Talk:Havant & Waterlooville F.C.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The article on Havant & Waterlooville F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the WikiProject on non-League football. |
 |
This article is supported by the England task force. |
Contents |
[edit] A note on British English
British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Havant and waterlooville.png
Image:Havant and waterlooville.png 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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FA Cup
A section on the FA Cup shock draw against Swansea, should be added. BUT, be sure to watch for NPOV if you do... WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.☆ 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've added a table showing all their games in the FA cup and their journey. Hope its ok! Oliwestham Fancy a chat? 17:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Or not, as its mysteriously disappeared Oliwestham Fancy a chat? 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RECENTISM is why its been removed. D.M.N. (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think the table should be readded, the F.A. cup run is likely to have more historical significance than the members of the current squad (currently included). The press may bring up this run periodically (as they do with other memorable cup runs by non-league teams), it is unlikely that the main stream press will ever bring up the squad. Guest9999 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RECENTISM is why its been removed. D.M.N. (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Or not, as its mysteriously disappeared Oliwestham Fancy a chat? 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Guest9999: To your comment above, the BBC Sports site on bbc.co.uk did bring up their squad, the in fact gave some interesting details about it. [1] Govvy (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I realise the squad will have been reported on now due to the recent event that involved it. However I don't think that the members of this current squad will be reported on again in the future, whereas the cup run could become a perennial mention anytime any small club comes up against a big team in the cup. Guest9999 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the current history is clear enough. It's not even in chronological order. Do you lot not think that it should be in chronological order? Govvy (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Guest9999: To your comment above, the BBC Sports site on bbc.co.uk did bring up their squad, the in fact gave some interesting details about it. [1] Govvy (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I included a table for the Cup run as a means to show the increasing difficulty of the sides Havant & Waterlooville were facing. It was merely there for information purposes and in my opinion was quite interesting to look at. Oliwestham Fancy a chat? 15:30 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent events???
The fact that a team from Conference South beat the team leading League 1 and made it to the Fourth Round of the FA Cup *is* relevant from a historical perspective. There is even a specific Wikipedia page for teams from lower divisions that beat teams from the top flight or second flight, and few would argue that there's much of a difference between a team from the lower half of the second flight and the team leading the third flight. Ten years from now it will still be relevant that Havant and Waterlooville FC beat League One leaders Swansea in the 3rd round of the FA Cup to play Liverpool in the 4th, so it is absurd to remove all references to that victory saying it is "slanted towards recent events" and not appropriately "historic." 68.45.106.216 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merger
Can someone provide details of the merger, such as the reasons that led to it? This is a big gap between the history of the former teams that is written and the history of the current merged club. Mikedux (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
