Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sebastian Carlsen should be removed from loan section because loan terminated.He should be added to "other players under contract" as Felice Natalino.Can you give me any information about Dennis Esposito, he continues to be under contract with Inter or play in another club? 20;30, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.230.172 (talk)

I don't want to live on this planet anymore – PeeJay 01:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the non-admin closure was appropriate, considering that administrative powers were needed in order to move this page, but consensus was clearly move. – Kosm1fent 06:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I've left Wesley a note about this. Jenks24 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the long name should be the name of the article. --Dipralb (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm with PeeJay on this. Are we moving Manchester United F.C. to Man United next? Is this turning into the tabloid encyclopedia for dummies? - filelakeshoe 19:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says "article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic." "Inter Milan" is essentially a slang use, thus too vulgar for an encyclopedia. And some news sources do also use "Man United" or "Man U", as well as referring to the Netherlands as Holland and Paul Gascoigne as Gazza and other stuff we know we don't do here. Though I realise Internazionale is not an English word and, now that people don't actually have any content left to add to en.wikipedia, we've got a massive crackdown on anything foreign looking. - filelakeshoe 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, when nominating a page like this for RM, all the season articles, History of F.C. Internazionale Milano, categories et al should probably be nominated too. - filelakeshoe 20:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to "too vulgar for an encyclopedia", take a look at how Britannica titles their article. Regarding sub-articles, categories, etc. they should be moved to conform with the parent article. Jenks24 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Are we moving S.S. Lazio to Lazio Roma next? Are we moving F.C. Juventus to Juventus Turin next?.--Dipralb (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This move was silly. Now that Wikipedia uses Inter Milan, it will further reinforce the use of "Inter Milan" in the English media. I've seen it before, where Wikipedia's football articles reinforce some usage or fact that may be wrong or inaccurate. --MicroX (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Common name" is often (commonly) wrong. Dutch stand strong on NEC and AZ and if common name work Tottenham FC, Blackburn FC Bolton FC please. Matthew_hk tc 19:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the closure of the above move request was inappropriate. It was only open for a week, which is nowhere near long enough for a move as controversial as this, especially since this current thread generated yet more opposition in its first week. The request should be reopened and the move reverted until we have a PROPER consensus. This may take at least another two weeks, but at least we would have a reasonable solution. – PeeJay 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You have my total support for that.--Dipralb (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be obviously inappropriate. Start a new RM if you really must, but the consensus in the previous discussion is crystal clear. Jenks24 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There is not a shred of credible evidence to support the claims that the move was in error. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not constitute a valid reason for opposing a move and certainly does not underpin a further WP:RM. That would require evidence of a higher quality than that gathered for the move and none has been presented. Leaky Caldron 19:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on display here. It may be true that I don't like it, but that's not the reason for my request. "Inter Milan" is only one regional nickname for this club, and while it may be very common, it is just as common as "Internazionale" and "Inter". – PeeJay 20:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The vast amount of credible evidence per WP:RS provided by the editor who suggested the move and evaluated by the mover would suggest otherwise. Incidentally, this edit [1] removed talk page contributions contrary to guidance WP:REDACT. Leaky Caldron 20:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't look at the article for a couple of weeks and when you come back you find this mess :-) According to this ngram, "Internazionale" is much more used than "Inter Milan" and if you add "Inter"... well, try yourself :-) The problem is that "Internazionale" means "International" in Italian language and "Inter" is a common prefix, so you can't reliably use a ngram, an "insight search" or a search engine as a valid argument to establish which name is more popular. Moreover, reliable sources such as the UEFA website don't actually use "Inter Milan" but they use "Internazionale" in their English pages. ekerazha (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just go on a spree renaming pages in Category:F.C. Internazionale Milano to match the parent article in the wake of a very lopsided RM, just to end up here and see not everyone was so happy about it. Well then—I have nothing to hide. I think I was justified in what I did rather than going through the RM process given the result above. Should the page ever move back, not only will I support moving back the pages I just worked with, I'll propose the RM myself if no one else does (hell, I'll do it unilaterally if I'm an admin). But assuming this all doesn't blow up in my face, I'll be proposing a rename of the category and its subcategories. It's almost a C2D speedy case. --BDD (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone goes mental, I'm not going to move it back... but this page really should be called the clubs PROPER NAME. " F.C. Internazionale Milano". Moving to Inter Milan has the same logic as referring to Manchester United F.C. to Man United, Manchester City F.C. to Man City, Tottenham Hotpsur F.C. to Tottenham/Spurs, Bolton Wanderers F.C. to Bolton, A.S. Roma to Roma, S.S. Lazio to Lazio, S.S.C. Napoli to Napoli, SC Internacional to Internacional. Total lack of logical sense used, and really should be moved. I would move it back, but I know some illogical person will move it back. XTomScottx (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This move is utterly ridiculous. What is next: Man Utd, Man City, Juventus Turin, Lazio Roma, Glasgow Rangers, and so on till death? I was totally uninformed about this proposal and I am completely surprised to find this article becoming a complete exception with respect to all other football-related Wikipedia articles. I would have definitely gone for "Strong oppose" otherwise. Please someone move it back. --Angelo (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, the reason no one who supported the move is replying to these comments is because you all keep making ridiculous straw man arguments. To be clear: no, none of the articles that you guys keep suggesting are "next". Jenks24 (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No way. This article can't be an exception in a sea of articles with established naming policies. All football club articles use the same naming convention (e.g., Manchester United F.C., Manchester City F.C., AFC Ajax, A.C. Milan, etc...). If you are looking forward to change the whole policy, then it should apply to all articles, not just this. --Angelo (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't the exception, though. For example, Club Atlético de Madrid, S.A.D. is simply Atlético Madrid and Real Betis Balompié S.A.D. is at Real Betis. Also, what Jenks24 said. Tiller54 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, just so you know, "S.A.D." isn't part of those clubs' names. It identifies the type of company that the club exists as, and is analogous to Manchester United being referred to as "Manchester United Ltd." With that in mind, I would actually support moving Atlético Madrid to Club Atlético de Madrid, and Real Betis to Real Betis Balompié. If we just used clubs' official names, it might actually do some good towards getting rid of the ridiculous bastardisations we keep seeing, like "Sporting Lisbon" ("Lisbon" doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the name of Sporting Clube de Portugal). – PeeJay 22:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as mentioned above, outside of U.K. media outlets which generally don't have a clue about any league beside the EPL and sometimes refer to both Inter and Milan as simply "Milan" nobody calls Inter "Inter Milan" anymore. "Inter" is not a common prefix, or a prefix at all, for that matter. No other Italian club is named "Inter" anything. The problem is that WikiProject_Football is ruled by a group of EPL fanboys who don't consider anything that happens outside the British Isles to be of any importance. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No one calls the club "F.C. Internazionale Milano" and "Internazionale" is not as common as "Inter" or "Inter Milan", but Inter refers to a number of things. Inter Milan is the name most commonly used by English-speakers and many non-English-speakers as well. Unreal7 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because a lot of people use a name, that doesn't make it right. For example, if people started calling me "Albert" or "Francine", they would be wrong. "Inter Milan" is a wrong name too. – PeeJay 11:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

