Talk:Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women

Title
Shouldn't the title of article be Arsenal W.F.C 11–1 Bristol City W.F.C per all other such articles about single "superlative" matches (e.g. Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C., Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C., Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009))? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 17:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * this comment appears to have been overlooked, what do you reckon? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, indeed, I completely missed this! Yes, it seems that the title is not in line. I'm okay to change. (I didn't create the article.) Just thinking though if it is obvious to the reader that this is about women football. Let me do a bit of research first... Edwininlondon (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure that is the common practice to include F.C. in the titles. Take Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989) and Yeovil Town 2–1 Sunderland (1949). There is no consistent WP:FOOTY guideline on the title so maybe that needs to be considered there rather than here. Personally I think they are fine without the F.C. .  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:The C of E, I will raise the topic of club names in match articles there. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Without the FC it is ambiguous what the sport is. The examples given above are outliers and should also be moved.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to be unaddressed at present. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the discussion on WP:FOOTY has been archived without any conclusion. Not sure if I was meant to do something to drive towards a conclusion, if so apologies. My plan now is to introduce the issue in the nomination blurb when I bring the article back to FAC. I'm waiting for someone from the copy-edit guild now to work on the prose. Once that is that I will bring it back and we can see what the collective wisdom there leads to. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that this does not match standard article naming conventions for association football club matches, and am perplexed that it has reached the main page as today's FA without it being noticed/changed... GiantSnowman 09:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 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.

It seems Iggy the Swan has requested this move as being the consensus of a (less comprehensive) discussion elsewhere. They haven't given any policy reason to support the move and their comment below accepts the force of Amakuru's opposition. Accordingly, I don't take them to be supporting the move. For the same reason, I discount the Paul Vaurie's support "per nom". I therefore count 2 editors supporting the move and 4 opposing.

The arguments against are per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, which are of course long standing policies representing a broad community consensus, and no attempt has been made to rebut these points. The arguments in favour are per WP:CONSISTENT and that "W.F.C." "provides incredibly useful/vital context". The context provided has not been explained: compare comments by Amakuru and Edwininlondon that "W.F.C." adds nothing. While consistency is desirable, the majority of participating editors did not consider this to outweigh the other factors and/or considered that the solution would be to move the base articles.

Accordingly I find a consensus not to move. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women → Arsenal W.F.C. 11–1 Bristol City W.F.C. – per section above and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 146, it looks like there is an agreement that I've titled this article wrong when I created it the day after that match was played. I think GiantSnowman will agree with that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Adding "W.F.C." adds nothing to this title, as unlike the articles on the football clubs themselves, it's obvious when talking of a scoreline that we refer to football clubs. You don't seem to have given an actual reason why this is necessary in the rationale above. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to add, "Arsenal W.F.C." and "Bristol City W.F.C." appear to be misnomers. The clubs themselves are called Arsenal Women and Bristol City Women. They are integral parts of the corresponding men's clubs, not separate "W.F.C." entities. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 10:16, 18 October 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.
 * Support per nom - adding in the 'W.F.C.' provides incredibly useful/vital context, and majority of articles of this nature uses them (and those that don't should change). GiantSnowman 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article titles should be consistent with the parent articles, in this case Arsenal W.F.C. and Bristol City W.F.C.. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: here makes a good point there. If you take Google site searches for "Arsenal Women" and "Arsenal W.F.C.", you'd get 18 million results for the former while the latter only gets just a small percentage. The club are also called "Arsenal Women" on their social media as well (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) even though they all use the "@ArsenalWFC" too. Same goes for Bristol City Women re Google site searches. I am now wondering if both club names with "women" instead of "W.F.C." is the clear common name for both clubs in the English media or those club article titles stay as they are for topic consistency. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was the agreed title and it is more WP:CONCISE. Plus, as Iggy says the clubs refer to the teams as Women (as do the BBC) so WP:COMMONNAME would also apply here.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "nom" has been shown to be based on an inaccuracy, so is no longer a valid reason to support. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Amakuru Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment pinging commenters in "the above discussion" who have not commented here.  User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 04:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I mentioned above and in last year's discussion on WP:FOOTY: I take from WP:COMMONNAME, with for example using "North Korea" instead of "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", that the original title "Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women" is best. This matches how the BBC and the Guardian describe fixtures in their fixtures lists. I can see the argument that the current title does not convey that this is a football match but remain unconvinced that adding WFC fixes that. For consistency, I'd say that the club articles should change name from WFC to Women, but that should be a WP:FOOTY discussion I think, not here. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)