Talk:FC Steaua Bucureşti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] older entries
It wouldn't be a bad idea if people that start editing this page would take more care of the way they use the English language. It's pretty annoying to read a page when it's full of grammar or spelling errors, especially when you're a fan of the team. Also whenever you create a link, make sure it is a valid link. It's really annoying to see the page full of red links or links that instead of sending you to the page of a football team they send you to the page of the city or of the quarter where that team plays. I've tried to edit as many mistakes as I could find. Giuseppe86 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
And one more thing - a little bit of modesty never hurt anybody.Giuseppe86 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've edited some more club links and I think all of them work. Also I think it makes sense to use the old name (like Croatia Zagreb, instead of Dinamo Zagreb; the same applies to Casino Salzburg and Red Bull Salzburg), since that was the name the club used when it played Steaua. A question though - isn't it a bit confusing to sepparate a season between two years (like the 2004/2005 season sepparated between 2004 and 2005)? I mean in football the division used is the 'season' and that in most cases doesn't match with a year. I hope to get some thoughts instead of people that come around without announcing what they want to do with the page Giuseppe86 10:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You can say either that you 'win on penalties' or 'win after the penalty shootout'. The form 'penalties shootout' is wrong (a simple check on the internet is enough to prove it). Giuseppe86 13:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed a line where it said 'the frantic Steaua's fans' with 'the frantic Steaua fans'; 'Steaua's frantic fans' is also an option Giuseppe86 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have doubts about the statement that Steaua's 104 matches without defeat is a world record. RSSSF, one of the best sites in the world when it comes to football statistics, shows under Miscellaneous - Unbeatability records that ASEC Abidjan is the holder of the world record with 108 matches. If it is true then Steaua's record of 104 matches is only a European record. Giuseppe86 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You are right. This has now been changed.--Oliviu 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two different pages...
This page (Steaua Bucureşti) has become too large and therefore needs to be split. This makes sense as long as Steaua Bucureşti is a sports club with quite a number of departments and not only a football team, which is actually FC Steaua Bucureşti.
I suggest to make a brand new page named FC Steaua Bucureşti (at the moment it redirect to Steaua Bucureşti) for the football team and leave Steaua Bucureşti for the sports club. However, I don’t have the right knowledge to do it myself and I require some help.
Also if someone changes please note that there are many pages which link the page Steaua Bucureşti at the moment. They all should be changed (maybe using a robot?) to link to FC Steaua Bucureşti.
[edit] Message for SupervladiTM
I understand that you are a big Steaua fan and considering the amount and the relevance of the information you added on the page you probably work for Steaua in some position, however you must always obey a Wikipedia rule: You must always be neutral. Thanks for understanding. --Oliviu 10:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Issue of racism involving Steaua
Several times in the last six months, I've edited this page to include information that I think is important: the fact that Steaua Bucuresti's fans have been involved in some notorious incidents of racism in recent years. See, for example: http://www.uefa.com/Competitions/UCL/news/Kind=1/newsId=327828.html
http://www.farenet.org/news_article.asp?intNewsID=663
This does not make Steaua unique, unfortunately; Lazio-Rome, St. Germain-Paris, one of the Belgrade teams, and numerous other European clubs are plagued by racism. But the fact that Steaua has been sanctioned by UEFA in the last two years should be known, and is relevant to the recent history of the club. Yet the Steaua fans who dominate this page has always removed any references to the history of racism (both anti-black and anti-gypsy). The removal of this information violates Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality.
[edit] Season Transfers should be removed from the main article
The current season transfers section should be removed from the main article because is not relevant. The main article deals with general info about the club and its history. That kind of information about the transfers is not that acurately and it changes rapidly. THIS IS NOT WIKINEWS! A page with that info about the transfers, current squad, even matchdays was created and covers very acurately what happens to the club in the current season. This article is a former Featured Article Candidate and it failed to earn its star mainly because of these issues. So, this article will be again a candidate for Featured Articles and will probably not meet the Wikipedia's criteria if this info about transfers remains on the main page. Let us make this article a better one and let us all learn about Wikipedia's rules. Thank you. (GabinhoPalavras 08:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
[edit] GAC October
I have failed this article.
Prose
- Many language issues throughout the text. Incorrect grammar, incorrect usage of English terminology is prevalent throughout the article. Asking for a copyedit from WP:FOOTBALL is probably recommended. I don’t think listing every example here is going to be helpful.
- Could you please point out some?... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- One-two line paragraphs need to be merged into one another.
- Sounds decent enough. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- ”National Team of Romania” – only Romania should be caps
- Yes, good point. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Becali wikilinked over and over
- But in different sections... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
POV
- In almost every section, the army roots of the club is stated in the first sentence. This seems excessive: either it assumes the reader is forgetful, or is hammering on about something
- That may be. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Controversies section is POV. Unfortunately I cannot read Romanian, but this section is not presented in a non judgmental way. Especially te Ceaucescu thing. It si sourced to Ceaucescu.org ?!?!?!
