Talk:AC Milan/Archive 3

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  With the new updates to the scope, I now support this proposal. I agree with the nom's interpretations of

  WP:NCST, and after some quick Googling, I also agree that no-period spellings are sufficiently common in English-language media to justify the proposal. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs

  ) 15:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• Comment What's with the mass changes? I don't like all the chopping and changing to the talk page. You shouldn't be messing around with posts like this in my opinion. Too many cooks! Govvy (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Suppose that falls on me, editor
    ed. ^{put'er there}
     15:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Definitely not a perfect situation with hundreds of pages under consideration here that don't receive a move request template at the top of their articles. It's an unprecedented request, and since you've been around longer than I have, and have seen more, how would you have handled it differently? Should I have just left it closed?

ed. ^{put'er there}

 20:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

This proposal was a response to the 2019 discussion mentioned in the rationale where a couple of opposers saw, following

WP:AT

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

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

Restoring the original list of pages would only restore the massive number of expensive parser function calls, and just closing the discussion does not get rid of them. The large list of proposed page moves had to be erased from this page and relegated to the page history in order to stop the expensive parser function calls. Again all this is unprecedented, so I'd like to see what editor

ed. ^{put'er there}

 22:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)