Talk:Royal Charleroi S.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Charleroi.gif[edit]

Image:Charleroi.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 05:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Charleroi.gif[edit]

Image:Charleroi.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 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 06:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect?[edit]

Hi, can someone possibly explain why there is a redirect from Mehdi Bayat? Thank you foryour time. Lotje (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 January 2021[edit]

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: No consensus. No activity for a couple (5) days, having been re-listed. There is certainly consensus to move, but not consensus to what new title to move the article to. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


R. Charleroi S.C. → Royal Charleroi S.C. – Page move request on behalf of @Paul Vaurie: - to match standard naming conventions (see e.g. Royal Antwerp F.C.) and naming format in sources, such as Soccerway. I also support such a move, for what it's worth. GiantSnowman 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 20:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not expert on Belgian football. But the current name has confused me a few times and the proposed name makes more sense to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a weird quirk that Belgian football seems to have. Whether it's the French Royal or the Dutch Koninklijke, they seem to often just put the initial first (see K Beerschot VA, R. Cappellen F.C., K. Rupel Boom F.C. and R. Knokke F.C. as other examples). UEFA list them as Royal Antwerp but R Cherleroi SC and R Standard de Liège which doesn't help. On a quick Google search of Charleroi SC, R Charleroi SC and Royal Charleroi SC, Royal is certainly more commonly used than R but it would appear to me that the WP:COMMONNAME was Charleroi SC and that that should be the page name, a bit like Standard Liège. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer support the move as proposed having read Pelotas' comments. I'm unsure about the best move. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I don't know if I can support my own request but here I am.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose I am an expert on Belgium football and no one refers to this team as "Royal Charleroi", the common name is just Charleroi or sometimes Sporting Charleroi. Similarly, no one speaks of Koninklijke Beerschot, Royal Cappellen, etc... The only exception to this is maybe Royal Antwerp (so this is definitely not a standard naming convention as mentioned in the original proposal!!!), a club which insists on having this in their name because they claim to be the oldest club in Belgium. This club as well is referred to simply as Antwerp, but they at least insist on using Royal Antwerp as their name in UEFA competition and on their website etc... I do agree however that the initial letter is strange, but then I would propose to either have all club names spelled out in full, hence Royal Charleroi Sporting Club (as is the case on the fr and nl wikipedia!), or just use their common name as title and display the full name only in the article itself. Pelotastalk|contribs 10:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC) By the way, some background, clubs in Belgium can obtain the Royal decree in their name after 25 years of existence, which historically most clubs did as some kind of status symbol. But officially almost no one still refers to them as Royal(e) (French) or Koninklijke (Dutch) Pelotastalk|contribs 10:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then move it to Charleroi S.C. - the current name is definitely not correct. GiantSnowman 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feels unnatural as well... either pick Sporting Charleroi (the only 'short' name which is actually commonly used), or align with fr and nl wiki and opt for the full Royal Charleroi Sporting Club, my preference. Pelotastalk|contribs 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea, why not just remove the dots and go for R Charleroi SC. It seems there is an inconsistency there as well, we're using abbreviated names without dots for Club Brugge KV, KV Mechelen and K Beerschot VA (without dots), but at the same time abbreviated K.R.C. Genk, K.A.A. Gent, K.V. Kortrijk, R.S.C. Anderlecht and many more... even R Antwerp FC is acceptable for me, although again for that one Royal Antwerp FC would be acceptable too.Pelotastalk|contribs 20:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best idea is to make it either "Sporting Charleroi" or "Charleroi S.C." Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would be an exception wrt other teams which do keep the "R" (or "K") in their article title. The only thing which makes this article title "weird" to some is that the R is in front and the SC is at the end. No one is complaining about R.S.C. Anderlecht but could just as well have been R. Anderlecht S.C.. The standard naming convention (currently) would suggest to keep it as is, either with or without the dots. Only acceptable alternative imho is to write it out in full and align with the other exception, Antwerp. Pelotastalk|contribs 11:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The club names are structured differently. It's Royal Sporting Club Anderlecht and Royal Charleroi Sporting Club so if you do include all the initials they would be correct as they are. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 12 July 2023[edit]

