Talk:Aston Villa F.C./Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 History sections 2 Search engine broken? 3 Gareth Barry 4 The Unprecedented Statement - Another first 5 Foreign manager 6 Cleanup 7 Steve Staunton 8 Managers 9 citations 10 HOW DO U CREATE A PAGE? 11 Greatest Players 11.1 Criteria for Notable player 12 Season-by-season table 13 History section too encompassing 14 Subheader reduction 15 Recent Editing 16 More citations needed 17 Article Length 18 Club History 19 New Badge 20 Triva 21 Recent Events 22 Clean-ups 23 Recent wholesale changes 23.1 Rewritten History section 23.2 New managers table and section movement 24 Dates & dashes 25 GA review comments 26 Reference format 27 Famous supporters 28 Honours 29 Transfers

History sections

I have split the history into two main sections like commented on the peer review. I have tried to cut all of it into a bit which we leave on the main page but i am finding it hard there's so much. All the history is in the two "other sections" so we just need to trim the history down.

(Everlast1910 14:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Search engine broken?

When you search for 'Aston Villa' in the wikipedia search box, you don't get Aston Villa F.C. as a hit. You actually have to search for Aston Villa F.C. Does this make sense or is the search engine broken? user:dzof 03:58, 4 November 2003 (UTC)

The search engine is broken. RickK 04:01, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Gareth Barry

I've just changed Gareth Barry's listing from defender to midfielder as that's where he plays most of the time. Feel free to change it back f you don't agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.10.158 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The Unprecedented Statement - Another first

Yet again the Villa are first to do something, yet again they give you a reason to be proud to support them, and yet again optimism rears its head. Lads, you can be proud of yourselves for being the first club of players to have the balls to raise a statement of dissatisfaction with your chairman. You can hold your heads high tonight. FORZA VILLA! Martyn Smith 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Should this section be in the main article if the club have denied it being true on their official site? Gretnagod 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The club's article is just a weak spin Ucdawg12 06:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the unprecedented statement - until there is confirmation either way it is unencyclopaedic. Gretnagod 11:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What kind of confimation are you looking for? Many respectable news organizations have covered this, where as the club site denies it with no quotes or sources. Ucdawg12 19:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Foreign manager

<blockquopte>Jozef Venglos - the first foreign manager ever to take charge of an English top-flight club</blockquote

There have been plenty of Irish pmanagers before hand. All of whom would consider themselves foreign, please change to something like "first manager from outside the UK or Ireland" --Dodge 14:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made these changes. Feel free to copyedit but please do not revert to the inaccurate statement --Dodge 01:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article could do with a cleanup.

• There are far, far too many subeadings.
• Per consensus at WikiProject Football, reserve and youth players should not be included unless they have squad numbers.
• The all-time league positions, while valid information, take up a disproportionate amount of space. A graph like the one one Sheffield Wednesday F.C. would be a better alternative.
• Transfer ins and outs should not be included. Wikipedia is not a news service.
• Trivia should either be incorparated into another section as prose, or removed. Oldelpaso 17:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As my removal of the transfers section was reverted, I'll elaborate on the above before I make any further changes. This article should be an overview of the club through its 100-odd year history, not a recap of recent events. In line with similar decisions at Arsenal F.C. and Liverpool F.C. to name but two, I intend to remove the section and replace it with a link to the "Transfer Deals" section of 2006-07 in English football.

Things like transfer news do, however, fall under the remit of Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, if anyone wants to do a writeup there. Oldelpaso 19:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There's too many external links. I've removed those already internally linked or blatantly commercial, but half a dozen fans sites is excessive, guidelines suggest one major one. Could someone with knowledge please rationalise the links StopItTidyUp 12:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the comment about the subheadings - as is the case for almost every football club article that AlexWilkes has edited. As further edits have been built around them though, it's more than just a case of deleting the headings. Markspearce 12:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oct 2006 - Have reduced the number of sub headings in the history section. User:Villafanuk 14:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve Staunton

I'm pretty sure Steve Staunton was the club captain during the 02/03 season. Mellberg only captained the team when Staunton was injured, if I remember correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deanster123 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Managers

