Jump to content

Talk:AC Omonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Omonia.gif

[edit]

Image:Omonia.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the reference to the British Media being hoaxed through this page removed?

[edit]

Is the journalist who removed it and has locked this page connected with the newspaper or journalist in question?

I think we should be told, because it looks cowardly.

The deleted article is perfectly valid and it is appropriate that the hoax should be recorded in the place where it happened.

91.108.111.174 (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could whoever keeps removing the British Media section please refrain from doing so. This is a well-referenced incident relating to AC Omonia Nicosia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steand (talk • contribs) 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You either have the section on British Media here, or someone re-adds in "The Zany Ones" as fact and references the Daily Mirror, as it's verifiable :P Keeping the media section in is surely better. 129.215.141.101 (talk) 09:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing... if Administrator Number57 had been this zealous for this article in August this new embarrassment wouldn't have happened. Now is too late. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 05:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's the admin's fault for not watchlisting 1,000s of football club articles is it? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit on this to the Daily Mirror entry, where it belongs. A one-line entry under "Trivia" might be OK here, but more detail than that isn't really appropriate. It's not like the claim had any significance for the club. Rd232 talk 11:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, link to Register article --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given how well referenced this event is by notable sources, I have reinstated a summary of the details. Number57 and others have yet to provide a concrete rationale against the inclusion. The closest offered has been "not notable for the club", however notability is not region-specific - something can be notable in one locale alone for something, and yet that something is still notable. Given the false details were given in a national newspaper enjoyed by many football fans, a mention is clearly warranted. If the details are to be removed again, a detailed rationale is clearly required, as there is clear support on the talk page for the inclusion. LinaMishima (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be included because it is nothing to do with the club, or the community in which it is based. A mistake in a foreign newspaper is clearly not a notable incident in any organisations' history. As I've said repeatedly in the edit summary, this sort of incident is perhaps suitable for the articles on Wikipedia or Reliability of Wikipedia, but it has absolutely no place here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If an actor, book, or film had some specific aspect associated with it in some region, that is still deserving of mention. You have failed to address the issue by once again wrongly asserting that notability is regional based. The fact that the newspaper is 'foreign' has nothing to do with it. As I had already addressed this issue, I am quite dismayed that you once again resorted to this flawed argument. Given this story crossed at least three different news outlets, I would prefer a more rigorous reason not to include. I am sure that you might well be able to find one, I'd just like to always see proper justification (and this issue will not go away until then). LinaMishima (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific aspect here - a foreign newspaper made a stupid mistake based on a Wikipedia vandal. The news here is (a) Daily Mirror not checking facts (and it is indeed covered under Daily Mirror#Controversy) and (b) Wikipedia is unreliable - nothing to do whatsoever with the history of Omonia. Next time there is some erroneous fact in a Canadian newspaper about the population of Tashkent or something in an Australian newspaper that gets a fact wrong about the Chilean foreign minister, do you really think it needs to be included in the Wikipedia article on those subjects? пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you have pointed out that the details can be found on the Daily Mirror article, I shall let your continuing failure to hit upon the right reason slide. If a Canadian newspaper did make some mistake about Tashkent, then yes, it could well be included in the article - notability is not regional at all! What you are missing whilst you continue to assert this falsehood, however, is that notability still requires that something be notable. A quick google search quickly establishes that, in this case, details of the supporter's behaviour are generally not considered notable, and this story has not spread beyond a few side column references. This is what I have been getting at - if you use something that is not justified as a reason for an edit, then problems will be created (for instance, insisting upon regional notability), however by using reasons actually based on policy (the story is not notable even within the UK, information on supporters is rarely considered significant anyhow, then you will have a much easier time and better articles will result. I have added a specific summary below of the decision here - when you need to revert in future, you can direct people to this. LinaMishima (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Daily Mirror hoax issue - not to be included in the article

[edit]

As can be read above, it has been agreed that the story regarding a Daily Mirror reporter falling for hoax information on this wiki article will not be detailed on this page. This is for the following reasons:

  1. The event is already covered within the Daily Mirror#Controversy article.
  2. For most clubs, anything but the major details of their supporters' behaviour, and press coverage regarding their supporters, is not considered notable enough for inclusion.
  3. A cursory check of major news outlet stories about AC Omonia reveals little mention of their supporters, let alone the results of this hoax.

This policy will of course be re-evaluated if it turns out that the Mirror's article causes future misconceptions. LinaMishima (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:AC Omonia.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:AC Omonia.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AC Omonia.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Rokk (talk • contribs) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias or Diproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions

[edit]

Can anyone point out which sections could have bias or disproportional coverage? I'm trying to fix this article a bit.

Thanks

Johnyoutube (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AC Omonia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on AC Omonia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AC Omonia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on AC Omonia. 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:

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) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AC Omonia. 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:

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) 16:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AC Omonia. 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:

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) 10:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Papastravrou Ownership and Gate 9

[edit]

Hello,

both the buyout by Papastavrou, the transformation to a for-profit and the secession of Gate 9 are important milestones to the history of the club. Please discuss any objections to their mentioning.

Thank you

Theredrebellious (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2023

[edit]
213.207.159.241 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname of the team <χοχα>

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

[edit]

Article is semi-protected (again) to reduce vandalism. Apologies to an IP editors with genuine contributions to make. For these editors, please consider either creating an account or using the {{edit semi-protected}} template here on this talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for european history?

[edit]

This article has grown a fair bit and the Record in european competitions section is quite long. Would it be appropriate to move it to a new page, say Omonia FC in European football, like how Apoel and Anorthosis have separate pages for their matches in Europe? Platos8 (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:AC_Omonia&oldid=1197141049"