Talk:AS Roma/Archive 1

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


Untitled

Roma's team song played before the match is ROMA ROMA, not GRAZIE ROMA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.242.214 (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND BUT WILL SOMEBODY PUT INFO REGARDING ROMOLO, PLEASE, HE IS THE MASCOT, HE IS IMPORTANT TO THE TEAM AND HE SHOULD BE MENTIONED.http://mariacv.tumblr.com/post/1448350229/romolo-o-lobinho-mascote-da-roma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.214.192 (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Info

Someone has removed the comments I added about hooliganism? Everything put in was factual and referenced? Is Wikipedia now censored when discussing inconvenient truths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.17.51 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)



Someone has vandalized this page. Look at the very bottom, it says 'nigger f.c.' - I can't figure out how to change that. Help!

AS Roma is one of the best clubs in Italy and is followed by millions of supporters worldwide. Que?????

They boast a wide variety of talented players through out the ages. None more than Francessco Totti. The eternal golden boy of the Romanista and the Italy, his ingenious vision for the game, he is able to play the ball to his playmates in patterns that seem inconcievable to even some of the world's finest. Add his powerful shot and his natural leadership makes him one of the most covetable players in the world.

Roma has won the scudetto 3 times even though it is not run by one of the rich companies that often finance other northern clubs like AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus. This club is very loyal to it's fans and they have a rich history with supporting the team.

Roma also compltely overshadows the other roman team that wears blue. SS Lazio tries their best to compete with us, but they aren't just good enough and some people just never know when to quit.

Roma's colors are Red and Yellow which refer to the colors of Gillarossi. Their symbol is a mother wolf feeding Regalus and Ramos. Roma plays at the Olympic stadium and their training headquarters are at the Trigora

Translation

I thought it would be better if I took the Roma article from the italian wikipedia and just translated it to english and replaced this article...the italian version is quite extensive and would do us romanisti proud, as no other football club on english wikipedia would have such an awesome article...sangue e oro per sempre <3

  • Uhmmm do you want a propaganda piece for the club or do you want something remotely factual?

I'll weed out anything blatant..its really not that bad though

I'm having some problems getting things arranged properly ... the table of contents needs to be higher up, and the text needs to wrap around the "list of presidents" table a little better. Any help would be great :)


Leandro Greco

Is Leandro Greco still on AS Roma? I've verified he was on the roster for the 04-05 season and was a sub in one game, but he's not even on the official site's roster for 05-06: La Squadra There also doesn't appear to be a picture of him anywhere online, unless I'm missing an accent or something like that. I can't find anything on him. Though this site appears to say he was in two Coppa Italia games as a sub:
Yahoo IT This is the only player I haven't found on the rosters on any fan sites or official sites so far.
--KingPenguin 01:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

He is currently playing for AS Roma's primavera youth squad: [1] --Angelo 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mirko Vučinić

Mirko Vučinić has been transfered to A.S. Roma for £5.54m. [Football Transfers]

Kal 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit I made was changed even with link to source. Vandalism or incompitence?
I have to stress the fact that this tranfer seems to be higly possible, but not really completed: no italian sport site, nor newspaper, nor tv/radio sport report, nor Roma or Lecce blog or supporter' site, nor official sites have yet confirmed - after ten days - this transfer; instead they are continuing to speak about it in terms of "possibility" and "future". Please note that, since AS Roma quotes are negotiated on the italian stock market, the club must promptly declare any player acquisition (in the past, the main channel for such advices beeing the AS Roma official site). Ciao :-) -- Pap3rinik (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
All done and over with now. Again I still stand correct on one portion that this was completed long ago as mentioned by transfer website and foreign media. However, they were incorrect to release the correct terms as this is only a loan? -- Kal 23:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

More Transfers

David Pizarro, Raffaele Longo, Gianluca Comotto, and one youth player have new transfer status with Roma according to this source. Make sure you read the bottom paragraph for the other players than Pizarro. -KingPenguin 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone is changing the team

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,not a "create your team",and there are people that don´t have a profile,are messing the team,and if AS Roma updated the site a few days ago,and who is Pietro Pippolo?Is a young player?Because he´s profile doesn´t make part in the oficial team on the website!

Pietro Pipolo is the youth player in the squad since last season, currently, with Carlo Zotti, playing with Primavera team. Usually Zotti start. Matthew_hk tc 02:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mirko Vucinic and Lee Young-Pyo in AS Roma?