Maybe someone could put a "WIN LOSE DRAW %" for each manager? (Everlast1910 21:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

citations

This article lacks references and many parts are very opinionated, so I added some requested citations. But for some reason another user just went and removed them all..... without adding any references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.15.84 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed them for two reasons - firstly, you are an IP user - please register if you want to discuss this and change an article so considerably. Second, claiming that some of the passages are opinionated fals under WP:POINT - it's best to discuss any need for citations in this Talk page, rather than a wholesale addition of cite tags Superlinus 14:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me the rule that says IP users are not allowed to edit pages. and why does adding cite tags count as disruption of Wikipedia. it should be seen as an assistance because it tells people what needs citing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.12.186 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not a rule. I do agree, I added a few citations and put a plee for more in my edit summary. This (and quite a few other premiership articles) needs them. It should be raining citations on articles on Premiership clubs, because they're such a big topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cream147 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 14 February 2007

I would like a citation for the 'first club in europe' statement. I've been trying to get a definitive answer to this for ages (The Guardian says Hibs were the first British club in europe in 1956 but don't give a date, Man U are the firt English club in UEFA, etc). I'll come clean - I am a bluenose - but I am only after facts here. The earliest reference I have for an English (and British come to that) club playing in a European competition is Internazionale Vs Birmingham City, on Tuesday 25th May 1956 (in Italy). If you cannot find an earlier date for the Villa game then I suggest you remove the comment - just to save arguments. If you can find an earlier date, please state it - thanks, decent article (and I'm biased). 80.195.27.120 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

it pains me to say it, but you're right. Though, as a caveat, I must point out that the team officially represented Birmingham city, rather than Birmingham City, and only included purely Blues players because Villa declined to send any players. The claim to be one of the first clubs in Europe, however, refers to post-Heysel. Superlinus 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to cause the grief - it wasn't meant as bragging rights or anything just to stop arguments in the office. Wiki is now seen as definitive by some. Thanks for the clarification. See you next season. WBluejohn 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for your info, Hibs first competed in the European Cup in the autumn of 1955 and so were clearly the first British club to compete.Largo1965 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

HOW DO U CREATE A PAGE?

How do u create a page on this? plz tell me WebSurfer 21:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Create_a_page? LeeG 22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Players

Please consider their career at Villa when adding in great players - for instance, Collymore, Solano, Davis (yet!) and Baros are not amongst Villa's all-time greats! Superlinus 22:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Superlinus, I disagree. The list encompasses only the most worthy players to have pulled on the famous claret and blue. My argument being that the Villa have had many 'notable' players down the years (especially in recent years!) that do not merit a mention. Players such as David Ginola, Peter Schmeichel, Stan Collymore etc were all notable but they are not worthy of a place on the list. This is why I named the list 'Greatest Players'. User:Villafanuk 19:21, 5 March 2007

But on what basis are you deciding who is a famous player and who is not? Perhaps if the list was of Fans' Player of the Season, then fine. As it is, it is not citeable and clearly fails WP:NPOV. Not that it's just this club's site - a few others are as bad and are also being looked at Gretnagod 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about famous players? It's a list of the players that have contributed most to Aston Villa's greatness. This can be cited by the number of trophies they won whilst at the club, longevity of career at Villa, popularity at the time etc. My choice of the word greatest reflects this and not simply their noteriety or fame. I do not think it is merely a matter of personal opinion, i think it is something that has obvious credibility. You look at any history of the club and those same names appear every time. That is because they all played an important part in the Villa story. User:Villafanuk 22:10, 5 March 2007

I would then respectfully suggest that if you want to keep the players currently on the list, you should ensure that those without Wiki articles have articles created, even if just stubs. Gretnagod 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair to me - I was a bit surprised one was zapped as I had (erroneously) guessed his insertion had been discussed before. Cheers! LeeG 22:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they should only be players who achieved something with villa, nobby solano was a good player who played for villa for only a season. I will remove him.Woodym555 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul McGrath. There is only one God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.237.30 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 February 2007

Right then...how can we name a list of "notable" or "famous" players without citing anything that makes them notable or famous. This needs to be explained or the section should be deleted due to WP:NPOV Gretnagod 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go with 100 appearances or something like captained the club to a trophy and of cause 81 league and 82 cup winning team should all be in there. (Everlast1910 09:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Criteria for Notable player

I have put this in: if anyone wants to change it please feel free. When adding a notable player please take into account is this player actually worthy of the title and to be listed. 1) Played over 100 games for Villa 2)Set a record such as Youngest player to score a goal 3)If you think a player is worthy add them in then reference why you think they should be in the list.

