Talk:AFC Bournemouth

Trivia

Why is it that the two points mentioned in 'Trivia' are just repeats of points mentioned already?Alexrushfear 10:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link from Peter Phillips as a composer who died several hundred years ago is obviously not the ex chairman of AFCB (insert your own sarcy remark here, you were going to anyway(!) Britmax 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Underneath any article about a bournemouth player is a list of the current squad that still includes James Hayter. I dont know how to remove this.

I wonder if any AFCB players know about this webpage, or even contribute to it! Trigg Travers! —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

History

The history seems to go back about 4 or 5 years ... is that it? Victuallers 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, how about mention of the great escape, the billy bond years (i think it was him, so my dad tells me), the success for the 70's when we had huge crowds of 22,000, an expansion of the redknapp years, the link between redknapp's team and O'Driscoll, the Auto Windscreen Shield final at Wembley...also there should be a mention of stadium history too.

Not to forget Cardiff either!

The hooliganism section neglects eniterly the riots of the 90/91 season when Leeds came down!! That was notable in english football history, let alone bournemouth's.--Turkeyplucker 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The recentism on this page is farcical. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Harry Redknapp : Is it really relevant to the History of the Cherries that "Another of Redknapp's sons, Mark, is active as an agent for footballers" ?? I'm surprised there's no mention of Louise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Trevor Hartley

Hi, I have initiated a small article on Trevor Hartley because he was for a very short time in managerial roles at Spurs. I know little about his time at AFC Bournemouth as player or manager apart from what was readily available on the www. So please add anything you think is relevant, thanks Tmol42 (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Relegation Battle

The winning streak of six games has been pretty amazing and could mean that League One survival, which seemed near impossible two months ago, could well be in reach. Does anyone know of similar sorts of achievements (in terms of relegation battles) for the club itself or among other clubs in the football league? These would be good for comparison and ones that concerned AFCB could be integrated into the article! (Mcdonaldo (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Athletic Football Club Bournemouth

The name AFC Bournemouth was adopted during the Bond era to make the club sound modern and continental, and less successfully to move it to the top of alphabetical lists. Although that means the club is nominally known as Athletic Football Club Bournemouth I don't think anyone ever calls it that. Britmax (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic FC

I'm a bit sceptical of the paragraph which claims they are still officially called the above. I can find no evidence of this on the internet or in any books. Half Price (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

I've had to remove the section on "Club Owner" as it had been completely vandalised and I personally do not know who owns this club, sorry about that.
Samuel Tarling (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a large batch of vandalism added by 86.28.244.194 so I've reverted the article to an older version. Barret (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't have the time to go through the change logs Samuel Tarling (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Athletic Football Club Bournemouth v AFC Bournemouth

The name AFC Bournemouth was coined during the John Bond era in the 1970's to give the club a "continental" image and, less successfully, to put it at the top of alphabetical lists. No-one ever spells it out in full (except ironically). Britmax (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless it is still the full name. --Half Price (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see it sourced either way but I've never seen the full form used, have you? Britmax (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No. It's a hard one. Would they just put AFC without it really standing for anything? AFC Wimbledon did that. I reckon that till we know for sure we should keep it as just plain AFC. --Half Price (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the kind of thing people do. The name of the TSB bank strictly means it's called the Trustee Savings Bank Bank. But yes, I think we should leave it as it is unless we can prove differently. Britmax (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(Association?) Athletic Football Club Bournemouth! Please see Zerozero Football --Huligan0 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, didn't mean that! --Half Price (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As a note, zerozero allows community input and it is not a reliable source. Matthew_hk tc 13:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

local rivalrys and derbys

not seeing any mention of any rivalrys this club has

when i was their on holiday i was led to believe that Portsmouth & Southampton were a rivalry for the cherries does anyone have any info on this?