Where does this information come from? I heard about the transfer of Marko Vucinic,but in Lee Young-Pyo´s case i only can tell that it´s a lie. --Tiago Heitor 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ok Tiago fagman there are many sources about lee young pyo. its not a lie. if you really cared about the club you would know this information and not just be sitting on your lazy ass monitoring this wikipedia page. http://www.goal.com/en/articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=118078

Calmdown,there is no need to start insulting people,estás a entender,nao sejas palhaço!!!Maybe if he is linked with AS Roma,this is rubbish information,because its not confirmed yet and could not go on,and due to the fact that this is an encyclopedia...Next thing,if you want to do this tipe of things,subscribe Wikipedia,don´t be a coward without a name!You don´t have to pay,you can edit watever you want to edit(except if you vandalise the pages) without be reversed,and we could discuss this like men!!!And yes,i like AS Roma,that´s why i care with the article and rubbish information(so far)that some people put there. --Tiago Heitor 11:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The transfer of Mirko Vučinić is now official: see here or the pdf on AS Roma official site. No words on the same site for Lee Young-Pyo, thus I guess these are only rumors. Ciao -- Pap3rinik (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It ends up it was a huge lie, since Roma was interested in another Totthenam defender, Rodrigo Defendi (nomen omen). Luckyly we did not get this Korean def.--BaldClarke 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks! --Tiago Heitor 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually this message has been posted on AS Roma official site about the Lee Young-Pyo case:

L’accordo era stato perfezionato, in tutti i suoi dettagli, sia con il Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Co Ltd., che con il procuratore di Lee, Mr Kim; quando tutto era definito, anche l’orario delle visite mediche, inaspettatamente e senza motivo alcuno, il calciatore ha detto di non volere più il trasferimento alla Roma, adducendo ragioni personali di natura religiosa. A questo punto , pur con grande sorpresa, la società ha preso atto e rispettato la decisione del calciatore.

— Mr. Daniele Pradè (AS Roma DS) on August 30 2006, (http://www.asroma.it/NewsDoc.aspx?Categoria=ITArchivioNews&Documento=6249)

A detailed agreement had been concluded, both with Tottenham Hotspur Football and Athletic Co Ltd. and with Mr. Lee manager, Mr Kim; when everything was defined - even the medical check-up schedule - unexpectedly and without any apparent reason the player declared his unavailability to be transferred to AS Roma, claiming personal religious reasons. Subsequently, and not without any surprise, the AS Roma took into account and respected the palyer decision.

— Mr. Daniele Pradè (AS Roma DS) on August 30 2006, free transaltion by Pap3rinik
-- Pap3rinik (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So how comes that they immediately signed for Defendi?--BaldClarke 17:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that the transfer of Defendi is a compensation in return for Lee. Don't seems very complicated. :-) -- Pap3rinik (..chiedi ad Archimede) 08:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who is familiar with football in Rome knows that 1900 versus 1927 distinction between Lazio and Roma is a particularly sore point for romanisti - the manipulation of dates and irrelevant information in this article testify to this. Why are the foundation dates of clubs that don't exist anymore of any relevance to an article about a club founded in 1927? Is this Roman FC's or Fortitudo's Wikipedia entry?

Soccer played in south central Italy before 1910 is not officially recognized by the Italian FA (FIGC). This is the reason that 1910 is sometimes used as the year that Lazio's football section was founded, however the club was founded in 1900 and football was played by its members in 1901, with official matches starting in 1902. 1910 is in fact the year that the club was affiliated to the Lega Centromeridionale (South Central League, roughly translated) and participated in the first official Italian FA-sanctioned championship.

Therefore if Lazio has allegedly only been active since 1910 the other clubs mentioned could not have started prior to that date, as is misleadingly stated in the main article! What we are looking at here is club foundation dates, and Lazio's is 1900, whether you like it or not.

As far as Roman FC's beginnings are concerned, historical sources are inconclusive and contradictory. Some say that it was founded in 1901, some in 1903, others go as far back as 1895, 1897 or 1899. In any case, it would appear that Roman FC did not play soccer initially but more of a hybrid between the latter and rugby.

One thing which is certain as far as Lazio's footballing activity is concerned, is that there is ample testimony and documentation from the first decade of the 20th century regarding its football "activity" whereas similar information regarding other teams is sorely lacking. In addition, the difference in level between Lazio and other teams, evidenced by the thrashings inflicted on rivals, is another clue as to Lazio's dominance by being a precursor in Rome..

You make many claims, but none of them is backed by any reference.
The text you removed says:
S.S. Lazio (1910)<ref>S.S. Lazio was founded in 1900 as a road racing society.[2] Only in 1902 Lazio played its first football matches, and only in 1910 the football division was officially created, after the Roman Football Club had already been founded in 1901. Thus the claim that Lazio brought football in Rome is wrong, as well as the claim that Lazio was the first Roman football team. (Fontanelli, Carlo, and Simona Carboncini, I colori del calcio, Geo Edizioni)</ref>.
Show why this text is wrong, providing references for your claims, or, please, avoid removing it. Note also that you reverted the text already four times in less than 24, which is against the WP:3RR.--BaldClarke 14:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Flags

I removed the flags from the list of players. The players are sorted by nationality, so there is no point in adding the flags in front of them, even if other articles do the same.--BaldClarke 11:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Former players are not ordered by nationality, so there is no reason in deleting the flags next to their names. Furthermore every article about football teams has the flags near players' names, so why delete them? Why delete informations? Gaúcho
Really? As for the current version, the order is Albania, Argentina, Brazil, France, Japan, Germany, Italy... Reverted.--BaldClarke 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
And so? ... Every article about football teams has the flags near players' names, so why delete them? Why delete informations? Gaúcho
And so you claimed "Former players are not ordered by nationality, so there is no reason in deleting the flags next to their names", and I proved you wrong. You now claim "Every article about football teams has the flags near players' names", and I told you that a bad behaviour is not corrected by another one. It is pointless to add the flags when the players are ordered by nationality. I expect you to revert to the flagless version. And note that you are on the verge of breaking the WP:3RR. Thanks.--BaldClarke 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


