Talk:Histon F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

	English football Portal The article on Histon 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.

Home strip is out of date. Histon currently play in a red shirt with white trim and black shorts.

Contents 1 Recent Editions 2 Nathan Evans? 3 R.E Nathan Evans 4 Avoid fluffy language 5 R.E Avoid fluffy language 6 Lance Key... 7 Trying to improve 8 Colours & badge 9 Jack Midson 10 Histon Institute tag 11 Info regarding the end of Histon's 07/08 season

[edit] Recent Editions

Added Club Honours, Previous Seasons & Current Squad. But Current Squad table needs filling in. Feel free to edit. Poiuytre 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Evans?

User Shrewsberry02-- whose edits on this page are identical to those of anonymous user 86.139.68.131-- has changed the name of the coach from "Steve Fallon" to "Nathan Evans". 86.139.68.131 also vandalised the November Deaths in 2006 page, saying that this Nathan Evans was dead. Furthermore, Shrewsberry02's other edit is very similiar to the Nathan Evans death vandalism.

These coincidences lead me to believe that Nathan Evans is _not_ coach of the Histon F.C.

But, to assume good faith-- I am certainly no expert on English Football teams, and there's a chance that the website could be out of date. Can anyone provide any proof that a Nathan Evans is head coach of Histon F. C.?

If not, I'm inclined to believe the website. [1]Anonymoustom 06:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R.E Nathan Evans

As a stute myself I can confirm that Nathan Evans is NOT Histon's manager and Steve Fallon is, I've added Club Info, Directions to the ground and put more onto the History section.

[edit] Avoid fluffy language

"And with plans in place to build a new away stand, the future looks bright for the 'Stutes'." - this is magazine feature-style editorialising/fluff, I don't believe it is of an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia ChrisTheDude 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R.E Avoid fluffy language

Dude, you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Anyone can edit any article, that's the whole point of the site. An official at the club cannot appoint you as the sole person eligible to edit the article (nor in fact did you need permission off him/her to edit it in the first place). I am perfectly at liberty to make any changes I see fit to this, or any other, article..... ChrisTheDude 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Key...

He has moved on and signed for Bury but still for some reason appears on Histon's homepage as a squad member. I have offcial conformation that Lance has been moved on and he is no longer part of our squad. Jazza5 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to improve

I'm trying to make improvements to this page, but my work is being repeatedly undone rather than re-edited in order to reach some kind of consensus. Here's some problems I'm having:

• According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs a club's colours and badge should be in a separate section, rather than in the introduction.
• 2007-08 marks Histon's first season in the Football Conference, the highest league they have ever reached. As a consequence, pretty much anything they do in this season will be "historic". If something is "historic" it should be self-evident and doesn't need pointing out as such.
• Details of the ground expansions related to the relocation of Cambridgeshire FA to the Glassworld stadium don't really need to mention things such as "Ladies' and gents' toilets" or "A new kitchen to supply fans with even more hot menus"

Dancarney 08:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok Dan, I agree with some of the points you pointed out there. The club crest and colours should be put in another section, and to a certain extent I agree with the point you made about the Ladies and Gents toilets in your reference to the 'Ground' section. But what I don't agree with is your problem about the history section. I was only stating that this is the highest league Histon have ever been in and that this a crucial part of the article as it tells the user of the article important information.

Jazza5 10:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As a starter, how about this as an opening paragraph?

Histon Football Club is an English football club based in the twin villages of Histon and Impington, approximately 5 kilometres (3 miles) north of Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. In the 2007-08 season they compete for the first time in the Conference National, after having won and been promoted from the Conference South in 2006-07, the highest level that the club has ever reached in the English football league system.

I think this outlines the relevant details in a suitable fashion. It shows that reaching this level is historic for the club in a neutral fashion. The term "historic" itself comes across, to me, a bit POV. Can we also agree that terms such as "drubbing" and "Conference giants" aren't very encyclopaedic? Dancarney 11:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with that Dan, I wasn't the one that put words like that in but I can see that "drubbing" is not an appropriate form of language to use in an encyclopaedic article. Your suggestion on a opening paragraph sums up brilliantly one of the most important bits of infomation in the article so go with it. What about the club crest and colours?

