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.

Not moved. There is an absence of consensus for the proposed move. Based on the previous discussions, it seems unlikely that such consensus will arise without either a relevant change in policy or evidence of a significant change in the way to which the team is referred. bd2412 T 17:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano – First of all, let me say that this page should never have been moved away from F.C. Internazionale Milano. Those who contributed to the original RM were presented with incomplete evidence that only supported one side of the story, and by the time the other side was presented, it got so lost in the quagmire that it ended up getting ignored. But to the point of why the article should be moved back, simply look at WP:NCST. When you look at the English language version of the club's website (per the first point on WP:NCST), you can see that the name "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is used by the club itself both in the title bar and as the name of the copyright holder. The name "Inter" is also used, but "Inter Milan" is almost never used. The name has also been adopted by a significant proportion of the media, at least in some recognisable fashion – many news outlets will simply refer to them as "Internazionale" or "Inter", with "Inter Milan" only used as a historical holdover. Finally, the name "F.C. Internazionale Milano" would be impossible to confuse with any other subject. The other benefit of this name is that it is consistent with the rest of the pantheon of Italian football club articles, all of which are titled using the club's official name rather than a contraction thereof. To address the generic naming criteria established at WP:CRITERIA, this title certainly satisfies Recognizability, Precision and Consistency, and I would argue it also satisfies Conciseness as it does not include any unnecessary disambiguators. Naturalness can be ignored due to the fact that links to most football club articles are usually piped anyway (see Manchester United, Real Madrid or Bayern Munich. – PeeJay 18:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is English wikipedia and the English WP:COMMONNAME applies to the club. Govvy (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Govvy: Can you prove that "Inter Milan" is more common than any other nickname for the club? I would say it's on a par with "Internazionale" and/or "Inter". If you can't prove that one nickname holds prominence over any of the others, we should avoid using nicknames. – PeeJay 18:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well, it's been a common name for a long time, but if you go by google results; "Inter Milan" 21,700,000 results ; "Inter" 550,000,000 results ; "Internazionale" 110,000,000 results , however "Inter" shouldn't be used as there are other clubs that start with Inter. As for other sites, Soccerway use the full name of FC Internazionale Milano, Soccerbase use just "Inter" which should be avoided, BBC use Inter Milan, EPSN use Internazionale, I am not against a move, I just see it as Inter Milan being the common translated English name. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The format and language of the proposed title is an entirely Italian construct and is directly repugnant to the English language. It has no place on en-Wiki. The simple challenge is this - Where is the evidence that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" - the proposed article title - is more common in English sources than the existing title?
  WP:AT lays out principles for naming criteria. The current title clearly wins out over the proposed title in recognisability, naturalness and conciseness. 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 even English words and the use of "F.C." at the beginning is virtually unheard of in English football.

Anyway. let's not descend to accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Policy and guidelines are the mainstay of WP. Note that the common feature of each of these naming policy guidelines is the word "English". It matters not that a name is derivative or even 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. Personal likes, preferences and comparisons with other foreign sounding articles cannot override established and documented standards.

WP:ENGLISH is clear; "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.

All the evidence is that in the English speaking world Inter Milan outweighs all 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

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.")
Leaky Caldron 18:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

With regard to WP:NAME, are you saying that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is unrecognisable to readers or that it is somehow ambiguous? With regard to WP:UE, the name "Internazionale" (and even the full length "Internazionale Milano") are used in English-language sources, so I don't see a problem there, especially given my point to Govvy above that "Inter Milan" isn't even used significantly more than any other nickname for the club, and where no predominant nickname emerges above any others, we should default to the official name. WP:PLACE doesn't apply as a football club is not a place, and even if it were, FC Dynamo Kyiv, FC Steaua București and Sevilla FC all exist as precedent to the contrary. And finally WP:COMMONNAME does not necessarily support the use of "Inter Milan" as the title of the article as I've explained above. – PeeJay 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose again (a past comment):

WP:ENGLISH: does not say that we should only use English titles, but we should use titles that are used by English sources, and the proposed title are used in English sources e.g. FIFA and UEFA and many more.

WP:NAME: Again, F.C. Internazionale Milano is used by English sources, and there is no naming-policy that forbids Italian words when it is used by English sources.

WP:UE: This policy is about spelling of words with non-anglicized characters, and last time I checked all the characters in F.C. Internazionale Milano where English.

WP:MOS#FOREIGN - Are you going to translate Royal Madrid, and other football clubs with non-english words in the name aswell?

WP:PLACE - Are you aware of that we are talking about a football clubs name, not a place?

WP:COMMONNAME - there is no indication that Inter Milan is a more common name then Internazionale or Inter.--Dipralb (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I thought we were through this. The club is known as Inter/Inter Milan, i have nearly never have it heard called "Internazionale" in magazines, games, TV shows or whatever. Commonname is "Inter Milan", as much as you dislike it. Kante4 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You obviously haven't looked very hard. – PeeJay 19:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The club doesn't typically refer to itself as "Inter Milan", so we should follow WP:NCI and go with a name that they do use.--Dipralb (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the nth time. Nothing has changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The club is "F.C. Internazionale Milano" only on legal documents. If you want to call it "Internazionale", as some of the sources cited by the nom suggest, that's another RM. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nine Zulu queens: If you would care to read WP:NCST, it says we are supposed to use the official name, provided it is recognisable and used by the club on its English-language website. No one is suggesting we call the article "Internazionale", so I don't know where you've got that from. I only brought it up as a nickname to highlight the fact that "Inter Milan" is not used significantly more than any other of the club's nicknames, and hence it makes more sense to go with the official name. Not to mention it would be consistent with the rest of the articles in Category:Football clubs in Italy, lest we forget that consistency is one of the WP:CRITERIA for naming articles. – PeeJay 20:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The club refers to itself as "F.C. Internazionale Milano", exactly like FIFA and UEFA. Inter.it, FIFA and UEFA should be considered primary sources. PS: do you think "F.C. Internazionale" should be a better name?--Dipralb (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

