Talk:SS Lazio/Archive 1

Mario Azzi?

Who is Mario Azzi and why is he listed as resisting fascists?Diavolos (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to change Mario Azzi with Lazio. That's all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarate2009 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Article Content

Can someone please explain why this article has been completely edited by a non-native English speaker? The entry up until now may not have been rated highly in comparison with other ones, however the standard of English was reasonable, to say the least...Ellipsis4677 07:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't noticed too much of a problem. As long as these edits are providing useful new content, they are encouraged (see Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language). I think the overall content of the page has improved in the past few days, and I don't feel overly burdened that my job as a native speaker of English is to go through and fix some spelling and syntax mistakes. —Ed Cormany 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the opening paragraph. What are "sporting practices" pray tell? That's just one example, by the way...Ellipsis4677 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Lazio fanbase

If ben-w's only aim, as is unfortunately apparently the case, to use a medium like Wikipedia to sling mud at Lazio, I suggest he go elsewhere. I don't see any reason why the latter should revert to older versions of an article which provide less information than the one currently available!? If the user feels that he/she is justified in removing factual information from the article, I suggest that he discuss it here or ask for some kind of "protection".

• Point to one inaccurate or malicious statement I have made or perpetuated about Lazio. Go on. Ben-w 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Though I enhanced the article with information, which I believe is what this site is about (?!), you continue to revert to an inaccurate one for the mere reason that it casts a negative light on the club's supporters and does not contain a couple of lines which address the issue of generalizations made on the club's fanbase. How can one not come to the conclusion that you are more interested in peddling a particular point of view yourself instead of trying to learn about the subject at hand (i.e. Lazio)? Ellipsis4677 00:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is your insistence on deleting or excusing the facts which you see as casting Lazio in a "negative light" that is precisely the problem. A dispassionate encyclopedia is not interested in the fact that you think there's a media conspiracy against you or putting in caveats about most of Lazio's fans being lovely. What is notable, and interesting, and encyclopedic is the overt behaviour of a sizeable number of the fans. That is factual. You can whine that it's a "generalization" or a media conspiracy but it is absolute, documented, 100% fact and a decent encyclopedia article does not skirt around these issues or ignore them for the sake of your comfort levels or sensitivities.
      • I have not deleted or excused anything and your entry makes my point for me. A "dispassionate encyclopedia" is interested in facts. Most of the information which is found on Lazio comes from media sources, which are produced by journalists, who often manipulate, for lack of a better word, news events to suit their fancy. As I am sure you are aware, this happens not only in football. Bearing the latter in mind, I wonder why you are seemingly scandalized by one paragraph which merely stated that though there is some truth to the far-right stereotype (which is not deleting or excusing anything), it doesn't mean every or most Lazio fans are that way and that Lazio certainly isn't the only club with this issue, unlike what some people would have you believe. It's as "dispassionate" as most of the, excuse my French, crap that I havae seen on the subject matter. If you want to believe that Lazio fans are evil, then go ahead - just don't "pollute" Wikipedia with generalizations.Ellipsis4677 08:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The phrase "every or most Lazio fans" is your coinage. I never said that it is true of all Lazio fans or even most. I have used phrases like "sizeable minority". What I object to is bringing the evil "media" into this