Talk:US Ancona 1905

Merger proposal

Like other cases in Italian football, the two clubs are basically the same. U.S. Ancona 1905 is the legitimate and recognized heir of A.C. Ancona. S.S. Piano San Lazzaro's history can be included in the A.C. Ancona article. CapPixel (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No, in this case it is not possible. U.S: Ancona is not the legitimate heir of A.C. Ancona: it has not yet acquired its sports title.--93.56.241.198 (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, as long as the two teams do not merge, should remain two separate pages.--93.56.242.27 (talk) 05:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We all know that this is going to happen in short time. CapPixel (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Perfect join the pages only when there is, and not before. We can not precede the future. That there will soon be is only a hypothesis.--93.56.240.153 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not an hypothesis. Theese type of things in Italian football happens every year. See F.C. Pro Vercelli 1892 or U.S. Sanremese Calcio 1904, for example. PS: Maybe it's better if you log-in. CapPixel (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok but why talk about it now that has not yet been any merger and there is no news about it? Reopen the discussion when this will be happened! --93.56.241.122 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Piano San Lazzaro's history do not justify an article. It is sufficient a paragraph on A.C. Ancona's one. CapPixel (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Piano San Lazzaro? The title of the page is U.C. Ancona 1905. U.C. Ancona 1905 and A.C. Ancona are 2 different companies and then the pages can not join, as long as there will not be the merger or acquisition of sports title, as happened with other teams. Please, avoid unnecessary confusion --93.56.240.220 (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That an entity joins, or is absorbed by, another entity does not erase the history they had as its own entity. Keep the existing article. 70.20.196.162 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Piano San Lazzaro is the old name of U.S. Ancona 1905 and that's a club that spent all its existence in the regional leagues of Italian football. With all due respect to them, they do not have the historical meaning to justify an article of their own. They're just an aspirant heir for A.C. Ancona, that's it. Or are we going to have articles for teams like Real Vicenza Villaggio del Sole? Or for the new club S.S. Cava de' Tirreni that was born to inherit S.S. Cavese 1919 history? C'mon, let's be bold. CapPixel (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Us Ancona is a team of Series D and may therefore have this page.

This is a different case than that of the other teams mentioned: the sports title of Ancona has not been sold and the team is entered the league simply that belonged, without any help.

The other teams mentioned have been allowed in excess to another championship, thanks to the league of the old society. (art. 52 NOIF)

Is clear that here there is no this continuity.--93.56.241.121 (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly confirmed by the site of A.c. Ancona, where we see that the mayor of Ancona did not intervene to give it a continuity and that A.c. Ancona (still active as it has not been liquidated) and U.S. Ancona are two different companies. --93.56.241.121 (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand every phrase you've written there (please, do not use google translator), but that's not the first case where a "heir" club is created (or renamed) before the old one was dissolved: see Lucchese and Pro Vercelli, or more recently Salernitana and Cavese. And we do not have a separate article for the new Lucchese or the new Pro Vercelli, we never had: we just have one article for Lucchese and one article for Pro Vercelli (we also have an article for P.B. Vercelli, but that's because the club took part to a Seconda Divisione season). This article is simply a useless waste of bytes. And I do not see anything on the A.C. Ancona homepage about the mayor, just a list of facts about the ongoing liquidation of the club. CapPixel (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that this is a different case than those of other teams mentioned, where the mayors have helped create a new company in continuity with the old; here instead the mayor of Ancona has categorically refused to accredit a team of the city in Serie D 2010-11, in continuity of AC Ancona.

Please carefully read almost at the end of the article in the site of A.c. Ancona:

"...

Comune di Ancona...

Fatto B – Comunicazioni e dichiarazioni del sindaco Prof. Fiorello Gramillano

A titolo meramente esemplificativo:

a) In data 10 agosto 2010 la società riceve una lettera dalla Lega che, inter alia, recita “.....nel caso di specie, il Sindaco di Ancona, con lettera del 6 agosto2010 ha comunicato di non accreditare alcuna squadra, rappresentativa di Ancona, al campionato di Serie D e che la stessa città si riconosce in altra [rispetto a AC Ancona] squadra di calcio, oggi militante nel Campionato di Eccellenza”.

b) In data 30 marzo 2011 il Corriere Adriatico riporta a pagina 21 un’intervista al Sindaco Prof. Fiorello Gramillano, il quale inter alia, dichiara “(Ripescaggio)….quando si presenterà l’occasione daremo il nostro sostegno a Marinelli. Ci piacerebbe intervenire in ottica ripescaggio, che va perseguito in tutti i modi e con tutte le risorse possibili……………..(Marchio) ha un valore limitato e simbolico. Per salire di categoria non conta la storia, ma l’aspetto economico. Appena la vicenda tornerà di attualità, cercherò di agire nei confronti della vecchia Ancona perché non speculi su un bene come il marchio che appartiene ai tifosi.”

Domande...

2) Signor Sindaco, quando Lei ha scritto agli organismo federali di non appoggiare la candidatura della vecchia Ancona (in realtà, ancora ad oggi ne vecchia ne nuova, semplicemente A.C. Ancona), aveva minimanete in mente l’entità degli investimenti fino alla data sostenuti da A.C.Ancona e quindi quanti oneri stava prospetticamente trasferendo sulla proprietà della “nuova ancona”?

3) Signor Sindaco, e’ consapevole del fatto che la valorizzazione del marchio non e’ una speculazione ma una tutela patrimoniale che rientra tra gli obblighi del liquidatore?