How the hell does that relate to this? Not in the slightest, let me tell you. Unreal7 (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? Just because it happens to disprove your argument? "Inter Milan" is as much a wrong name as "Sporting Lisbon" (Sporting Clube de Portugal) or – as these clubs are known in Germany, for example – "Juventus Turin" and "Lazio Rome". I have no problem with the club being referred to as "Inter Milan" in certain contexts, but it shouldn't be used as the article title. – PeeJay 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's the most common name. Inter Milan isn't a made-up name (like Sporting Lisbon or AZ Alkmaar), and/or a name that few use (like Juventus Turin or Lazio Rome). It's an shortened abbreviation of Internazionale Milano, like how BSkyB is an abbreviation of British Sky Broadcasting. Unreal7 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is your proof that it is the most common name? Also, BSkyB is the company's name; they abandoned the name "British Sky Broadcasting" several years ago. Inter, however, consistently use the names "FC Internazionale", "FC Internazionale Milano", "Inter" and "Internazionale" on their website; in fact, I can't see any use of the name "Inter Milan" on there at all, even on the English language version. – PeeJay 21:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PeeJay makes a good point - essentially this one. I am getting rather concerned by the direction recent applications of WP:COMMONNAME seem to be taking us. Established naming conventions falling by the wayside on individual pages with no consistancy. It seems to me that surely all football teams should take a common-name title (leaving us with possible vulgarities, starting with this and possibly evolving on to the use of Man. City or similar), or they follow standard protocol (with perhaps user-unfriendly long names). Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm somewhat surprised that this discussion is still going on, and the strength of some of the arguments from PeeJay and Angelo. But in any case seems not everyone is as 100% happy with the result as at first believed. This move really would have been much cleaner if the RM hadn't been assisted by bot-puppetry from the IP in hiding the 3 previous RMs. It also would have been better if the RM had been correctly titled Requested Move (2) as required by WP:RM (though less of an issue when old RMs haven't just been archived). What I hadn't noticed till today was the speed between the 2nd attempt of the IP to archive all 3 previous RMs and the new RM, 02:02 to 02:13 ... 11 minutes!

• 03:17, 14 June 2012‎ Jenks24 (+393)‎ (→‎Requested Move: F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan: support (add a little to the nomination, feel free to revert of you don't like it))
• 02:13, 14 June 2012‎ Kauffner (+4,234)‎ (Requested Move: F.C. Internazionale Milano → Inter Milan) (undo)
• 02:02, 14 June 2012‎ MiszaBot I (-52,090)‎ (Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 60d) to Talk:F.C. Internazionale Milano/Archive 1.)
• 07:50, 10 June 2012‎ 118.68.129.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (59,725 bytes) (0)‎ (archive; page still has stuff from 2005) (undo)
• 07:24, 10 June 2012‎ MiszaBot I (59,725 bytes) (-51,080)‎ (Archiving 39 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:F.C. Internazionale Milano/Archive 1.) (undo)
• 14:19, 8 June 2012‎ 113.161.68.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (+219)‎ (Add archiving, 90 days) (undo)

....I wonder is there a way of being sent a watchlist alert on a page on wp, or do you have to keep checking your watchlist manually every 10 minutes? I'm not sure if this RM does or doesn't need to be reopened but the IP's involvement and lack of visibility of previous RMs may have contributed to the "change of consensus" in a less than spotless manner. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, I personally think the issue should be raised to some higher level (WikiProject football - WP:FOOTY - or any alternative place). After all these comments, I am open to move it back to the old page if nobody argues with a proper reason (it is evident the move request wasn't properly listed and publicized). --Angelo (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it was listed on WP:FOOTY in that long list we have of every AfD, PROD, BLPPROD, CfD, TfD, FfD, RM and MERGE request pertaining to our project. However, given the scale of the consequences of this move, that was nowhere near enough. Interested parties should have been informed, both on their talk pages and on the WikiProject Football discussion page. I would wholeheartedly support moving this page back to where it came from until we can get a full and proper consensus on the level of consistency we intend to follow with regard to club article naming. – PeeJay 11:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@Angelo. Move it back and you will find yourself at AN/ANI. This was a perfectly correct decision based on the evidence provided and consensus established and you have absolutely no right to overturn it. In fact, unless you withdraw you ill-judged suggestion I will report you for threatening to abuse your administrative rights & tools. Leaky Caldron 11:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@LeakyCaldron. Were you aware that a previous oppose RM had been conveniently hidden by an IP manipulating a bot 11 minutes prior to the RM proposal? corrected, only 1 previous RM hidden in this case