Protected

I've protected this page until the edit warring stops. Please work out your differences here and come to a consensus. Thanks. --Kbdank71 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In my last change I added the flags next to the names of the countries, not to the players' ones; I also added a note, but probably BaldClark reverted it without noting it... Gaúcho

Flags next to the nation's names? Even more useless.--BaldClarke 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Who has decided that it's useless? You did, not Wikipedia... if you would see some articles in which there is a name of a country, near it there is always its own flag... So, when will you begin to delete every little flag you will see? Gaúcho

I am not sure your line of thinking is so smart: "Who has decided that it's useless? You did, not Wikipedia..." can be easily reverted to "Who has decided that it's useful? You did, not Wikipedia...", but it would be childish and not definitive, as a way to settle the matter. So I am asking you, what is the point to put the flag of Italy next to the word "Italy", used as a section title, in bold and alone? My answer is none, so I consider it useless. If you are able to show me why it is useful, I will accept the reintroduction of the flags, otherwise I wil remove them.--BaldClarke 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I told YOU have decided that it's useless, because in every en.wiki article in which there is a name of a country, near it you can see its own flag. Here below I wrote a short list of articles for you, so you can check and (I hope) understand wikipedia's policy about flags. Arab League, Community of Portuguese Language Countries, FIFA World Cup, List of foreign Serie A players, Olympic Games, Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy.

If you don't agree with me I think you should start to delete every flag from everyone of these articles... Gaúcho

This is what I am planning to do, if/when I find article that have the same problem. Thanks.--BaldClarke 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

...poraccio... honestly, tell me, have you got some problems with flags? Are you scared of them? Maybe when you were child you thought they were ghosts and now you hate them?!? OK, if it's like this I offer myself to help you to solve your frustrations... Gaúcho

poraccio ce sarai te, che nun sai manco come te chiami.--BaldClarke 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ahahah! ...poraccio... aó, occhio si vvai a vvia der Corzo che llà è ppieno de fantasmi che svolazzano, te potrebbe pijà 'na crisi! Gaúcho


The inaccuracies regarding Lazio's foundation date purported by BaldClarke in the main article is another issue which I would appreciate being addressed while we're at it. It is well-known fact that Lazio was founded in 1900, that the football section was added in 1901 and that it started playing matches in 1902. This claim can easily be corroborated by a neutral and reliable source like Panini's Almanacco del Calcio, yet BaldClarke continues to misleadingly insist on using 1910 (?!) as the actual foundation date and quotes sources without providing anything concrete to back his claim up. Any subsequent changes which rectify the erroneous claim are dismissed by using the three revert rule. In other words, one can go around Wikipedia editing articles to one's liking and claim that users who correct disinformation are actually at fault because of 3RR. This is simply unacceptable.

My dear unknown user,
understanding English is a prerequisite of contributing to English Wikipedia. This capability would have let you understand that the article claims that Lazio was founded in 1900, that some matches were played among Lazio members in 1902 (possibly in 1903), but that a football section partecipating to an official tournament is recorded only in 1910.
Until somebody comes with a proof of an official tournament played by a football section of S.S. Lazio before 1910, the text must stay that way, not for WP:3RR, but for Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I hope you understood this message, so that I will be not obliged to write it again and again.--BaldClarke 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


