Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox football club/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Opinion poll for the clubname infobox parameter

I am going to close this, as it is somewhat clear there's a consensus leaning towards the option C, which is probably the most reasonable one and complies for good with the guidelines' raison d'être. Notable exceptions should be required explicitly in the talk page and must be accepted with wide consensus, of course.

There's also kind of a consensus for the clubname parameter to feature the most common name, but no shared opinion about how to individuate it. In cases like these, current guidelines apply: we have a general one, WP:COMMONNAMES, and a more specific one, that is WP:NAMES#Sports teams. Use them reasonably until a wider consensus can be reached. --Angelo (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a poll to decide the consensus for the standards, if any, to be applied to the clubname parameter, i.e. what appears bolded at the top of the infobox. MickMacNee (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Background discussions:

Options

I propose the following voting options :

  • A - it should be the article name
  • B - it should follow a fixed set of rules with no exceptions (decide them later)
  • C - a standard should apply as in B (and be enforced), but can be overturned with consensus in particular cases on individual talk pages
  • D - it should always be decided on the article talk page in every case i.e. mass edits are never permitted

Votes

Discussion

For the A voters, what actual point do you see in having the club name parameter at all then? In the case of Heart of Midlothian F.C., the full phrase with F.C. or Football Club would then appear 4 times in the top 2 inches of the article, and that just seems like visual overkill to me. If A is the outcome, and applied without any exceptions, then the clubname parameter might as well be removed from the template and thus remove the temptation to edit it at all. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the "full name" parameter would be a better one to drop if you want to lose one. - fchd (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that has, or should have, a lot of the xyz associated gymastics club etc info in it for foreign clubs, see football club names. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As a side effect of this, I'd like to suggest a clean-up of intro's to stop egging the pudding by threading everything (and oft repeating of Football and its many variances. If we include F.C. - so be it. But there has to be an effort to clarify many of the club intro's to reduce repetition that will put off the reader.--Koncorde (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, an infobox is supposed to be a quick visual summary of the article, in the same way that the lead section (intro) is a prose summary of the article. If so, then by definition the infobox will duplicate what appears in the intro of the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If A is implemented then FC will surely have to be added to all references to the club - i.e. Navigation bars at the bottom of each club or league's page listing the other clubs in their division or the league's divisions, and also added onto the end of every club in every historic football table like those on XXX F.C.'s season by season history where past tables are shown, in lists of clubs, in list of winners of competitions, in the table showing FA cup scores in a certain season etc etc etc etc. If FC is implemented in the infobox header it could open a whole can of worms.
Disagree. As I stated above, an infobox is a quick summary of the article. Usage in the infobox has no bearing on the layout of any other section of that article or on the layout of any other article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The point is more to clean up the intro's prose as part of a concerted effort of bringing them all in line with respect to not repeating itself there. If the infobox provides duplicate information in the process of delivering a pen-pic of the team, fine...but if the article mentions Football or F.C. a dozen times plus the infobox, then it's getting silly. Often the league, division, nicknames etc can be left out of the initial prose allowing it be developed more fully later on whereas currently a lot of them follow the policy of "shock and awe".--Koncorde (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As usual this debate is pretty anglo-centric. If we select A) does that mean that we have put stuff like Club Atlético Vélez Sársfield, when evryone knows the club as Vélez Sársfield, but the full name is used to avoid confusion with Dalmacio Vélez Sársfield and Vélez Sársfield (barrio) and is used instead of C.A. Vélez Sársfield which would be in complete opposition to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (being just about the least common way of referring to the club [1] vs [2]). Other long winded examples that would be enforced by option A would include:

and thats just a few of hundreds of potential examples from South America.