as if the behaviour of this sizeable minority is a media invention or conspiracy. It is not. The hardcore fans *do* act in the way described, they *do* give the fascist salute, voice unspeakably hideous chants about Jews and black players, *do* display racist, anti-Semitic, pro-fascist, and pro-war criminal banners. THIS DOES HAPPEN, it is not a creation of the media or a journalistic conspiracy to "manipulate" the facts. The documented behaviour of Lazio's fascist Ultra fans is notable, encyclopedic, and relevant to an article about the club. Your unconfirmed conspiracy theories about the role of the "media" (and are you sure that's not a code word?) are not. Ben-w 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I consider myself an objective observer in this issue, I do not support any Italian team (or even any European team really) but rather just wanted to read about Lazio. According to several articles (and I do not buy the excuse that journalists manipulate things, that's a bit like saying some policemen can be bribed so none should be trusted) that I have read, Lazio has a right leaning fan base (that is to say, in general that is what they believe politically) and have had problems with a minority of fans who are fascist or racist. Not that all Lazio supporters are like this, just that there is a significant minority who are. I came to hear about this from Paolo Di Canos fascist salute to the Lazio supporters. This article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1506262/Im-a-fascist-not-a-racist-says-Paolo-di-Canio.html says that Mussolini himself was a Lazio supporter, and that his daughter still attends games. Now, reading this Wiki article, it seems to tell me that Mussolini created AS Roma and Lazio were the opponents of Mussolini, who was with Roma. Can someone explain this? We need to dispassionately approach this issue. Can someone objectively and rationally, leaving football preferences aside, tell me how Roma could be founded by Mussolini while Lazio opposed it, but Roma is seen as left leaning while Lazio is the right-leaning team, with the Mussolini family as supporters? 69.140.221.253 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ellipsis, your version has better and worse things than the old one. It has more historical content, but is often badly written, with several grammar errors, and mispellings of several names (it is Christian Manfredini, not Christiano), and it is also a bit POV on comments regarding the fan base. The old one was not inaccurate, however. Perhaps you meant less rich of content. --Angelo 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I realize that there are some issues with grammar and syntax, but I haven't taken the time to clean up the article - which is what it really needs. I added some information, however I didn't write the backbone of the article and had not looked at the player names (i.e. the Manfredini mistake).Ellipsis4677 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If it wasn't you to write it, who did it? Are you sure it is not violation of copyright? --Angelo 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That certainly demonstrates that ideology rather than a desire for accuracy is driving the changes. Ben-w 02:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Let me elaborate... I "didn't write it" in the sense that I believe that the article in itself is the product of a series of contributions over the past couple of years. For better or for worse, what I have written I have come up with myself, so there are no copyright violations to speak of, as far as I am aware. I find laughable that someone claims that I am driven by ideology, when the accuser's balanced and objective (?!) political insight includes gems such as "Lazio is notorious for the fascist sympathies of many of its fans". This speaks for itself and shows that if anything, ben-w, desperately wants to reinforce something which is nothing more than an inaccurate strerotype. If I were the ideologue which you think I am, I certainly wouldn't try to hide the political opinions of Lazio's ultras. In fact I would try to promote them, as their sites make their views quite clear. However to make generalizations about 30-40,000 season ticket holders is incorrect and doesn't reflect particularly well on your sense of objectivity...Ellipsis4677 08:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Article rewritten