BBC, Sky Sports, and The Britannica Guide to Soccer use "Inter Milan." The Kingfisher Soccer Encyclopedia, The Guardian and ESPN use "Internazionale." The proposed title doesn't seem to get significant use, either in terms of sports news or in terms of sports reference works. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Teams' full names are very rarely used, but we use them here to avoid confusion with other subjects (e.g. Liverpool vs Liverpool F.C.), and once you start doing it for one club, you pretty much have to do it for all of them to satisfy the "Consistency" criterion at WP:NC. I suggest you have a read of WP:NCST for the relevant guidelines for sports teams. – PeeJay 12:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. What do you think about this opinion? According to this user, "writing Inter Milan make confusion since people say Inter Milan to refer to derby game between Inter and Milan".--Dipralb (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per PeeJay and Dipralb. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Hhkohh (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nom, per NCST this name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website (recent example). The name also has been adopted by a significant section of the English-language media and is recognizable. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Inter Milan may be a common nickname for the club in the anglosphere, probably as common as Spurs or Barça in journalistic pieces, but we don't use those in the respective articles' names. Inter Milan should be just a redirect to the official name, which is also how the club often refers to itself in English news ([1], [2],[3], [4] just in the past few days). --Tanonero (msg) 07:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Ahah "This is tabloidpedia and we use WP:TABLOIDNAMES" again? Just joking, obviously Support unless we're moving Tottenham to "Spurs". In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely right.--Dipralb (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (Support) it's clear that there is inconsistency when it comes to football club names. 1. FC Köln, FC Steaua București and IFK Göteborg using native names but Red Star Belgrade, FC Spartak Moscow, SK Slavia Prague, FC Bayern Munich and Legia Warsaw using English spellings. As long as appropriate redirects are in place, to be honest I don't really care. Crowsus (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crowsus: "FC Bayern Munich" is used officially be the German club's English website. Matthew_hk tc 09:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but I checked 'Red Star' there, and their English version uses "FK Crvena zvezda" to describe themselves. So, again, inconsistency. Crowsus (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the "consistency" is non-Latin name had their own treatment. No one know that Црвена звезда it is nor 江苏苏宁. For very straight bit by bit transliteration it should be Crvena zvezda and Jiāngsū Sūníng but the latter had its own official English name (which common in Chinese transliteration to remove the tone number) as Jiangsu Suning. For Inter Milan or "F.C. Internazionale Milano" it is hardly for people don't understand Internazionale is the full spelling of Inter and Milano is the Italian spelling of Milan (so did Napoli, Torino and Roma), and it is not very rare that "Internazionale" was used by common English media. Matthew_hk tc 10:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we use "Inter de Porto Alegre"? Sport Club Internacional is exactly the same situation. English media use "Inter de Porto Alegre" but the title is correctly "Sport Club Internacional".--Dipralb (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the article titles should have "F.C." in it and it is fine to pipe Inter Milan. For consistency, every Italian club used full name that included F.C., A.C., Calcio, S.S. (and other variant) and we usually piped them out. For source, ESPN FC use both Internazionale and Inter Milan (see the tag) (as well as this article). BBC also used both (see this) Matthew_hk tc 09:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is exactly like "Pallacanestro Olimpia Milano". What's the difference? Why don't we use "Olimpia Milan"? But there are several example like this, "Inter Milan" is totally an exception. We have a specific guideline for the naming of sports teams at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), which suggests that we should use the name that the club uses in the English language section of its own website. PS: UEFA uses "F.C. Internazionale Milano" also during official draws. Evidently isn't too ambiguous.--Dipralb (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this is a joke. Yes the club is known as 'Inter Milan' - but it's also known just as 'Inter', and lots of clubs are known by different names, and we don't (nor should we) have articles at Man Utd or Sporting Lisbon etc. or any other of the variety of nicknames for clubs out there (which is all 'Inter Milan' is). We're an encyclopaedia, not a sports tabloid. So we use the official name - as far as I am aware this is the only of the thousands of articles about football clubs not at the official name. GiantSnowman 12:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Athletic Bilbao is not the official name, but that - merely Athletic Club - is too ambiguous in English so I can see why it is an exception. However, Atlético Madrid is also used, when the official name is Club Atlético de Madrid, so its also similar to Inter Milan, but it so happens that the name of the city is the same in English as the native, unlike Milan(o). Crowsus (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) is clear: we should use the name that the club uses in the English language section of its own website. UEFA and FIFA don't consider "F.C Internazionale Milano" too ambiguous in English, I don't understand the problem. There is a clear naming convention for sport teams.--Dipralb (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support for WP:CONSISTENCY with all other Italian football club articles (and pretty much all football club articles), which are at their formal titles. Like Yogurt, this a move that will keep being requested until we finally get it right, so let's hope it's this time. Number 57 13:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support: this is the only football club on this entire site that uses a nickname rather than the actual name. The only one. It's a ridiculous outlier, and the name should've never been changed to Inter Milan in the first place. Italia2006 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - unnecessarily clunky name. Unreal7 (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • How is it clunky? It's the club's name. Clunkiness definitely isn't an argument when it comes to article names to avoid. – PeeJay 14:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Another example: English media use "Inter de Porto Alegre" or simply "Porto Alegre", Portuguese media refer to the club as "Inter", but the title is correctly "Sport Club Internacional".--Dipralb (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment to closer WP:CONLIMITED is very clear. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Leaky Caldron 15:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, the move was clearly more controversial than the duration of the RM that moved the article.--Dipralb (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that if the broader community don't intend to involve themselves in the discussion, the local consensus has to apply. Furthermore, we have a Wikipedia guideline that supports the use of the name "F.C. Internazionale Milano" (see WP:NCST). It's not that we think the more generic policy doesn't apply, it's just that there's a more specific policy that should take precedence. – PeeJay 15:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not a policy. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:AT are the relevant policies. The local consensus certainly does not "have" to apply. It is a not popularity contest for football fans. Leaky Caldron 17:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the wording (or even the existence) of WP:NCST, perhaps you should raise it on its talk page? It exists, therefore it should be applied. Otherwise what's the point in it existing? – PeeJay 17:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