Tony Spike (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A.F.C. Bournemouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906045556/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2015-16.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2015-16.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414005359/http://www.afcb.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10324~1280796%2C00.html to http://www.afcb.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10324~1280796%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A.F.C. Bournemouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626130115/http://www.afcb.co.uk/club/club-history/ to http://www.afcb.co.uk/club/club-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626130115/http://www.afcb.co.uk/club/club-history/ to http://www.afcb.co.uk/club/club-history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Athletic vs Association (again)

I just reverted an anonymous editor (a "fan of 25 years") who added "Athletic Football Club" to the lead [1] without a reference. I then added a reference which seems to support the name "Association Football Club" alongside where that name appeared in the infobox (Ref: [2]). However I've since found a contradictory one that supports "Athletic" (Ref: [3]). Mostly, though, references are very hard to find at all, and the official company name is simply "AFC Bournemouth Limited" ([4]) - which seems to support the view that AFC doesn't actually stand for anything. The article as I've left it is as it was, with "Association Football Club" in the infobox, plus a reference from a reliable source to support that. However, that may be a case of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2m1YDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT13&lpg=PT13&dq=bournemouth+and+boscombe+athletic+change+name&source=bl&ots=wIsZoLs7rm&sig=woGQjTCEDGOA8PAA9lwrlY6DIF8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiD-N_k2eDbAhUMJMAKHS94DKg4FBDoAQhDMAQ#v=onepage&q=bournemouth%20and%20boscombe%20athletic%20change%20name&f=false - clearly states the A stands for Atheltic, and comes from the previous name of Bournemouth and Boscombe ATHLETIC Football Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.20.120 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

fixed the ref

Dunne, Michael (2018). Dean Court Days: Harry Redknapp's Reign at Bournemouth. Pitch Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78531-418-6.

However, i would rather preferred secondary source in 1970s (certainly there is some newspaper archive) as newer material may be contaminated by cross-referencing and internet rumour. Matthew_hk tc 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ndjoli

He wears 52 and O’Connell wears 57 according to Soccerbase Tombo Elbo (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah reply please Tombo Elbo (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If it’s ok with u 🏟🏟 Tombo Elbo (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move from "A.F.C. Bournemouth" to "AFC Bournemouth"

The proper name of the football club and the company that runs it is AFC Bournemouth. It is not "A.F.C. Bournemouth" or "Athletic Football Club Bournemouth" or "Association Football Club Bournemouth". This is clear from a notice on the club's Web site that will have been cleared by the company secretary or general counsel. The assertion in the box that the full name is Athletic Football Club Bournemouth is based on a misunderstanding of the cited source, which says "AFC stands for Athletic Football Club". I propose that the article be moved from "A.F.C. Bournemouth" to AFC Bournemouth. --Frans Fowler (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: I cannot carry out the move myself because AFC Bournemouth currently redirects to A.F.C. Bournemouth, so I am creating a move request. --Frans Fowler (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This new edit

Is ibe 10 though? Is Mousset 9? Steam n Whistle (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See a rough consensus below to move this page as proposed based on support arguments that are significantly stronger than arguments in opposition. Since there is only a "rough" consensus, it would be incorrect to assume that this local consensus constitutes a community consensus to remove full stops from all the other hundreds of like article titles. That would still require a centralized discussion that would attract other objective editors as well as those involved with naming conventions such as WP:NCST. Hinting here that an RfC might be necessary to justify the need to remove (or keep) full stops all around. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  22:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

---

A.F.C. Bournemouth → AFC Bournemouth – Please see the section in the article's Talk page titled Proposed move from "A.F.C. Bournemouth" to "AFC Bournemouth". Frans Fowler (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not necessarily use WP:OFFICIAL titles. "A.F.C. Bournemouth" is in use. Many other pages use "A.F.C." titles. Is there a naming convention or manual of style instruction that handles this case specifically? Dekimasuよ! 01:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I've noticed that throughout this article there are only instances when it says "AFC Bournemouth" there which differs from the title. This may not mean that the page needs to be moved but I see what reason this came from. Iggy (Swan) 07:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The proper name of the football club and the company that runs it is AFC Bournemouth. It is not "A.F.C. Bournemouth" or "Athletic Football Club Bournemouth" or "Association Football Club Bournemouth". This is clear from a notice on the club's Web site that will have been cleared by the company secretary or general counsel. The assertion in the box that the full name is Athletic Football Club Bournemouth is based on a misunderstanding of the cited source, which says "AFC stands for Athletic Football Club". I propose that the article be moved from "A.F.C. Bournemouth" to AFC Bournemouth. (This paragraph is copied from above so all of the discussion on the proposed move can be seen in one section.)