• Also please put players in alphabetical order (Surname) to make the list look neater*

100 games will still result in a very large list - List of Aston Villa F.C. players might be a better place (see List of Liverpool F.C. players or List of Manchester City F.C. players) Oldelpaso 11:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Everlast: you can sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~).

Sorry Oldelpaso thought i had (Everlast1910 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Season-by-season table

I think this is a great idea for following a particular clubs progress through the seasons. I think we should have one of these tables for every top flight club. Funkyduncan 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree (Everlast1910 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Thankyou - it took a while to do!! Villafanuk

History section too encompassing

Aside from being written like an essay, the stuff about the founding of the FA Football League really doesn't belong in here. I'm going to try merging those bits into the FA a more appropriate article, and making this article's history more concise. Chris Cunningham 14:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Subheader reduction

Some of this was recently reverted without so much as an edit summary. I've collapsed these again. Feel free to explain why these headers (and accompanying MoS-abusing capitalisation) are necessary. Chris Cunningham 08:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited it because it looked unwieldy and was out of character with other Premiership articles, reducing the current squad to mere "staff". I'd pretty much like to see this article look uniform as far as Current Squad goes, but I'd like to hear your justifications for the way you'd see it presented Superlinus 14:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That other Premiership articles have too many subheaders isn't a great justification; I can, hoever, only work on a finite number of things at once! The header reduction is first and foremost a way of trying to figure out how the page should really be proportioned; I'm tempted to suggest moving the almanac-type stuff to a sub-article and leaving this article for text. Most team article on WP consist of nothing but statistics, so providing all the stats one can is good idea; however, Villa have a lot of history which makes the article very long in its current state. Chris Cunningham 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CON does indicate that the Aston Villa article should fall in line with other Premiership articles. Before making such widespread changes I suggest you discuss this at [Football] where much good work is being done on all football articles. I would agree that the History section of the page is long and unwieldy, and would welcome a way of shortening it, but one which recognised Aston Villa's unqiue contribution to modern football. I'm going to edit the Current Squad section back in line with other Premiership articles and urge you to discuss this on WikiProject Football before continuing on your lone path. Thanks Superlinus 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Editing

This editing is nothing short of vandalism! Chris, I'm afraid you have no understanding of Aston Villa's proud history and it's integral role in the formation of the Football League. We didn't found the FA!! It is clear you havn't even read the article properly!

I believe that any article citing the history of Aston Villa should mention William McGregor etc. Also, why have you taken it upon yourself to change all the subheadings, they were much better before. You havn't even consulted anyone on your proposals. I find the changes you have made offensive. I have spent countless hours getting this article up to the standard it is and your treatment of it is not respectful of the club. Villafanuk 11:01, 22 March 2007

I've reverted this. There was next to no content removal, so I'm not sure what you're on about regarding "Villa's proud history" not being reflected. Copy-editing to remove the magazine-style headers ("Phoenix from the flames" - I mean, come on) is a no-brainer. I'm open to discussion of individual edits; nobody WP:OWNs this article, so its development should proceed through the normal WP:BRD process. Chris Cunningham 11:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept that nobody owns an article, but that doesn't mean to say that all changes are for the better. As I have a massive interest in Villa and its history and have been an avid fan my whole life, I think the changes you have made are not constructive. The point of "Pheonix from the flames" refers to the fact that Villa went from the Third Division to European Champions in a decade - but I accept it might be a bit cheesy. That's no reason to replace all the subheadings with undiscriptive date ranges Villafanuk 13:08, 22 March 2007

There are too many sub-headers, and they shouldn't have creative names at all. Please come up with a different set of headers. And please stop reverting a huge amount of non-controversial copy-editing in the process. I've put this back until the headers can be re-worked, which is only a minor part of the edit history. Chris Cunningham 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it could be argued (very tongue in cheek here) that Villa fans shouldn't edit the article due to WP:COI... Gretnagod 15:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been requested to have a look at this developing edit war going on here and I think what some are failing to recognise (not naming names) is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. This should provide factual information from a neutral point of view.