In light of this I appeal (in the strongest terms possible over such a trivial issue) that people either support option C, or make the ruling applicable only to British clubs, since the debate has not mentioned a club based outside the U.K. (other than Mick's brief point above) English peasant 19:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well put! This is exactly why I believe Option C is the best. You're right, we were really thinking of British/Irish clubs i.e. F.C. and I was admittedly focusing on them but your examples of those foreign clubs perfectly highlight why C is the best option. Adding the article titles to all those forign clubs' infoboxes would be a nightmare to do and would look a total mess. Sarumio (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think all this discussion has achieved so far is a consensus to remove the parameter altogether since it seems to be so subjective as to what it is supposed to be achieving. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ive no idea where you've come up with that conclusion! Just because you voted A and it is currently not the most popular option doesn't mean that the parameter should be removed altogether just because you arent getting your own way! Sarumio (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
"just because you arent getting your own way!" please! While you spend hundreds of hours worrying about FC or not to FC, I'm getting on with adding featured content to both the WP:FOOTBALL project and others. Seriously, some of us need to get out more. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anyone asking for its removal, simply a decision on what it's doing. If the choice is A; it's a good question at what point do you stop/start? I made the point previously about A.C. Milan SpA...do we spell it out? or are we going to be "selective". In which case 'A' is fudging itself already. The one thing A's, B's and C's agree on is that a standard should be set, and followed. However A's want a blanket approach to every team to match the article title, C's want a blanket approach to removal of F.C....with the option of constructive discourse if it's part of the name such as with A.C. Milan who are possibly one of the better known if not best known utilisers of the F.C. style moniker. Sarumio meanwhile - now's not really the time to start throwing out accusations of any sort.--Koncorde (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for removal of the parameter either. The way the articles on the South American clubs I mentioned above are currently laid out are absolutely fine in my opinion. Club Social de Deportes Rangers de Talca has to be called the long name, C.S.D. Rangers, CSD Rangers de Talca, Talca Rangers, Club Rangers, whatever would just be artificial constructs to shorten the article name. Everyone familiar with the club knows them as Rangers, unfortunately this simplified name is utilised elsewhere, specifically Rangers F.C. so it cannot be called Rangers. Putting the common name at the top of the infobox above the club crest gives the reader immediate clarification of how the team is commonly known in a much more visible way, than burying the fact in the introduction of the article:

Club Social de Deportes Rangers de Talca (commonly known as Rangers) are a Chilean Football based in the city of Talca.....

-English peasant 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Club Social de Deportes Rangers de Talca
File:Fullname = Club Social de Deportes Rangers de Talca
Nickname(s)Los piducanos, Los huasos
FoundedNovember 2 1902
GroundEstadio Fiscal, Chile
Capacity17,020
Chairmanchileno Elías Vistoso
Managerchileno Óscar del Solar
LeaguePrimera División
Primera B 20072nd (promoted to Primera División)
Rangers
File:Fullname = Club Social de Deportes Rangers de Talca
Nickname(s)Los piducanos, Los huasos
FoundedNovember 2 1902
GroundEstadio Fiscal, Chile
Capacity17,020
Chairmanchileno Elías Vistoso
Managerchileno Óscar del Solar
LeaguePrimera División
Primera B 20072nd (promoted to Primera División)
Asociación Social y Deportiva Justo José de Urquiza
[[File:fullname = Asociación Social y Deportiva
Justo José de Urquiza|frameless]]
Nickname(s)El Tifon Celeste
Jota
Los Celestes
FoundedJune 8 1936
GroundEstadio Ramon La Cueva
Loma Hermosa Buenos Aires
Argentina
Capacity4,000
ChairmanRaúl Cobian
ManagerMariano De La Fuente
LeaguePrimera C Metropolitana
Clausura 20073rd (playoff QF)
Just a point of visual illustration-

