article_body [2] I'm thinking of removing the periods in this name. BabyJonas (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That is about the article body, not the name. Please note all Italian and English club articles have full dots (Chelsea F.C., Manchester United F.C., A.C. Milan...) as they are favoured in such countries, differently than other countries such as Spain (FC Barcelona, e.g.). Please do not move this article without a wider consensus about such issues. --Angelo (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some follow-up research, and you are right. Officially, they have a period in the name. Thanks for mentioning that- guess you learn something new every day. BabyJonas (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ben Greenhalgh

Greenhalgh does not belong in the first team and has been removed. He is correctly listed on the Primavera page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.98.136 (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Slattzzzzzz, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Inter are also the first Italian team to win the treble. Slattzzzzzz (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 17:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but this article makes great mistakes. The name of this team is INTER. F.C. Internazionale is the official name but nobody use it and Inter Milan sounds to any Inter supporter as a real INSULT. If you call it Inter Milan it sounds like the derby, the writer of this article is a complete retard. Unless wikipedia wants to go down with credibility you better change your stupid definition that sounds as written by Milan supporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.48.67 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The official club website does not agree, INTER is not before the rest. It say 'F.C. Internazionale Milano Spa' in their copyright notice.. Regardless of the meaning of 'Inter Milan' to Italians the article currently says it's only referred to as this outside Italy. This is the English version of Wikipedia. Bertcocaine (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from AndresPestana7, 13 July 2010

Julio Cesar will wear the number 12 shirt and Luca Castellazzi the number 1 shirt —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndresPestana7 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jigglemaster7, 16 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} "The first design incorporated the letters 'FCIM'" should be changed to The first design incorporated the letters 'IMFC'. I think it'd make more sense.

Jigglemaster7 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: How would that make more sense? The name of the club is F.C. Internazionale Milano of which the first letters form FCIM. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Stadium Name

In this article, the stadium is referred to as 'Stadio Giuseppe Meazza', which directs to the page titled San Siro. The AC Milan page has 'San Siro'. Surely the two should be the same? Bertcocaine (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've concluded they should be the same, and amended both to include the official name, the common use name, and the city. Bertcocaine (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Gabriele Oriali is not part of the club staff since July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.3.123.195 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern History section

Surely the 'modern history' of Inter Milan began before 2008. Perhaps the section should be merged with the previous section, or renamed.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Political leanings

Overall in the last years, Inter supporters, according to all the polls, are more left-leaning. In our days, in Milan the Inter supporters are centre-left leaning and the Milan supporters right-wing (also for their owner). I think it's an important thing to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.32.11 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Azeezalnaser, 8 May 2011

In the Manegerial History section, Hectur Cuper is left out. He managed Inter Milan FC from 2001-2003. Azeezalnaser (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you're going with that, but according to the table this is a list of managers and/or coaches that have won trophies for the club. I checked out his bio, and couldn't see any evidence that he won a cup, but did come close on two occasions. Minima© (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Milano / Milan

Can't find any discussion of this in the talk page.... Why does the title of this article have the Italian name (Milano) and not the English (Milan)? We have F.C. Copenhagen not F.C. København. BBC uses Milan [3] FIFA uses both [4]. Since this is the English wikipedia, surely WP:UE applies? Cloudz679 (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

FC.Internazionale

FOOTBALL CLUB INTERNAZIONALE MILAN është klub futbollistik italian me seli në Milano, Lombardi, që zhvillon ndeshjet në ligën e parë të Italisë ose Seria A. Klubi u themelua më 9 mars të vitit 1908. Në Itali klubi është i njohur si Inter ose Internazionale. Interi është një nga klubet më të suksesëshme në historinë e futbollit italian duke fituar 15 herë Scudetti kampionatin, 5 herë Coppa Italia (kupën e Italisë) dhe 3 herë Super Kupën Italiane. Interi gjithashtu ka fituar 2 herë Kupën Evropiane (Ligën e Kampionëve)), 3 herë UEFA Kupën dhe 2 herë titullin Kampion Botërorë. Gjithashtu Interi është ekipi i vetëm në Itali i cili asnjëherë nuk ka lëshuar ligën e parë (Seria A me 85 sezone të kompletuar. Interi është pjesë e organizatës G-14 që udhëheq Klubet evropiane. Interi ndeshjet vendas i luan në stadiumin e Stadio Giuseppe Meazza, i njohur edhe si San Siro .Stadiumin e ndan me rivalin e qytetit AC Milan,i cili është stadiumi më i madh në Itali me një kapacitet prej 80.018 ulëse.Inter stërvitjet i kryen në fushën e Angelo Moratti i njhour më mirë si La Pinteta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.46 (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Away kit 2012

Away kit, inter.it--Dipralb (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Transfergossip, 9 August 2011

I want the following transfer news uploaded on the Milan main page. Thank you. The info is as follows