I have rewritten the article. My version is based on the last one, by Ellipsis, with some integration and corrections when needed. About the most criticized section (the supporter one), I have explicited that the article talks about the Ultras fanbase. Hope this to be better for you all. --Angelo 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pierluigi Collina

Collina is a Lazio supporter. http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Sport/2005/11_Novembre/24/collina.shtml —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellipsis4677 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Cleanup

This article needs massive cleanup and wikification. History is splitted in lists of results by decade, with no more content at all, and that does not complain with the Manual of Style. The supporters paragraph has become a mess, and is full of uncited affirmations that might even be original research for all I know. For now, I am tagging it, I hope to do it myself when I'll have enough time. --Angelo 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see what the issue is with splitting team history by decade? Information can be added easily and it allows users to have a clear and basic overview of the team's results. Can you explain what you don't like about it? The "supporters" paragraph, which should not even be in there in my opinion as it isn't something featured for most clubs, has always been a mess from the very beginning and has been the object of repeated vandalism. From people trying to say that every Lazio fan is a raving neo-nazi to ItalianBoy's latest edits which are nothing more than a joke told by romanisti about laziali. Ellipsis4677 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue about the history section is that every paragraph is solely a list of results by season, and lists of season results should not be part of that section (for that kind of information, you can establish a "seasons" paragraph if you want). I have nothing against splitting by decade, but only in case you have enough content for that, and currently all paragraphs are almost empty. About the supporters paragraph, according to the WikiProject Football guidelines it should be always present, but of course it should also be completely rewritten. As it is now, that paragraph is a tangle of confused sentences, often unsourced. --Angelo 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If it is a joke to say that a lot of Lazio's supporters are from Lazio, so it is a joke also to say that they are from Prati and Parioli. It is the same kind of 'sterotype'. --Gaúcho 16:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, just don't say anything about where they are from. Just say how they are organized, a little bit of history about the fans movement, their hymns (I can remind of an official supporting song of them) and a few references to really notable events involving them. That's what the paragraph should include. --Angelo 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • No I am sorry, saying that Lazio supporters come from outside of Rome is a stereotype which is not comparable to mentioning the historic roots of the club's support which is found in the northern districts of Rome and where Lazio enjoys the strongest support today (Flaminio, Prati, Parioli, piazza Vescovio, piazza Bologna, quartiere africano, etc.). Anyone who is from Rome knows this. Everyone also knows that there are more 'romanisti' than 'laziali', however that is not the point. Ellipsis4677 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't know who is right, but the matter is: can you source where the Lazio fans are mainly from? Keep in mind everything you want to include in the article must be proved by reliable source (books, publications and Web sources other than blogs and forums). That's the real issue. --Angelo 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Everyone who is from Rome knows that the majority of the club's support is in the outskirts of Rome and in the other provinces of Lazio, infact Lotito would like to build Lazio's new stadium in Zagarolo or in Fiumicino. That's not a shame and neither a sterotype, and if Ellipsis is from Rome, he knows it. --Gaúcho 14:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
              • This is false, you know it, and your lack of honesty is starting to piss me off. I am not arguing that Lazio does not have fans outside of Rome, however that is besides the point as the "outskirts" that you refer to are as full of romanisti as laziali, if not more so, especially considering the way the suburbs around Rome have expanded in the last fifty years. Most of Lazio's _core support_ comes from the districs of Rome which have already been mentioned. If you want proof all you need to do is look at statistics on where season ticket holders live. The only reason that there is talk of building Lazio's stadium outside of Rome is because the stadium which Lotito wants to redevelop, the Flaminio, would have to be shared with the Italian National rugby team, which is not an option. As there is no other area in Rome which can be developed, it's obvious that Lotito, or anyone else including Roma, would have to look for something outside the city center. What are you trying to imply? That Fiumicino is being taken into consideration to be closer to the fans? [rolleyes].--Ellipsis4677 13:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
                • It doesn't MATTER where either of you or anyone else believes the majority of fans are from, even if one of you is the greatest Lazio expert of all time, with psychic powers. It matters whether you can cite a reference for your assertion. Without a source it has to come out of Wikipedia. Period. 76.22.20.146 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Irriducibili Lazio

I suggest that you leave the Lazio page alone, you haven't contributed anything to this page since its inception, and I really don't understand what you think you're doing now as what you are writing is unsourced and poorly written. If you want to talk about the Irriducibili, go ahead and start a page for them, drop the weasel words like, "are seen as", get some objective information and write to your heart's content.Ellipsis4677 09:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Football Manual of Style features also a supporters section. That is the right place where to talk about the supporting club fanbase, not a standalone article. It is meaningless starting a Irriducibili Lazio article with such a short supporters' section. --Angelo 11:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely agree. The supporters section allows people to come in with all sorts of generalizations (see the latest contributions) on fanbase's like Lazio's, for example, which are relatively large. To be honest, there is possibly more to write about the Irriducibili Lazio than about the average Lazio supporter, which is why I suggested that someone start an article if they're that interested. I am particularly adamant that the usual generalizations about Lazio's fans stay out of an article on a sports club with over one hundred years of history.Ellipsis4677 16:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are they "supporters"? Well, so mention about them on the right place. What's wrong with it? This article is very poor, needs to be heavily sourced, verified and expanded. This article, not a different one. Almost all supporting fanbases are relatively large, but there's no article about an organized Italian ultras group here in the Wikipedia. It would be very hard to source, verify and make it unbiased. To me ultras groups are not notable to deserve their own article, they should best be mentioned on the supporters section in the club article, as the Manual of Style suggests. Once the supporters sections becomes relatively large and full of meaningful and verifiable content, we might consider an article about the whole Lazio fanbase, but not a single group. --Angelo 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am completely indifferent with regards to the Irriducibili, however they were one of the most important ultras groups in the 1990s and just because other groups don't have pages, doesn't mean that one could not start with them. They are a part of Lazio's fanbase, however they are still a minority and the lack of differentiation between the two leads to people writing all sorts of nonsense. Do you honestly think that all the other stuff that has been posted in the supporters section has been "unbiased"? Every five seconds someone comes in to write something along the lines of all Lazio supporters being fascists...