Jazza5 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Some useful additions to the History section. I've re-jigged it a bit to try and not have some Recent History after a previously mentioned season. Hopefully someone with more knowledge could fill out the 20th Century history a bit more I think there may be something in the mentioning about Histon mostly consisting of local players, but we could do with a citation. I'd forgotten to do anything about Colours & Crest, though. Dancarney 23:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah I've added that info to the History section as I thought I could give the Wikipedia community more information on the background of the club and such. Have enquired about information about when the club first started and who played for them but no reply back. Will update the article as soon as information is handed to me. Jazza5 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have, however, put the "citation needed" tags back on a couple of those statements. In order to say that the club "is labelled by many as a 'family club'" there must be some documented evidence, else it is unencyclopaedic. Perhaps the Cambridge Evening News website may have what you're trying to say. Dancarney 09:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give some clarification why I just undid what you classified as 'making more encyclopedic'. Firstly you have basically taken out everything which was put in. If you really disagree that it was encyclopedic then look at Cambridge United's article and compare some of the similarities on the history section. Jazza5 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've put that you undid without explanation. I missed this. Anyway, terms such as "Cambridge United legend" and "...heralded a tough couple of years for Histon." don't belong in an encyclopaedia. The Cambridge United F.C. is rated as Start-Class and so isn't a good guide. Manchester City F.C. and Everton F.C. are better ones to look at as they are Featured Articles. I'll have a proper look at Cambridge Utd. 86.6.3.116 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC) - seemed to be logged off here. Oops. Dancarney (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colours & badge

I've created this section so that the article follows the manual of style at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs but the work was undone (rather than edited). I will be putting this back unless anyone's got a good reason why I shouldn't. Dancarney (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But creating a whole new section for just two sentences doesn't really make any sense and would look much better still being included in the important info of the club at the top of the article. Jazza5 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the reasoning behind the club's crest is important enough to go in the opening section, though. I was also hoping that the new section could be expanded with a little about away kit(s) and whether there have been any times when the club has played in different colours. Dancarney (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I very much doubt many people would have known the fact about Chivers giving the club the field without it being highlighted in the opening paragraph. If you can give an example of a new section and it seems ok I'll go with it, but if not then the article is fine as it is. Jazza5 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if there's an explanation/link as to who/what Chivers is that might be helpful. Many people may not know why there's a tower in the Everton F.C. badge, but that's covered in a separate section rather than the intro in its page, which is a Featured Article. Dancarney (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then is this ok regarding the information about Chivers?

Chivers was a local company that provided conserves nationwide and during the mid 19th Century provided the country with its nationwide famous Jam. It was the company that owned most of the fields in and around Histon and gave most of it away to Histon F.C. but probably most notably to Impington Village College.