Manchester United target, Wesley Sneijder has been seen at Manchester airport this morning, with a possible move to United, rumoured to be around £32.5 million, seeming more likely. The Dutchman hasn't quite come to level terms with new Inter Milan coach, Gian Piero Gasperini, and his arrival in Manchester has sparked more speculation about his desire to make a move to the Premier League champions. United director, David Gill was also seen in Milan a few weeks ago, "I met with Wesley, in Milan, and no offers were made. We'll see what will happen. We are still hopeful of a deal," he said when asked about Sneijder's arrival. More transfer speculation is to follow as the 'Sneijder-Saga' continues. 09/08/2011 01:45am

Transfergossip (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done:: This seems to be more of a news blurb than something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Topher385 (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 26xbing, 6 September 2011

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Club name in infobox

Currently the "clubname" parameter in the infox uses "Internazionale". However, the instructions for that infobox for "clubname" states "The commonly-used name of the club" (read it here). "Internazionale" is in no way the most commonly used name for the club in English media. By far the most commonly used names are "Inter Milan" or just "Inter". I know that this is an ongoing edit war (along with "AC Milan" vs. just "Milan") and no one is ever going to be happy but if we follow the instructions of the infobox then it seems clear we should use "Inter Milan". If "Inter" would be less controversial then I think that would be fine too, but not only is "Internazionale" rarely used I doubt that most English-only speakers would even know how to pronounce it. Thoughts anyone? SQGibbon (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

error

in the first lines... orologiaio means clockmaker, not clock--82.51.21.215 (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kit body inter1112h.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kit body inter1112h.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kit body inter1112h.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Kit body inter1112a.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kit body inter1112a.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Kit body inter1112a.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. I suggest looking at Category:Football_clubs_in_Italy and noting the number of articles that use a more formal titling vice those that use a more informal titling. Perhaps this is better settled not on an individual article basis, but at the WikiProject level. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan –Relisted Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC) This is an open-and-shut WP:COMMONNAME case in my mind, indeed even the lead sentence of the article says "commonly known as Inter Milan outside of Italy". It may be true that "Internazionale Milano" is the common/proper name in Italian, but COMMONNAME says to use English sources, and it is undeniable that the vast majority of English-language sources use "Inter Milan". A few examples of this include this ngram and just going to google news, I get 4,240 hits for "Inter Milan" compared to only 294 for "Internazionale Milano". In addition, the proposed title meets more of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA than the current one, especially recognisability and naturalness. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, both UEFA and FIFA refers to the club as FC Internazionale Milano. Both are English sources and highly relevant to the matter at hand. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and while those sources should be given some weight, we do not use the official names for titles, we use the most common name. Do you disagree that Inter Milan is the common name? Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I am well aware of that. WP:COMMONNAME says: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources". FIFA and UEFA are two very good examples of "reliable English-language sources". I hardly think that all 4,240 google hits for Inter Milan are equally reliable as FIFA and UEFA. I think these sources should be given a lot more than "some weight" since they are the governing entities of World and European football respectively. Maybe it would help your case to cite a couple of reliable source instead of a google count? --Reckless182 (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • That's why I used google news, not just a generic google search – practically every gnews hit will be reliable. That said, your request is fair enough, so here are a few examples: New York Times, BBC, The Telegraph, The Hindu, USA Today, Malaysia Star, ESPN, Los Angeles Times, Irish Times, Sports Illustrated, Jamaica Gleaner, Herald Sun, Channel News Asia, The Australian. I really could go on and on here, but my point is that all around the world the common name is Inter Milan. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Fair play. We should still discuss whether FIFA and UEFAs naming should prevail or not. Even if this argument is proven to be invalid I will oppose on the grounds that we haven't reached consensus and therefore we should look to current naming conventions which means keeping the title as it is. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
          • As you can see further up this talk page, FIFA uses both forms. Cloudz679 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The club has numerous common names, including "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan". The current title avoids the rigmarole of determining which of these should be used while also making the article fit with the convention of titling club articles after the club's full name (c.f. Manchester United F.C., A.C. Milan, Real Madrid C.F., FC Barcelona, etc.) – PeeJay 14:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • its in the italian name (Milano) and not the English (Milan). There’s F.C. Copenhagen not F.C. København. Since this is English Wikipedia, surely WP:UE has to apply? And also if you Google search InterMilan the OFFICIAL website states (on google) THEIR official translation = "Inter Milan Official Site" --Medic [ talk ] 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support – The title is confusing as it’s not WP:COMMONNAME I thought I had either been transferred to Italian Wikipedia site or a different football club. As of this second UEFA has the more commonly used name of Internazionale used in their Champions League Standings (Presumably so people would understand which club they are talking about) – which is why Wikipedia should change. For me it should be Inter Milan as all the main media ie BBC, SKY, ITV, Telegraph refer to the club as that and to be honest I could have found many, many, many more. I’m suspecting some people want to argue the colour of black – which for me is not good for the Wikipedia project - when this is an Open and Closed case. Also convention needs to be set aside rather then confuse masses and in my opinion the mighty UEFA agrees with this when they call the team Internazionale in the league standings. --Medic [ talk ] 15:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The club has numerous common names and Inter Milan isn't necessarily the most common one. Also per WP:MOSAT official names can be used when agreed on by a Wikiproject (as has been done here). The reason we use official names is quite clear if you look at UEFA's website. Nearly every club is called something that would be unsuitable for Wikipedia. We use official names because they are unambiguous for Wiki. Adam4267 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Good point. It also should be pointed out that the naming of football clubs differs greatly in sources when used in prose compared to in statistics much like UEFA does. For article titles we should look to the name used in the prose. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • its in the italian name (Milano) and not the English (Milan). There’s F.C. Copenhagen not F.C. København. Since this is English Wikipedia, surely WP:UE has to apply? And also if you Google search InterMilan the OFFICIAL website states (on google) THEIR official translation = "Inter Milan Official Site" --Medic [ talk ] 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:TITLE (of which WP:COMMONNAME is a part) also states that article titles should "follow the same pattern as those of similar articles". For those of Italian football clubs, we always use the full name - when I look at Category:Football clubs in Italy, I don't see a single article titled according to its common English short name. Number 57 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • its in the italian name (Milano) and not the English (Milan). There’s F.C. Copenhagen not F.C. København. Since this is English Wikipedia, surely WP:UE has to apply? And also if you Google search InterMilan the OFFICIAL website states (on google) THEIR official translation = "Inter Milan Official Site" --Medic [ talk ] 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The case has been made comprehensively by Jenks24. The footy project has what I consider to be a peculiar way of determining consensus. There tends (so it appears) to be very little actual discussion, leaving subsequent editors in the dark as to how the stated consensus has been arrived at. In any event, consensus can change and it does no harm to revisit these historical inaccuracies from time to time. Jenks24' outline and evidence is unambiguous from a policy (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV) perspective. Leaky Caldron 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - let's have a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE, shall we? Next thing you know we'll be having articles called 'Man Utd' and 'Becks.' We are not a bunch of lads down the pub. GiantSnowman 16:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

