Open main menu
FCSB is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 26, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 31, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 6, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 14, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Contents

LoanEdit

Robert Grecu (FW, number 27) wasn't fully transfered to FC Argeș, he is out on loan to the respective team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.8.143 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018Edit

False article, FCSB is not Steaua Bucuresti, see legal decision 84.232.215.140 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  Note: See also multiple discussions above, and note that there is a six-month moratorium on move requests currently in effect on this article. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
+1 Hhkohh (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fotbal Club Fcsb is not FC Steaua Bucuresti Ali.1947 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The nameEdit

The name is Fotbal Club Fcsb. Ali.1947 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The real name is Fotbal Club FCSB. Fotbal Club FCSB is not FC Steaua București. Ali.1947 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 November 2018Edit

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


FC Steaua BucureștiFCSB – I am now proposing this move of the article to the correct title FCSB according to policies because it has been protected so that only certain users can move it and because there was a moratorium, so it could not be done before. The result of the last discussion was "no consensus" and all our arguments (and therefore policies) were ignored. The COMMONNAME policy states that we give greater weight to sources published after the name change, so we give greater weight to sources published after May 4 2018, when Steaua Bucharest officially changed name to FCSB. We presented arguments that after that date the Romanian Football Federation, the Romanian Professional Football League, UEFA, FIFA and the club itself use FSCB on their websites and other channels, both in Romanian and in English. Also the vast majority of media in English language uses the new name after that date, as we presented examples. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so it is irrelevant if some English speaking editors hold some emotional attachment to the old name of the once European champions, we must follow the reliable sources after the name change and the opposing camp presented not one proof that the common name has somehow miraculously stayed at FC Steaua București. Linhart (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. Linhart (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As i said before. Please list out English language secondary source (BBC, Guardian, Skysports, ESPN, Independent, Eurosport, goal.com, etc.) as evidence for the common name of the club . UEFA had a weird way to treat club name , most of them due to sponsorship. UEFA ref can only support WP:officialname as a primary source, but not common name. Wikipedia prefer more on common name than official name. Matthew hk (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I and one other user did it last time, but we were ignored, so I see no point, but here you are again: https://www.goal.com/en-gb/team/fcsb/bpk1d09f7zqtmcp7cis2c1b7i http://www.espn.com/soccer/team/_/id/484/fcsb https://www.eurosport.com/football/teams/steaua-bucuresti/teamcenter.shtml https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/team/1776/fcsb https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-soccer-romania-cluj/soccer-cluj-clinch-fourth-romanian-title-on-final-day-of-season-idUKKCN1IL0TW etc etc Linhart (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment and oppose - the previous RM, as well as imposing a moratorium of six months, said that after that expiration, any move request should lay out clear evidence that English language reliable source usage has changed to "routinely use the new name" and that it is reasonable to speedy close any move request that doesn't address why the previous move requests failed. It seems to me that the latter condition is met, since the rationale for moving (which says all our arguments (and therefore policies) were ignored seems to be explicitly a rehash of the previous move, and shows no sign of understanding why that move failed. I therefore suggest this be speedily closed, unless some actual real substantial *new* evidence, not considered in the last RM, is forthcoming. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I laid out clear evidence (again!) and pointed to policies, I cannot do more than that. The move failed because you ignored the COMMONNAME policy (I clearly adressed that as it was instructed). Read the policy, we give greater weight to sources published after the name change. Linhart (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@talk BBC calls it FCSB too now: BBC link; as does Soccer Punter as does [RTE as does UEFA [1]. how much more evidence do you want?! All your links are old these are from the latest CL game Abcmaxx (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close - The whole point of the moratorium was to prevent repeated rehashing of the same arguments, which is exactly whet this request is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • it was wrong decision then and it is certainly wrong name now. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
All my arguments are in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. Other side has no arguemtns. COMMONNAME is clearly FCSB. Linhart (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • oppose and SNOW close per previous RM and MRV discussion. please let nominator read before a new RM posted Hhkohh (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • this is not the same as the previous discussions is it, things change, I suggest you actually look at the evidence Abcmaxx (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
