Talk:Guangzhou F.C.

Fair use rationale for Image:Sunraycave.gif

Image:Sunraycave.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Guangzhou Pharmaceutical FC.jpg

Image:Guangzhou Pharmaceutical FC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607124048/http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinahist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinahist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607124048/http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinahist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinahist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607124048/http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinahist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinahist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727150541/http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/china94.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/china94.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140704080845/http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinachamp.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinachamp.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140607124048/http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinahist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesc/chinahist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119102906/http://news.dayoo.com/sports/200901/19/53870_5217670.htm to http://news.dayoo.com/sports/200901/19/53870_5217670.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235021/http://gzdaily.dayoo.com/html/2007-10/07/content_60853.htm to http://gzdaily.dayoo.com/html/2007-10/07/content_60853.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007072804/http://news.dayoo.com/sports/gb/content/2006-02/25/content_2419301.htm to http://news.dayoo.com/sports/gb/content/2006-02/25/content_2419301.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2021

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: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao F.C. → Guangzhou F.C. – New official name (广州足球俱乐部) due to new regulation to disallow sponsored name or the name of the owner appears in the football club name. Also, Guangzhou F.C. already a common name (one of) and a former name already. Other Chinese article are all moved to new official name so consistency is also needed. Matthew hk (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom - we avoid sponsored names where possible in any event. GiantSnowman 12:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but move it to Guangzhou FC instead of Guangzhou F.C. per sources (1, 2, 3, 4), the team is branded like that with "FC" which is not just an abbreviation, just like FC Seoul. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2021 (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.

@Snowflake91: You should state another RM that move all Chinese football club article to drop the dots or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It should be on the club-by-club basis, some of them might actually use "F.C.", I wont check for all 100 clubs which version is their common name; there doesnt needs to be consistency like "one club has FC = all Chinese clubs needs FC", it should be simply based on the English sources for each club. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Guangzhou F.C. → Guangzhou FC – Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 78#F.C. vs FC and WP:COMMONNAME, version without dots is used in every single source. If English clubs have F.C. its because this is just the abbreviation for "Football Club", while Asian clubs are branded like this, its just "Guangzhou FC", and "FC" doesnt necessary means "football club". There are tons of clubs like that outside of Europe, like Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Sydney FC, Auckland City FC, FC Seoul, FC Tokyo, Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors FC and many many others, which all uses WP:COMMONNAME, and not this "Premier League style" namings.

Sources that confirms commonname: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc., while "F.C." is literally not used anywhere. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Snowflake91, read WP:criteria (criterion Consistency) Either all Chinese football club use F.C., or all Chinese football club use FC. Oppose to change Guangzhou F.C. only. Matthew hk (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not meant for minor things like removing two dots, it is meant for the whole naming pattern, for example to use "Arsenal F.C." and not "Arsenal Football Club", which would not be a similar pattern compared to other articles. It also says "These should be seen as goals, not as rules", so it is not mandatory to use exactly the same pattern for every single article, instead the common sense should be used, i.e. if every single source uses "Guangzhou FC" we should use "Guangzhou FC" regardless of how the other 100 articles are named. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is also covered by WP:NCST. Also see Talk:FC Porto#Requested move 20 January 2015, it was easily moved to the commonly-used name, "FC Porto", even though ALL other Portuguese clubs uses F.C., as you can see at Category:Football clubs in Portugal. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - naming convention for Chinese clubs is to use 'F.C.' and not 'FC' as clearly shown by Category:Football clubs in China. GiantSnowman 14:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and ironically you supported move to "FC Porto" on link provided above, even though Category:Football clubs in Portugal clearly shows that naming convention for Portugal is "F.C."...double standards again, and now they will bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF. Basically you are saying that just because one article has the wrong name, all articles should have a made-up "F.C." name which is not supported neither by the sources neither by the club itself neither by WP:NCST, and it is forbidden to fix the name for one club without also fixing the names of 150 other clubs. Its like saying "hey you cannot update stats for Cristiano Ronaldo unless you will also update the stats for all other Serie A players at the same time, for consistency". Snowflake91 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Quoting an AFD from over 6 years ago? Cool! You are aware consensus/opinions can change, right? GiantSnowman 15:03, 5 February 2021 (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.