Jump to content

Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Requested move 29 January 2022

I don't feel this to be procedural RM. A successful RM seeks assistance at the RMT and gets contested. Consensus is there that the article be moved to what the new discussion makes the headline again. If there's any thing to be considered again, it is Sceptre's RM close, I feel they'd likely not regret. The article hasn't been moved yet because technical assistance hasn't been availed yet. For now, there's consensus and the RM has been closed successfully certain moments ago that the article be moved to F.C. Internazionale Milano. This could however be taken to WP:MR if someone feels to question the RM close. Regards. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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.


Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano – per closed RM Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2022 (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.
Quick link to the discussion on the closer's talk page, leading to them changing their original decision. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is absolutely outrageous. User:Sceptre has been bullied by editors who didn’t like the decision into making a new one. I think this needs an admin review. – PeeJay 13:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing outrageous about it. I was simply following the instructions at WP:IMR, bullet point #1, which advises to "attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page". In that discussion, along with three others, pointed out that the guidance for closing RMs had not been followed in this instance, in that with supporters arguing two competing valid policy arguments and roughly equal numbers on both sides (indeed a very slight majority opposed) the correct determination is "no consensus", rather than following the argument which the closer themselves finds more persuasive. I think it was the correct decision by Sceptre to reverse the close, but had they not done so I would have taken the matter to move review and I think it would have been overturned there anyway. There are line calls which can be called in either direction, but a review of the discussion above suggests this is not one of them. Conversely, the discussion which established the Inter Milan name in the first place had a strong numerical majority in support of that proposition, again with policy on their side, and that argument carried the day on that occasion. That was 10 years ago now, and the Inter Milan name is now the established status quo, absent a consensus to move back again.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh sure, that discussion started by a now banned editor which was closed prematurely just as people started opposing it. The fact is there was never a consensus one way or another and it should never have been moved at all. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Not only that, but as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that move was performed based on faulty evidence. Comparing usages of “Inter Milan” to “Internazionale Milano” was always going to produce a one-sided result, but considering no one was suggesting the article should be called Internazionale Milano, the comparison was moot. That entire discussion was fishy as fuck, and now we have two editors who seem so irrationally attached to the current title that they’re willing to go crying to the closing admin because he took it away. I look forward to hearing User:Sceptre’s input on this because something is definitely up here. – PeeJay 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I've already pointed you to the instructions at governing the move review process, step one of which I followed with Sceptre on their talk apge, so I have no idea why you're still repeating the vaguely bad faith accusation that I was "crying to the closing admin". And I am not "irrationally attached" to this title, my attachment is very rational given that it is the name used in the majority of English sources, including Britannica, the BBC and others. As for the 2012 discussion I wasn't involved in that, but I'd have thought the statute of limitations has well passed on relitigating that one, especially given the numerous failed attempts over the past decade to reverse it. You can carry on discussing the matter with Sceptre if you like, even open your own move review if that rocks your boat, but I think you know deep down that from an impartial perspective the discussion above did not really produce the result that you'd have liked it to. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Using Britannica isn’t really the “gotcha” you think it is. They use Juventus, Manchester United and Real Madrid too. The reason we don’t do that is because it creates inconsistencies with the rest of the articles we have on football clubs around the world. I have never argued that Inter Milan isn’t a good title in certain circumstances, but when it creates inconsistency issues in the face of a perfectly recognisable and accurate title in F.C. Internazionale Milano, one has to question the faculties of the people who would argue in favour of Inter Milan. Use it as a redirect, by all means, but don’t create consistency issues where none are needed. – PeeJay 17:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The accusation of bullying here is unfounded. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
If the boot fits… – PeeJay 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I would also support an admin review into the sequence of events here. Crowsus (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

F.C. Internazionale Milano is the name that should be used for the page, it is very clear and numerous relevant sources (as the UEFA one) and reasons have been explained above. The main and simplest one is that Inter Milan is a British/American "nickname" and an abbreviation while the official name of the team is Football Club Internazionale Milano. If you keep Inter Milan, then the Manchester United F.C. Wikipedia page must be renamed Man United or Man U and the Real Madrid CF page must be renamed Real or Madrid if there is a shred of consistency in your actions. Someone should explain why a special rule should be applied ONLY to Internazionale and its page should be called by an abbreviation and not by the official name as all the other clubs?? Bergenoslo (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