But your argument suggests we should change the commonly referred to AC Milan to "Associazione Calcio Milan" --Medic [ talk ] 16:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that argument would suggest the name of this article should be Football Club Internazionale Milan. The prefixes and suffixes which are abbreviated with full stops are a different issue. No-one is suggesting those words should be spelled out. Number 57 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm wrong about AC Milan its like FC - I like to admit when I'm wrong --Medic [ talk ] 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• And Inter Milan in English is used about 6 Billion times more than FC Internazionale Milano - Surely that should be commonsense --Medic [ talk ] 16:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC):
• But I still think the naming convention is the killer point because its the Italian name (Milano) and not the English (Milan). There’s F.C. Copenhagen not F.C. København. Since this is English Wikipedia, surely WP:UE has to apply? And also if you Google search InterMilan the OFFICIAL website states (on google) THEIR official translation = "Inter Milan Official Site" --Medic [ talk ] 16:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC) We're basically helping out 4 or 5 Italians who have gone to the wrong Wikipedia site, lol --Medic [ talk ] 16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You really should stop bolding things. It's going to make life difficult for the closing admin. Adam4267 (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

So on those people who have opposed I've added a new argument - if they havn't got a come back does that mean it gets changed, common sense previals and the Wikipedia project succeeds? Or is there more quarrel still? --Medic [ talk ] 21:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Completely oppose as per GiantSnowman, who is bang on correct here. Jared Preston (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per GiantSnowman, Reckless and Jared Preston. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • All their arguments are for WP:Commonname but this argument has evolved. I now agree with Giant Snowman et al - There is no need for Becks / Man United articles BUT the argument is now about the naming convention. This is the killer point as its the Italian name (Milano) and not the English (Milan). There’s F.C. Copenhagen not F.C. København. Since this is English Wikipedia, surely WP:UE has to apply? And also if you Google search InterMilan the OFFICIAL website states (on google) THEIR official translation = "Inter Milan Official Site"

