Talk:2014–15 Inter Milan season

Problems

1. WP:OVERLINK states that major geographic locations, in this case countries, should not normally be linked. I see Italy, Germany, United States and other countries are linked. That should not be done.
2. WP:COMMONNAME was determined to be Inter Milan at a recent move discussion. Piping the Italian name is not necessary and should probably not be done as it violates the spirit of that discussion.

Since it's clear that discussion is being lost in the edit comments, it's probably best to discuss here. I understand it annoys many editors, and this isn't another opportunity to determine what the COMMONNAME is or isn't, as I believe that was settled in the move discussion, but just an opportunity to determine how that's implemented at a season article level, and possibly in templates, etc. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to contribute to this conversation. Listen, I understand where you're coming from, but if you want me to be honest with you, here it is. You want absolutely no more opposition? Let Inter Milan be piped to Internazionale at the very least in the infobox and in matchboxes. The link will still be Inter Milan, and whenever someone who is just visiting this site sees it and hovers over the link, it will read Inter Milan. Now if people continued to have, for example, this: F.C. Internazionale Milano|Internazionale, then obviously that's a huge issue. I think we really need to find a compromise on this because I agree this is getting into the realm of disruptive editing. Cheers. Italia2006 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not happy about the article being located at Inter Milan, but if that's where the community thinks it should be (rightly or wrongly), so be it. By extension, if that's the title of the article, there's no real need to pipe the link; "Inter Milan" is concise enough not to need piping. Again, I'm extremely unhappy about this as it goes against years of Wikipedia practice; moving F.C. Internazionale Milano to Inter Milan was wrong when the original RM discussion took place, but the arguments to move it back are just as bad as the arguments to move it in the first place. Unfortunately, the status quo seems to hold a lot of sway here, so unless we can find better policies to back up the argument that the article should be located at F.C. Internazionale Milano (or the media start using "Inter Milan" less and less), we just have to accept it. But I still don't like it. – PeeJay 12:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Im not a fan of the piping to be honest but a compromise is needed here. There is no point being militant about it. How about something along the lines of The 2014–15 season was Football Club Internazionale Milano's, commonly referred to simply as Inter Milan's 83rd consecutive season in the top flight of Italian football. Clearly the grammar isn't correct, but something along those lines.Blethering Scot 15:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2015–16 season was Football Club Internazionale Milano, or Inter Milan's, 83rd consecutive season in the top-flight of Italian football . . . Italia2006 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Something along those lines anyway. Its clearly a very divisive topic and compromise is needed here.Blethering Scot 16:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen. This makes sense. What would we do in the footballbox templates where "Inter Milan" is piped to Internazionale. I seem to recall from the move discussion that editors did not find that an acceptable term in English. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a perfectly acceptable term in English, it just doesn't make sense to pipe from Inter Milan to Internazionale. If you're going to be smug about this, I can ask an admin to step in and take disciplinary action against you for being a WP:DICK. – PeeJay 19:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see Internazionale in the Oxford, Cambridge or Websters] dictionaries, so it's not a perfectly acceptable term in English. It may be used colloquially, but we have already determined that the correct and WP:COMMONNAME for the team is Inter Milan. You were one of the editors who wanted the move away from Inter Milan and you all were told, through consensus, that you were wrong in assuming that it's a perfectly acceptable term in English in the move discussion, so I take what you say with less than a grain of salt. If you feel it's necessary, feel free to start the WP:ANI or similar process, but mind the potential WP:BOOMERANG for tendentious editing and threatening. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Internazionale is a non English word, however it is clearly recognisable to an English reader as international. As it is the official name of the team i believe it should be used on the infobox unpiped. A compromise has been proposed and it clearly acceptable and common-sense. There is no need for a battle ground mentality to be used here. The article is Inter Milan and the article will acknowledge the real name whilst specifying the club is known an Inter Milan. I really would advise everyone to simply move on and get improving the article rather than fighting over a name.Blethering Scot 20:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I'll move forward with changing all links to Bayern Munich to read only Bayern then based on this precedence as that's what they're officially called. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously. Its becoming very apparent that you are just trying to be disruptive. This is consensus based not one user, you will need to get consensus and propose on the talk page of the Bayern article if you wish to do that. Blethering Scot 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Don't mean to be disruptive. I'll push off now. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014–15 Inter Milan season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722105123/http://www.sampdoria.it/news/ufficiale-joseph-alfred-duncan-blucerchiato-per-due-stagioni.html to http://www.sampdoria.it/news/ufficiale-joseph-alfred-duncan-blucerchiato-per-due-stagioni.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)