Talk:Red Star FC
Discussions
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.
Discussions
|
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
FC Red Star Saint-Ouen → Red Star FC — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Red Star FC is the club's proper name and has been since 2003 Joao10Siamun (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose There are a number of clubs known as Red Star, and this is certainly not the most notable among them. Red Star Belgrade and FC Red Star Zürich are certainly more notable. As noted at Talk:Red_Star_Belgrade#Requested_move_6 I doubt there is any consensus that any team is the most appropriate for Red Star FC or FC Red Star.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Name
The name of this club in French is Red Star not Etoile Rouge http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Rs-fcg.jpg 90.198.51.232 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Of course it is isn't. The translation was simply the translation of the club's name to the French language. — JSRant Away 12:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Red Star F.C.. 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/20110424094822/http://www.redstarfc93.fr/club/contacts.php to http://www.redstarfc93.fr/club/contacts.php
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: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Article title
@Ywwuyi: @Fenix down: This article has moved from Red Star F.C. to Red Star F.C. (France) and back. The talk page has moved to (France) but not moved back. Can we agree where these should live and make things consistent? Redirect FC Red Star Saint-Ouen has lots of incoming links. I've retargeted it to Red Star F.C. for now, but please feel free to revert if necessary once the dust settles. Thanks, Certes (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for moving the talk page back. I think I've sorted out the 407 articles which were left with misdirected wikilinks after these moves. Please could you check that I've not missed any? Certes (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Semiprofessional status
The club is described as experiencing a prolonged period with semiprofessional status where as it was actually last classed a professional up until 2021 (last period of profession status 2015-2021) French Language Red Star FC wiki page. The description needs to be updated reflect this. SteadyJames (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Average attendance
Average attendance for the last to seasons has been well above 3000. This needs to be changed [1]https://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/fra-national-2022-2023/3/ SteadyJames (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 27 August 2024
- 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Red Star F.C. → Red Star FC – The club itself does not use the dots in the FC, neither on the logo or on its official pages (like Instagram or the official website). Basically just no one uses the dots apart from this Wikipedia article. There is no consensus to use a particular version in France: it widely varies (from FC Villefranche Beaujolais to Stade Rennais F.C.). Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom
- Kowal2701 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - there needs to be a wider discussion on how French clubs should use dots - given we have Paris Saint-Germain F.C., for example. GiantSnowman 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: That should take place on WP:WPF. Here in this specific case, because there is no existing consensus for French clubs (yet), and there is a clear preference for not using the dots for this particular club, it seems inconvenient to not make this move. I say we should make this move and then have that broader discussion. What are your thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- We need consistency across the country, so the wider discussion first would be more sensible in my view. GiantSnowman 17:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I would argue that consistency is not a necessity, as each title can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by analyzing what sources use. However, if you believe that a wider discussion is necessary, I would encourage you to initiate such discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, we need standards. GiantSnowman 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: Alright, but please initiate the discussion and ping me where you start it. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, we need standards. GiantSnowman 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I would argue that consistency is not a necessity, as each title can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by analyzing what sources use. However, if you believe that a wider discussion is necessary, I would encourage you to initiate such discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- We need consistency across the country, so the wider discussion first would be more sensible in my view. GiantSnowman 17:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: That should take place on WP:WPF. Here in this specific case, because there is no existing consensus for French clubs (yet), and there is a clear preference for not using the dots for this particular club, it seems inconvenient to not make this move. I say we should make this move and then have that broader discussion. What are your thoughts? Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Again this is traditional English vs modern English, the dots are there to show it's a shortened word, without the dots you're not showing it's a shortened word. I prefer to know it's a shortened word, it's clearly a football club, removal of the dots, no longer tells us these are shortened words. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy: With all due respect, I think that >99% of people would assume that two capitalized letters next to each other, especially the letters "FC", are shortened words. It's pretty standard now to not use dots for shortened words (as you said it, it's modern English). Example, JD Vance or HSBC. So, I don't really see what your argument is— unless you're suggesting that we always use the dots everywhere, because you think it's more clear. Which in my opinion is a bogus argument. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Paul Vaurie: Umm, did you not read what I wrote? I clearly said it's traditional English vs Modern English and what I preferred to see. That is all I wrote. Not once did I write what I feel other people should see or think. Calling my opinion bogus is also uncalled for. You really need to choose your words carefully. Govvy (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy: You need to learn not to put words in people's mouths. I didn't say your opinion is bogus, I said that the argument of saying that dots should be used everywhere, all the time is bogus. I didn't even say you made that argument; I asked a rhetorical question if that was your argument. Anything that says that absolutely everything should be uniform is bogus, in my opinion.
