Talk:FCSB

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023
FCSB is a football club founded in 2003, not 1947 as this page suggests. This has been established by Romanian court officials many years ago. This page also has other errors like the number of titles FCSB has won. The history that this article claims FCSB has previous to 2003 belongs to CSA Steaua Bucharest, another Romanian football club. FCSB has used Steaua Bucharest's identity for over 10 years. The owner of FCSB has been sued over this and lost some years ago. CSA Steaua Bucharest also has a Wikipedia page which is fairly similar as a result of FCSB trying to claim the identity of Steaua Bucharest. In conclusion, this page has many problems all because FCSB claims to be Steaua Bucharest. Sima69420 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ There is no final (definitive) court verdict about that. Correct me if I am wrong, by providing WP:SOURCES for your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Romanian court decided that the history from 1947 to 1998 belongs to CSA STEAUA BUCHAREST. Football club fcsb was founded in 2003 and illegally used the identity of Steaua Bucharest. 92.40.219.204 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, partially true. The historical record belongs now to CSA, but only for the time being, since a final verdict does not exist thereupon. And UEFA has its own rules and its own mind, and has disregarded the Romanian court decision in a public statement. Yup, that logo is a small detail, but it says that according to UEFA, FCSB is the winner of the 1986 European Cup final. See also https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/50065--fcsb/ Newspaper article: https://www.digisport.ro/special/reactia-lui-gabi-balint-cand-a-vazut-ca-uefa-a-folosit-sigla-fcsb-ului-in-dreptul-trofeului-cce-cucerit-de-steaua-in-1986-2433415 Another: https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-2/marius-lacatus-prima-reactie-dupa-ce-uefa-a-pus-sigla-fcsb-ului-in-lista-castigatorilor-cce-ce-sa-fac-sa-ma-dezic-de-steaua-297242.html Yet another: https://www.prosport.ro/fotbal-intern/superliga/uefa-a-dat-lovitura-decisiva-celor-de-la-csa-steaua-reactia-lui-gabi-balint-cand-vede-ca-apare-sigla-fcsb-in-dreptul-cupei-campionilor-castigate-de-steaua-in-1986-19674562 Did UEFA admit it was wrong? Did they made public a rectification? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The decision regarding the records belonging to Steaua Bucharest (the 1986 ECC and the 1987 Supercup) is final. It was established so by the ÎCCJ this spring, when they sent FC Fcsb's request for its own records to be recognised back at the appeals court. The sping decision said that Steaua's records belong only to Steaua, that the records of AFC Steaua belong only to AFC Steaua and that the issue of the Fcsb records needs to go back to trial. This autumn, the Bucharest Appeals Court looked over this issue and made a decision. At the ICCJ, they will not look over the entire lawsuit. They will only look over the issue of fcsb's records, the ones that start from 2003. So the decision regarding the European Champions Cup is final. That belongs to Steaua and there is no way it will ever change. But I know you will lie and refuse to do the right thing, because you are as partisan as possible. Not that it matters though. Whether you like it or not, this page will have all references to Steaua removed from it sooner or later. I look forward to seeing you cry about it :)) TPTB (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See the last message at : the team owns its own history, not any of the companies which own the team. It's like suing the Romanian Academy to change Stephen the Great to Stephen the Terrible. Courts do not change history.
 * And, frankly, I have no dog in this fight. For me it is just get the popcorn. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are embarrassing yourself. There is no difference between a team and the legal entity that owns the team. In fact, saying this is nonsense. The team and the legal entity are the same thing. If you are trying to suggest that they are not the same, please show me an ID for the team. Legal entities have identification numbers so that they can pay taxes, do business, sign contracts, etc. Can the team, as you suggest it, do this? No it cannot. Because the team does not exist.
 * And the decision from the latest trial says this exact thing. This is why Steaua is credited with its own records, AFC Steaua with its own records and FC Fcsb with its own records, to which it was unable, for some reason, to bring any evidence that proves they actually belong to it.
