Talk:Persib Bandung

Fair use rationale for Image:Persib Football Logo.gif

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Bobotoh.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bobotoh.JPG, 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 This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should it be shorter?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article be edited to be more shorter? MbahGondrong (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• The material seems to be unnecessarily long and overly detailed, but no discussion has been had so the RfC may be premature. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay It seems that I should make a discussion first, where should I make this discussion? Sorry never done this before. MbahGondrong (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
    • You've started it here by opening the RfC, but this is the correct place to discuss this article. Also, feel free to link to any sandboxes or proposed changes that you have. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I propose to use this version. But it seems like AntiTheJakAremania and Tommy1933 keeps on reverting it back to the long article which have to much unsourced information and some of the references doesnt match with the information written. MbahGondrong (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Keeps reverting back to a long article, yes.

here because I know better. and maybe you do not know. I do not understand why so many other articles are long and not sourced, but on leave . and here (Persib Bandung) there is clearly a source, so it is not very good, but it was not a lie or the other. Thank you very much. (Tommy (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

• Firstly, anybody can say that they know better than other people regarding something, but that doesnt make it a justification to allow your knowledge in Wikipedia just like that without any reliable source. Am I wrong or am I missing something? secondly how can you prove that you know better and others dont? if you have source that could prove your edits then your right, if not it should be removed, well at least thats how I understand the rules in Wikipedia or again did I miss something? MbahGondrong (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • SatuSuro, Walter Görlitz, GiantSnowman, Dl2000, Andika Wiki, Yogwi21 your comments are needed. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I already did. Twice in fact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• It's very simple - Wikipedia relies onreliable sources to verify information. The material should be neutral and encyclopedic. It should not be full of flowery language. Unfortunately what we have here are fans who ignore the above policies and guidelines, to the detriment of the article. If agreement cannopt be reached, and they continue to be disruptive, then topic bans might be required. GiantSnowman 15:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As seen on my sandbox page, I have made an edited version that have proper information and references, not to much and not less. I propose to use that but after usingit, it keeps on getting reverted to the long article. I just dont want to be involved in an edit war and also a topic ban might seem to harsh. Do you think making the page semi-protected will be a solution? as I cannot see a possibility that Tommy1933 and AntiTheJakAremania will take into consideration the very simple rules that Wikipedia relies on. MbahGondrong (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Given the length of the article, unreferenced content should either be properly sourced or removed (WP:V, WP:RS). Another concern is that some information such as sponsorship and backroom staff could change regularly and become inaccurate in a relatively short time unless aggressively maintained (WP:DATED, WP:NOTDIRECTORY); it may be better to refer to external links to provide such current details, but referenced historical information is more stable. Collapsible boxes could be considered for less important details (again, provided such content is verifiable, and not WP:UNDUE weight). Finally, per WP:NOTPAPER, the main concern should not be so much the size of the article but how well it can meet the other WP content policies. Dl2000 (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree to not include the backroom staffs, other that the coaching staffs and the sponsors, other than the main sponsors. Since we have established the need for proper sourced and referenced content, I propose to use my edited version to replace the current article. I would like to ask Walter Görlitz, GiantSnowman, Dl2000, AntiTheJakAremania, Tommy1933 and others who would like to participate to reach a consensus by agreeing or disagreeing with my proposal. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Your version is good. I also suggest that since the other editor has been blocked for edit warring, etc., that you could revert to the version you proposed and edit from that version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• The bot sent me. Aye, per Walter. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ownership is not a valid affiliation

Just because Inter Milan and D.C. United are owned by the same person does not mean they're affiliated. Affiliation means that they share players, staff or facilities not owners. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Support, No evidence and reliable source about affiliation between Persib and InterMilan and DC United. President of Persib Bandung is Glenn Sugata, Erick Thohir is only co-owner of PT Persib Bandung Bermartabat (the public company that own Persib Bandung). Stop Edit War! *Annas* 02:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Concur Mutual ownership has not traditionally denoted affiliation; for example, the same person owns the Washington Capitals, the Washington Wizards, and the Washington Mystics, but that does not mean the teams are affiliated. Unless there is a contractual agreement amongst the teams, they are not affiliated. -- Jkudlick (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that is Affiliated, you can search the source. Saya itu Ganteng (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he owns shares of multiple clubs, but without a player exchange agreement or some other contract, there is no legal affiliation amongst the teams. Nowhere in the cited article does it state that the clubs are affiliated with each other. -- Jkudlick (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

protected request

It's difficult to discuss disputed material when [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persib_Bandung&diff=632168615&oldid=632167579 editors remove the templates to discuss]. Would an admin please restore the template or revert the addition? Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

support *Annas* 03:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Discussion of dubious or contentious material is necessary for proper editing. -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'll let another administrator evaluate this request, but I don't understand it myself. You can discuss disputed material on this page without a template being on the article page. The template may be a signal to other editors, but its absence doesn't prevent discussion. I will also add that editors who edit-war on this article after the lock expires may be blocked. My imposition of protection was generous rather than blocking the involved editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

What a cop-out. Restore the discuss template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been history of suspected sockpuppets in this article, that needs to be taken into consideration. The reverts from Saya Ganteng could be the same case. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After the latest edit-war, the page was locked and as Bbb23 mentioned here, a very clear consensus must be reached so that no edit-war and blocking will happen after the lock expires. I invite Bbb23, Annas86, Jkudlick, Walter Görlitz, Saya Ganteng, SW3 5DL, Dl2000, Number 57, GiantSnowman and Tommy1933 to participate in this consensus and also invite other Indonesian article contributors Rizky Rio and SatuSuro. The case for this consensus is about affiliation that Persib Bandung have because of their owner Erick Thohir and affiliation with Ventforet Kofu.