You know just as well as I do that you are being deliberately misleading by using that 1910 date as you have in the main article.
This 1910 date which you have pulled out of a hat is not a reference to a tournament, but in actual fact to when the Italian FA began officially recognizing championships in central southern Italy for all teams, including lesser ones like Roman and Fortitudo. If that is the approach you want to use, you will have to use exactly the same date (1910) with the other teams mentioned in the article. It is chronologically impossible to claim that a team like Lazio, which was the most dominant one in Rome, started to play in official league championships after everyone else!?
Bear in mind that your sources are the ones that need to be verified as you are the one that is making a claim that by all accounts is completely unheard of. Ellipsis4677 19:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you read? my source is Fontanelli, Carlo, and Simona Carboncini, I colori del calcio, Geo Edizioni.--BaldClarke 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Look at the SS Lazio official website; there is a page dedicated to the team history [3], where it's explicitly stated that Lazio as "società podistica" was founded on "9th of January, 1900", and started football activities in 1902. Never cited 1910 in this page. I hope you understand Italian in order to read it, but I think you do, since you're citing an Italian-language book. And your claim that, since football divisions started in 1910, therefore Lazio's foundation year must be considered as 1910, is completely wrong. In fact, should it be true, all scudetti assigned before 1910 would not be valid, and we all should impose 1910 as foundation year for teams such as AC Milan, Juventus, Genoa and Inter. --Angelo 11:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Even Angelo romano, an etablished Wikipedian who I don't think can be suspected of having sympathies for Lazio, easily debunked your reasoning above. In addition, you have put your own foot in your mouth as you yourself refer to foundation dates in the same line when referring to lesser clubs like Alba and Audace! If that is indeed what we are talking about, and I believe that it is, Lazio's is 1900 - whether you like it or not and regardless of whichever you will attempt to use Wikipedia to disinform others. Oh yeah, be careful, you're almost out of line when it comes to the 3 revert rule! :insertrolleyes:. Ellipsis4677 06:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody ever provided any reference to an official creation of a football section of S.S. Lazio before 1910. Note that "official football section" does not apply to some members of a podistic society that play football among them (and even that in 1902/03, not in 1900). I gave you a reference for my point.--BaldClarke 12:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope that the Almanacco Panini is good enough for you? Speaking of references, where are yours on Roman FC? You state that it was 1901, but there is so little documentation on the club's beginnings that it would appear that you are pulling that one out of a hat as well. Just drop this business on the foundation dates because you know you are wrong. I suggest that we ask outside parties to have their say in case you'll insist on going on and on with this. Angelo romano already said what he thought, maybe we can find someone else?Ellipsis4677 11:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Almanacco Panini does not say the football club was officially created in 1900, does it?
As regards Roman FC, my source was stated in the footnote, before someone deleted it, and is Fontanelli, Carlo, and Simona Carboncini, I colori del calcio, Geo Edizioni.
I would accept third parties, but they should be unbiased and research through this matter. Simply checking Lazio website would result in a claim for a foundation in 1900, which is clearly wrong (I am referring to the football club, of course).--BaldClarke 11:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Almanacco Panini says that Lazio was founded in 1900 and football was being played as of 1901. You find a source that debunks that. Remember you are making an extraordinary claim, therefore the burden is on you to provide the evidence. I really would like to see this obscure book you keep on quoting!? My source (Almanacco del Calcio) is easily available in any book store and has backed up everything I've said so far.

What I find interesting is your deliberate and deceiving use of double-standards. On the one hand you continue to claim that Lazio's only possible foundation date is 1910 because that is when the club allegedly played in official tournaments for the first time, a statement which is clearly false and has already been debunked, yet at the same time you use the alleged foundation date of Roman FC to make your point, in the loosest sense of the word, that Lazio was not Rome's "first" team. What are we talking about here? When the team was founded or when it started playing tournaments? In either case you lose, because it is common knowledge that Lazio was the first team to play in Rome, and there is no concrete evidence proving Roman FC's foundation date, let alone whether they even played football in the beginning, and that this 1910 date which you continuously refer to is an erroneous reference (it was actually 1912) to when the Italian FA started recognizing and organizing teams in the center and south of Italy into official championships. Therefore, as Angelo Romano said, if 1910 is Lazio's foundation date, then so is every other team's in the region. Ellipsis4677 13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Ellipsis4677 13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the connection of AS Roma foundation with fascist regime because there is not any evidence of a political willing. Many clubs of center and south merged to become professional and competitive; in 1926 Fiorentina, Bari e Napoli were founded and so Roma in 1927. Basicly it was an economic need.

There is not any evidence about a political willing to create a club named Roma in serie A. Moreover Mussolini's sons were lazio supporters and lazio executive Vaccaro, who fought the merger and was Football association important member, was a fascist militia chief.

moreover i don't think that ss lazio activities and foundation is relevant in this page


Man Utd incident

This statement is completely one sided and should be changed: "A conflict occurred on April 5, 2007, during a Champions League match against Manchester United. Only a month earlier in the competition, United fans had caused trouble in Lille, France where police had to put them under control.[2] They continued the patten of behaviour in Rome, where both sets of fans were hurling missiles and stampeding during goal celebrations, and, as yet, there is no evidence that Ultras were involved. The incident recieved wide spread media attention."

It's still atrociously put however you look at it. The topic leaps from the right wing fascistic tendencies of the Ultras, to the Police laying into some Utd fans, then to the vaguely related topic of a couple of fans getting arrested in England including unverified or cited claims about "dressed formally". To top it off it's turning into a brag-fest on the Roma homepage for Utd fans.--Koncorde 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure none of that is relevant enough for an encyclopedia. It's not an article about the fans, and anything off the pitch can go. If you have to have something, move it to wikinews and put a small template in that links to the story.--Patrick 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict

It would seem that a Manchester United vandal who likes to add extreme POV infavour of any article pertaining to them has chosen the 2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict article as his current victim.

The user keeps, vandalising this sourced version:

"United fans attacked riot police as they moved in to put the situation under control[4] after a portion of the United fans refused to be contained by stewards[5]."

Changing it to, this extremely United fans based, and not neutral version, which depicts the United fans as total innocents who did nothing wrong, and the police as louts who move in for no reason;

"United fans retaliated against riot police."

Despite the fact that United fans had nothing to "retaliate" against, as evidence shows that they pushed around ground stewarts[6]. Thus giving police reason to retailate by moving in. I'd like to see what some Roma fans would like to add to that. - Daddy Kindsoul 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

AS Roma or A.S. Roma?