And editors have already showed Inter Milan is not the most "commonname" in English, so that guide is practically out. NCST is a lot more relevant in this case. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. WP:NCST is more specific about sport teams. If it exists, it should be applied.--Dipralb (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Per consistency, we don't use nicknames Barca, Nastic, Spurs etc for article titles, we use proper names including FC/AC/FK/SC. Like snowman said, this is encyclopedia, not a sports section of a newspaper. Linhart (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support To all the naïve users that believe because it is the English Wiki, it should adopt the English language name I say this - Juventus is a Latin word, the team name translates to Youths, now if this is an English wiki, why is the article not title Youths F.C. or perhaps even Juve. How about A.S. Roma, as we all know the English translation is 'Rome', but why then is Roma the name of the article on the English wiki if it isn't an English word? Or how about Royal Madrid, FC Basle anyone? SMADG85 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Please take it from someone who practically lives and breathes Inter. No one calls it Internazionale, it's such an awkward name that I've literally never heard anyone in person use it. Inter Milan in English, just Inter in Italian. In fact personally i'd prefer Inter in the English wiki as well, but I understand that is not an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInterFan (talk • contribs) 11:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We're not proposing that the article be called "Internazionale", we're proposing that it be called by its full name, "F.C. Internazionale Milano". Saying this article should be called "Inter Milan" is like saying Manchester United F.C. should be moved to Man Utd. The fact is, the names "Inter Milan", "Internazionale" and "Inter" are used with about the same frequency by most media outlets, and while it's a fair argument to say we can't use the names "Internazionale" or "Inter" because they're somewhat too vague for a Wikipedia title, that doesn't mean we should just default to "Inter Milan". For consistency's sake, the best option is "F.C. Internazionale Milano". – PeeJay 11:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't mean this in a harsh way, but your supporting this club has no bearing or relevance whatsoever in a discussion over the article's name. Italia2006 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I agre with Italia2006. There's a policy (NCST).--Dipralb (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
      • You are not a native English speaker. You need to understand that is NOT a policy. It is nothing more than a little guideline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs) 10:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
        • So... what’s the point in it existing?--Dipralb (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Indeed. User:Leaky caldron seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that guidelines can be tossed aside when the result of their application doesn't fit with his desired outcome, something akin to WP:IAR. But to my mind, if you decide to WP:IGNORE a rule, it behoves you to at least propose an alternative. In the absence of an alternative, I see no reason why this guideline shouldn't be followed, especially when it has existed with exactly the same wording for the best part of a decade (page started 28 September 2009, guideline probably existed for a while before that as the page was spun out of WP:Naming conventions). – PeeJay 11:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
            • Dozens of evidence based policies have been quoted every time you have raised this over the years. Your real dificulty is that no matter how hard you try you can provide no quantitive WP:RS in the ENGLISH language to support your pet wish to contrive to make Italian words more common as a name than the established English common title compliant with actual wiki article naming policy. As commented by others, NOTHING has changed. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
              • @Leaky caldron: I've seen the rationales others have given, I just don't think they hold water. I've responded to your claims, it would be nice if you would at least take the time to explain where I've gone wrong. Besides, F.C. Internazionale Milano fits with enough of the WP:CRITERIA to be considered a viable title. If you're so dead set on using the name "Inter Milan", you can always WP:PIPE. – PeeJay 11:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the arguments of Dipralb, Tanonero, Linhart and one or two others. The use of the nickname is an anomaly. A redirect from Inter Milan will easily solve any issues much like it does with the likes of Man City and Man Utd etc. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose it seems this article's name appears to be discussed almost every 12 to 6 months and it is getting kinda tiring. Not much has changed since the most recent discussion and I personally do not find the supporter's rational that convincing, so I am going with an oppose on purely procedural grounds. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NCI and WP:NCST don’t seem to be considered before. Am I wrong?--Dipralb (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment This policy-based Not Moved decision from 3 years ago still perfectly sets out the current position which has not altered in any material way policy-wise or evidence-wise. ............... the opposes had the stronger policy argument, as borne out by available evidence: "Inter Milan" appears to be much more common in the English-language reliable sources. As such, it better fits the spirit WP:COMMONNAME and other conditions of the article titles policy. As no fresh evidence has been produced and it is the same tired rationale by those who do not like current policy naming for soccer teams. Let us be clear, this is English language WP, not Italian language WP. Leaky Caldron 13:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand this strong opposition... I repeat, the move was clearly more controversial than the duration of the RM that moved the article. There are several opinions that don’t seem to be considered. But I respect you.--Dipralb (talk) 14:04, 7 July 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

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: No consensus to move. Common name and conciseness fought to a draw against, well, common name as well as consistency. Lots of good arguments on both sides. We'll probably continue having these move requests until the article is finally moved someday, and then we'll probably have continual move requests until it gets moved back, too. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 06:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano – The club's full name is Football Club Internazionale Milano and it's commonly refereed to with numerous names such as Inter Milan, Internazionale and many other names. However, after taking a look at Category:Serie A clubs I noticed that this article doesn't match other articles in the category (all clubs in the category are using their formal names unlike this one). So per WP:CONSISTENCY, per the club's official account at UEFA.com, and per previous similar discussion at Talk:Rangers International F.C. I believe that this article should be moved to F.C. Internazionale Milano or FC Internazionale Milano. Ben5218 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (and possibly WP:UE). The situation hasn't changed since the last time this was discussed. Calidum 00:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The fact that Internazionale Milano isn't the common name isn't really relevant in my opinion, as the convention for naming football club articles is to use the proper name and not just the common name; otherwise articles such as AFC Ajax would be named Ajax Amsterdam instead. Ben5218 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Not at all true, since the common name in the English-speaking world is simply Ajax, which obviously needs disambiguation, not Ajax Amsterdam. The article title therefore entirely fits in with normal Wikipedia naming conventions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I know it's not the first criteria to change the name of the page, but if you look at the italian [5] and french [6] versions of the page, they are both named FC Internazionale Milano, which is, in my opinion, the proper name for the page. RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I think that Wikipedia has had a problem with the naming of club articles for a while now, and Inter perfectly encapsulates it. The English names of several clubs (e.g. "Inter Milan", "Atletico Madrid", "Red Star Belgrade") are not what the clubs are referred to in their home country and are simply not authentic. I would support article titles to be in the form as the clubs are officially recognised by UEFA, such as with the latest UCL draw: [7]. LeoC12 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I also noteced that in the most recent draw they used "FK Crvena zvezda" for exemple (actually, they used FK CRVENA ZVEZDA all in caps as for all clubs, but the native name in Serbian has indeed the "zvezda" and not "Zvezda"). However, its one of those cases where the club is enough popular to be recognised by its translated name form in most languages, so the last RfM ended in favour of Red Star Belgrade as most common name in English media and literature. FkpCascais (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Not to mention the fact that the club sometimes refers to itself as "Red Star" on its website (see [8] and [9]). – PeeJay 06:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I must be missing it probably, but in both links all that appears to me is in Serbian and Cyrillic... But an exemple can be their own Serbian page called "Ред Стар шоп (translated "Red Star shop)". I think they use even in their equipment FC Red Star, at least I remember recently seing them wear it and also written in their Media spaces in the stadium. But they use it for their foreign representation, domestically they undoubtably use FK Crvena zvezda. FkpCascais (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
        • There's a globe icon in the top corner that lets you change the language to English. I searched the site for "Red Star" and a few results came up, albeit not as many as "Crvena zvezda" (out of interest, why doesn't the "zvezda" have a capital letter; respond on my talk page please 🙂). – PeeJay 09:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I've noticed all that too, but my main point, regardless of whether the club is called 'Red Star' or 'Crvena zvezda', the relevant insitutions use the conventions of the home country, i.e. UEFA does not refer to Red Star as 'Red Star Belgrade' because that usage simply doesn't exist in Serbia. For me, the same standard should be applied to Inter; 'Inter' is a common nickname in both Italy and the English-speaking world, but the article title should be the official name. We can always include somethign like 'commonly referred to as Inter Milan in English' in the lede anyway. LeoC12 (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I had stated that ESPN FC had use "Inter Milan" and "Internazionale " as common names in the same news article, and some other news website such as Football Italia, even use "Inter" only. See also BBC ([10][11][12])

WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criterion. Per WP:CRITERIA, There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.. Sine every Italian football club use longer name that contains FC/Calcio affix, for example Juventus F.C. instead of Juventus, Udinese Calcio instead of Udinese, using "F.C. Internazionale Milano" would fit WP:CONSISTENCY.

Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) existed, which "Inter Milan" violated the naming convention, and "F.C. Internazionale Milano" did not violate. Please discuss the revision of the naming convention for solving the anomaly "Inter Milan".

The naming convention stated: The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website. Which at the footnote part of the website inter.it, wrote : Copyright © 1995—2019 F.C. Internazionale Milano P.IVA 04231750151, and the title of the front page of the website wrote Inter.it Home Page | Inter Official Site | FC Internazionale Milano. Matthew hk (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Support. I would prefer just "Internazionale" because it would be more in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME. That said, "Inter Milan" violates both WP:NCST and WP:CONSISTENCY so it should be changed. TrailBlzr (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support – As others have pointed out above, and as I have stated in previous RMs, the club has multiple common names ("Inter", "Inter Milan", "Internazionale"), none of which stands out particularly ahead of the others as the predominant one. For this reason alone, it stands to reason – at least to me – that we should not prefer any one of them as the title of this article. For the sake of consistency between all Italian football club articles, we should prefer the club's full name, FC Internazionale Milano. Furthermore, we have WP:NCST, which states that we should use the official name provided that the official name appears on the English version of the club's website (see here in both the copyright info at the bottom and in the page header in the browser tab), the name has been adopted by a significant section of the English language media and is recognisable, and it is not easily confused with other clubs' names. While the club's full, official name may not have been adopted by the media, that could be said for any club, and to use the names more commonly used on the club website here would be ambiguous (both "Inter" and "Internazionale" would require some form of disambiguation anyway, so using "FC Internazionale Milano" makes sense). Finally, it could be claimed that because the full name is not used in the media makes that name unrecognisable. Anyone who makes that claim is a liar; for anyone to claim that they are unable to fathom the identity of the club referred to by the name "FC Internazionale Milano" is patently absurd unless they have zero knowledge of the sport. – PeeJay 06:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 07:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - as I've said before, this is not a 'common name', it is a popular nickname (one of many for the club as pointed out above). Those are the same things. We do not use this - hence why we do not have articles located at e.g. Wolves (football club) or at Man Utd or at Sporting Lisbon. For football clubs we always use the official name. GiantSnowman 07:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is disruptive and mendacious. This has been looked at time and again with the identical outcome. Nothing has changed since last year. Not moved. There is an absence of consensus for the proposed move. Based on the previous discussions, it seems unlikely that such consensus will arise without either a relevant change in policy or evidence of a significant change in the way to which the team is referred.
  Please point to the change in policy or change in which Inter Milan is referred.
  The format and language of the proposed title is an entirely Italian construct and is directly repugnant to the English language. It has no place on en-Wiki. The simple challenge is this - Where is the evidence that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" - the proposed article title - is more common in English sources than the existing title?
  WP:AT lays out principles for naming criteria. The current title clearly wins out over the proposed title in recognisability, naturalness and conciseness. 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 even English words and the use of "F.C." at the beginning is virtually unheard of in English football.

Anyway. let's not descend to accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Policy and guidelines are the mainstay of WP. Note that the common feature of each of these naming policy guidelines is the word "English". It matters not that a name is derivative or even 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. Personal likes, preferences and comparisons with other foreign sounding articles cannot override established and documented standards.

WP:ENGLISH is clear; "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.

All the evidence is that in the English speaking world Inter Milan outweighs all 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