Thank you, Dekimasuよ!. Taking Dekimasu's remarks one by one: The Official names policy WP:OFFICIAL says "Article titles should be (...) consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit (this criterion)." While there are some reliable English-language sources that use "A.F.C. Bournemouth" with full-stops (periods), they are very few and far between, and as far as I can see they are all U.S. sources. British sources (both primary and secondary) consistently use "AFC Bournemouth". According to WP:TITLEVAR in the Article titles policy, "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (...)." There are, as Dekimasu writes, many other Wikipedia articles that use "A.F.C." titles. Far be it for me to say (here) that they're all wrong, but (according to my extensive but not exhaustive research) many do seem to be inconsistent with the applicable national variety of English. (I think there is a strong tendency outside the United States to omit full-stops in abbreviations where possible in all contexts, and that the U.S. style is sometimes applied on Wikipedia without regard to other relevant varieties of English - but that's just a point of view.) The Naming convention for sports teams WP:NCST says, "In cases where there is no ambiguity as to the official spelling of a club's name in English, the official name should be used." The official name in this case is AFC Bournemouth. WP:NCST does not specifically address football-club names, but it gives examples to illustrate other points: FC Barcelona and St Helen's FC, both without full-stops. Frans Fowler (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't find the evidence here convinving – legal names of companies do not necessarily match the club (otherwise we'd have to rename the article "AFC Bournemouth Limited"). This suggests that Athletic is actually part of the name. And when the A.F.C. stands for something, we use the dots (see e.g. A.F.C. Aldermaston, A.F.C. Blackpool, A.F.C. Bridgnorth, A.F.C. Darwen, A.F.C. Emley, A.F.C. Fylde, A.F.C. Hayes, A.F.C. Hornchurch, A.F.C. Liverpool, A.F.C. Mansfield, A.F.C. Portchester, A.F.C. St Austell, A.F.C. Stoneham, A.F.C. Sudbury, A.F.C. Telford United, A.F.C. Totton, A.F.C. Uckfield Town or A.F.C. Wulfrunians). Number 57 17:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:ABBR, MOS:TM, WP:OFFICIALNAME. We don't care what the "official" spelling it. It's treated inconsistently in sources, in which case we also just do what MoS says and move on. This is not SpellExactlyLikeSomeFootballPeopleDoOrElse-Pedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The naming convention for English football clubs is to use dots in the abbreviations; see the contents of Category:Football clubs in England. This move would fail WP:CONSISTENCY. Number 57 10:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Even know AFC Bournemouth Limited is the registered name with Companies house, AFC is still short for Athletic Football Club. And thus to stick with naming convention I don't think it should change, however I think the lead paragraph should start with Athletic Football Club Bournemouth and not AFC Bournemouth. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional support - My only condition is that we remove the dots from every similar page title. The extra punctuation is unnecessary, but that applies across the board, not just to AFC Bournemouth. If we're not prepared to make this change over the entire encyclopaedia, then I oppose. – PeeJay 11:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - standard naming convention for UK teams is that we use the dots, and this is long-establised, having been the case since (excuse the pun) day dot. GiantSnowman 13:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Standard naming convention for UK teams had dots. The team originally did called "Athletic Football Club Bournemouth", despite on the website, crest and the legal person of the club did not have dot (see also company details). Matthew_hk tc 17:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The Premier League, BBC and the Mirror among others all use AFC without the dots. On the WP:CONSISTENCY point, A.F.C. and AFC, F.C. and FC etc aren't consistently applied across WP:FOOTY plus we broke the consistency of UK articles when the dot was removed from the Saint teams (St. Mirren F.C. to St Mirren F.C. for example). Would also support PeeJay's suggestion to remove dots from every similar page title. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • They are used consistently on English clubs and that would be the primary issue with this move going ahead on a standalone basis. Also, the Saint/St./St question is a different issue as that's a shortening of a single word rather than an initialism like F.C. Number 57 20:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME does not really apply to style issues. We are already using the common name, with or without the dots. Dekimasuよ! 00:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - One look at Category:Football clubs in England would see that we treat other articles with the same prefix this way. See A.F.C. Bridgnorth. Regardless of stylization, it would be inconsistent to change for one club. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There seems to be a convention to put the stops in A.F.C. and F.C. in clubs listed in Category:Premier League clubs, and even if this is unofficial it represents some form of consensus. We should follow that here unless there is some persuasive reason not to (and to revisit all those other clubs too), and none has been given above IMO. (Fond memories of a holiday in Bournemouth in 1956, but have not been back since.) Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (change of !vote). See #Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral comment - Thank you, everyone, for your views. Evidently there is a naming convention here that I wasn't aware of. It doesn't seem to be documented so I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)#F.C. and A.F.C. in article names for football teams. Frans Fowler (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Not sure I get why we have to include the stops in AFC. Look at AFC Wimbledon, which is titled that way because the AFC doesn't standard for anything. If that's the case here, why should the titling be any different? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mattythewhite: There's disagreement about whether the AFC stands for something or not here (see my comment above). I'm not convinced a formal company name is evidence that the AFC doesn't stand for anything. Number 57 10:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Comments @Mattythewhite: AFC obviously stands for Athletic football club, I am a bit confused why you would say it doesn't stand for anything. Govvy (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • See the evidence above presented by Frans Fowler. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
        • This section is not a reprise of the earlier discussions on this page about whether A.F.C. means, or should be expanded to, Athletic Football Club. This section is to discuss whether the article should be renamed ("moved" to) AFC Bournemouth. On that point there are different views. On the one hand, AFC Bournemouth is the form of the name used by the club itself and by reliable British sources (BBC, The Premier League, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times). AFC Bournemouth, not A.F.C. Bournemouth, is therefore closer to WP:NCST. On the other hand, many articles on Wikipedia about UK football teams have F.C. or A.F.C. – with dots – in their titles in accordance with an apparently undocumented but widespread exception to the Wikipedia convention. See also: Discussion on the documentation of the convention. – Frans Fowler (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Reply This depends on what English convention you wish to move the article too, traditional British English when shortening a name of a person, company or organisation you would add a period after the shortened name. However if it's accepted that there wasn't originally a long name then the period isn't needed. If this was an American article then you wouldn't need to apply this naming rule, however this is an English article and information in the infobox identifies that the club as an Athletic Football Club, there for British English convention should remain. Govvy (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Current British English does not normally use periods (dots) in abbreviations. Please see, for example Abbreviations – Frans Fowler (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