%%%% I challenge anyone to justify this - Or should we change F.C. Copenhagen to F.C. København - what a shame that would be though - and daft and ridiculous - but thats YOUR ARGUMENTS! --Medic [ talk ] 23:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - As per nom based on WP:COMMONNAME. Also, while I usually agree with GiantSnowman's opinions and comments when it comes to football-related matters, I will have to disagree with him here. You can't use WP:COMMONSENSE to justify your position in this argument because you are simply applying your reasoning and thinking to the argument. My common sense approach would actually be to have it renamed to Inter Milan, and I'm sure nominator and others would agree. The case of Inter Milan is different from Man United, most people know that Man United is just a short form of Manchester United, most people don't know that Inter Milan actually stands of Internazionale Milano. TonyStarks (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • People may not know that "Inter Milan" is the short form of "F.C. Internazionale Milano", but if they can't work it out, they probably don't deserve to be using a PC. – PeeJay 07:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You'll find PC's / internet / Wikipedia being used by primary school kids now - so does a 5 year old not deserve to be using a PC?. Wikipedia is often used for learning about stuff so do we want the next generation of footballers/fans to learn Italian or easiliy find information about Inter Milan and their players when they've watched them on TV? Never mind 5 year olds most adults don't know that Inter Milan actually stands for / is the English translation of Internazionale Milano --Medic [ talk ] 14:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Don't be facetious. If you are presented with the terms "Inter Milan" and "Internazionale Milano", you'd have to be an idiot not to realise they are the same thing. Knowing Italian is not a prerequisite for spotting Internazionale Milano. It's not a translation, just a common nickname. – PeeJay 15:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • So should Wikipedia not cater for idiots / children? Here’s 2 references that says Milano is Italian 1)Google Translate [[5]] and 2)The first few words of Wikipedia's own Milan article. I’d quote many more references for this but it’s obvious Milano is Italian, Milan is English. Also worth a mention is that every time I search for this article to get to this talk page I search Inter Milan – isn’t everyone else doing this – isn’t this an example of WP:COMMONSENSE? --Medic [ talk ] 20:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • A bit more on my last point on the paragraph above… Lets be honest, to put this into perspective, given the references on this discussion, there is not going to be one English first language speaking person on Earth or the International Space station that is going to be searching Wikipedia or the Internet via the words Internationale Milano for information about this football club. The only people who might are English speaking people abroad living in Milan and confused as street signs, maps and everything around them says Milano and so they were temporarily disorientated and done the search in Italian by mistake and even then may still have had to have been slightly intoxicated to make such an error. WP:COMMONSENSE anyone? --Medic [ talk ] 21:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Furthermore I checked 2 other leading football nations (Spanish and German) Wikipedia’s for what they have called their article and they’ve called it their language equivalents of Inter Milan ie Inter de Milan and Inter Mailand respectively – no mention of Milano so basically we are not following English Language convention – what’s the word I’m looking for, that its an abnormality. Also, I mention on WIKI Project Football page that I’m a former Premiership Football Scout. Now when I was scouting if someone asked me to go over and watch someone for Internationale Milano - I would have thought I’d been stitched up with some 6th division, mafia run football club in the middle of nowhere and wouldn’t have even been sure it was Italy. And I’m a person with background in professional football, who has a uni degree, above average IQ and according to a brain training website I’m in the top 25% of the world for problem solving. I think if I have an issue not knowing that Internationale Milano is Inter Milan then a lot of other people will also. I thought Wikipedia is better than this. --Medic [ talk ] 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• A lot of terrible arguments (and inappropriate aspersions) being cast about here. We have five primary heuristics for article naming: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. Of those, "Inter Milan" is arguably the most recognisable, probably the most natural, somewhat precise (it is unambiguous, but a concatenation), very concise and not at all consistent (only a very select few football club articles use common names like this, and mostly those whose official names are entirely unintelligible in English. "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is somewhat recognisable, rather less natural, very precise, as consise as the vast majority of our football club titles, and extremely consistent. I don't see that there is therefore sufficient argument, in terms of our naming guidelines, for a move, though had the article been started at the shorter title there would arguably not be support for a move in the other direction either. So the ultimate outcome is probably that the article will remain in place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. To the comprehensive research of Jenks24, I can add the Italian English-language press: Corriere Della Sera, The Florentine, and ANSA, the country's top press agency. Why are we being more Italian than the Italians, at least when they write in English? Kauffner (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• In support (I have already added my support above) however, I thought I would establish what other sources suggest. Ebay makes interesting reading. There are currently 132 football memorabilia items which have "Internazionale" in their title. There are 2,582 similar items with "Inter Milan". This clearly demonstrates common name usage. In addition, the memorabilia itself, including British and foreign match programmes and match tickets dating back to the 1960's include "Inter" in the front page. For example, the Inter City Fairs cup match with Newcastle United in 1970 [6] and the 1967 European Cup final v Celtic (published in Portuguese)[7]. There are also tickets from Rosenburg and Bayern citing "Inter" or "Inter Milan". "Internazionale" is by comparison, scarce. Leaky Caldron 12:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per the Encyclopædia Britannica [8] plus the existing arguments above. I appreciate that WikiProject Football editors in particular want standardization, and this is a common goal, however the common sense policy seems to have been misrepresented earlier in this discussion. The common name is Inter Milan and common sense dictates that this is where the article should be. The official name is not being disputed and can link to the main article as a redirect. Of course Inter Milan is an exceptional case in the English language and I cannot think of another club where this reasoning would be suitable. However that is not the concern here. On the merits of both, I believe a support is the common sense decision. Cloudz679 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per the reliable sources. I would prefer if the reliable sources called the club 'Internazionale' as that is their actual name, but it seems they don't, and that was my perception anyway. The discussion seems to boil down to whether you think consistency of article naming should trump Common name. I don't believe it should, as long as there's no dab issues. Eldumpo (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I honestly don't see what the problem is. Inter Milan redirects to F.C. Internazionale Milano; you can clearly see you've reached the