I agree that the articles needs to expanded, however I do not understand why you constantly harp on the article being unsourced and unverified. It does not make any outstanding claims, and in comparison to many Italian soccer pages (Totti's is an excellent example of an entry which sounds more like something copied and pasted from a fan site than an entry in an encyclopedia), it is actually quite tame in its tone.Ellipsis4677 17:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Francesco Totti is not in my watchlist, differently than all Serie A and Serie B football clubs (including Lazio, AS Roma and even Grosseto). I'll have a look at it in the very next future. In any case, why don't you just say "A minority part of Lazio ultras fanbase is composed by a number of ultras groups associated with far-right political beliefs"? It's easier than you think, and splitting it is not a solution, because people will keep including the political stuff in any case, and the only solution is to address it as fair as possible. The article is unsourced and unverified, much more than any other major Italian football club's one (with the notable exception of Inter). It's a fact. --Angelo 18:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at five or six other serie A clubs and I frankly fail to see what makes Lazio's page worse than any of the others. Please give me examples. Again, where are all these claims which need to be "sourced" or "verified"? This page unfortunately, has constantly been vandalized by Roma supporters over the past couple of years and by various individuals whose leitmotif is to say that every Lazio fan is a neo-nazis. This is unacceptable, and is often the case on Wikipedia, the burden of proof lies with the person who is "defending" the page's content and not with the person who makes the claim.Ellipsis4677 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about quality, but about the heavy lack of citations regarding this article. Not a single sentence in the club history has a source confirming it; as Wikipedia is not a primary source, this might fail with the quality standards expected for such these major football clubs. This is what I mean when I say the article is "unsourced". It's then very hard to verify, for instance, that Lazio fans mainly salute from the middle-class northern neighbourhoods. Maybe it's true, I don't really know about that, but it's pretty hard to verify: if you can find a poll sourcing this remark, it would be great, otherwise please consider removing or rephrasing it. About the vandalism issue, if you see this article being regularly vandalized you can of course consider a semi-protection request against anonymous users. I have really no problem about Lazio, but this article deserves to be deeply improved. --Angelo 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Juan Carlos Carrizo

The player is yet to be officially announced by the club. Apparently there are troubles related to his non-EU state (he is likely to obtain a EU passport in August, according to a number of news reports I found on the web). So, do not add him till the bid is made official by SS Lazio on their website. --Angelo 21:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tommaso Berni

Both on his info box and on the squad list he is listed as on loan from Ternana. Yet in the paragraph on his page it says he's a permanant Lazio player - anyone know one way or the other? --Q2thaZ 00:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Lazio as a joint stock company

When did Lazio first become a joint stock company (which year)? I have info to add to the article pertaining to shares with 61.312% TO Claudio Lotito and 38.688% to other shareholders[1] - Soprani 10:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bianchi is coming

see Rolando Bianchi. He wears number 10 at city, and your 10 is on loan? MickMacNee (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GA failed

I'm failing this GA nomination for the following reasons:

• Inadequate references. Some entire sections don't have a single citation, especially under the history section.
• It needs copy editing. There are Manual of Style problems all over the place.
• The lead needs to summarize all the main points of the article, and it needs to be a bit longer.
• The references are unclear. Are they books, magazines, etc? If they are books, you need to include isbn numbers. You also need to include page numbers for verifiability.