Why do we want to enforce a rule that makes the club crest the filling of sandwich between two identical citations of the full official name of the club? It just looks silly, especially when any Chilean will tell you that the club is called Rangers. I can't see why we need to legislate against the clearly superior (and unstretched) version below English peasant 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The infobox featuring the full club name as its title is two, maybe three millimetres wider on my screen. What about yours? - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Same width on my screen. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Internet Explorer, I take it (just checked myself). - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I can check Safari tonight. Seems the principal objection now is someone's idea of aesthetics? Subjectivity heaped upon subjectivity. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a whole millimeter wider in Safari. Anyway, we've already established heads are meeting brick walls here. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are you both talking about the width of the infobox? That wasnt the issue being raised by English Peasant at all...Sarumio (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, English Peasant was making the subjective aesthetic claim that the second infobox was " clearly superior (and unstretched) version ". Firstly it's subjective that it's superior. Secondly, it isn't stretched at all. That's what we're saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the way I read it, was that EP's primary point was that there is no need to "sandwich the club's logo" with two pieces of identical information which is basically what you'd have if you enforced the rule that the infobox header be the same as the article title! (Ps its stretched on my screen - about 2 cm wider but this really isnt the point) Sarumio (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
O.K. if people think its subjective to hold the view that unnecessary repetition of an extremely long name 3 times in the top 2 inches of an article (which in reality is hardly ever used like the fact I have never said or heard anything like "Lets go down the pub to watch the Manchester United Football Club versus Arsenal Football Club game" in real conversation) is inferior that's fine. What annoys me is that people ignore the main thrust of my argument and start going on about how the infobox is only a bit stretched, as if I randomly stumbled across the longest football team name on Wikipedia in my 3 minutes of research. Perhaps the J.J. Urquiza one isn't stretched on anyone elses browser either, it definitely is on mine. And as far as I'm aware the club are almost always called Jota Jota (Spanish for Jay Jay) or Jota Jota Urquiza but they're named after Justo José de Urquiza so they cant have the short name. English peasant 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Haven't seen anyone pushing for Football Club to be part of the header... - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I Already said that South American clubs are often called by their full name because the short name clashes with something else and shortening "Asociación Social y Deportiva" to A.S.D. or "Club Atlético" to C.A. would be artificial constructs to shorten the club name which would go against the naming conventions. So enforcing option A would have much bigger repercussions for the infoboxes of a load of teams I care about, yet no-one else here seems to have even heard of. All I want to ensure is that no-one is going to come along making a mess of all the clubs in South America citing Option A as consensus, because of the trivial edit warring over whether F.C. should be included in the infobox of mainly British clubs. English peasant 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Asociación Social y Deportiva
Justo José de Urquiza
Full nameAsociación Social y Deportiva
Justo José de Urquiza
Nickname(s)El Tifon Celeste
Jota
Los Celestes
FoundedJune 8 1936
GroundEstadio Ramon La Cueva
Loma Hermosa Buenos Aires
Argentina
Capacity4,000
ChairmanRaúl Cobian
ManagerMariano De La Fuente
LeaguePrimera C Metropolitana
Clausura 20073rd (playoff QF)

Look, I've fixed it! It wasn't that hard! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly not interested in the consensus here anyway... In the past few days you've made a number of edits... [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Perhaps you could explain why you're continuing to make these edits Sarumio? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there are a few people making edits back and forth on both sides in many of those instances of which Sarumio is not alone. In some cases it appears he's simply reverting what has been changed by someone else since this discussion started on the 9th of April.--Koncorde (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Rambling Man - you should not make accusations without the facts in hand - as Koncorde has just said - 4 of those edits were reverting edits Richard Rundle had sneakily made after this poll was set up. The other was reverting Dudesleeper's edit. Sarumio (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

←Well by now he should know better, as should anyone else involved. This for example was reverted yesterday afternoon. There's no excuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