..."

It is therefore quite clear that there is no continuity between the 2 companies and that as long U.S. Ancona does not buy the brand of the AC Ancona can not join the pages.--93.56.242.78 (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? It's written that the mayor will support the new U.S. Ancona 1905. That's it. This is a useless article. I'll change my mind and ask for quick deletion of this. CapPixel (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

As documented in the discussion, U.S. Ancona 1905 and A.C. Ancona are two different companies not in continuity. In fact, from the page of A.C. Ancona results that is in liquidation, while the U.S. Ancona 1905 will participate at next Serie D.

In addition, no consensus was reached to cancel.

Please, restore the page.--93.56.240.183 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you're a U.S. Ancona fan, but that's _not_ the way Wikipedia works: this is an unnecessary, superfluous article and not encyclopedic. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Five_pillars . And, by the way, there was no votation at all about deletion, you just restored the article yourself. CapPixel (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be merged to A.C. Ancona as a section or somewhere else. AC Rimmi and Rimmi Calcio FC were two company but in term of succession both they represent Rimmi. If US Ancona claimed it IS NOT a successor of AC Ancona, just wait until it promoted to Serie C2 and cite source. Matthew_hk tc 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. CapPixel (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC) PS: It's Rimini. ;)

OK little kid, I'll wait the start of the school so you're not going to have time to play. Anyway, this is the google translation of what Matthew hk wrote: [1]. As you can read (maybe) the only one to not agree to the merge is you. CapPixel (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC) PS: oh, since you're keen on menaces, I'll ask for your IP to be tagged as vandal.

From from your translation: "...Se Stati Uniti Ancona sostenuto che non è un successore di AC Ancona, solo aspettare fino a quando non promosso in Serie C2..." It seems to me that Matthew says to wait the promotion to C2. However to have consensus not just one person, in any case (talk) is against the merger.

If you open a discussion suddenly you can not get to make changes, without having the consent. You have been asked to wait until it happens only the acquisition of the brand, that you yourself expect short.

Also to make the merger should be totally rewritten the article of AC Ancona to the present and more integrated.

I have not threatened anyone, I gave you just a friendly advice. I am always willing to engage in constructive dialogue with you: simply only not make changes not agreed.--93.56.240.127 (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there's nothing to discuss... you're editing in the wrong way! CapPixel (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion about the merger proposal

After extensive discussion for absence of consent immediately to the merger with AC Ancona, please very much to wait that the club acquires the brand of AC Ancona.

Any violation not agreed will be deleted and signaled. Thanks. --93.56.242.32 (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You should learn to read English. Use google translator if you can't. The "extensive discussion" was between you and yourself. CapPixel (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger from A.C. Ancona

Like any other articles about football teams in Italy, we don't have separate pages for the original club and their (even proposed) heir. This club clearly changed their name to continue A.C. Ancona history and it have only sense merged with the "original" club. CapPixel (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user/IP (log-in, for the sake of s***!), this is what I wrote to you about your inquiry of clarification. Please read and understand. If you can't understand (and reading your "English", I bet you can't) please ask to clarify or use your dear google translator. CapPixel (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Insist on this merger is perfectly useless, seen that there is no consensus. As we have already seen lacks the continuity between the 2 teams.

Is so difficult to wait that there is the acquisition of the brand? Only then there will be the continuity!

If you do not like this page does not look more!--93.56.241.14 (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, write in Italian, you can't write in English, I can't really understand what you've written in the last phrase: maybe "if you do not like this page, please do not look at it anymore"? It is so difficult for you to understand that U.S. Ancona lacks the importance to have a saperate article??? S***, we are the majority asking to merge the two articles, here, two against one!!! Use google translator if you can't read English, but stop messing with and destroying wikipedia, I don't have time to chase you in order to correct what you've written or to tag articles with the rewrite template, but I can't see little kids messing around out of the Sandbox: go and play there! CapPixel (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why in a month the consent for the merger has not revealed? Hope you it now emerges?

The discussion was going reopened only for new facts that there are no. However by kind permission, we can take a week, if you calm down and no more insults those who think like you.

As has been repeatedly explained to you this is a special case respect to others, there being no continuity between former and new team. You know english well but not the federal regulations of FIGC. The article 52 of NOIF of FIGC, expressly provides that the mayor of the city must submit to FIGC a new team, to arise in continuity with the old. As extensively documented that did not happen: US Ancona there was already as SS Piano S. Lazzaro in Eccellenza.

Now the only possibility for the merger is the acquisition of the brand of AC Ancona.

Did you clear now the complex situation?

Rest assured you can not do now the merger, but is only postponed.--93.56.242.45 (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not care what the FIGC rules say. We're talking about wikipedia rules. This two articles do not have to mean to exist. And I re-opened the merging request a couple of days ago, not a month ago, and I had consent, but you still have to read correct English, and do not understand. CapPixel (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The first discussion was opened over a month ago and you have never reached consensus. How can you say that Wikipedia does not respect the rules of the FIGC?

How are you going to wait until you arrive in this discussion, this mysterious and very dubious consent?--93.56.240.169 (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't understand that I was the one to close the first merging proposal and substitute it was a deletion proposal? Anyway, I didn't know that wikipedia was owned by FIGC. I thought it a was self-founding foundation that run this free internet encyclopedia... or maybe do you think that FIGC is a overnational organization that rules the world? Please, stay in the sandbox. Consent? Sure, I have it: 3 people are chatting here. You (aka Mr. freaking dynamic ip), me and Matthew hk... and, you know, me and Matthew are pro-merging. CapPixel (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're climbing on the mirrors: it is normal that Wikipedia must comply with rules FIGC, the position of Matthew hk is neutral, as it is in agreement only under certain conditions.

Since you want to make a substantial change must receive a large majority in both percentage than a numeric. Please set a deadline for this discussion that lasted too long without producing any result. You can not prolong it indefinitely hoping that reaches you consent, that absolutely do not have.--93.56.242.115 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to write in Italian, because I'm fed up with your rantings. Questa è la traduzione di quanto scritto da Matthew hk: "i due articoli andrebbero uniti. Se e quando l'U.S. Ancona arrivasse in Lega Pro Seconda Divisione dichiarando di non essere l'erede dell'A.C. Ancona, allora bisognerebbe creare un articolo separato mettendo una nota." Io non mi arrampico sugli specchi, sto cercando di fare in modo che gli articoli di wikipedia siano fatti come dio comanda, ma se ci sei tu che non sei capace di scrivere in inglese, come si fa? Inoltre, portami un regolamento di wikipedia in cui c'è scritto che debba seguire regolamenti FIGC, vai: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Wikipedia non è un organo ufficiale della FIGC, come non lo è, che sò, la Gazzetta dello Sport, quindi non ha proprio nessun obbligo di seguire quanto dice la FIGC, che comunque dubito fortemente si sia pronunciata in merito a degli articoli di wiki. Quello che si arrampica sugli specchi, sei tu. CapPixel (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ma potevi dirlo subito che sei italiano! Grazie per le mie farneticazioni!

In ogni caso, Matthew hk non dà un si pieno e convinto all'unione, perchè se quest'anno come probabile, avendo fior di calciatori, viene promossa tra un anno la separiamo di nuovo? Comunque per la fusione devi raccogliere in questa pagina, un ampio consenso sia in quantità che in percentuale, ampiamente documentato e motivato! Mi sembra che Matthew hk o meno, non l'abbia ottenuto, quanto vuoi aspettare ancora? Inoltre, durante la prima discussione, senza che hai raccolto il consenso richiesto, hai fatto la fusione, ma allora non chiederlo se vuoi fare come vuoi!

Come ripetutamente documentato, quando una squadra non si iscrive al campionato, grazie all'Art. 52 NOIF della FIGC si realizza la continuità sportiva, potendo così continuare la storia della nuova squadra nella pagina già esistente, se e solo se il sindaco della città con una lettera alla FIGC, approva il progetto di questa nuova società che riparte non dalla Terza Categoria (come sarebbe senza continuità), ma da una o due categorie inferiori a quella in cui avrebbe dovuto partecipare la precedente squadra. Nei casi precedenti il sindaco stesso è stato parte attiva nel creare la nuova società, essendo in certi casi addirittura il presidente iniziale; qui invece il sindaco di Ancona non l'ha fatto. In quel caso la squadra sarebbe ripartita dalla D e non dall'Eccellenza, che è il campionato a cui doveva partecipare il Piano S.Lazzaro, che ha semplicemente cambiato nome. E' del tutto evidente che non c'è continuità sportiva e resta un caso eccezionale, rispetto alla procedura che si segue normalmente.

Come vedi nella pagina è stato messo il marchio della squadra che è diverso da quello dell'AC Ancona, quindi per aver questa unione c'è solo da aspettare che l'US Ancona l'acquisisca dal liquidatore.

Ti chiediamo quindi cortesemente, di non insistere e di aspettare questa acquisizione del marchio, che si prevede a breve, per procedere all'unione delle pagine.

Certi, che compresa la situazione chiuderai questa discussione per riaprirla, all'acquisizione del marchio, ti salutiamo cordialmente e siamo pronti a collaborare con te, senza rancore, per le divergenze passate.--93.56.242.14 (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ma il plurale maiestatis a che ti serve? Ti scrivevo in inglese perchè come regolamento si deve utilizzare la lingua principale della wiki in cui si scrive. Infatti si rischia dei richiami dai moderatori, ma tu hai solo una conoscenza molto di base, quindi per farti capire le cose, mi tocca rischiare anche questo.

Comunque, so benissimo quali sono le regole FIGC, ma non è questo il punto: l'U.S. Ancona 1905 non ha nessuna rilevanza enciclopedica! WIkipedia è un'enciclopedia, non un'organo di informazione della FIGC. Una squadretta di quartiere che ha cambiato nome per cercare di diventare la nuova squadra della città non merita un intero articolo. Ci sono una marea di articoletti inutili su squadre di Serie D che sono stati creati (anche da me) in un periodo in cui il progetto football di wikipedia sembrava impazzito. Adesso, infatti, buona parti di questi articoli sta scomparendo, per un articolo sul Todi o sul Montecchio Maggiore, non ha importanza ai fini enciclopedici. L'articolo sull'U.S. Ancona è compreso tra questi. Sui link che hai portato in precedenza viene scritto che il sindaco supporta la nuova squadra, ma non le permetterà di acquisire il titolo fino alla promozione in C2 perchè non vuole squadre dilettantistiche: il supporto c'è, quindi condensare le 3/4 righe nell'altro articolo è legittimo. Inoltre ho immediatamente fatto la fusione perchè qui c'è la pratica del be bold: se sai che è giusto editare, su wikipedia ti incitano a prendere l'iniziativa. Ma poi sei arrivato tu, quindi mi è toccato tirare in ballo i moderatori. Lascerò la richiesta fino al tempo previsto dai regolamenti. Comunque qui si applica il 50%+1... CapPixel (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Prima di tutto siamo un gruppo.

Ringraziamo poi Mrmatiko e DGG che hanno annullato i tuoi tentativi di eliminazione di molte squadre di Serie D: è stato quindi confermato che una squadra di Serie D è enciclopedica, ed lo è quindi anche l'Us Ancona. Per il Todi il problema è che mancano le note. Ma se non ti piacciono le squadre dilettantistiche, perchè non ti occupi solo delle professionistiche?

L'art. 52 NOIF è molto preciso: per esserci continuità sportiva il sindaco deve approvare immediatamente il progetto della nuova società, che beneficia dell'iscrizione in una categoria inferiore solo di uno o due livelli rispetto a quella della vecchia squadra. Qui, ti confermiamo per l'ennesima volta, che non è avvenuto e che si deve aspettare l'acquisizione del marchio.

Non ci dirai che hai il consenso? Il consenso non è una somma matematica, di cui comunque non hai la maggioranza, ma spetta a chi documenta e motiva meglio le proprie proposte. Quindi spetta a noi, vista la documentazione prodotta e i regolamenti FIGC.

Quanto è previsto che deve rimanere aperta questa discussione?

Speriamo che a questo punto, ti sia convinto di procedere all'unione solo quando ci sarà l'acquisizione del marchio? Ti costa così tanto aspettare? La nostra è una proposta molto ragionevole, quindi visti anche le valutazioni di Mrmatiko e DGG non respingerla subito, ma aspetta almeno 24 ore prima di rispondere.--93.56.243.36 (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ehhh... purtroppo di ragazzini che hanno voglia di giocare è pieno il mondo. DGG ha tolto il tag senza essere sicuro che fosse la cosa giusta, lo ammette anche nella discussione sul Todi. Non c'è problema, vado avanti: articoli di due righe che non indicano l'importanza enciclopedica non hanno motivo di esistere. E, ripeto, qui i regolamenti della FIGC non valgono una fava.

E la maggioranza non è una cosa numerica? Ma stai scherzando? Vuoi dirmi che 3 non è maggiore di 2? Cosa sei, del partito di berlusconi? CapPixel (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Anche se conti, ingiustamente Matthew hk, per i già citati motivi, come arrivi a tre? Ma non hai letto, che comunque il consenso spetta a chi documenta e motiva meglio le proprie proposte. Quindi spetta a noi, vista la documentazione prodotta e i regolamenti FIGC. Ma se non contano i regolamenti FIGC allora non consideriamo le penalizzazioni del calcio scomesse, nè calciopoli, nè i risultati modificati a tavolino. Siamo all'assurdo. La FIGC è da considerarsi la fonte primaria del calcio italiano per Wikipedia, altrimenti ci sarebbe l'anarchia e ognuno farebbe come vorebbe: bisogna basarsi su regolamenti certi.

Questa pagina non è di due righe come il Todi: quindi è pienamente enciclopedica.

Ma perchè non aggiungi notizie sul Todi, invece di volerlo cancellare?

Speriamo che a questo punto, ti sia convinto di procedere all'unione solo quando ci sarà l'acquisizione del marchio? Ti costa così tanto aspettare? --93.56.243.36 (talk) 09:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, back to English before moderators get angry.

• About 3... man, you're so dense: it was just an example!
• A penalization do count on the standings and it's a substantial and notable modification. U.S. Ancona, don't. However, the penalties were imposed by TNAS, not by FIGC.
• The fact that the mayor of Ancona does not recognize (but supports) U.S. Ancona as a heir of A.C. Ancona does nothing but diminish its notability and thus the need for a separate article on wikipedia.
• What's the difference with Atletico Nola and Nuvla San Felice? If you are coherent you should go there and create two distinct articles...

CapPixel (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Se non ci capiamo in italiano è impossibile farlo in inglese.

Se fai esempi non dire di avere consensi che non hai.

Evidentemente devi avere problemi con i regolamenti federali: l'art. 52 NOIF prevede per la continuità sportiva che il sindaco approvi subito il progetto della nuova squadra, non di supporto o sostegno alla stessa. Qui il sindaco non ha firmato la lettera alla FIGC quindi non c'è continuità sportiva.

Invece c'è nel Nola grazie proprio all'OK immediato del sindaco.

Hai capito quindi che per stabilire se c'è continuità sportiva o no bisogna vedere se il sindaco ha dato l'OK?

Il Tnas è come la FIGC un organo del Coni.

Quindi ora cosa vuoi fare? Continuiamo sto dialogo tra sordi? O arriviamo ad un compromesso? Il nostro lo conosci, se ne hai un altro proponilo e troviamo un accordo. --93.56.240.111 (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not care what FIGC, your parents or the pope say... we're talking about the notability of a squad, and U.S. Ancona do not have any notability! And I do understand what you write, it's you that can't understand or write English. Oh, and do you mean that U.S. Ancona do not have the mayor's ok to play in Ancona? Really? See this article, then. Atletico Nola and Nuvla San Felice are completely separate teams with different histories. Go and edit, if you can (but it seems that you and "your group" can't). CapPixel (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: by the way, leaving everything as it wrongly is, it's not a compromise. CapPixel (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ti ringraziamo per il magnifico articolo che ci hai fornito, che conferma pienamente quello che sosteniamo, con la frase: "La nuova compagine - che militerà nell’Eccellenza - si chiamerà Us Ancona 1905. "Nome sul quale - ha reso noto il sindaco - abbiamo già informato la Federazione, che già ci darà qualche indicazione in giornata; auspico - ha aggiunto - che ci sia autorizzato il cambio affinchè dall’inizio del campionato possa essere utilizzato anche sulle maglie". Su di esse comparirà anche il logo della città di Ancona, sulla manica quello del Piano San Lazzaro."

Infatti, è confermato che non c'è continuità tra l'AC Ancona e l'Us Ancona, non avendo il sindaco seguito la procedura prevista dall'art. 52 NOIF, ma solo un semplice cambio di nome dal Piano S. Lazzaro, il cui logo compare ancora oggi sulle manica, che deve essere autorizzato dalla Federazione (è la FIGC che per te non conta nulla). La continuità ci sarà quando verrà acquisito il logo dell'AC Ancona, che comparirà così sulle maglie al posto di quello della città.

Il compromesso consiste nel considerare queta situazione provvisoria ed ad essere d'accordo, già da adesso, nell'unire le pagine non appena ci sarà l'acquisizione del marchio, che si prevvede a breve.

Visto che vuoi eliminare metà delle squadre di Serie D (ma quale sarebbe il criterio?), non è che se separiamo At. Nola e Nuvla, la elimini perchè quest'ultima non è enciclopedica? Ma perchè hai creato la S.S. Todi e dopo un anno la vuoi cancellare? Ah, i suoi colori sono bianco-rosso, non rosso-blu.--93.56.241.209 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, your criteria for not merging was that the mayor didn't support U.S. Ancona... it seems you're wrong. The mayor and Piano San Lazzaro informed the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio of the change... it seems to me a clear support. For the merger there're some burocratic problems because A.C. Ancona is in liquidation and that's it. The 2 articles must be merged. CapPixel (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sei un genio in inglese, ma qui si tratta di normative federali molto precise, che ti abbiamo ripetutamente spiegato, il problema nasce nel non voler considerare come fonte valida la FIGC.

Qui non si tratta di sostegno del sindaco alla nuova squadra, ma dell'art. 52 NOIF che prevede espressamente che egli deve approvare il progetto sportivo della nuova società (qui non è nuova) che nasce ex novo e beneficia di ripartire non dalla Terza Categoria, ma da due categorie inferiori alla vecchia squadra: qui sarebbe stato la Serie D e non come successo con l'Eccellenza (la categoria del Piano S.Lazzaro), come successo. Inoltre la nuova società avrebbe dovuto versare 300 mila euro alla FIGC e non è successo.

La continuità sportiva si paga e non viene data gratis: ora l'Us Ancona per averla deve comprare il marchio dell'Ac Ancona (infatti oggi, come visto usa ancora il vecchio logo e quello della città), nell'interesse di tutti, sia del liquidatore che della nuova società a farlo in tempi celeri.

Quindi non ripetiamo sempre le stesse cose, ci sono dei regolamenti da rispettare, perchè altrimenti qua ognuno farebbe quello che vuole. Si tratta solo d'aspettare l'acquisione del marchio e poi potrai procedere a questa grande unione. Un po' di pazienza! --93.56.240.226 (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a genius, simply I know English (and German and French, by the way) and you don't. Do FIGC rules something about wikipedia articles? Tell me. CapPixel (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Abbiamo trovato la soluzione, visto che non resisti più dalla voglia di unire le pagine, basta che acquisti il marchio dell'AC Ancona dal liquidatore Dr. Giorgio Paolo Raffaele Perrotti per poi donarlo all'Us Ancona. Appena hai i documenti uniremo le pagine. Hai visto come si risolvono facilmente i problemi! Peccato non averci pensato un mese e mezzo fa! Si sarebbe evitata questa inutile discussione.--93.56.242.214 (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, poor kid, do you feel offended? Want a candy? If FIGC rules tell something about wikipedia articles, I'm not going to say anything else about the merging. CapPixel (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia si deve basare su fonti certe ed attendibili, quindi cosa c'è di meglio della FIGC? Nulla! Tra l'altro andando contro il regolamenti della FIGC si rischierebbero denunce e richieste di risarcimenti danni, rispettandole invece siamo protetti. Vuoi correre te il rischio di pagare forti multe, pur di unire le pagine? Pensi che ne valga la pena?

Ti sei convinto ora? O per quanto vuoi andare avanti? --93.56.241.149 (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god! Do you really think that FIGC would sue wikipedia for an article about a meaningless Serie D club? U.S. Ancona's existence is notable only compared to A.C. Ancona. CapPixel (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ma non dalla FIGC naturalmente. La denuncia arriverebbe dall'AC Ancona per uso indebito del nome e del marchio, visto che il liquidatore lo deve vendere è evidente che non lo si può usare. Si tratta, infatti di due società diverse e diverso dagli altri casi non essendoci la continuità sportiva, che ti piaccia o no, l'assegna la FIGC dopo aver ricevuto 300 mila €. Tu sei disposto a correre il rischio?

Ti riconfermiamo per l'ennesima volta che la situazione attuale è provvisoria e le pagine verrano unite non appena verrà acquisito il marchio, che avverrà a breve, visto anche che la squadra è la favorita del girone alla promozione in Lega Pro.

Adesso è tutto chiaro?--93.56.242.94 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh my god! Do you really think that A.C. Ancona (a de facto non-existent club) would sue wikipedia for an article about a meaningless Serie D club? U.S. Ancona's existence is notable only compared to A.C. Ancona. CapPixel (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lo scopo de queste discussioni è di arrivare ad un compromesso che continui categoricamente a rifiutare, nonostante è da un oltre un mese e mezzo che cerchi il consenso senza ottenerlo. Quindi cosa vuoi fare? Non siamo disposti ad andare oltre con questa inutile ed improduttiva discussionea a sabato 3/9 quando l'US Ancona debutterà in campionato alle h.15 con diretta su RaiSport 1.

L'US Ancona è enciclopedica perchè ha vinto la Coppa Italia Dilettanti, trofeo nazionale che dà la promozione diretta in Serie D. L'AC Ancona esiste ancora fino a quando il liquidatore non avra terminato il suo compito, il suo scopo è proprio quello di incassare il massimo e quindi potrebbe proprio denunciare Wikipedia, sperando in una transazione. Ma cmq perchè correre rischi? Ne vale la pena?

Anche se tu non puoi seguire la vicenda da parte nostra ci impegniamo ad unire le pagine non appena ci sarà l'acquisizione del marchio. Quindi puoi stare tranquillo che uno di noi lo farà.

Visto che hai aperto tu questa discussione, ora puoi tranquillamente chiuderla. --93.56.241.189 (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You know you're ridiculous with this "organization" rant? Do you have a name, something like Little Crying Kiddies spa? If you're really sure that you'll have to merge the two articles soon, there's no meaning to keep this useless article. CapPixel (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sei molto simpatico, devi aver letto molti libri di fiabe conoscendo molti nomi di personaggi. Cosa possiamo se non hai ancora capito che siamo un gruppo? Nulla, il problema è tuo.

Devi avere dei problemi con le squadre di Serie D visto che ne vuoi eliminare parecchie, dopo che le hai create. Ma ti disturbano così tanto? Ma mancano i byte a Wikipedia e vuoi liberare spazi? Ma la cancellazione è automatica dopo una settimana dalla proposta o rimane visto che la stragrande maggioranza vuol tenere la Pol. Viribus Unitis? O si deve aprire una votazione per tenerla?

In un'enciclopedia non si possono inserire le informazioni prma che i fatti avvengono: quindi come si fa a cancellare oggi la pagina, se l'acqusione del marchio deve ancora avvenire? Non siamo su Wikifuture. L'unione si potrà fare solo dopo, non prima. Dovresti essere contento che c'è già il consenso per farla in quel momento.

Finora non hai presentato nessun compromesso: hai l'ultima possibilità di farlo prima che si chiuda la discussione. --93.56.240.85 (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not have compromises for you: you're the first not to want one: I'm not going to agree with you on a completely wrong matter. By the way... at least I can read and write: envious? CapPixel (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Chi è che è invidioso? E perchè?

Ma se si uniscono le pagine si può fare il copia ed incolla? Se sposti questa pag in AC Ancona come fai a ridenominarla US visto che c'è già questa?

Come vedi abbiamo rispettosamente aspettato 3 giorni per la tua risposta! A queto punto sei tu che ti assumi le tue responsabilità rifiutando il dialogo visto che lo scopo delle discussioni è proprio quello di giungere ad un compromesso! E' quindi del tutto inutile continuare questa discussione. Puoi quindi provvedere a cancellare gli avvisi e a scrivere la conclusione, visto che non hai raggiunto il consenso! In ogni caso, ti confermiamo la ns disponibilità ad unire le pagine appena ci sarà l'acquisizione del marchio, secondo le normative FIGC, ampiamente documentate. (Ricordati, che se qui non si rispettassero i regolamenti, ci sarebbe l'anarchia). Se cambi idea nei ns confronti batti un colpo! --93.56.243.2 (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure: Wikipedia rules: we're not on a FIGC site... can you understand it? I don't think so, I'll write it another in a way you can probably understand (ask you're imaginary friend that can read): questo no sito FIGC. CapPixel (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Carissimo, nei tuoi confronti abbiamo avuto la pazienza di Giobbe, alcuni di noi sono stati anche rimbrotatti, visto che altri l'avevano già fatto, per averti fin troppo dettagliattamente e ripetutamente spiegato i motivi per cui non si possono oggi unire le due pagine: quindi puoi tranquillamente rileggerteli qui sopra.

Ma se si uniscono le pagine si può fare il copia ed incolla? Se sposti questa pag in AC Ancona come fai a ridenominarla US visto che c'è già questa?

Oggi è palese che non hai raggiunto in 2 mesi il consenso, quindi visto anche che non hai proposte alternative da fare, la discussione è chiusa. Ci risentiamo dopo l'acquisizione del marchio per procedere, allora si, ma non prima, all'unione. Bye bye! --93.56.241.246 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really? Poor, poor little boy... did you cry? Give the link of this "rimbrotti", c'mon. CapPixel (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Clarification

A preexisting situation that you created. A couple of points:

• "playout" does NOT exist in English. It's a word created in Italy. In the english language its "relegation play-off".
• phrases like "Miglianico, in the season 2010-11, from Serie D group F relegated to Eccellenza Abruzzo, but August 5, 2011 it was later readmitted to Serie D to fill vacancies." are clearly cut and pasted from google translator, as they do not have an English structure. If you do not know how to write in correct English, you should only collaborate on the Italian wiki.
• U.S. Ancona 1905 does not deserve a separate article on wikipedia. It's a team created with the purpose of continuing the football history of AC Ancona and just a paragraph in the main article is sufficient. You believe to have consensus to maintain the articles as they are, but that's not it: Matthew hk (that you have taken as an excuse for your latest edits) asked to merge the info of U.S. Ancona in a paragraph in A.C. Ancona article and eventually create a separate article for U.S. Ancona if and only it reaches Serie C2 as a separate club from A.C. Ancona.