Please correct these issues before you nominate the article for Good Article or Featured Article status again. Thanks. Nikki311 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:S.S. Lazio/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Under review. Otto4711 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well written:

• (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.

The article needs to be copy edited for grammar, especially correct tense.

• (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lots of unexplained football jargon (scudetto, table, relegated, etc.) Lots of peacock words (pitiful, stingy, etc.).

• Factually accurate and verifiable:

• (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout.

Article appears well-referenced but I don't speak Italian. I am going to ask for a second opinion from an Italian-speaker.

• (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons
• (c) it contains no original research.

• Broad in its coverage:

• (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
• (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Obviously written from a fan's perspective. Adjectives need to be neutralized. Similar to the issues with style noted above.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Illustrated, if possible, by images:

• (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
• (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The image of Goran Pandev. I don't understand why it's located where it is or what it brings to the article. He's not mentioned in the section which has the image. The caption also needs to be neutralized.

• Overall

I am placing this article on hold pending a second opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a full second opinion, but I did already have concerns regarding the referencing. There are large parts of the history with little or no references. Italian references would be fine, but I'm sure more could be provided, and a lot more.

I also have concerns regarding the breadth of coverage of the History section - it is extremely heavily weighted towards the recent events, and glosses over the club's early history.

You also points towards the quality of prose.

I rarely review Football articles because that's where I principally contribute anyway, but it seems to me a lot more work could be done on this article. Just for a start, the Italian article is FA-standard, and I feel at the least a translation of that could help to beef up the article. Peanut4 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I don't know much about how these European sports clubs operate, but the lead says that they participate in many more sports, and then the entire rest of the article is about football. I don't see how the article can be comprehensive if there is no mention of anything but football. At least a section on the other sports and how they work, finances, how many people participate, etc. Then again, if there is a really good reason, perhaps not. - Taxman ^Talk 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Failed

I am failing this as a GA because none of the concerns I raised at its review were addressed and other editors raised additional concerns that were also not addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lazio slovak & czech fansite

http://lazio.bbhost.sk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.17.8 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lazio's Badge

The official badge is THIS http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/5/56/Laziostemma.png  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo CN12 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lazio's nickname

Why's "the first team of the capital" between Lazio nicknames? Lazio hasn't been the first football team in Rome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.242.88 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Gott mit uns

This is not a Nazi motto. It existed long before them in the state of Prussia.--90.219.21.174 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sixth Coppa Italia

Number of Coppa Italia won need to be updated, today the sixth has been won — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manub (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Etrit Berisha's number

The players number needs to be changed from 1 to 99 to reflect his new number. Jimfitz86 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

must include Cristian Daniel Lesdema as one of the most capped players in the club with 318. Garlaschelli is outside the top ten, and ranked 7th Ledesma Nachof1984 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 05:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on S.S. Lazio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160112174642/http://www.sslazio.it/images/stories/documenti/pdf/investor_relator/Bilancio%20S.S.%20LAZIO%20SpA%2030-06-2012.pdf to http://www.sslazio.it/images/stories/documenti/pdf/investor_relator/Bilancio%20S.S.%20LAZIO%20SpA%2030-06-2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on S.S. Lazio. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vecchiasignora.com/lofiversion/index.php/t26959.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160224132016/https://albionroad.com/club-profiles/lazio.html to http://albionroad.com/club-profiles/lazio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130714131800/http://www.ultraslazio.it/maglie.htm to http://www.ultraslazio.it/maglie.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223181550/http://www.ultraslazio.it/stemmi.htm to http://www.ultraslazio.it/stemmi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722144157/http://www.vigilfuoco.it/informazioni/sitiSpeciali/GestioneSiti/downloadFile.asp?s=2&f=682 to http://www.vigilfuoco.it/informazioni/sitiSpeciali/GestioneSiti/downloadFile.asp?s=2&f=682
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508122124/http://website.lineone.net/~view_from_the_terrace/italsce.html to http://website.lineone.net/~view_from_the_terrace/italsce.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130616011746/http://www.ultraslazio.it/ukstory.htm to http://www.ultraslazio.it/ukstory.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) 18:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

S.S. Lazio and S.S. Lazio S.p.A.