Maybe you were in the previous RM and was aware of it, but I think the issue for someone like myself who simply keeps track of RMs by looking at WP:RM's listing occasionally and dipping into them, but in this case not knowing anything about football really is that the original RM contained strong arguments against the move. The fact that the RM was listed 11 minutes after the convenient disappearance of all those oppose arguments into the archive set up by the IP meant that anyone new to this page would have no knowledge of the original RM. New RMs are supposed to be listed "RM2" or whatever - although if the old RM is visible it isn't needed. This wasn't marked "RM2", I for one had no idea that there was a oppose RM hidden in the archive. If I'd have known, and read them, I'm pretty certain I'd have opposed this move. At the very least I wouldn't have supported. The same IP 113.161.68.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did exactly the same thing to another RM Talk:Lady Trieu, where I only commented, didn't support or oppose but if I'd have been able to see Lady Trieu RM1, and the oppose argument there I would have opposed. I wonder how many on the Inter Milan move are the same as me? i.e. who also came fresh with no clue about the previous RMs? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@LeakyCaldron, I just looked in the archive and corrected the above to "RM2" (RM4 refers to a different RM where the IP hid 3 previous oppose RMs before the new one), in this case there was only one previous, from Jenks24, which the IP took two bites at the cherry to hide before this one.

(edit conflict)

The RM was considered, the evidence evaluated and the move made. An Admin. swinging by and suggesting they will peremptorily undo the move because a few people disagree, without full consultation, is an abuse of Admin. tools. I was not aware of the IP action. I was aware of the earlier failed RM - a defective decision based on the evidence and the consensus at that time. If you want to raise a further RM that's fine. Just don't get you local, friendly Italian En-Wiki Admin. to make a sneaky, non-consensus change. Also, remember that this is En-wiki and WP:ENGLISH applies. Very few, if any, native English speakers call, write or broadcast Inter Milan by their Italian name or bastardised English variant. Leaky Caldron 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

LeakyCaldron, thanks for confirming that you weren't aware of the IP involvement.

Given that this is not the only case of manipulation of an RM by the same IP it isn't for me to say. But I don't think "Just don't get you local, friendly Italian En-Wiki Admin. to make a sneaky, non-consensus change." is appropriate language to use, for several reasons. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Arrogant, sweeping behaviour, against consensus by Admins is the scourge of WP. Suggesting that it wasn't properly advertised when it was, that WP:FOOTY is a higher authority than WP policy when it isn't and casually suggesting that they will rename the article without discussion is about as flagrant a case of abuse as it gets. I'm still waiting for him to confirm that he will keep his hands off this, otherwise I'll take my concerns to AN. Whatever an IP did or didn't do, you don't go around assuming bad faith on every editor who contributed in good faith to a well argued, cogent RM request that was communicated and closed per policy. Leaky Caldron 15:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi LeakyCaldron

You talk about contributing in good faith but tell me, when I 'voted' support on this, why didn't you tell me, and others - "hey In ictu oculi, and others, I see new faces, thanks for support but please be sure to check out the previous discussion that was archived just before this new RM." You say you're concerned about editors contributing in good faith. So why didn't you, or others who knew there was a previous RM, mention it. Or why didn't you add in "Requested Move (2)" to the title? I assume that you've seen RMs before, you know they are supposed to have "Requested Move (2)" if there's a previous discussion. So why didn't you share with me the benefit of the knowledge you had?

In ictu oculi (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I added my support, that's all. I was not involved in raising it. Why are you asking me why I didn't notify you? What about all the other editors, they didn't notify you either. Are you accusing them of acting in bad faith as well? It's a case of WP:Do your own homework. I'm not responsible if you were not aware of the prior discussion and it wouldn't concern me if I had been in a similar position, it was a new and very well researched request. Leaky Caldron 16:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

LeakyCaldron, I would have thought why I'm asking you should be obvious. It's because you just raised the issue of whether those who supported (which includes me) were or were not "acting in good faith." Well I can tell you that I for one was acting in good faith, and as far as I can see the lack of good faith comes in the IP who decided that the previous RM shouldn't be visible. And on that note, before you think too kindly of the IP, you might want to ponder what exactly the IP thought of your and other contributors' arguments in the previous RM given the considerable trouble that the IP took over several days to set up the archive bot and hide - among the rest - your own seven posts in the previous RM. If the IP was happy with your arguments why didn't he/she leave them visible?

As for a future RM, whatever, the wheels turn slowly eventually it all comes out in the wash..

No problem here, you're entitled to your view. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

