Talk:Inter Milan/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Requested move 29 January 2022
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano – per closed RM Sceptre (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Inter Milan is the common name. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Mvcg66b3r: If you want to contest the close of the previous RM, Wikipedia:Move review is the proper venue, not starting a new RM. Lennart97 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Quick link to the discussion on the closer's talk page, leading to them changing their original decision. Crowsus (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is absolutely outrageous. User:Sceptre has been bullied by editors who didn’t like the decision into making a new one. I think this needs an admin review. – PeeJay 13:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing outrageous about it. I was simply following the instructions at WP:IMR, bullet point #1, which advises to "attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page". In that discussion, along with three others, pointed out that the guidance for closing RMs had not been followed in this instance, in that with supporters arguing two competing valid policy arguments and roughly equal numbers on both sides (indeed a very slight majority opposed) the correct determination is "no consensus", rather than following the argument which the closer themselves finds more persuasive. I think it was the correct decision by Sceptre to reverse the close, but had they not done so I would have taken the matter to move review and I think it would have been overturned there anyway. There are line calls which can be called in either direction, but a review of the discussion above suggests this is not one of them. Conversely, the discussion which established the Inter Milan name in the first place had a strong numerical majority in support of that proposition, again with policy on their side, and that argument carried the day on that occasion. That was 10 years ago now, and the Inter Milan name is now the established status quo, absent a consensus to move back again. — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh sure, that discussion started by a now banned editor which was closed prematurely just as people started opposing it. The fact is there was never a consensus one way or another and it should never have been moved at all. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not only that, but as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that move was performed based on faulty evidence. Comparing usages of “Inter Milan” to “Internazionale Milano” was always going to produce a one-sided result, but considering no one was suggesting the article should be called Internazionale Milano, the comparison was moot. That entire discussion was fishy as fuck, and now we have two editors who seem so irrationally attached to the current title that they’re willing to go crying to the closing admin because he took it away. I look forward to hearing User:Sceptre’s input on this because something is definitely up here. – PeeJay 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've already pointed you to the instructions at governing the move review process, step one of which I followed with Sceptre on their talk apge, so I have no idea why you're still repeating the vaguely bad faith accusation that I was "crying to the closing admin". And I am not "irrationally attached" to this title, my attachment is very rational given that it is the name used in the majority of English sources, including Britannica, the BBC and others. As for the 2012 discussion I wasn't involved in that, but I'd have thought the statute of limitations has well passed on relitigating that one, especially given the numerous failed attempts over the past decade to reverse it. You can carry on discussing the matter with Sceptre if you like, even open your own move review if that rocks your boat, but I think you know deep down that from an impartial perspective the discussion above did not really produce the result that you'd have liked it to. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Using Britannica isn’t really the “gotcha” you think it is. They use Juventus, Manchester United and Real Madrid too. The reason we don’t do that is because it creates inconsistencies with the rest of the articles we have on football clubs around the world. I have never argued that Inter Milan isn’t a good title in certain circumstances, but when it creates inconsistency issues in the face of a perfectly recognisable and accurate title in F.C. Internazionale Milano, one has to question the faculties of the people who would argue in favour of Inter Milan. Use it as a redirect, by all means, but don’t create consistency issues where none are needed. – PeeJay 17:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've already pointed you to the instructions at governing the move review process, step one of which I followed with Sceptre on their talk apge, so I have no idea why you're still repeating the vaguely bad faith accusation that I was "crying to the closing admin". And I am not "irrationally attached" to this title, my attachment is very rational given that it is the name used in the majority of English sources, including Britannica, the BBC and others. As for the 2012 discussion I wasn't involved in that, but I'd have thought the statute of limitations has well passed on relitigating that one, especially given the numerous failed attempts over the past decade to reverse it. You can carry on discussing the matter with Sceptre if you like, even open your own move review if that rocks your boat, but I think you know deep down that from an impartial perspective the discussion above did not really produce the result that you'd have liked it to. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not only that, but as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that move was performed based on faulty evidence. Comparing usages of “Inter Milan” to “Internazionale Milano” was always going to produce a one-sided result, but considering no one was suggesting the article should be called Internazionale Milano, the comparison was moot. That entire discussion was fishy as fuck, and now we have two editors who seem so irrationally attached to the current title that they’re willing to go crying to the closing admin because he took it away. I look forward to hearing User:Sceptre’s input on this because something is definitely up here. – PeeJay 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh sure, that discussion started by a now banned editor which was closed prematurely just as people started opposing it. The fact is there was never a consensus one way or another and it should never have been moved at all. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- The accusation of bullying here is unfounded. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing outrageous about it. I was simply following the instructions at WP:IMR, bullet point #1, which advises to "attempt to discuss the matter with the closer of the page move discussion on the closer's talk page". In that discussion, along with three others, pointed out that the guidance for closing RMs had not been followed in this instance, in that with supporters arguing two competing valid policy arguments and roughly equal numbers on both sides (indeed a very slight majority opposed) the correct determination is "no consensus", rather than following the argument which the closer themselves finds more persuasive. I think it was the correct decision by Sceptre to reverse the close, but had they not done so I would have taken the matter to move review and I think it would have been overturned there anyway. There are line calls which can be called in either direction, but a review of the discussion above suggests this is not one of them. Conversely, the discussion which established the Inter Milan name in the first place had a strong numerical majority in support of that proposition, again with policy on their side, and that argument carried the day on that occasion. That was 10 years ago now, and the Inter Milan name is now the established status quo, absent a consensus to move back again. — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is absolutely outrageous. User:Sceptre has been bullied by editors who didn’t like the decision into making a new one. I think this needs an admin review. – PeeJay 13:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
F.C. Internazionale Milano is the name that should be used for the page, it is very clear and numerous relevant sources (as the UEFA one) and reasons have been explained above. The main and simplest one is that Inter Milan is a British/American "nickname" and an abbreviation while the official name of the team is Football Club Internazionale Milano. If you keep Inter Milan, then the Manchester United F.C. Wikipedia page must be renamed Man United or Man U and the Real Madrid CF page must be renamed Real or Madrid if there is a shred of consistency in your actions. Someone should explain why a special rule should be applied ONLY to Internazionale and its page should be called by an abbreviation and not by the official name as all the other clubs?? Bergenoslo (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- All this is a valid argument, but then again, the argument that we should use the commonly recognized name is also a valid one. Some of us are happy to take the hit of having a small inconsistency for the wider benefit of having this article at a name which will be familiar to our readers. And reader experience is our number one priority. And by the way, the "consistency" argument is slightly overstated anyway - we already have smaller inconsistencies such as FC Barcelona (without dots) vs Manchester United F.C. (with dots). And I have no idea what FC Bayern Munich is... it is not the official name (which would be "FC Bayern München"), and it is also not the most common or concise name in English, since it has an unnecessary "FC" at the beginning. Again, that's not consistent with other titles. My favoured solution would be to remove "FC" from other titles, e.g. Juventus, Udinese etc. and treat each one on its own merits, but at least we have this one at the best title for now. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- "FC Bayern Munich" does comport with WP:NCST, however, since the club does refer to itself by that name on the English-language section of its official website (look what the tab in your browser says when you go to this link, and if you go here, it says "FC Bayern Munich AG" and "FC Bayern Munich eV" under the "Organisation" section). It may not be the most common name, but it is used and it is recognisable. Of course, that sets up the question: if we're following WP:NCST for pretty much every sports team article on here, why are we not following it for this one? – PeeJay 14:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- For Internazionale Milano the NCST rules are not satisfied. The requested title does not satisfy 2 of the 3 requirements, namely 1) The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website, 2) The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable. For the 1st requirement it is mentioned only once - as a copyright owner. 