Seem the football club (the S.p.A.) had no relation to S.S. Lazio the sports club now (as least in terms of ownership), they have two website (sslazio.org and sslazio.it) and two P.IVA (10877631001 for the sports club, 02124651007 for the football club) Matthew_hk tc 20:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2017

Società Sportiva Lazio S.p.A., (BIT: SSL) commonly referred to as Lazio (Italian pronunciation: [ˈlattsjo]), is a professional Italian sports club based in Rome, most known for its football activity.[2] The society, founded in 1900, plays in the Serie A and have spent most of their history in the top tier of Italian football. Lazio have been Italian champions twice, and have won the Coppa Italia six times, the Supercoppa Italiana four times, and both the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Super Cup on one occasion.[3]

The club had their first major success in 1958, winning the domestic cup. In 1974, they won their first Serie A title. The 1990s have been the most successful period in Lazio's history, seeing them win the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Super Cup in 1999, the Serie A title in 2000, and reaching their first UEFA Cup final in 1998.

Lazio's traditional kit colours are sky blue shirts and white shorts with white socks; the colours are reminiscent of Rome's ancient Hellenic legacy. Sky blue socks have also been interchangeably used as home colours. Their home is the 70,634[1] capacity Stadio Olimpico in Rome, which they share with A.S. Roma . Lazio have a long-standing rivalry with Roma, with whom they have contested the Derby della Capitale (in English "Derby of the capital" or Rome derby) since 1929.[4]

Despite initially not having any parent-subsidiary relation with the male and female professional team (that was incorporated as S.S. Lazio S.p.A.), the founding of Società Sportiva Lazio (it) allowed for the club that participate in over 40 sports disciplines in total, more than any other sports association in the world.[5][6] 81.149.249.55 (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Matthew_hk tc 11:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sponsor 2008-2009

For the season 2008-2009 Lazio don't have any sponsors, but only occasional sponsors. For this motive the Groupama sponsor must be deleted from the main page of SS Lazio. Piolinista65 19:53, 05 May 2018 (UTC)

Sponsor 2000-2003

Siemens Mobile, not Siemens. Piolinista65 21:56, 07 May 2018 (UTC)

Error

There is an error in section "symbol"...The Eagle is the symbol of Lazio not for Zeus But beacuse was the symbol of the Roman Empire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollone19999 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Change the symbol from zeus to Roman EmpireBollone19999 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Neither are sourced. Can you provide a WP:Reliable source? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

For those who can edit this page

Lazio won 5 supercoppa Italia LuigiTacchi (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

T

Hallo saya dari Indonesia bisakah lazio memboyong 5 pemain pilihan saya?:

1.Harry maguire 2.jesse Lingard 3.Mariano Diaz 4.Martin braithwaite 5.Emile Smith Rowe 140.213.128.246 (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

The sentence in the section, “Colours, badge and nicknames” which states, “ It is an acknowledgment to the emblem of Zeus (the god of sky and thunder in Greek mythology) commonly referred to as Aquila” should be removed and replaced with the “The eagle is a symbol of the Roman legions and Imperial Rome. It connects the club to the city and region it represents”

Source: https://logos-world.net/lazio-logo/ https://williamhillnews.it/calcio/stemma-lazio/ Lucis-Phos (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I don't regard logos-world.net as reliable, so I have only used the williamhillnews.it article, and have therefore modified the addition to reflect only what that source says. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:A.C. Milan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)