Jump to content

Talk:FCSB/Archive 2

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

Requested move 12 October 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved I realize that this will likely be a controversial close, since the result was either slightly favouring moving numerically or tied depending on how you count noses, but consensus is not simply a nose count, and strength of arguments matter. Those opposing raised the strongest point that the question of the name should be based on what the common name is in English language sourcing, and provided sourcing to show that it was still at the old name, even if this was not the official name. While it may be possible that the usage has changed in Romanian, it is up to those supporting a move to the official name to demonstrate that usage in the English-language has changed, and that has not been done here. Because of this, the arguments opposing a name change hold significantly more weight than those based on primary sourcing in Romanian. This is enough in my reading of the relevant English Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and naming conventions to push this from a no consensus result to a result of not moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

FC Steaua București → FC FCSB – There is a final court decision regarding the name of the club. This page should be moved to reflect the new name of the club, Fotbal Club FCSB Gunnlaugson (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose move. The nominator has provided no evidence that FCSB, much less the redundant FC FCSB, is the common name.  ONR  (talk)  09:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: This article has to be moved because it generates confusion as there is already another team legally using the name Steaua. FC FCSB is name used by the Romanian League, the Romanian Football Federation and UEFA and by the media: https://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50065/profile/index.html Gunnlaugson (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: It has been a long time since the name change and FCSB is currently the common name for the club. Splur988 (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Beside the official name change, national and international media have begun to use the FCSB denomination and have also covered the topic extensively. Also, the FCSB current name usage can also be verified by a Google search: FCSB app. 4.5 million results; FC Steaua (or other denominations such as FC Steaua Bucuresti, FC Steaua Bucharest etc.) best result app. 1.2 million. Also, several other-language Wikipedia pages have already changed the page name to FCSB (including Romanian). While the page information should be able to continue to make references to the Steaua name, I think it's relevant for a page title to use the name that is both the most commonly used in media and its official one. SupervladiTM (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: - As per countless of articles and official decisions made by Romanian Press and Romanian law and FC FCSB club itself. I think the most important aspect of an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, is to be precise and to inform the general public with CORRECT information about the subject it refers to. In this case Steaua Bucuresti is a football club that plays in Romania's Liga IV and it carries legacy of the old Steaua team from 1947 to 2002. (Gabinho>:) 12:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC))
  • Support but change to FCSB only: - The club is still known as Steaua but the FCSB acronym has become more common in the Romanian press.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, if common name was FCSB, then per MOS, the prefix FC may still require to indicate the sports, or may the FC in "FCSB" already sufficient. Matthew_hk tc 04:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Support FC FCSB Matthew_hk tc 10:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, “FCSB” is the common name in both English and Romanian sources. I’ve never seen any article refering to the club as “FC FCSB”, maybe only “Fotbal Club FCSB” in official documents. I think “FCSB” is enough to avoid confussion with CSA Steaua. Also, CFR Cluj is in fact FC CFR 1907 Cluj so I don’t see the problem.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move to Fotbal Club FCSB – The name may be tautologous, but it is correct. Simply moving this to FCSB could create ambiguity. – PeeJay 09:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME in English is to use the full name for the club.[1][2][3] FCSB fails WP:RECOGNIZE for English language readers. If anything we should be moving to FC Steaua Bucharest as that is how it is commonly known. Votes above mentioning official names or names used in Romanian sources should not be considered.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I hate to say this, but the media is actually wrong on this occasion. As per the court cases etc. mentioned above, the club simply is not called Steaua Bucuresti (or Bucharest) any more. They lost the right to use that name years ago, and the only reason the name FCSB hasn't caught on yet (aside from it being a shit name) is because they only recently came to definitively enforce the legal fact that they aren't allowed to use the old name any more. – PeeJay 01:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per wp:ball. There is speculation above that the new name will catch on, and evidence that it hasn't yet. We go with the evidence not the speculation. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I would not be against the move in the future (if the name were to properly take hold) but for now all references to FCSB seem to have had to reference the traditional anglicised name (including British TV coverage of European matches/highlights). Further to that, the club's website still references the full name of the club in its banner: FC Steaua Bucuresti. Whilst not in English, it does show that the club is, at this time, refusing to completely move away from the traditional name.--Asterixtintin (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: - As a supporter of Steaua Bucharesti, I can confirm that the team mentioned on this page is not Steaua Bucharest and, in fact, it does not have the right to use that name. The team's real and official name is Fotbal Club Fcsb. Some say that Fcsb is an acronym for FC Steaua Bucharest, but it's not. It would be stupid for a team to be named Football Club Footbal Club Something. There's also a lawsuit going on right now to seal the fact that Fcsb is not an acronym. Following a lawsuit with the real Steaua Bucharest, a Romanian court forbade FC Fcsb to use the Steaua brand and name in 2014. They continued to use the name Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti because they claimed it's not the same as just Steaua Bucuresti. However, they lost another lawsuit and were forced to change the name. They changed it to Fotbal Club Fcsb in the first months of 2017. - TPTB (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, “FCSB” is the real Steaua team, CSA Steaua is just propaganda by the Army. I still agree with the name move though.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, per UEFA and the media. Linhart (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose the common name in English language sources is [Steaua Bucharest] and the article should live there. MrStoofer (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
    Agreed. FC Steaua Bucharest, or even just Steaua Bucharest (similar to Inter Milan), would be the best title here, per English common name in sources.[4] But at the very least it must remain at the current title until there's some evidence that English sources use anything else.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Inter Milan is the common name of F.C. Internazionale Milano, but it is not quite suitable to compare to a club that was not allowed to use the name Steaua București anymore after losing the lawsuit. Even it was the common name in the past, it looks complex to use as a reason to keep to call it "Steaua București" (due to "common name") but actually the club was not allowed to legally. Matthew_hk tc 13:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Matthew_hk tc 14:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Appreciate this is the new official name for the team, but given how generic the new name is, WP:COMMONNAME would have to be overwhelming to avoid recognisability issues for non-expert readers. I would expect a move to this name to happen in time but not just yet. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The lawsuit implied the new club (FC FCSB) did not have connection (or cannot claim to have connection formally) to the club Steaua București from its foundation in 1940s until the transfer of brand name to a non-profit organization and then to the current FC FCSB S.A.. Matthew_hk tc 16:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Which club has the history?