All this is a valid argument, but then again, the argument that we should use the commonly recognized name is also a valid one. Some of us are happy to take the hit of having a small inconsistency for the wider benefit of having this article at a name which will be familiar to our readers. And reader experience is our number one priority. And by the way, the "consistency" argument is slightly overstated anyway - we already have smaller inconsistencies such as FC Barcelona (without dots) vs Manchester United F.C. (with dots). And I have no idea what FC Bayern Munich is... it is not the official name (which would be "FC Bayern München"), and it is also not the most common or concise name in English, since it has an unnecessary "FC" at the beginning. Again, that's not consistent with other titles. My favoured solution would be to remove "FC" from other titles, e.g. Juventus, Udinese etc. and treat each one on its own merits, but at least we have this one at the best title for now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
"FC Bayern Munich" does comport with WP:NCST, however, since the club does refer to itself by that name on the English-language section of its official website (look what the tab in your browser says when you go to this link, and if you go here, it says "FC Bayern Munich AG" and "FC Bayern Munich eV" under the "Organisation" section). It may not be the most common name, but it is used and it is recognisable. Of course, that sets up the question: if we're following WP:NCST for pretty much every sports team article on here, why are we not following it for this one? – PeeJay 14:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
For Internazionale Milano the NCST rules are not satisfied. The requested title does not satisfy 2 of the 3 requirements, namely 1) The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website, 2) The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable. For the 1st requirement it is mentioned only once - as a copyright owner. 24 other references are "Inter". In the case the 2nd it hasn't been so adopted. NCST then says that '...in cases where there is some ambiguity... the name most commonly used by the English-language media should be used.' Leaky caldron (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The first criterion is satisfied in the same way as with the Bayern page: when you go to this link, the text in your browser tab should say "Inter.it Home Page | Inter Official Site | FC Internazionale Milano". No rational person would expect the club to be referred to by its full name every single time; they refer to themselves most commonly as Inter because that is the colloquial name that most people on the site would know them by. Interestingly, they don't use the name "Inter Milan". I wonder why that is... Secondly, it would be ridiculous to expect that the club's full name would be used regularly by the media, but it is used by UEFA, Soccerway and the Financial Times, and many others use simply "Internazionale", which means the name "FC Internazionale Milano" is hardly unrecognisable. Finally, please point to the "ambiguity" you're referencing; how exactly is "FC Internazionale Milano" an ambiguous name? And even if there were ambiguity, as I have pointed out, just as many English-language sources use the names "Inter" and "Internazionale" as use "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 15:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
My browser - Google Chrome on Windows - displays "Inter" - nothing else. I think NCST refers to "ambiguity" in the sense of ambiguity between which title to implement, but I might be wrong. NCST seems to focus on spelling irregularities so I'm not sure that it is even relevant guidance in this instance, to be honest. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
No, ambiguity in this case means that the name could result in the club being mistaken for another with a similar name. – PeeJay 23:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The point about consistency being overstated as the preeminent rule that must be followed is well made. The explanatory supplementary WP:TITLECON itself states that Consistency in titles means that: titles for the same kind of subject should not differ in form or structure without good reason. But importantly, It also clarifies that Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and that it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination. So taking all factors into account it is no surprise that 5 previous requests have been declined. This is English WP - the titles should be generally be English, recognisable, natural, precise, and concise. Using a title in Italian not used in English sources does not even comply with WP:TITLECON, much less all of the other En-WP article naming policies, guidelines and best practice. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

As previously stated please note that UEFA uses the name FC Internazionale Milano. Which English source is more relevant than UEFA in the european football framework? Bergenoslo (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we're going around in circles at this point, but just to be clear once more, we are not looking for the "most relevant" single source, our policy says to look at all English sources and choose the one which is most frequently used across all of them. The WP:COMMONNAME policy says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." The UEFA site and Inter's own website may give us some hint as to the "official" name, but we don't particularly use that as our title unless it's also the most commonly used across all sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, no one has ever established that “Inter Milan” is the most common name for the club. Sources are divided between Internazionale, Inter and Inter Milan, and in the absence of a prevalent nickname, we should stick with the official name, per WP:NCST. – PeeJay 16:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I still feel it should be more matched with the Italian wikipedia title. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no club called Inter Milan