Just a suggestion that could be used in a possible new section. Jazza5 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks like the right kind of thing. Could probably do with a citation and then we can use it. Dancarney (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jazza5, I've just made a new section covering this, included a citation, and you've undone. Please make constructive edits rather than just undoing. We shouldn't have to put every little change to discussion.Dancarney (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor should you Dancarney constantly changing my edits on this article instantly after I've added new info. The article, is fine the way its going at the moment and complies with all the guidelines given out by WikiFootball. Jazza5 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing edits is fine, it's blind undoings that I have a problem with. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs for guidelines on Football Club page layout. Please note the "Colours and badge" section. So, can we agree that this section is required by the guidelines? The section I created explained the significance of the crest and the significance of Chivers, with a citation. Aside from that, the record crowd does not need to be included twice, and writing "Histon hosted their biggest ever crowd... ...making it the biggest crowd Bridge Road had ever seen" is repeating oneself. If you want to say the record crowd was achieved despite TV coverage you need some kind of citation showing that televisation generally depresses attendances. Perhaps the coverage increased interest? Dancarney (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok yeah, I'll do some research on that then. I will re-construct the sentence if I can't find any suitable citation showing that televised games usually show a decrease in Attendance. But I wasn't the one that included the cited sentance about the largest crowd in the ground section as well as the History section. You were. I only undid what I deemed appropriate in the first place and that was the fact about largest crowd in the 21st Century section which was removed. I will now remove the cited sentence in the 'Ground' section. Jazza5 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed add the sentence in the Ground section, which is why I removed it from the History section at the same time. This information regards the Ground, which is why I feel it should be in that section. If you want to put that in the History section then perhaps Histon's record attendance anywhere should be included too. Anyway, I've made that statement neutral whilst there are no citations regarding TV affecting the game's attendance. Even something like a comment from a local newspaper commenting on a surprisingly high turnout would be suitable. Can I now re-instate the colours & badge section or will you just undo it rather than constructively edit? Dancarney (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I only undo what you do, if I disagree about this actually making the article more efficient in the eyes of the WikiFootball guidelines. I still don't think there is sufficient information to fill a whole section on the colours and badge of Histon F.C. And for once maybe instead of me finding most of the information, why don't you do some trawling about looking for information? I will help in anyway I can, but to start a whole new section is messy and the article functions suitably at the moment. Jazza5 (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise in which the information I found and included in the last colours & badge section I created goes into the introduction paragraph? I am referring to the following:

Histon's crest features a rose, the flower representing the rose-covered field given to the club by local firm Chivers.^{[citation needed]} Chivers was a jam factory, and the major employer in Histon & Impington. The company's chairman, John Chivers, helped to found the Histon Institute in 1903, from where Histon F.C. has its origins.^[1] Histon play in red and black, their traditional colours, with red jerseys, black shorts and black socks. Their current away kit is sky blue shirts, royal blue shorts and sky blue socks.

I've already tried a bit of Google research on the rose-covered field, but haven't come with anything except for something on a Myspace page, which isn't really good enough. Dancarney (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, doesn't seem like a reliable source. But I don't see why that would needed to be cited, it isn't a debateable piece of information and it isn't controversial so as far as I can see that could be put in the article unless someone comes along to contest the information then I guess it would have to be cited. Yeah give it a go in the opening para and I will do some research. When I think I've got enough info with reliable cited sources, then I will post it back on here. Jazza5 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that looks really good in the main article. Constructively (like you asked) edited in my opinion the uneeded cited tag. Other than that though, great edit! Jazza5 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! I still think it needs a citation, though. A statement doesn't need to be controversial to require proper referencing. As Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia it should aim to include information that can be backed up from a reliable third-party source. Dancarney (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Midson

Dancarney, just wondering why you unconstructively undid the information I put on Histon 'supposedly' signed a player for a record fee, as I stated instead of re-editing or re-modelling. You yourself said that it would be more useful to constructively edit rather than to just undo. The article states that it was a signing with an undisclosed fee, hence why I put the word: supposedly into the article. I have put it back into the article and will stay there unless you can explain why you have taken this out when the article states it is a 'supposed' amount. Jazza5 (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the player signed for "an undisclosed fee", I don't understand how that can be extrapolated into a record fee without some explicit reference to this. Without such a statement it's just a player signing and not really worth commenting on as this is something unremarkable for a football club. The undisclosed fee is the only reference to money, and the word "supposed" doesn't even appear in the article. Dancarney (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it does...unless you can't read. Also just cited the information about it being a £10,000 pound signing. Jazza5 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Jazza, please don't be rude. To make sure we're not at crossed purposes, the article I am referring to is the Cambridge Evening News one that has been referenced. [2] This does not mention the fee's amount, nor does it state that any transfer record may or may not have been broken. Additionally, the statement that the moved was funded by the sale of Akurang is not backed up by the citation.[3] It states that he was sold to Barnet, but not for how much, nor does it tell us what Histon did with the fee received. On another subject, good work on the new photo. I think that the Bridge Road, Impington article would really benefit from having up-to-date images of all 4 sides of the ground. Do you think you might have these, or be able to take some next time you attend a game? Dancarney (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah can be done, already got a picture of the main stand, reckon it could fit into the Bridge Road, Impington article? Jazza5 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good move on the photo, and for putting it into Bridge Road, Impington. Do you think you have one a bit closer/more zoomed-in? You still haven't addressed my problems with the transfer references, though! Dancarney (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, have been really busy and to be honest, Wikipedia isn't high on my list of priorities! If you don't approve with it then either re-structure it so it doesn't need a citing or cite it. Also with reference to the mainstand/redgate stand picture, there is a home game tomorrow so if you want me to take a picture from a different angle or place then let me know. Cheers. Jazza5 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Histon Institute tag