  • Comment – this article claims to be about the club formed in 1947 as ASA which won Liga I in 1951, etc. So does CSA Steaua București (football). To which of these clubs does the pre-2003 history belong? That decision may be relevant when deciding the best title for this article. Certes (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment – FCSB own the history and honours according to UEFA and FRF. CSA Steaua was founded in 2017 and plays in the fourth league, they only have the right to use the Steaua Bucuresti name. The Army spreads the propaganda that CSA Steaua is the real club.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment- So, before this discussion goes any further, I must point out the fact that 8Dodo8 is in fact a supporter of a rival team. The guy probably hates Steaua and he's probably here just to create confusion. FC Fcsb is the team's real name. The team was founded in 2003 and it used the Steaua brand and name illegally, pretending to be Steaua. The high levels of corruption in Romania helped it out and kept it alive. Otherwise it would have closed down years ago. The team has been involved in numerous scandals, from racism to corruption, and its shadow owner was actually sent to jail for trying to bribe another team. Now, the justice system in Romania is making a comeback. Due to this, the real Steaua won two big cases against FC Fcsb. The judges who judged over those cases ruled that FC Fcsb had no right to ever use the Steaua name and brand. The official documents of those two court cases also mention the team honours. And I have to also add that FC Fcsb's sports certificat shows that the team was actually founded in 2003. It was all a huge lie. FC Fcsb will probably close down next year, as it's involved in another lawsuit with Steaua, one where Steaua asks for FC Fcsb to pay reparations for the years when it used the Steaua name and brand illegally. We;re talking here about almost 40 million euros in reparations. So FC Fcsb will probably declare bankruptcy once the lawsuit is over. At that time, this entire page will either have to be taken down or modified to present the real information. Right now, what FC Fcsb is doing is just stalling for time. They know they don't have the Steaua honours, but they keep using them, thanks to high level Romanian corruption. They did the same thing with the Steaua name, but they were eventually forced to change it. Right now, as this article stands here, it's just a bunch of lies and nothing more. And I get that you guys want to use information that is published on news websites, but they have no idea what they're talking about. Most of them use the false information provided by the FC Fcsb officials themselves. - TPTB (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment- By the way. This discussion was supposed to be closed ten days ago. Even now there are more votes in favor of the change to FC Fcsb. Why are we still talking about it? - TPTB (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment- TPTB is just brainwashed by the Army, who instead of paying money on tanks to defend the country, start a war for a football club. I'm not a supporter of FCSB, my only team is FC Petrolul Ploiesti but I can't stand injustice. I explained why CSA Steaua is a fake team here: Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)#False or inaccurate information on this page.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment So the guy actually thinks that the Romanian Army is paying me to post on Wikipedia. I hope you now understand what I was talking about. And I also hope that an admin will take care of this guy who, instead of bringing facts to a discussion, insults people and calls them brainwashed. - TPTB (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't say they pay you. You are starting this Wikipedia war because you believe everything the "good guys" from the Army say. You are forgetting about how until 2011 or sometime that period when Gigi Becali paid them rent for the Ghencea stadium they supported FCSB. ;) Also, the so-called ultras who are now attending CSA's matches made fortunes after getting money from Becali for choreographies. 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment My man, can you prove these things? Or are you just posting here to pass the time? These conspiracy theories are all fun to read but, at the end of the day, facts are all that matter. Fact: Fotbal Club Fcsb is not allowed to use the Steaua brand and name. Fact: Judges have already ruled that FC Fcsb is using the Steaua honours illegally. Fact: FC Fcsb can't prove anything, as it has absolutely no documents to back its claims. Fact: The Romanian Football Federation is untrustworthy. Right after the end of the lawsuits, they said that FC Fcsb was not Steaua. In time, they changed sides and started backing Becali. Fact: FC Fcsb has broken several FRF rules. Fact: Becali is a known criminal. These are facts, friend. You may think that the army is paying me or that fans have risen against Becali because he doesn't pay them, but these are just stories until you get some proof. What puzzles me is why the hack you can't stick to your own goddamn team. As you already admitted, you hate Steaua. So why are you spending so much time on this page? It makes no sense. Unless you just want to mess up the page. - TPTB (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I’m not trying to mess up the page. Show me a link that proves that FCSB lost its honours. Oh wait, you can’t because UEFA attributes them to Becali’s team. Even if they did lost the titles, CSA would still own 0 (zero) titles because they have been refounded this year. These are facts.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, you are. You're here just to mess things up and cause trouble. You keep talking about UEFA this and UEFA that, but the fact is Becali can't use Steaua's honours with his business. The law forbids him to sell T-shirts or other stuff with those records on them. He can't sell a shirt with the European Champions Cup on it. But Steaua can. And they do. http://www.digisport.ro/Sport/FOTBAL/Competitii/Liga+1/Cate+titluri+are+de+fapt+echipa+lui+Becali+S-a+facut+lumina+in+p Steaua reactivated its football department this year. Just because all activity in this department ceased in 2003, it doesn't mean that it's not Steaua. SSC Napoli, for example, also ceased all activity for about two years. And they lost none of their honours. The fact is this. There is only one Steaua Bucharest in Romania, and it's not FC Fcsb. - TPTB (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment “CSA Steaua deţine şi palmaresul, susţin cei din MApN’”, translates as “CSA Steaua retains the honours as well, says the ones from MApN”. I want an OFFICIAL document from the Romanian Justice Court that says FCSB doesn’t own the honours. You are just extracting parts of articles of what the people of the Romanian Army believe.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 18:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment My main man, the official documents, the ones written by the judges, to justify their decision in the lawsuit for the Steaua name, state plainly, black on white, that FC Fcsb does not own the Steaua honours. It says so in three different places. In fact, at one point it even says that FC Fcsb is using the Steaua honours illegally on its own website. So yeah, they don't own the honours. But they refuse to obey the law. They did the same thing after the lawsuit for the Steaua brand. They lost the Steaua name at that point, not in 2016, but they refused to obey court orders. And this meant that Steaua had to sue them again, this time for the name.A brand is more than just a logo, it also includes the name, the identity, the history of the product, company or team. And even the honours, in this case. - TPTB (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment club history should belong to the Army's sports club when they were the owner of the football section, the cutting point for this one is clear to me. For the club history as non-profit organization and the limited company (S.A.), it should belong to that entity, but it is ambiguous to also cut it into pieces, as the non-profit organization had the rights to use "FC Steaua Bucureșt", but the limited company did not. It is a mess regarding the successor as a legal person, by the football activities or the contractual rights. Matthew_hk tc 18:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment What people refuse to get is the fact that the army founded the non-profit. The latter entity had its HQ inside the Steaua sports complex in Bucharest. You may not know this, but the Steaua sports complex belongs to the army, which means that, from a legal point of view, it's considered a military base. Because of this, a private entity would never have been able to host its HQ there. But the non-profit did, because it belonged to the army. Later, after 2000, the army allowed it to act independently, but that didn't mean that the non-profit had the power to sell the football team or the Steaua Brand. So, regarding the football team, its history goes from 1947 until 2003 and from 2017 onwards. Between 2003 and 2017, Steaua's football department ceased all activity, due to corruption inside the club. The club could have reactivated its football department earlier, but the former club president, Boroi, did not allow this. In fact, an attempt to reactivate it took place in 2015, when the club's legal officer went over Boroi's head and tried to enter the team in the fifth division. Unfortunately, Boroi found out and stopped it. The football department was only reactivate immediately after Boroi left the club. Boroi left the club at the start of december, in 2016, and, at the end of that month, the club's new commanding officer announced the reactivation of the football department. That guy, Boroi, who was a puppet of Gigi Becali, the FC Fcsb owner, held Steaua back from reactivating its football department. And he also allowed Becali to use the brand in spite of the fact that he didn't own it. - TPTB (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split suggestion

It's clear that this is dispute isn't going to go away any time soon, particularly since the courts say FCSB is not Steaua, but UEFA and FRF say that they are a continuation of the same record and honours, although another entity attached to the owners of the name now exists to challenge this.

I think it would be beneficial, at least for now since various proceedings are still ongoing, for a new FCSB article to be created covering the period from 2003, leaving the FC Steaua article to cover the historic period up to that point, where I believe everyone is in agreement that it was just one club. Any links for 1947—2002 would go to the historic Steaua article and anything from the FCSB years would point to there. That club can't legally call itself Steaua București and are not referred to by that name by UEFA so it's muddying the waters to still have the article named as such when referring to the current team, although it is the correct term to be used in a historic context - splitting up the timeline would largely resolve that, even though FCSB did refer to themselves as Steaua until recently. Both the FCSB article and the CSA 2017 article could refer extensively to the history and honours of old Steaua and could even say they both started in 1947 and claim the honours on both their articles, but it would be clear that many of these factors were disputed.

I realise there is an argument that CSA 2017 is just 'reawakened' Steaua rather than restarted altogether, but since there was a 14 year gap between the FCSB era and the CSA relaunch in a lower division this year, I definitely feel it's justified for those articles to be separated. But equally, it is clear that FCSB will no longer be allowed to call themselves Steaua going forward, so I think it would also be fair to have another article for them. And that would leave all the old references and links and associated pages with the initial neutral 'FC Steaua București' article (here), which was the accurate name for the club when it comes won those disputed trophies, and means less tidying up to be done.

This is just a suggestion of course, but having seen the seemingly endless problems between editors of attributing honours to teams and deciding what name to be used, this might be a reasonable compromise solution (which could still be changed at a later time of course). Crowsus (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose

– This would be a really bad idea. It would send a wrong message, that there was, at some point, a "split" inside the football club and, consequently, two football clubs emerged from one. There was no such split. The football club totally separated from the sports club (CSA). The fact that the sports club (CSA) re-engaged in football activities starting with 2017 does not imply that there was ever a split similar to what you're mentioning. It merely reflects the fact that CSA created a NEW TEAM, established in 2017 in the highest league they were eligible to register as a new football entity.

– Moreover, to tell a Steaua supporter that the team he/she loves retroactively split 20 years ago (by the way, the separation from the sports club happened in 1998) because some brand and name divergences that were settled in court just recently...it's not only wrong, it's plainly absurd. One can't just roll back history like that.

– Adding to that, no Steaua fan (be it FCSB fan or CSA fan) would ever support the idea that the football club he/she loves has to split its honors with another entity.

– At this point. the reasonable solution should be leaving things as it is + adding more clarity by specifying that FCSB is "the club formerly known as FC Steaua Bucharest" Taras bulba 47 (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Taras buble 47. This looks like an attempt to achieve the above RM proposal by another means. This is unnecessary. It is the same club, and in English reliable sources it is usually called Steaua Bucharest. FCSB should be a redirect until that situation changes.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Tentative support – If the government and league have differing positions, and Wikipedians disagree, then the allocation of history seems to be a matter of opinion rather than fact. How about splitting the history into a subarticle rather than a separate topic, in the same way that Bucharest#Economy links to Main article: Economy of Bucharest? Both current clubs can then have a short history section stating "this club claims a history dating from 1947, disputed by other club, and here's a link to that history". Certes (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - That is a nice suggestion, but I think it's unnecessary, at least on this topic. Steaua (FCSB) fans don't see the history of the club as having been split with someone else, ever. It's the Steaua (CSA) fans that support the idea that their team, formed in 2017, has a history and a record encompassing the years 1947 - 2003 (???? seems an arbitrary choice!) and, added to that, somehow, the history and record starting in 2017. In this case, such a reference should be made on the CSA Steaua Bucharest (football) page -> "this club claims a history between 1947 and 2003 because..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taras bulba 47 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agree with Taras bulba on this one, the only thing CSA won is the Steaua name. Any claim that they own the honours can't be confirmed, as of now UEFA and FRF consider FCSB the real Steaua.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