@Angelo, I wouldn't even whisper to move it back until the full context of this is discussed. But I would definitely want to withdraw my support and change to oppose now I can see the previous RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I would suggest that everyone needs to have a read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports), which is an "official" Wikipedia guideline. As I have just posted above, the name "Inter Milan" does not appear anywhere on the English language version of the club's website, which means that the name fails the very first criterion of the aformentioned naming conventions. There was never any confusion about using the name "F.C. Internazionale Milano", thereby satisfying criterion 3, and many English language media websites use "Internazionale" as the name for the club, so it is clearly recognisable. – PeeJay 21:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's got to be the most obscure "guideline" I've ever seen. Only two edits to it and both from 2009? There's no evidence that it's supported by the community. Jenks24 (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the fact that the guideline is obscure has saved it from the attention of those who are in favour of, what exactly, "WP:TABLOIDNAMES"?, at least that is what "Inter Milan" and "Man U" are. The guideline should be considered when the time comes to have a RM3. More importantly, it now seems confirmed from this diff beyond any reasonable doubt that the IP which set up Miszabot to archive Jenks24 original RM proposal was in fact the second RM proposer User:Kauffner himself deliberately logged out to evade WP:SCRUTINY, as part of a cluster of Ho Chi Minh IPs doing the same on a dozen other RMs from User:Kauffner/RM incubator - though this is one of only 2 where the use of IPs assisted in achieving the desired result. I realise that a lot of "English name" editors are very strongly committed to the use of tabloid style in article titles, and very strongly opposed to titles like the full Italian name. However it would be good for such editors to put feelings on "English names" on one side and consider bigger issues like fair play, honesty, transparency. If not everyone who winks/indulges such behaviour lowers themselves to that standard. As much as anyone may feel antipathy towards the Italian name of a football club, there should be equal or greater antipathy towards duplicity. Is that too old-fashioned? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
      • To be frank, I'm sick of having "tabloid" thrown in my face. Please point out one tabloid source that was so much as mentioned in the above RM. If you don't like editors pointing out what the "English name" of something is, I suggest starting a discussion to remove "English-language sources" from WP:UCN. Jenks24 (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Jenks24, ESPN and Skysports would count as "tabloid," the sports pages of the Age would probably count as "tabloid" too in the broader sense. But that's beside the point. You have selected to respond on that and completely ignored the main point of above that your original motion for RM to "Inter Milan" succeeded at the second attempt assisted by a little dishonesty. You are being asked to put your strong feelings on one side about the actual Inter Milan/Internazionale Milan rename and consider higher principles. WP:UCN doesn't say anywhere than manipulating RMs with IPs is justified. WP:UCN doesn't say that the end justifies the means in the fight against foreign names. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, I chose to ignore the majority of what you wrote, either because I (or others) have already addressed it many times, or for other parts because I was pretty irritated by what you wrote and thought no reply would be better than what I typed out and decided not to save. But if you want a full response, here goes. Stop putting "Man U" (or "Man United", "Man City", etc.) next to "Inter Milan", as if to imply that a move of this article means one like that will be "next". It has already been explained at least several times that no one here is even considering supporting a move like that. Next, "tabloids". I read the sport section of The Age most days and I can assure it isn't tabloid journalism. I read articles from ESPN and Skysports much less often, but they do not seem to be the sort of sensationalist stories that one would normally associate with tabloid journalism. However, even if we somehow conclude that I am wrong about those three sources, that is less than half the sources that were used in as evidence for the RM, yet you're happy label them all as "tabloid", including Britannica. Please stop doing this, it's bloody irritating (as you may be able to tell, this applies to more than just this RM). On to the so-called "smoking gun". Assuming my understanding of the archive template parameters, it doesn't prove anything. All he did was change the archiving that the IP set up several days beforehand so that more threads would remain unarchived than how the IP had set it up. How on Earth does that tie Kauffner to the IP? On to "very strongly opposed to titles like the full Italian name". I couldn't really care less what the club is called in Italian, except that I wish it was the same as what it's called in English-language reliable sources so that we wouldn't have to deal with all this whinging. This also applies for "antipathy towards the Italian name of a football club". It's frankly bizarre that you think anyone would have some sort of distaste towards an Italian soccer club's full name in its native language. Lastly, the whole "fair play" deal. Worst case scenario, it was Kauffner and he was doing it maliciously. Even then I don't see the huge deal. Yes, the previous RM should not have been hidden, but I highly doubt it would have changed the result. Of the 15 people who voted in the above RM, at least six people who voted in the first RM participated again and WP:FOOTY was notified. The real reason RM#2 went more smoothly is that Kauffner's nomination is far superior to mine. If you want my very honest opinion, I think you are blowing up a minor thing to make it seem much more significant than it was because (a) you didn't do your homework and want to change your position and (b) you are trying to discredit Kauffner in an attempt to remove him from the project because he has staunchly opposed your push for diacritics. I am sure you will say otherwise and no one can truly no your motivations but yourself, so you certainly don't have to answer to me, but that is how I've perceived your actions over the past few weeks. As a bit of a side note, one interesting thing I found when reading over the archived RM was that the closing admin made a blatant supervote. There's a reasonable chance that if they had made a policy-based close, RM#2 wouldn't have even been required. Wouldn't that have added a few hours back to my life? Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Hello Jenks24 (a) Correct, no I didn't do my homework - and was denied the chance to do my homework by seeing the, as you put it, poorer arguments made by yourself in the IP-archived RM, and yes I would like to change my position, (b) no absolutely incorrect, if somebody was IP-puppeting and enhancing RMs along any agenda I would feel exactly the same. Which is why I was appealing to you to make an effort and see beyond your sympathy with your own RM proposal being achieved and consider the way it was achieved. If you cannot do that then fine, but others have the right to feel differently. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
              • IMO, you were not "denied" anything. There is a clear link to the archive at the top of the page and the RM is there. Again working on the worst case scenario, why should the nine good faith editors who did nothing wrong be punished (and yes, having a RM overturned on a technicality and then told to do it again would be a punishment) for one editor's misdeeds? To reiterate, though, I do not think the IP's edits made a difference to the outcome. You are of course free to feel as you wish. If I have ever implied that you do not, I wholeheartedly apologise. Jenks24 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jenks24,

I think that everyone will recognise that participants in all of RMs which passed from User:Kauffner/RM incubator to RM after IP archiving of previous failed RMs were at the absolute minimum denied the Requested Move 2 note which is supposed to be included on the heading of a RM when a previous RM is not visible.

If there was a previous discussion use Requested move xxxx where xxxx can be the year if that is appropriate, or "2" for a second discussion.

It didn't matter greatly in the Talk:Black Caviar RM because the even though the original Jenks24 RM and two other RM2 and RM3 were hidden by the Ho Chi Minh City IP another editor spotted that Kauffner's new RM (not marked RM4) had appeared Comment this RM to pop up right after the old RMs were archived (a few hours later) so people should look through the old RMs, that were available to previous RM reviewers . 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC) and added in "4" after Requested Move to let people know it was RM4.

But it did make a difference, a big difference, in at least one other RM, the Talk:Lady Trieu RM where the IP not only archived the previous failed User:Kauffner RM1 2011 but when User:Kauffner launched RM2 2012 (without any indication of "requested move 2") yet comment from UserAmoreMio - was left from 2009 (?!) ..and then discussion replying to the objections to the previous "lost" RM1 were deleted.

And as for "do your homework" - if that applies to participants on the Inter Milan RM, that we who supported/opposed were expected to somehow psychically know that "requested move" was in fact "requested move 2", and had been mistitled, then that "do your homework" applies to RM closers too. For example, did you have any idea that "requested move" for Talk:Lady Trieu RM was actually "requested move 2" and that User:Kauffner's failed RM1 had just been archived by the IP? I assume not, so please, be kind enough not to labour the "do your homework" thing when if that's the case then you yourself didn't do your own homework and notice a previous RM had not been indicated on the Lady Trieu RM that you yourself closed, it's the exactly same piece of homework....