I noticed some articles (such as the main one, "A.S. Roma", and "History of A.S. Roma", as well as the category itself) use periods in the abbreviation for Associazione Sportiva, while others (such as "List of AS Roma players", "List of AS Roma managers", and "AS Roma statistics") do not use periods. I know this is a small and trivial matter, but I believe that it would be best to choose one of the two styles for all A.S. Roma pages to maintain coherency throughout the project.

In following with all the other articles, A.S. Roma is right for the titles. - Soprani 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In keeping with Wikipedia naming standards. The should be a space after the period "A. S. Roma". Clerks. 18:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football I'm wrong. Clerks. 18:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludovic Giuly

Please note the heading in the Current Squad section which quite clearly states,

"Do NOT add new players before their signing is officially announced by the club. 

 --
 -- Be smart enough to look for an official statement at the AS Roma website (www.asroma.it) before 
 -- including new players here.
 --
 -- This is Wikipedia, not a football gazette. Any unconfirmed and unsourced signing will be 
 -- removed at sight. 
 -- Thanks in advance."

All the edits adding Giuly have been done with no source whatsoever, and that is why they are being removed as the heading states. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved, it is official now. [7] --Angelo 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

History of A. S. Roma

There is too much duplication between this article and the history article. This article should only have a brief overview. Clerks. 18:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

Here is the review

  • Founded by a merger in 1927, Roma have partipicated at the top-tier of Italian football for all of their existence apart from one season - This doesn't need to be referenced here as it referenced and mentioned later in the article, participated not partipicated
  • Use en dash for scorelines and year ranges
  • The history section is too similar to the history article it needs to be a brief article and remove the sub headings
  • No section on the stadium
  • There are a lot of POV phrases such as "Roman club came agonisingly close to their first title in 1935–36;" - no need for agonisingly as it over emphasises
  • The old Roma crest does not have sufficient fair use rationale
  • I would advise you to have someone copyedit the article whose first language is english, as there are some grammar issues
  • I would also advise you to look at other football club articles that are FA to get an idea of what is required.

I'll fail it for now, fix these issues and then re nominate the article NapHit 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, however.... it is standard for many good articles to have headings for different eras of the history section, see; Manchester United. The old logo has full rationale and even a tag to restrict its use, compare it to similar logos in passed GA's and it has more rationale.
BTW this is just to get it to GA, not FA. - Soprani 22:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I would instead suggest a peer review before submitting this again for GA status, as a first step in order to improve the article for a future GA nominee and possible FA candidacy. The WikiProject Football realised a Manual of Style for clubs which still works; this features also a stadium section (this is a really serious deficiency, and IMHO the most notable one in the current article). --Angelo 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More links

I would like to see some more links beside the official site. I tried to find some decent sites but it looks like there is no one in english. --Divine time 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Supporters photo

The supporters photo is a great addition to the section on "Supporters and rivalries", which is what it is all about. It was framed appropriately so that the section retains a professional look, and so I think it is important to the quality of the article and its relevance is unquestioned. Monsieurdl 11:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How was it a great addition? Its a picture of a couple of guys standing on a train, it in no way improves the quality of the article as it could be anyone. If it was a picture of a large section of the fans in the stadium with a display then it would improve the quality of the article. The photo makes the article look unprofessional and unlike any other football article. - Soprani 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and only yours, and that is not a consensus as per Wikipedia standards. WP:CCC clearly states that a consensus is necessary. I'm bringing in third parties to mediate this.

RFC: Supporters Photo

Fixed RFCxxx template, created section heading and matched template section param to section heading. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found and uploaded a far better free one, its from a match-day with bright colours of Roma flags at this location. Do you have any proof that your two guys on a train is Roma tifosi? The only colour I can see it purple (not Roma's colour). - Soprani 19:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The new picture is a fair inclusion to me. For the rest, I agree with Soprani when he says the previous picture was not a good fit within the supporters section (not a significative photo to me). --Angelo 19:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That's all I wanted was a dialogue and not just some edit war- it was the very idea that an image could be removed without any discussion. I thought the article lacked a personal touch, and now it has some. I'm glad this could be resolved amicably. Monsieurdl 19:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it this article still protected?

  • User:Differentgravy has added this image which has a fake licensing and no source.
  • User:Italian boy has for some reasons totally unknown decided to take out this perfectly fine picture of Puzzo took during the season that Roma won the scudetto in the 80s, instead replacing it without a rubbishly shapped one from a not notable season in their history.

Will somebody undo this or atleast unprotect this article? - OnAndOnIt 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I did because looking at the picture Image:RobertoPruzzo1982-83.jpg one could think that Pruzzo is the guy with the red shirt, because he stays on the background, while the photo I put shows Pruzzo better, even if it hasn't been taken in 1983, he wears Roma's colours and not the white shirt. --Gaúcho 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
OnAndOnIt is a sockpuppet of blocked user Soprani, suspected to be an alternative account of banned user Daddy Kindsoul. I just deleted the Supercoppa image, clearly a copyvio of [8]. I agree with Gaucho about Pruzzo's picture choice. In the end, the article was semiprotected (not by me) solely to prevent interventions by socks of Soprani, and I agree with this choice. by me some time ago due to continuous IP disruption, but I won't unblock it until the Soprani sock issue is finally solved. --Angelo 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
RollItOver is another sockpuppet of blocked user Soprani, suspected to be an alternative account of banned user Daddy Kindsoul. Thanks for removing the last message- I am happy to return to editing A.S. Roma now that I know collaboration is possible. Cheers! Monsieurdl 19:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Italian AS Roma article