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.")
Leaky caldron (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• • "F.C." is virtually unheard of in English football? It's not quite the same as A.F.C. Bournemouth, I'll grant you, but it's not unheard of. Besides, whether or not the practice is known in English football is irrelevant since this is an Italian club. Furthermore, I find your argument about "Internazionale" and "Milano" being Italian words entirely spurious; WP:ENGLISH does not say we have to avoid all non-English words in article titles, it just says to refer to things by names used by English speakers. "Bayern" is not an English word, for example, but we still have FC Bayern Munich. Not to mention the fact that "Inter" isn't an English word either, except in the sense of "interring" a body into a grave. WP:PLACE also doesn't apply here, since F.C. Internazionale Milano is not a place, but an organisation named after a place. WP:UE also doesn't apply here since this is not a case of variations in spelling but a choice between an official name and one of several nicknames. There can be no argument that there is any form of English spelling for "Internazionale Milano", unless you want to go full-on absurd and title the article "International Milan". I suppose MOS:FOREIGN applies, but I hardly see this as gratuitous use of foreign words. And finally, WP:NAME and WP:COMMONNAME: as I addressed above, no one has yet to establish "Inter Milan" as more common of a name than either of the other two nicknames suggested (i.e. "Inter" and "Internazionale") and if you want to claim that someone reading "F.C. Internazionale Milano" wouldn't be able to discern that it refers to the club known as "Internazionale" from Milan, be my guest, but I find that to be intellectually dishonest of you. – PeeJay 08:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Inter" is not an "English word" either, it's short for "Internazionale". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This name has been settled at the English WP:COMMONNAME for many years now, and the closer of the last discussion advised that we needed a "a relevant change in policy or evidence of a significant change in the way to which the team is referred", something that hasn't been demonstrated here. Bringing the same discussion back year after year is a waste of everyone's time. If evidence is really needed, a look at the original RM gives it in abundance. According to the stats there, the proposed name barely appears in English RS at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This, again, is a totally dishonest line of reasoning. The name "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is not being proposed because it is used more commonly than "Inter Milan" but because no one has been able to prove that "Inter Milan" is any more common than "Inter" or "Internazionale". Compare those three and then tell me that any one of them is statistically more prevalent than the others. I'm sure you'll find a way to argue the contrary, but any unbiased look at the numbers will show all three names are of similar orders of magnitude. – PeeJay 08:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • If you make further, repeated accusations of dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise, your behaviour will be reported to the appropriate administrator forum. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Go ahead. It's not a personal attack, it's a call for fellow editors to really examine the evidence rather than simply coming here and saying, "Oh shit, not this again. Oppose." – PeeJay 08:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not sure why we keep needing to have this discussion despite there being a clear consensus that Inter Milan is the most appropriate common name. This doesn't mean that there aren't other names that are also used to refer to this club, but there is long standing consensus that this is the best choice. I note that none of the support votes above attempt to provide any kind of evidence to support this as a better common name. Whilst I can appreciate that consensus could change, one thing is for sure and that is that "F.C Internazionale Milano" is absolutely not the most common way this team is known in english language sources. This stick needs to be dropped, then set on fire and the ashes shot into space. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Manchester United" isn't the most common way people refer to Man Utd either, but we don't have their article at Man Utd, now do we? – PeeJay 08:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • "Man Utd" is an abbreviation sometimes used in titles, but "Inter Milan" is the name actually used to refer to the club. See for example the opening paragraph of [13]: "Sir Alex Ferguson emerged victorious in the showdown with his old rival Jose Mourinho as Manchester United survived a nervous night against Inter Milan to reach the last eight of the Champions League."
      • I didn't say people didn't refer to them as Manchester United, that would be absurd. I just said "Manchester United" isn't necessarily the most common way people refer to the club. UEFA use "Man. United", UK sources will often use "Man Utd" or just "United". Referring to FC Internazionale Milano as "Inter Milan" is akin to referring to "Manchester United FC" as "Man United". – PeeJay 09:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move. This has been discussed time and time again. Not quite to the levels where we'd need a snowclose, but I feel it unlikely to succeed without said policy change. O.N.R. ^(talk) 08:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And yet it seems like every time I see !votes like this, where the !voter isn't actually addressing the points raised by the nominator and their supporters. – PeeJay 08:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I would of liked to of been pinged since I made comments in the past about the move. I am on the fence in the end over the title. I know the club more as Inter Milan, however WP:COMMONNAME is a guideline, not a straight down directive. It asks for people to make the correct judgement, what most support arguments are, are the following WP:MoS in the title convention of the football club. MOS:AT is just as important as common name, if not more so. That must be taken into account. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, we have an article on Manchester United F.C. rather than Man United and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. rather than Spurs so similarly this article title should be "FC Internazionale" (with or without "Milano", don't care). This is a dichotomy between the club's actual name and a colloquial form of it, not a matter of one being "English" and the other being "foreign". – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with other Italian football clubs (see Category:Football clubs in Italy). Disappointed but unsurprised to see the same arguments ignoring the fact that this article's title is an anomaly. As Govvy rightly points out, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only guideline for article titles (otherwise we wouldn't have titles like Oldham West and Royton (UK Parliament constituency)) but unfortunately many arguments at RMs seem to default to this... Number 57 11:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per all support votes! statements made above. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per all arguments made above.Sadsadas (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per statements made above. Italia2006 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the English WP:COMMONNAME. Internazionale Milano is Italian usage. It has never been used in English. Likewise AC Milano is Italian usage. Reading a BBC article on the club only five minutes ago (hence why I clicked on this article). “Romelu Lukaku: Inter Milan striker hits back at Gary Neville” (published two hours ago). It’s always been Inter Milan (Inter for short). It is disruptive to request a name change to one that is never used in English (I do believe this is an English language encyclopaedia). Do we also ask that people stop saying “I’m going to Milan for my holidays”? PD Rivers (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't say "AC Milano" because that isn't the teams name in any language. Even in Italian, it's AC Milan, so that argument is meaningless. If the name was "AC Milano", then that would be the article title. TrailBlzr (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just to add to this, the comment about UEFA and FIFA websites is not apt as they incorporate all the official languages. So CSKA Moscow (as we English speakers commonly know it), in the UEFA article it is CSKA Moskva. To incorporate a name never used by English speakers (Internazionale Milano) would mean rewriting every article on this English language encyclopaedia that doesn’t use the native term. PD Rivers (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • CSKA Moscow refers to itself as "PFC CSKA Moscow" on it's English language website, therefore it passes WP:NCST. Nowhere does Inter refer to itself as "Inter Milan" - TrailBlzr (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The current name simply fails WP:NCST and WP:CONSISTENCY, that's it. Also, the fact that Internazionale Milano isn't the common name isn't really relevant in this case; otherwise articles like Tottenham Hotspur and Sporting CP would be named Spurs and Sporting Lisbon respectively instead. For CSKA Moscow and CSKA Moskva, that's a different case which isn't related to our topic. Ben5218 (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) We already had to do that when the article was incorrectly moved away from the suggested title a few years ago. Furthermore, as I have pointed out above, no one is suggesting that "Internazionale Milano" is anything close to the subject's common name. We all know it isn't. However, it is the club's official name and the only appropriate choice given the guidelines at WP:NCST and relative similarity of "Inter Milan" to the club's other shortened names, "Internazionale" and "Inter". Your example about people saying they're going to Milan is spurious as we're not talking about a place, we're talking about an organisation named after a place. After all, we have Kiev and FC Dynamo Kyiv; we have Bucharest and FC Dinamo București; we have Hanover, Nuremberg, Hannover 96 and 1. FC Nürnberg. Your argument simply doesn't work. – PeeJay 23:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@PD Rivers:. BBC used Internazionale in this page [14] , Inter and Inter Milan in this page [15], Inter Milan and F.C. Internazionale Milano in this page [16]. BBC use more often "Inter Milan" but it is not the only common name they used for the team. Matthew hk (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This is English Wikipedia as as the first few lines of the article states, it is only really called Internazionale in Italy. Most British people know the club as Inter Milan and in fact the few times I've seen it called Internazionale were all on Wikipedia. I think for simplicity it should remain Inter Milan as that's what the majority of English speakers know it as. Mn1548 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Evidence has been presented that Wikipedia is not the only place you can see the club referred to as Internazionale, including The Guardian and ESPN. The Independent also refers to them as Internazionale, in addition to using both "Inter Milan" and just "Inter"; this lends credence to my argument above that "Inter Milan" is not the predominant short name for the club. In addition, FC Barcelona refers to them as "Internazionale". Simplicity is not a criterion when it comes to deciding what an article should be called. After all, we wouldn't be having this issue if the article hadn't been moved in the first place. – PeeJay 23:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Leaky Cauldron. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - They recently set up a women's team, who got promoted into Serie A for this season and have been signing overseas players. FWIW the accompanying news articles in Czech, Dutch, French, Portuguese and Swedish all seem to prefer Inter Milan. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Foreign source is not that relevant to decide the article title in English wikipedia. Also, people had pointed out even English language source, has also used "Internazionale". Off-topic, your Czech source use "Interu Milán" (see also cs:Milán), your Belgian source use "Inter" and "Internazionale", as well as Milanezen for diminutive form of the city (see also wiktionary:nl:Milanezen). Yes l'equipe use "Inter Milan", but it only prove the common name in French language, not in English. Also, your Portuguese source actually use "Inter Milão" (see also pt:Milão). The Finnish source you used, actually use "Inter" only. The official instagram of the football club use "Inter" and "Inter Women" BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support I am going to go with support the change. I am wondering how many of you understand the different between a formal name and informal name. "Inter Milan" although common, is an informal name of "Internazionale Milano" which is the formal name. COMMONNAME is the practice of providing a name to the top of the article that most people know. However MOS:AT already provides an example for how a football club articles should be named and is using Inverness City F.C. as it's example. What lots of people are forgetting is how important the rule of MOS:AT is, it sets the consistency for how a whole group of articles should be named. WP:CONSISTENCY has been mentioned above, to also ignore this is a dam right crime. There should not be any anomalies like this on wikipedia, there can be exceptions to the rules, but I don't think this is one of them. The format should be followed and COMMONNAME is a void argument here. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, the short name is better and more in use. --Gomaza (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You're going to have to define "better". And as people have pointed out above, no one is disputing that people refer to the club more by its informal name "Inter Milan" than as "FC Internazionale Milano", but "Inter Milan" is used about the same as "Internazionale" or just "Inter", hence we opt for the formal name. – PeeJay 09:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Better? More in use? Naming articles isn't based on these; we are not talking about which name better or common. It's simple: The title should be the club's official, formal name which is F.C. Internazionale Milano. Anything else except this shouldn't be used. Ben5218 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Umm, you might want to read WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME. They say the exact opposite of what you just said here.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