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "2" (or similar) in headings, you're living in a dreamland if you think this is widely followed, especially when the previous RM is in archived (as I read over this, I think it's worth noting this is just a turn of phrase, not meaning to have a go at you). I've read over your third paragraph a few times, but unfortunately I'm just not sure what you're trying to say – the diff doesn't seem to be what you think it is? Probably my fault, but could you please clarify that paragraph? On to "do your homework", participating in a RM is quite different to closing one. A closer can only really make a judgement on the arguments that are made in the discussion. If he or she begins to research what the title should be, e.g. by looking at past RMs for the article, then they should make a vote rather than close the RM. This is not say that I haven't been guilty of failing to "do my homework" completely when voting on RMs in the past – there are several times that spring to mind and doubtless many more – I just don't think my close of the Lady Trieu RM is a case of this. Jenks24 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jenks24,

The point was that if you as closer didn't notice the IP activity archiving a previous failed RM before the new RM not marked RM2 on Talk:Lady Trieu, then you're in exactly the same boat as editors who didn't notice exactly the same pattern on Talk:Inter Milan. If one is "not doing homework" then so is the other.

Do you mean "..and then discussion replying to the objections to the previous "lost" RM1 were deleted"? It only becomes clear when you look before, before again, and here in particular. The IP didn't manage to cleanly remove all trace of the previous RM, so several bites of the cherry were required. The same was true of the Inter Milan RM as well the IP had to come back and adjust from 90 days to 60 days to get rid of the old Jenks24 RM and, then hey presto, success, the Jenks24 RM is hidden. Then next edit 11 minutes later, a new RM with the old Jenks24 RM out of sight, and not marked RM2.

So, now do you understand what the IP was doing and what happened to your original RM and why?

Regards In ictu oculi (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the reason I asked for clarification about that diff is because Kauffner is not replying to a "lost" RM, it is a response about the content of the article – completely unrelated to the article's title. You have already made your case about the IP edits at SPI and, if I recall correctly, no action was taken. Again, on the "homework" front, that is not the closer's job. Neither is it required for anyone commenting, but when the RM still exists, even in an archive, I think it is a bit rich to claim you were "denied" anything. YMMV, of course. Jenks24 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jenks24,

Firstly, you haven't asked him.

Secondly, as I understand it Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive has only been archived because an SPI was not needed to link the edits. Action is still needed the question is how and what. The admins involved all appear to be of the opinion that the IPs were Kauffner logged out, and Kauffner carefully semi-admits to Good Day "Did you that there is a rule against intentionally editing while logged out, even when the edits themselves are trivial? I certainly didn't." At this point you are the only person who appears to question this - at least judging from your unblocking of User Kauffner. I'm trying to take on good faith your belief that your friend didn't use an IP to hide the your own first Jenks24 Inter Milan RM1, but if it was me and an IP went to the lengths of hiding my embarrassing old RM 11 minutes prior to someone reissuing a new "better" RM I wouldn't be flattered by that...

But in any case, regardless of how much hiding the original Jenks24 RM did affect the new RM, the IP believed it would help the new RM, otherwise why do it, as in the dozen other cases where the IP archived failed RMs while new ones were being prepared in User:Kauffner/RM incubator, so this does have a bearing on Inter Milan going forward. Imagine for example that the IP's activity had been discovered halfway through the RM? Or try and imagine that this was an IP doing the same thing for moving from English names to Italian names. Would you be so supportive then?