24 other references are "Inter". In the case the 2nd it hasn't been so adopted. NCST then says that '...in cases where there is some ambiguity... the name most commonly used by the English-language media should be used.' Leaky caldron (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The first criterion is satisfied in the same way as with the Bayern page: when you go to this link, the text in your browser tab should say "Inter.it Home Page | Inter Official Site | FC Internazionale Milano". No rational person would expect the club to be referred to by its full name every single time; they refer to themselves most commonly as Inter because that is the colloquial name that most people on the site would know them by. Interestingly, they don't use the name "Inter Milan". I wonder why that is... Secondly, it would be ridiculous to expect that the club's full name would be used regularly by the media, but it is used by UEFA, Soccerway and the Financial Times, and many others use simply "Internazionale", which means the name "FC Internazionale Milano" is hardly unrecognisable. Finally, please point to the "ambiguity" you're referencing; how exactly is "FC Internazionale Milano" an ambiguous name? And even if there were ambiguity, as I have pointed out, just as many English-language sources use the names "Inter" and "Internazionale" as use "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 15:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- My browser - Google Chrome on Windows - displays "Inter" - nothing else. I think NCST refers to "ambiguity" in the sense of ambiguity between which title to implement, but I might be wrong. NCST seems to focus on spelling irregularities so I'm not sure that it is even relevant guidance in this instance, to be honest. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The first criterion is satisfied in the same way as with the Bayern page: when you go to this link, the text in your browser tab should say "Inter.it Home Page | Inter Official Site | FC Internazionale Milano". No rational person would expect the club to be referred to by its full name every single time; they refer to themselves most commonly as Inter because that is the colloquial name that most people on the site would know them by. Interestingly, they don't use the name "Inter Milan". I wonder why that is... Secondly, it would be ridiculous to expect that the club's full name would be used regularly by the media, but it is used by UEFA, Soccerway and the Financial Times, and many others use simply "Internazionale", which means the name "FC Internazionale Milano" is hardly unrecognisable. Finally, please point to the "ambiguity" you're referencing; how exactly is "FC Internazionale Milano" an ambiguous name? And even if there were ambiguity, as I have pointed out, just as many English-language sources use the names "Inter" and "Internazionale" as use "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 15:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- For Internazionale Milano the NCST rules are not satisfied. The requested title does not satisfy 2 of the 3 requirements, namely 1) The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website, 2) The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable. For the 1st requirement it is mentioned only once - as a copyright owner. 24 other references are "Inter". In the case the 2nd it hasn't been so adopted. NCST then says that '...in cases where there is some ambiguity... the name most commonly used by the English-language media should be used.' Leaky caldron (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The point about consistency being overstated as the preeminent rule that must be followed is well made. The explanatory supplementary WP:TITLECON itself states that Consistency in titles means that: titles for the same kind of subject should not differ in form or structure without good reason. But importantly, It also clarifies that Consistency is only one of several title considerations, and that it generally falls below several other considerations in the hierarchy of title determination. So taking all factors into account it is no surprise that 5 previous requests have been declined. This is English WP - the titles should be generally be English, recognisable, natural, precise, and concise. Using a title in Italian not used in English sources does not even comply with WP:TITLECON, much less all of the other En-WP article naming policies, guidelines and best practice. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- "FC Bayern Munich" does comport with WP:NCST, however, since the club does refer to itself by that name on the English-language section of its official website (look what the tab in your browser says when you go to this link, and if you go here, it says "FC Bayern Munich AG" and "FC Bayern Munich eV" under the "Organisation" section). It may not be the most common name, but it is used and it is recognisable. Of course, that sets up the question: if we're following WP:NCST for pretty much every sports team article on here, why are we not following it for this one? – PeeJay 14:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
As previously stated please note that UEFA uses the name FC Internazionale Milano. Which English source is more relevant than UEFA in the european football framework? Bergenoslo (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like we're going around in circles at this point, but just to be clear once more, we are not looking for the "most relevant" single source, our policy says to look at all English sources and choose the one which is most frequently used across all of them. The WP:COMMONNAME policy says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." The UEFA site and Inter's own website may give us some hint as to the "official" name, but we don't particularly use that as our title unless it's also the most commonly used across all sources. — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- The thing is, no one has ever established that “Inter Milan” is the most common name for the club. Sources are divided between Internazionale, Inter and Inter Milan, and in the absence of a prevalent nickname, we should stick with the official name, per WP:NCST. – PeeJay 16:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no club called Inter Milan
How does anyone with an ounce of knowledge not reverse this idiotic use of a nickname as the article title? Bigdottawa (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, we could open another WP:RM discussion, but while the move would be correct, unfortunately a lot of people don't see that way. – PeeJay 11:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- The second source cited in the article as a reason for this page being titled Inter Milan actually states that calling the club Inter Milan is wrong! It's clear to anyone with a smattering of knowledge of Italian football that there's no club called Inter Milan! User:mike1971interUser talk:Mike1971inter 11:38, 23 July 2021 (BST)