 * Like I said, I look forward to seeing you cry when this page will eventually be updated with the correct information. TPTB (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't care which side wins those trials. I simply report the result here. I also report that UEFA is still unimpressed by those trials, and mandating UEFA to change its own rules in order to accommodate those trials will be extremely difficult. It will open a can of worms.
 * Also, you ignore that for historians teams do exist regardless of who owns them. The owner might change, the team still remains that team.
 * So, yeah, according to Romanian courts FCSB isn't Steaua (although the final verdict is still pending, and we will see if "action of noticing" amounts to something). But according to UEFA, FCSB is definitely Steaua. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. UEFA does not "recognize" anyone, the football federation of that country has to inform UEFA on these decisions so it can update it's information, because as you can imagine UEFA isn't interested enough in this topic in order to change anything. The "FRF" isn't willing to give notice to UEFA because of its won interests. Despite this the FRF will have to do the right thing in the end as the all of the trials will end at some point. However the trials over who is Steaua and who won the Champions League in 1986 have finished so this page,(no matter what UEFA says at this point) should change its information as it is misleading, especially where it states that FC Fcsb SA was founded in 1947.
 * Here is the official court decision about the trophies: https://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=200000000422471&id_inst=2 Sima69420 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Romanian courts do not have the legal authority to change sports history. It's a matter of academic freedom, courts have nothing to say about that.
 * UEFA has statutory rules about when a team remains the same team. Such a rule is uninterrupted temporal continuity, which does not exist for CSA Steaua. So, even if CSA Steaua wins all the trials, UEFA cannot recognize that CSA Steaua is the real Steaua. Regardless of what FRF even says. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You really seem to be confused about the structure of multi-sport clubs in Romania and how they operate. More so, "So, even if CSA Steaua wins all the trials, UEFA cannot recognize that CSA Steaua is the real Steaua. Regardless of what FRF even says" is a bold claim that showcases some bias from your part, and I do hope you have some evidence that can back up that claim, otherwise continuing this discussion is worthless. Cezxmer (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, here at Wikipedia "evidence" means WP:RS. I do have a WP:RS about article 15, paragraph 4, of FIFA rules: . FIFA Disciplinary Committee renders a verdict upon article 15, paragraph 4. The decision of the committee can be appealed at this court: https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/index/ . So, CAS has the final say upon who's who in soccer. Not Romanian courts. FIFA may punish CSA Steaua for non-compliance, and CSA Steaua may appeal to CAS. The ultimate penalty is being banned from soccer competitions. As they say: take care what you wish for, since it might come true (and bite you in the back). So, yes, CSA winning the Romanian trials could spell the doom of CSA. As for me, if there's sport on TV, I switch the channel. So I have no dog in this fight. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You should also switch tabs, because you're more than clueless. You show a great deal of ignorance by making such accusations and then presenting an article that is literally fake news as a "reliable source". [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] [4 ]
 * Please refrain from making further deleterious comments on this topic here or on other Talk pages. Cezxmer (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever, here is a legal precedent from an official source: https://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/Shared%20Documents/7290.pdf
 * See argument from fallacy. Or, as the saying goes, "geometry is the art of correct reasoning from incorrectly drawn pictures". tgeorgescu (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Whatever" is a nice way of dismissing your lies...
 * What legal precedent are you even talking about? From your source: "The abovementioned elements are not exhaustive; in other words, the existence of several elements can lead, in its combination, and so even if not all elements are met in a specific case, to the conclusion that a club has to be considered as a “sporting successor”. The overall package of elements is decisive. In fact, because such analysis is to be made on a case-by-case basis, i.e. elements present in a certain case may tip the balance in one direction, whereas the elements present in a lesser or higher degree in another case, may tip the balance in the opposite direction." . Also, if you cite a 40 page document, have the decency to cite the relevant parts.