Support - Before going forward with the discussion, people need to understand a few things. First, the team called FC Steaua Bucharest doesn't exist. In fact, it never existed. Becali's team used the name illegally. The full name of the Steaua Bucharest team known throughout the world is Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua Bucuresti (translated to The Army's Sports Club Steaua Bucharest). The team that won the Champions League in 1986 was called Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua Bucharest. The part with "The Army's Sports Club" is usually not used, as supporters prefer to call the team Steaua. In fact, when talking about the rugby team, or the polo team or any other department, the press also refers to them as Steaua Bucharest, not CSA or any other name, as some have suggested. As I said earlier, Becali's football team used the Steaua name illegally since its founding, in 2003. Had it done things the right way, the team would have never used the name Steaua in the first place. Had this happened, there would now be no confusion as to which team is which. But, because Becali is a corrupt politician, who has the media in his pocket, he continues to spread lies and to create confusion. Fotbal Club Fcsb was founded in 2003,as its official documents show. It may claim to own the Steaua honours, but it can't prove this.What UEFA and the Romanian Football Federation post on their websites doesn't count either, since it's not an official position of the two entities. UEFA could just as well paste the honours of FC Barcelona to the FC Fcsb page. That would not mean that FC Fcsb is FC Barcelona. So, I am for a split. FC Fcsb's life started in 2003, when, through some machinations, Becali managed to take Steaua's place in the first division. With the help of some corrupt officials inside the Steaua club, he managed to keep the club from reactivating its football department. And that's what happened until a few years ago, when all the nasty stuff came out. Again. The club's own documents show that FC Fcsb was founded in 2003. It does not own the Steaua brand, name, history or honours, since Becali admitted that he never conducted any business with the Steaua club. So please split the information and stop the lies. I am a supporter of Steaua Bucharest and I am sick and tired to be considered a fan of FC Fcsb.- TPTB (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment @TPTB - I gave up answering to you, but I can't avoid it now. You're absolutely incorigible! You say "FC Steaua Bucharest doesn't exist. In fact, it never existed." WHAT ?!?!?!? Did you even take a look at the 1986 Champions' Cup and the names listed there? Yes, it says FC Steaua Bucuresti!!! link here: https://scontent-sof1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22894319_1656326861090902_1807694588951076701_n.jpg?oh=b20a1e6080ea7a6499fb53b6086ab4f5&oe=5A73E58F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.113.226 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment - The deal is this, people. FC Fcsb is currently involved in several lawsuits with Steaua, and it's most definitely going to lose them all. One lawsuit will make the team change its name again, because Becali, the team's shadow owner, said that Fcsb comes from FC Steaua Bucharest. And as I said earlier, his team is not allowed to use that name. In another lawsuit, Steaua is asking for about 37 million euros in reparations for the 10+ years when FC Fcsb used the Steaua name and brand illegally. Now, the sum may be even larger than 37 million, but even if it's 10 million, Becali won't be able to afford it. At that point, he's going to file for bankruptcy and the FC Fcsb wikipedia page will probably stop its existence there. - TPTB (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment as proposer/withdraw suggestion

Thanks for comments. My wish is certainly not to annoy or upset Steaua supporters of either 'type'. I don't want you to lose your history and hopefully this matter will be resolved soon somehow. Maybe even through the lawsuits above.

@8Dodo8: I think you may have been wishing to Oppose rather than just comment since you agreed with the oppose vote above?

@Taras bulba 47: I fully agree that the continuity of FC Steaua into FCSB, supported by UEFA etc, presents a very strong case for it being the same club without interruption. And prior to this year, the legal status didn't really matter as it was just a naming issue so there was no problem. But now it's not as simple as just saying 'FCSB is Steaua' when there is a second team also claiming to be Steaua and showing the honours on its website. Unfortunately, the very scenario you say has never occurred, "two football clubs emerged from one", has actually happened now with both asserting that they are the true club. The fact that the CSA article had to be locked as a result of edit warring demonstrates the strength of feeling on both sides, as well as the fact that both claims have some merit, as explained from the CSA side by User:TPTB and others. That claim obviously comes from the court result which can't just be disregarded, and poses the question: if the current entity has no legal claim to be the same as that which existed before 2003 (hence the reason for suggesting that as a 'start date'), can a new team from the original owners lay claim to trophies won by the historic team they operated? It's an interesting argument, but as I've said, I realise it runs counter to the logic applied by UEFA.

@Amakuru: I wasn't consciously trying to circumvent the renaming issue, but I suppose that is would have been the result. The big problem is, I can't think of many articles on Wikipedia where the subject of the article is currently legally not permitted to refer to themselves by their common name, which is the title of their article. Not sure how much weight that carries in reality. I think I will go to onto relevant articles and request that they show something like FCSB (Steaua) which would reflect both the legal name and the common name. We'll see how that goes....

  • To conclude, having considered the above, I no longer wish to pursue the split suggestion. Even if accepted, which looks very unlikely given the votes, there would clearly be many people upset by it, which was not the plan. If an admin needs to 'close' this portion of the talk, please do so on my account. Also unsure if the hatnote should be removed from the article at this point?

Instead, my new idea is to improve the section of the History of Steaua article relating to the events of the recent past and link back to this as a point of reference in the two club articles, wherever relevant. There is a bit on there already but I think it could be expanded and referenced further. I would encourage others to do likewise, as long as the information adheres to the guidelines on editorialising, neutrality, bias, weight etc. I'm confident that between us we can explain both sides of the argument in a fair manner in that setting. Crowsus (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - As per UEFA, Liga Profesionistă de Fotbal, FRF and any entity including Romanian court of law, FCSB still holds the record. So it's Steaua, ther is no decision which would vanish its honours. There is nothing to improve. CSA Steaua holds the name but has no record, there was nothing in Romanian state of law against FCSB honours. Rasfatari77 (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - UEFA has in fact admitted that it does not consider FC Fcsb as Steaua Bucharest. They were contacted by a Romanian news website and, when asked if they consider FC Fcsb to be Steaua, they answered that they can't comment on this and that the information presented on their website is just what they got froom the Romanian Football Federation and the clubs themselves. http://www.ziare.com/fcsb/stiri-fcsb/motivul-pentru-care-uefa-o-prezinta-pe-fcsb-ca-fiind-adevarata-steaua-1476170 Steaua Bucharest has its own honours and is using them as we speak. It has 21 championships, not 26 as FC Fcsb claims. The fact that it owns these honours can't be disputed, since Steaua Bucharest is already selling products which include the honours. FC Fcsb, although it claims to own the Steaua honours, can't sell products which contain or make any reference to them. - TPTB (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment

@TPTB: but your source says that the FRF recognises FCSB as Steaua, and for the moment at least the UEFA website shows the full list of honours with FCSB, while of course both the FCSB site and the CSA site show their own club as winners of the relevant titles, so it is correct to refer to the these as disputed and mention the other entity claiming them on each article.

If and when it is properly decided that CSA owns the 21 titles, big cup etc and FRF makes the effort to correct UEFA and forces FCSB to remove their claim from their records, then I and all fair-minded editors on here will be very quick to fix Wikipedia to that effect. But at the moment I'm afraid it's all still uncertain, even if some of that may be due to incompetent beurocracy whereby FCSB are still claiming things they are not allowed to and nobody is stopping them (the illegal use of the name is pretty blatant!). Seems like the blame for not enforcing that, as well as providing the info to UEFA, lies with the FRF?

But, inaccurate as it may be, the official sites of UEFA and FRF carry more weight than your counter allegations, which have been mostly unsourced or articles of hearsay from tabloid journalism (we heard X person said Y to Z company in 2004). It may well all be true and you have my sympathy that we can't just take your word for it at present because what you have said makes a good bit of sense to me, but you must see that what's in writing on the majority of official sources at present favours the other side of the argument.

Are there any good sources (in English preferably, but that might be wishful thinking) for the ongoing court cases for the dispute? And when is the outcome likely to be known? Thanks in advance. Crowsus (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment As a Romanian speaker, neither of the articles provided by TPTB say that FCSB officially lost its honours, only speculation or statements made by CSA directors. It’s only the Steaua name that is gone. And since UEFA, LPF and FRF credit these numerous honours to FCSB, I think we should too. For me, a supporter of another club in the country so no personal sympathy included, FCSB is the real Steaua. Today it qualified further from the UEL group stage in front of more than 20,000 people.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Page now protected, revert good faith edits

Hello! The page of Steaua Bucuresti has been protected and I can't bring back the correct intro which was removed. It should read "FCSB (Romanian pronunciation: [fet͡ʃeseˌbe]), short for Fotbal Club Steaua București (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈste̯awa bukuˈreʃtʲ]) and colloquially known as simply Steaua,". Also, the "clubname" of the main template should, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Steaua București" instead of "FC FCSB". Any admin who could help with this minor edits please?8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this, common name is still Steaua București although not offically permitted to use the name. IP edit slipped through unnoticed just prior to edit lock. Crowsus (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Done No opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@MSGJ: the request here asked for the infobox to display the name "FC Steaua București" (per WP:COMMONNAME), as well as updating the text in the lede, so I have implemented that part. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The club's name is Steaua Bucharest