It's an FA protected article, with almost no POV; very detailed, accurate and organized with optimal use of images and tables. This article is clearly far from the FA status so I was wondering if we could simply use the italian version and adjusted in English Udonknome (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Record

With victory Italy Cup in 2007-08, As Roma have Record for victory (9) in this competition. It' s important write it. (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Into the new millenium

Please can someone edit the link at the end of this section to correctly link to the Champions League, rather than the disambiguation page? Thanks in advance 82.5.72.161 (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Current squad

An anon user has changed the current squad to make it look like this. However, it was then reverted allegedly because it is supposed to look like this. Frankly the "anon table" may be more visually appealing, however it also may have to "much detail". What do you guys think? Do U(knome)? yes...or no 05:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also left a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs#Different "club squad" version. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Superleague Formula templates

I've started a discussion about the use of the Superleague Formula templates on football club articles at Template talk:Superleague Formula following some discussion at Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.. Since this article features the template, your views would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


New photos available

Hi friends, we have uploaded some new AS Roma photos in commons here's the links: 

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rosella_sensi.JPG
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:As_Roma_esultanza_joy_after_goal.JPG
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rudi_voeller_as_roma.JPG

use it if you want!

See you soon, Erpaolo9, italian user

P.S. We have made a re-edition of the page in italian wiki in oredr to reduce "POV" and our "proud" --89.97.189.164 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooliganism

I'm looking forward to a version of this section being added to all of the british club pages, should be interesting and long. I've added appropriate tags to the section to indicate the biased(british pov) and misleading nature of the section. 86.45.117.25 (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, wikipedia isn't a forum to play X up or Y down, it is actually (or, should be) one giant article of truth and fact. with that in mind, it's important that wikipedia displays public knowledge both relevant to the subject and the time-frame in which it is placed. To the best of my knowledge, there is no problem at the moment with knife-attacks at English football grounds, but there is at Rome. This doesn't mean that there has never been any holliganism at any other ground in the world apart from at the ground of Roma, nor does it suggest that there have ever been knife-attacks at any ground other than Roma. If placing an articles describing something which is factually correct is described as biased, then i don't quite understand where the democracy is in Wikipedia any longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.151.242 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


It's very simple, if the emphasis was on "truth" and "fact" then there would be a few well written lines at the bottom of the supporters and rivalries section mentioning the incidents involving a minority of Roma Ultras and away supporters, particularly english fans. If you could find a source to back up the apparent hostility of some Roma fans towards english teams and supporters, EC final 84 - today etc. then go ahead but creating an entire section entitled "Hooliganism" is sensationalist, misleading and biased rubbish, nothing to do with an encyclopedia and laughable when clearly added by an english/british user. As I said, I look forward to the british versions of the section. Btw, you might want to check out some of wiki's basic guidelines on context and notability before you try to spout the rule book. Forza Roma! 86.45.97.49 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, regarding your first point, I agree that there could be a section regarding the minors but, as I siad in my last post, Wikipedia should reflect noteworthy events both in the news and in society in general. The hooliganism at AS Roma is well publicised, and the only reason that I inserted the section - and indeed it receives such attention - is because in today's football society (alias not the 80s) stabbings at football games are relatively rare, and so when it happens many times in relatively quick-succession at one football ground, particularly directed towards one nation of supporters, it rightly deserves some sort of attention and scrutinisation. I don't see what your issue is with this? There are sources for each of those incidents, as listed; do I have to provide an additional source for each one, or can their publication in The Times (an immensely reputable newspaper) not be trusted?

Sensationalist is defined as the act of using 'exaggerated or lurid material in order to gain attention', so I don't think I can really be considered such; the materials isn't exaggerated, it's correct. Nor is it lurid (fierce or savage) - it is FACTUAL. i have put in the attention so that it gains attention, not me, Christ you don't even know whether I'm male or female, 12 years old or 80 years old, so for those reasons I think you calling my material sensationalist is simply not true.

In what way is the material misleading? Does it state anything which is incorrect? Is there another side to the stabbings? Are there justifications for why football fans were stabbed in Rome? Is there another view-point? If there is, please I implore you to write it in, then there will be more neutrality to the argument; I am simply presuming at the moment that the reason you havn't done so, is because there is no other side to people being stabbed. They came to watch football and they want home with knife-wounds. Fact.

for the above reasons, I also fail to see how any of the written text is biased? The information given is correct, and actually has EVERYTHING to do with an encyclopaedia; an encyclopaedia is based on fact, just as this is.

Had I typed 'Rome fans are thugs', I would understand your frustration - it is irrational, sensationalist, misleading, biased, and simply not true' Similarly, had I typed, 'some Roma fans are thugs, there would be grounds for arguments. Some Roma fans have attacked people with knives and therefore, in my view, that makes them thugs. This is why what I typed is only truth and fact - THERE IS NO OPINION AND THEREFORE IT CAN NOT BE BIASED. To me, it seems as though the information I typed is simply an inconvenient truth for you, as you know it is true and know there is no rational reply.