 * You cannot dismiss my previous reply as a fallacy, because your WHOLE comment was a lie. What you stated never happened. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this. Cezxmer (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Search the file for contin. It clearly says that continuity and permanence are a heavy element in that consideration. So, even if that was "fake news", the requirement of continuity is not a lie. CAS clearly sides with continuity and permanence over who owns the team. Continuity is defined as important, who owns the club is defined as not important. These have been clubs denying they were still the same team, but I see no reason why it would not work for clubs affirming they are still the same team. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Summary:
 * 1) The two Romanian trials have not ended;
 * 2) When the trial about the records will end, we don't know if it will amount to much (besides a merely formal recognition that the records belong to CSA Steaua, the trial does not offer any remedy);
 * 3) It's naive to think the dispute will stop at Romanian courts. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Authority
You're trying to push the authority of a court above the authority of WP:RS. It does not work that way around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And who are you to question that? Above, you gave literal fake news as sources and your own interpretation of CAS rulings, neither of which are reliable. I haven't looked closely at what the editor you mentioned changed in this article, but I assume it has to do with recent court rulings. There are numerous sources explaining these rulings that can be used for editing this article. ( Source )
 * Furthermore, I strongly request a WP:RS that can support these, otherwise I will act accordingly:
 * 1. SC FC FCSB SA is founded on 7 June 1947. ( Source that claims otherwise )
 * 2. SC FC FCSB SA won their 27th title. And I wish you good luck finding a source, because neither the Romanian Football Federation nor any journalistic site attributes this performance to SC FC FCSB SA. ( Source 1 ; Source 2 ) Cezxmer (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think that my own opinion matters. The opinions of WP:RS do matter.
 * I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care who wins the court cases.
 * A verdict which provides no punishments (i.e. paying damages) is a toothless tiger. Unless such verdict scares the authors of WP:RS, it is doomed to fail. If they discover they can openly ridicule it, it won't reflect well upon CSA Steaua.
 * I don't know if FCSB will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. All I'm saying they would be fools not to do it.
 * Oh, yes, I am no fan of Mr. Becali. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC about the Court Decisions
There is now a definitive court rulling regarding the records of this club, recognised today by the Romanian Football Federation, which will inform UEFA.     Should we update the Honours section of this article to reflect the correct and definitive records of this club? Gunnlaugson (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support this is pretty straightforward based on recent evidence from the Romanian courts Fecoca3620 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * — Fecoca3620 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose Too soon to tell how worldwide WP:RS will react, or what UEFA will decide. FCSB can still start a trial at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. If the verdict does not provide paying damages, it is a toothless tiger. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the court decision, this is now a matter of fact and not someone's opinion online: https://www.luju.ro/tacerea-mieilor-fcsb-nu-e-steaua-judecatoarele-cab-andreea-dumbraveanu-si-alina-buculei-opresc-furtul-de-identitate-comis-impotriva-echipei-steaua-bucuresti-cele-doua-judecatoare-au-decis-ca-fcsb-club-fondat-in-2017-nu-are-niciun-drept-asupra-asupra-palma Gunnlaugson (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Direct link to the court decision here: https://www.luju.ro/static/files/2024/mai/15/decizie_s_3.pdf Gunnlaugson (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As the Dutchies say, the soup is not eaten as hot as it is being served. Meaning: I don't deny the text of the verdict, but I doubt its interpretation, its consequences in the real world. AFAIK I had already WP:CITED a WP:RS for that. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read its text: the records are ruled to belong to CSA Steaua, but, wait, there is no mention of any payment of damages for not obeying this verdict. So, basically, there is absolutely no punishment whatsoever for violating this verdict. Meaning everyone is free to dodge it with impunity. There are no consequences for publicly declaring it is a piece of shit. Besides, it provides a right to recourse within the next 30 days. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is no excuse for us providing factually incorrect information on this page. You are wrong about the right to recourse. This is a permanent decision, meaning it is now mandatory under Romanian law, payment of damages is irrelevant. This is endorsed by a supreme court in Romania and recognised by the Romanian Football Federation, meaning the content of this section of the page is incorrect. Please review the links I have provided and be objective. Gunnlaugson (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it is a piece of shit, but that everyone is free to call it a piece of shit, without fearing retribution. Prove me wrong! So, if FRF or UEFA will declare it is a piece of shit, they have nothing to fear. Why would FRF or UEFA say that? Maybe because the verdict is not binding upon them. The court has ruled that the records belong to CSA Steaua, but it did not rule that that's binding upon FCSB, FRF, or UEFA. Nor upon anyone else. CSA Steaua has won the abstract statement "the records belong to CSA Steaua". It did not win anything else besides an abstract statement, having no practical bearing. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a practical bearing. As of now, SC FC FCSB SA has updated its website and social media, without any reference to the club's history or the number of trophies won. If SC FC FCSB SA or its employees make any reference that could infringe upon CSA Steaua's image, they will be in breach of a clause in Steaua's stadium loan contract and SC FC FCSB SA will not be allowed to play there.
