Talk:FC Seoul

Mediation process
I am the mediator for the case. I hope to focus all discussion regarding the articles involved on that page. Could all concerned parties attend? Thank you. -- Evanx  (tag?) 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Achievements
Actually, runners-up are recorded in almost all forms of competition awards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#Achievements CanbekEsen 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is Club article?
I can't find that one. Was it erased? I am so upset. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.134.12 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

FC Seoul is not the successor of Anyang LG
They are totally different teams so every record that belonged to Anyang should not belong to FC Seoul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.76.179.12 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

FC Seoul is the successor of Anyang LG Cheetash
K-League officill history is the FC Seoul is the the successor of Anyang LG Cheetash Anyang LG's former franchiese is Seoul —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boojanam01 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for third opinion
There are multiple questions:

1) Is it appropriate to describe the owners of the team as "the well-known GS Group." or is that bad writing style in violation of WP:PEACOCK? 2) Is it appropriate to describe the coach of the team as "the FC legend  " or is that bad writing style in violation of WP:PEACOCK? 3) Is it appropriate to call the club "one of the most successful and the most popular club" because it is something every Korean knows, or do we need a source not connected to the team to provide that analysis as required by WP:OR and WP:V? 4) Is it appropriate to have this external link [* FC Seoul Official Kit Supplier Le Coq Sportif Authorized Retail Stores Locations : Gangnam L-PLACE/COEX Mall Store/Lotte Department Store in Myeongdong etc or is that a violation of multiple portions of the external link guidelines such as "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." and "One should generally avoid ... 5.Links to individual web pages[4] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services." and "One should generally avoid ... 13' Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject."


 * NOTE: the discussion between the parties has taken place on user talk pages. for background see User_talk:Footwiks and User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. #1 is probably fluff, but it's really not that bad; a group being well-known can be an objective statement, although here I think it's out of place.  #2 is definitely fluff and needs to be removed. #3 needs a citation; *any* material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be verifiable in a reliable source.  It has been challenged, so it must be sourced.  #4 is an inappropriate link; it must be removed.
 * Okay, now that the nutshells are out of the way:
 * Footwiks: RedPen's edits are certainly not vandalism. Vandalism only occurs when people make bad-faith efforts to damage the encyclopedia; although RedPen disagrees with you, he is still acting in accordance with what he believes is right for the encyclopedia, and so he is not vandalizing. Please be more careful with the terminology next time; calling someone a vandal is a rather serious accusation, and shouldn't be done unless it is literally true.  Also, please be aware that you don't own this article; RedPen is just as free to edit it as you are, so desiring him to "mind [his own] business" is not at all helpful or constructive.  This is a collaborative project; we need to be able to work with each other to resolve editing disputes.  That's what these talk pages are for.
 * RedPen: I don't think Footwiks is making personal attacks on you; he's just using some colorful and ill-advised metaphors with the intent of getting you to slow down (and misunderstanding the meaning of "vandalism"). It's not really a civility issue; I think he's just saying that it's not a "serious" problem. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you User:Writ Keeper and I've removed all the mentioned instances because all of these adjectives are subjective because it depends on who you talk to to determine what is well know for an instance.Curb Chain (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you are in agreement. WK just didnt go to edit the article to match their opinions.-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It sure looks like we are in agreement; I also called for removal of all the mentioned text. As a personal rule, I don't edit any article on which I provide a 3O unless both participants are in agreement and ask me to do so. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * FC Seoul article is exist 5 years more. But only redpen pick the hole regarding just fluffy expression. Legend, most succesfull, powerhouse/ These expression used in Korea in order to explain FC Seoul and Choi Yong-Soo. So He can't read korean and He don't belive korean newspaper. So what would you like me to do?
 * You might start by reading the core content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Just because you or some blog says "every Korean knows " doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. Content in the article must be supported by reliable sources, those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, not blogs. Praise in the article must come from reliable sources not related to the subject of the article. And the article must not contain only praise, but also criticism, discussing all perceptions of the subject of the article. --  The Red Pen of Doom  05:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * and secondly, you could start signing your talk page comments. ;-) -- The Red Pen of Doom  06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC regarding Anyang LG Cheetahs merger proposal
Anyone interested in participating on the discussion regarding a proposal received at the Merger Request Noticeboard as to whether Anyang LG Cheetahs should be merged into FC Seoul should add their input below. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

{Transferred from Talk:Anyang LG Cheetahs: Merge Like merger of Bucheon SK and Jeju United FC. FC Seoul and Anyang LG Cheetahs have to be mergered. FC Seoul and Anyang LG Cheetahs are officially same club. Also There's a huge overlap between FC Seol and Anyang LG Cheetahs article. In Korean wikipedia, Also two articles are merged.Footwiks (talk)}

I also approve this motion as it's a critical step in both helping readers understand the history behind the single entity of FC Seoul. --weka (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge: Two articles covered same contents.Withfact (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge - two articles covering the same club. There has been long tradition at WP:FOOTBALL to simply re-name the article when a club changes name, as opposed to creating two separate articles. We should also merge any related categories/templates etc. GiantSnowman 17:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Uniform/Kit Editing
I have figured out how to edit, upload and change the kit for football teams. With that I am slowly going through the earlier uniforms and making them resemble to actual looks more closely. I'm using this link to the Historic uniforms.

My question at the moment is this. The first uniforms had a white band across the chest. Should this be considered a visual characteristic that must be part of the designs on the wiki page, or should it only be considered part of the advertising. If we decide that it is part of the visual design then I can create a template image that resembles it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttoSilver (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)