Talk:Windsor F.C. (2011)

Requested move 21 February 2023

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:

• Windsor FC moved to Windsor FC (Australia).

The proposed move of the Australian football club achieved a solid consensus; it was suggested that the lack of periods in "FC" was sufficient disambiguation under WP:SMALLDETAILS, but this viewpoint was disputed by several other participants.

• Windsor F.C. moved to Windsor F.C. (2011).
• Windsor F.C. (1882) not moved.

For the English clubs, there were two main proposals that attracted support: disambiguation with just the founding year, or disambiguation with "(England, founded [year])". Supporters of year-only disambiguation argued that it was a less awkward (i.e., more WP:NATURAL) construction and that it was WP:CONSISTENT with the disambiguation of other same-named English football clubs. Supporters of the longer disambiguation, meanwhile, argued that including the country would make the titles more WP:CONSISTENT with the country-based disambiguation in Windsor FC (Australia). Ultimately, while this portion of the discussion did not lead to a strong consensus, I feel the weight of argument leaned slightly in favor of the year-only disambiguation.

Finally, there was consensus that the plain title "Windsor F.C." should become a DAB page. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Windsor FC → Windsor FC (Australia)
• Windsor F.C. → Windsor F.C. (England, founded 2011)
• Windsor F.C. (1882) → Windsor F.C. (England, 1882–1890)

– The first two clubs have basically identical name locations. Past RMs involving similar pages have just added the country name. I'm not sure what to do with the presence of two in the same country, although reading the article, perhaps it could just be merged into the page for Windsor & Eton F.C.. These may not be the best move locations, but the status quo is not ideal. If there are better locations for the names, please advise. RedPatch (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. RedPatch (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support moving articles when there is no clear primary topic. Agree with Australia and England, founded 2011 disambiguation but I would be consistent with the club founded in 1882 and have Windsor F.C. (England, founded 1882). I know it's not football but a similar compromise was reached at Talk:Ghosts (2019 British TV series)#Requested move 16 September 2022. I'd avoid using the full dates of the club's existence unless it's absolutely necessary (the only example of which I can think is Hamilton F.C. (1874–78) where Hamilton F.C. is a redirect to Hamilton Academical F.C. which was also founded in 1874 so Hamilton F.C. (1874) would still be ambiguous). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I support this alternative as it seems the most consistent, by having the country names for all. RedPatch (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose as suggested, and instead propose:

  Windsor FC → Windsor FC (Australia)

  Windsor F.C. → Windsor F.C. (2011)

  Windsor F.C. (1882) → stay as it is

  And then turn Windsor F.C. into a dab page, and redirect Windsor FC there. The proposed naming is awkward and clunky.

  GiantSnowman 19:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the current arrangement is fine. Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, as long as hatnotes are in place (which they are now), there is no reason to move Windsor FC or Windsor F.C. The defunct club title is also standard practice. Cheers, Number 57 18:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:SMALLDETAILS is about when a small detail is a critical part that searching for that would cause no confusion, with the examples given such as The Wörld Is Yours and Airplanes!. Those small details, the o with the two dots and the exclamation mark would make it very obvious to the searcher if they see that option pop up in the search box. If I see FC and F.C. in the search box, no one would know which one is which. There is a general consensus from WP:FOOTBALL that F.C. and FC is not a sufficient disambiguation, such as at Talk:Pacific F.C. (Mexico) and Talk:Aurora FC (Canada) RedPatch (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
    • SMALLDETAILS states that "The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics" [bolding for emphasis]. As such, hatnotes are deemed sufficient. Number 57 01:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
      • I feel a disambiguation page is more useful then hatnotes. Prevents the linking to of incorrect articles when you mean one rather than the other. You get a notification when editing that you're linking to an incorrect page (both as a pop up and on your talk page). Plus hatnotes arent always immediately evident, whereas a Dab page is RedPatch (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as suggested, support GS' proposed naming of having (1882) and (2011) as disambiguators. This is the common way we do it. Much easier for readers to navigate and find/link to the club they want rather than guessing if it's the team that wrote their name as FC or F.C. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.