Talk:Steaua București

FCSB
How should we describe FCSB? The current entry reads: MOS:DABENTRY advises us to Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. I don't see another entity called FCSB which legally used the name. Unless anyone has more up-to-date information, the decision still seems to be with the Supreme Court, and we shouldn't be giving legal advice that the provisional adjudication is binding.
 * &#91;[FCSB|Fotbal Club FCSB]], a football team which illegally used this name between 2003-2017

Even if the decision were final, it's our practice not to pass judgement on a topic on a dab page, even where the view is widely accepted. We write rather than
 * CSA Steaua București (football), the football team of the above club
 * CSA Steaua București (football), which claims the honours despite rulings against them by UEFA and the LPF

MOS:DABPIPE also advises us that piping and redirects should generally not be used on disambiguation pages, so a plain link to FCSB might be preferable. Certes (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree with all these points. We shouldn't be putting extra editorial detail in the lines of the dab page. They exist purely to help readers navigate to their desired page. As an aside, part of me wonders if we need a WP:broad-concept article here since the history sections in FCSB and CSA Steaua București (football) describe the same club up until 2002, and there's a lot of overlap. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FC Steaua București is the BCA. Despite editors' best efforts, the real-world dispute has made a mess of our article organisation, naming and redirects.  There is an open RfC to improve things, but it's difficult while the situation may still change. Certes (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made bad choices in solving this conflict too, but I think the present version is the best option. About all the legal battles: maybe a separate article about that? The Banner  talk 14:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

