Talk:Clapton F.C.

Clapton CFC top note

@Number 57: Saying that Clapton FC and Clapton CFC don't have similar names is, frankly, bonkers. Since all the fans of Clapton FC moved to CFC, even they sometimes refer to the club as Clapton FC. Both get often confused, even by opposing teams who check the wrong fixtures, and the old club has been contacted multiple times because of the shirts. So there are more than enough reasons to include the note. And no, WP:BRD does not apply here, so could you please stop reverting changes because "you don't think so". BeŻet (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies to pretty much any edit in mainspace. And I still do not believe the two names are similar enough to require a hatnote. Number 57 12:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It does not (read the first paragraph of WP:BRD; in fact, read the whole thing), and I have presented you several strong arguments, and your personal feeling does not matter here. Therefore you reverting the change is a disruptive change. If you can present some strong arguments for removing it, please do, however until then don't revert changes you don't personally like. BeŻet (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with BRD, and the first paragraph says nothing about it not being applicable. I presume your take is that it is not mandatory, and therefore you don't have to abide by it?

You have claimed the article title is sufficiently ambiguous to require a DAB hatnote. I have counter-claimed that it is not. Both of these are personal views. The attempt to present this as some kind of facts vs emotion situation is not very helpful. This is purely a matter of opinion. Number 57 15:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

There are several sections on the WP:BRD page that you should familiarize yourself with, including:

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.

The section explaining when to use it:

When to use: While editing a particular page that many editors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an editor's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort.

WP:BRD-NOT:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.

Could you please confirm that you have familiarized yourself with the above (ideally read the whole BRD page), and then confirm that you are not presenting any other argument other than "you don't think that the names are similar" which is WP:IDONTLIKE. If you are not presenting any other argument, the change will be reinstated immediately. I have presented several arguments for adding the hatnote above. BeŻet (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You think the names are similar enough to require a hatnote and have made some anecdotal and unevidenced claims to back it up. I do not think they are similar enough, but cannot present any similarly anectodal claims because it is not possible to prove a lack of confusion (as there would by the very nature of it, not be any evidence of it). This is purely a matter of opinion (if you claim I am guilty of WP:IDONTLIKE, you are equally guilty of WP:ILIKE; the reality is that this is nothing to do with liking something, it's an opinion on whether it is necessary or not), so the only sensible way forward to find a consensus one way or the other is to seek further input from somewhere like WT:FOOTY. Number 57 15:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So you don't have any other argument for removing it apart from not liking it. I will return the content (and will remind you about 3RR) and if you can build some compelling argument to remove it, present it here. Calling the undeniable fact that fans moved from one club to the other as an "anecdotal argument" isn't really helping here. BeŻet (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

FFS, it's nothing to do with liking or not liking; it's a difference of opinion on whether something is required or not, with no right or wrong answer, hence defaulting to BRD until a consensus is found on whether it is required or not. And fans moving from one club to another has absolutely nothing to do with how ambiguous the respective clubs' names are. Number 57 16:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have just added a dab hatnote. I hadn't realised this had been disputed here, but this is a perfect example of an article that needs disambiguating. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Club logo update

Club logo should be updated with this. https://claptonfc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/cropped-Clapton-FC-Icon.jpg 95.238.252.122 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Number 57 13:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)