On a seperate note, I visited Rome and Florence in October and thought both cities to be beautiful, if I did consider Rome to be rather large for my liking. My entry within the AS Roma page attacks neither you, nor your country, nor your beliefs or culture, it simply attacks a group of AS Roma fans who engage in acts of Hooliganism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.151.242 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, I must let you all inform every single piece of content that is verifiable from reliable source is potentially fit for an article. This applies, of course, also for potentially controversial issues such as football hooliganism, AS Roma-related in this case. The fact they are a fringe group is completely irrelevant, all hooligans groups represent a minority part of football fans, especially with clubs with thousand or even million fans, such as in AS Roma's case. There is a number of actions from AS Roma hooligan supporters, this is a fact - from Vincenzo Paparelli's killing in the 1980s (one of the earliest examples of football violence in Italy) to the more recent controversies related to a Rome derby being suspended because of hooligan actions, and the UEFA Champions League encounters with Manchester United of one year ago, everything being widely documented by media and newspapers. These are all facts which are notable because of having been covered with reliable sources, so they are notable to stay in the main article. --Angelo (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
A partisan blog isn't a reliable source. And again, this isn't anything uniquely for just Roma fans. Focus shouldn't be on these matters. It's like it has been said, the English teams "hooliganism" sections would cover at least half of the article. The TriZ (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

if you think that the english tems require a 'hooliganism' section, please add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.151.242 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you tell me what to do, if you want to be taken serious, you can start by creating an account. I've no reason to create new "hooliganism" sections in the English team, but if there is one in this article it motivates to keep it in others, it will act as a precedent. The TriZ (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're so irrational it's ridiculous. On 11th September 2001, members of Al Qaeda flew hijacked aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York City. Afterwards, it was mentioned on the Al Qaeda Wikipedia page that they had done so, but noone wined and whinged that it was biased material, and that noone had mentioned all of the times the USA may have done something illegal; this is no different. Something happened worthy of being noted, so it has been. If you think it is worthy in English teams' articles, there is nothing to stop you putting it in. Stop being embarrassed about the truth and get over yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.151.242 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm being irrational and you just compared hooliganism to terrorism? I rest my case. The TriZ (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
your ignorance in this case is clearly defined by that statement. I was neither comparing hooliganism to terrorism, now was I discounting any comparison between the two; I was merely making a point. I'll use another analogy to make it clear.

In 2005 (I think..) Metropolitan police shot dead Jean Charles de Menezes in Stockwell Tube Station in London thinking him to be linked to a bomb attack. However, they shot the wrong man, and, as such, articles on this shooting are now available on Wikipedia. I am almost positive that the Met Police in London would rather this article not be posted as it shows them in a bad light. However, in the interest of democracy and free-speech, it is. This article is no different. It reports a large problem which should be put into the public domain for people who are not aware of it, and to bring publciity in light of those who are. 'In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' - George Orwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.151.242 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


I've transferred the derby material to its appropriate section in "Supporters and rivalries" and made sure it corresponded with the references provided which it didn't previously, I'm sure there was no malicious intent. I've replaced the ramshackle and poorly/provocatively named list with an appropriate section dedicated to the violent clashes with english fans which mentions all of the incidents in the list and contains appropriate citations.86.40.186.173 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


This should be updated to include mention of Roma's supporters with the assistance of Lazio supporters (bizarrely enough) attacking a number of Tottenham Hotspur supporters in a bar in Rome to attend the Europa League Spurs vs. Lazio match. Two of them (Roma supporters) have been sentenced to 4.5 and 5.5 years in prison for the attack that nearly killed one Spurs supporter and injured dozens more. There are numerous easily accessible legitimate news sources in numerous countries that have reported the convicted individuals to be Roma supporters.194.209.10.169 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

2009-10 squad

Please provide source for the release of Pietro Pipolo and Filipe Gomes, BEFORE remove from squad list. Matthew_hk tc 15:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Except Panucci, Cicinho, Juan, Aquilani, Pipolo, Motta, Filipe, Loria, De Rossi, Baptista, Doni were not call-up to training camp. Juan and Baptista were at Confederations Cup, Motta at U21 Euro final, the rest cannot be explained. Please do not remove them. Matthew_hk tc 03:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait until 24 July, the date which submit the squad to UEFA for the qualify round. Matthew_hk tc 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Added Jérémy Menez to squad list - however he is wearing number 94 against Juventus (30/8/09), and not 93 according to AS Roma website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.190.86 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Full Roster

This is the roster called up for the preseason as the official issue of AS Roma. All of this players should be put in the roster list (specifying which ones are from the youth team):

