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 188.8.131.52 (talk)
@In ictu oculi: - I find it difficult to see what was "extremely problematic" about the close. A clear majority of 13 supports (including the nom), against 2 opposes, and the reasons cited by the supports were well grounded in WP policy. Yes, it was non-admin, but it was a straightforward and uncontroversial close. Furthermore, you yourself were among the people supporting the move last time around. Yet you're unhappy it was closed the way you voted? I'm puzzled! Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment sometimes the requests raised really surprise me. I am no great football follower but, from a UK perspective, I only recollect hearing of teams playing "Inter Milan". I have no recollection of "Internazionale Milano" being mentioned. The BBC write about Inter Milan. GregKaye 08:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is in no way, shape or form the common name in the English language for the football team from Milan who play in blue and black. "Internazionale is the version of the name that is used on every football article" is pure fabrication. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
And Inter Milan! So much for your consistency argument... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
So, 12-2 to Internazionale. So yeah, so much for my consistency. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
No no, perhaps you didn't look closely enough. The four articles I found in twenty seconds each refer, at least once, to Inter Milan. I don't really care for your pretend statistics, they're rather sad in a way, it'd be better to strive for an argument based in logic rather than just counting the masses. But in any case, it's fundamentally clear that your claim is utterly false. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"rather than just counting the masses." I.E. an entire Wikipedia policy called WP:COMMONNAME. Good one man. It's hardly false to suggest that UEFA's website provides far more uses of Internazionale than any other website could for Inter, in fact it's entirely the opposite... it is common. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
To be fair to you, I'll give you some advice. Stop claiming lies in your move proposal (e.g. "Internazionale is the version of the name that is used on every football article already rather than Inter or Inter Milan"), it really detracts from your opening discussion when it's abundantly clear that it's completely incorrect. And to directly address your latest response, I don't recall ever saying anything about the UEFA website. It seems you are so misguided and misaligned with regard to how we name things on Wikipedia that it'd be better and less embarrassing all round if you closed your own proposal right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I gave you 12 examples, I've been given two in return. How one earth was I lying? I'm misguided by saying Internazionale Milano F.C. should be used because all other major football team name articles use full titles and F.C./FC/AFC prefixes and suffixes? Erm, no. I've already explained it aligns with WP:CONSISTENCY. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
No, you didn't read what I wrote. The four articles I found in twenty seconds used Inter Milan and perhaps Inter or Internazionale (certainly not Internazionale Milano F.C.) interchangeably. You seem to be attempting a "consistency" argument, yet I can find, in twenty seconds, four articles which don't conform to your version. You really are misguided, and this will just end in disappointment for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You are aware that Internazionale is the shortened version of Internazionale Milano, right? Just like Lyon is the shortened version of Olympique Lyonnais F.C. and PSV is the shortened version of PSV Eindhoven, and Sporting is the shortened version of Sporting Club de Portugal, right? You found a solitary one which relied solely on Inter Milan, btw. But I'm sure you already knew that. It's almost like you've consistently invented things. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the funniest thing you've written so far. Especially concerning common names. Anyway, you made a mistake with your initial statement. The quicker you admit that, perhaps you can recover the damage done against your crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose@Kauffner: laid out the stats very well in the Talk:Inter_Milan/Archive_1#Requested_Move:_F.C._Internazionale_Milano_.E2.86.92_Inter_Milan move discussion. 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. Here are the stats comparing the usage of the current vs proposed name, it's not even close.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You missed out that every virtually other football club article uses a name that contain F.C./FC/A.F.C. prefixes and suffixes. You also missed out that articles will call them Internazionale, rather than Internazionale Milano. You know, WP:CONSISTENCY.