- I never even noticed that before. That's quite hilarious. – PeeJay 11:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- In fact, neither of the sources cited there properly verify the claim that the club is "known as Inter Milan outside Italy" and the second source is literally just a clickbait blog post. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I would argue that both links are evidence that the name "Inter Milan" is used outside Italy, it's just that the second one makes a specific point of saying it's wrong to use that name. – PeeJay 12:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I assume that's the Paste Magazine post, and where do they get their sources from, I question the reliability of that source! Govvy (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- The day high quality sources such as BBC Sport stop calling them Inter Milan, we can follow suit. But for now, it is the clear WP:COMMONNAME in English, and as such is not *wrong*. It might sound wrong to Italian ears, but this isn't the Italian Wikipedia. — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree that it is a mistake to call the club "Inter Milan", even in the English Wikipedia. Indeed, BBC Sport is not the Bible of football, nor the only reliable source for names of football clubs in the English language. Please note that UEFA, which is the governing body of European football calls the club FC Internazionale Milano, or Inter in brief. UEFA should be considered more reliable than BBC Sport regarding the names of European football clubs in the English language. please find the link to the Inter page section on the UEFA official website: https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/clubs/50138--inter/ --Bergenoslo (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
INTER fan from Lombardy here: in Italy and italian Swiss (Canton Ticino) we call the team and the club "INTER" (also UEFA) that is an abbreviation of "INTERNAZIONALE MILANO" (few people use this name in Italy and Canton Ticino). By the way outside Italy and Canton Ticino INTER is called "INTERNAZIONALE" (for example in FIFA competitions) or (mostly in english speaking coutries) "INTER MILAN" (Inter of MILANO). The connection between MILANO (Milan in english) or Milano's metropolitan area is very very strong, so the new official logo featured I and M (that means Inter of Milan) to globalize the club. So, in my opinion, the english wikipedia title "Inter Milan" is correct. The only funny thing is that A.C. Milan in Italy is called "MILAN" so, for many "INTER" fans is strange to see the word MILAN to identify our club or team (to indicate the derby result in Italy and Canton Ticino we and media use "INTER-MILAN 0-0" for example). In my opinion the correct form to identify "INTER" globally is "INTER F.C." because the official full name is "FOOTBALL CLUB INTERNAZIONALE MILANO". So "AC MILAN v FC INTER", but is impossible due to globalization of the brand. Furthermore there is in U.S.A. a team called "INTER MIAMI CF" or simply "INTER MIAMI" and in Brasil there is a famous team called officially "SPORTING CLUB INTERNACIONAL" but also called "INTERNACIONAL DE PORTO ALEGRE" or "INTER DE PORTO ALEGRE" or simply "INTER". CONCLUSION: For me the better choice for the english wikipedia title is "INTER MILANO". By the way in english is correct also Inter Milan due to club official logo. Igts2ane Igts2ane (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"Corporate" section is a mess
I wish to embark on cleaning up the "Corporate" section. It is too heavily skewed to the period between 2006 to 2016 where it contains way too much detail, and yet the section is completely outdated; saying nothing about the current Suning debt financing issues with Oaktree, nor any information from the earlier Moratti era. There is also no chronological ordering to the information, it seems people have simply been information dumping throughout the years the specific status of the club at that time without much thought into weaving a concise historical narrative.
It needs a wholesale rewrite. If anyone has any concerns or suggestions before this is undertaken, your thoughts are appreciated. Maranello10 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Update: As there are no objections, I will undertake the rewrite. Maranello10 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023
 | This edit request to Inter Milan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
allow me to fix this page 125.165.188.210 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023
| This edit request to Inter Milan has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
allow me to correct this page thanks NovalHIlmi2923 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- What’s wrong with it? If you let us know, someone might be able to make the correction for you. – PeeJay 18:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The real name is F.C. Internazionale
The name should not be Inter Milan 2A0C:5A81:B601:8900:2D7B:BB07:8703:4D4B (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Shirt Sponsor To Remain Nike
Mizuno is not taking over as the shirt sponsor. Nike has a deal through 2031
"8 More Years: Inter Renew Nike Deal - Footy Headlines" 165.166.239.226 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Found Missing Citation
Under the subheading "Le Grand Inter", there's a note stating that a citation is needed to confirm that Karl Rappan invented the catenaccio system. I found confirmation here:
Wilson, Jonathan. *Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Football Tactics (10th Anniversary Edition)*. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2018. p. 194-195. 174.92.58.47 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)