I want to request an admin to replace all „FCSB” in the page content with „Steaua București” because that is the real name of this club.In all the Europe if you ask somebody who is FCSB he will be confused.But if you ask about Steaua București he will surely know.FCSB is an acronym,exactly like BVB(Borussia Dortmund),ASSE(AS Saint Etienne) or FCB(FC Barcelona).There is no other „Steaua” in Romania,therefore I see no reason to refuse changing FCSB into Steaua in this article.At this moment,I consider the article a disinformation to its readers.And also,Wikipedia says that is a free encyclopedia,so the decision to fully protect this page does not match with that „free” term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrizzlyBear2002 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This type of grandstanding 'this is the only true story' editing from both sides of the debate is exactly the reason for the pages being protected. Your statements are clearly not accurate and are in fact the very 'disinformation to readers' that you mentioned. As you well know, this whole problem has got much worse since last summer because there is now another Steaua claiming the history, and at present the well-known club in this article is legally not permitted from using the name, and they appear in the documentation of the Romanian domestic league and UEFA as FCSB. It is to be hoped that the matter will be resolved soon and all uncertainty will be removed, but for this season at least, this club is known in a current context as FCSB on official documents and this should be reflected in the the article. The edit request above your own correctly states that the common term is Steaua but the official name is FCSB. Crowsus (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Like I said in previous comments, the only people who want to keep using the Steaua name when talking about FC fcsb are the people who hate Steaua. They know that we, the Steaua supporters, don't like this so they do their best to keep this unchanged. The team's name is Fotbal Club Fcsb. Fcsb is not an acronym. It cannot be one since the Romanian courts forbade FC Fcsb to use any name that might let anyone to believe that they are Steaua Bucharest. It's written down in decision, black on white. FC Fcsb is not allowed to use the names Steaua or Steaua Bucharest, as well as any other names that might suggest they are Steaua. That's why they can't even use the name Star, which is Steaua in English. The fact that this guy, GrizzlyBear2002, says that there is no other Steaua team in Romania proves what I'm saying. These people are full of hate towards Steaua and they just want to disinform and cause problems for my club. Crowsus, I know UEFA and the Romanian Football Federation back FC Fcsb, but that's only due to corruption and because of Becali's influence. Becali is the shadow owner of FC Fcsb, a former convinct, corrupt politician, and all around bad guy. That's why I'm asking you to help us protect the identity and brand of Romania's greatest sports club. - TPTB (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Both GrizzlyBear and TPTB are incorrect. FCSB is still known as Steaua Bucharest outside Romania, but that is not the official name of the club anymore. On the other hand, UEFA and FRF are correct about the honours, FCSB is the continuation of Steaua (Continuity – the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over time). CSA Steaua cannot claim something after going silent in football for 20 years, they only have the right to use the Steaua Bucuresti name.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Where do you come up with these things?! FC Fcsb is still known as Steaua only due to misinformation. The people outside of Romania have no idea that that team used a brand illegally or that it had no right to use that name. Of course they're going to call it by its former name, because that's what they know. It doesn't mean that they're right. And, again, UEFA has never even commented on this. They offered no official position and they most definitely did not name FC Fcsb the "continuation of Steaua". In fact, what the heck is continuity? Is that a legal term or did you just make it up? There are two court rulings saying that FC fcsb is not Steaua, and you're talking to me about "the unbroken and consistent existence of operation". So what? FC Fcsb was founded when Steaua's football department closed down. That doesn't mean it's Steaua. Their sports identity certificate clearly says that they were founded in 2003. In fact, they were founded in february 2003, working in parallel with the real Steaua club, until it closed down, later that year, after the end of the Romanian first division 2002-2003 season. In the 2003-2004 season, FC Fcsb took over Steaua's place ILLEGALLY! And don't tell me that this isn't so, because you very well know that FC Fcsb sent a request to the Steaua sports club, asking for permission to use the brand. They were turned down, but they started using it illegally, just as the judges have already decided. Now tell me, friend, what would have happened had FC Fcsb started playing in the Romanian first league wiht its real name, FC Fcsb? Would this Wikipedia page still say that it was Steaua? I think not. - TPTB (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Support whatever team you want, but you can't tell people like Cosmin Olaroiu, Mirel Radoi, Nicolae Dica and so many other that they played or coached a team that isn't Steaua, and that was discovered only after 14 years. If CSA Steaua knew about this why didn't they reestablished their team in 2003? Because Becali didn't want to bribe them no more after moving the team on another stadium in 2010 or whatever year it was and it was then when they decided to make problems from him. Both Becali and the Generals are some awful people who should be in jail for this situation. If FCSB is not Steaua, then there is no Steaua because CSA can't claim to be a team that was "dead" for 20 years, it's against logical thinking.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

New information + update request

The Romanian Football League has recently issued a statement saying that a club's records and history are closely tied to its brand. They did this for Universitatea Craiova, a team which underwent the same ordeal as Steaua. It was replaced by another team in the 90s, that team claimed it was the real Universitatea and played in its place until it lost the Universitatea Craiova brand in the court of law. After the real owners of the brand won the lawsuit, they reactivated the football team and now it is recognized as the real Universitatea. The same thing happened to Steaua. You can see the press release here> https://lpf.ro/noutati/informare-cu-privire-la-palmaresul-cs-u-craiova/164 As a result, I ask that the information on this page be updated to include the correct information. FC Fcsb was not founded in 1947, but in 2003. It does not own the Steaua name, brand or records. Its records only start in 2003. - TPTB (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 November 2017

Please change |trans_title= to |trans-title= in all places where it occurs (nine times, I think). The "trans_title" parameter alias has been deprecated. Thank you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC) – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:  Done although as the article is no longer protected you could have done it yourself at this point in time... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: undo GrizzlyBear's edit

The real name of the club is Fotbal Club FCSB, I don't understand why you changed that in the infobox. The common name of the club is Steaua and that's fine, but at the club name in the infobox we need the official one.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 10:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've now done this (page isn't fully protected currently). Crowsus (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't able to edit it either way.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 12:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Idea

What if we replace all "Steaua București" links from other articles with "FCSB" but keep the article name as it is now (FC Steaua București)? The same happens with Inter Milan, as the player pages display "Internazionale".8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 09:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely see the logic, but it sounds like a lot of work which won't really be needed until the time if/when CSA Steaua becomes more prominent and there's more need to tell them apart, or when. At the moment, apart from current Romanian league stuff, everything Steaua-related goes to the FCSB article (rightly or wrongly) and it would possibly cause more confusion to swap it for readers and editors who are unaware of the situation, plus a debate about when FCSB labelling should begin (is it 2003 or 2017? Does it apply retrospectively? etc). What I would suggest is to change the Europa League links for this season at least to something like FSCB (Steaua) since UEFA have complied with the name ruling, so it's a bit odd that their references are to FCSB but Wikipedia calls the team Steaua. Crowsus (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I would partially support CSA Steaua (football) to claim the titles when CSA still the owner of the football section (with or without footnote of "disputed"), but other era, may be wait for the outcome of the lawsuit. Matthew_hk tc 11:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no lawsuit regarding the honours, FCSB has all the honours from 1947 to this day. CSA Steaua has only won the right to use the name. I still think "Steaua Bucuresti" should be replaced with FCSB on player and UEFA articles. I know it's a bit odd for foreign readers, but it's even more odd for Romanians who know FCSB can't officially use the name anymore!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
What do you think should be the start point for the changes? I think we'd have to take it to WP:FOOTY for consensus as a lot of (opinionated) editors are going to see the alterations, and preferably get a bot or some other device to make the changes automatically although it might not be possible, since we only want to change the name from after a current point (2003 or March 2017 or whatever). You have my support for the change in principal, but as I stated above I think it should be something like FSCB (Steaua) for the name; we can technically call the team anything so the best way might be to reflect both possibilites? Crowsus (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
For player carer in infobox until 2017, i prefer full name FC Steaua Bucuresti, for 2017 onward, just FCSB should be used. Some club had a name change during a footballer contract, i think both name in some way should shown in the infobox, either by a / or a footnote, but may be not enough space for player if that play before 2017 and a current player, which "FC Steaua Bucuresti/FCSB" seem long. In Italy, even have derby of the phoenix club and the original club in 2004–05 Serie D, abb. as Cosenza 1914 and Cosenza F.C. seem the only way in the infobox. For FCSB, despite there is no "twin" successor until 2017, using FC Steaua Bucuresti seem have a more separate identity from CSA. Matthew_hk tc 12:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Crowus and @Matthew_hk, I consider that footballers who played for the current FCSB between 2003 and March 2017 should keep the "Steaua Bucuresti" name, because during that time it was the only Steaua club. Maybe we'll add the "FC" if you think it is more appropiate. For players who were under contract in March 2017, it should only say "FCSB" even if they played for "Steaua" before that date. I think that is what usually happens when a club changes its name. There is no need for footnotes or "/", name changes are frequent and the only thing we could do is to add a sentence about the change in the club career.
Can we make a poll or something to see if everyone is ok with this? Maybe bring more ideas to reach a consensus.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
BTW, another quite notable name change this year would be Terek Grozny to FC Akhmat Grozny. Khalid Kadyrov has played for the club since 2010 and his infobox only displays FC Akhmat Grozny now.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018

Sm00thie23 (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2018 (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. Matthew_hk tc 12:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

About the contradictions...

At the begining it is mentioned that the team's name is ,,FC Steaua Bucuresti" and that Fcsb is short for ,,Fotball Club Steaua Bucuresti". That's false ! The team's name is ,,FC Fcsb", which is short for ,,Football Club Fcsb". ,,Fcsb" is not an abbreviation. https://lpf.ro/cluburi/fc-fcsb/2 https://i.imgur.com/Uguwhfd.jpg --Dante4786 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


FC Steaua București → FCSB – Lost legal challenge to use the name "Steaua" and its history, not formally or legally called "Steaua" anymore Abcmaxx (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose move for lack of evidence. The official name isn't what matters; the common name is. Please provide evidence that FCSB (or maybe the redundant FC FCSB?) is the common name. ONR (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is not Steaua Bucharest . FCSB use illegal , without any approve from the CSA Steaua Bucharest club , the sign and the name. After 04.05.2018 , the highest Judge Court from Romania , decide that FCSB cannot use the sign and name "STEAUA BUCURESTI" forever. All rights about the name and sign is now at CSA STEAUA BUCHAREST - which is part of National Minister of Defence or Romania. Please change that name , is not real one. Gioko22sud (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Name change now visible on social media too

More than a year after the official name change to "FCSB", the club has been starting replacing "Steaua" from both its Facebook page and official website.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED but possibly a tad closer to getting moved than the last RM. We may be getting there. Slowly. Maybe after the 32nd move request we'll get this moved (please don't start more RMs based on this comment). I'd say I'm also learning far more about Romanian football controversies, through closing this business, than I have any real desire to do so.