Huh. That might trump the numbers of all others provided combined, bar UEFA. Which also probably does. Oh, and LOL at "football.co.uk", whatever the fuck that is. Might as well ask Goal and Football 365 and Bleacher while you're at it. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Internazionale on it's own is extremely ambiguous and doesn't refer strictly to the football team so the only stats that are of any consideration are those, in English that employ Internazionale Milano. Secondly, I am calling BS on your telegraph results. 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) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The Telegraph search thingy has been corrected. It's 42,000+ like I said. I'm arguing Internazionale Milano for consistency - all other major club articles use full titles, but nobody sits around calling clubs "something something F.C.". RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess UEFA's 100k mentions of Internazionale is not realistic. The Telegraph was 42k to 10k by the way. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry mate, you're on a sticky wicket here. I'd call it a day. Reality bites, hard, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The reality that UEFA's website had a higher tally for Internazionale than the rest provided had combined for Inter Milan? That reality? Good one pal. BTW I don't trust people who double-space after a full-stop. Really, really creepy behaviour. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You're not getting it at all. UEFA isn't the be all and end all. Reliable sources like the BBC never, ever use F. C. Internazionale Milano. I'm certain you already know this, and why you're arguing against it is super weird. By the way, if you'd done your research correctly, you'd also understand that "internazionale" isn't used for the exclusively for Inter Milan, so your claim over the Telegraph hits is nonsense. Just a few pages in to the Google search you find "Salone Internazionale del Mobile" which is in no way related to Inter Milan. But I guess that's something convenient enough for you to overlook. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's the BBC never using Internazionale. It's almost like your claim that BBC never uses Internazionale Milano is disingenuous??? I'm pretty sure they also don't use Queens Park Rangers F.C. or any other prefix or suffix, and that they shorten names i.e. Manchester United F.C. becomes Man Utd??? Good one. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Okay, thanks for confirming there's little point in continuing here. You just don't get it do you? You can find an instance of the BBC using Internazionale, yet conveniently ignore the fact that they almost never do that, that your Google hits search includes other common Italian uses of Internazionale and then you try some straw man argument about Manchester United or QPR? Honestly, the more your type, the less you give. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"Almost never" - so, you've gone from "never, ever" to "almost never". Glad we've cleared that up. Hardly a strawman to suggest media outlets use shortened versions of club names, it's literally how the media works, and has done for 150 years. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yep, you found one article. Well done you. And I bet you can find more. Well done in advance. You conveniently missed the discussion that internazionale returns many other non-Inter Milan related hits, by the way. Do some more research and get back to us, we're waiting with baited breath, we really are. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I found ten without trying. 75% of the ones you provided proved you wrong. Keep up kiddo. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that's simply untrue. And denying it undermines your doomed attempt here to convince anyone that the common name is F. C. Internazionale Milano. Which is abundantly is not. Anyway, good luck with your journey! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Common name Internazionale, consistency name Internazionale Milano F.C. Clearly that's the intention here. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The name request is not for Internazionale it's for Internazionale Milano. The only reason your results have changed is because you changed the context in such a fashion that it's now ambiguous. You can't possibly be arguing that internazionale, the Italian word for international, is only associated with football club in English are you? Either way, here are the search results for the websites you noted employing the proposed name vs. the current one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Common name Internazionale, consistency name Internazionale Milano F.C. Clearly that's the intention here. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It might be your intention. Consistency as you keep going on about is a policy fragment. Not unimportant, but nevertheless a fragment of the overall article naming policy framework. This is English WP - every article naming policy that highlights the need for the use of English titles in common, everyday use in the English language, is far more significant than adherence to the single, generic idea of consistency. LeakyCaldron 16:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah because if the article title was Internazionale Milano F.C., that would confuse people unaware it really meant Internazionale/Inter Milan. You must think extremely lowly of most people's intelligence. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Not really. I believe that Wikipedia is for readers not contributors and that the man in the street reader in the English speaking world will expect to see articles presented in English with an English title - hence the numerous naming policies that insist that English speaking titles should be used. I think lowly of editors who think they know best, select policy fragments to suit their case, ignore evidence and rational argument and prefer to arrange books in neat, perfectly lined up, consistent order rather than following the natural order of things. If you cannot get it that this is the English Wikipedia and for obvious reasons articles should have English titles then you are in the wrong place. LeakyCaldron 23:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Presumably these UEFA numbers are across the whole of UAFA.COM. Of course, article naming has to be based on English speaking resources so all of the Italian, German, French, Spanish and other languages used on that site will be inflating the non-English total? LeakyCaldron 14:45, 17 January 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?
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.
Anyway. let's not descend to accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 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.") LeakyCaldron 23:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
BRB, just changing the name of the articles "Torino F.C." and "A.S. Roma" to "Turin F.C." and "S.A. Rome", because WP:UE and WP:PLACE. Pretty sure we should changes all the titles of football articles to remove FC/F.C./A.F.C., because that isn't the common name and definitely isn't just applying WP:CONSISTENCY, like what was being done for this article. Let's break the system right. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Very few people or sources in English speaking countries use any variant of "Internazionale Milano" or "F.C. Internazionale Milano" when referring to this club. Evidence that this is the case was shown clearly during the last move request at Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 1, and there is no evidence that the situation has changed since then. Consistency is an argument, yes, but in all the other examples cited (Manchester United F.C., A.S. Roma etc.) people really do use those names. In this case it is very rare, and COMMONNAME would be clearly broken by the proposed change. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I was a bit surprised that the article repeatedly refers to "Inter Milan", including in some full article titles, e.g. List of Inter Milan players. I was under the impression that this is a bit of a faux pas, and that in Italy, AC Milan and Internazionale Milan are referred to as "Milan" and "Inter" respectively. And that it's either "Internazionale Milan" or "Inter" but never "Inter Milan" because it implies that the blue club are the red one. I was told it was like referring to Everton as "Everton Liverpool".
Or was I misinformed and this is just something that footballing hipsters say to make themselves sound knowledgable? --184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The key part about your comment there is where you say "in Italy". This is not the Italian Wikipedia (you'll find that at http://it.wikipedia.org), and neither is English a widely spoken language in Italy. This is the English Wikipedia, and the policy at WP:COMMONNAME says that we go by the name commonly used in English language reliable sources. For example this BBC article: . I hope that helps! — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)