He should. But note please that there was an existing dispute with Dude Sleeper going through all articles without consensus applying F.C. This is not all one way traffic, though I agree all should cease.--Koncorde (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your words will fall of deaf ears Koncorde! Sarumio (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very constructive Sarumio. Can you tell me why you've been making these changes since the discussion started? Do you care at all about consensus? Mick's done his best here to try to resolve this issue by centralising discussion and all you care to do is continue to willfully edit and push your own POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Rambling Man - as i just said above if you bothered to read it - Those edits were reverting what Richard Rundle had done - inserting FC into the infobox header of those 4 articles whilst this discussion was taken place - ive made no fresh edits since this discussion has taken place! Stop trying to spread lies and bend the truth in a light that is easier for you to attack me once again! Sarumio (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring while this discussion is taking place. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And, FYI, this edit was made yesterday, the edit to reinsert the FC was last made before this discussion started, on 8 April, and it was not made by Richard Rundle. So please, when you refer to me bending the truth and spreading lies, consider your evidence first. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Im not edit warring! Ive already explained that those 4 articles were edited whilst this dicussion was on going by Richard Rundle. Do you accuse him of edit warring? the SCFC one was a blind mistake! Even so you didnt attack Dudesleeper at all for adding the FC on the 8th of April did you! Sarumio (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, Sarumio, please read what you're writing. Dudesleeper changed that on the 8th, this discussion started here on the 9th. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You only reply to certain things dont you TRM - you have no case on the 4 Richard Rundle edits so you turn to something else - also regardless of when Dudesleeper made that edit you didnt revert it! why?
Primarily because you have been asked probably a hundred times to stop. And yet you don't. Richard and Dudesleeper ought to know better but they haven't been blocked for persistent edit warring. You could always adopt the higher ground here by ignoring edits made since the start of the discussion but you don't, you have to have it your way. I'm not trying to have a "case" for anything. I just want you, and anyone else who's cared to read this far, to stop edit warring. It's really very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For those opting for C