I admit that I'm a Villa fan myself and Villa does have a proud history but VillafanUK's edits are from a point of view, albeit subtle. I think the date headings would be best, therefore, as they provide a timeline of sorts into the history of the club. Putting headings such as 'Phoenix from the flames' is controversial and many would like to argue over it. - Erebus555 16:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm obviously aware that wikipedia must present a balanced neutral point of view. As the writer of a vast majority of the article as it now stands including most of the history section, I would like to argue that the dates suggested by User:Thumperward are not at all representative of notable eras in Villa's history and show a lack of knowledge. They do not give the reader an overview of the era. (eg '1920 - 1950' - in which time Villa won 1 FA Cup. Doesn't tell us anything!) Perhaps a compromise of Headings with dates could be reached. What do you think?

I think he has a point about the 'Pheonix from the flames' heading which I have replaced. However, this was not trying to fill the article with 'magazine style fluff' - it was meant to give the reader an introduction to an era in which Villa miraculously rose from the Third division to become European Champions. I think my headings give more of a timeline of the club than dates that don't even fit an era of history at the club. Villafanuk 20:51, 22 March 2007

More citations needed

This article is woefully short of citations. I've just added a "citation needed" tag to the record transfer fees section, for a start. Also - and I've asked this before - what makes a player notable? Who decides? That section runs completely against WP:NPOV. To keep the article shorter, and more encyclopedic, perhaps it would be worth using Liverpool FC's method and linking to a list of players with over 100 appearances for the club? Just a thought. Gretnagod 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Think you are right about the need for extensive citations - as you can appreciate this is a big task and I will try to make a start on it ASAP. Villafanuk 21:11, 22 March 2007

Article Length

This article well exceeds the recommended length. This might explain why sometines the article does not appear in Google searches as mentioned above. Have transferred some info to Aston Villa F.C. statistics but article still remains very long Djln--Djln 03:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Club History

To shorten the article, I propose the creation of a separate History of Aston Villa article. I will begin this process this week, if there are no serious objections Superlinus 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea - the history of Villa is the major part of what Aston Villa is. What good reasons do you have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.166.148 (talk • contribs)

Looking around at other clubs' pages - particularly those who have made Recommended Article status, it seems to be somethin they've done. The history section wouldn't be erased altogether - rather there'd be one or two paragraphs covering the general history of the club - formation, highlights, etc - and a link to a more in-depth page. Sunderland AFC's page is a good example Superlinus 16:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be split (if anything, the Sunderland article keeps too much of the history on the main page) - but please make sure there's a copy of the infobox on each page, using {{AVFC-infobox}}. Andy Mabbett 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That infobox is a bad idea, not least because it probably breaches fair use policy (which disallows fair use images like the club crest in templates). It has been nominated for deletion, comments welcome. Qwghlm 08:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it does breach FU; which says "This is a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright and/or trademark. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Andy Mabbett 11:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

From the fair use policy: 9. Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. With reagards to the history section,I wouldn't split it until it is thoroughly referenced, otherwise referencing work will need to be duplicated. Oldelpaso 20:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the policy needs to be changed to allow this reasonable use. I've raised the issue at Use in templates. Andy Mabbett 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its a good idea but as long as you keep sub headings to break up the history! (Everlast1910 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

I have copied everything over to the History of Aston Villa page. Just needs someone to trim it down on the main page. (Everlast1910 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Is anyone willing to trim the article down? (Everlast1910 11:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Began working on it this morning - hopefully have it done in the next couple of days. Cutting a lot out! Superlinus 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has the history section been split? The history section as been split as we are trying to get this article to FA status and there is too much history on the main page! So i copied it over onto to sections NOTHING has been deleted, then we are going to put a brief history on the main page! (Everlast1910 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

I can understand that - but what I meant was why has the history been split into two separate pages - (1874-1966) and (1967-present)? Wouldnt it be more cohesive to view the history of the club on one page?