Anyways, enough rambling, here's an explanation for the result: policy is clear that "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject", ergo half the supports actually count against the move because they themselves acknowledge that "foreign media" sources still use the current name (and there was no citation of other policy-based arguments, only non-policy based arguments of court rulings and romanian-language sources). There was suggestion that english-language sources have changed, but overall consensus was no on that, hence the NOT MOVED result.

On the repeated move requests; more speedy closes on the past moves really would've helped there (hmm, should we create a WP:Speedy not moved criteria?), but it definitely seems necessary to stop the repeated requested moves that don't acknowledge the previous RMs and that court decisions/OFFICIALNAME are not really valid reasons to move. Hence, a moratorium of 6 months on making move requests, but even after that, any move request should lay out clear evidence that English language reliable source usage has changed to "routinely use the new name" FCSB ("routinely use" is based on the wording of NAMECHANGES policy) Basically, it is reasonable to speedy close any move request that doesn't address why the previous move requests failed. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


FC Steaua București → FCSB – There is a final court decision barring Fotbal Club FCSB from using the name Steaua.[1] Not moving the page means disregarding a definitive decision of the Romanian courts. On top of that, the club itself has renamed their official website and social media to FCSB (which is the name of the team and not an acronym).[2] Most Romanian and English-language websites now refer to the club as FCSB (please check the links in Google News for evidence).[3] It is time to move the page to FCSB. Gunnlaugson (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Please provide more reliable secondary source for the alleged new common name "FCSB". If there is no more source, my default opinion would be oppose. Matthew_hk tc 17:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, @Gunnlaugson:, it sounds like you use this account as a SPA which rarely edit, but also started the second last move discussion on 12 October 2017. Matthew_hk tc 17:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is getting embarrassing for the people who refuse to accept that Fotbal Club Fcsb is not Steaua Bucharest. The team's legal name is Fotbal Club Fcsb. And Fcsb is not short for anything. It's a word. But you can ignore court decisions and continue to believe your own lies. Fotbal Club Fcsb will still remain a team that was founded in 2003, it will still not be Steaua Bucharest. And by this time next year it will probably be gone. One more court rulling, and they're done. - TPTB (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support: I still believe (and UEFA and LPF do too) that this society is the moral successor of historic FC Steaua, despite what happened in 2003. However, FCSB has started to become more common and since the club is actually forbidden to use the name Steaua, I would like to see a change to FCSB ib the future, but maybe not yet.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Seems their official social media accounts started to use the name FCSB too, I think it's over with FC Steaua Bucuresti, at least for now. The only way they could recover the name is in the European Court, but I don't know if they will proceed to there.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support Just because foreign media make the same mistake over and over again does not mean it is correct. It's like saying Tottenham Hotspur should be renamed Spurs because that is most used form. Fact is this club is not Steaua. It is legally barred from using the name, lost multiple court cases, each one reaffirming more and more how this is not the real Steaua. Imagine the uproar if we moved RB Salzburg to Austria Salzburg or MK Dons/AFC to Wimbledon FC, I cannot see how this has not been dome yet, or are we going to ignore/go against the entire Romanian judicial system Abcmaxx (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per UEFA and FRF. It's about time.Linhart (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close. Per WP:COMMONNAME, as cited in all the previous cases, and with no evidence presented here that anything has changed since the last discussion a month ago. @Dekimasu: or whoever closes this, please could you consider putting a moratorium on this. It's getting a bit ridiculous now.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment How nothing has changed??? The club even started using FCSB on its official webpage in the meantime. Linhart (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This will be a difficult one to close IMO, owing to the many arguments above that are in favour of the move but must be discarded: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.

Nominator's rationale, for example, concludes Most Romanian and English-language websites now refer to the club as FCSB which is half valid assuming it's true (the Romanian sources don't count) but is preceded by two sentences of pure irrelevance. It's only in sentence three that any relevant point is made.

The survey is worse. For example, IMO the support !votes by Rhinen and Abcmaxx show no understanding of the matter of issue and should simply be discarded. And there are more similar.

But there are also valid points made in support. Even Abcmaxx makes a claim later in a comment Not even satisfies WP:COMMONNAME any more either, strong sources too which I think means that sources now support a move. But they provide no evidence. That is a valid reason for a move if it's true, so should that be taken as a (weak for lack of evidence) reason to count their !vote? Difficult indeed. Andrewa (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue, Andrewa. I would be happy to change my stance to support FCSB if I thought that's what English-language sources were really saying now, but the conversation has been exceptionally devoid of any evidence in that direction, instead relying continually on this court ruling, which effectively is an WP:OFFICIALNAME argument without reference to the real policy of WP:COMMONNAME. Even Cuchullain's support (which I've been meaning to clarify with him), doesn't show the case very clearly. The FCSB search results seem to degenerate relatively quickly into sources that are actually in a foreign language. And it also fails to consider the true common name which has always been "Steaua Bucharest" rather than "Steaua București".  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Well said. Very interested in any reply that Cuchullain may have to this. Andrewa (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion tends to become kind of boring, it's FCSB all the way even you like it or not. TV channels are being fined if they refer to FCSB as Steaua, moreover, a final decision of the high court is given, the club changed its name on every media site in one night and you still do not have enough sources and more you suggest that I show no understanding of the matter of issue, I assure you that I understand enough, and more than you. So you suggest to continue with a lot of pages where in half of the page the club is named Steaua in the other half FCSB, this will indeed be clear to everyone, and perfect understandable. You don't revert almost every day a lot of edits from FCSB to Steaua, move on, now is FCSB, this is Romania, 2 different clubs could share one history. Becali's club has officially in the happiest case the history from 2003 until present, OSIM, brand, record and all these papers were not counting in Romania until recent years, so he didn't buy any of these, he just bought the team, a commercial society. (Rhinen)
    • Of course it's up to the closer whether they regard this as relevant. I can't see anything there that shows any understanding of the article naming policy or even any inclination to read it, it appears rather to be a strong personal opinion as to what is correct in this case, no more and no less. Agree it's boring, but I think that's because so much of the discussion, inluding the above, completely misses the point. Andrewa (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Gigi Becali a pierdut definitiv marca Steaua! Decizia ICCJ". www.digisport.ro.
  2. ^ "FOTO » FCSB nu e Steaua! Două schimbări majore operate de echipa lui Gigi Becali noaptea trecută".
  3. ^ UEFA.com. "FCSB v Lazio background". UEFA.com.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Post-close comment, in reply to Andrewa just above, I did indeed assign 0 value to that comment (though I didn't see your comment in reply when making the close as I started an hour before) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Andrewa and Amakuru, I didn't get to respond. I think it's going to be hard to parse as any search for either name turns up so many foreign language hits. However, FCSB is clearly in wide use in English sources now by any measure, and that reflects what the team itself uses (or is compelled to use). "FCSB" and similar searches like "FCSB" soccer and "FCSB" football turn up many more news sources than "Steaua București", let alone "FC Steaua București". While this evidence isn't great, it's much better than the evidence supporting the current name. Given that, I don't see why we shouldn't go with the new name.--Cúchullain t/c 16:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Part of what makes these sorts of closes so difficult (again replying to Andrewa above)–it tends to be the case that the more that's explained in a close, the more objections the close receives. Had I closed this, I probably would have made a comment about the applicability of particular court decisions to Wikipedia naming, but I might not have gone beyond that. However, I want to preemptively endorse this close and the temporary moratorium on move requests. There was more support for the request this time than in previous discussions, but that's not an indication that we should initiate new move requests repeatedly in search of a particular result. If and when a new move request is made, please remember to base it in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Article titles (and the section on Wikipedia:Common names), and note that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) exists but that consensus in support of it is somewhat unclear. Dekimasuよ! 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Another post close comment. BBC still use to call the team Steaua Bucharest. (Steaua V Lazio Europa League match report) Bucharest or București is another argument, personally prefer Bayern Munich. Matthew_hk tc 18:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That's old. The policy specifies that we give greater weight to sources published after the name change, that's 4.5.2018. I gave šuch reliable sources, but they were ignored, we voted 7-3, but we were ignored. The opposing camp presented no evidence, that English language reliable source usage still uses FCSB after 4.5.2018, but yet they won and they managed to keep the wrong name for six more months. Linhart (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The legal ruling is in 2018 but the club was forced to use FCSB in 2017. Also, raised by previous discussion, the previous meaning FC Steaua Bucharest still apply to FCSB as a continuity of the identity, which may be debatable (not sure this time no one bring this point out). As i said in above comment, It should list out more English source such as BBC, Guardian, Skysports instead of UEFA.com. UEFA.com had its own way top show club name if they are sponsored name. Matthew_hk tc 22:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would definitely prefer "Steaua Bucharest" to "Steaua București", I think it's clear that the former is the real common name in English sources. But in the absence of consensus for that, it's still vastly better to keep the current name than move to "FCSB", which doesn't satisfy the conditions for WP:NAMECHANGES. I think part of the problem stems from our insistence on including "FC" in the titles. FC is generally part of the official name, particular when it appears in the non-standard format (for English) of being at the beginning of the name. So FC Bayern Munich is actually a weird hybrid, where we're using the "official" name in calling it FC, but then using the common name in saying Munich rather than Munchen. The one exception to this is Inter Milan, where the use of the English common name has led to FC being deprecated.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: "FC Bayern Munich" is not so weird if the club itself also use it as their official name in their English version of the webpage. Matthew_hk tc 08:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Although I guess that puts Steaua into a different category from Bayern, and more similar to Inter Milan or Sporting Lisbon, since the standard English form is not one used by the club and one the club has tried unsuccessfully to suppress.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Post RM

Following on the latest RM above and also Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)#RfC on this article's content I'm going to take my courage in both hands and make some further comments.