right page from the opening sentence and you learn something in the process. If the Italians refer to the club as "Internazionale" or "Inter", for us to call them "Inter Milan" is as bad as one of them referring to "Arsenal London" or "Sporting Lisbon". The situation is slightly different in Inter's case as "Milano" is part of the name, but that doesn't make it right to call them "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Re-comment - By the way, I just logged on to www.inter.it and the first page I was presented with makes no mention of "Milan", while the only mention of "Milano" comes in my browser's title bar. Even after I progressed to the site's English homepage, there was still no mention of "Inter Milan". On the club history page, the club is exclusively referred to as "Internazionale" or "Inter". Seems pretty categorical that the name the club gives itself in English should be the one we use here. – PeeJay 01:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If the club calls itself "Inter", that would seem to be an additional reason to put the word in the title. The title should tell the reader the common name of the subject in English, how it usually referred to in the real world. Kauffner (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Calling the article Inter would be a little ridiculous though, and since the club doesn't refer to itself as "Inter Milan", that's not the solution. – PeeJay 02:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
        • PeeJay I have to disagree with some of your statements, “Seems pretty categorical that the name the club gives itself in English should be the one we use here”. If Pele calls himself Pele all over the world in Spanish, German, Italian etc but wants to give himself the name “Frogman” in English – it doesn’t mean that everyone has to agree with him or call him this. Especially if every English speaking person knows of Pele as Pele. To be listed as anything else in a reference encyclopedia like this one is just problematic. So in this case it should be listed as what it is known as and used widespreadly which is Inter Milan.
        • Also you mention “you can clearly see you've reached the right page from the opening sentence” but lots of people will be confused – which shouldn’t happen. The page is also difficult to find and an example of this is from a Google search for the words “Inter Milan” – you would expect for a Wikipedia article to appear on the search results but the Wikipedia article does not appear ANYWHERE on Google because of the current naming convention. [[9]]
        • You say people will “learn something in the process”, but this is irrelevant as the primary things to do, the BASIC thing that has to be done on an encyclopedia is to “reference information” that “can be quickly found when needed” and not appearing in Google search results because of a badly named article is not helping people quickly access information.
        • Kauffner suggests that if the club calls itself Inter then that is another reason to include it in the (full) title ie Inter Milan (NOT to name the article Inter)
        • Also the club DOES refer to itself as Inter Milan and here is the evidence to back this up: the Google search result text for “InterMilan” displays the official English title of their website given from Inter Milan’s HTML = (Top Google result + 3rd Sentence down) [[10]]. The HTML can also be viewed by going to the website homepage, right clicking the page, then view page source, CTRL F to search for “Inter Milan” and it is the 2nd result = "Inter Milan official website" [[11]] --Medic [ talk ] 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And you say "you don't see what the problem is" - well I don't see what the problem is putting it right! --Medic [ talk ] 13:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Why would Pele refer to himself by different names in different languages? Also, it's not the case that Inter refer to themselves by different names in different languages either. They call themselves "Internazionale" or "Inter" in every language. Sure, "Inter Milan" is a common name so they use it to alert people who use that name to their website, but it is not the correct name. One should not have to open up the page source code for evidence that the club calls itself "Inter Milan", especially when that phrase appears nowhere on the club's official site. By the way, Kauffner's logic also applies to using the title F.C. Internazionale Milano, for you see, the word "Internazionale" also contains the word "Inter", just like "Inter Milan" does. You are right, the job of an encyclopaedia is to "reference information" that "can be quickly found when needed"; I see no impediment to that function by calling the article F.C. Internazionale Milano; both Internazionale and Inter Milan act as redirects to that title, and the explanation of the alternate names of the club can be found in the opening sentence. I can't see any quicker way to impart the correct information than the method already in place. Calling the article Inter Milan would simply be pandering to a small group of people who refer to the club by that name, just as calling it Internazionale would do the same for those people who call it that. In a similar vein to the association football article, to avoid controversy regarding bipartisan naming, we should just keep the article title as it is: the club's official name. – PeeJay 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • • • "Pandering to a small group of people"? Please review the actual evidence (rather than opinion) that has been presented elsewhere in this section from a variety of sources before making claims that simply do not stand up. The evidence here represents thousands of non-wiki people who refer to Inter Milan. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Fine, not a small group of people, but the numbers are certainly comparable. The people in real life who refer to "Inter" or "Internazionale" are just as prevalent as those who refer to "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 22:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
                • • Both factually and anecdotally that statement just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I have been involved in and around football for a lifetime (and that is a long time). I've seen Inter play. I have never referred to them by their Italian name. As for factual evidence of people in real life, I refer you once again to the Ebay evidence above. 132 out of 2700 is not comparable and I don't think you can dispute that those people are "real life" individuals. Leaky Caldron 11:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • To add detail to something I said earlier...... - There is not going to be a SINGLE English (first language) speaking person on Earth or the International Space station that is going to be searching the ENGLISH Wikipedia or the ENGLISH Google via the words “Internationale Milano” for information about this football club”. To dispute this would be petty. And SURELY this has got to mean something.
                  • And I think what Cloud679 says earlier should be highlighted and taken into consideration with this….. “The official name is not being disputed and can link to the main article as a redirect. Of course Inter Milan is an exceptional case in the English language and I cannot think of another club where this reasoning would be suitable. However that is not the concern here. On the merits of both, I believe a support is the common sense decision. Cloudz679 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)” - Definitely words of wikipedia and footballing wisdom… --Medic [ talk ] 13:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
                    • No one searches for "Internazionale Milano", sure, but people would search for "Internazionale" or "Inter" just as much as they would search for "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 21:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
                    • By the way, what about Sporting Clube de Portugal? – PeeJay 10:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