              But it's in widespread use for football clubs – have a look at the sign on the side of this stadium for instance. Number 57 09:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

              Indeed. If anything, BrEnglish is further ahead on the curve than USEnglish. There used to be a style guide saying United Kingdom is UK, but United States is U.S. Both variants typically omit periods in abbreviations now, though.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

    • Why do people write current English? You have informal or formal English. Americanisms getting into the British-English language, street slang often gets thrown into the Oxford English dictionary. Either way is fine, but do you want wikipedia to be displaying names formal or informal?? Govvy (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It does make it a bit easier to type if you're all that accurate about it.Steam 'n' Whistle (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per AFC Wimbledon, SMcCandlish and others. The MOS and common usage in this instance recommends against including periods, and I'm not convinced there's a good reason why football teams should include them, given that not all do anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • AFC Wimbledon does not have dots because the "AFC" doesn't stand for anything. If you're supporting "per AFC Wimbledon", presumably you believe that AFC in this club's name does not stand for "Athletic Football Club"? Number 57 09:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  Of course, whether a term is an acronym or not does not depend on the presence of punctuation (e.g., KFC). --BDD (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  But this is the naming convention for English football clubs. A single article should not be moved away from the convention – there needs to be a centralised discussion on the issue. Number 57 09:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose AFC Wimbledon is the exception article only. All other instances are A.F.C. (Assocation Football Club). If you were to do this, then you'd have to do it not just for clubs that have the name A.F.C. in front (eg. A.F.C. Totton), but also for clubs that have A.F.C. at the end (eg. Sunderland A.F.C.). Unless a valid source from the club itself, where the chairman or owner clarifies this, then it should remain as A.F.C. Pch187 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Quite apart from it being the official name, the punctuation adds nothing for readers and in fact makes it (marginally) more difficult to get to the article. This should be applied to most, if not all, similarly named articles. --BDD (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems that "AFC" and "A.F.C." are used in fairly equal measure. So, for consistency with other articles on English football clubs, sticking with "A.F.C." seems most logical to me. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The full name of the team is Association Football Club Bournemouth, and dots are used in acronyms in English football per our naming conventions. Exceptions would be AFC Wimbledon and AFC Rushden & Diamonds, where the AFC doesn't abbreviate for anything - it's used because the F.A. considers adding "AFC" to be different enough than the defunct predecessor clubs. In this sense it also serves as a disambiguation. SportingFlyer talk 15:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reply@SportingFlyer:, Rushden & Diamonds F.C. was still in existence but in administration and not technically defunct when AFC version was created, it's down to corporation law why they chose AFC and not FC for their name, the same goes for AFC Wimbledon, this is to avoid accounting issues between similar registered names. This is mainly the reason why they picked the Athletic suffix. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Reply Ah yes, that refreshes the memory. That being said, I don't see a single source which says their official name is anything but the letters "AFC." In these cases, the periods clarify the club's actual full name. SportingFlyer talk 23:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – I agree that the official full name of the club is not Athletic Football Club Bournemouth but AFC Bournemouth. The article cites a source for the longer name, Michael Dunne's 2018 book Dean Court Days: Harry Redknapp's Reign at Bournemouth. However, the book apparently points in the opposite direction; it supports the proposition that the name is in fact AFC Bournemouth. This is the relevant passage:

After narrowly missing out on a second successive promotion the following season, the Cherries' name was changed by Dowsett from the traditional Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic to AFC Bournemouth. Touted as reflecting a new, streamlined era at Dean Court, it was also a none too subtle ploy to get the club to the top of the alphabetical list.

'I said to John Bond, "If we call it AFC Bournemouth, then we will always be at the top of the list when they print the fixtures,"' remembers Dowsett. 'AFC stands for Athletic Football Club, so we dropped the Boscombe part and swapped the rest around.'

So AFC doesn't stand for Athletic Football Club in the sense that it is an abbreviated form of the longer name, it only stands for it in the sense that it recalls a memory of the old name, Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic. Moreover, Athletic Football Club Bournemouth is not a "streamlined" name, whereas AFC Bournemouth is. AFC is also more likely than Athletic "always" to come first in an alphabetical list. Athletic comes after Aston and Arsenal in an alphabetical list, for example – and shortly before the club adopted the name AFC Bournemouth, Aston Villa and Bournemouth were playing in the same division. I don't think dots are required to indicate an abbreviation here, because AFC is not really an abbreviation in this case. And, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, the dots are wrong as a matter of style. Frans Fowler (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Standard convention in Britain has always been to include full stops between F.C. or A.F.C., unless there's no meaning behind the term. F. itself is a contraction of F... (Football), etc. Clyde1998 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Discussion

OK, let's take the bull by the horns. As pointed out above, the fullstops add nothing. So let's get rid of them per wp:IAR and regard this as a precedent to change a vast number of other article titles too. Any takers?

The silence at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)#F.C. and A.F.C. in article names for football teams has been deafening. As it appears to be an official naming convention, there's a process for changing it, and consensus here that the fullstops should be removed would be a good start. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment No. Why do you keep creating separate discussion sections for these sorts of things? SportingFlyer talk 23:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No to what? I created this section so as not to further clutter the survey, because I thought that would help the closer. It's a standard thing to have a separate Discussion section to separate out some or all of the discussion from the Survey where people !vote, see Template:Requested move/doc#Adding survey and discussion subsections. In hindsight it's a shame this wasn't done by nom but I guess they didn't anticipate so much discussion, or maybe they just didn't know that the convention exists. It's not as often used recently as it was in the past, but AFAIK there's been no decision to abandon it, and as a closer myself I find it very helpful. Andrewa (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for this. Note also that some of these prefixes and suffixes can be dropped entirely unless needed for disambiguation (e.g., Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur, but Arsenal FC and Liverpool FC). --BDD (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's the point. Some commonname-ism user likes Inter Milan but resist to drop F.C. from Manchester United, as well as argue it is A.F.C. for historical reason and convention instead of AFC for WP:official name and WP:commonname. You never really get a real consensus for football article, they change their point of view everytime. Matthew_hk tc 16:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That seems to me a good reason to have a formal convention. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)#F.C. and A.F.C. in article names for football teams has been lively but not really on-topic. We need to ask: Should the convention should say something on this, if not why not, and if so, what? I remain of the opinion that it should, instruction creep notwithstanding. We've had more than enough discussion in individual RMs such as this one. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Conversely, removing the full stops from thousands of articles seems like a lot of work that also adds little value to the encyclopedia. Dekimasuよ! 21:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It risks clogging up WP:RM rather badly short term. But nobody would be forced to do this work... even if it doesn't get done ever, little lost. What it would do is add some clarity to RM discussions that currently risk going around in circles. We could gently suggest that RMs based purely on removing the fullstops were raised as technical requests, and not too many at once. Or we could boldly automate the process. Or probably a bit of both. ::But first thing is, can we even build a consensus that it's a good idea assuming somebody does the work? Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have commented at the naming convention discussion. Completely disagree with statement that the dots add nothing. They are there to show whether the AFC/A.F.C. stands for something or not. Number 57 09:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It has meaning in UK English, it is more likely a WP:ENGVAR argument, so it should better keep the dot on UK clubs. But with or without dot inconsistently applied to Portuguese club which in the past all abbreviation have dot, but excluding "recent" move of F.C. Porto to FC Porto. But on Bournemouth case or starting a new policy, is whatever WP:Commonname and WP:officialname still applies to football club naming convention, as Bournemouth officially drop the dot and commonname seem also without dot, just historically Bournemouth's full name was "Athletic Football Club" according to some book. Matthew_hk tc 10:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