And doesn't this violates both WP:NCST and WP:CONSISTENCY? Considering this is the only Italian club that uses an informal name as their title on Wikipedia? Ben5218 (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Unless we change Borussia Mönchengladbach to Borussia M'gladbach, since some users state BBC as the main parameter.[17] Preferably, I would just get rid of dots (in all Italian club names). ..::11soccero11::.. (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Th below subsection looks remarkably similar to a contribution I have been preparing in my Sandbox over the last few days. I will continue with my intention to post it here.

Rather than responding to several individual !supports all over the place which I regard as an approach verging on badgering, I will add some further new research en-bloc (here, because there is a per !vote above based on my original Oppose).
Per POLICY, WP:TITLE: A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics. I have added my own emphasis of the salient points:

Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
There is already disambiguation links on Internazionale
Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Conciseness, below)
Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

Inter Milan in the English language is clearly without a doubt the title which satisfies each of these characteristics compared with the foreign language "Internazionale Milano". It is recognisable and used far more widely in English speaking sources. It is plainly more natural than an Italian construct within English speaking nations. There is no doubt it is both precise and concise.
As far as Consistency is concerned, this is mentioned in some !Supports. The Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sports_teams) which is linked from the above policy states the following:

• The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website
• The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable
• The name is not easily confused with other clubs' names.

The 2nd & 3rd are clearly satisfied. But most significant is the reference to the English-language section of the clubs official website. [18]. "Inter" is not only the prominent title, it is the dominant usage on that page, appearing 40 times. Even on the Italian version [19] "Inter" appears 45 times compared with 4 for the full Italian name. Finally, it has to be pointed out that several of those supporters of the change are also part of WP:FOOTY and WP:CONLIMITED is particularly clear. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice which has not formally been approved by the wider community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay. WP:PROJ WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

In reference to your comments about use of the name "Inter" on the club's official website, the site is predominantly for fans, so it would be a little jarring to use the full name. The point is not the prevalence of the name on the club's website, but that they actually use it. The name appears in the title bar of the browser window when you access the website, it appears in the copyright information at the bottom of the page, and it appears quite notably on this page. A name they do not use, however, is "Inter Milan". – PeeJay 10:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments made above.--Sakiv (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONNAME doesn't seem to be applied consistently across all football clubs' articles titles, therefore the official name of the club appears to me to be the most natural and neutral choice. Tanonero (msg) 11:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • With respect, this editor identifies as an Italian Wikipedian. He may not be the only Italian Wikipedian subscribing to this discussion. If I landed at the Italian WP suggesting that article names should be RN to Anglicised names, for example "Scalinata di Trinità dei Monti" renamed the Spanish Steps, I would quickly be topic banned. No one, simply NO ONE can, with any seriousness, suggest that "Internazionale Milano" is a natural title in the English language. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes you would be topic banned because that would be a ridiculous move as English sources tend to use Spanish Steps and not the Italian. But you would also be topic banned if you tried to move Ponte Vecchio to Old Bridge as no one in the English-speaking world would refer to the bridge as such. Ponte Vecchio is not "a natural title in English" but English speakers use it all the time, maybe they pronounce it incorrectly, but they still use it just like they use Internazionale just as, if not more, commonly Inter Milan. It seems you want to see every single Wikipedia article, no matter its usage, in English, when that will simply never be the case - the same should be applied here. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • English speakers generally are much more likely to say "Inter Milan" than "Internazionale", actually. That has been demonstrated through sourcing. And as for the proposed title, "F.C. Internazionale Milano", I can pretty much say that I've never heard anyone say that, and English sources don't either. Your talk page identifies you as an Italian Canadian, so perhaps you're tending to prefer the Italian usage rather than the English usage too, but it's worth noting that even in Canadian sources the term "Inter Milan" is frequently used: [20][21][22]  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Amakuru: As I have pointed out many times, the name "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is not being suggested because that specific name is common in English but because the names "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan" are all used about the same amount in the English media. Because no one common name is more prevalent than the others, it makes sense to use the full, official name. – PeeJay 19:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support We usually do not use nicknames. We must use common name, not common nickname. All other Serie A clubs have US, AC, FC, Calcio etc.Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (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. No ambiguity means that: 1) The name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website 2) The name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable 3) The name is not easily confused with other clubs' names.") and statements made above.--Dipralb (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • But Internazionale Milano is not prevalent there. In fact it is barely used on the English or even the Italian language of the official site [23]. "Inter" is not only the prominent title, it is the dominant usage on that page, appearing 40 times. Even on the Italian version [24] "Inter" appears 45 times compared with 4 for the full Italian name. This is the Readable user content - not the hidden stuff. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The point is not the prevalence of the name on the club's website, but that they use it. However, they don't use "Inter Milan"; it's just a nickname adopted by English-language media.--Dipralb (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Exactly. And this is English Wikipedia! Look at the BBC, for instance: Inter Milan against Internazionale Milano! Note: No results at all for the latter name; many for the former. In English-language sources, it is overwhelmingly known as Inter Milan. Why exactly should we make an exception to WP:UE for this article? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Broadly the same group of users have lobbied for this for several years. There is a mix of English speaking but European-based football editors who are also members of the Footy project. With the best will in the world, and absolutely AGF, neither of these groups are adherents to core Policy if there is local or project angle they can latch onto. Footy is notorious for creating their own standards and several of the prime movers here are involved in internal battles about formating of info. boxes, etc. I am certain that the closing Admin. will ensure that consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations and have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
          • There is no instance here of WP:FOOTY members attempting to impose a local consensus on the wider community. We have WP:NCST. – PeeJay 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Necrothesp: You were asking why "F.C. Internazionale Milano" fits with WP:NCST. Please don't flip-flop between arguments, it makes for a very confusing debate. Furthermore, as I have stated many times, the name "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is not being suggested because it is the most prevalent name, but because it is the most logical alternative to three nicknames ("Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan") that are used with about the same frequency in the media. Arguing that "Inter Milan" is more prevalent than "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is a pretty intellectually dishonest move and sets up something of a straw man in this discussion. – PeeJay 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
          • • "You were asking why "F.C. Internazionale Milano" fits with WP:NCST". Er, no, I wasn't. I never mentioned NCST. The relevant arguments are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. Nor am I "flip-flopping" between arguments, whatever that means. Nor am I being "intellectually dishonest". The English-language media (which is all that matters on English Wikipedia) overwhelmingly calls it Inter Milan. It most certainly does not commonly call it F. C. Internazionale Milano, the proposed name. That is a fact. What on earth is "intellectually dishonest" about pointing it out? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Just over a year ago you said " I don't think there would be a good reason to move it anywhere else, but that's not the situation we're in, and I can't find an overriding reason to change the status quo right now". What's changed? Policy hasn't - evidence hasn't and supporters remain the same. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
            • My position on the topic from a year ago is irrelevant. In this discussion, I have made my position clear that I believe the correct title for this article is "F.C. Internazionale Milano", and that is the only position of mine that matters right now. – PeeJay 14:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
              • Which IS "intellectually dishonest" Leaky caldron (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
                • How so? Regardless, my opinion hasn't changed (especially since I can't find that comment you alluded to anywhere). I have always said that the correct title for the article is "F.C. Internazionale Milano". – PeeJay 15:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • Don't embarrass yourself by making me display the link. It is on Dipralb's TP. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • Haha, no, go ahead. This ought to be hilarious. – PeeJay 16:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
                      • I have quoted what you said. It exists. I fail to see the potential for humour. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
          • Because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) is more specific than WP:UE and states that "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". In this case there isn't ambiguity because the name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website; the name has been adopted at least by a significant section of the English-language media and it is recognizable (for example UEFA.com and FIFA.com); the name is not easily confused with other clubs' names.--Dipralb (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
            • WP:UE/WP:COMMONNAME is a policy. It therefore takes precedence over anything else. Very simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
              • That's not true. WP:NCST provides guidance as to how to apply naming conventions. – PeeJay 14:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
                • Purely a naming convention, not a policy. COMMONNAME is always the key policy here. It's not trumped by anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • In additional to which WP:NCST doesn't actually support the RN requested! Leaky caldron (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
                    • Yes, it does. Would you like me to explain it to you? – PeeJay 15:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
                      • So, what's the utility of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams)?!?--Dipralb (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calidum. Unreal7 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 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.