 * Furthermore, as previously mentioned, Romanian Football Federation has taken note of these decisions and has decided to inform UEFA. Cezxmer (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, point granted: it would violate the loan contract, not the verdict. And if third parties (e.g. journalists, FRF, UEFA) do violate the verdict, that's not the problem of FCSB. FCSB is keeping mum about their records. Keeping mum is not the same as retraction. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is now Becali supposed to do? I think he should produce dart boards rendering the verdict. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I will accept defeat if https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/history/clubs/50065--fcsb/ removes most of its trophies. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is about providing accurate information, not about you "accepting defeat"... Cezxmer (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I simply stated what it takes to change my mind. It's not some WP:ECREE event. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's more than one month since I wrote the above, UEFA apparently does not care about the verdict. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Did they make any statement, no? Then, kindly, wait until there's an update. alupigus Cezxmer (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How many months do we have to wait for it? Three? Six? If they only had to rubber-stamp the verdict, it were done by now. UEFA is not a party to that verdict, nor is FRF. They are under no legal obligation to obey the verdict, and if they recognize the verdict as binding, that's their voluntary choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, your RfC statement is not neutral, it also does not provide sufficient context for those who have not been watching this page in the past. Remember that an RfC pulls in people from across the whole community - like myself - who have zero knowledge of prior events which have made these "court decisions" necessary. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Redrose64 thank you for sharing this comment, always great to learn from more experienced editors. Context is available on the FCSB page under 'Records', as well as here on the talk page in the 'Court Decisions' section. The update is that we now have a definitive court decision awarding the records from 1947 to 1998 to CSA Steaua Bucuresti. I provided five links, as well as the decision itself above, and I feel we now have a strong argument for updating the 'Records' for this team. Gunnlaugson (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then that should be explained in the RfC statement, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL: The statement should be self-contained, and should not assume that the section title is available (because the statement, but not the section title, will be copied to the RfC list pages). If the RfC is about an edit that's been disputed, consider including a diff in the RfC question. To see what I'm talking about, have a look at how it's shown at WP:RFC/SOC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Fully agree. The court decision is everywhere in the Romanian media and even FCSB removed these records from their official website and social media. Splur988 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * — Splur988 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Disagree. The FCSB web page has no page for records whatsoever. So you can't make a positive claim that they retracted their records. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See here @Tgeorgescu https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/fcsb-csa-steaua-pagina-facebook-decizie-palmares-742403.html Gunnlaugson (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The verdict provides no payments of damages and no punishments, so I'm amazed they have chickened out. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have a strange interpretation of the law and court decisions. Gunnlaugson (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Openly disagreeing with the abstract statement "the records belong to CSA Steaua" is not breaking the law in any way, shape, or form. An abstract statement belonging to sports history got certified by court. The verdict is not binding upon anyone. By obtaining this verdict, CSA Steaua did not get a stick against FCSB. It's a toothless tiger.
 * Just for the record: there are two trials, one for the records, and one for the trademark. Infringing upon the trademark is punishable, they could be condemned to pay damages. Infringing upon the records... not so much. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikipedia is not beholden to national courts, it never has been and never will be. NPOV demands that we base our coverage on secondary reliable sources and currently those are clear that FCSB is the successor club to the old Steaua. If that changes we can re-evaluate but it's far too soon for that now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "...and currently those are clear that FCSB is the successor club to the old Steaua."