But that's the thing—the letters do stand for something, whether that's spelled out in the official name of the club or not. Do you thikn AFC Wimbledon just chose some random letters to adorn their name? Semantically, there's no difference. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I was going to make exactly this point. The assertion that the periods tell us the difference between a real abbreviation and just a collection of random capital letters is in my opinion false, as is the assertion that there is a real difference between AFC Wimbledon and AFC Bournemouth. Clearly Wimbledon did not pick those letters randomly out of thing air, unless they happened to chance on those three at a probability of 1 in 17576... The important thing here is that virtually no sources other than Wikipedia include the periods in this name, and the trend in almost all styles is absolutely to omit dots in abbreviations. The UK is ahead of the US in this regard, so if anything the WP:ENGVAR preference would be to omit for English teams and not for American. The same thing applies to Manchester United FC as well, incidentally. We would benefit from removing dots there too. And to address the point above about consistency and the amount of work required to move over, the same thing could be said for the removal of the comma from "Jr." names per the WP:JR guideline. Initially the guideline was to grandfather existing usages, but one thing WIkipedia doesn't lack is WP:WIKIGNOMEs willing to take on large volumes of moves or file move requests accordingly. If there were a desire to remove dots from all football club articles it could be done fairly easily, and in my opinion it should be done, to reflect modern usage.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: gnomes, very good point. People made similar arguments about the feasibility of moving articles on birds, which used to have title-case capitalization rather than sentence-case, but in fact editors implemented that quite quickly. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly... and even if it takes a while to implement, there is no deadline. The damage this temporary inconsistency would do is too small to consider. (I did try to make that point above.) Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, AFC Wimbledon picked AFC because it was different enough from their old trading name. Same with AFC Rushden and Diamonds. Of course they're not randomly picked, but there's still a difference. SportingFlyer talk 23:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think we'll have great trouble nailing down exactly what that difference is. For the readers' benefit, just keep it simple. Andrewa (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Templates

I just saw the templates at the bottom of the page, I assume there is title text in there, my guess is it's red/black which will violate WP:ACCESS. This needs to be addressed. Govvy (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This color contrast test is in agreement with you. I'll see what I can do; however, fans can sometimes be pretty unreasonable when it comes to team colors.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Record Transfers

Surely Jefferson Lerma is the clubs record signing? Check out his Wikipedia page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jefferson_Lerma#cite_note-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5032:5800:792C:6060:528D:2534 (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This transfer was described as undisclosed which appears to be an unknown number. I don't think that should be included as the tables are for known fees only. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but no transfer fees are truly known. The BBC website have confirmed it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45072577 The club website itself confirmed it was a record fee so it should definitely be mentioned under their record fees: https://www.afcb.co.uk/news/first-team/lerma-signs-in-club-record-deal/

Also should the figure of the fee be removed from the Jefferson Lirma page if it's technically undisclosed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:5032:5800:B075:DAD2:5D8A:D43D (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