      • support yes per comments below Hhkohh (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment So the clearly proven fact, that the majority of reliable English language sources repeatedly uses the new name FCSB after the name change is irrelevant? What needs to happen, that you would find this requested move legitimate? Linhart (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG SUPPORT: a quick Google search shows this is the WP:COMMONNAME, not to mention the legal name for a good few months. The previous debate was closed prematurely, as every known site now call this team FCSB; mostly because they have to. If you type in "Steaua Bucharest" all the results are for "FCSB", not a single one calls this team Steaua: link. All those going "speedY close" you were wrong the last time to ignore all the evidence back then and you are certainly wrong this time Abcmaxx (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – per nom. The club officially changed its name, and by now as idicated per nom all important institutions on the matter has followed the name change. If at time of the previous RfC the situation was still not clear, now seems that it is, and that the nwe name has been definitelly adopted. FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – tge name move only. The moratorium on the issue was six months ago, the limit set therein. For this new season there seems to be more acceptance of news reports etc in English using FCSB rather then Steaua. Crowsus (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Altough I do believe this team is the continuation of the historic FC Steaua which won the UCL, there is no point to sticking to the old name. Virtually no website in Romania calls the club Steaua anymore, and there is evidence that foreign media also started to use FCSB more.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per moratorium. If it's expired, reinstall it since we're just going to have more recycling of the same arguments. PS: oppose, since this is just rehash. The arguments were insufficient before and nothing has changed. It's hilarious to me that the nom has the gall to cite WP:SOAPBOX while opening a grossly non-neutral RM declaring what is "correct" as if English (and Wikipedia) were subject to some kind Holy Writing Commandments from the Gods of Language.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is subject to policies and something can be correct or wrong regarding them. And you again have no policy-oriented argument, just personal attacks. Congratulations. Linhart (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – As a neutral, I see it right to move the article. Team name is changed, even if it continius Steaua history. Wikipedia is a place where we try to keep articles correctly named, this one should be moved. I understand the fans of the team, but the facts are facts and I strongly believe they should continue supporting the team, but let this happend as it is the right decision. Chris Calvin (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The team is named FCSB everywhere...soccerway, uefa.com, lpf.ro, frfotbal.ro Rhinen
    You say "everywhere" and then list only two English sites. What's striking about this renewed nomination is that the supporters have failed to produce any single new source to back up their position. If the matter was so clearcut such sources should be ten a penny, and I would have been happy to add a support too. But as it is the conditions attached to the end of the last RM, namely that "any move request that doesn't address why the previous move requests failed" have clearly not been met. I've changed my "comment" above to "oppose", to remove any doubt about this. There may be a numerical advantage for "support" at the moment but without evidence, and per WP:NOTAVOTE, it seems like this should be closed and another moratorium applied. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I know very well why previous one failed and I explained it. The fact is that practcally all sources use the new name after the name change and we presented tons of examples. Why does not your side present us any reliable english source that still repeatedly uses Steaua Bucuresti after the name change in May?Linhart (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually the official name change took place at the end of March 2017, check the article. Just saying, I still support the move.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The final decision of high court ICCJ was in may. That was when the club changed its name on all remaining channels. https://vaaju.com/romaniaeng/fc-steaua-bucharest-is-the-history-of-becalis-team-last-vice-of-romanias-vice-champions/ Those few sources, not already using FCSB before, followed suit.Linhart (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru Comment In case you ignored the previous comment, it is clearly much more than just 2: BBC link; as does Soccer Punter as does [RTE as does UEFA [2]. You really going to argue against UEFA and BBC and RTE sources?! This was relisted in line with WP:RM and the previous closure felt very much like Wikipedia:Supervote Abcmaxx (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as English language RS still use the old name, such as this BBC source The third-best team in Austria last term, they beat Slovan Bratislava and Steaua Bucharest to qualify, the BBC source cited by supporters above is in Pidgin, not English. IffyChat -- 21:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Same BBC in another article says: "The other teams who could progress tonight are Dynamo Kiev, Ludogorets, Atalanta, FCSB (formerly known as Steaua Bucharest), Red Bull Salzburg, Zorya, Lazio, Nice and Zenit St Petersburg. So not much of an argument. FkpCascais (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is ridiculous and misleading, the name of this club is not FC Steaua Bucharest, there is another club using this name. Since when should Wikipedia spread wrong information? I won't add sources as many have been added by other users, but the common name in English and all other languages is FCSB or Fotbal Club FCSB (short FC FCSB), just as the official name of the club. Splur988 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The actual, official name of the club is FC Fcsb. It is misleading to Call it Steaua, and Fcsb is not an acronym. Also, the club is not from Bucharest, but from Mogoșoaia. 195.88.182.10 (talk) 11:02, 28 November 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong name (as of 19 January 2019)Edit