First: I would like to discuss about Persib's affiliation with other Erick Thohir's club, which are Inter Milan and DC United. As seen here, here and here, I can conclude that without any formal signing of cooperation between Persib and both clubs, ownership does not mean they are automatically affiliated. Since that formal cooperation is not available, both clubs should not be affiliated in this article.

There have been a new source that mention Persib will have a TC using Inter Milan facilities in Milan. As far as I understand, any team without affiliation could also do that and that doesnt mean they are affiliated. What do the others think about this case?

Second: There is a source that stated Kofu have signed an agreement with Persib as seen here, but that is the only source available that I could find about this cooperation and as far as I know until now there havent been any realization of that agreement. Based on that, I believe that the agreement somehow have been cancelled or maybe no agreement was even signed. What are your opinion about this situation

Looking forward for all your replies to stop edit-wars in this article and start constructive editing with Wikipedia rules. I havent made any choices to pick for the consensus, as I would like to hear opinions from the others about the situation and if any questioon should arise, I would gladly try to answer. Cheers!!! MbahGondrong (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have been unable to locate any information linking any of these teams besides having the same owner. As stated in the inilahkoran.com piece, the squad is going to Milan completely independently of any joint ownership, and no other mention of any other affiliation is made. Regarding the second point, all I see are pictures from 2013 with no accompanying text. Absent reliable sources pointing to contractual affiliations amongst the teams, I have to believe that no direct affiliations exist. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 23:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• First. There is no affiliation through ownership alone. That's already been discussed and concluded above.
• Second. The source is fine but since no further discussion has been provided, and this source is more than a year old, I'd say it's fallen through. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• No affiliation - same ownership does not mean they are linked, see Mike Ashley at Newcastle/Rangers. No RS confirming any direct affiliation. GiantSnowman 10:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• No affiliation as discussed above @NnAs (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

In view of the above discussion, I would like to revise the article by deleting the Affiliated clubs.

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Please explain your reasons if you havent participated in the above discussion.

Support as nominator No prove of official affiliation with all three clubs and same ownership does not mean they are linked. MbahGondrong (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support No traditional affiliation simply based on ownership. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support As per above. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 18:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 12 November 2014

The ISL (Indonesian Super League) result for 2014 has been decided. Persib Bandung win the title after beat Persipura Jayapura in the final. Maung Bandung able to lift the trophy after almost twenty years without domestic title. There is no agreement about affiliation between Erick Thohir owned club, such as Internazionale Milan and DC united, with Persib Bandung. Erick Thohir owned both club, but there is no official agreement that explain relation between club as affiliated. Also, there is almost no verified information about Persib Bandung have affiliation with Ventforet Kofu. Dune9 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a full reference to support. This is partially why the article is locked: people are adding material that has no references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Persib won the 2014 Indonesia Super League after defeated Persipura Jayapura. Source:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Daud 10:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Performance in AFC competitions

Hi everybody, so I would to discuss about the section 'Performance in AFC competitions', the reason why I reverted it was because I felt that it was excessive and somehow violated WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (point 3) and also the reference for the section (reference 49) and the one in the 'Intercontinental competitions' (reference 48) are actually the same, you can see it if you try to open both (you dont need to understand Indonesian, just look at the structure). If anybody else think it should be included please give your reasons. Since the admin that locked this article (again) asked for a more robust discussion, I am looking forward for your inputs. Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, it should be listed in a season article. Since none exists, it's fine to be here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats true, but I think users can see the results in the AFC Champions League season article itself, which is already shown in the article. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that would work as well, but why can't the information also be listed in a club-specific article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I felt that it was excessive and too statistical for a club article. MbahGondrong (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the information is not lost, let's remove it then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's completely non-intrusive and is in a format used on hundreds of other articles. Let's focus on other much more significant issues within this article rather than whether a fsmall, completely accurate table should remain. Fenix down (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Let the section of Performance in AFC competition still there. It is very important for a club article, not all club ever competed in AFC competition. But if we think that its have to be deleted, then we must deleted all section of AFC competition in all club article in Asia (not only in Indonesia or Persib Bandung). Tedious work!. @NnAs (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Annas86, @Fenix down: Yes it could be considered a special achievement but I think a simple line in the Honours section will be enough and the matches not shown, if a club participate each year in AFC Competitions it would make a quite long list. I see that this Performance in AFC competition section in other articles, are only shown in south east asia team or south asia team articles. Back to this article, what signifant issues are we talking here? MbahGondrong (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

I've removed the (incorrect) coordinates from the article. We don't usually include coordinates in an article about a football club, instead including them in the article about the club's home stadium—in this case, Jalak Harupat Soreang Stadium. Deor (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Hi, i hope others sponsor will be added, no just shirt sponsor. Thankyou Saya Indonesia (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I already edited, that's specific or no? Terimakasih 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aku Indonesia (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request

continuous vandalism.

Tommy Syahputra (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The above is an template used to request an edit to be made to a protected page. To create a request for page protection please go to WP:RPP. — IVORK _Discuss 13:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

103.247.15.74 (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Murph9000 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017

Please accepted my request to editing this article IndoPeople (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)IndoPeopleIndoPeople (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC) IndoPeople (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

thetoptens.com as a source

Thetoptens.com is unrelible. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_171#The_Top_Tens. The content is user-submitted and not fact-checked. It's a cheap way to get some pr. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Any interest in making a History of Persib Bandung page?

Hello, everyone. So considering the massive amount of information being displayed on the club's history section, is there any possibility for a History of Persib Bandung page to be created or maybe the excessive data should just be moved into the club's season articles? I'd like to hear a reply about this.--AZet3000 (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BIVB Badge.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)