an idea Steaua Bucaresti has started in 1947 and had very success. The problems started recently with 2 teams claiming as legal heirs, and so the "Steaua history" is duplicated in both. Why we don't have an article just for Steaua Bucaresti with the lets say "common history" and then having the articles for the club started in 2017(?) and the FCSB version? Because the legal processes will kept running and running.Rpo.castro (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added that idea to the RfC. It would give us a good target for links which refer to 20th-century players and competitions. Certes (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A few observations: 1. We have to specify that FCSB illegally used the name. Otherwise, you imply that it was a simple rebranding, which is completely misleading. 2. The description would still be kept to a minimum, we basically add just one word which gives crucial information about a legal dispute (which Steaua vs FCSB is all about). 3 A simple redirect to FCSB isn't good enough. Why? Well, let's see. What's the point of this disambiguation page? To make things a little clearer for users, right? So, if we write the full name of CSA Steaua Bucharest, shouldn't we write the full name of the other team, FC FCSB? Equal treatment for both teams and accurate information to reduce confusion. Dante4786 (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * saying that they "illegally used the name" is an oversimplification. The supreme court eventually ordered them to stop using it, but it was ultimately over a dispute with the Romanian military and government rather than any overt wrongdoing. Wikipedia should describe things as they are described in reliable sources, not just the version according to a Romanian court. In any case, none of that detail is relevant or appropriate for the disambiguation page, whose purpose is to guide readers to the articles. It is certainly not intended to get into details of the dispute. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't use something that doesn't belong to you. This is an illegal act. The identity of the parties involved doesn't change the illegal nature of using something that doesn't belong to you. Secondly, your source is outdated, it's from 2017 (There was a final decision AFTER 2017). And third, how can you guide readers if you don't put crucial information about the subject? If we don't describe the illegal act, than we should also write that CSA Steaua Bucharest (the multi-sports club) used the name since 1947, and that CSA Steaua Bucharest (the reactivated football team of Steaua) used the name between 1947-1998 and 2017-present. We either keep things simple and refer to the "illegal" act done by FCSB or we put a more detailed description about CSA Steaua Bucharest's use of the "Steaua" name. Also, the supreme court didn't order FCSB to just stop using the name. They stated that FCSB never had the right to use the name. This means it has a retroactive effect on FCSB. It's not just an interdiction regarding the future, it's also a sanction regarding the past. Dante4786 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can use something that's not yours. Becali wrote in one of his books that he had a lease on the Steaua name, or even if he didn't there was an unwritten arrangement between him and the Army officials. The fallout started after 2010, until then there was no problem from the Army. The lawyer who sued FCSB used to attend their matches. You can't say FCSB illegally used the brand 2003-2017 when they had permission for the first few years.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a disambiguation page is not to make things clearer but to direct the readers to the right article. The Banner  talk 08:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't direct users to the right article if you omit an important part in the subject matter. This disambiguation page is about a LEGAL dispute. There are other teams that are called "Steaua", but just CSA Steaua and FC FCSB are presented here, because they are connected by a LEGAL dispute (regarding the "Steaua" name). Dante4786 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes we can. Mercury (mythology) is the god of financial gain, commerce, eloquence, messages, communication, travelers, boundaries, luck, trickery and thieves.  However, his entry in Mercury only needs to read Mercury (mythology), a Roman god, because that's enough to distinguish him from the planet, the chemical element and everything else called "Mercury".  Our typical reader wants to know more about a club called Steaua București that won the 2005–06 Divizia A, and can see at a glance that the reference is to FCSB without having to consider any legal arguments.  Certes (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this the same thing? The equivalent of your comparison would be to write "FCSB (sports), a football team". Which is not good enough, since CSA Steaua is from the same field (sports) and also a football team. And this is exactly why we have to add a bit more details. They are too much alike. Dante4786 (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is the legal status so important that you want to overwrite the usual Manual of Style for disambiguation pages? Is the exact legal status always important to get directed to the right page? The Banner  talk 14:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I answered above. The legal status is important because this whole disambiguation page is about a legal dispute. And not just any dispute, but one about the NAME. It's literally the quintessence of this whole debate. It's not like we are comparing a football team with a video game. Both CSA Steaua and FC Fcsb activate in the same field. The main difference emerges from the legal status. Otherwise, what's even the point of having this specific disambiguation page? One is named Steaua, and the other isn't. Dante4786 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Genuine question: which club won the 2005–06 Divizia A (CSA, FCSB or disputed history), and what was it called at the time? Certes (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the latest court order, CSA Steaua (the football team) played between 1947-1998 and 2017-present, AFC Steaua is between 1998-2003 and FCSB is between 2003-present. The honours of AFC Steaua might go to CSA Steaua (CSA Steaua won those trophies on the previous court order) or remain at AFC Steaua, which is currently inactive. The honours of FCSB between 2003-2014 might be deleted (just like 2004–05 Serie A title). So, the 2005–06 Divizia A title was won by FCSB (then called FC Steaua, which is also the name of AFC Steaua; "A" stands for "Association") but it might go unassigned. I don't see what's the point of your question (besides curiosity, which is fine). Most teams on wikipedia (if not all of them) are referred to their present name. FCSB lost the "Steaua" name almost 5 years ago. Dante4786 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything fine about your comment, except one thing; FCSB's titles being deleted will never happen, it's speculation from your part, if LPF deletes them they basically confirm that THEY have illegally allowed the club to play in the first division. These are simply titles won by FCSB, under the name of Steaua.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 20:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation from my part, it was in the press. I'm not saying this is a sure thing but it is a possibility. They won some trophies using another team's crest and name. And there might be something about the UEFA coefficient. Let's just wait and see and not proclaim "this will never happen" or "this will surely happen". Dante4786 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the disambiguation is about entities with nearly the same name. Not about the legal trouble. The Banner  talk 18:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But the name IS their legal trouble. Dante4786 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And the names are completely different. CSA Steaua Bucharest and SC FC FCSB SA. And this is the status quo for the last 4-5 years. If we don't refer briefly to the legal status, I don't see what's the point of this disambiguation page. Dante4786 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * nearly the same name, as stated in my reply. And sorry, legal trouble is not an issue for a disambiguation page. Write a new article about that. The Banner  talk 19:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you don't have to repeat yourself. I said they are completely different. Disagree? Fine. Show me ONE word that appears in both team's names. How are the present names (CSA STEAUA BUCHAREST and SC FC FCSB SA) even remotely the same thing? Dante4786 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. You want to deny that FC Steaua București is a former name of FCSB. That former name makes it relevant for this disambiguation page. The Banner  talk 22:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, I don't want to deny anything. If anything, I want to be precis. And again, most teams on wikipedia (if not all of them) are referred to their present name. Do you see a disambiguation page on Dinamo Bucharest and Dinamo Bacau (now called "FCM Bacau")? You said that this disambiguation page is about entities with nearly the same name. Steaua and FCSB don't have (nearly) the same name. If you want to write about FCSB's last name, then this disambiguation page becomes one about a legal dispute. And how come the disambiguation page on Politehnica Timișoara can state the legal status but the one one Steaua can not? Dante4786 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because that other page is not an issue here. Just a distraction. The Banner  talk 14:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the simple phrases in accordance with the manual of style are enough. While I don't agree of the use of term "illegal" because it sounds biased (CSA waited roughly a decade before suing FCSB), it should be easier for readers to separate the clubs.