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. There is a consensus here to continue using the common name instead of maintaining perfect consistency, and per WP:CRITERIA that sort of prioritization is a choice that editors are allowed to make. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter Milan → FC Internazionale Milano – FC Internazionale Milano is the official name. Inter Milan may be most common in English, but I don't think this is a valid reason for not moving. In fact, considering WP:TITLECON, almost all football clubs have the official name, for example Manchester United F.C. and Juventus FC. The most common names are "Manchester United" (or "Man United") and "Juventus" (or "Juve"); so I think we should move also this page to the club's official name 14 novembre (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for all of the reasons previously provided, fully documented, none of which have changed. I suggest you examine those for the current agreed and settled title rather than creating yet another wasteful relitigating of this topic. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to overcome the partisan football fan perspective and think about this issue in the context of building a policy based encyclopaedia which is for the benefit of everyone - not just knowledgeable soccer fans. It is important to remember why we are here, not simply what we each want out of it. Consistency is not the only criteria. While the desire to line everything up neatly is commendable - and occasionally justifiable in itself (such as in entomology) - that is not the case where the naming of an article has to articulate more than that which is purely official. The format and language of the proposed title is an Italian construct which is anti-typical to the English language. The simple challenge is this - is there evidence that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is more common in English sources than the existing title?
WP:AT lays out principles for naming criteria. The current title is clearly aligned on recognisability, naturalness and conciseness and this is the English Wikipedia - not the Italian. The "man in the street" argument is supported by WP:ENGLISH which states "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". "Internazionale" and "Milano" are not English words and the use of "F.C." at the beginning is virtually unheard of in English football club names.

Policy and guidelines are the mainstay of WP and the common feature of each of these naming policies is the word "English". It is not relevant that a name is derivative or slang. It has to be English. It is what is used by WP:RS in the English speaking world that is the basis for naming policy on en-Wiki. Our personal likes, preferences and comparisons with other articles cannot override established and documented standards. These are the relevant polices and significant guides:

WP:ENGLISH "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". "Internazionale" and "Milano" are Italian words.

WP:COMMONNAME ("The most common name for a subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.")
All reliable evidence is that in the English speaking world Inter Milan outweighs other usage.

WP:NAME ("Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.")

WP:UE ("The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage")

WP:MOS#FOREIGN ("Foreign words should be used sparingly")

WP:PLACE ("When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.") - Milan not MilanO
Leaky caldron (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move (again). The common name in English-language sources is Inter Milan. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move: This move request seems to treat "official name" and "common name" (as defined by WP:COMMONNAME) as mutually exclusive. This is not the case and it is where the move rationale simply falls apart. With those clubs like Juventus en Manchester United, the official name just happens to also be the common name. Based on this rationale and absent any other compelling argument, I don't see a reason to move--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONSISTENT and all other Italian football club articles being at their formal titles. This RM is going to keep getting proposed until the inconsistency is sorted out. Number 57 16:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Number 57 I agree with your arguments 14 novembre (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - 'Inter Milan' is a nickname only, similar to clubs called (e.g.) Man U, Wolves, Hearts, Sporting Lisbon etc. that we see frequently in sports journalism. GiantSnowman 12:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd contend that your examples are more abbreviations than actual nicknames. Nicknames would be The Gunners (Arsenal) and Red Devils (Man U) etc, and you never see those on any fixtures. But I'll grant you that Inter Milan is an abbreviation of sorts. However, it is commonly listed on English language fixtures such as BBC and Sky as Inter Milan, where no other of your suggested abbreviations are present.--Atlan (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The BBC also uses (on occasion) Sporting Lisbon and Wolves etc, so your argument doesn't work. GiantSnowman 22:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman Absolutely. This is why the name being cited in BBC is no reason for some strange exception to the convention of the official name being used. Is Juventus more common in media than Juventus FC? Absolutely. But why is the article entitled Juventus FC? Because the common name is only one of the principles, but also for consistency with practically all other clubs the name should always be the official one. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME: FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football). Considerations of nicknames, etc., are an exercise in original research. If 14 novembre replies to this comment, as he has every other oppose, and having made almost 40% of all the comments here so far, I will seek a partial block for them from this page.
  Also oppose move per Leaky Cauldron's forensic examination of reasons to move, and logical dismissal of every one of them in turn. ——Serial 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Leaky caldron. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency's sake with the rest of the articles on Italian football clubs. To respond to the most common policies cited in support of the current name:
  • WP:ENGLISH "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". The club themselves use "FC Internazionale Milano" on the English language version of their official website (see the title bar and the copyright info on this page, and in very large letters on this page), whereas they don't use "Inter Milan" at all except in the online store. "Inter" yes, "Inter Milan" no (see here.
    
  • WP:COMMONNAME ("The most common name for a subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.")
    "FC Internazionale Milano" is recognisable due to the fact that the club use it for themselves and it doesn't take a genius to work out that "FC Internazionale Milano" might refer to the club they might have heard of as "Inter" or "Inter Milan"
    
  • WP:NAME ("Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.") – Recognisable: addressed above; unambiguous: obviously; usage: ESPN, The Guardian, UEFA, need I go on?
    
  • WP:UE ("The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage") – Since "Inter", "Internazionale" and "FC Internazionale Milano" are all used by English-language sources, their use on Wikipedia would follow English-language usage.
    
  • WP:MOS#FOREIGN ("Foreign words should be used sparingly") – This is spurious. It's not egregious to use the correct name of an organisation when referring to it. You wouldn't talk about Royal Madrid, so why insist on "Inter Milan"?
    
  • WP:PLACE ("When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it.") – This is not the name of a place, it's the name of a football club. Even when the Kyiv article was located at Kiev, the article on that city's most famous football club was located at FC Dynamo Kyiv because that's the way the club spells it. The same should apply here.
• This article should never have been moved in the first place. The right thing to do is to move it back. – PeeJay 00:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose clear superiority for the current name, see above and this helpful graph. No, PeeJay's argument that the most common name in English reliable sources can be determined from the club's website does not actually make sense, nor does their choice to cite two sources that don't actually use the name they support moving to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If your rationale is the most common name, I doubt that people search Juventus FC more than Juventus and Manchester United F.C more than Manchester United 14 novembre (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When did I say anything about the club's "most common name"? The choice of an article title is not simply based on what's most common. My argument was based on the fact that "Inter", "Internazionale" and "Inter Milan" are all relatively equally common and therefore "FC Internazionale Milano" is the logical choice for the article title. – PeeJay 11:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You quoted WP:ENGLISH. Scroll up if you can't remember. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to get snippy. It seems like you're the one who's failed to scroll up, since I was obviously responding to Leaky caldron's arguments relating to those policies. I don't actually think WP:ENGLISH applies here. – PeeJay 17:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per very clear WP:COMMONNAME, which is not superseded by local "rules" made by a section of fandom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not this again... the common name in English is very clear, and this has been discussed ad nauseam before... no evidence that the situation has changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per all the previous discussions (COMMONNAME). Kante4 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]