According to the Romanian Football Federation site[1], the correct name is: SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA Dante4786 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

please read previous discussion. FC Steaua București still the former name of this club. Please start a discussion and only after a consensus to remove "Steaua București" from the article, then you can remove it. Matthew hk (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
CSA Steaua and FC Fcsb are two different teams. There is no ,,FC Steaua". I provided a link which wasn't available a month ago. It's an update from the Romanian Football Federation. It says, as you can see by youself, that the official full name is SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA. Because of this, I request for my edits to stop being undone. Dante4786 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The only thing which could be changed as a result of that ref is the 'Full name' in the infobox. All other references to FC Steaua are valid as that was the past name of the club, which (for now at least) is considered to be the same as the current FCSB so all past tense references to FC Steaua are valid. And it is therefore also correct to have Steaua in the nickname as many people still refer to FCSB using that name, although officially it can no longer can be called that. Crowsus (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm only asking for the same treatment. Steaua's wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_(football) ) has the full name written, and not just in the 'Full name' in the infobox. Therefore, if that page has the title CSA Steaua București, than this page should have FC Fcsb in the title. Also, if Steaua's wikipedia page begins with the club's full name (Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București) than so should Fcsb's page start with the full name, namely SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA. And yes, ,,FC Steaua" was the old name of FC Fcsb, but that name was ILLEGALLY used ! How can wikipedia validate an illegal act ?! I thinks I'm very reasonable when I request that wikipedia should ensure fair & equal treatment. Dante4786 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Please see you edit Special:Diff/879190816. There is not consensus to remove Steaua from lede (there is consensus to keep it). Even the club can't use the name officially, it was its name in the past. Matthew hk (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. Edit what ? Everything I modified is already undone. And please stop talking about the consensus and address the problem. Just because an agreement has been reached, doesn't mean things are how they should be. The fact is this: 2 pages are not treated in the same manner. And there was an update regarding FCSB's name. Dante4786 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, Agreement? I do not find it. If you want to update name, please try WP:RM#CM first Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hhkohh: RM is for article title , but not for infobox and lead. Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Matthew hk, I know and I assumed he also wants to move articles. Hhkohh (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
He agreed the article title, but want to erase any trace of the Steaua , see all his edit and revert. He had no problem on the name FCSB but the former name Steaua . Matthew hk (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hhkohh:, thank you for your help. Yes, I tried WP:RM#CM. I hope I did it correctly. Dante4786 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, ??? But I am curious why Matt said you did not want to move articles before. Hhkohh (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh I don't know what he is talking about. You can find my viewpoint in the request below. Agains, thanks for sending me to that section ! Dante4786 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
────────────────────────────Dante4786, so you may fail WP:CIR Hhkohh (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2019Edit

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 section.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


FCSBFC FCSB – I'm requesting for an update regarding the title of the page, the information displayed in the infobox and for a modified version of the beginning of the article. The title should be FC FCSB. The full name, which is SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA according to the Romanian Football Federation site (link here: http://frfotbal.ro/echipa.php?id=1285), should be displayed at the beginning of the article AND in the infobox. For a better understanding, I will make a comparison to A.C._Milan's page. The club's full name is Associazione Calcio Milan (S.p.A.), while FCSB's full name is SC Fotbal Club FCSB (SA). The title of the article is A.C. Milan, while the title of FCSB's page should be FC FCSB. The short names are Milan and FCSB. I'm also pointing out that FCSB & CSA Steaua București (football) are not treated in the same manner. CSA Steaua București (football)'s page has the club's full name displayed EVERYWHERE. In the title, in the infobox and in the beginning of the introduction. That's not the case for FCSB's page (or A.C._Milan's page). In conclusion, I am only asking for equal and fair treatment. If that page has the title CSA Steaua București, than this page should have FC Fcsb in the title. Also, if Steaua's wikipedia page begins with the club's full name (Clubul Sportiv al Armatei Steaua București) than so should Fcsb's page start with the full name, namely SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA. And yes, ,,FC Steaua" was the old name of FC Fcsb, but that name was ILLEGALLY used ! Wikipedia should not condone an illegal act. Dante4786 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Later edit: Also, FC FCSB is already in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante4786 (talkcontribs) 20:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Dante4786, FC FCSB is already in the infobox. is not an acceptable reason to move a page. See WP:COMMONNAME. Articles name should rely on our policy. Hhkohh (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    Two FC seems pointless Hhkohh (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh, I know two FC's are pointless. But that's not up to me or you. If that's their name, if their name has two FC, then Wikipedia should acknowledge that fact. Dante4786 (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The |clubname= was changed only by Dante4786 in this Special:Diff/879166320, which have 3RR conducted by users and 3RR back by Dante4786 . So it never validly in the infobox, as it was contervserial and did not even ask for consensus. Matthew hk (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
agree Hhkohh (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh, My bad ! I thought you guys undone everything. Still, I am right. Please form you opinion after you check my links above and after you take in consideration how CSA Steaua București (football)'s and A.C._Milan's page are written. Matthew hk, you can't be serious about consensus. Do I have to ask for permission for EVERYTHING ?! Dante4786 (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, controversial content cannot be a valid reason anyway, but we can gain a further consensus. If other exist, read WP:OTHER first. So we need policy and neutral point of view. Wikipedia has many policies. Hhkohh (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hhkohh I will. But please, read the links I provided above. You opinion is made on false statements. You talked about UEFA. That's not true. And you write about neutral point of view, but you bring as counterarguments what is written on FCSB's website. Ok, maybe I'm not completely neutral either. But I a bring up informations from netral points of view (UEFA, Romanian Football Federation and so forth). Controversial content about FCSB's article is the text about their honours (and not just that). But the problem I adressed, their full name, that is a fact. Sorry if I repeat myself, but I'm only asking for equal and fair treatment. Check CSA Steaua București (football)'s and A.C._Milan's pages. Their name is displayed in the same pattern. Full name in the beginning, full name in the infobox, and a semi-full name in the tittle. That's not the case for FCSB. Why is FCSB so special ? Dante4786 (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, again read WP:OTHER first Hhkohh (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Dante4786, I will recheck source later Hhkohh (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving the page title, as the common name is simply FCSB, there's no need to complicate it further particularly in these circumstances. However, I would support the change in 'full name' field of the infobox and the opening line of the text to SC Fotbal Club FCSB SA, possibly also tweaking the text there slightly, as it almost still reads that it's short for Steaua, when officially it isn't short for anything. I know it says "formerly", but I feel that could be worded slightly better. Crowsus (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • All pages must be treated in the same manner. At this moment, FCSB's page is not treated like A.C._Milan or CSA Steaua București (football). It's better to edit one page (FCSB), than 2 or even more. It's wrong and not fair for this situation to continue like this. Dante4786 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Redundant as FCSB already contain FC, and common name is FCSB, already shown as consensus in the last RM. Also it seem not constructive if you got 3RR warning on removing stuff in lead, and then start a RM that beat to death in the last time. Matthew hk (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm beginning to think you have something personal against me. First of all, it's irrelevant what was the previous consensus. That's the point, I'm trying TO CHANGE IT. And you kept warning be even though I stopped editing the article even before the first warning. Dante4786 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:RM is for the WP:article title. I don't against on opening a thread for the infobox, which people argued before for Arsenal FC in the infobox |clubname= or Arsenal. But RM is wrong venue for the infobox and lead that you made 3RR. Matthew hk (talk) 20:02, 20 January 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2019Edit