A mini-break here, just to gain some understanding for those voting for C. What is the proposed "standard"? I note from my learned friend above that in the case of "Club Social de Deportes Rangers de Talca", "any Chilean will tell you that the club is called Rangers". Do we have a list of "common" names which are universally acceptable for every club in the world? I have witnessed here already dozens of people arguing over the common name of clubs, it strikes me that without a purely objective ruling, we're all wasting a lot of time here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the standard is the normal name for referring to the team. Manchester Utd Football Club are Manchester Utd, Barnsley Football Club are Barnsley...unless someone on their own talk page comes to some other arrangement and opts to retain Barnsley F.C. for whatever reason that may be. As for foreign teams - surely we defer to superior knowledge/information when it comes to the infobox. If it's possible to cite the shortened albeit "informal" version of the name then that would obviously be helpful. An easy guide might be "What is listed in that countries league table" or "fixture list" or similar type of logic.
Unless someone purposely then chooses to simplify every name down to the nickname/city for the purpose of being obstinate then I don't see there being an issue.--Koncorde (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well that's exactly what I'm referring to. Making the decision here subjective on "who knows best" will always lead to conflict. That's pretty much we're here because Sarumio knew best on hundreds of clubs and dozens of editors disagreed with him. You see the problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
...no, I must have missed that bit. If you can cite, if it's verifiable etc then there is no issue. If the decision is to render all "F.C." removed other than in obvious cases (such as F.C. Bayern, or A.C. Milan) then so be it. Any further decisions regarding the reduction of an infobox 'name' is then down to the people who make the most edits on that particular article. In English Peasants example if the editors on that wikipage opt to change it to "Rangers" then that is within their rights as the chief contributers. I don't think it's right to claim one choice here will "always" lead to conflict. That's circular logic based on the fact you believe someone will dispute any name put forward.--Koncorde (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure it's circular logic when there's clear evidence that what one editor thinks is right, and another doesn't, there's no consensus and edit wars break out all over the place. That's what's brought us here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And, interestingly, at no point was Sarumio the "chief contributor" to any page he has edited. He made a judgement call to change every common name of every club page he edited to the common name he thought was right. Option C is going to result in this again since new editors and those who edit without consensus will not go to the talk page and discuss it. Everyone here knows that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Option C prevents that, because it prevents mass edits against the general rule without consensus on the talk page.MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And so with option C you'd advocate a discussion on the talk page of every football club article which has the FC added and taken away without due cause? You can't "prevent mass edits", you can only block disruptive editors. Simply distilled, option C opens floodgates for edit warring. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, currently neither edit has due cause without a general rule does it?that is what causes edit wars. But if C was passed, and a single editor edits against the established rule without first gaining consensus on the talk, then they would be reverted, and if no-one else supports it, they would either stop, or be banned for 3RR. If they wanted to start a general campaign, they could be stopped and reverted by referring them to the decision for C reached here (if that happened). This is how WP works. MickMacNee (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Option C lets contested cases be worked out on the talk page, without that consensus being taken and applied to all other infoboxes. I think in most cases, 'common name' is quite an easy thing to decide. I will repeat my belief that if it has to be rigidly objective as the article name, then why have it at all, what purpose is the field serving as being the 3rd/4th repetition of the same name in the top two inches of the article? MickMacNee (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely Mick. It should be objective therefore it isn't needed. What is the actual purpose of the field? If a subjective view is adopted then it's inherently POV. I think we're slowly heading for a commonname which needs citation for every controversial example which, judging by those who objected to Sarumio's mass edits, there will be many. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you've missed the point. The damaging aspect of Samurio was the reaction of changing all Premiership articles to the article name, because the common name couldn't be agreed for one or two articles. This clearly creates more disputes, not less, as it's obvious that most Premierhsip teams do not have FC in their common name, but the situation is created where it has to be one way or no way, clearly not an acceptable solution juding by the vote so far, and comes close to a WP:POINT edit. Common name is not massivly POV if you fix a general rule first, and get consensus one way or the other for disputed names. MickMacNee (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Then I need you to suggest a "rule". Clearly in dozens of cases where FC was removed, editors disagreed with it. What's the rule going to be in these cases? Another of these talk page discussions which end in no consensus and then further mindless edit warring over what commonname really means? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm reluctant, as I don't see a decision for C yet at all, so I don't want to derail this discussion. Suffice to say I think there are a majority of cases where a common name is easily choosable that will not be the article name. I don't mind it being A, I just don't then see the point in displaying the parameter at all - if it cannot be anything other than the article name, then why not remove the temptation to edit it at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand. And yes, we're clearly at no consensus at the moment. My biggest fear is that the "easily choosable" common name will be POV. What benefit is gained from having a commonname in the infobox in the first place? Common alternative references to a club, nicknames etc are usually discussed in the text and, where required, citations are provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree and say the Common name is easy to decipher - remove the FC/AFC/SC etc and you have the common name! There would be obvious exceptions like AC Milan and possibly the Rangers example above and these could discussed on the individual club talk pages! For British and Irish clubs it would be obvious what to not include for the common name! Sarumio (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, once again that's your opinion on what the common name is. As you've stated, there are "obvious exceptions" and let's face it, you've found dozens of them, that's why so many editors have reverted your changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet more tripe - What makes the people making the revert any better than me - at the end of the day its just thier word against mine 1 v 1 - which is why ive stopped and am discussing a rule here! If a result swings in favour of no FC then they'll have no right to revert it and they'll have to discuss it on that articles talk page if they want it reinstated. If option A is chosen its a similar story. That is only fair Sarumio (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Now now, no need for "tripe". There are no options now which state a "no FC" rule. Any rule which is made here can be overturned with consensus, that is Wikipedia, as Mick points out. All I'm saying is that you thought you'd found the obvious "common name" for hundreds of articles, you chose to implement the changes without discussion, dozens of them were reverted by many different editors, so those articles will need to have a discussion on the talk page to agree on the common name. Unless all common names are removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, if option C were to be chosen, and the general rule was that (at least for Anglo-clubs) the common name was the name of the club minus the "FC/AFC", then i'd say that would apply to all articles and then on individual aricles if people werent happy about the FC etc being removed and felt that strongly, they'd start a discussion to have it reinstated (i.e. if option C was chosen and an editor of Blackpool felt really strongly that Blackpool's common name was Blackpool F.C. they could start a campaigh on the talk page). But i really cannot see this happening too often IMO. You seem to be creating obstacle and problems where there are easy remedies. Sarumio (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the last I'll say so, as you like, you can have the final word. The consensus at the moment most definitely does not favour your approach. I'm not creating "obstacle and problems", as far as I can see you're "fixing something which isn't broken". I'm simply staggered at the wasted time on this matter, whether FC or not, the massive energy used up here could have been used to actually improve the Wikipedia. Instead we're down in the weeds. Anyway, as I say, I'll offer nothing further now and await the outcome when the time comes. Have a great day! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a seriously degrading comment that is absolutely unnecessary by any token. You're slinging mud and attempting (for what reason I know not) to effectively undermine the opinions of an individual. Sarumio's "mass" edit to remove F.C. were reverted by two or three editors without any consensus of their own. Was Sarumio's approach correct? Probably not. Was the subsequent response correct? Definitely not. When someone/people then purposely goes back through the entire league and reverts Sarumio's actions, then inserts F.C. where it previously didn't exist 'without consensus' and they also happen to be the ones causing the most stink about an issue and then conduct an edit war against Sarumio, who responds in kind....at which point Sarumio is banned. There's something inherently unfair about the approach of certain people to this whole debacle. The amount of time and energy wasted is irrelevant, because at any point anybody can walk away.--Koncorde (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a couple of quick points, "seriously degrading"? I don't think so. Sarumio's edits were reverted by not two or three, try eight or nine editors. That's one in favour of mass editing and eight or nine against. Sarumio banned? No, he had a very brief block after being warned to stop his continual edits many, many, many, many times. All you need do is read his deleted talk page to see the warnings. From many different editors. And yes, you're right, anyone can walk away, and since you state that I'm "slinging mud" and imply that my approach is "inherently unfair" then I shall do just that. But please explain how this discussion is enhancing, building, improving the Wikipedia? I'm going back to creating articles, life's too short. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Was that the moral high ground I just saw taken then?--Koncorde (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And let's not jump the gun, the rules for option C (if passed) are to be agreed and archived later, the point of voting for C is to accept the principle that there should be an enforceable standard, but it will be overturnable on the talk page in disputed cases (as WP really should work). MickMacNee (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Right now, as expected, we're at no consensus! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
...No, at the moment we're 4 days short of a "result" to a poll.--Koncorde (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which...I like the two anonymous users at the end there...--Koncorde (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Four days? If there's an alternate duration to the one given by Mick below, I haven't seen it. Besides, as we know, polls can't serve as a substitute for consensus. I'm considering favouring option C personally, especially since I know which article Sarumio will be making a beeline for when the poll has expired. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh for christ sake, Dont be so childish Dudesleeper! I wont make a "beeline" for any article! Grow up! Sarumio (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, don't know why I took the 9th and put 10 days on it instead of 7. Long day.--Koncorde (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps jumping the gun, but I've voted option C, and my preferred rule for it, would be to have the club's commonname there. E.g. Arsenal, Manchester United, Rangers, AC Milan, Barnsley. It doesn't matter to me that there may be other teams called Rangers, or that Arsenal could be a military term, or Barnsley is also the name of the town. The infobox for a footballer, for arguments sake Alan Smith, say Alan Smith, and don't have the football disambig term in there, or any other disamig to differentiate it from any other notable people called Alan Smith. I'd prefer to keep it simple, and keep it to terms people are fully familiar with or can easily understand. Peanut4 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the reason we got into this mess, though, and why things should be worked out on a per-article basis. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Personally, that sounds like a very long and drawn out thing to do for each and every article. It would take forever - secondly, if you believe that - why didn't you vote option D? Sarumio (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What's the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Who mentioned rushing? Sarumio (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You said "that sounds like a very long and drawn out thing " and "It would take forever " as if it was a bad thing. We've got plenty of time to get each name right. There's no rush. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, much like Dudesleeper, if thats what you want then go change your vote to D. Sarumio (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Bzzzzz. I swear I'm hearing a bee. I wrote "on a per-article basis", not all-article. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

←I don't need you to tell me how to vote, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And i don't need you putting snide remarks like "Whats the Rush" and then start talking about Option D which you didnt vote for and everyone else so far has, in so many words, said they don't want.Sarumio (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Calm down please. You've missed the point utterly. It wouldn't matter one iota if we had to discuss each and every common name. That's the whole ethos of Wikipedia. There was nothing "snide" in my comment. It's entirely appropriate for me to have my own opnions which may be overruled for the best of Wikipedia. Now I'm off to do something less boring! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

I suggest closing the poll in 1 weeks time. MickMacNee (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So voting over? Sarumio (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Impartial closure requested at ANI here MickMacNee (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of the conclusion, it appears that User:Sarumio has, once again, made his own mind up as the result. Sorry to everyone involved for wasting all your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_football_club/Archive_4&oldid=1091990706"