 * I'm sorry, but that simply is not true. FC FCSB won the title this season, but no one is attributing this title to them as their 27th, not Romanian Football Federation [1 ] and not even FC FCSB themselves. [2 ] [3 ]
 * One of the clauses in Steaua's stadium loan contract obliges the tenants not to infringe upon the image of CSA Steaua. For this reason, FC FCSB has put its website under maintenance in order to remove any traces that could breach this clause. [4 ]
 * Also in 2020, some of FC FCSB's supporters organized themselves into an association that took part in the Honours/Records dispute. After the Court of Appeal issued its decision in October, one of the founders of the association, who is himself a lawyer, renounced his initial position and withdrew from the dispute, stating that he had re-evaluated his public stance of the past four years since October 2023. He emphasized his commitment to the principles of his profession and acknowledged that a definitive court ruling represents the truth. [5 ]
 * Currently, the Romanian Football Federation will inform UEFA of the latest court rulings. [6 ] [7 ] [8 ] [9 ] Cezxmer (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - although the court's decision is not final, parts of it are final, and the Romanian Football Federation is taking this into account by preparing to inform UEFA about the decision. This has been widely reported in the press. zugu (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * — Zugu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Support The dispute over the honours/records from 1947-1998 is pretty clear, with the courts definitively ruling that the sole owner is CSA Steaua. No one attributes this period to FC FCSB. The Romanian Football Federation has taken note of these decisions and will inform UEFA. Cezxmer (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The linked articles do not say that the FRF recognises that CSA Steaua holds the records of the original Steaua, only that it recognises that the court has said so, and that it will notify UEFA of the ruling. To say it in Wikipedia's voice, three things need to happen: the FRF needs to unambiguously say it is so; UEFA needs to unambiguously say it is so; and reliable sources need to say it outside the context of court rulings, including outside of the Romanian sports press. Scolaire (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "The linked articles do not say that the FRF recognises that CSA Steaua holds the records of the original Steaua"
 * There is no "original" Steaua, the Steaua club was founded on 7 June 1947 and is still active today. The FRF implicitly recognises it as the sole owner by taking note of the rulings and informing UEFA. The FRF officials have mentioned that they will follow and apply the definitive rulings of the Romanian courts.
 * If you oppose this, could you please provide current WP:RS that explicitly state that FC FCSB are the owners of these records and that they won their 27th title this season?
 * There is also another issue on this article, the founding date of FC FCSB is incorrect, the Romanian Minister of Sport gave an official statement regarding the founding date [1 ]. Cezxmer (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While we assume that FRF and UEFA will behave like gentlemen, they are under no obligation to recognize the verdict or abide by it. In fact, what is being litigated is an abstract statement belonging to sport history, no more, no less. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The FRF implicitly recognises it as the sole owner by taking note of the rulings and informing UEFA: implicit recognition counts for nothing on WP. Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * informing UEFA&mdash;after more than a month since your statement, it seems that UEFA simply does not care about that court ruling. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Given the FRF acknowledgment, the definitive court decision awarding the records to CSA Steaua București  , and considering that FCSB themselves removed the records from their official website  and social media , but they are listed on CSA Steaua București's official website , it's clear we have enough WP:RS to update this. We shouldn't have two pages listing the same records for two different teams, this is just not an acceptable standard for Wikipedia. Gunnlaugson (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * — Gunnlaugson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sorry to be so boring, but keeping mum is not the same as retraction. And the news merely say that FRF will inform UEFA of the verdict. The news do not say that FRF and UEFA will obey the verdict. They have minds of their own, you know. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support The court took a decision. Whether it will be enforced or not (trophies being physically moved) it is not relevant, because as it stands, per court ruling, CSA holds the early history LaUr3nTiU (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Not possible for two different teams to have to same Honors. Important to change to the correct information before UCL season starts.
 * Fener8819 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * — Fener8819 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Procedural oppose The opening statement is not posed in a neutral way (listing it as the "correct and definitive way" is clearly showing an opinion that they're expecting people to have), therefore this RFC violates WP:RFCST point 4. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit request to complete AfD nomination
FCSB has been listed at Articles for deletion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. TPTB (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * another editor added the AFD header RudolfRed (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)