As part of the Peer Review to get this article up to FA status we need to trim the history down and it was advised seen as there is so much! Split it into two like Arsenal's then we can add more on each page into two, its still a work in progress but will look good and meet the criteria when done! (Everlast1910 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

New Badge

I have put the new badge in if there is anything you want to change move or delete feel free. (Everlast1910 13:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Triva

I have now incorporated the trivia section into the main article (Everlast1910 11:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

---

Recent Events

A quick suggestion - as the article is long, perhaps we should (in addition to using the History of Aston Villa page) replace the "Recent Events" section and use it specifically for the takeover (and add a cut-down version of the recent events to "Villa in the Premiership"). The takeover, after all, is a very significant part of the article. A lot of the info wouldn't be needed (i.e., the absolute specific details of the takeover), so the section would be a lot shorter anyway. Just an idea. Team nath 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A good one I think! It's always tempting to put too much emphasis on recent events without putting them in the perspective of the club's history.

---

removed vandal attempt (i think) by editing and going to undo:. vandal entry was for a gym, been removed from three lcoations. --UKbandit 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Clean-ups

The article on the Second City Derby needs a cleanup - especially with the two sides meeting again next season. Anyone feel they can take it on?

So does the William McGregor article.

Recent wholesale changes

Rewritten History section

I have made a summary of the Club History as requested by the Peer Review on several occasions. I have put it on my sandbox so that everyone can preview it before putting it on the main Aston Villa page in a few days. Any comments are welcome. Woodym555 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

New managers table and section movement

I have put the history section into the main text. I have also created a new table for the Managers section that i think flows a lot better, the separate tables were bad on the eye but the new table is what Arsenal F.C. and other Football FA use. I have moved some sections around for the same reason, to bring it in line with other articles and to help it to reach GA and FA status sometime soon. I will put a new table for the List of Aston Villa F.C. players and also for the captains if and when i can get around to it. I also think that in line with other FA articles the "In popular culture section needs to be turned into prose and moved up near t the main body of text. Woodym555 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dates & dashes

En dashes should be used in scorelines and full dates should be wikilinked, including in the footnotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Epbr123 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments

• Lead section is short. For a club with 110+ years of history, the lead can have more data. Also, as per guidelines, the lead section needs to stand on it's own in describing the article. I don't think this one will meet that requirement.
  • Done, made into a correct lead summary
    • While i am OK with the current effort for GA, i think you need to really expand on the lead section for FA.
• From 1874, you jumped to 1887 - anything intersting about these 13 years?
  • As noted on your talk page this is not a comprehensive history. The subsections do that.
• I have added "FACT" tag wherever i think references are required in the history section
  • Done, replaced all fact tags
    • Note: There are places within a single para where various sentences point to the same reference (For eg: With mounting debts and Villa lying at the bottom of Division Two; the board sacked Cummings and within weeks the entire board resigned due to overwhelming pressure from fans.[14] After much speculation, control of the club was bought by London financier Pat Matthews who also brought in Doug Ellis as chairman.[14] New ownership though could not prevent Villa being relegated to the Third Division for the first time in 1971.[14] They returned to the second division as Champions the following year and they continued to rise all the way into the First Division and Europe in 1977.[14]). In such a case, one reference, at the end of the para is sufficient. Please make the necessary modification.DoneWoodym555 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• "It would be a number of years before it was officially known as Villa Park" - is there a year in which this stadium started to be called Villa Park
  • Not Done as the answer is no. The usage simply evolved amongst fans. I am sure there is a tme when the official name was first used but this is most likely a small insignificant document somewhere. There was certainly no official renaming. see [1]
    • Fair enough. Can you add that bit in the article (about how the fans were instrumental in calling it Villa park, a name that was later adopted!). Also, i must confess that i am just a casual fan of football and hence might not know these details.
• "the most famous and successful club in world football" - ain't this POV?
  • Done, yes it is, it was not originally so, i must have missed the edit! I have added qualifier and referenced it
• "many careers were finished due to the conflict" - please re-word
  • Done, reworded and qualified
• "The late 1960s saw a period of turmoil at the club." - violates Show, don't tell policy
  • Done, qualified statement
• ", (after falling out with the chairman)," either retain the "( )" or the "," - not both
  • Done, removed brackets
• "though Villa went through several managers" - please provide exact number
  • Done, added in correct number
• As per wikipedia guidelines, the reference is added right after a punctation and there is no space between the reference and the punctuation. please check as this guideline seem to be missed in a lot of places. For eg: " being Everton, (104). [29] As "
  • Done, copyedited and changed affected references
• Please add at least a stub article for current players on reserve (while it doesn't affect the GA nom, will do good without these redlinks)
  • WILL DO, many would most likely breach notability guidelines though. I will add those applicable when i can.
    • Nope, they won't breach notability guideline. Every player who is drafted in American football has a wikipage, even if he doesn't make the final team. When someone makes the sub. bench, i am assuming it is a place that an average-joe on road is not going to make it. however, as i said - this is only for FA and not for GA.
      • All of these articles have been deleted in the past. They all still fail WP:BIO as they have not palyed in the senior team nor have they played in any cup winning team. As such at this time i am reluctant to create stubs for them. Woodym555 11:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• In the subsections, list of captains, managers and notable players - provide atleast a para that describes the main article
  • Not Done, other Football featured articles do not, it is a list, not much more explanation needed
    • I don't agree with that but will go with the current content/state of article.
• "Aston Villa Hall of Fame" - when was this started? what is the selection process? years in which these players were inducted?
  • Done, added requested information
• "English Football Hall of Fame" - when was Danny Blanchflower nominated to English Football HOF. Also, it surprises me that Mr. Blanchflower amde it to EF HOF but has no place in the club HOF
  • Done (sort of), as per your talk page English football is weird like that, i have added link to English National Hall of Fame and induction date though
    • Fair enough.