These are all fair questions aren't they? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the SPI was closed because no clerks/CUs felt there was a strong enough case for a CU. CUs dislike linking accounts to IPs, but they will do it if they think there is a good enough case. Perhaps the IP was Kauffner, but until this is confirmed by either CU or Kauffner I will continue to AGF. The block and unblock were unrelated to the IP edits, so I'm not sure what that has to do with this. Interesting that you refer to Kauffner as my friend – he seems like a good bloke (as do most long-term Wikipedia editors), but I honestly don't know him that well and it's getting a bit tiring that you keep insinuating I'm just doing all this to protect a friend. I don't see anything "embarrassing" in the RM I proposed, it just shows that I didn't put much effort into the nomination (I honestly thought it would be pretty straightforward) and there's certainly no shame in then seeing someone else make a better nomination later on. No one is saying these weren't fair questions, but I can assure that if the roles were somehow reversed, my advice at this point would be the exact same – just drop it. You seem to be asking the same questions over and over, but expecting a different result. I've made my mind up on this: I don't think it affected the outcome of the RM and I don't think the IP edits were malicious. If there is a discussion somewhere like AN and the community consensus is otherwise then so be it, but I don't think we're getting anywhere with this. Jenks24 (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the earlier RM was by no means an obvious "no consensus". The number of evidence-based, policy orientated supports outweighed the "I don't like it" fraternity and was a debatable outcome. I didn't complain about it. Leaky Caldron 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Could someone please reopen the RM? That's what it's about. Plus, the original one was flawed itself as it compared "Inter Milan" vs "Internazionale Milano", ignoring the forms "Inter" (definitely the commonest in Italy) and "Internazionale", and forcing usage of the Italian name (the city of Milan is not really called in English as "Milano", so the English-speaking websites and tabloids obviously prefer not to use the "Milano" word in it where possible - indeed in Italy FC Barcelona is just referred to as "Barcellona", so guess what). As if for instance you want to compare "Sporting Clube de Portugal" vs "Sporting Lisbon". We have a guideline and enough evidence for opening a new RM (and please, please, make it public, since the way the whole thing was handled was far from being correct imho). --Angelo (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, the RM will not be reopened. If you want to change the title, open a new RM. If you think the above RM was "flawed", then you should have brought up those points yourself – the other participants and the closing admin cannot react to arguments that aren't made. The reason "Inter" and "Internazionale" were not searched for is because no one argued that either of those should be the title of the article. As to how Barcelona is written in Italian, I fail to the relevance that has to the English Wikipedia. Lastly, can you please explain what you mean by "make it public"? Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGLISH seems far more compelling than any other argument I have seen here for not including foreign names for places and organisations in the English Wikipedia. The accusations of tabloid bias is also nonsense. 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 WP:RS. Prove to me that "Internazionale Milano" satisfies that guideline and I will support a further RM. Leaky Caldron 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreal7 claims that "Inter Milan" is also used by non-English speakers... Can you offer anything in support of that? I regularly read Italian and French sports news and have never once seen any reference to "Inter Milan." They exclusively use Inter or Internazionale. Being used by the likes of Andy Gray does not make an incorrect name correct. Another point I think deserves mentioning is that English speakers who actively follow and have an interest in Italian football would never use the name Inter Milan, once again, the only places I've even heard/seen the name used are certain UK media outlets. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear. No one is suggesting that the name "Inter Milan" should be scrubbed from Wikipedia entirely, but it should not be used as the article title. – PeeJay 17:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What does it matter how it's referred to in languages other than English? This is the the English Wikipedia. Wannabe rockstar, I suggest looking at the stats presented in the RM, it is far more than just some UK media outlets that use Inter Milan. Also, no one is suggesting that the name "F. C. Internazionale Milano" should be scrubbed from Wikipedia entirely, but it should not be used as the article title. Jenks24 (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of other names proves that the name "Inter Milan" is wrong. Look at The Guardian's website. They almost exclusively use the name "Internazionale", and if not that, they use "Inter". The Telegraph also uses the name "Internazionale" in the title of this article; granted, they use "Inter Milan" in the text, but only once, which is the same as the number of times they use "Inter" on its own; however, they use the name "Internazionale" on their Serie A table page. The Independent also uses "Internazionale" in this article and this obituary (albeit qualifying them as "Internazionale of Milan" in the obituary). It's all well and good looking at Google searches for particular terms, but those completely ignore the changes in terminology over time, and there is a definite trend towards using "Internazionale" in the reputable British media. You have to look at recent articles and try to ignore the low-brow papers like the Sun, the Mail, the Mirror, etc. – PeeJay 17:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The low-brow papers were ignored, just look at the table in the RM. Of particular interest is what the BBC does. Also, were you aware searches can be refined to only get results from certain years? The results are still pretty similar. Lastly, as Kauffner notes below, the use of just "Inter" or "Internazionale" is not really a good argument for having "Internazionale Milano" as the title. Jenks24 (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the stats in the last RM because they are irrelevant. Comparing the usage of any name to the usage of "Internazionale Milano" is always going to produce a skew in favour of the other name. What we should be comparing is the frequency with which "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan" are used, and I would suggest that they are not significantly different. With that in mind, there is no clear common name, and - similar to the situation with Association football - we should revert to the official name, i.e. F.C. Internazionale Milano. – PeeJay 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You can ignore evidence if you want, fortunately for the rest of us the closer didn't. You also seem to be unaware of WP:English, an important policy guideline. This is English WP and foreign name titles are not to be used when a well sourced and common English name is in widespread use. Leaky Caldron 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Inter Milan" may be widespread, but it is wrong and, as a consequence, it is falling out of use, as I have proven. It's clear we have contradictory policies at work here, it's just a matter of deciding which ones take precedence. WP:UE says we should use the English name, which is fair enough, but we have a specific guideline for the naming of sports teams at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports), which suggests that we should use the name that the club uses in the English language section of its own website; in my opinion, this would be in-keeping with the spirit of WP:UE and allow us to maintain a level of consistency across all football clubs (see FC Dynamo Kyiv and FC Steaua București). WP:COMMONNAME would also suggest that we lean towards "Inter Milan" as a title; that is until you consider that "Internazionale" and "Inter" are probably just as common, and given that we have used Association football as a compromise between Football and Soccer in the past, there is clearly precedent for using an official name when there is no obviously predominant common name. Another argument against WP:COMMONNAME is that it creates inconsistency between teams in a situation that would seem to require it; seeing "Inter Milan" in Category:Football clubs in Italy alongside the likes of A.S. Roma, Juventus F.C., S.S. Lazio, S.S.C. Napoli and Udinese Calcio makes no sense, and people will question (and have questioned) it. This is the exact reason why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports) was created five years ago; that guideline was accepted by the community and added to WP:Article titles (albeit now on a separate page), so why are we ignoring it now? And if anyone dares quote WP:IAR at me, I will wiki-punch them in the wiki-face. – PeeJay 22:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to see evidence of what real English people in the real world refer to I suggest you look at the UK Ebay site. There are currently 2662 items for sale with "Inter Milan" in the main search title. There are 30 with "Internazionale Milano". Taking that direct user evidence together with WP:NAME, WP:ENGLISH, WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME then the case against the Italian name is overwhelming. Leaky Caldron 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't care what "real English people in the real world" are doing, naming conventions are based on what names are being used in the media, so don't quote eBay at me. – PeeJay 23:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it does care. WP:ENGLISH is very clear - "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". 2662 v 30 clearly shows which name is in most common use in the English language. Leaky Caldron 23:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be the wording of WP:ENGLISH verbatim, but it is in no way specific about using eBay as a source, which you have clearly only done because it advances your point. – PeeJay 23:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• That Italians call the club "Inter" is an odd reason to give the article title as "F.C. Internazionale Milano," a name you won't find many examples of in any language. Kauffner (talk)

I wish I had found out about this proposal in time, because I would've strongly opposed the move. I find that it was based on a flawed argument of comparing "Inter Milan" to the club's full name, because by that logic we should be moving the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. to Spurs. What we really should be comparing are the club's three common names: Inter, Inter Milan, and Internazionale. Based on my experience, in Italian football "Inter" is the most common name, with "Internazionale" used as a more official name, so to speak. Just as an example, you'll be hard pressed to find "Inter Milan" anywhere in the Serie A season articles. It's certainly true that many in the English-speaking media do at times use the term "Inter Milan", however I don't see much evidence that it is more common than "Inter" or "Internazionale", let alone far more established to the point of justifying the move. Just by looking at the sources used in the previous discussion:

• FIFA uses "Internazionale" when listing official Serie A standings and results, however they do also use "Inter" (2000 results) and "Inter Milan" (1210 results) in their articles.
  