An article naming convention guideline - WP:ENGLISH. Leaky Caldron 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per the comprehensive arguments already made. See Atlético Madrid, Real Betis etc. for evidence of the flimsiness of this official name consistency argument. I worry that the suggestion that "Internazionale" is used as often as "Inter Milan" by English speakers is plain rubbish designed to be destructive.  Omg †  osh  23:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Inter Milan is pretty clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in this instance. I rarely, RARELY, hear or read Internazionale Milano. DemonJuice (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any problem with title of the article being F.C. Internazionale Milano, i would be in favour of either. But what gets me is that Inter Milan doesn't appear to be accepted much elsewhere, which i think it should be. On Wikipedia at the moment it's usually Internazionale and sometimes just Inter. Or is it ok to write either Inter Milan or Internazionale? and what about Internazionale Milano? strangely i can't remember ever seeing it done like that. Bobbymaestro (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The common name should be Internazionale or in short Inter, instead of Inter Milan. Matthew_hk tc 13:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:COMMONNAME it's not what "the common name should be" but what is in fact the most commonly used name for the club in English. SQGibbon (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Inter is not available as an article title as it is ambiguous. I therefore propose adding "Milan" to your title for disambiguation purposes. Inter Milan. Powers ^T 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

People use Torino, Napoli instead of Turin and Naples, as simply as that (And Padova, Mantova, ROMA). For the Brazilian club, is Internacional and even no need to disambiguation purposes. (I rarely heard Inter de Porto). Internazionale is the common name that more formal and more refer by the editor of English world. You can challenge me by intensive research on Sky Sports, BBC, Guardian , US media, Indian media or somewhere else. Matthew_hk tc 20:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a separate discussion. For now, inter is a disambiguation page and can be assumed to reflect community consensus. If you're claiming that this is primary topic for Inter, you've got a long way to go. Powers ^T 23:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support As has been adequately established, by far the most common name used for the team in English media is "Inter Milan". It creates the least amount of confusion for English readers. Even for people who don't use "Inter Milan" they know what it means as soon as they see it. Conversely I bet there are a significant number of readers (casual fans, say) who would have no idea that "Internazionale" and "Inter Milan" refer to the same club which adds an unnecessary, even if easily overcome, level of confusion for readers. While occasionally I see "Internazionale" used in print I've never heard it spoken aloud during match commentary or news reporting and honestly I'm not sure (and I'm betting a lot of other English speakers feel the same way) how that word is even pronounced. Given all that, WP:COMMONNAME seems to pretty clearly indicate that "Inter Milan" should be the name of the article. SQGibbon (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The club is normally called "Inter Milano" or "Inter" in Italian. It also calls itself "Inter" in English. So it seems that it is the "Milan" part of "Inter Milan" that is problematic. But "Milan" is very well established as the English-language name for both the city and the club. Almost no one outside Italy calls the calls the club "[anything] Milano", according to Insights. Kauffner (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Inter Milan is the most commonly used. Bobbymaestro (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support; WP:COMMONNAME holds sway here. It's New York Knicks, not New York Knickerbockers, and so should it be here. Powers ^T 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per GiantSnowman, Reckless and Jared Preston.--Dipralb (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NC Dr. Vicodine (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title reflects the standard naming convention for football clubs. Besides, Inter Milan isn't the most common name for the club among English-language sources. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just plain "Inter" might be more common, I suppose. What's your thinking Matty? Leaky Caldron 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a pattern. English clubs and Italian club shared the same pattern and La Liga and Argentina had it own. No one would move Sporting from Sporting Clube de Portugal and S.C. Braga, both the short form of their full name, just like English clubs always bear F.C. (with dot, in some wiki article without dot). In Italy, the club usually bear SSC, SS, AC, FC despite Napoli is one of the common name. If common name is right, why not move ManUtd to Manchester United and Blackburn to Blackburn F.C. and so on for Bolton F.C.?! I know La Liga club isn't the short form but common name (instead of C.A. Madrid), and only Real Madrid C.F. broke the pattern. In Argentina is different. No C.A. Boca Juniors but Club Atlético River Plate. For Inter, probably there is only one most famous Internazionale in Europe and in Italy. and if argue the common name, so AC Milan should be Milan, AC ChievoVerona as CheivoVerona, SSC Napoli as Napoli, SS Lazio as just Lazio, ACF Fiorentina as just Fiorentina, US Lecce as just Lecce (football club) as the naming pattern changed. Matthew_hk tc 21:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose We can safely say that Inter is the WP:COMMONNAME of this article, but Inter is ambigous. As the lead states, there are three commonnames, so that doesn't justify a move to Inter Milan. There is also a naming-convention for football-clubs that we should stick to, if we move this to Inter Milan the next thing would be a RM from Manchester United F.C. to Manchester United and so on. The fact that UEFA and FIFA uses F.C. Internazionale Milano, makes me certain that this is the right position for this article. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think it's true that we can safely say that Inter is the commonest form. Indeed, FIFA seemed happy to use "Inter Milan" here, while Anglo-centric sources' (e.g. Sky Sports, the BBC (follow the dropdown menu)) use it on the club's mini-page, which suggests they prefer it. Secondly, that naming convention doesn't appear to extend to Rayo Vallecano or Real Valladolid and appears to have lost its relevance.  Omg †  osh  12:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Use google search please. BBC and The FA both used Internazionale and Inter Milan. Matthew_hk tc 12:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't deny that the BBC uses both Internazionale and Inter Milan. I was merely rebutting the previous poster's point that Inter Milan was safely the commonest form used.  Omg †  osh  19:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Running "inter milan" site:www.bbc.co.uk gives 214,000 results vs. "internazionale" site:www.bbc.co.uk which gives 12,800 results. Likewise running "inter milan" site:www.fifa.com/ gives 10,400 results vs. "internazionale" site:www.fifa.com/ 2,970 results. So yes, FIFA and the BBC use "Internazionale" but not nearly as often as "Inter Milan". SQGibbon (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've already opposed the move but I'd like to point out that it seems to me like there are several common names for the club, I believe we should stand by the current naming-conventions in this case since it is very hard to actually distinguish which of the common names that are more common than the others. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Except, as an English speaker yourself, I'm sure you've never used the term "F.C. Internazionale Milano", have you? Or even heard its use by anybody else in the English language. Whereas references to "Inter Milan" are all around. Hardly a case of being difficult to distinguish the more common name. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica (as referenced above) agrees. Cloudz679 21:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Common name isn't the only thing taken into consideration when titling articles. Can we not all agree that "Inter" and "Inter Milan" are much more common than the current name and move on. Constantly regurgitating this argument in every possible way is getting us nowhere. Adam4267 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Common name" was the most confusing thing in wikipedia. I only heard Bolton, Blackburn and rarely the full name (Rovers? Wanderers?) and instead of Rangers F.C., i heard "Glasgow Rangers" more often. As i stated above, Italian and English clubs follow one single naming conversion (Portugal is somewhat similar to England) and Spain is another type of naming conversion. Matthew_hk tc 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: while "Inter Milan" is a common name for the club, more and more in recent years I've heard it referred to as "Internazionale" without "Milan" or "Milano" at all. Both terms are far too ambiguous to be used, but I think the fact that there is more than one common name in common use means that we need to default to the more official name. Harrias ^talk 16:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well in all my time (and that is a lot) I have never heard "F.C. Internazionale Milano" used to describe Inter Milan in the UK. However, this is not really about us at Wikipedia. The evidence presented within this section clearly demonstrate that English speaking RS and English speaking members of the public (see the Ebay evidence) is around 15 to 1 in support of Inter Milan. Leaky Caldron 10:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I am convinced by the arguments above that "Inter Milan" is far more common in reliable English usage than the current name. (I should note, though, that eBay sales hardly count as reliable sources; I'm basing my judgement off of the news organizations.)--Aervanath (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that Ebay does not represent a RS. What it does represent however is a sizable volume of English speaking, football followers who are using "Inter Milan" to promote the sale of their memorabilia. Since it is vital to promote their items for sale in the most effective way possible, it is entirely sensible to use a description which will be found most commonly by those searching for said items. It is, I suggest, effective practical evidence of the general public's search preferences. Leaky Caldron 16:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Managerial history