The most difficult one is that there are some obvious language difficulties. On the one hand English Wikipedia exists for all English speakers, not just native speakers. But on the other hand, there's a difficulty when someone with poor English skills disputes the meaning or application of English Wikipedia polices, as seems to be happening regularly here. Again, on the one hand we need to understand that what appears to be wp:IDHT may, in the case of a native speaker of other languages, be a genuine lack of comprehension. On the other hand, that's not a blank cheque. Unintentional disruption remains disruption, and speakers of other languages need to understand that their lack of understanding of policies written in English does not excuse them from following them. Rather they need to exercise restraint in pursuing discussions whenever their lack of English skills may be the real problem. We are volunteers and should try not to waste each others' time.

The other thing is to reiterate that Wikipedia takes no stand on who has the rights to the various names and honours. We should merely report the positions of others. But these are explicit opinions that we report. We don't say, for example, the BBC uses this name so they regard it as the legal or moral property of the club in question. That's interpretation. We just say the BBC uses the name. That's all! We can't guess why they do. That's interpretation. Again, this is a subtle difference and probably lost on many non-native-English-speakers. Andrewa (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, and english sources after final official name change (4.5.2018) mostly use the name FCSB, not Steaua București (still no other proof was presented!). So it's questionable which side is wp:IDHT. Some native english speakers still believe they live in the old colonialistic world, where other english speakers have no right to say their piece. Linhart (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    The 4 May was less than three weeks ago, and most English sources have not reported on Steaua since then. Furthermore, I don't see any objective evidence for the assertion that anything has changed in particular since that date, just repeating the same mantra about court cases, despite it being repeatedly made clear that Romanian court rulings have no bearing at all on Wikipedia naming conventions. If there's new evidence to present that something's changed since 4 May, then present it, otherwise the WP:IDHT charge seems legitimate.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I presented it. You presented no evidence that the sources still use the old name. Your side is just repeating the mantra that WP:COMMONNAME has somehow miracoulously stayed at FC Steaua București, but added not one proof to back that up. Linhart (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 May 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: See moratorium above; continuing to open new requested moves is disruptive editing; if you have a problem with this or the previous close, go to WP:MRV. Also see WP:NOTVOTE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

FC Steaua București → FCSB – The previous discussion was closed prematurely, furthermore it had more support than opposed, so why someone keeps closing the discussion when it's clearly not concluded? Tag should stay till consensus is reached, however long it may be Abcmaxx (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split the article

This article should be split into Steaua București (1947-2003) and FCSB(/potentially Steaua București (2003-)), leaving a redirect form Steaua București (2017-) to CSA Steaua București. There is no reason this article should be lumped in with the history of the original clubwhen clearly it has lost all association and right to the original. As soon as the moratorium is lifted this is going to get nominated once more for name change and this will avoid that. Also there are numerous precedents in Wikipedia.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It is common in company articles, but rarely split in football club, unless phoenix club. It need more discussion to do so. Matthew_hk tc 06:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018

False article, FCSB is not Steaua Bucuresti, see legal decision 84.232.215.140 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 Note: See also multiple discussions above, and note that there is a six-month moratorium on move requests currently in effect on this article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
+1 Hhkohh (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fotbal Club Fcsb is not FC Steaua Bucuresti Ali.1947 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong name (as of 19 January 2019)

According to the Romanian Football Federation site[1], the correct name is: SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA Dante4786 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

please read previous discussion. FC Steaua București still the former name of this club. Please start a discussion and only after a consensus to remove "Steaua București" from the article, then you can remove it. Matthew hk (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
CSA Steaua and FC Fcsb are two different teams. There is no ,,FC Steaua". I provided a link which wasn't available a month ago. It's an update from the Romanian Football Federation. It says, as you can see by youself, that the official full name is SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA. Because of this, I request for my edits to stop being undone. Dante4786 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The only thing which could be changed as a result of that ref is the 'Full name' in the infobox. All other references to FC Steaua are valid as that was the past name of the club, which (for now at least) is considered to be the same as the current FCSB so all past tense references to FC Steaua are valid. And it is therefore also correct to have Steaua in the nickname as many people still refer to FCSB using that name, although officially it can no longer can be called that. Crowsus (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm only asking for the same treatment. Steaua's wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_(football) ) has the full name written, and not just in the 'Full name' in the infobox. Therefore, if that page has the title CSA Steaua București, than this page should have FC Fcsb in the title. Also, if Steaua's wikipedia page begins with the club's full name (Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București) than so should Fcsb's page start with the full name, namely SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA. And yes, ,,FC Steaua" was the old name of FC Fcsb, but that name was ILLEGALLY used ! How can wikipedia validate an illegal act ?! I thinks I'm very reasonable when I request that wikipedia should ensure fair & equal treatment. Dante4786 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Please see you edit Special:Diff/879190816. There is not consensus to remove Steaua from lede (there is consensus to keep it). Even the club can't use the name officially, it was its name in the past. Matthew hk (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. Edit what ? Everything I modified is already undone. And please stop talking about the consensus and address the problem. Just because an agreement has been reached, doesn't mean things are how they should be. The fact is this: 2 pages are not treated in the same manner. And there was an update regarding FCSB's name. Dante4786 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, Agreement? I do not find it. If you want to update name, please try WP:RM#CM first Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hhkohh: RM is for article title , but not for infobox and lead. Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Matthew hk, I know and I assumed he also wants to move articles. Hhkohh (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
He agreed the article title, but want to erase any trace of the Steaua , see all his edit and revert. He had no problem on the name FCSB but the former name Steaua . Matthew hk (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hhkohh:, thank you for your help. Yes, I tried WP:RM#CM. I hope I did it correctly. Dante4786 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, ??? But I am curious why Matt said you did not want to move articles before. Hhkohh (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh I don't know what he is talking about. You can find my viewpoint in the request below. Agains, thanks for sending me to that section ! Dante4786 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, so you may fail WP:CIR Hhkohh (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

FCSB → FC FCSB – I'm requesting for an update regarding the title of the page, the information displayed in the infobox and for a modified version of the beginning of the article. The title should be FC FCSB. The full name, which is SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA according to the Romanian Football Federation site (link here: http://frfotbal.ro/echipa.php?id=1285), should be displayed at the beginning of the article AND in the infobox. For a better understanding, I will make a comparison to A.C._Milan's page. The club's full name is Associazione Calcio Milan (S.p.A.), while FCSB's full name is SC Fotbal Club FCSB (SA). The title of the article is A.C. Milan, while the title of FCSB's page should be FC FCSB. The short names are Milan and FCSB. I'm also pointing out that FCSB & CSA Steaua București (football) are not treated in the same manner. CSA Steaua București (football)'s page has the club's full name displayed EVERYWHERE. In the title, in the infobox and in the beginning of the introduction. That's not the case for FCSB's page (or A.C._Milan's page). In conclusion, I am only asking for equal and fair treatment. If that page has the title CSA Steaua București, than this page should have FC Fcsb in the title. Also, if Steaua's wikipedia page begins with the club's full name (Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București) than so should Fcsb's page start with the full name, namely SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA. And yes, ,,FC Steaua" was the old name of FC Fcsb, but that name was ILLEGALLY used ! Wikipedia should not condone an illegal act. Dante4786 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://frfotbal.ro/echipa.php?id=1285
  • Later edit: Also, FC FCSB is already in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante4786 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Dante4786, FC FCSB is already in the infobox. is not an acceptable reason to move a page. See WP:COMMONNAME. Articles name should rely on our policy. Hhkohh (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    Two FC seems pointless Hhkohh (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh, I know two FC's are pointless. But that's not up to me or you. If that's their name, if their name has two FC, then Wikipedia should acknowledge that fact. Dante4786 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The |clubname= was changed only by Dante4786 in this Special:Diff/879166320, which have 3RR conducted by users and 3RR back by Dante4786 . So it never validly in the infobox, as it was contervserial and did not even ask for consensus. Matthew hk (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
agree Hhkohh (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh, My bad ! I thought you guys undone everything. Still, I am right. Please form you opinion after you check my links above and after you take in consideration how CSA Steaua București (football)'s and A.C._Milan's page are written. Matthew hk, you can't be serious about consensus. Do I have to ask for permission for EVERYTHING ?! Dante4786 (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, controversial content cannot be a valid reason anyway, but we can gain a further consensus. If other exist, read WP:OTHER first. So we need policy and neutral point of view. Wikipedia has many policies. Hhkohh (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh I will. But please, read the links I provided above. You opinion is made on false statements. You talked about UEFA. That's not true. And you write about neutral point of view, but you bring as counterarguments what is written on FCSB's website. Ok, maybe I'm not completely neutral either. But I a bring up informations from netral points of view (UEFA, Romanian Football Federation and so forth). Controversial content about FCSB's article is the text about their honours (and not just that). But the problem I adressed, their full name, that is a fact. Sorry if I repeat myself, but I'm only asking for equal and fair treatment. Check CSA Steaua București (football)'s and A.C._Milan's pages. Their name is displayed in the same pattern. Full name in the beginning, full name in the infobox, and a semi-full name in the tittle. That's not the case for FCSB. Why is FCSB so special ? Dante4786 (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, again read WP:OTHER first Hhkohh (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, I will recheck source later Hhkohh (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving the page title, as the common name is simply FCSB, there's no need to complicate it further particularly in these circumstances. However, I would support the change in 'full name' field of the infobox and the opening line of the text to SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA, possibly also tweaking the text there slightly, as it almost still reads that it's short for Steaua, when officially it isn't short for anything. I know it says "formerly", but I feel that could be worded slightly better. Crowsus (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • All pages must be treated in the same manner. At this moment, FCSB's page is not treated like A.C._Milan or CSA Steaua București (football). It's better to edit one page (FCSB), than 2 or even more. It's wrong and not fair for this situation to continue like this. Dante4786 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Redundant as FCSB already contain FC, and common name is FCSB, already shown as consensus in the last RM. Also it seem not constructive if you got 3RR warning on removing stuff in lead, and then start a RM that beat to death in the last time. Matthew hk (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm beginning to think you have something personal against me. First of all, it's irrelevant what was the previous consensus. That's the point, I'm trying TO CHANGE IT. And you kept warning be even though I stopped editing the article even before the first warning. Dante4786 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:RM is for the WP:article title. I don't against on opening a thread for the infobox, which people argued before for Arsenal FC in the infobox |clubname= or Arsenal. But RM is wrong venue for the infobox and lead that you made 3RR. Matthew hk (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2019