- Lots of FAC's are referenced in other languages than English. Ceausescu.org is in no way a biased website. The same (I guess) for the other references in the section. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Becali section does not seem NPOV at all, and seems to focus ofn his idiosyncracies in a negative way. Esp “the facts that the current shareholders, that include several nephews of his, are people loyal to him and that he is still in charge of Steaua are obvious”
- An older peer review suggested I should focus on his idiosyncracies... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Pop culture is undue weight. Most of the pop culture is about modern things, and there is more on the pop culture than the modern history.
- Doesn't popular culture actually mean pop-culture?... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
OR
- Author makes the assumption that the success is the cause of the popularity – how do we know this? Ferrari has always been the most popular even when it was hopeless
- I was pondering myself about that aspect actually... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- ”a record unlikely to be broken in the nearby future, as none of the current players have entered the top 10 so far” OR – source is raw stats
- They're not raw... They're the official rankings for most appearances and goals scored. An almost identical sentence appears in FAC Chelsea_F.C.#Records.
REFERENCES
- A very large part of the references comes from the website of the club, and cannot be considered to be WP:RS, since the source is not independent. Some parts are not referenced.
- References linked to the official website refer to pure facts, present on other sources as well. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Uniform sections are poorly sourced
- For instance?... Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- One of the mini-pars about racism is unsourced – red light for libel etc.
- Right, I think I saw it. Vladi 09:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus to move. Because WP:NC#Sports teams was boldly added by one user four months ago with no edit summary or discussion, and there seems to be a dispute about whether this section is descriptive of our current practice and community consensus, it is not really a great argument. This naming debate should probably be taken to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Prolog 17:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
FC Steaua Bucureşti → FC Steaua Bucharest — The result in Dynamo Kiev is clear, but someone still using consensus as their criteria. So I have to make the discussion. I don't prefer to do this, but I still have to copy the naming convention there.
Sports teams
This is the English language Wikipedia so generally the regular English name should be used. For example, use Bayern Munich rather than FC Bayern München, Red Star Belgrade rather than Crvena Zvezda and so on. Note the English name is not always the 'authentic' name used on the club crest and so on. For example, Sporting Clube de Portugal are always called Sporting Lisbon in the English-speaking world. |
—Raymond Giggs 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Support, first of all it's the more commonly used name and secondly there's a clear rule on wikipedia. BanRay 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support per WP:ENGLISH. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, official names should be used, conventions should be changed. - MTC 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment You know, I'm starting to get a feeling that the only reason people oppose such moves is as in some kind of protest against the rules of wikipedia. Ignore the rules, just have some common sense. With this kind of logic we shouldn't transliterate cyrillic and greek names either. BanRay 10:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I feel Sporting Lisbon, Bayern Munich or Steaua Bucharest are rather popular names inside the Enlish-speaking world and they should not be mistaken for the official names. A different name, be it even in popular English, MAY be mistaken for something else. This is not the case of FC Steaua Bucureşti, but in case of an already existing entity called Steaua Bucharest, a major confusion would be created. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to redirect the English names to the already existing ones, which has already been made in most cases. Examples that sustain my theory (in my opinion) are names written in special characters althroughout Wikipedia or, for instance, Palais du Louvre. Vladi 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, and popular names should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't understand your reasoning Steaua Bucharest exists only as a redirect to FC Steaua Bucureşti - what confusion are you talking about? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - in general if we are given the option between two reasonable choices, we should use the UEFA official name if it is already the status quo (I am not arguing that we should *move* PFC CSKA Moscow to PFC CSKA Moskva - but if it were already there, then I would argue to keep it there). I see that "Steaua Bucharest" has 166 Google hits while "Steaua Bucuresti" (with or without the accent) has 6,300 Google hits. It seems to me also that this is a very minor issue to argue over - I seem to recall one or two debates like this before, which led nowhere... ugen64 23:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - The club's official name is FC Steaua Bucureşti. UEFA uses FC Steaua Bucureşti. Some English speaking media use Steaua Bucureşti. Examples = (1) (2) (3) I agree that the naming conventions should be changed as I'm in favor of keeping Crvena Zvezda, Dynamo Kyiv, Slavia Praha, etc. The naming convention has an factually incorrect statement in it anyway, Sporting CP are not "always called Sporting Lisbon in the English speaking world." In the Sporting - Manchester United Champions League match the ESPN announcers said that the term Sporting Lisbon is out of date and the club prefers Sporting Clube or Sporting Clube de Portugal or Sporting CP for short. --Tocino 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Please be kindly refer to the words of the move result in FC Dynamo Kiev.