Now what you're saying is that you just "prefer to see" the dots? So your argument is "I like it more"?
But going back to your original comment, I was saying that "without the dots you're not showing it's a shortened word
" is false, since the overwhelming majority (>99%) of people don't need the dots to recognize what it is. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- @Paul Vaurie: We have J. K. Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, Liverpool F.C., we also have HMS Victory and U.S.A. redirects to United States. We do use the dots in many places on wikipedia when shortening names or words and we also don't. There is no consistency, there is modern vs traditional. What do you want has no policy to apply the rule. COMMONNAME is out the window here, you have a choice, I told you what my choice is. So what ever you want to say to me won't work. I work one way, that is pretty much a conservative English structure. The way I have learned to write and the way I was brought up, I've applied that here also. So... What I like, also shows that other people like that too, including the writers like Rowling and Tolkien. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy: If you're arguing the "I like this better" argument, you should probably take into account that Red Star FC itself prefers without the dots. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Paul Vaurie: We have J. K. Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, Liverpool F.C., we also have HMS Victory and U.S.A. redirects to United States. We do use the dots in many places on wikipedia when shortening names or words and we also don't. There is no consistency, there is modern vs traditional. What do you want has no policy to apply the rule. COMMONNAME is out the window here, you have a choice, I told you what my choice is. So what ever you want to say to me won't work. I work one way, that is pretty much a conservative English structure. The way I have learned to write and the way I was brought up, I've applied that here also. So... What I like, also shows that other people like that too, including the writers like Rowling and Tolkien. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy: You need to learn not to put words in people's mouths. I didn't say your opinion is bogus, I said that the argument of saying that dots should be used everywhere, all the time is bogus. I didn't even say you made that argument; I asked a rhetorical question if that was your argument. Anything that says that absolutely everything should be uniform is bogus, in my opinion.
- @Paul Vaurie: Umm, did you not read what I wrote? I clearly said it's traditional English vs Modern English and what I preferred to see. That is all I wrote. Not once did I write what I feel other people should see or think. Calling my opinion bogus is also uncalled for. You really need to choose your words carefully. Govvy (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Govvy: With all due respect, I think that >99% of people would assume that two capitalized letters next to each other, especially the letters "FC", are shortened words. It's pretty standard now to not use dots for shortened words (as you said it, it's modern English). Example, JD Vance or HSBC. So, I don't really see what your argument is— unless you're suggesting that we always use the dots everywhere, because you think it's more clear. Which in my opinion is a bogus argument. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Mild support per nom. I just got here after clicking around from Sol Bamba, and I feel like no matter which one's the real page and which one's the redirect, I would have found this page either way, even if I had gone looking for it. I also mildly disagree with Govvy's assessment, as it feels too prescriptivist. Highresheadphones (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support. We're standardising pretty much all the European leagues on the "FC" format now, e.g. FC Barcelona, FC Bayern Munich etc and there's no particular reason not to do so here, or to delay the move pending a nebulous discussion at the WikiProject that will just chew time for no particular value. I feel like we're well on the way to doing this across the board now, and hopefully before too long we'll get consensus even for English clubs. "F.C." looks like an anachronism given the overwhelming usage of "FC" in sources in this day and age. — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 20 July 2026
- 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. – robertsky (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Red Star FC → Red Star FC (France) – Previously discussed in 2011, where the consensus was to "not move" the article to Red Star FC. Nevertheless, the article was moved to this title without discussion in 2013, and that has been the stable title since. It's unclear that this is the primary topic; there are a number of other teams with this name. See Red Star Belgrade and Red Star FC (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - hatnote is sufficient for the Serbian team, everything else is fine at disambig because this is clear PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 18:45, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Is it? Red Star Belgrade gets over 3x the pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah that's a different club/name, so there's no ambiguity... GiantSnowman 08:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Is it? Red Star Belgrade gets over 3x the pageviews. 162 etc. (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, Red Star Belgrade isn't usually called Red Star FC and therefore is NATURALly disambiguated.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose – There is no conflict or ambiguity, since referring to the team as Red Star Belgrade is merely a convention adopted due to the difficulty of pronouncing "Crvena Zvezda" in most Western languages. Also Red Star FC is the official name of the French club. Svartner (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't really understand the motive of the move. The title is not ambiguous. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oposse - I don’t see it, just put not to be confused with Red Star Belgrade instead Ludakov (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.