Just thought I'd clarify why I undid the edit previously by Sarumio. Many teams have been established as clubs other than their names at the moment and this information doesn't need to be included in the infobox right at the top of the article. It has been mentioned in the 20th Century section and that is where it will stay for the time being. Jazza5 (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I was interested in this and had a look at all of the Premier League teams who started out under different names. Arsenal, Birmingham, Bolton, Everton, Fulham, Man City, Man Utd, Spurs and West Ham all have the club's name at time of founding in the infobox (the others have never changed name). This suggests a precedent, and the Histon article should probably follow suit. Dancarney (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Info regarding the end of Histon's 07/08 season

I have deliberately re-edited and put back in some of the info which was removed due to it being of particular historical importance in Histon's 21st Century History. Neil Kennedy is the highest goal-scorer ever for Histon as stated in the article and I feel that it is indeed relevant to put what was the date of his testimonial and who he played his last game against. Thanks...Jazza5 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If such a thing were important then you would see equivalent details regarding Dixie Dean on the Everton page, Thierry Henry on the Arsenal page, Billy Walker on the Aston Villa page, etc. but you don't. It should only really be included on an individual's page. Even Niall Quinn's testimonial, in which he famously gave away the proceeds, is not mentioned on the Sunderland page as it is not noteworthy for the club's article. It also smacks of recentism - there is no mention of who the previous record-holder was, for example. Dancarney (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok yep, I will re-edit the last bit of the 21st Century section as I can now see that it wouldn't be appropriate. Jazza5 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Would just like to clarify why I have taken action on Dancarney's recent edit and why I put details about the date of Neil Kennedy's and Ossie Mintus' appointment as resrve team manager in the reserve section. If you have a look at the Liverpool reserves article it clearly states that Roy Evans was the manager in 2006 and I deemed it necessary that therefore that the Histon article should follow suit and be included in the Histon reserve side section. Next time can you not unconstructively remove information in the article when it complies with wikipedia guidelines and discuss it on the talkpage first. Much appreciated. Jazza5 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Jazza, please assume that edits are made in good faith. Small, uncontroversial changes don't really need to be discussed on a talk page, unless some kind of edit war breaks out. I think a good idea would be to put this article up for peer review, which should hopefully iron out any disagreements on tone, relevance, etc, etc.Dancarney (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Dancarney you have misenterpreted what I was saying. I wasn't denying in any shape or form that your edits were in good faith, I was merely highlighting the constant edits instantly after I've made any. In the interests of the article I think my edits help and any edits you do make could be explained on here instead of straight away re-structuring it like you do. Yes not all edits should be discussed, but MOST should and I think editing always after I've made mine slightly undermines my work. Thank you for your input but I think the information was fine how it was. I am glad to see that you have altered it so now the date is included. Thank you, much appreciated. Jazza5 (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, most edits don't need to be discussed. If that was the case nothing would ever get done on Wikipedia. I often edit after you've made changes as I have the article on my watchlist, and so I'll usually have a look at what changes have been made, and make any amendments I believe to be necessary. I do this because I am concerned that though your contributions are usually accurate and well-intentioned I get the impression that they can tend towards POV, placing more worth on recent events at Histon F.C. than perhaps warrant mentioning - in my opinion, of course! This is particularly the case as I notice from your contributions page that almost all of your editing is concentrated on Histon F.C. and related topics. Anyway, I will put the article up for peer review so that other editors may help sort out the various niggling disagreements we've been having. Dancarney (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)