CM.Catalin (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Steaua a câștigat astăzi, printr-o decizie a Tribunalului București, palmaresul din perioada 1947 - 2004. O decizie ce vine după o sumedenie de amânări, o decizie normala și așteptată de toată suflarea stelista. Solicit corectarea informatiilor pe pagina Wikipedia aferenta FC FCSB SA si informarea corecta a publicului! Acest club fantoma nu are nicio legatura cu STEAUA Bucuresti! Nu mai patati istoria Stelei. https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/exclusiv-csa-steaua-a-castigat-procesul-pentru-palmares-cu-gigi-becali-decizia-de-ultima-ora-a-tribunalului-18223235?fbclid=IwAR0Urd3KMDogofblukiWUcdxugu5XUxkWw7ZcSRvtoIue4iLCX0CiqKIy70

FCSB are appealing a court decision at the Curtea de Apel so the decision is not yet final and executory. And even after, if they lose, it must revised by the FRF and the LPF which will probably also consult UEFA. Until FRF will not revise, even a potential final and therefore executory court decision is NULL on Wikipedia. According to the law, which says after the appeal the decision must and can be enforced (executory). This means FRF revision will count.
Decizia va fi executorie doar daca FCSB pierde si la Curtea de Apel. Am rugat sa nu se mai modifice la Wikipedia romaneasca pentru ca este o eroare. Chiar si dupa, decizia trebuie sa fie pusa in aplicare de FRF si LPF (probabil se vor consulta si cu UEFA), carora li se subordoneaza cluburile romanesti de fotbal. Pana nu fac asta, nu trebuie modificat nimic nici pe Wikipedia. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia should reflect the latest information. When and if there will be another decision, we shall update it accordingly. Until then, FCSB's page should display the honours recognised by the Romanian court and media. Facts are facts, and currently this is the state of affairs[1]. We don't even know if FCSB appealed the decision.Dante4786 (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
If the Curtea de Apel will give the decision to FCSB, then we will have to correct everything! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You must understand this, the decision is not definitive, and a definitive decision is not executory according to the law. Moreover even after, FRF / UEFA will have to install new records. Because according to the law, the definitive decision "CAN be executory". It they say can be, according to the law, FRF / UEFA must install new records. And only then we can edit. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no alteration anymore, we already talked about the decision not being definitive so we must wait the appeal then FRF / LPF will have to order it normally. But you should not remove the semi-protected. The users can understand what the law says, I am afraid the IPs not. I recommend to leave it like this for some months. We will know better after the appeal how the page should look. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
If by "the semi-protected" you are referring to the edit request, it should not be left active for several months, because that will waste the time of editors who come here to respond to it. You can reactivate the request when you are ready to implement it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.romaniajournal.ro/sports/csa-wins-steaua-bucharests-record-from-fcsb/

The name

The name is Fotbal Club Fcsb. Ali.1947 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The real name is Fotbal Club FCSB. Fotbal Club FCSB is not FC Steaua București. Ali.1947 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The real name is FCSB a.k.a Fotbal Club Steaua București! MikeAlexander11 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you show us any proof that FCSB means Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti? Becali only registered these 2 brands at OSIM.. :( Yes, in the left it says Fotbal Club Steaua Bucuresti because he used the name illegally and he changed it to what you can see in the picture. --CristiCristii (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

FC Steaua București → FCSB – I am now proposing this move of the article to the correct title FCSB according to policies because it has been protected so that only certain users can move it and because there was a moratorium, so it could not be done before. The result of the last discussion was "no consensus" and all our arguments (and therefore policies) were ignored. The COMMONNAME policy states that we give greater weight to sources published after the name change, so we give greater weight to sources published after May 4 2018, when Steaua Bucharest officially changed name to FCSB. We presented arguments that after that date the Romanian Football Federation, the Romanian Professional Football League, UEFA, FIFA and the club itself use FSCB on their websites and other channels, both in Romanian and in English. Also the vast majority of media in English language uses the new name after that date, as we presented examples. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so it is irrelevant if some English speaking editors hold some emotional attachment to the old name of the once European champions, we must follow the reliable sources after the name change and the opposing camp presented not one proof that the common name has somehow miraculously stayed at FC Steaua București. Linhart (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose As i said before. Please list out English language secondary source (BBC, Guardian, Skysports, ESPN, Independent, Eurosport, goal.com, etc.) as evidence for the common name of the club . UEFA had a weird way to treat club name , most of them due to sponsorship. UEFA ref can only support WP:officialname as a primary source, but not common name. Wikipedia prefer more on common name than official name. Matthew hk (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I and one other user did it last time, but we were ignored, so I see no point, but here you are again: https://www.goal.com/en-gb/team/fcsb/bpk1d09f7zqtmcp7cis2c1b7i http://www.espn.com/soccer/team/_/id/484/fcsb https://www.eurosport.com/football/teams/steaua-bucuresti/teamcenter.shtml https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/team/1776/fcsb https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-romania-cluj/soccer-cluj-clinch-fourth-romanian-title-on-final-day-of-season-idUKKCN1IL0TW etc etc Linhart (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment and oppose - the previous RM, as well as imposing a moratorium of six months, said that after that expiration, any move request should lay out clear evidence that English language reliable source usage has changed to "routinely use the new name" and that it is reasonable to speedy close any move request that doesn't address why the previous move requests failed. It seems to me that the latter condition is met, since the rationale for moving (which says all our arguments (and therefore policies) were ignored seems to be explicitly a rehash of the previous move, and shows no sign of understanding why that move failed. I therefore suggest this be speedily closed, unless some actual real substantial *new* evidence, not considered in the last RM, is forthcoming. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I laid out clear evidence (again!) and pointed to policies, I cannot do more than that. The move failed because you ignored the COMMONNAME policy (I clearly adressed that as it was instructed). Read the policy, we give greater weight to sources published after the name change. Linhart (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@talk BBC calls it FCSB too now: BBC link; as does Soccer Punter as does [RTE as does UEFA [5]. how much more evidence do you want?! All your links are old these are from the latest CL game Abcmaxx (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
All my arguments are in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. Other side has no arguemtns. COMMONNAME is clearly FCSB. Linhart (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose and SNOW close per previous RM and MRV discussion. please let nominator read before a new RM posted Hhkohh (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment So the clearly proven fact, that the majority of reliable English language sources repeatedly uses the new name FCSB after the name change is irrelevant? What needs to happen, that you would find this requested move legitimate? Linhart (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG SUPPORT: a quick Google search shows this is the WP:COMMONNAME, not to mention the legal name for a good few months. The previous debate was closed prematurely, as every known site now call this team FCSB; mostly because they have to. If you type in "Steaua Bucharest" all the results are for "FCSB", not a single one calls this team Steaua: link. All those going "speedY close" you were wrong the last time to ignore all the evidence back then and you are certainly wrong this time Abcmaxx (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – per nom. The club officially changed its name, and by now as idicated per nom all important institutions on the matter has followed the name change. If at time of the previous RfC the situation was still not clear, now seems that it is, and that the nwe name has been definitelly adopted. FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – tge name move only. The moratorium on the issue was six months ago, the limit set therein. For this new season there seems to be more acceptance of news reports etc in English using FCSB rather then Steaua. Crowsus (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Altough I do believe this team is the continuation of the historic FC Steaua which won the UCL, there is no point to sticking to the old name. Virtually no website in Romania calls the club Steaua anymore, and there is evidence that foreign media also started to use FCSB more.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per moratorium. If it's expired, reinstall it since we're just going to have more recycling of the same arguments. PS: oppose, since this is just rehash. The arguments were insufficient before and nothing has changed. It's hilarious to me that the nom has the gall to cite WP:SOAPBOX while opening a grossly non-neutral RM declaring what is "correct" as if English (and Wikipedia) were subject to some kind Holy Writing Commandments from the Gods of Language.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is subject to policies and something can be correct or wrong regarding them. And you again have no policy-oriented argument, just personal attacks. Congratulations. Linhart (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – As a neutral, I see it right to move the article. Team name is changed, even if it continius Steaua history. Wikipedia is a place where we try to keep articles correctly named, this one should be moved. I understand the fans of the team, but the facts are facts and I strongly believe they should continue supporting the team, but let this happend as it is the right decision. Chris Calvin (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The team is named FCSB everywhere...soccerway, uefa.com, lpf.ro, frfotbal.ro Rhinen
    You say "everywhere" and then list only two English sites. What's striking about this renewed nomination is that the supporters have failed to produce any single new source to back up their position. If the matter was so clearcut such sources should be ten a penny, and I would have been happy to add a support too. But as it is the conditions attached to the end of the last RM, namely that "any move request that doesn't address why the previous move requests failed" have clearly not been met. I've changed my "comment" above to "oppose", to remove any doubt about this. There may be a numerical advantage for "support" at the moment but without evidence, and per WP:NOTAVOTE, it seems like this should be closed and another moratorium applied. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I know very well why previous one failed and I explained it. The fact is that practcally all sources use the new name after the name change and we presented tons of examples. Why does not your side present us any reliable english source that still repeatedly uses Steaua Bucuresti after the name change in May?Linhart (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually the official name change took place at the end of March 2017, check the article. Just saying, I still support the move.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The final decision of high court ICCJ was in may. That was when the club changed its name on all remaining channels. https://vaaju.com/romaniaeng/fc-steaua-bucharest-is-the-history-of-becalis-team-last-vice-of-romanias-vice-champions/ Those few sources, not already using FCSB before, followed suit.Linhart (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru Comment In case you ignored the previous comment, it is clearly much more than just 2: BBC link; as does Soccer Punter as does [RTE as does UEFA [6]. You really going to argue against UEFA and BBC and RTE sources?! This was relisted in line with WP:RM and the previous closure felt very much like Wikipedia:Supervote Abcmaxx (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as English language RS still use the old name, such as this BBC source The third-best team in Austria last term, they beat Slovan Bratislava and Steaua Bucharest to qualify, the BBC source cited by supporters above is in Pidgin, not English. Iffy★Chat -- 21:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Same BBC in another article says: "The other teams who could progress tonight are Dynamo Kiev, Ludogorets, Atalanta, FCSB (formerly known as Steaua Bucharest), Red Bull Salzburg, Zorya, Lazio, Nice and Zenit St Petersburg. So not much of an argument. FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is ridiculous and misleading, the name of this club is not FC Steaua Bucharest, there is another club using this name. Since when should Wikipedia spread wrong information? I won't add sources as many have been added by other users, but the common name in English and all other languages is FCSB or Fotbal Club FCSB (short FC FCSB), just as the official name of the club. Splur988 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The actual, official name of the club is FC Fcsb. It is misleading to Call it Steaua, and Fcsb is not an acronym. Also, the club is not from Bucharest, but from Mogoșoaia. 195.88.182.10 (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The continuous misleading that the fraud club SC FC FCSB SA 2003, founded in 2003 by George Becali, has any ties whatsoever with the club CSA Steaua Bucuresti, founded in 1947, apart from a failed identity theft not only spreads false information, but leads to a loss of money and reputation for CSA Steaua Bucuresti.