-
The result of the proposal was — surprise — move. We have fairly clear policies and guidelines, WP:NC#Sports teams which is based on WP:COMMONNAME, and they are clear in this case. I am aware that the votecount below is in vicinity of 10:1, but we don't do votecount, sorry — most of the keeping arguments are along the lines of WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:PERABOVE, and "we should use official names" — however, we don't. See DeLarge's post below for thorough arguments. Duja► 10:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Consensus is not the condition to decide the article should be move or not. If you want to complaint, please suggest a convention change. Raymond Giggs 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - UEFA uses the official name for all european clubs and as long as wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its articles do have translations, i think keeping the official name is the right thing to do. The moving will also make no sense because Steaua is not an English word and will be necessary a translation as well for it....and the result will be something like this: FC STAR BUCHAREST. That in my opinion is far from the common name of the club: FC Steaua Bucureşti...and again, this naming is used by UEFA for all its competitions. (GabinhoPalavras 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
- Oppose - The club refers to itself as "FC Steaua Bucuresti" on its official English website ([1]). - PeeJay 09:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose no arguments have been brought up to justify the move, on the contrary, the current name is proper (UEFA, official page). feydey 12:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Any additional comments:
I'd like to see more discussion on why FC Steaua Bucharest would be considered of being "the regular English name", as pointed above - UEFA is using the current name etc. A quick check placed for example the common "Inter Milan" club name to F.C. Internazionale Milano. I'd like some views/investigation on this before deciding. feydey 02:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am also confused about Inter Milan. But I think we should do something which is easy. For Steaua, it is not a English name and it should be "Star" in English, but we could not call the club as "Star Bucharest". It doesn't make sense. However, Wikipedia still have too much double standard. Raymond Giggs 05:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article was moved from FC Steaua Bucureşti to FC Steaua Bucharest yesterday. I have reverted this move, pending the outcome of the above discussion. AecisBrievenbus 12:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I also note that if the consensus of the survey would be to move this article to FC Steaua Bucharest, this should probably also apply to other football clubs from Bucharest, such as FC Dinamo Bucureşti, FC Rapid Bucureşti, Maccabi Bucureşti, FC Progresul Bucureşti, FC Unirea Tricolor Bucureşti, Venus Bucureşti and Victoria Bucureşti. I will post a message on the talk pages of these articles, pointing them to this discussion, and I will notify the WikiProject Romania. AecisBrievenbus 12:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Great, more nationalism. I suggest you notify Wikiproject Football, to avoid any inference of canvassing. Aecis, WP:NC#Sports teams is very straightforward and easy to understand, and discussion on one talk page does not override consensus. You should really know this. Neil ☎ 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Neil, WP:NC#Sports teams explicitly states that generally the English name of a club should be used. That allows for exceptions. And that is what this survey is for, to assess whether this is one such exception. AecisBrievenbus 13:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- So will you reopen the discussion again when the next administrator trying to clear the WP:RM backlog closes it in a manner you don't agree with, too? The discussion had happened, was overdue for closure, and I closed it, inline with policy and precedent. Neil ☎ 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's bullshit. Don't try to drag my opinion into this. It has nothing to do with it, if just for the simple fact that I don't have an opinion on the title of the article. If you disagree with me, fine, but this is just ridiculous. AecisBrievenbus 13:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- So will you reopen the discussion again when the next administrator trying to clear the WP:RM backlog closes it in a manner you don't agree with, too? The discussion had happened, was overdue for closure, and I closed it, inline with policy and precedent. Neil ☎ 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Neil, WP:NC#Sports teams explicitly states that generally the English name of a club should be used. That allows for exceptions. And that is what this survey is for, to assess whether this is one such exception. AecisBrievenbus 13:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Great, more nationalism. I suggest you notify Wikiproject Football, to avoid any inference of canvassing. Aecis, WP:NC#Sports teams is very straightforward and easy to understand, and discussion on one talk page does not override consensus. You should really know this. Neil ☎ 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Personal dissapointment
This article will never be a FA nor a good article. It also had been the victim of some wikipedia rules that don't apply to other articles on this encyclopedia. When I first started to edit on wiki I was quite enthusiastic but later this feeling faded. For example the artcle had been moved to a name that is not used in the world of football. Steaua had always been known for its official name: FC Steaua Bucureşti. This name is used worldwide to refer to Steaua. I personally found this situation annoying and I suggest that a move should take place. I mean, the other Romanian football clubs with Bucureşti in their naming were not moved and those awkward wikipedia rules applied only to this article.
Here are some examples about football clubs that have articles based on their official club names:
- Sporting Clube de Portugal
- Associação Académica de Coimbra - O.A.F.
- F.C. Internazionale Milano
- Olympique Lyonnais
- Deportivo de La Coruña
- Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata,
and the list can go on.
If there is a rule on this issue let this rule be applied to all articles. If not, this article should be moved to its rightfull name. With great dissapointment, GabinhoPalavras 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason why other article could not be moved, is because of there is no any cite about their English name. However, "Steaua Bucharest" is shown in the English version of the official website. I thought I could move Internazionale to Inter Milan, but the club name is too widely for move, so I gave it up. Raymond Giggs 06:37, 25 February 2008 (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.