Talk:Parma Calcio 1913/Archive 2

Merge with Parma article
I think its completely redundant to have a new club article for the club. This did not occur with various other Italian clubs that went bankrupt such as Torino, Siena etc.Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the BBC source this is a new, separate club; it is standard practice on Wikipedia to have a new article when there is a new club. There's a difference between going bankrupt and being actually dissolved and re-formed. GiantSnowman 11:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, Daniele. Could we have some consistency? Rangers F.C., Piacenza Calcio 1919, S.S.C. Napoli (a good article!), ACF Fiorentina, Torino F.C., Robur Siena S.S.D. and A.C. Perugia Calcio are all reformed bankrupt clubs. What is the justification for this?  mg  SH 18:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a long discussion about Rangers, and it was decided that it was a continuation of the old club - and all the other clubs you mention are Italian, which implies to me that there is a problem with Italian editors/clubs. See, for example, in England Halifax Town F.C. being replaced by F.C. Halifax Town, or Chester City F.C. by Chester F.C.. It doesn't happen with all clubs (see, for example, one article on Middlesbrough F.C. and Bradford Park Avenue F.C. - it depends on the individual circumstances of each case, there should be no one rule. GiantSnowman 18:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably one reason the reformed Italian clubs don't have new articles is that all RS known to man, including Serie A and UEFA, treat them as a continuation of the same club with an unbroken history. Daresay that by the time Parma 1913 return to Serie A and European competition, the same will apply with them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems artificial to wait until Parma returns to Serie A until we draw that conclusion. The new club has been chosen to represent the city in a way that no team from Chester or Halifax ever could, simply because of the differences in the Italian and English systems. As you say, all sources will treat the new club as a continuation of the old.  mg  SH 22:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Under Article 52 of N.O.I.F. the new club is to continuity with the old Parma. I have moved the page, but i have undo. The new name of the club is S.S.D. Parma 1913. --Italy World (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC) See "User talk Qed237", Qed237 has undo my move e the the redirect of this page to the old Parma with the new name. After he has invited to write in this discussion because don't know the laws of Italian football. --Italy World (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Italy World. That article needs a re-write because the English needs to be improved, but it serves as an excellent resource that demonstrates how the previous consensus of following the legal situation as regards continuity of bankrupt Italian football clubs has been followed on Wikipedia based on a clear understanding of the FIGC's regulations.  mg  SH 06:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer breakup Parma into Parma AC, Parma FC (a subsidiary formed during the administration of Parma AC) and Parma Calcio, but it was the consensus of Italian wiki. (It confuse people in SPAL case (merger) and Ancona (relocation and rename, a namesake)) The re-birth rule was long criticized as hijacking the history of the old club without real solid financial and sports grounds, at least most of the re-birth club bankrupted again. Matthew_hk   t  c  15:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For example
 * A.C. Perugia compared to Perugia Calcio and A.C. Perugia Calcio
 * A.C. Venezia compared to S.S.C. Venezia and F.B.C. Unione Venezia
 * It may have continuity such as Napoli and Fiorentina had bought the trophy from the liquidator of old club, but not sure when for Parma, despite it was valued for a low price. Matthew_hk   t  c  16:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an evident continuity sports of the old and the new Psrma of the FIGC regulations. Write in Google.it "Parma Calcio 1913 erede Parma FC" and it's all clear.--Italy World (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There appears a lack of interest from WikiProject Football on this. Consistency would dictate that these articles be merged. What is the process from here?  mg  SH 15:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that please keep it separate, until they buy out all the rights of Parma F.C. Or Italiana Giuoco Calcio allows them to use all rights of Parma F.C. A good example is Fiorentina perhaps. William.weiran.sun (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That would create problem when merging later due to parallel page history. I prefer the case of Zaire and DR Congo, consider as a dynasty of a club, but yet the function would overlap History of Parma F.C. Matthew_hk   t  c  17:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they should be separate - that's what the sources say, after all. But agreed both can be covered in the History of Parma F.C. article. GiantSnowman 18:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If i really choose, Parma F.C. should just focus on 2004–2015 instead of covering the whole 100 years including the most successful Parma AC era. Matthew_hk   t  c  18:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * while Parma Calcio 1913 should cover the whole 100 year instead. Which made Parma F.C. is the sub-article of Parma Calcio 1913. Matthew_hk   t  c  19:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions
What is the decision? It's necessary a quick decision of the merge that is necessary and logical. Please to contact an administrator for the move the page of Parma F.C. --Italy World (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A ruling of the Italian Football Federation allows "new" clubs continuity of palmarès thus - though under the financial aspects it's two separate companies - at federal level it's the same club wich continues its story under a slighlty different company name. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 19:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Financially it is more complex, since some of the assets of Parma was actually held by Eventi Sportivi. The company held the brand, i don't know did it effectively block new Parma to use certain thing. I am not sure Centro Sportivo di Collecchio is held by Eventi Sportivi or Parma F.C., but one thing certain, Eventi Sportivi not yet legally liquidated. Matthew_hk   t  c  19:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, Parma FC the new company formed in 2004, but the last breath of Parma AC the old company was in 2007. Matthew_hk   t  c  19:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * in circa 2010 http://www.ripartiParmalatAS.it/ Matthew_hk   t  c  20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes the problem is, anyone in any part of Italy can legally establish a company named, so to say, "Parma Association Football Club", the problem is that they most likely might not be able to operate it because it wouldn't get the required federal licence. Thus, talking about sports aspect, the article (IMHO!) should be about the entity that operates as "Parma" according the rules of FIGC, and that in order to keep continuity. -- SERGIO  aka the Black Cat 13:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It made more no sense for sports continuity if in the case of relocation, such as SPAL (SPAL 1907 or Giacomense?), Ancona (Piano San Lazzaro or Ancona?), Pergocrema, Cosenza (Rende or Cosenza?), or may be just break all them up is better. Matthew_hk   t  c  21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * as well as Carpenedolo/Atletico Montichiari. It is too loose to say they are successor because they have the same "sports title" or they are based in the same city. it just too messy to have Cosenza F.C. and Cosenza 1914 derby and just stick Cosenza F.C. as successor. (just like the case of Real Rimini and Pro Piacenza) Matthew_hk   t  c  14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Which, for a new consensuses, "sports title" along was not a good argument. (In fact the old consensuses was jointing the phoenix club for no legit reason, or just based on which clubs claims it is successor without actually knowing acquires the trophies and brands or not)
 * It must have the same "sports title" in the same city for clubs in order to joint the articles. (which tonnes of article had to cut open for buying "sports title" from nearby town)
 * Only doing this, would make more sense in the case of Calcio Padova + Calcio Padova (2015), Parma F.C. + Parma Calcio 1913, to be distinguish with Rende Calcio + Cosenza Calcio 1914 (2008), S.P.A.L. 2013 + A.C. Giacomense + (SPAL 1907 + SPAL) and U.S. Pergocrema 1932 + A.S. Pizzighettone are wrong. Matthew_hk   t  c  14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's unnecessary to have two separate articles. The Italian wiki considers them the same club and I don't see why we should be different when there's a precedence for clubs such as Napoli, Fiorentina, Torino, Perugia and Siena on the English wiki. Nobody considers the successors as different clubs (Torino Calcio and Torino Football Club are historically the same entity with the same titles). Not to mention Parma itself was already refounded in the 2000s - does this mean there should be three different Parma articles? Merge them guys. Danieletorino2 (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this new club maintain the honours/trophies of the original Parma(s)? GiantSnowman 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the FIGC has given the new club the titles: http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/27-07-2015/parma-serie-d-ora-ufficiale-apolloni-sara-allenatore-120723580107.shtml "The FIGC has given the go to the affiliation of the new club"Danieletorino2 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then I would be inclined to say they are actually the same club. GiantSnowman 13:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps of relevance to this discussion, an article about the new Parma in today's New York Times. Thistheman  ( talk to me ) 17:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: Danieletorino2. You give all example from Article 52 of N.O.I.F., which the definition of Italian phoenix club should be limited to any club using that clause and exclude others, which Cosenza Calcio 1914 (?–2005) and Cosenza Calcio (2011–) and A.C. Ancona & U.S. Ancona 1905 are excluded but Parma F.C. + Parma Calcio 1913, Calcio Padova and Calcio Padova (2015) are included, or else it just confuse people that Pergocrema actually not using that clause, just a club relocated and claims it is a phoenix club. Matthew_hk   t  c  17:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Final conclusions
It's a evident continuity of Parma F.C.: the new club is born in according of the federal rules and the art. 52 of Noif with the authorization of the mayor of the city of Parma. It's the same situation of the old A.C. Parma of the old Parmalat Spa and Ascoli, Siena, Bari ... In the other cases as Ancona, Pergocrema, Cosenza, Montichiari .... it is not the continuity: is not a new team but an another club that has changed its name and not in according of the federal rules and the art. 52 of Noif. It's necessary to quick merger the 2 pages of the clubs as the Italian version. --Italy World (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support — Matthew_hk   t  c  11:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — the merger in line with consistency argument outlined above.  mg  SH 17:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — 100%Free Reporter (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Men&#39;s Jeans (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — User:Danieletorino2Danieletorino2 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Men Lifestyle (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — User:Eddy-Ex (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support — Fma12 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)