Please address these comments and revert back on my talk page and i shall be glad to re-review the article for GA. --Kalyan 18:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added replies in bold. Woodym555 21:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of issues left to be resolved but these don't influence the data and hence moving to GA. All unaddressed comments are left unstricken and hence will be useful when reviewing this article for FAC. --Kalyan 16:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference format

I have reverted to the {{reflist|2}} format for the references section because the scroll box is disliked amongst many FA reviewers and experienced editors. see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Malakand for a debate on the issue. The consensus on that FA nom was to remove this format and as such i have implemented this on this page. Thankyou. Woodym555 16:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous supporters

I have removed the famous supporters section because of concerns raised in the last peer review. It states Get rid of the Famous supporters section. A celebrity's support for Villa has no effect upon the club, if a person's support for Villa is truly notable it should be included in their article, not Villa's. This information should be included in their articles and not the main Aston Villa one. Thankyou for your contribution though Woodym555 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Honours

The Honours section has seen a rapid expansion of the number of "minor honours" recently. In my opinion these honours are not notable enough to mention on the main page. They are not listed under the AVFC honours page (link[2]) and are currently unreferenced. What do other editors think? thanks Woodym555 14:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to my earlier comment i have now moved the minor honours over to the Aston Villa F.C. statistics page. I have left a comment on the editors talk page. Any comment is still of course most welcome. Thanks Woodym555 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Transfers

I have deleted the section entitled transfers because of several concerns. As per WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot predict future events, as such the transfer rumours section was not viable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a rumour mill. The Aston Villa main page is a summary of many other articles as per WP:SUMMARY and as such should not go into excessive detail on Randy Lerner's signings. This also goes against WP:RECENT as it places too much bias on current events. This information belongs in the History of Aston Villa (1967-Present) page under Randy Lerner or under a new heading 2007/08. Any questions can be left here or on my talk page. Thanks Woodym555 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the new transfer section that has recently been added is of a better quality and in no way speculative than the last one that i have deleted, i feel it neccessary to delete the new section. As per a discussion on the football wikiproject it should be deleted. This goes against WP:RECENT in that it will be non-notable in a few months. At the end of the season will this really need to be here? We already have Wikinews for news related articles. At the closing of the window this could be added to the "2007/08 Aston Villa Season article" but not here. Thanks Woodym555 14:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason i added it was i was looking at FA's at Everton had it and thought it might be a nice addition but if its against the FAC then thats fine with me (Everlast1910 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC))