This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Sebastian Carlsen should be removed from loan section because loan terminated.He should be added to "other players under contract" as Felice Natalino.Can you give me any information about Dennis Esposito, he continues to be under contract with Inter or play in another club? 20;30, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move. This discussion has run through a full listing period, and it's clear there won't be consensus for a move. !Votes were pretty evenly split, though the opposes had the stronger policy argument, as borne out by available evidence: "Inter Milan" appears to be much more common in the English-language reliable sources. As such, it better fits the spirit WP:COMMONNAME and other conditions of the article titles policy. Cúchullaint/c 15:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano – The club uses the name F.C. Internazionale Milano on its English language website, also UEFA.com uses this name. There also seems to be a strong urge in the community to use Internazionale Milano: if you look at the infoboxes of the players, nearly always the name Internazionale is used. It would make sense to move this article to the name that is mostly used in the English Wikipedia. Jaellee (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Rename, as nominator: Jaellee (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per nominator, and that it reflects the standard practice of including "F.C." (or whatever's appropriate) in football club article titles. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support It is the club's official name. SLBedit (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support – It is the official name of the club and as said above it is the way UEFA lists them (piped to only Internazionale in lists of matchesw and tables). The current naming causes editwar at for example Xherdan Shaqiri when a lot of editors want to pipe to Internazionale. Also using Inter or Internazionale separates club from AC Milan. This is a strong support as the article should be moved back to the name it was originally at. Qed237(talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - the term 'Inter Milan' is just informal/lazy journalism (see also Sporting Lisbon, and others) - the suggested target reflects the actual name as well as proper useage. GiantSnowman 17:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support – F.C. Internazionale Milano is the actual name of the club. I actually consider it rather insulting that the article name was ever changed to Inter Milan in the first place . . . as Giant Snowman says, Inter Milan is the product of lazy English journalism. Italia2006 (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - The club calls itself "F.C. Internazionale Milano" on its website, though this is often shortened to "Internazionale" or "Inter". This trend is replicated in many media outlets, albeit with some few referring to them as "Inter Milan". Nevertheless, none of the short names stand out as an overwhelming leader when it comes to WP:COMMONNAME, and in the absence of an outright leader, we should default to the full official name. Furthermore, using the official name would maintain consistency between Internazionale and not just other clubs in Italy but clubs in every country. – PeeJay 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support lazy journalism not for encyclopedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:OFFICIALNAME not for encyclopedia. If the journalists are lazy, then we have no choice but to join them in laziness, however eager we may feel ourselves to be. — Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Support It is the club's name at their official website and uefa website . Adnan (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME, this is pointless pedantry as "Inter Milan" is the most commonly used name for the club in the English language. Hack (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Except it isn't, since "Internazionale" and just "Inter" are used just as often. – PeeJay 11:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps in the UK people are lazy and write Inter Milan, but everywhere else they are Inter or Internazionale in English language. Qed237(talk) 11:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Looking at online references to the club in a few English language sources used commonly in the English Wikipedia. Goal.com appears to be an outlier due to their cataloguing system.
Any chance you could do a table that includes references to "Internazionale" and "Inter" as well? It's not a fair representation if you only include "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 08:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing has changed. You are going out of your way to be disruptive and it doesn't matter how many people state their personal preference, the decision must be made on substantive policy grounds. No one has produced a valid policy-based argument and nothing has changed since January. LeakyCaldron 11:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
F.C. Internazionale Milano, a typical piece of naming in common use in the English Language. Where have I heard that argument before? It is Italian language - this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. English people do not, natively speak Italian, therefore the policy requires the use of English.
The format and language of the proposed title is an entirely Italian construct and is directly repugnant to the English language. It has no place on en-Wiki. Claims about the frequency of "Internazionale" and "Inter" are completely erroneous because neither of those single words are the proposed title. The simple challenge is this - Where is the evidence that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" - the proposed article title - is more common in English sources than the existing title? WP:AT lays out principles for naming criteria. The current title clearly wins out over the proposed title in recognisability, naturalness and conciseness. Please remember this is the English Wikipedia - not the Italian. The "man in the street" argument is supported by WP:ENGLISH which states "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". "Internazionale" and "Milano" are not even English words and the use of "F.C." at the beginning is virtually unheard of in English.
Policy and guidelines are the mainstay of WP. Note that the common feature of each of these naming policy guidelines is the word "English". It matters not that a name is derivative or even slang. It has to be English. It is what is used by WP:RS in the English speaking world that is the basis for naming policy on en-Wiki. Personal likes, preferences and comparisons with other foreign sounding articles cannot override established and documented standards.
WP:ENGLISH is clear; "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". "Internazionale" and "Milano" are Italian words.
All the evidence is that in the English speaking world Inter Milan outweighs all other usage. WP:NAME ("Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.") WP:UE ("The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage") WP:MOS#FOREIGN ("Foreign words should be used sparingly") WP:PLACE ("When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.") Milan not MilanO WP:COMMONNAME ("The most common name for a subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.") WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE are both fully satisfied by Inter Milan, not by the proposed, foreign, over-long, complicated suggestion. LeakyCaldron 11:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:PLACE doesn't apply since we're talking about a team, not a place. The team's name includes the name of a place, sure, but it's part of their name, and they can spell it however they like. See also FC Dynamo Kyiv. WP:MOS#FOREIGN also doesn't apply since, again, it's the name of an organisation; if an organisation's name includes foreign words, we shouldn't translate them willy nilly. "Inter" isn't a word in English, it's a contraction, and in this case it's short for "Internazionale". WP:UE doesn't apply since English language sources use "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan" with relatively equal frequency. The section of WP:NAME you quoted could equally apply to F.C. Internazionale Milano, since it's recognisable, definitely unambiguous and it is consistent with usage in English-language sources since, as I've said, sources use a combination of "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan", all of which can be found in some form in that name. Finally, WP:COMMONNAME is satisfied by any of those names I've specified already, but since none of them dominates in usage, the official name is preferable; furthermore, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't mandate that any particular common name be used, only that common names are often used "because [they are] recognisable and natural". Many football club articles don't use the most common variant of their name as the article title, and "F.C. Internazionale Milano" should maintain consistency with that. – PeeJay 12:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Pick and choose as much as you want. This is the English language WP not the Italian one. When the BBC, The Times and other published and broadcast media say that "Internazionale Milano" beat Arsenal 3 - 0 then I'll agree with you. I don't. LeakyCaldron 13:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose as per fairly extreme Ngram results which I think any discussion closer, who works to guidelines and who doesn't merely count votes!, should take as a significant factor in making a WP:CONSENSUS decision here.
Comparing use of "Inter Milan" to "Internazionale Milano" is utter idiocy. Yes, F.C. Internazionale Milano is the name being suggested, but it's being suggested because each of the common names for the club ("Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan") are used with relatively equal frequency, and therefore the best alternative is to use the club's official name. It's the same as using association football instead of football or soccer; football can't be used because it has multiple meanings (see "Inter"), and soccer isn't used because it can't be proved that that name dominates over any of the sport's other common names (just like "Inter Milan"); hence we use the sport's official name (i.e. association football. – PeeJay 15:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If you want to use a Google ngram, use this one, which compares use of "Inter Milan" with "Internazionale" in an English corpus. Sure, the word "Internazionale" may be used in other contexts, but in an English corpus, the vast majority of these will likely be in relation to the football club. – PeeJay 16:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a very, very, very poor choice for an ngram. Click on Internazionale to see what's pulled up. It fails at the most basic level. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose nothing has changed, this is archetypal dead horse territory. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
How often are Manchester United referred to simply as United or Man United? Yet their article name is "Manchester United F.C." Now what on earth is the difference between the example of Manchester United and Internazionale? Nothing! This is ridiculous. There is no COMMONNAME which predominates for Inter/Internazionale/Inter Milan/F.C. Internazionale Milano. Just because Inter Milan may predominate in UK media sources doesn't mean that this is the predominant usage in the English-speaking world. The name of the club is F.C. Internazionale Milano. I don't see what the big deal is about having the article of the club be represented by its actual name. Italia2006 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing has changed. We use the WP:COMMONNAME in English on the English Wikipedia, and that is overwhelmingly "Inter Milan". I can provide evidence of that if needed, but I don't think that is in dispute. Almost no reliable sources in English call it "F.C. Internazionale Milano", and it's not even necessarily a recognisable page title for English speakers who aren't aware of the full Italian name. — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You can ignore everything I've said above if you want, but you'd be a fool to do so. To reiterate, "Inter Milan" is not the club's "overwhelmingly" common name – "Internazionale" and "Inter" are just as common – and since there's no stand-out leader, the best option is the club's official name. No one would look at the name "F.C. Internazionale Milano" and have no clue which club was being referred to, or if they did, I would suspect they had some kind of mental deficiency. There's nothing wrong with having Inter Milan as a redirect, just like Man Utd redirects to Manchester United F.C., and that's clearly the best option here. – PeeJay 16:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not ignoring what you said, but I haven't seen a compelling argument to contradict my assertion that "Inter Milan" is way more common than either "Internazionale Milano" or "F.C. Internazionale Milano". The GregKaye ngram is fairly conclusive on that matter. As for your ngram with "Internazionale", if you follow the link at the bottom of the ngram for internazionale, , you'll see that the entries are mostly Italian sources that are nothing to do with the club and have been misrepresented as English sources. To test the waters, I just did a very crude normal Google search for "inter milan" "football" (10.4 million results) vs "internazionale" "football" (1.7 million results), which also illustrates this point. And I know vanilla Google searches aren't a reliable indicator of reliable sources, but it's enough of a litmus test for me, and the burden of proof here is on those who desire to change the page title. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
PeeJay2K3 please be WP:CIVIL and don't call other editors fools. I don't get your point about Man Utd redirects to Manchester United F.C. (see Ngrams. Commonname, in English language, by far is Inter Milan and as far as I know this is a respectful term to use. GregKaye 17:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Do an ngram search for United/Man Utd/Man United/Manchester United, you'll see the same thing. Italia2006 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you actually look at the ngram GregKaye provided? Here's another one just in case. To sum up, "Manchester United" is vastly more common in reliable sources than "Man United", "Man Utd", etc. Jenks24 (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
In the article's first 20 words you have everything you need "F.C. Internazionale Milano, commonly referred to as Internazionale (pronounced [internatt͡sjoˈnaːle]) or simply Inter, and colloquially known as Inter Milan outside of Italy,". It is quite bizare that some editors wish to expunge the only English language title - the one used in almost all English speaking reliable sources. LeakyCaldron 18:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It is an encyclopedia.. It should have the correct name not what colloquially known as name or just pick the English name as the name of the article. Adnan (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Except the only encyclopedia source given in this discussion (Britannica) uses "Inter Milan". Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Opppose, again. And when this move request fails we should really put a moratorium on them for a few years, it's getting disruptive. I'll reproduce the comprehensive stats from the past few RMs:
And although it has already been discredited by several editors above, I will reiterate that any statistics referring to simply "Internazionale" are completely worthless because it is a generic word that refers to a hell of a lot more than the football side and it's also not the name you are proposing this article be moved to. You need to demonstrate that the actual proposed title is the common usage, which to be frank you can't. Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Would you people please stop bringing up comparisons between "Inter Milan" and "Internazionale Milano". No one is suggesting "Internazionale Milano" be used as the title of the article. The suggested title is "F.C. Internazionale Milano", which is the club's full, official name. It is being suggested because the club's short names (i.e. "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan") are used about as much as each other. Since there is no outstandingly common name, it is better to use the full official name. We even have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), which would seemingly support using "F.C. Internazionale Milano". The criteria are that the name has to be used in the English language section of the club's website, it has to be used by a significant section (not necessarily a majority) of the English language media (which it is), be recognisable (which it definitely is), and not be easily confused with other clubs' names (which it isn't). – PeeJay 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It was being generous, if you extend the search to the full "F.C. Internazionale Milano" the results are effectively nil. Why we would name an article something that is practically never used in reliable sources is beyond me, especially when we have the very common "Inter Milan" available to us (as you know, Inter and Internazionale are off the table even if they were more common due to ambiguity). As for that "guideline" you mention... please. It was all of about 6 edits to it and is 99% the work of one editor in 2009. The only talk on the talk page of it is discussing whether it actually has consensus (as of writing no one has argued it does). WP:AT on the other hand is policy and obviously has consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, all of the discussion on that policy took place on various sports project talk pages (primarily WT:FOOTY. Regardless of your opinion of it, it's standing is legitimate. – PeeJay 07:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if it were legitimate, policy trumps guideline anyway so it's a moot point. Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, because the short forms of those names are the ones most used in England and this is the English Wikipedia. Britmax (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The stats were very well laid out in the Talk:Inter_Milan/Archive_1#Requested_Move:_F.C._Internazionale_Milano_.E2.86.92_Inter_Milan move discussion. I am simply going to restate my previously made comments. Article titles need to be recognizable to readers (no comments above that Inter Milan is not understood in English), unambiguous (no debate that Inter Milan means anything other than the soccer team), and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. The previous move discussions showed in great details that English reliable sources (WP:USEENGLISH) predominately use the present title. Unless you can show otherwise there is no basis for a move. Search results that employ Internazionale on it's own (an argument made previously) is extremely ambiguous and doesn't refer strictly to the football team so the only stats that are those, in English that employ Internazionale Milano. Also like it noted that last time the I checked Telgraph.co.uk it's 10,800 for Inter Milan and 9 for "Internazionale Milano". The only way you can produce results that are more than those of the current title is to employ Internazionale alone and that's ambiguous, not English, and not the title being requested.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Why is "Internazionale" ambiguous? It redirects to the current title. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It is Italian. The English WP requires by policy, not by preference, article titles to be unambiguously in the English language. This Rename request is disruptive (your earlier comment, above) because it is plainly against policy, nothing has changed, it has been twice reinforced and is supported by the same editors, churning out the same non-policy based arguments time after time. See WP:REHASH & WP:TEND. LeakyCaldron 17:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The article was moved without consensus and there has not been a consensus established since then. It should never have been moved in the first place. The disruptive action was to force a move to a colloquial name without consensus, which you have been reinforcing ever since. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You're joking me. This was as clear a consensus as you'll see. Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that was a competent discussion or decision to close. It took place a few months after a more extensive discussion failed to reach a consensus. None of the previous editors were invited back to reflect on the new evidence provided. It was a bad discussion and decision and the handful of people who drove that through have been assiduously protecting it ever since. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You need to examine the 2 subsequent attempts to rename, one of which had a 12:2 majority in favour of the status quo, IIRC. In any event, pure numbers are not what matters but the quality of the policy arguement and weight of evidence. For those with an interest in policy around consenus, especailly those of a "footy" persuasion, I recommend WP:CONLIMITED. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants which have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay. That's is where many of the supporters of F.C. I M are, I'm afraid. LeakyCaldron 11:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Bottom line is a small cabal of policy-obsessives have imposed a fucking nickname on a prominent sports team. This is absolutely ridiculous and devalues the whole project. Makes me wonder why I bother. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Putting "have" in bold text, and calling it a "fucking nickname" doesn't make what you're saying any more true. Inter Milan is not a nickname, it is the most commonly used English name for the club as used in countless reliable sources. Consistency is a useful thing, but it doesn't trump reliable sources. Articifical attempts to enforce consistency also leads to messy names like FC Bayern Munich, which quite frankly should just be Bayern Munich, as the current name mixes a German prefix with the anglicised name of the city. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
And no matter how boldly you assert that "Inter Milan" isn't a nickname, it doesn't make that statement any more true either. It's a nickname in the same way that "Man Utd" is a nickname for Manchester United; while both clubs have more common nicknames (i.e. "Nerazzurri" and "Red Devils"), short forms of their full names are still nicknames. – PeeJay 13:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Well OK, but it's just semantics then, and even if it is a nickname, nothing says that Wikipedia is forbidden to use them, if they are most common. Bill Clinton for example? Bill is a nickname for his full name of William. The difference between Inter Milan and Man Utd is not that they're nicknames, it's that one is the most common name, while the other is not: . Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you joking me? It's the name of an organisation, it doesn't have an English name. You wouldn't have us rename Laurent Blanc as "Larry White", would you? Or Juan Mata as "John Kills". If you want us to use English names, why not just rename the article as International Milan? If the policy prevents us from using a name that is consistent with all other football clubs, then the policy is clearly wrong. This is the exact reason why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) was drafted in the first place, and I can't see why you policy-huggers are trying so hard to avoid it. – PeeJay 20:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
PeeJay2K3, what you're stating as an absolute, that F.C. Internazionale Milano is the club's name is a misrepresentation of the truth. It's the official Italian name. The official English name, as has been shown with actual statistics and no profanity or bravado, is not F.C. Internazionale Milano. Stop lying. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That's the legal company name, like for Bayern it's actually FC Bayern München AG, or for Dortmund it's Borussia Dortmund GmbH & Co. KGaA. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the last one is, but you can't ignore the other two. Furthermore, even when the club reduces its name to refer to itself in news articles on its website, they never use "Inter Milan", it's almost exclusively Inter. – PeeJay 13:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Worth pointing out that the essay on the subject WP:Official names is clear on the subject. Official names used only in other languages often have no relevance at all. English usage overrides usage in other languages, so other languages chiefly become relevant if the topic had never been described or discussed in English prior to the writing of the Wikipedia article. Obvioulsy Inter Milan has been used since long before the internet era, so that caveat doesn't apply. Official names used only in other languages often have no relevance at all. English usage overrides usage in other languages.. is helpful guidance, I think. LeakyCaldron 12:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It's the same issue about endonyms versus exonyms. That's why. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Support as there is clear precedent in the naming of football team name articles to have their full title, inspite of it not being the common name. Also, we should ignore the person using "Internazionale Milano" in search results statistics without even bothering to mention the caveat that most people would merely use "Internazionale". RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@RealDealBillMcNeal: you are confusing full title and endonym. By your logic we will have move requests for FC Bayern Munich to FC Bayern München, Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao F.C. to 广州恒大淘宝足球俱乐部, Ulsan Hyundai to 울산 현대 축구단 and Al-Ahli SC (Jeddah) to النادي الأهلي الرياضي السعودي (or at least transliterated versions of the last three). While you may think that most people would merely use "Internazionale", that's a foreign word that means international, and had you taken the time to read the statistics above, cannot be reliably determined. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That isn't my logic though is it, so stop making shit up, pal. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You clearly stated that "there is clear precedent in the naming of football team name articles to have their full title" and since you have equated the endonym, F.C. Internazionale Milano as is the requested move, as the full title, not a common exonym, you are suggesting that all clubs should use their exonyms. It's what we call a reductio ad absurdum argument. You either need to correct your statement or clarify it, because I don't think you meant what you wrote. Stop being profane when words (or logic) fail(s) you. Finally, I am not your pal. You're not even my mental equal. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
LOL at you not recognising that my use of the word pal was blatantly facetious. Aye, you're right, I'm not your mental equal. Nice personal assault though, but you win as you didn't use profanity. Christ. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to show that you are, and in my past dealings have been, relatively incapable of using logic and instead use profanity and schoolyard bullying to make your points. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Mister Anonymous, your argument above about having to rename FC Bayern Munich holds no water, since the club has a name that it goes by in English on its own website (see here). As for Guangzhou Evergrande, that club also refers to itself as "Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao" on the English language version of its website. Ulsan Hyundai even uses that name (in Latin script) on its Korean website (I don't think they have an English website). I couldn't find Al-Ahli's website, so I can't verify how they refer to themselves, but it's fair to say your theory about RealDealBillMcNeal (talk·contribs)'s logic has been well and truly debunked. – PeeJay 15:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
And the statistics above show that there is a COMMONNAME for this club. Same principle. The fact that Inter Milan does not have an English website simply speaks to their lack of concern for those outside their own linguistic group not a guarantee. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
What the deuce are you talking about?! I've provided links to Inter's English language website on numerous occasions in this RM discussion! Here it is again, in case you missed it: . They even have mirrors in Spanish, Japanese, Chinese and Bahasa Indonesia, and on all of these, they refer to the club as "F.C. Internazionale Milano". Clearly it is not possible for an organisation to have different names in different languages. – PeeJay 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about the statistics listed above as provided by Jenks24 on 04:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC). They clearly have a COMMONNAME used by everyone but themselves. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You clearly weren't talking about those statistics. You said the club doesn't have an English language website, and I've quite plainly shown you that they do. Furthermore, you are again making the mistake of comparing the frequency of usage of "Inter Milan" with "Internazionale Milano". We know no one refers to the club as "Internazionale Milano"; no one is arguing that it should be the name of the article because that certainly wouldn't be recognisable (per WP:NC). It would also fail the "conciseness", "naturalness" and "consistency" criteria. What I believe most people are arguing, myself included, is that you can't prove that "Inter Milan" is used any more or less than "Internazionale" or "Inter" by a fair cross-section of reliable sources; therefore, the club's full, official name should be used. This is in accordance with WP:Naming conventions (sports teams), as well as the majority of the criteria laid out at WP:NC. – PeeJay 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I actually was talking about them. I can hold two distinct ideas in my head. I'm sorry that I didn't make that clear. Since you offered no statistics I clearly wasn't talking about what you wrote since you offered none. I'm sorry that you assumed statistics meant something other than statistics and that it caused this confusion. I see that confusion is a regular part of your life. The statistics list "Internazionale Milano", but that would include variants of that. I believe that has been explained to you before, but you refuse to let it go. The club's COMMONNAME not supposed official name should and will be used. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment Once this is settled the season articles should also reflect the main article. A bot may be required to clean this up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
And make it clear that piping to either Internazionale or any variant, after the move fails, is an unacceptable practice to get around the consensus. Because, contrary to edits like the following that claim, this is the club's correct name, the consensus is that it's not and that has been the case for a while now. It's a childish end-run around WP:CONSENSUS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Using a word that redirects to the target is "unacceptable"? Don't be absurd. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, even if the article name remains Inter Milan there is nothing wrong with having season articles have the formal name in their titles, nor is there any reason not to be able to pipe to Internazionale. Strongly oppose. Italia2006 (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense. If the point of this move discussion is that the COMMONNAME is Inter Milan and not a variant of F.C. Internazionale Milano, then why should editors be permitted to use something other than the COMMONNAME in the articles? Would we allow editors of articles linking to pipe Bayern München to Bayern Munich <no wiki>Bayern München<no wiki> in infoboxes, statistics and match results or to take over headings with Bayern München or season articles rather than use the COMMONNAME? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The article titles should be consistent. If consensus is the commonname is Inter Milan, then all connected articles should be named using the same convention. It is misleading to have articles use two variants in the title. That said I'm not really getting what Walter Görlitz is trying to say.BletheringScot 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment Looking at the proposer's rationale, it is clear that they have failed to heed the instruction to base arguments on article naming policy. For example, "The club uses the name F.C. Internazionale Milano on its English language website". Surely that is inevitable, being an Italian organisation doesn't mean every word requires a translation. "UEFA.com uses this name". Again, that organisation is not an English-language reliable source. "There also seems to be a strong urge in the community". Since when did strong urges interfere with established policy? This latest, repeat attempt, following overwhelming opposition including 6 months ago, is malformed. Nothing has changed and the persistent badgering using non-policy based opinions is verging on personal attacks. LeakyCaldron 17:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The only personal attacks I have seen on here have been from yourself ("disruptive") and the IP address repeatedly calling other users "liars". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment Internazionale seems to be the formal name and Inter Milan the informal but much more commonly used name. Which ever is used does not really matter though. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose essentially per WP:COMMONNAME. - Inter Milan is the most common name used and sources prove that. This has been discussed many a time before and can see no change since then.BletheringScot 18:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criterion by which articles should be named. See WP:NC. – PeeJay 23:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Since PeeJay likes to point us to NC, I'll provide it here:
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
Both names are recognizable, but as the statistics provided above, English readers would find "Inter Milan" more common.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
As the statistics provided above, English readers would likely look for "Inter Milan" more often. Statistics should be available to show which term is searched for more often though.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
Both titles are equally unambiguous.
Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
Both titles are equally concise.
Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
This is where the new title has preference since more season articles use the Italian name, but when this closes, the comment above requesting that they are all consistently named should be a good starting point.
You keep saying "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is an Italian name as though "Inter Milan" isn't. "Inter" isn't an English word... – PeeJay 09:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Internazionale Milano is clearly Italian since the English would be International Milan. "Inter" is an abbreviation of an English word and could be an abbreviation of the Italian as well. However, Inter Milan is the COMMONNAME in English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the words "Internazionale Milano" are Italian, but that doesn't mean you translate them to English. You don't just translate the name of an organisation because it's in a different language to the one you're used to. Obviously the "Inter" in "Inter Milan" is an abbreviation of the Italian word "Internazionale"; it could be an abbreviation of an English word, but it isn't, and to claim that "Inter Milan" is the club's "English name" is lunacy. – PeeJay 16:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Partially true. We have the example given many time of Bayern Munich. The German is Bayern München, yet we only translate the city name, not the "region". However, Bayern Munich is the COMMONNAME, while Internazionale Milano is not. Suggesting that it is—that's lunacy. I don't see anyone suggesting that Inter Milan is the English name. We are stating it's the club's COMMONNAME in English. Slight difference, but a clear distinction. Do you understand that distinction? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What I understand is that FC Bayern refers to itself on its English-language website as "Bayern Munich" (see here). The difference between Bayern and Inter is that Inter does not use a different name for itself on its English-language website. And again, I'm not suggesting that "Internazionale Milano" is the club's COMMONNAME; I'm not even suggesting that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is the club's COMMONNAME. What I'm saying, which no one has yet to prove otherwise, is that "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan" are all used to refer to the club with relatively equal frequency; since there is no obvious COMMONNAME out of those three, the correct choice would be to use the club's full official name, which has the added benefit of maintaining consistency with every other club article on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 08:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
What your problem is , is not understanding what COMMONNAME is. 100% of English-language sources call FC Bayern "Bayern Munich" while the vast majority of English-language sources call this club "Inter Milan". You really think it's what the team calls itself which is interesting, but not COMMONNAME. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You do know that WP:COMMONNAME isn't the only determining factor in how to name an article, right? There's this set of guidelines, for example. And for the umpteenth time, no one has yet proven that "Inter Milan" is a more common name for the club than "Internazionale" or "Inter". – PeeJay 14:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I do and great reasons that it does not apply here are given above with the points as to how it does not make any difference to this discussion. You do understand that it all hinges on COMMONAME. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
And yet I still see no evidence that "Inter Milan" is substantially more common than "Internazionale" or "Inter". – PeeJay 15:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME "The most common name for a subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." Nothing more unnatural to English speaking folks than to read a foreign language. I'm afraid this is simply a horse that will not run, no matter how many times a year it is trotted out. So many policy markers and English speaking evidence for current title. Like I said above, if any any time the BBC R5L or MotD commentators say F.C. Internazionale Milano 2 Chelsea 0 I will go for it. LeakyCaldron 16:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
By that rational all football club articles should be renamed. Show me one article name that is used by a MotD commentator when describing a team. Paul Bradbury 10:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Its the correct name for the club and by convention its the way articles for clubs are named, Inter Milan is a colloquialism similar to Man City or Man United not and Anglicisation. WP:COMMONNAME is a guideline, not something to be followed by rote, it is in place to advise on things like calling Aspirin acetylsalicylic acid which would be confusing. It is unlikely to cause confusion especially if appropriate redirects are in place. The arguments against seem to be about WP:BURO more than they are about whether its the right thing to do, which I don't have much time for and is lame, it appears the original discussion was ignored and relisted shortly afterwards with a non-inclusive debate (original discussion participants not notified) and then those same editors causing no consensus at all subsequent discussions. Plenty of sources refer to them by their real name rather than their nickname such as [UEFA] and FIFA in all their English language material, which is important. There are also several nicknames that are used interchangeably such as just Inter. This is simply the most neutral and would not cause confusion. Paul Bradbury 10:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: "Inter Milan" is just slang. Moreover, it is ambiguous because there's A.C. Milan which is commonly referred to as "Milan". ekerazha (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not ambiguous because the other team's common name is not Inter-anything. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
It's still ambiguous because of the "Milan" word, which is a subset of "Inter Milan". It'd be like having "Inter Liverpool" and "Liverpool". ekerazha (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You need to understand, please forgive me if you think this comment inappropriate, but I notice from your page that you are Italian. In the UK, the team in question has historically been reported by published and broadcast media by the current article title. This fact is inescapable and not really altered one iota by the emergence of non-English based internet outlets based in foreign lands who happen to host some translated output on pages in English. They are not typically considered reliable, compared with historical media and broadcasters who have been and continue to announce the name per the current title in almost every article relating to the club. You will need to appreciate, I think, the wealth of policy and guidance supporting the current title is not made up by the insulting description of "policy huggers". Naming policy of this Wiki is very clear and well established. There is negligible policy backing to support foreign language titles for articles when there is a well established, historically recognised, constantly referred to title in common, day-to-day use. The history is probably as old as inter-continental club competitions. For my part I have a 45 year old programme of the match between Newcastle United and "Inter Milan". Maybe not a reliable source, but clearly English speaking and reflecting the name most frequently used to refer to the subject. Your reference to Inter Liverpool above is, I am afraid, totally incomprehensible in any context. It is irrelevant and perverse to introduce a non-existing usage into a debate where people are attempting to put there point over using policy and evidence. The plain fact is this, English Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. LeakyCaldron 15:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I've just been through my programme collection too, and I have a programme from the 1998-99 Champions League that refers to a match between Manchester United and "FC Internazionale Milan". What a knotty little problem we have... – PeeJay 16:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and the Manchester United official yearbook for that year also refers to "Internazionale Milan". – PeeJay 16:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlike you, I am not using it as definitive evidence. Your source is no more acceptable as a WP:RS than is mine. I was simply pointing out to our Italian colleague a few facts about established usage in the UK and specifically correct treatment in WP:En. Your habit of responding to every comment made by someone you do not agree with using a jibe, anecdote or irrelevancy is annoying. It is almost like edit warring, which I see you have a record in. Unless you have something new to say, and even if you do, I would be grateful if you did not associate your opinions with my response to another editor. It is becoming tendentious. LeakyCaldron 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think match programmes aren't reliable sources? They are examples of how the club is referred to in the English-speaking media. Coincidentally, it also happens to reinforce my point that there is no clear evidence that "Inter Milan" is the predominant name for the club in English-speaking media. And to further confound the issue, the programme for the match between Manchester United and Inter from 2009 refers to the club simply as "Internazionale". Personally, what I think you don't like is that you and I have different interpretations of Wikipedia policy, and I'm beginning to take offence at your reaction to that difference. – PeeJay 17:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - English names for en.wikipedia.org. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Please indicate the way in which "Inter Milan" is an English name. "Inter" is short for "Internazionale", after all. – PeeJay 20:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Tarc among others. CalidumT|C 05:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - It seems to have been quite comprehensively demonstrated above that in numerous sources "Inter Milan" is by far the more commonly used title for the club. It might be a colloquial term rather than the official name and be a bit of an outlier as a result, but it is also the term by which most people in written sources appear to describe the club. Fenix down (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.
Not done: as that change would leave the team with 2 captains, and you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)