The court has already decided that FCSB has used the name illegally, and it is also stated in the article.

So why is the fraud club still reffered to as "Steaua"? That makes no sense.

And why is the history and everything else related to CSA Steaua Bucuresti?

SC FC FCSB SA 2003 and CSA Steaua Bucuresti are two different entities, and this has already been settled. Skandura (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2021 (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) 04:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not Steaua Bucharest.

I don't understand why this page exists anymore having so many fake news on it. There have been 20+ trials that just proves this club ( FC Fcsb) is not Steaua Bucharest. They have lost everything, the brand Steaua Bucharest and the palmares, the records of the club Steaua. Also, the owner of FC Fcsb now needs to pay CSA Steaua Bucharest 37 million euros because he used the brand illegally. Becali loses the brand Steaua. The decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (Romania's supreme court) about the palmares(history of the club) At this point is just wrong to call FC Fcsb, Steaua Bucharest. Please do something with the fake news on this page. --CristiCristii (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing you have stated, including the references, has not been brought up already in the lengthy discussions above. Crowsus (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
We have to wait. "However, the ruling is not final, and Gigi Becali, FCSB’s financier, may challenge the decision to the Court of Appeals.". Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is Steaua Bucharest They have recovered 4 logos and the Palmares. AlexGhetu123 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Are we still waiting for final judgement? Currently, FCSB and CSA Steaua București (football) state that both clubs won (for example) Liga I in 1951. That is clearly incorrect. We also have incoming wikilinks about the disputed period which currently lead to dab FC Steaua București rather than the actual history. One option is to create a third article for the history, but I'm not sure of the best title for each article. Certes (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It will probably take at least months until the record will not be anymore attributed to FCSB. So far UEFA, FRF and LPF say FCSB holds everything, including 26 championships and the former European Cup. A lot of lawsuits are taking place in Romania. End-of-season-updates (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

CSA Steaua Bucharest have now the trophies untill 2003, FCSB new founding date is 2003 so remove the 1947-2003 period. 5.14.34.182 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Steaua Bucarest

Steaua Bucarest 151.19.106.242 (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Loan

Robert Grecu (FW, number 27) wasn't fully transfered to FC Argeș, he is out on loan to the respective team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.8.143 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

Hello. I am the media officer of FCSB. My name is Catalin Fainisi and my email address is media@fcsb.ro. Please edit our logo on wikipedia, because it does not contain a white circle. Should you need the exact png file, I am more than happy to share it with you. Catalinfainisi (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Catalinfainisi - If you have a file that meets our policies (at this link), please either upload it on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons, otherwise it cannot be added to the article. If it is approved on either site, feel free to reopen this request and ping me and I will be happy to add it for you. (please ping on reply) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:32, 9 July 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) 08:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2022

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: Not moved. No such user (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

FCSB → FC FCSB – The name of this page is not consistent with the naming conventions for articles on sports teams. In cases where there is no ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used. There are numerous examples to be found, such as Manchester_City_F.C.. Please support consistency accross Wikipedia by renaming and moving this article to FC FCSB. For avoidance of doubt, this information can be found on the official website of the team - English language version: This is the only official website (...) and it is a registered trademark ©FC FCSB SA. Gunnlaugson (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You have 1 edit. End-of-season-updates (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Please see WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 07:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Gunnlaugson: Provide WP:RS that in the real world the name of the club is FC FCSB. E.g. by Googling "FC FCSB" (including quote marks) I get seven pages with results, which are kind of too few. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    Very happy to. Here's a link from UEFA showing the recent draw for the UEFA Europa Conference League group stage this year clearly indicating the name of the club is Fotbal Club FCSB. How is this not recognised by UEFA then? In the footer of the official website of the team you can clearly see the text ©FC FCSB SA. Here are some further links from reputable English language sources, including the ESPN and New York Times: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7. This page should be changed exactly to avoid any confusion. The official name should be used as it is used for all sports teams accros Wikipedia and as per the naming conventions of Wikipedia. Gunnlaugson (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • FCSB is a bit of a unique case because of the issues over rights to the Steaua name, but Inter Milan serves as a good counter-example to any claim that FC is always part of the common name. O.N.R. (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, I remember the name of the article stayed as FC Steaua for some time and we barely managed to move it to FCSB, since many English sources (and even some Romanian ones) still used the Steaua name. But now it’s clear, everyone adopted the usage of the name FCSB, nobody says FC FCSB probably because of how stupid it sounds. And yes, there are many examples of clubs without "FC", but I think Inter is the most famous one.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
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.

sc fc fcsb sa is not steaua bucharest

this in not steaua bucharest!!! 2A02:2F0A:B20B:F200:3372:F5EA:9DB1:5E65 (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not merged. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose merging FC Steaua București into the history section of FCSB since it seems like consensus on that page's talk might lean towards that. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose All entities in this affair are notable on their own. The Banner talk 10:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose at this time. Per my comments here, the article as it stands is an absolute mess. Where it is not duplicating content in this article, it is unintelligible. It is not suitable to merge in anywhere. Scolaire (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment. @BuySomeApples: Looking at the discussion at Talk:FC Steaua București I see arguments to delete it, arguments to keep it as is, arguments to re-write it, arguments to make it a disambiguation page, and arguments to make it a redirect. How on earth do you summarise all that as "consensus is leaning towards a merge"? Scolaire (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I misread the majority of comments as leaning towards it not needing to be a standalone page as it is, if consensus doesn't lean towards merging that's fine. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@BuySomeApples: Do you want to close this and take the Merge templates off the two articles, then? Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Sure! BuySomeApples (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
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:FCSB/Archive_2&oldid=1226271370"