• UEFA uses "FC Internazionale Milano" for the the title of the club's profile, and always use "Inter" for the body or the article. They use "Internazionale" to showing the club's results and upcoming matches. "Inter Milan" doesn't seem to be in use.
• The Age calls them "Inter" on their team page, and from what I can tell that's the most used name in their articles as well. They do also use "Inter Milan" occasionally.
• BBC doesn't seem to have a dedicated page for the club or Serie A, however based on their results page and some searching, they seem to consistently use "Inter Milan".
• football.co.uk doesn't seem to have a specific page dedicated to Inter for whatever reason, even though they do have for most Serie A clubs. They use "Internazionale" in their Serie A standings, while in their articles "Inter Milan" and "Inter" are used. BTW, I don't understand why this was used as major source in the discussion, given that their coverage of Italian football is lacking at best. They stopped updating the standings in March, and their last articles are over a month old (and copied from other websites, I should add).
• ANSA obviously uses "Inter" all the time for its Italian coverage, but it's hard to immediately tell from their English version because they mix all sorts of articles in one section. However, if Google any indication, "Inter" returns 28,000 results, compared to 1,620 results for "Inter Milan".
• The English version of Corriere della Sera is also quite limited and hard to browse, but based on searches "Inter Milan" seems to be more common, but the have also used "Inter".
• Speaking of Italian coverage in English, the English section of La Gazzetta dello Sport (Italy's largest sports paper) always uses "Inter" in articles and results.
• New York Times uses "Inter Milan" for their results and standings, but in articles with an "inter milan" tag they use "Inter" and "Inter Milan" with similar frequency.
• Finally, ESPN uses "Internazionale" for the club's dedicated page, for their matches, and table standings. For club news and articles, they seem to use "Inter" and "Inter Milan" with about the same frequency.

Based on all this, I don't see enough evidence to support that "Inter Milan" is the established common name for this club to justify the move of this article. All the three names are frequently used, and due to the lack of a unique common name I think this page should be moved back to the club's official name. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Non English sources are irrelevant, including the sporting bodies. WP:ENGLISH makes it very clear that the title of an article should use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language. Italian and Swiss sources are not English. The official name is of no consequence since that is obviously Italian. This is the English WP and the relevant policies could hardly be clearer - WP:NAME, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:AE and WP:ENGLISH are unequivocal in that English names must be used as the article title, with the official name included in the first sentence. Even the article lead states that the club are commonly known as "Inter Milan". Leaky Caldron 09:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are completely undermining your own argument there. Yes, WP:ENGLISH says that we should use the English language, and those sources that Udonknome are all written in English. It doesn't matter that FIFA and UEFA are based in Switzerland when the primary language of their websites is English; equally, the Italian newspaper sources above are in English, so... go figure. – PeeJay 12:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope I don't sound mean, but I think that's really a silly argument. WP:ENGLISH clearly refers to the English language, not "nationality" or origin. After all, what bloody difference does it make that FIFA's corporate offices are in Zurich rather than London?