How does anyone with an ounce of knowledge not reverse this idiotic use of a nickname as the article title? Bigdottawa (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, we could open another WP:RM discussion, but while the move would be correct, unfortunately a lot of people don't see that way. – PeeJay 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The second source cited in the article as a reason for this page being titled Inter Milan actually states that calling the club Inter Milan is wrong! It's clear to anyone with a smattering of knowledge of Italian football that there's no club called Inter Milan! User:mike1971interUser talk:Mike1971inter 11:38, 23 July 2021 (BST)
I never even noticed that before. That's quite hilarious. – PeeJay 11:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
In fact, neither of the sources cited there properly verify the claim that the club is "known as Inter Milan outside Italy" and the second source is literally just a clickbait blog post. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I would argue that both links are evidence that the name "Inter Milan" is used outside Italy, it's just that the second one makes a specific point of saying it's wrong to use that name. – PeeJay 12:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I assume that's the Paste Magazine post, and where do they get their sources from, I question the reliability of that source! Govvy (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The day high quality sources such as BBC Sport stop calling them Inter Milan, we can follow suit. But for now, it is the clear WP:COMMONNAME in English, and as such is not *wrong*. It might sound wrong to Italian ears, but this isn't the Italian Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The funny thing is, most people would agree with you that the name "Inter Milan" isn't wrong per se, but using it as the title of this article definitely was wrong. – PeeJay 18:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree that it is a mistake to call the club "Inter Milan", even in the English Wikipedia. Indeed, BBC Sport is not the Bible of football, nor the only reliable source for names of football clubs in the English language. Please note that UEFA, which is the governing body of European football calls the club FC Internazionale Milano, or Inter in brief. UEFA should be considered more reliable than BBC Sport regarding the names of European football clubs in the English language. please find the link to the Inter page section on the UEFA official website: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/clubs/50138--inter/ --Bergenoslo (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

INTER fan from Lombardy here: in Italy and italian Swiss (Canton Ticino) we call the team and the club "INTER" (also UEFA) that is an abbreviation of "INTERNAZIONALE MILANO" (few people use this name in Italy and Canton Ticino). By the way outside Italy and Canton Ticino INTER is called "INTERNAZIONALE" (for example in FIFA competitions) or (mostly in english speaking coutries) "INTER MILAN" (Inter of MILANO). The connection between MILANO (Milan in english) or Milano's metropolitan area is very very strong, so the new official logo featured I and M (that means Inter of Milan) to globalize the club. So, in my opinion, the english wikipedia title "Inter Milan" is correct. The only funny thing is that A.C. Milan in Italy is called "MILAN" so, for many "INTER" fans is strange to see the word MILAN to identify our club or team (to indicate the derby result in Italy and Canton Ticino we and media use "INTER-MILAN 0-0" for example). In my opinion the correct form to identify "INTER" globally is "INTER F.C." because the official full name is "FOOTBALL CLUB INTERNAZIONALE MILANO". So "AC MILAN v FC INTER", but is impossible due to globalization of the brand. Furthermore there is in U.S.A. a team called "INTER MIAMI CF" or simply "INTER MIAMI" and in Brasil there is a famous team called officially "SPORTING CLUB INTERNACIONAL" but also called "INTERNACIONAL DE PORTO ALEGRE" or "INTER DE PORTO ALEGRE" or simply "INTER". CONCLUSION: For me the better choice for the english wikipedia title is "INTER MILANO". By the way in english is correct also Inter Milan due to club official logo. Igts2ane Igts2ane (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"Corporate" section is a mess

I wish to embark on cleaning up the "Corporate" section. It is too heavily skewed to the period between 2006 to 2016 where it contains way too much detail, and yet the section is completely outdated; saying nothing about the current Suning debt financing issues with Oaktree, nor any information from the earlier Moratti era. There is also no chronological ordering to the information, it seems people have simply been information dumping throughout the years the specific status of the club at that time without much thought into weaving a concise historical narrative.

