Talk:FC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Logo


''The current logo used by the club is this one, no matter the dispute. If the team lose their right to use it or decided to changed, it can be removed.'' I don't agree with this argument. The Bulgarian Wiki already removed the logo. Can we have a meaningful discussion about this?

--Wikiknol (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added the new photo based on https://www.dnevnik.bg/sport/2020/06/30/4085259_cska_1948_smeni_emblemata_si/ --Wikiknol (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing disruptive editing
Since there is an ongoing edit war and apparently User:The TV Boy is removing part of the article he doesn't like I was forced to ask for protection earlier today. Less than two hours after the page became protected TV Boy continued with his disruptive editing claiming that the article is non-neutral and lacks sources. I've read it very carefully and couldn't find wrong facts. If TV Boy doesn't like a certain fact that doesn't make in non-neutral. I encourage all users participating in the edit war to use the talk page before future (controversial) edits. --Ivo (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your text violates WP:NPOV, contains mainly unsorced material, highly controversial and containing mainly attacks against Grisha Ganchev, going offtopic. Re-enetring such text is considered vandalism based on Wikipedia guidelines. Please see WP:OPINION.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First, it's not my text. Second, what is written in the article is a well known fact. Ganchev is one of the most controversial businessmen in the country. The text would be an attack against him if it was based on a rumour but here were talking about events that really happened. He has his fingers in many pies and has been involved in some extremely shady deals which led to the arrest of his son. If the lack of sources is what bothers you, I'll provide them. Of course, if I a reliable source can't be found about a certain statement it should be removed but the rest should stay. --Ivo (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...which is even more inappropriate, because text that is not written by you should also be removed - direct copy-pasting is not allowed. It doesn't matter who or what Ganchev did or does - it has no relevance to this article whatsoever. This is a highly controversial text that is simply not for Wikipedia, it is not neutral, makes much unsourced, aggressive and unproven accusations, it is not for an encyclopedia. Fullstop. Not to mention the information, even thought edited so that it can pass standards, as a whole has no relevance to the topic whatsoever. You are just trying to forcefully putted in the article in order to "make someone look bad just for the heck of it". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal opinion website.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BG89, again I am reverting your edits, because the links you added in most cases have nothing to do with the text you are citing, the text is again not neutralized, again is highly controversial, again is offtopic and again has nothing to do with the lore of the article. Please stop entering this text, it has no place here.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 18:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're reverting the edits because you don't like the facts or to be precise you don't like the fact that CSKA 1948 exists. You wanted sources and you got them. What is wrong now? CSKA 1948 was established because its supporters refuse to accept Ganchev and the replacement of their club with Litex. These are the main reasons for the existence of CSKA 1948 and and you say they are irrelevant? How so? If you really think there is something controversial you can explain what bothers you but I can't accept a well-sourced text to be removed.--Ivo (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BG89, I explaned to you why above why the text you are entering is unacceptable, you are still shifting the discussion in an irrelevant direction. As I said - putting links in the article doesnt make them immidietly relevant sources. The info is still not neutral and still not relevant to the article. See the Wikipedia guidelines for more information. It is briefly explaned with an rellevant source how the club is founded. You are just entering this text with a completly diffirent reason - to attack specificly a person via the article, which is completely unacceptable.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to you, the article is a personal attack on Grisha Ganchev and that part should be removed. I disagree because there are no assumptions. Just facts. Ganchev's problems with the law aren't something new. He is quite similar to Becalli, the owner of Steaua and since Steaua's page contains information about Becalli's, I honestly can't understand why the information about Ganchev should be removed, especially when he is one of the main reasons for the existence of CSKA 1948. --Ivo (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And any actions of Grisha Ganchev have rellevanse to this article why? This article is about the football club FC CSKA 1948 Sofia, which has notting to do with him. It is explaned why the club is founded, shortly, but enought clearly and neutrally. Why add this text? It doesnt have to do anything with FC CSKA 1948 Sofia at all! All I see is just personal attacks against him, which shouldnt be in this way in Wikipedia at all, not just in this article.The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

BG89, when there is no consensus on this text - just stop re-entering it and start a discussion elsewhere. Reverting the text and twisting opinions won't do you any good.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 20:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A consensus is needed about your attempts to remove a well-sourced text with reliable sources. You asked an administrator to remove the text and he refused. If there was anything wrong he wouldn't decline your request. --Ivo (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Boy, you sure do like twisting discussions... OK, again, administrator didn't remove the text not because he's OK with it, but because he doesn't know anything about the topic and just protects the page, taking no action with the text in it. If someone knew what was going on with this topic, in bgwiki for example, we wouldn't be edit warring at all and you would have been blocked a long time ago...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * One of us is definitely going to get blocked in the very near future for systematic valuations of Wiki's rules and it won't be me. This time you with your puppets won't get away. Your only argument against the text is that the page is a personal attack on Ganchev and lacks neutrality. After the page became protected as a result of your vandalism, you asked an administrator to revert it because of the above-mentioned "reasons" but that was rejected. I'm not much into the Bulgarian Wikipedia but from what I saw you were accused of what you are accusing me :D --Ivo (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you are just getting bored and angry at the same time as I see your responses. Something else that you may want to add rather than turning my accusations about you against me? Something you may want to add on manipulating facts and dodging my statements? And I was accused for what exactly? You understand that basically you are confirming with your actions right now that you were editing behind those IP's? Anyway, I guess now it is proved that discussion with you just leads in a dead end and there is no fixing your actions. I'm very sorry I had to go trough this...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CSCA
I have moved the page name to "CSCA" because this is the correct abbreviation in english as the name of the club in this language is entered in the Bulgarian Registry agency --Scroch (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, refrain from performing contentious moves without gaining consensus here first. I am aware you are trying to prove a point here, but this is not how an encyclopaedia works. If this unsourced claim was true, then we would have to move all CSKA teams to CSCA, and that would be plain stupid. Provide sources that the name of club in English is not CSKA. Try the Bulgarian Football Union, or possibly the club itself, since we are talking about transliteration here, and not a translation of an abbreviation. -- L a v e o l  T 14:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not an transliteration it's an abbreviation the club's name is "Central Sports Club of the Army 1948" in English as stated in the registry agency's site the name CSKA (of the football clubs from Moscow and Sofia) is not abbreviation it is CSKA. If you want to use an abbreviation of the long club's name it should be CSCA same way as in bulgarian the abbreviation of Manchester United is МЮ and not МУ if it were transliteration. Please see the Registry ageny's page and stop vandalizing --Scroch (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even more if it were transliteration it should be TsSKA based on the official bulgarian transliteration --Scroch (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the BFU, this is CSKA 1948. Do you have other, more relevant sources? And should we remove the notion that CSKA is an abbreviation from all articles about teams with the same name? -- L a v e o l  T 18:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any "CSKA 1948" in latin alphabet on BFU's site, we're clearly talking about latin here, not cyrillic. Again in the registry agency clearly the name is written as "FOOTBALL CLUB CENTRAL SPORTS CLUB OF THE ARMY 1948" in latin. If you make abbreviation of it it is FC CSCOTA 1948, or if we drop the smaller words it should be FC CSCA 1948. I don't see why you insist that this club has anything related to other clubs named CSKA. The Bulgraian ones are using old transliteration from the time when ISO-9 was used as official. For the other clubs like CSKA Moscow, they are using the Russian transliteration and dosen't have nothing in common with this case. This club "FOOTBALL CLUB CENTRAL SPORTS CLUB OF THE ARMY 1948" is registered in 2016 and if you insist using abbreviation then the TsSKA is your. My suggestion is to use CSCA for that club because it have official english name --Scroch (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand why you hate the club, but personal feelings are not helpful in building an encyclopaedia. The club competes under the name CSKA 1948 and sources confirm it. Feel free to nitpick whatever you want, but this is still what it is. -- L a v e o l  T 21:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you need reliable sources that the club's name is not what everyone refers it as. As I said, I understand that you hate the idea of another CSKA existing, but these are the facts. The Football Union simply uses the abbreviation (which historically transliterates as CSKA), English-language sources, too. Until some other authority comes in and determines that the club should or should not bare a certain name, this is what its name is. -- L a v e o l  T 21:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And lastly, you could also look at the Wiki naming convention for sports teams. -- L a v e o l  T 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read the Naming conventions (sports teams) and i don't see a rule where an abbreviation should be changed according somebody's own rule. There are language rules and they should be followed. If you don't want to use the correct abbreviation, then we should move the page to the club's full name --Scroch (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it shouldn't be "CSCA", but rather the title should be the full name - "FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948 Sofia".--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 07:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Scroch, the rules are more than clear - we use the name that English-language source do. Nobody calls the club anything other than "CSKA 1948". However, you are more than welcome to propose a reform of the rules, so that they suit your own opinion on the matter. -- L a v e o l  T 15:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * i guess you're ok to move the page to "FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948 Sofia"? --Scroch (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, every single source uses the name "CSKA 1948". This includes Bulgarian ones, such as news media and the Bulgarian Football Union, and English-language ones, which are way more relevant in our case, since this is Wikipedia in English. Given all this, moving the page against all sources and against wiki rules, would indeed border vandalism. -- L a v e o l  T 13:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not against wiki rules check Paris Saint-Germain F.C. a club more familiar by it's abbreviation PSG but the name of the article is not PSG i can list you several cases in English wikipedia --Scroch (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But it is in this case. Every single mention of the club is with this name - "CSKA 1948". As I said, I understand why you do not want to have other articles about other CSKA clubs around, but Wikipedia is here just to reflect the fact of their existence. While you are at it, you might go ahead and propose a move for the CSKA Sofia article to CSKA-Sofia, since that is the name of the entity according to the Trade Registry. -- L a v e o l  T 15:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sponsors
Do we need to list every single company that's made contract with the club it has no encyclopedical value at all --Scroch (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * CSKA-1948.png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FC Central Sports Club of the Army 1948 Sofia.png