User talk:Andrewa/RfC on sporting club names

Why this page

See this RM close. Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

And it turns out it wasn't the first such suggestion, there was one at Talk:FC Porto#Requested move 20 January 2015 too, see #RMs below. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 August#A.F.C. Bournemouth. Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Where to raise this

I think that the RfC should be raised at WT:AT, with a heads-up at WT:Naming conventions (sports teams). Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You'll probably want to put courtesy mentions on the various sporting WikiProjects, in particular WP:FOOTY. I fully expect them to pile in and oppose any proposal to remove dots from names, as they did at the recent Bournemouth RM and MR, but if they're not invited to the party then they'll probably cry foul anyway, and everyone has the right to participate and contribute.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, very good suggestion. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:VPP would probably be a better place - get more participation - if you don't want to do it at WT:Naming conventions (sports teams). WT:AT would more be for discussing the policy and not general naming convention issues, IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Evidence

I don't propose to clutter the RfC with too much evidence, but as evidence that the guideline is often not cited, have a look at this discussion and note how long it took for anyone to point out that there even was a formal convention! Andrewa (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2018 (

RMs

It would be good to have some more actual examples of clubs whose articles have been proposed for moves which involved adding or removing the fullstops. Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:FC Porto#Requested move 20 January 2015 removed the fullstops, with a suggestion during discussion for an RfC. This suggestion does not appear to have been followed up.

Talk:AFC Wimbledon#Requested move is a much-cited RM which also removed fullstops. Andrewa (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RfCs

I haven't created many and have had far fewer supported! WP:RfC#Separate votes from discussion gives some relevant directions.

The appropriate template is Template:Rfc, with a parameter of |style to link it automatically to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming.

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2012/December#RfC: US city names seems a well thought out format... but it failed.

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/February#Request for comment seems a good example of how not to do it, it didn't so much fail as fizzle.

We're not as bad as Referendums in Australia, but most RfCs still fail in my experience. I'll try to find some exceptions. Andrewa (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The options

See this post which says in part I wouldn't recommend drawing a distinction between letter clusters that either do or don't stand for something, again because consensus may be elusive.

But perhaps of more interest, it lists options: (a) Document SimonMayer's practice by amending the naming convention, or (b) Move F.C. and A.F.C. articles to FC and AFC and document the preference for FC and AFC in the naming convention, or (c) Leave everything as it is, or (d) Choose names for articles case by case.

I assume that SimonMayer's practice was to include the fullstops. The post continues To me, option (b) looks the most elegant, and it has the advantage that article names would not look old-fashioned (as A.F.C. Bournemouth does). But this is perhaps just a personal preference. Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That is indeed a personal preference of mine, but not just. In the Bournemouth case (and probably some others), omitting the fullstops makes the article title consistent with the common name and the official name of club.

A thought on the drafting of the new words (your detailed proposal): I have a feeling the fullstops may have been systematically included in, or added to, many titles of football-team articles regardless of whether the common name or official name of the club actually includes Football Club / F.C. / FC. The same might apply in the A.F.C. cases. Addressing the new words only to the abbreviations where they occur in the names of clubs begs the question: Which clubs have F.C. / FC in their names? It might be safer to word it, "... that occur in the titles of many articles about football clubs" or something along those lines.

Concerning SimonMayer: it was indeed that user's practice to introduce the fullstops. See, e.g., SimonMayer's many contributions on 20 Feb 2004. The practice may be older, though.

Concerning gnomes: common or garden gnomes might not be able to do the spadework because the moves would be round robins requiring a request in each case. --Frans Fowler (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Personal preferences

I confess a personal preference for the names without the fullstops, as has at least one other editor. I just think it looks better. But no doubt others have the opposite opinion. Neither personal view should carry any significant weight. Andrewa (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Official scarves

See

http://andymatter.pbworks.com/w/page/128252631/official%20scarves

Sorry should have been http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/128272479/official%20scarves Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

for the official merchandise of

• Arsenal F.C., whose logo and scarf both read Arsenal but that's a DAB
• Manchester City F.C., whose logo and scarf both read Manchester City but that's a redir to the club article
• Manchester United F.C., whose logo and scarf both read Manchester United but that's a redir to the club article
• Chelsea F.C. whose logo reads Chelsea Football Club and whose scarf reads Chelsea FC both of which redir to the club article
• Liverpool F.C., whose logo reads Liverpool Football Club and whose scarf reads Liverpool FC both of which redir to the club article

and more to follow, maybe. Andrewa (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

AFC Bournemouth, whose article started the latest round of discussion, has a logo and scarf that both read AFC Bournemouth (I just added the scarf image to the link above). Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Added a Portuguese scarf for A.D. Esposende that does use the "dotty" version of the club name (see #Other affected terms below). The crest just says ADE. And moved the page to one that isn't password protected (sorry, my bad). Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Other affected terms

The more I look the bigger this gets.

This RfC should not just seek to clean up FC and AFC.

The article on A.D. Esposende currently reads Associação Desportiva de Esposende (abbreviated as AD Esposende) is a Portuguese football club... (my emphasis). The associated categories appear to have been recently renamed [1] to add the fullstops, following a bold move 15:08, 8 August 2016‎ Fenix down (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (10,105 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Fenix down moved page AD Esposende to A.D. Esposende over redirect: Portuguese clubs conventionally use "." in article titles.) more than a year previously. The redirect from AD Esposende therefore exists.

However, AD Fafe and its categories omit the fullstops, and while I have not been able to locate an image of the club scarf their crest reads AD Fafe. So the claim above that Portuguese clubs conventionally use "." in article titles needs to be seen in context... note conventionally not always. That article currently reads in part Associação Desportiva de Fafe (abbreviated as AD Fafe) is a Portuguese football club based in Fafe... (my emphasis). The redirect from A.D. Fafe was created in 2012 in what seems to be an undocumented merge or, worse, a cut-and-paste move, see Talk:A.D. Fafe and Talk:AD Fafe . Another reason to always have the redirect! Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Style vs sources

Interesting comment: Wikipedia has its own style guide which clearly states that articles are not capitalized. How outside sources capitalize the title is irrelevant. Following the style guide is important to achieve and maintain consistency within Wikipedia diff Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)