It needs a wholesale rewrite. If anyone has any concerns or suggestions before this is undertaken, your thoughts are appreciated. Maranello10 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Update: As there are no objections, I will undertake the rewrite. Maranello10 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

allow me to fix this page 125.165.188.210 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

allow me to correct this page thanks NovalHIlmi2923 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What’s wrong with it? If you let us know, someone might be able to make the correction for you. – PeeJay 18:36, 19 August 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The real name is F.C. Internazionale

The name should not be Inter Milan 2A0C:5A81:B601:8900:2D7B:BB07:8703:4D4B (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Shirt Sponsor To Remain Nike

Mizuno is not taking over as the shirt sponsor. Nike has a deal through 2031

"8 More Years: Inter Renew Nike Deal - Footy Headlines" 165.166.239.226 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Found Missing Citation

Under the subheading "Le Grand Inter", there's a note stating that a citation is needed to confirm that Karl Rappan invented the catenaccio system. I found confirmation here:

Wilson, Jonathan. *Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Football Tactics (10th Anniversary Edition)*. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2018. p. 194-195. 174.92.58.47 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus here to continue using the common name instead of maintaining perfect consistency, and per WP:CRITERIA that sort of prioritization is a choice that editors are allowed to make. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


Inter Milan → FC Internazionale Milano – FC Internazionale Milano is the official name. Inter Milan may be most common in English, but I don't think this is a valid reason for not moving. In fact, considering WP:TITLECON, almost all football clubs have the official name, for example Manchester United F.C. and Juventus FC. The most common names are "Manchester United" (or "Man United") and "Juventus" (or "Juve"); so I think we should move also this page to the club's official name 14 novembre (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose for all of the reasons previously provided, fully documented, none of which have changed. I suggest you examine those for the current agreed and settled title rather than creating yet another wasteful relitigating of this topic. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
We need to overcome the partisan football fan perspective and think about this issue in the context of building a policy based encyclopaedia which is for the benefit of everyone - not just knowledgeable soccer fans. It is important to remember why we are here, not simply what we each want out of it. Consistency is not the only criteria. While the desire to line everything up neatly is commendable - and occasionally justifiable in itself (such as in entomology) - that is not the case where the naming of an article has to articulate more than that which is purely official. The format and language of the proposed title is an Italian construct which is anti-typical to the English language. The simple challenge is this - is there evidence that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is more common in English sources than the existing title?
WP:AT lays out principles for naming criteria. The current title is clearly aligned on recognisability, naturalness and conciseness and this is the English Wikipedia - not the Italian. The "man in the street" argument is supported by WP:ENGLISH which states "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". "Internazionale" and "Milano" are not English words and the use of "F.C." at the beginning is virtually unheard of in English football club names.
Policy and guidelines are the mainstay of WP and the common feature of each of these naming policies is the word "English". It is not relevant that a name is derivative or slang. It has to be English. It is what is used by WP:RS in the English speaking world that is the basis for naming policy on en-Wiki. Our personal likes, preferences and comparisons with other articles cannot override established and documented standards. These are the relevant polices and significant guides:
WP:ENGLISH "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". "Internazionale" and "Milano" are Italian words.
WP:COMMONNAME ("The most common name for a subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.")
All reliable evidence is that in the English speaking world Inter Milan outweighs other usage.
WP:NAME ("Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.")
WP:UE ("The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage")
WP:MOS#FOREIGN ("Foreign words should be used sparingly")
WP:PLACE ("When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.") - Milan not MilanO
Leaky caldron (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Extinguish bludgeoning from User:14 novembre. ——Serial 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Leaky caldron Not actually agreed. There are many strong arguments in favor of the move. The discussion must continue; of course, your arguments against the move will not be ignored. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    6 previous evidence based discussions in 11 years suggests otherwise. I strongly suggest that to make a convincing argument it will need to be demonstrated what has changed rather than just a series of personal preferences. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Leaky caldron Actually in the most recent discussion the majority of participants was in favour of the move. And even if you do not recognise it as a consensus, in 2 years the consensus might have changed, so a new discussion can be opened. When a decision has been taken, it is not forever, even if the subject does not change. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    As far as I know, changes in article name are to be based on policy WP:TITLE not a vote amongst interested parties. Please read the policy and the previous decision rationales and you will understand why this particular article has not been changed despite 6 RNs requests in 11 years. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Leaky caldron Well if this is the situation, I agree there is no need for a discussion. We can move it immediately for WP:TITLECON. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    That essay is a contributory provider of guidance, along with around 8 - 10 other policy, guidelines and essays on the subject of article naming. It would be a bit of an overreach - and wrong - to use a single essay to make an immediate move. It is not the correct approach. Like I say, it is overall weight of evidence that has to be persuasive for the decision maker. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Extinguish bludgeoning from User:14 novembre. ——Serial 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Old Naval Rooftops If this is how we decide names, why do we have Manchester United F.C. and Juventus FC. Or we use always the official name, or we always use the common name. No reason for FC Internazionale being an exception. 14 novembre (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think in your move rationale, you make a stronger case for moving Juventus FC to Juventus and Manchester United F.C. to Manchester United, than you do for your actual move request.--Atlan (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    Well, it is not only Juve or Manchester Utd, practically all clubs have the official name, with "FC" or something similar and no abbreviations. This is apparently the only major club to gave the common name. However I think the best thing could be start a discussion in WP:Football to decide if Football clubs should be named by 1) their complete, official name or
    2) by their most common name. I have a slight preference for the first option, but the most important thing would be to take a common decision, in one or the other direction. The current situation is option 1) for almost all clubs and 2) of FC Internazionale Milano. Doesn't actually make sense. So if there is no problem I will start such discussion. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    @14 novembre I would encourage you NOT to go down this route. You are a relatively new, not native English (it seems) user. This is the English WP (as opposed to Italian or anywhere else). The naming of articles it very well established and it is not an area where you can possibly hope to achieve consensus and consistency across thousands of sports club articles (it would not stop at football). If you would only read the many previous attempts at resolving the name of this article you will see the challenge you will face and the insurmountable problems in achieving your version of consistency. Consistency across subjects is not the only factor. Please try to understand that. You have already been rebuffed by going to the wrong place asking WP:AN to perform a "simple" change - please do not go against established practice without considering the very significant consequences. Nothing is straightforward here and I fear you will be out of your depth. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Leaky caldron Thanks for your advice. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    @14 novembre Also note, because it is relevant to your WP:FOOTBALL suggestion, that on the English WP any consensus arrived at on a project among a limited group of editors cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot unilaterally decide that general policies or guideline do not apply to articles covered by the project - see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    Well, it is not only Juve or Manchester Utd, practically all clubs have the official name, with "FC" or something similar and no abbreviations. This is apparently the only major club to gave the common name. However I think the best thing could be start a discussion in WP:Football to decide if Football clubs should be named by 1) their complete, official name or
    2) by their most common name. I have a slight preference for the first option, but the most important thing would be to take a common decision, in one or the other direction. The current situation is option 1) for almost all clubs and 2) of FC Internazionale Milano. Doesn't actually make sense. So if there is no problem I will start such discussion. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose move: This move request seems to treat "official name" and "common name" (as defined by WP:COMMONNAME) as mutually exclusive. This is not the case and it is where the move rationale simply falls apart. With those clubs like Juventus en Manchester United, the official name just happens to also be the common name. Based on this rationale and absent any other compelling argument, I don't see a reason to move--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Extinguish bludgeoning from User:14 novembre. ——Serial 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Extinguish bludgeoning from User:14 novembre. ——Serial 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • @Atlan Inter Milan is not a nickname. It is a common, abbreviated name. However, articles on football clubs are named not by their common name, but by their official name. It the name should be the most common in media, we should not have Juventus FC but only Juventus; not Manchester United F.C. but Manchester United (or Utd); I can find no reason for which Inter should be an exception, the article being names with the common and not the official complete name. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    @14 novembre The reason is clearly and logically argued in the previous 6 discussions over 10 years. You need to overcome the partisan football fanatic perspective and think about this issue in the context of building a policy based encyclopaedia which is for the benefit of everyone - not just knowledgeable soccer fans. It is important to remember why we are here, not simply what we want out of it. Consistency is not the only criteria. While the desire to line everything up neatly is commendable - and occasionally justifiable in itself (such as in entomology) - that is not the case where the naming of an article has to articulate more than that which is purely official. The format and language of the proposed title is an Italian construct which is anti-typical to the English language. The simple challenge is this - is there evidence that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is more common in English sources than the existing title?