Also, I'd like to know based on what you have determined that "Inter Milan" is the most common name to justify the article move. I'd like to think I didn't go through that list of sources for nothing. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you asking me and in such an aggressive manner? The decision was based on this research Talk:Inter_Milan#Supporting_material, part of the successful RM discussion. Leaky Caldron 14:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking you just because you're the only one that replied to me so far, but my question really is for anyone that disagrees. I'm aware of the research table that was used in the RM discussion. That's why I used each of those sources in my "analysis" to compare the three common names, because only "Inter Milan" was looked at in the that discussion. So after considering the usage of all three names, I'd like to ask based on what is "Inter Milan" is the most common name to justify the move of this article. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 16:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Internazionale is disqualified - it is Italian and this is En-Wiki -WP:ENGLISH applies. Inter is quite clearly ambiguous and would never satisfy naming policy on its own. That leaves Inter Milan, by far the most widely used, recognisable English name supported by high quality reliable sources and satisfying the relevant policy and guidelines. Leaky Caldron 17:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How can you disqualify "Internazionale" when we have clubs titled Real Madrid and Dynamo Kyiv? This discussion has had some pretty ridiculous arguments, but that one takes the cake. – PeeJay 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Consistency with similar articles is no more important a factor than several other criteria. Leaky Caldron 20:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're confusing matters. We're talking about whether "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan" are common names for the club, not whether they should be used as an article title, although the fact that they are all in reasonably equal use means that none of them is entirely suitable as an article title (albeit some more suitable than others). But that's by the by; no one is arguing for the article to be moved to Internazionale or Inter (with any form of disambiguation); the only options I can see are "Inter Milan" and "F.C. Internazionale Milano", which seems to me to be the more favourable title. – PeeJay 21:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"F.C. Internazionale Milano" might be more favourable to you. However, the various article naming policies and guidelines do not appear to support its use. You need to produce a policy argument supported by evidence that an article on English WP should carry an Italian title that is not very widely used in the English speaking world (as opposed to the Italian speaking world). It's not very concise is it, "F.C. Internazionale Milano"? Who, in the English speaking world, says "F.C. Internazionale Milano" when referring to Inter Milan? The BBC never has and that is WP:RS for most content. Inter Milan has broad recognisability, usage & acceptance in the English speaking world, "F.C. Internazionale Milano" doesn't. Leaky Caldron 21:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Who in the English-speaking world says "Manchester United F.C." or "Udinese Calcio"? After all, isn't that what we have pipes for? And by the way, the BBC is not the be-all-and-end-all of reliable sources. The Guardian, The Independent and The Telegraph all use "Internazionale" to some degree (ranging from exclusive use to frequent use), and I have many, many books that mention the club, of which only a few refer to it as "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 22:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As you yourself have stated in your less than neutral, selective posting of messages to other users, Wikipedia guidelines probably favour Inter Milan. I have no more to say to you on the subject. Leaky Caldron 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that policy seems to fully support the usage of Inter Milan here but aren't we blindly following the media then? The club was never in its history called that or used hat name to promote itself, to my knowledge, its just a name some media outlet/outlets invented 100 or so years ago out of laziness/arrogance because they didn't want to use the real name and it has been blindly followed ever since, it seems. Do we want to go by policy and thereby follow stupid (the broad media) or do we want to be a precise Encyclopedia? This is an issue that goes well past this article and could affect a lot of club and league articles on WP:FOOTY, and beyond. As much as a nuisance it may seem to the people involved in the original vote the RM might have to be reopened to get a bit more input then just 14 people to call it a proper consensus. Calistemon (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I supported the move. If is fully consistent with policy and if an organisation has been called something for a 100 years that should be good enough. However, I would not be against a proper examination of ALL the issues, provided that people use arguments based on policy and evidence rather than just not liking it or because they are clinging to a particular footy supporters view and limited consensus instead of considering Wikipedia's overall aims, policies and guidelines. Too often a small group of subject-specific editors hold sway over the rest of us because they have created a topic project and believe that their narrow view outweighs broader WP policy and guidelines. However, I don't think a further RM is the appropriate forum. Maybe it needs some sort of RFC? What do you think? Leaky Caldron 09:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't "fully" consistent with policy, is it? A proper analysis of how WP:AT relates to these two titles ("Inter Milan" and "F.C. Internazionale Milano") was carried out at WT:FOOTY#Naming of Inter Milan, and it concluded that both names fit well with different elements of WP:AT, perhaps one more than the other. I personally believe that even if "Inter Milan" was the name supported by more elements of WP:AT, we would need to examine WP:IAR: "Inter Milan" is hardly an encyclopaedic-sounding title, especially compared to all the other football club articles out there, so if we need to ignore a few rules for the benefit of the encyclopaedia as a whole, we should. – PeeJay 10:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[WP:IAR]] doesn't enter into it. There is ample firm evidence to support the current use, hence the successful RM. English WP requires article titles in English with the foreign alternatives included in the opening line. Milan is correctly titled Milan not "Milano". Why organisations based in that city should have the Italian name as part of an article title makes no sense, unless there is an exceptional classification made for foreign sports clubs. In all fairness, a handful of editors at WP:FOOTY cannot make that encyclopaedia-wide decision so why not raise a RFC or whatever instead of circulating the same narrow argument which is going to achieve nothing. Leaky Caldron 12:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Milan is called Milan because that is the name that is used almost universally to refer to the city; similarly, we have Kiev and FC Dynamo Kyiv, which is correctly titled based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports). Suffice it to say, the naming of a city and any articles with that city in their titles are completely mutually exclusive: we don't have Beijing Duck or Vienna Schnitzel! – PeeJay 15:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If only just a tiny fraction of the energy expended here could have been used on actually improving the article, it could be featured by now. Imagine that? With all the above, I think you need to start something like an RFC to drag in outside points of view as the arguments here seem to be between a few people and seem to be going round in circles. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is (meant to be) an encylopedia - not a bunch of lads down the pub. That is why we have Manchester United F.C., not 'Man Utd'; and why we shouldn't have 'Inter Milan.' This sets a terrible precedent, and is a slippery slope. COMMONNAME doesn't apply to football teams, nor should it, as demonstrated by every other football club on here - apart from this one, which individuals with some kind of warped agenda have targeted. GiantSnowman 08:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A disgraceful, completely unfounded accusation against good faith editors. Not one shred of evidence to support it - you an Admin., should be ashamed of yourself. Not every editor on WP is a football supporter in tooth & claw and some people are more concerned about what reader's actually require, not what so called football experts think they should have. Leaky Caldron 11:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd already struck the comment nearly 10 mins before your reply. Apologies to all. GiantSnowman 11:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Inter Milan" is "what readers actually require"? No, what readers need is to be educated, not pandered to. By using a name that is generally accepted to be incorrect in Italy, we are merely furthering people's ignorance. What we should be doing is using a more accurate title and using "Inter Milan" as a redirect. That way, people can still reach the correct article by going to Inter Milan, but they also learn that "Inter Milan" is a less favourable name than "Internazionale" or "Inter". – PeeJay 11:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, would you look at this? The BBC uses all three names for the club! And the vast majority of uses are of "Inter" - not "Inter Milan", but "Inter". While I admit that this does not prove that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is a common name for the club, it does prove that use of the three proven common names is not as heavily weighted in one direction as anyone might think. So, yet again, I appeal to people's better judgement and acknowledge that "Inter Milan" is not a wholly appropriate title for this article. – PeeJay 18:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

But it's an English encyclopaedia and we should stick with International Milan F.C., whether you like it or not. VEO^onefive 17:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope that's sarcasm. – PeeJay 20:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at this!--Dipralb (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons is a multilingual project. This is English Wikipedia. Naming policy here is established via WP:ENGLISH. Leaky Caldron 17:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What LC said. For the record, I disagree with the move, but that particular point is moot I'm afraid. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 18:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So going by the prevailing logic, that since this is an English encyclopedia, clubs names should be written in English, despite what they may be commonly referred to as, it's time to move Real Madrid to Royal Madrid, Atletico de Madrid to Athletic of Madrid, Espanyol to Spanish, Juventus F.C. to Youth F.C., et cetera. I look forward to seeing that and giggling. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WORST renaming decision I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The team "Inter Milan" doesn't exist. It's just a name that English medias using. It's not an official name of the club so why should we use it as the page title???? make no sense at all. I oppose this change. Romangelo (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A proposal to merge the Inter Milan article here has been made. Comments below. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a redundant ']' after one of the names in the info box. --Unillogical (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for your note! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that we could well broker a compromise here. They refer to themselves as F.C. Internazionale. What do you think?--Dipralb (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

UEFA uses F.C. Internazionale Milano for their article (7/3/2013).--Dipralb (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)