Jump to content

Talk:Aston Villa 1–7 Arsenal (1935)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aston Villa 1–7 Arsenal (14 December 1935). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:CONSISTENT, We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. Consistency with parent articles Aston Villa F.C., Arsenal F.C. etc. It is not impractical to include the F.C.

For context, following on from consensus in this discussion in January, I moved the Aston Villa-Arsenal page to include the F.C. as it WP:CONSISTENT with the parent articles and to remove the year per WP:NOYEAR. Yesterday, I moved the rest of these to follow that pattern (except the Man U-West Brom page which I missed) but leaving the year in articles which need it. This was reverted so I'm requesting this move to ensure we can properly discuss it.

For reference, every article in Category:Premier League matches and Category:Scottish Premier League matches as well as every article in Category:EFL Cup matches and Category:Scottish Cup matches (excluding finals) include the F.C. and all bar three in Category:FA Cup matches (excluding finals) include it. As do other match articles such as FC Bayern Munich 1–2 Norwich City F.C. (1993), Lincoln Red Imps F.C. 1–0 Celtic F.C. and Juventus FC 2–3 Manchester United F.C. Articles in Category:Football League First Division matches are the exception and not the rule. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. Why do you want this change, Stevie fae Scotland? What possible reason can there be to add "F.C." into all these pages that will help readers? No other sources whatsoever do this in their titles, as you'll see from a Google search: [1]. We typically include "F.C." in club names, because there generally ambiguous... for example Liverpool is the city, and even Coventry City could refer to the city. So adding "F.C." is helpful there. But that doesn't apply to scorelines. I don't understand the motivation for this request I'm afraid, but perhaps you can clarify.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be perfectly honest, I don't want to get into some long, protracted discussion with another editor. I respect that you have a different view on this so allowing the community to get involved and put forward their view is the right way forward. The reason it helps readers is that it's consistent titling as I've said above. You're arguing for PRECISE but not adding the F.C., as you yourself say, is ambiguous so it's also more precise to include it. For the sake of 8 characters, I don't think CONCISE is an issue. As I say though, I'll let other editors chip in with their opinions. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little strange to open an RM and then to refuse to discuss aspects of your proposed move when queries are raised about it. There's no need for a long protracted discussion, but when the move requested seems to have little to recommend it in terms of usage in sources, I feel like it's worth asking the question of why we're here. There is no need for strict consistency between one set of article (the clubs) and another set (the matches) when it doesn't particularly help readers to have that consistency. And also there's no precision issue here. Nobody would confuse a scoreline with a city in the same way they would with a simple club name. For example Liverpool is ambiguous between city and club, but Liverpool 0–2 Southampton is not ambiguous.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your points so I fail to see where the refusal is. There's also nothing more I can say as it would just rehash everything I've already said. As I say, I respect that you have a different view and I'm not going to change your mind. It's now for the community to weigh in and reach consensus. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that NOYEAR could be applied to the Liverpool-Palace match. I left the year initially purely because Liverpool had had some big wins in recent years so I felt it maybe wasn't as outwith the realms of possibility as another 6–6 involving any two teams is, let alone Leicester and Arsenal. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to respond to the above two support votes, I can see the value in consistency across similar titles, but the consistency can be just as easily achieved in the other direction, by renaming recent articles such as Liverpool F.C. 9–0 AFC Bournemouth to match the title of these older games, i.e. rename to Liverpool 9–0 Bournemouth. So support !votes arguing for such consistency among the match articles don't seem to add much value to the discussion. Article titles are governed by what sources do and, as I've noted above, there are no sources which include "F.C." in scorelines. Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME policy, not things we make up ourselves.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the F.C. would be consistent with the parent articles as has been explained above. Standardisation of article titles is not limited solely to match articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's consistency for consistency's sake. It adds no value whatsoever for readers beyond that and simply clutters the titles. Nobody has explained so far what benefit to readers there is to this proposed change to these long-standing titles, and our focus should be on that.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has explained so far what benefit to readers there is I take it you didn't read above then? It's beneficial because it's consistent. Look at it from a readers point of view. If they know the article about Liverpool Football Club is at Liverpool F.C., then they expect related articles to follow a similar pattern. For example, Liverpool F.C. in international football, 2004–05 Liverpool F.C. season, List of Liverpool F.C. seasons and Liverpool F.C. 9–0 AFC Bournemouth. As a result, they find what they are looking for more easily. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I feel like there is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:CONSISTENT, which I wrote specifically to address this particular confusion (among others). We do not have to use natural disambiguation for Liverpool the club in titles where there is NO ambiguity. The proposed titles violate that, as they also violate WP:CONCISE. They also violate common name! Nobody says "the match that Aston Villa F.C. lost 1-7 to Arsenal F.C."; nobody writes "Coventry City F.C. 2–2 Bristol City F.C.". At WP:AT we strive for titles that are natural, precise, concise, recognizable, and consistent with other usage; while two of those are a wash, the other three are strongly in favor of the original titles. Red Slash 18:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The F.C. in the titles is unnecessary and cumbersome. If it is felt that consistency is needed, I would much rather see it applied in the opposite direction, removing F.C. and similar from other similar titles, as suggested by others in the above discussion. I agree with Red Slash's point on commonly used names. The F.C. is implied in any football-related discussion; you never hear it quoted in any TV/radio results lists, do you? (AFC Bournemouth is a specific exception). Nor is it in most Wikipedia articles on football, for example lists of league and cup winners, so for true consistency it should be removed. Hyperman 42 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if we are aiming for true consistency, the years should be added to the Villa-Arsenal and Leicester-Arsenal matches. Hyperman 42 (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aston_Villa_1–7_Arsenal_(1935)&oldid=1205435670"