CM.Catalin (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Steaua a câștigat astăzi, printr-o decizie a Tribunalului București, palmaresul din perioada 1947 - 2004. O decizie ce vine după o sumedenie de amânări, o decizie normala și așteptată de toată suflarea stelista. Solicit corectarea informatiilor pe pagina Wikipedia aferenta FC FCSB SA si informarea corecta a publicului! Acest club fantoma nu are nicio legatura cu STEAUA Bucuresti! Nu mai patati istoria Stelei. https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/exclusiv-csa-steaua-a-castigat-procesul-pentru-palmares-cu-gigi-becali-decizia-de-ultima-ora-a-tribunalului-18223235?fbclid=IwAR0Urd3KMDogofblukiWUcdxugu5XUxkWw7ZcSRvtoIue4iLCX0CiqKIy70

FCSB are appealing a court decision at the Curtea de Apel so the decision is not yet final and executory. And even after, if they lose, it must revised by the FRF and the LPF which will probably also consult UEFA. Until FRF will not revise, even a potential final and therefore executory court decision is NULL on Wikipedia. According to the law, which says after the appeal the decision must and can be enforced (executory). This means FRF revision will count.
Decizia va fi executorie doar daca FCSB pierde si la Curtea de Apel. Am rugat sa nu se mai modifice la Wikipedia romaneasca pentru ca este o eroare. Chiar si dupa, decizia trebuie sa fie pusa in aplicare de FRF si LPF (probabil se vor consulta si cu UEFA), carora li se subordoneaza cluburile romanesti de fotbal. Pana nu fac asta, nu trebuie modificat nimic nici pe Wikipedia. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia should reflect the latest information. When and if there will be another decision, we shall update it accordingly. Until then, FCSB's page should display the honours recognised by the Romanian court and media. Facts are facts, and currently this is the state of affairs[1]. We don't even know if FCSB appealed the decision.Dante4786 (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
If the Curtea de Apel will give the decision to FCSB, then we will have to correct everything! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. You must understand this, the decision is not definitive, and a definitive decision is not executory according to the law. Moreover even after, FRF / UEFA will have to install new records. Because according to the law, the definitive decision "CAN be executory". It they say can be, according to the law, FRF / UEFA must install new records. And only then we can edit. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no alteration anymore, we already talked about the decision not being definitive so we must wait the appeal then FRF / LPF will have to order it normally. But you should not remove the semi-protected. The users can understand what the law says, I am afraid the IPs not. I recommend to leave it like this for some months. We will know better after the appeal how the page should look. Yellow-sulphur-rose (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
If by "the semi-protected" you are referring to the edit request, it should not be left active for several months, because that will waste the time of editors who come here to respond to it. You can reactivate the request when you are ready to implement it. Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "FCSB" page.