---

A.F.C. Bournemouth → AFC Bournemouth – The A.F.C. doesn't stand for anything (per discussion) and thus there should not be periods in the title as other articles don't use them when the prefix doesn't stand for anything (such as AFC Wimbledon) Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with the nomination, AFC does in all intense purposes does stand for Athletic Football Club, in fact the article itself is poorly sourced. There are notes that AFC was chosen because of the previous name "Boscombe Athletic". Maybe a few editors should go and grab some of the old history books on the club. Govvy (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure that the discussion referred to does prove that the AFC stands for nothing, as suggested. There's a lot of people saying a lot of things, much of it supposition. 'Boscombe' were my local team at the time, and I well recall John Bond renaming the club from its awkward 'Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic Football Club' to 'AFC Bournemouth', simply because it was more catchy, European and forward looking. The AFC was simply the same name, i.e. Athletic Football Club, but no-one ever said the full name, of course, the whole point was to keep it short and punchy. By coincidence it comes first alphabetically, but that was never the reason for doing it, even if one source might suggest it. (Who lists teams alphabetically anyway?) That said, I'm not really bothered whether there's full-stops in AFC or not (the trend today is to drop them in many acronyms anyway), but please let's not try and rewrite history. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: @Hogyn Lleol: - Apologies if I worded the move request in an assertive way, because it does look that way to me. I would agree that the AFC most likely stands for 'Athletic Football Club' or at least was intended to, even if not in an official sense. However, they are referred to almost exclusively as AFC Bournemouth now, including in official documents ([5], [6], [7]). I don't see anything that suggests that they are currently Athetic Football Club Bournemouth, rather than just AFC Bournemouth though. About half of editors tried to claim it stands for association football club anyway, which I feel proves my point. Oh, and if either of you have a reliable source that explicitly states the AFC stands, or did stand for 'Athletic Football Club', please add it in. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support move. The nom reason is invalid, but the club refers to themselves as AFC Bournemouth. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support club always uses AFC in articles and any media RM-Taylor (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 14:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom, on basis that 'A.F.C./AFC' doesn't seem to stand for anything. GiantSnowman 14:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Either or Or Either way is fine in my opinion. But AFC bit is always all upper-case, it's also open to interpretation, and to say it means nothing is in fact applying WP:OR, and we should not at any cost say that. Govvy (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The club's name is AFC Bournemouth. The club uses that form, the Premier League and the Football Association use that form, the media use that form. Whether the AFC refers back to Athletic Football Club or not, those words don't appear in either the club's full name or that of the company that owns it, so the letters don't "stand for" those words in the sense of an abbreviation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support; the same way the "ACF" in ACF Fiorentina doesn't officially stand for anything. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the above --FootyMessi9147 (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC) — FootyMessi9147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose AFC stand for abbreviation and for consistency it should remain with dot. Yes the company (parent company of whole football club incorporations) is incorporated without dot, but the subsidiary has clearly the football club meaning in its name. Matthew hk (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • AFC doesn't necessarily have to be an abbreviation, officially. See AC Tripoli or ACF Fiorentina. The "AC" and "ACF" aren't acronyms, they are just simply "AC" and "ACF", nothing more nothing less. As far as I understand, this is the same situation with Bournemouth. While, for example, the official full name of Juventus F.C. is Juventus Football Club, the official full name of ACF Fiorentina is... ACF Fiorentina. Same with Bournemouth. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nehme1499: Umm, as far as I am aware it's was reincorporated ACF Fiorentina, but still has registration as Associazione Calcio Fiorentina. Govvy (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This is long overdue. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFC Bournemouth Badge Issue

Hello,

The AFC Bournemouth badge on this page seems to have some issues as of 14 September 2020. The badge contains a red colour gradient. However, the red seems to have been replaced by a transparent background. I don't own a copy of the badge and I am unsure exactly about the fair use rules of taking the image from elsewhere off the internet. Could a more experienced editor look into fixing up the badge?

A.F.C. in the lead

With the article now being AFC Bournemouth, surely the lead of the article should match that? However it currently reads A.F.C. - I’m not sure if this has been left following a discussion. Should this be changed to correctly match the article, if not then surely the discussion and outcome of moving the article from A.F.C. to just AFC becomes rather pointless? RM-Taylor (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It was changed without discussion or explanation on 25 October. I've changed it back. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Boscombe

I removed that from the nickname field, it seems more like a proper old name given the history of the club, so I am not sure it really counts as a nickname. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

1 goal for bourmouth

1 goal for him at bourmouth 5.198.18.127 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

For who? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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:

• Dominic Solanke 9 AFC Bournemouth.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Boscombe

Mattythewhite, could you please undo your revert? I'd like to point out the original Boscombe name is already mentioned 2 sentences before in the previous paragraph. Cheers.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Done, with a minor reword. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Mattythewhite. Hope you enjoy the rest of your week ^u^ — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)