So, please, you're compromising the quality of the articles and you better stop. Thanks. CapPixel (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Another point: "retrocessions" does not exist, it's relegations. CapPixel (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

News! When you're citing a newssite or a website, you have tu use Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web respectively. CapPixel (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Total confusion between the contributions of different users. The contributions even if a group should be evaluated individually.

It is a clear revenge against those who are not in favor of the merger.

Possible warning for personal attacks. Please, you have to calm down--93.56.242.45 (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, I'm trying to explain you how wikipedia works, a thing you do not understand, it seems. Revenge? Please... and it's not "total confusion" (as you write it), it's you f***ing dynamic ip address. CapPixel (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The proposed merger is not approved

After two month of discussion for absence of consent immediately to the merger with AC Ancona, please very much to wait that the club acquires the brand of AC Ancona.

Despite that CapPixel, knew not to have the consent and had been gently warned has proceeded the same to the merger. It is vandalism? If he repeats it surely!

Any violation not agreed will be deleted and signaled. Thanks --93.56.240.112 (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Where's your consensus on not doing the move? Still, I have at least been backed by one person on this talk page. By the way, I asked the moderators to semi-protect the page in order for you not to edit it. CapPixel (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You asked your consent and you have not obtained: therefore respects the decision of the community of Wikipedia.

Your request for protection was rejected for the second time the page should be protected from you.

Do not blow stupid editing war or you will be reported and blocked, seen the other vandalism that you have done and we have discovered.

Please you wait the acquisition of the brand of AC Ancona as considered in this discussion. The patience is finite and therefore does not restore your absurd version also because your article begins with was but US Ancona plays now on Serie D. --93.56.241.96 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism that I did and you discovered? What? Examples. CapPixel (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edits this IP did. after reading all the talk page, it seems more right to leave it this way. Dormannu (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear CapPixel, but you think you're crafty to make sure toys?

You have created a new user "Dormannu" 6 minutes after your last edit and make a new user to participate in such a long and complex discussion? Moreover, this has redone your same changes: if he was really new would participate only in the discussion. How did he know what were the exact pages to change? You have betrayed editing the template and in making the changes before the intervention in this discussion!

You know that is blocked when is created a false identity? You already have 3 reasons to be blocked, if you calm down you do not do the reporting! Remember that we are willing to cooperate, but you prefer to be clever.

So stop it here with these changes and respect the outcome of the debate. --93.56.240.79 (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what are you talking about. I edited as IP as you do before registering tonight, since I want to be inside the rules of wikipedia. I looked your contributions to edit your vandalism back. I come form norway, nice to meet you. why do cappixel put : before its phrases? I support merging. I like Italian football. Dormannu (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear CapPixel or Dormannu if you prefer, you must be desperate to do this merger if you created a false identity.

What would be the local IP with which you have edited so far? A new user would never do the same as yours, but merely to intervene in the discussion. In 3 minutes you can not read a thread this long. In two months because Dormannu has never intervened in the debate, even as a user, when the last week we warned of the impending closure? Why Dormannu has not provided reasons why he wants the merger? And yesterday you did not have even linked as CapPixel confirming that you are the same person. CapPixel you did not do a merger, but a mess: the current U.S. team is that plays in the D series, but the page begins by the Ac written in the past. Do you understand now that what you did is absurd.

Dear Dormannu, You confirm that you are not CapPixel, not changing more the pages and do not do editing war, but you respect the outcome of the debate. If you please suggest an alternative text combining all positions, without making changes. Otherwise you will be confirmed that you and CapPixel are the same person and then for violation of the rules of wikipedia will be blocked both for vandalism. --93.56.242.241 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Cappixel. outcome of debate to me is merging. I read the page before registering then register, it's easy. Dormannu (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite ridiculous: it's you that pretend to be more than a person (or maybe you believe to be). CapPixel (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dormannu, are you norwegian and speak and understand the Italian? Can you respond in detail to all the questions you have done?

If you're not CapPixel because you continue to re-enter the text that's not good as shown.

If you please suggest an alternative text combining all positions, without making changes. Otherwise you will be confirmed that you and CapPixel are the same person and then for violation of the rules of wikipedia will be blocked both for vandalism.--93.56.243.36 (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Use google translater. Dormannu (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It is severely prohibited merge with A.C. Ancona

There has been repeated vandalism of the couple CapPixel- Dormannu in the pages:

U.S. Ancona 1905

A.C. Ancona

Template:Fb team Ancona 1905.

After two month of discussion for absence of consent immediately to the merger with AC Ancona, please very much to wait that the club acquires the brand of AC Ancona.

Of course it is possible to propose an alternative text combining all positions, with appropriate reasons, without making changes.

Any violation not agreed will be deleted and signaled. Thanks--93.56.243.36 (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

matthewhk gave consent. Dormannu (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As already seen in discusssione Matthew's position is considered neutral because in the case of promotion, which is very likely given the champions present in the team, wants to leave the separate pages.

Please therefore strongly assert false, just to vandalism. In the discussion it became clear that there was no consensus for the merger, but to wait that the club acquires the brand of AC Ancona.

So every new merger is vandalism and the author will be reported and blocked. --93.56.242.46 (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No: he wrote that the articles SHOULD BE MERGED NOW (essere uniti ora... capire tu?) and to create a separate article IF AND ONLY (solo se) U.S. Ancona was promoted to Lega Pro. Again, you prove your ignorance in the English language. We're three against 1: me, Dormannu and Matthew HK. CapPixel (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No dear, you forgot about 70.20.196.162, the vote of Dormannu is invalid becauseit is joint discussion closed and the doubts about the real identity. About Matthew HK, you do not play, so we can now combine the pages and separate them in a few months back when the team will almost certainly be promoted seen the champions he has. So the correct result is: 2 against, 1 in favor and one neutral.

Then you must consider the motivations and ours are very well documented your not. Also you did not do a merger but a mess: the page must be titled to the U.S., which plays in Serie D, as in all other cases.

So we agree a new text and do not make more changes until an agreement is reached.

Please therefore strongly assert false, just to vandalism. In the discussion it became clear that there was no consensus for the merger, but to wait that the club acquires the brand of AC Ancona.

So every new merger is vandalism and the author will be reported and blocked. ----93.56.241.97 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No: you can'teven calculate. Dormannu + Matthew HK + Me = 3. You + another unknown IP (probably you again? aince you keep on accusing me to be Dormannu, probably you have a guilty conscience...) = 2. Merging. It's better to use A.C. Ancona article: that is a team you an history, not U.S. Ancona. CapPixel (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You see that we are right? You have created Domannu to have the majority that you did not and have not. And please stop it with these edit war.

The article by a team that plays in Serie D can not be written in the past. You suggest a new text and do more vandalism: you already have 3 with repetitions. You are playing with fire. But you want to be blocked? For how long? 93.56.241.97 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC) And thank you that you do not not send the warning for vandalism No.3, but if you destroy again the pages of AC-US Ancona, as the last edit, you will arrive. You are at high risk of block. --93.56.241.97 (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Cappixel!!! can you read? Dormannu (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, unknown IP: you already proved that you try to appear as more than one person... you are the one to have created Dormannu!. I checked Dormannu's IP and it's a fastweb account from Genoa, like yours... that's why you're not registering, so you can do these type of tricks. But why??? To discredit me in some way? You're even more stupid than I though, kiddy. OK, I'm fed up: do whatever you want, destroy wikipedia with your f***king crappy English, but remeber: every action has its consequences... CapPixel (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Certain that yesterday that was Sunday've gone too far with revelry. But do you think we will create a user who claims the opposite of our position, we delete our contributions and votes against us? We're not masochists. It 'obvious that the only advantageous position of the unexpected arrival of Domannu are you.

So please CapPixel and Domannu stop it to vandalism on alternate days.

However, if you are interested and if you finish restore your mess, we have a compromise proposal. If you want to know do not have to reset your version and you must demonstrate readiness for dialogue. To demonstrate our good will we send the notice of vandalism to Domannu. --93.56.240.163 (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so this is the proof that you are Dormannu. Yes, I believe you'd do that, since you claim to be a group of people in order to gather consensus. You know what's my answer? Go to hell: wikipedia should not allow unknown IP addresses to edit. Your compromise? Hah, the same erroneous sentence "let's merge them after U.S. Ancona has acquired A.C. Ancona's history". You know how many years took Florentia Viola/ACF Fiorentina to acquire a part of A.C. Fiorentina's history? Several years, but we never had separated articles, because that was just a waste of bytes. By the way: the phrase "Certain that yesterday that was Sunday've gone too far with revelry." is not written in English: maybe it's some form of ostrogothic langauge? This is my last interaction with you: at least use your registered user Dormannu. PS: so strange that now that I said I will not interect with you anymore, Dormannu has disappeared... CapPixel (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Look what you're really great! If we would like create a user we would have create in favor, no vandalism to us, do not you think? How do you see lp Dormannu? What is?

As already said in discusssione, all depends from art. 52 NOIF (ex Lodo Petrucci). in the case of Florentia was applied it, as happened this year in Salerno Calcio (ex Salernitana). It is clear that the pages go merged because there is a sports continuity, in fact, Florentia was a new compay, which was created by the Mayor of Firenze and it has started from the C2, rather than the Terza Categoria. Here however the U.S. Ancona that, which is not a new company, it has simply maintained the same category of the Piano S. Lazzaro.

If however you change your mind and you want to talk we are always available. --93.56.244.161 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ancona Calcio, AC Ancona and US Ancona

An interesting question, did AC Ancona acquired the residual asset of Ancona Calcio that bankrupted in 2004, if not, seems acquiring the asset and sports title was not a major reason to determine the heir of the Ancona football. Matthew_hk tc 12:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on U.S. Ancona 1905. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110924131921/http://www.ancona1905.it:80/stadio-e-info/ to http://www.ancona1905.it/stadio-e-info/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120328113759/http://www.ancona1905.it/2011/05/ancona-piglia-tutto/ to http://www.ancona1905.it/2011/05/ancona-piglia-tutto/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on U.S. Ancona 1905. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120424224624/http://www.laprovinciasportiva.net/news.asp?id=717 to http://www.laprovinciasportiva.net/news.asp?id=717
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120609060017/http://www.ancona1905.it/2011/11/primo-giorno-di-mister-osio/ to http://www.ancona1905.it/2011/11/primo-giorno-di-mister-osio/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of A.C. Ancona which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Matthew_hk tc 11:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A.C. Milan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A.C. Milan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)