GUILHERME DE MORAIS GUSMAO ARTUR JULIO SERGIO BERTAGNOLI MARCO CASSETTI MAURO ESPOSITO STEFANO GUBERTI JEREMY MENEZ PHILIPPE MEXES SIMONE PERROTTA DAVID MARCELO CORTES PIZARRO RODRIGO FERRANTE TADDEI MAX TONETTO FRANCESCO TOTTI MIRKO VUCINIC AHMED BARUSSO ADRIAN PIT VITORINO GABRIEL PACHECO ANTUNES RICARDO FATY LEANDRO GRECO VALERIO FRASCA ALEX DANIEL PENA ALESSANDRO MALOMO ADRIAN STOIAN MARCO D'ALESSANDRO ANDREA BERTOLACCI (3 LUGLIO) MATTEO BRIGHI (5 LUGLIO) ALESSIO CERCI (6 LUGLIO) ALESSANDRO CRESCENZI (6 LUGLIO) JOHN ARNE RIISE (6 LUGLIO) STEFANO OKAKA CHUKA (9 LUGLIO) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.156.19 (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Previous Seasons: All someone has to do to write an article on seasons 05-06 and further back for Roma is research the Lega Calcio website. There should be more information on previous seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TottiRoma09-10 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is full of SS Lazio fans. The Inter-Cities fairs Cup is a "Minor Title" only for AS Roma....See the Arsenal or the Barcelona pages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.15.88 (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Tana pe i Laziali...

The Inter-cities Fairs Cup is a "minor title" only for AS Roma?? See Arsenal or FC Barcelona pages... SS Lazio Fans Rednecks of Europe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.15.88 (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is a MINOR title because it's not considered as official by UEFA! Dalvans (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The FIFA site consieders Inter-city Fairs Cup an official trophy( http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=31083/index.html ); as for AS Roma as for Barcelona or Arsenal. If you want to consider the Fairs Cup a "minor trophy" you must modify Barcelona, Arsenal and Valencia cf pages. Please note that "unofficial" is not synonymous with "minor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.12.79 (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

12 Italy FW Mattia Destro (on loan from Genoa) 42 Italy DF Federico Balzaretti 23 Paraguay DF Ivan Piris (on loan from Deportivo Maldonado) 68.89.90.14 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Also, provide reliable sources for the change. RudolfRed (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

AS Roma new stadium

Hi everyone. AS Roma description needs to be updated with late December 2012 announcement made by the club about plans for the new stadium in Rome [1] GDU79 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.asroma.it/pdf/roma_stadium_release_v2_12_30.pdf

Edit request on 13 March 2013

AS Roma description needs to be updated with late December 2012 announcement made by the club about plans for the new stadium in Rome [1] Would like to discuss together how to change outdated information.

Possible modified text in AS Roma overview.

“In September 2009 the club, then owned by the Sensi family, unveiled plans to build a new stadium in the western suburbs of Rome. Its design was modeled after English football stadiums with the objective being to give fans a closer view to the pitch. On December 30th 2012, the 24th president of AS Roma, James Pallotta, announced in Orlando a first agreement with Italian developer Parsitalia to build a 55,000 seats stadium in Tor Di Valle, a southwestern borough of Rome. AS Roma and Parsitalia are expected to unveil the new stadium project in 2013”.


GDU79 (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have closed the {{edit semi-protected}} tag. I do not necessarily object to your request, but that tag is only to be used if a consensus is already reached, not as a means of establishing consensus. If no one is responding to your comments on this talk page I suggest asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Italy task force. I hope that helps. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013

Please update team badge using the proper one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AS_Roma_logo.svg as for http://www.asroma.it/en/news/_as_roma_unveils_updated_brand_identity/ Rixxardo (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I object to this change not because it is warranted under the club's new "brand identity" (corporate patter for "logo") but because on Commons you claimed to be the copyright holder and that the image is freely available, which it is not. If you upload it to Wikipedia (in any language) and include a valid fair use rationale for this copyrighted image, I would not object to adding it to this article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, I have edited personally the logo, however it is an official logo. Could you modify the licensing options accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rixxardo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't change the licensing on Commons because Commons can't host fair use media. You would need to upload it to Wikipedia (separate process) and you probably could just copy and paste the fair use rationale from the existing image, with minor updates where necessary. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Bear with me, it's been some time since I've uploaded images. Go to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, then select the image from your computer, fill in the necessary info, and select the "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" radio button. Like I said earlier, you probably could just copy and paste a lot of the requested info from the existing image at File:AS Roma logo.svg. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have created a new version with copyright info here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AS_Roma_Logo_2013.svg. I hope it is fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rixxardo (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Italian AS Roma's page

In Italian Wikipedia the voice is a "Voce di qualità", should you insere this template {{Link GA|it}}?--79.43.135.240 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in A.S. Roma

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of A.S. Roma's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Roma":

  • From Rudi Garcia: "06/12/2013: RUDI GARCIA". asroma.it. Rome: A.S. Roma. 12 June 2013. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
  • From Football records in Italy: Recognized by FIFA as a major trophy

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

More than football?

This article belongs to the category "Category:Multi-sport clubs in Italy", but I can't information about any other sport than football (though I haven't read the whole article thoroughly). What other sports is A.S. Roma compeeting in? Bandy boy (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on A.S. Roma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on A.S. Roma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016


24.240.24.43 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the change you want to be made? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on A.S. Roma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AS_Roma/Archive_1&oldid=1160188541"