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: no consensus. The discussion has been open for 25 days, and a clear consensus is not formed. The previous RM, and suggested title from it was mentioned here, but it did not get support either. No prejudice for a new RM after around two-three months, with sources supporting the new name (eg common name). —usernamekiran (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. Charleroi S.C. → Sporting Charleroi – The current title looks grossly wrong. It would be more appropriate to move it to Sporting Charleroi or Charleroi S.C. Dl.thinker (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and keep as is as per previous RM conclusion: no one calls this team "Royal Charleroi". While the title LOOKS wrong, it is the actual full name of the team abbreviated (Royal Charleroi Sporting Club => R. Charleroi S.C.), and there are numerous examples of similar names:
The "R" and "K" in front mostly refer to the French/Dutch/German for "Royal" and this is a designation any club can get after an existence of 25 years. It's been abbrevatiated for simplicity, just like the FC in English football clubs (Manchester United F.C.. Same stuff, different letters.
The only notable exception I could immediately find is Sint-Truidense V.V. which has as a full name Koninklijke Sint-Truidense Voetbalvereniging and so per the system above the article should be moved to K. Sint-Truidense V.V.. But this is a club which abbreviates itself purposely and continuously as STVV, so they intentionally drop the "K" themselves when referring to themselves. Of the clubs listed above, the abbreviation RSCA is often used (you might hear Sporting Anderlecht), while Gent is typically referred to as AA Gent (so intentionally without the K). I have never heard anyone say KAS Eupen or K Beerschot VAC (just Eupen and Beerschot), same as R. Charleroi S.C. which is commonly referred to as Sporting Charleroi or just Charleroi, but definitely never Royal Charleroi
If you want to change this I would say we need to discuss the naming system for Belgian clubs and come up with a general naming proposal to which we then adapt all but I don't think we want to write all in full so don't see an easy way out tbh. (Sidenote: a lot of clubs also have the abbreviations without the dots Club Brugge KV, RFC Liège, RAAL La Louvière, UR La Louvière Centre, KM Torhout etc... so imho it makes sense for those to ADD the dots) Pelotastalk|contribs 12:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are you opposed to my proposal to move or just to Royal Charleroi, which I did not propose? The club usually refers to itself as Sporting Charleroi.--Dl.thinker (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one uses the R. Charleroi S.C. abbreviation anywhere, though, unless you need to shorten the club's official title - it looks like that's not the WP:COMMONNAME but only an abbreviation. The question is really only whether we use the longer official name or the name the club's commonly known by: I think the French is instructive, where it's officially titled but then the common name used throughout the rest of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 09:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to the proposed name in particular. Moving it to something which bothers less ppl could be done but then we might need to revise a lot of club names in Begium to remain consistent. Pelotastalk|contribs 21:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move for now as there has not been a consensus on the standard of how to deal with Belgian clubs with "Royal" or "Koninklijke". We need to establish that first and keep it consistent. Also, the club refers to itself on its Instagram page as Sporting de Charleroi, so saying it refers to itself as Sporting Charleroi is not accurate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie: The current title is too bad. No one calls it R. Charleroi S.C. at all. We can move it either to Sporting de Charleroi or Royal Charleroi S.C. like Royal Antwerp or even resort to the full name as done in the French and Dutch versions. You can look at the viewer stats and see that the numbers are very low because the reader can't figure out what this club really is. It is something to do with the club's identity. It is not our job to come up with names.--Dl.thinker (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dl.thinker: This just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You must provide stronger arguments than that, and you cannot make assumptions like "this is why viewer stats are low" just like that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie: Why are you angry? What you call "assumptions" is facts. see here. 28 views in a single day at best. Even the clubs itself uses Sporting de Charleroi. Dl.thinker (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why you're objecting and you're bringing up a topic that has nothing to do with it. What is the relationship of other Belgian clubs with this request? Or is it an objection only for the sake of objection and we repeat the same after a while.--Dl.thinker (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@Usernamekiran: It is very unfortunate that two users are blocking progress in this topic. I myself will stop editing the Charleroi Club articles until there is a solution to this dilemma. The amount of discrepancy in their opinion is unbelievable.--Dl.thinker (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dl.thinker: Hello. I can understand your position. But for getting the page moved/renamed I recommend proposing the new title with rationales like "consistency", sources supporting the common name, or something similar like that. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: I'm not the only one who doesn't like the current situation. I gave examples of the uncommonness of this designation, as there are many who do not know what the letter R indicates, let alone when it is in the foreground. There are many who do not even know that Belgium is a monarchy. And when you discuss with argument and proof, they do not comment or respond to your questions to bring counter evidence. I'm trying to understand what they want, but I can't. Nevertheless, I will do the necessary. Dl.thinker (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 November 2023[edit]

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. Charleroi S.C. → ? – As we said before, the current title is far from convincing. There is no new title assigned. What do you suggest? Dl.thinker (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 10:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 20:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Royal Charleroi S.C. as per previous RM suggestion. GiantSnowman 20:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Charleroi SC - more commonly referred to without the Royal or R at the start as demonstrated in previous discussion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Convention in Belgium is to include fullstops, so it would be Charleroi S.C. if that was the outcome. GiantSnowman 11:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a multitude of inconsistent naming in the league table from different sources, however the main titles of the club, per ESPN has ROYAL CHARLEROI SC, [1], Soccerway has ROYAL CHARLEROI SC, [2] and Soccerbase has a different inconsistency to the other two by just having Charleroi, [3], why BBC has Sporting de Charleroi. If you go to their website, they talk about themselves as just "Sporting" with the main title in the logo area being Sporting de Charleroi but there are instances where they use Royal in their title and the use of R for royal are apparent. Which in the end, leads back to the correct title being Royal Charleroi Sporting Club which suggests there isn't quite a COMMONNAME, so per above and what GiantSnowman said makes sense to have the article at Royal Charleroi S.C.. Regards. Govvy (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
@Dl.thinker: Congrats on pushing your will through. Still disagree but I was not warned of yet another attempt to rename so didn't spot this. Almost no one calls the club Royal Charleroi, pity. --Pelotastalk|contribs 22:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Charleroi_S.C.&oldid=1205120935"