Talk:FC Lovech

Football Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bulgaria Low‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I would like to congratulate the Venezuelan defender Alejandro Cicerro for his first goal in the bulgarian league.

Great job Alejandro!

During the summer of 2006, Romanian striker Cristian Silvăşan transferred from FCU Politehnica Timişoara to Litex Lovech, does anyone know what number he will be wearing at his new team? --- Anti-Phag

I have not heard anything about this player, nothing in the newspapers, nothing in the forums as to date. Where did you get this information? --Tzeck 08:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the information in the Romanian newspapers ProSport and Gazeta Sporturilor, they both gave the same information about the striker transferring to Litex. The information was given on July the 26th I think. --- Anti-Phag

Finally there's some information about him in the Bulgarian media, too. But he is still only on a trial, not signed yet. And he came for a first time to Lovech about 4 days ago. He played the second half in a friendly match, but the trainer is still not sure about signing him and he will stay another few days. --Tzeck 10:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have heard he was on trial too in the last few days, but I have also heard the transfer has big chances of success. The Romanian newspapers said the coach was pleased with his performance in the friendly game, and that he just needs to talk to the club owner of Litex to transfer him. --- Anti-Phag

"Greatest team" section removed

I removed the "Greatest team" section because it contained no references or other information as to how it had been chosen. If the "Greatest team" list appeared in a reliable and verifiable source, then it can be restored as long as that source is specifically referenced. If it is simply the opinion of editor(s) here then it is not suitable for Wikipedia and should not be restored. Loganberry (Talk) 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PFC Litex Lovech. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://pfclitex.com/site/bg/management.php

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016

This edit request to PFC Litex Lovech has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

84.40.80.141 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC) The club name is now PFC CSKA-Sofia, not Litex Lovech.[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSKA (the original club) wasn't included in the merger

There is a mistake in the following sentece:

Prior to the 2016-17 season, Grisha Ganchev merged Chavdar Etropole, CSKA Sofia, and Litex Lovech. The new entity, operating under the name PFC CSKA Sofia, gained the Bulgarian Football Union's approval to compete in the reformed First League

CSKA wasn't part of the deal and which is exactly what the source explains:

На практика обаче новият "ЦСКА – София" ще е наследник на ловешкия клуб с неговите активи и пасиви, но не и на историята на досегашния "армейски" клуб, който е в процедура по несъстоятелност.

Translation:

In practice, however, the new "CSKA - Sofia" will be the successor of the club from Lovech with its assets and liabilities but not of the history of the former "army" club, which is in bankruptcy.

The army club is the original CSKA whereas CSKA-Sofia is the new entity from the merge of Litex and Chavdar.

The comment above was written by me but I forgot to sign it. Anyway, the new version submitted by User:The TV Boy implies that CSKA-Sofia is just another legal registration of CSKA, a disputable statement to say the least. There's been no consensus about that in other ongoing discussions and even the cited source says that the new CSKA-Sofia is a successor of Litex. I'm asking for a source supporting the statement in the article. --Ivo (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've putted sources citing the text exactly the way it is written in the text - the club is formed from the legal registered entity, after being restructured from PFC Litex-Lovech EAD to PFC CSKA-Sofia EAD, but it is still the club PFC CSKA Sofia, as said from the official site. Anything else?--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 09:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you provided says that BFU is OK with the relocation of Litex to Sofia and its new name CSKA-Sofia. CSKA is not mentioned at all. The second source is the official site of the club participating in First League which is CSKA-Sofia, CSKA. In a series of interviews and press-conferences BFU made it clear that CSKA-Sofia and CSKA aren't the same club. I've provided links about that in other discussions but I'll add them here if you insist. Also, I asked for sources proving that CSKA was restructured and part of the merger. According to the Commercial Register of Bulgaria, CSKA wasn't part of any transformations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BG89 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is about the legal entity which bares the license. The brand is the same - PFC CSKA Sofia, as the original one, that's why I gave a source, nothing is conflicting. The club identifies itself with the trademarked brand, it is it's face, the same way as you identify in the public as your face. BFU did not clear anything, only people from it gave personal opinions. CSKA changed many legal entities, the club does not limit itself to the bankrupted PFC CSKA EAD. That is your personal opinion only and you are twisting everything again, including sources to prove yourself right. That is why I gave official links to the club's site, where everything is written, you may also try to look up Litex's official site too, which has info about the club playing in Third League. The two sites are the same as last year, they identify both clubs seperetly, with the one and the same logos and colors. Can't fake or twist them I'm afraid, unless you are a hacker...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the capital.bg link as this is not an information source, but rather a personal comment by the author of the article - Georgi Filipov. It is already explained in the previous two sources that PFC CSKA Sofia plays in First League.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree because of reasons you already know. This discussion is becoming another spillover of Talk:PFC_CSKA_Sofia and consensus seems unlikely. Tomorrow, I'll explain what I think on Talk:PFC_CSKA_Sofia.--Ivo (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree, but the facts are enough for the articles to be the way they are, there is no room for personal opinions in them. P.S. and again with the IP! Stop that, it's really not funny!--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 04:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BG89, stop restoring those templates - they are not needed as there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page because in it's description you have written your point of view. Those templates are only if a source is in conflict with the text written as seen here, not for a personal point of view on the text. Also I asked you to stop restoring the capital.bg link - this is a personal comment and NOT an information source. Masking a personal comment as an information source can be taken as vandalism!--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 07:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Boy, everybody you asked for opinion told you that there is no vandalism by me. My biggest sin is that I took part in the edit war you started about the two files you wanted to delete. The admin decision was that one of them should be deleted and the other one should stay. If my actions were vandalism, so were yours because the final decision was 50:50. You are making an assumption based entirely on your personal opinion and thrust it without any discussion, even though you know very well that there is no consensus about that. Furthermore, that assumption contradicts to one of the sources you used and another one is self-citing. If my opinion is the same as the opinion of the competent institutions and in fact it is, then I'm just supporting the generally accepted view and you are the one trying no impose his opinion. You edited several articles on the basis of uncertain future intentions which even if become reality, their future interpretations are far from clear. And not only you refuse to talk about that but act as if the intentions already materialised and there is a consensus about their interpretations. --Ivo (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BG89, I already told you - no institution had relased an official statement about this, their job is to review the legal entities and give license. The club identifies itself with it's brand, nothing has changed overall with its brand and managment. The old firm had many legal debts, the new managment couldnt pay them, so they made an unpopular move and restructured the entity of another club in order PFC CSKA Sofia to continue to exist. Litex also continues to exist. Yes, people were against this thing, including you, and began "protesting" and trying to "prove" that the new entity is a overall new club. The facts state otherwise, you dont like it and try to make it look that this is another club - IT IS NOT! Wikipedia doesnt care about what someone thinks, it cares about the facts, and the facts are that the chest is the same, the colors, the club identificafion itself. Everything else are fabrications and trying to invert words to prove yourself right, but this doesnt prove you right - its just faking. The admins dont care abou the information, they dont know anything about the topic, thats why they do the things they do. In bgwiki this would have been over long ago...The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]