    WP:AT lays out principles for naming criteria. The current title clearly on recognisability, naturalness and conciseness. This is the English Wikipedia - not the Italian. The "man in the street" argument is supported by WP:ENGLISH which states "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". "Internazionale" and "Milano" are not English words and the use of "F.C." at the beginning is virtually unheard of in English football club names.
Policy and guidelines are the mainstay of WP. Note that the common feature of each of these naming policy guidelines is the word "English". It is not relevant that a name is derivative or slang. It has to be English. It is what is used by WP:RS in the English speaking world that is the basis for naming policy on en-Wiki. Personal likes, preferences and comparisons with other foreign sounding articles cannot override established and documented standards. These are the relevant polices and significant guides:
WP:ENGLISH "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". "Internazionale" and "Milano" are Italian words.
WP:COMMONNAME ("The most common name for a subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.")
All reliable evidence is that in the English speaking world Inter Milan outweighs other usage.
WP:NAME ("Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.")
WP:UE ("The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage")
WP:MOS#FOREIGN ("Foreign words should be used sparingly")
WP:PLACE ("When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.") - Milan not MilanO
Leaky caldron (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME: FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football). Considerations of nicknames, etc., are an exercise in original research. If 14 novembre replies to this comment, as he has every other oppose, and having made almost 40% of all the comments here so far, I will seek a partial block for them from this page.
    Also oppose move per Leaky Cauldron's forensic examination of reasons to move, and logical dismissal of every one of them in turn. ——Serial 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Leaky caldron. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency's sake with the rest of the articles on Italian football clubs. To respond to the most common policies cited in support of the current name:
    • WP:ENGLISH "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". The club themselves use "FC Internazionale Milano" on the English language version of their official website (see the title bar and the copyright info on this page, and in very large letters on this page), whereas they don't use "Inter Milan" at all except in the online store. "Inter" yes, "Inter Milan" no (see here.
    • WP:COMMONNAME ("The most common name for a subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.")
      "FC Internazionale Milano" is recognisable due to the fact that the club use it for themselves and it doesn't take a genius to work out that "FC Internazionale Milano" might refer to the club they might have heard of as "Inter" or "Inter Milan"
    • WP:NAME ("Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.") – Recognisable: addressed above; unambiguous: obviously; usage: ESPN, The Guardian, UEFA, need I go on?
    • WP:UE ("The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage") – Since "Inter", "Internazionale" and "FC Internazionale Milano" are all used by English-language sources, their use on Wikipedia would follow English-language usage.
    • WP:MOS#FOREIGN ("Foreign words should be used sparingly") – This is spurious. It's not egregious to use the correct name of an organisation when referring to it. You wouldn't talk about Royal Madrid, so why insist on "Inter Milan"?
    • WP:PLACE ("When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.") – This is not the name of a place, it's the name of a football club. Even when the Kyiv article was located at Kiev, the article on that city's most famous football club was located at FC Dynamo Kyiv because that's the way the club spells it. The same should apply here.
  • This article should never have been moved in the first place. The right thing to do is to move it back. – PeeJay 00:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose clear superiority for the current name, see above and this helpful graph. No, PeeJay's argument that the most common name in English reliable sources can be determined from the club's website does not actually make sense, nor does their choice to cite two sources that don't actually use the name they support moving to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    If your rationale is the most common name, I doubt that people search Juventus FC more than Juventus and Manchester United F.C more than Manchester United 14 novembre (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    When did I say anything about the club's "most common name"? The choice of an article title is not simply based on what's most common. My argument was based on the fact that "Inter", "Internazionale" and "Inter Milan" are all relatively equally common and therefore "FC Internazionale Milano" is the logical choice for the article title. – PeeJay 11:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    You quoted WP:ENGLISH. Scroll up if you can't remember. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    No need to get snippy. It seems like you're the one who's failed to scroll up, since I was obviously responding to Leaky caldron's arguments relating to those policies. I don't actually think WP:ENGLISH applies here. – PeeJay 17:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per very clear WP:COMMONNAME, which is not superseded by local "rules" made by a section of fandom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not this again... the common name in English is very clear, and this has been discussed ad nauseam before... no evidence that the situation has changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all the previous discussions (COMMONNAME). Kante4 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inter_Milan/Archive_5&oldid=1238561619"