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: At the heart of the matter is which should be prioritised: WP:COMMONNAME or WP:CONSISTENT. Coming into reading this discussion, I expected that the COMMONNAME argument would win out — after all, the most common name for the football club is "Inter Milan" — however, the pure strength of the consistency argument, and how this is the only article about an Italian football club which is not at the full name (c.f. Juventus, Sampdoria, Fiorentina, Udinese). Additionally, WP:NCST prefers the official name even when other names may also be acceptable titles (hence, Queens Park Rangers F.C., not QPR). For these reasons, the result of the discussion is that the article should be moved. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

After further discussion, I've agreed to change the result to no consensus, but I remain of the opinion that it's still a marginal close. Sceptre (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Inter Milan → F.C. Internazionale Milano – It's incorrect to call this article "Inter Milan" since it's the club's nickname, even if it's sometimes used by the media. It's been more than two years since I requested this change back in mid-2019, and I still strongly suggest that the proposed name is the best option for the following reasons:

• The club's official name is "Football Club Internazionale Milano" and so this article should be titled F.C. Internazionale Milano. As simple as that.
• In Category:Football clubs in Italy, the title of all articles features the club's official names rather than the common or nickname, and as a result this article should be no different to match WP:CONSISTENCY.
• The club's article on various other languages on Wikipedia, such as the Italian language, features the club's full/official name.
• A similar discussion held in August 2019 requesting the title of Los Angeles FC to be changed to LAFC was declined because acronyms, such as MUFC, or nicknames, such as Man Utd, are not used here, and so I believe that this article should be treated the same way. Ben5218 (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC).

Oppose Nothing has changed to facilitate a change denied in the previous 5 failed requests. All facts and evidence remains the same as those 5 rejected requests.

• The format and language of the proposed title is an entirely Italian construct. It is directly repugnant to the English language. The simple challenge is this - Where is the evidence that "F.C. Internazionale Milano" - the proposed article title - is more common in English sources than the existing title?
  WP:AT lays out principles for naming criteria. The current title clearly trumps the proposed title in recognisability, naturalness and conciseness. 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 even English words and the use of "F.C." at the beginning is virtually unheard of in English football.

Anyway. let's not descend to accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Policy and guidelines are the mainstay of WP. Note that the common feature of each of these naming policy guidelines is the word "English". It matters not that a name is derivative or even 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. Personal likes, preferences and comparisons with other foreign sounding articles cannot override established and documented standards.

WP:ENGLISH is clear; "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.

All the evidence is that in the English speaking world Inter Milan outweighs all 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

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.") Leaky caldron (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

But this still does not change the fact that there is no club called Inter Milan, as pointed out be few users in a previous discussion. It's clear that the club is referred to by the media as Inter Milan, but that's not the club name, it's a nickname. This is a football club, not a stadium or a park, and so we should use the official name rather than what the media likes to call it. The club is called F.C. Internazionale Milano, and so the article's name should be F.C. Internazionale Milano, whether it's common in English language or not. Also, note that in the Serie A seasons' articles, like the 2021–22 season for example, the club is referred to as Internazionale and not Inter Milan. Ben5218 (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Ben5218 (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support for consistency with all other clubs in Category:Football clubs in Italy. Number 57 12:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The proposed name satisfies just as many of the check boxes as the current name when it comes to the naming of articles. And to expand on Number 57's point above, it's just weird to have one page that doesn't fit the trend of using clubs' full names (common abbreviations excepted). – PeeJay 18:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per N57. We use official names, not common names - hence why we don't have an article at Man Utd or Sporting Lisbon etc. GiantSnowman 12:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:UCRN "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)" Calidum 15:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