Leonardo is long gone. Managerial history section needs to be updated. BabyJonas (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical Error: the false repechage of Inter in 1922

Many Juventus and Milan fans say that Inter was regalated in Second Division in 1922, and readmitted in the top league thanks to the reunion of the C.C.I. (Confederazione Calcistica Italiana) and Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), after winning one salvation play-off. It's false! it.wiki say clearly that the last place of Inter forced the nerazzurri to play one salvation play-off against a Second Division CCI team (Sport Club Italia) to be not relegated. Before this play-off The reunion of the C.C.I. and FIGC forced Inter to play another play-off with a FIGC team (Libertas Firenze) to remain in the top league. Inter won two matchs of salvation and avoided the relegation! Inter had never relegated. Correct the error! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.72.78 (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2012

Hi

In top of the Mourinho page, it is mentioned from 2008-present which is clearly wrong and should be 2008-2010.

Nami4552 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is there any particular reason why "modern history" should end in 2010? Is there another stage after 2010, or are you saying it should be changed because the section doesn't contain any information after 2010? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Awaiting an answer to the above question, preferably with a source. When you have provided this, simply change the |answered= parameter on {{edit semi-protected}} from "yes" to "no." This will reactivate the template. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 June 2012

Historical Error: the false repechage of Inter in 1922

Many Juventus and Milan fans say that Inter was regalated in Second Division in 1922, and readmitted in the top league thanks to the reunion of the C.C.I. (Confederazione Calcistica Italiana) and Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), after winning one salvation play-off. It's false! it.wiki say clearly that the last place of Inter forced the nerazzurri to play one salvation play-off against a Second Division CCI team (Sport Club Italia) to be not relegated. Before this play-off the reunion of the C.C.I. and FIGC forced Inter to play another play-off with a FIGC team (Libertas Firenze) to remain in the top league. Inter won two matchs of salvation and avoided the relegation! Inter had never relegated. Please, may I correct the error?