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How it is biased to use "illegal" when talking about a legal dispute, when there is a final decision involved? You know what's biased? Ignoring the fact that FCSB is no longer registered as "Steaua". Ignoring the fact that no official entity use "Steaua" when talking about FCSB. Neither FIFA or UEFA or The Romanian Football Federation use that name when mentioning FCSB. Why even insist on a past connection, when it has nothing to do with the present and it clearly goes against the law? Just to show your disapproval on the court's decision? The only entity which benefits from calling FCSB as "Steaua" is FCSB. If we insist on doing this, then we must specify the legal status. Otherwise, we are being biased towards FCSB. And how it's even in the slightest relevant how much Steaua waited before suing FCSB? There were still in the legal term, FCSB's illegal use of the Steaua name was still punishable. Dante4786 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User:8Dodo8/sandbox I think what I wrote in my sandbox should be adapted and create a separate history article for FC Steaua until 2003 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Publishing that sandbox again (as you did before) is POV, vandalism and against the Mnual of Style. The Banner  talk 22:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it vandalism when you act in good faith? You may say I am biased and I don't know WP rules but calling me a vandal is straight offensive, I am trying to find a solution here for God's sake. I am sick of these talks which lead nowhere. Why do we have this discussiom if you already know what should be written?8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 06:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I call it vandalism when you keep on going against consensus, against the regulations about POV and against the Manual of Style. When you deliberately do that after all these warnings, it is not a good faith edit any more. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * please desist with calling 's edits as vandalism. Per WP:NORESVAND, calling good faith edits "vandalism" is considered a personal attack, and you will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard if you continue that. It's fine to disagree, but your comments must focus on the substance of the argument, not on the individuals. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your opinion about good faith edits differs from my opinion, certainly after all the discussion here. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some of 8Dodo8's changes and reverted one of them, but I consider them good-faith edits rather than vandalism. Certes (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . If the Banner already know how this article should look like why do we waste our time arguing here?8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know how a disambiguation page should look like, yes. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange, you don't seem too have a problem with the legal status on the Politehnica Timișoara disambiguation page. Dante4786 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you know I don't? ACS Poli had the right to use the brand until now, I don't believe SSU magically turned into the original team after one night just because it's "legal" but there are many users here who can write what they want, I can't be responsible of every Romanian page, I am not an admin. Because even when I do I log off two weeks and somebody edits it again, like you CSA fans did despite the old RfC when we agreed CSA should not have the honours listed up and we ended up locking the page (beforec the honours trial).8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 06:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How do I know you don't? Because you were the last person to edit that article. In fact, you even edited the part about SSU Politehnica Timișoara, but left the legal status on. It seems you are bothered just by FCSB's legal status. Double standards... Dante4786 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. You are diverting this discussion to another subject.
 * 2. I chose to keep the term "legal" there after User:Rhinen and some other IP added it back after I adapted and even removed it from SSU's and ACS's idividual pages. I consider that consensus. I personally refrain from using the term "legal" that much. Why? There is a team in Brasov which got the old FC Brasov logo from the local authorities while there was already a Brasov phoenix team supported by the old fans. Same thing happened at Timisoara, and now they moved the logo to SSU. There is no continuity in these situations, I'd rather consider the team which inherited the fans the "real" club and not care that much about legal issues. Because what happens in Romania with all these "brands" and logos is not normal and is politically influenced.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm not the one who started making comparisons. And the other subject is relevant, because it shows you have double standards: It's ok for you to show the legal status of Timisoara but not of FCSB.
 * 2. I don't see what User:Rhinen has to do with anything. We are talking about Timisoara's disambiguation page. There, a user added the legal status on 2 august. You edited the SAME text on 19 august and left the mention of the legal status.
 * 3. Fans are subjective. Court orders, on the other hand, are objective. Fans can say "My team is also called The best team in the world". Is this relevant information for Wikipedia? I don't think so.
 * 4. And here you go again, proving that you are biased, ignoring the reality of the situation just because you disprove of court orders. "They are politically influenced" just because you disagree with them. Wikipedia isn't a blog for you to express opinions. Dante4786 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am biased in real life and I think Romanian football is too much under political influence. These city mayors handed over the brands that thousands of people loved to some clones nobody supported, and they financed them to gain some popularity. This can even be considered a waste of public money since it didn’t benefit the community.


 * And there was no chance FCSB could have ever won any case against an entity of the STATE, these judges would have been removed in a few months, we are practically still living in communism.


 * However, I am not biased on WP and I try to keep things neutral. Nobody pays me to take one side’s defense and sincerely I should have stayed out of it, the Steaua/FCSB pages have been a mess since 2017 and we’re just arguing without solving anything, as The Banner says he already knows how this disambig page should look like. This is my last comment on this subject, I don’t know why I care so much about clubs I don't support.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Communism? Mate, what are you even talking about? And no, that's not how the judiciary system works. There are plenty of cases in which the state lost. Because there is a little thing called separation of powers. Romania wouldn't even be in the EU if this wasn't the case.
 * And you are biased on WP. You don't treat articles in the same manner. You didn't even try to bring a counter argument to what you did on Timisoara's disambiguation page. Yet here you are, opposing me, even though you left a similar text on that disambiguation page. Wtf, how is any of this a neutral approach?! Dante4786 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)