At the same time, according to WP:NCST: "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. No ambiguity means that the name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website". By searching for the club's website, you will clearly find the club using FC Internazionale Milano. Ben5218 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons above. This may be the exception compared to other football clubs in Italy, but we shouldn't be beholden to that trend when Inter Milan is the clear common name in many English-language reliable sources: [25][26][27]--Cerebral726 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, I also do not see any reason for this request to exist. There is a huge history of discussion on this topic, and there has never been consensus to change. Nothing has changed since the last 5 times this was discussed, so this just feels like belaboring the point without evidence of any new arguments. --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: It's not the common name, it's a common name. – PeeJay 20:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Indisputably the common, common name though. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

But still, F.C. Internazionale Milano also passes WP:NCST. Please take a look at my reply on Calidum's comment above. Ben5218 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support I might have opposed in the past, but it probably should be correctly titled and Inter Milan turned into a redirect. Govvy (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The official name should be used and 'Inter Milan' should be redirected here. Kpddg ^(talk) 04:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing has changed since previous discussions as "Inter Milan" is clearly the most common common name in use. SQGibbon (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, nothing has fundamentally changed since the 2012 RM. Britannica, and all major English outlets overwhelmingly prefer Inter Milan to Internazionale Milano when referring to the club. That 2012 source assessment table is still valid 10 years on. Pilaz (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out at the time, that table compares apples and oranges. Of course no one refers to the club as "Internazionale Milano" in regular parlance, so comparing uses of "Inter Milan" and "Internazionale Milano" is bound to produce a one-sided result. A more fair comparison would be to compare "Inter Milan" with just "Internazionale" or "Inter". But even then, that's more about how we should refer to the club in the article prose, not what we should use as the title. – PeeJay 09:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am too tired for this RM so that i don't cast a "vote" this time. But i want to point out that WP:COMMONNAME is not the criteria , but WP:criteria is the "criteria". Even claiming WP:COMMONNAME as criterion, note that the club also commonly known as "Internazionale" in English media, while according to WP:criteria:

The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above

, so that please have a look at Category:Football clubs in Italy that people insist on common name, please also drop F.C. from Juventus and UC from Sampdoria. Matthew hk (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't dispute your argument, I think it is fair. I think it's also fair to note that in RMs such as this one, editors decide to prioritize either WP:COMMONNAME (which is a supplement to WP:NATURALNESS, one of the listed criteria), or to prioritize WP:CONSISTENT. Both are policy-based arguments, and are reflective of the preferences of the editors. I think it's perfectly okay to give more weight to one over the other when the criteria seemingly disagree with one another. Just some food for thought. Pilaz (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am confused by the COMMONNAME Oppose votes, because the actual true common name is Inter Milano and not Inter Milan, its just the top English languages websites that use Inter Milan, and correctly speaking. Inter Milan is the short name for the long name. So I am asking why do you want to disregard the long correct name? Govvy (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's to do with English language sources. WP:COMMONNAME states, among other things Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). "Milano" is neither English or commonly used in relevant English language sources, whereas "Inter Milan" is by far the most common usage in those sources. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, we are discussing a football club and not a company or a stadium; it's not about what's the club's common name or what the media likes to call it. With this logic, we will have to move Sporting CP to Sporting Lisbon, Rangers F.C. to Glasgow Rangers, Raja CA to Raja Casablanca and pretty much remove any F.C. from all clubs' articles. WP:NCST is clear and should be used in this case: "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. No ambiguity means that the name is used on the English-language section of the club's official website". Even the club refers to itself as FC Internazionale Milano on their official website in English. Ben5218 (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

We use "F.C." mostly as a disambiguator when football clubs have the same name as the town they're located in. Nothing wrong with that. Rangers isn't actually commonly called Glasgow Rangers anyway. It's called Rangers. Again, we add the F.C. for disambiguation from everything else called Rangers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Necrothesp:. Now you are suggesting FC in quite a lot of case is useless as it is a disambiguator for nothing:

• Manchester United is a redirect to Manchester United F.C.
• Juventus is a redirect to Juventus F.C.
• Manchester City is a redirect to Manchester City F.C.
• Bayern Munich is a redirect to FC Bayern Munich

and so on. And yet why they still have FC in it? It is purely consistency citerion? So why Internazionale aka Inter Milan is the exception that does not need F.C.? Matthew hk (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes, it's a nickname, but this is one of the few football clubs that is overwhelmingly known by its nickname. Very clear common name in English-language sources. Few people would know it as F.C. Internazionale Milano, but most people, even non-football fans like me, know what Inter Milan is. Citing "Man United" is an inaccurate comparison, as more people probably actually call it by its full name and everyone knows what its full name is. That is simply not the case with Inter Milan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: Few people would know it as F.C. Internazionale Milano? Really, I bet there is strong support for the club, maybe over 400,000 hard core fans, a couple of million people world wide. I wouldn't call that a few people! :/ lol. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Very clear common name in English-language sources.

    . Nope. Inter Milan is only one of the common name of the club. BBC still uses the alternative "Internazionale" in 2021 ([28]) , so did ESPN ([29]). And if you insist the common name. BBC actually use Sporting Lisbon thus making the RM of that article to Sporting CP became more inconsistent.
  • Note that Sporting Lisbon has way higher ranking in google ngram than Sporting CP or the full name. Matthew hk (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: "Citing "Man United" is an inaccurate comparison, as more people probably actually call it by its full name"? I don't think that's true at all, as demonstrated by your use of the word "probably". Look at the BBC's page for the club: they seem to mostly use the name "Man Utd" or just "United". The club's website is even at manutd.com. Most people definitely refer to Manchester United by a shortened name. – PeeJay 19:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this frankly absurd move - there's literally no reason to include the "FC" - but reading the discussion, they've got a point... multiple people in this discussion are referring to the proposed title as "Internazionale" and searching online for "Internazionale" and showing how ESPN uses "Internazionale"... what about just moving the page to Internazionale? Obviously it's not gonna happen in this move request, it's a little late for that, but that'd be a good compromise for next time. It's also common and it'd solve the problems of the current title. Red Slash 23:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The reason no one is suggesting Internazionale as a name for this article is because it presents the same issues as "Inter Milan", in that it creates inconsistency with the rest of the articles in Category:Football clubs in Italy. The name "F.C. Internazionale Milano" is no different from "Manchester United F.C." or "Real Madrid C.F." Those names never get used in the media, but there is a long-standing consensus that football club articles should reflect the full name of the club (see WP:NCST). – PeeJay 12:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Support then, as proposed, for WP:CONSISTENCY Red Slash 17:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)