L'Eremita (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, please specify the exact changes you'd like to see (i.e., copy the current wording in question onto this page, then write the proposed replacement wording below). Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move: F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Non-admin closure. The result of the proposal was Move. Wesley☀Mouse 18:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that this article is currently semi-protected and an administrator will complete the move shortly. Wesley☀Mouse 18:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Move  Done. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan – This proposal would put the subject to at what is far and away its most common English-language name, according to this ngram. According to Insights, it is the name the fans are looking for in the U.S., Britain, and Australia. In Italian, the club is called Internazionale, or Inter for short. The club and FIFA have been promoting this usage in English in recent years,[12][13] but it has a long way to go before it can be considered the common usage. As for the current title, it is quite a mouthful, more of a fine-print legal name than a practical way to refer to the club. The crowds certainly don’t cheer for “F.C. Internazionale Milano” or even for “Internazionale Milano”.[14] Kauffner (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Supporting material

• Policy: “Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (WP:COMMONNAME)

• References: Britannica, (as well as The Britannica Guide to Soccer (2011)), A History of the World Cup: 1930-2010 (2011), The World's Game: A History of Soccer (1998), Soccer For Dummies (2000), and The World Encyclopedia of Soccer (1994) all use the proposed form.

Kauffner (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support per Kauffner's comprehensive nomination. In addition to the clear COMMONNAME case, the proposed title also meets more of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA than the current title. Jenks24 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support—Looks reasonable to me. Tony (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support there could hardly be a clearer case. Leaky Caldron 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, seems like a straightforward application of WP:COMMONNAME. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support English name should be used, not Italian. Zarcadia (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very clearly argued. Should be moved to the common name we all use to refer to the blue team from Milan. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Kauffner made a convincing argument. How could I not agree. – Kosm1fent 15:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - this nomination is an example of when newspapers can be reliable for some purposes. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The common name is quite clearly "Inter Milan". Tiller54 (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - But is La Liga an English word? And Serie A? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - extremely reluctantly - I'm a traditionalist when it comes to club names but the evidence and policy all points in one direction only. GiantSnowman 22:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - While we're at it, why don't we move Manchester United F.C. to Manchester United, and all manner of other simplifications? Preposterous. The name "Inter Milan" is even being phased out by a lot of media outlets; I am increasingly seeing the club referred to as either "Internazionale" or "Inter". In view of these various common names, the long name should be the name of the article. – PeeJay 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per PeeJay. Inter Milan is one of three commonnames for this article, and the nominator has only explained us that Inter Milan is more used then F.C. Internazionale Milan, not that Inter Milan is the most used commonname. There were a previous discussion about this three months ago, and that discussion can be seen here. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Start a RFC on the naming issue?

I think most of us can agree on that the RM in June was disputed, and that there is no single common name to this club. WP:COMMONNAME states that When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the criteria listed above. It has been suggested earlier, so instead of starting a new RM, I believe the best thing to do would be to start a RFC where we include the four possiblities of names (Inter Milan, F.C. Internazionale Milano, Internazionale and Inter (football club)), and invite all the editors that participated in the two previous RM's and the relevant WikiProjects (WP:ITALY and WP:FOOTY) to comment, so that we can try to reach a consensus on the article name. Any thoughts? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a clear, policy-based consensus per WP:ENGLISH, WP:UE, WP:MOS#FOREIGN and WP:COMMONNAME. WP:CONSENSUS was crystal clear and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and especially WP:ITALY, are totally unqualified reasons to raise this issue yet again. Leaky Caldron 16:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could save your arguments for the RFC, you were the one who initially proposed this, isn't that right? But to say that it was a "clear consensus" is directly incorrect. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you are wrong on both counts. I didn't propose it, as is self-evident from the RMs, and 11 for with 2 against is about as clear as a consensus as it is possible to achieve. Leaky Caldron 16:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about this and this. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, I'm getting pretty sick of you. Just because most of the opposition didn't appear until after the RM was (prematurely) closed does not make it invalid. The move was clearly more controversial than the duration of the RM indicated. An RfC is definitely warranted. – PeeJay 02:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right.--Dipralb (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This page was last modified on 20 January 2013 at 23:14

this was the last update and still Ricardo Gabriel Álvarez not at current squad although he joined On 5 July 2011, Álvarez joined Italian Inter Milan. and his wiki page is updated very very poor update people :-( he soon gonna move to his next club and still he didn't appear at Inter Milan main http://www.inter.it/aas/squadra/player1?codgioc=G0880&L=en&stagione=2012/13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Gabriel_%C3%81lvarez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.50.26 (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ricki alvarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Gabriel_%C3%81lvarez this is the right one and not the movie player what you put on his category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardo_Alvarez funny one!!!! )))) by the way OZ is great series )))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.105.199.1 (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)