Talk:Newcastle United F.C./Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

History Section

This is a complete mess. I don't know who did it. But it starts before the contents. Has the contents in the middle. Then a quote box, with a quote that extends beyond the edges of the page, making the page more than 10 times as wide as before. Then the history section is normal again.Morstar (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NUFC Fan sites =

I don't think it is fair that seconds after making an addition of a popular NUFC fan site, the whole section then disappeared.

Why is it not OK for NUFC fan sites to be listed, but wiki pages on many other clubs can have this?

I'm putting it back.

If someone can give me a good reason for this, then I'm all ears --Tom NUFC 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) i think we will be in the finish in the top ten this season —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betteridge (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Players released at the end of the 2007 season

5 players were released on may 16th from the club

Record For Joe Harvey & Kevin Keegan

Somebody should add upp the number of games played, then add up games won, drawn and lost.

I've put the records down for all the managers now, as well as their start and finsh dates. Bababoum 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed section on Europe

Not really needed for the main article. Perhaps it could fit into a new article such as Newcastle United F.C. Seasons or Newcastle United F.C. in Europe. I've left the article below to maintain it and so it can be extended before being added to a more suitable article. Bababoum 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Europe section

I've transferred the info needed to Newcastle United F.C. season 2006-07. Sir-Nobby 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Intertoto Cup winner 2006

We have to define what meaning of UEFA Intertoto Cup winner is.

There is two winners, Third Round winner and overall winner. The overall winner of UEFA Intertoto Cup 2006 is Newcastle.

Shall we discuss now.

Before a decision was made, the overall winner of UEFA Intertoto Cup 2006 still be here.

KyleRGiggs 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused - going by the explanation at the UEFA site, the competition ends after the third round, so there doesn't seem to be an official "overall winner". Unless I'm missing something and UEFA has a formula for picking one winner out of the eleven, to declare an overall winner is arbitrary and POV. Ytny (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No they have been awarded the trophy for 2006 - see the official UEFA confirmation. It's the first time UEFA have done this - the team that gets furthest in the UEFA Cup from the Intertoto entrants is declared 'winner'. Qwghlm 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that. I was confused with the format change - back then, they were all winners! --Ytny (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You have still not answer the question - What the definition of UEFA Intertoto Cup shown in wikipedia is. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 06:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is why UEFA Intertoto Cup doesn't hold a final. Because the overall winner is not decided in the third round. So Third round is not the final. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I found the article in the regulation of UEFA Intertoto Cup 2006

2.01 The clubs which qualify for the second qualifying round of the UEFA Cup and which subsequently go furthest in the competition each recieve a UEFA Intertoto Cup trophy.

That's it. So Newcastle is the UEFA Intertoto Cup trophy holder, but uefa.com made 11 winners sometimes. It let me confused of which winner should be declared. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 07:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The link you supply there clearly says Newcastle were the club awarded the trophy outright (end of third paragraph), so they are the overall winner out of the eleven "winners" at the trophy's end. I don't see where the confusion lies. Wikipedia doesn't get to define who the winner is (that would be original research), it can only report what UEFA has declared, and in this case Newcastle are the trophy-holders. Qwghlm 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, UEFA made double-standard. At the fourth paragraph, 11 winners shown! So how should we put the honour. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

New manager....not.

Er. Ryan ward ISNT our manager. So i er. changed it back to Glenn. Is there anyway we can stop idiots changing that kind of info?

Recentism

IMO there is way too much information on recent times, which in the overall history of the club hasn't been that notable. Lets get it trimmed to the essentials. - Daddy Kindsoul 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Bababoum 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright I cropped it down to the essentials, but some anonymous genius keeps undoing it. - The Daddy 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you reverted it back to your version? Sir-Nobby 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gleneth

Chaps - roeder will be gone by the end of the week, or tomorrow cos of result tonight (Freddy was desperate they lose tonight). But, the plan was by "the end of this week" (some email seen) - but it should come sooner. So this has impact on future of this article - when it happens use good sources and citations to report matter as per wiki guidelines. Whataboutbob 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Transfers - speculation v fact

There's been a lot of speculative editing recently of the squadlist, based on transfer rumours and not fact. This is a request to all editors to please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so changes the squadlist should only be made after confirmation of a move by a reliable source. Rumours you heard down the pub, read on the internet or heard on Metro are not reliable sources. Unverified changes are only going to be reverted, so please save everyone the bother and wait until the move is confirmed before making an edit. DrFrench 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


External Link Discussion NUFCpro.com

Discussions with users on this site regarding the inclusion of the website NUFCpro.com to the Newcastle United page has led to the idea to discuss the inclusion of it on wikipedia here.

The purpose of the site that is Different to the others listed is to mainly bring News from various sources in one place and for users to Interact with other users in the way of Discussing News Within The News Story, Rating News As Good Or Bad, Discussion Forums for further discussion, Submission Of News And Rumours By Users and so much more, basically its a Highly Interactive Website not just a 'read the page' site.

It's not just a news site and its not just a fan site, its a mix with full interaction.

Discuss. —The preceding comment is by Gremlinprince (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC): Please sign your posts!

You seem quite keen on including a link to this site. Do you have any connection with it, or the people who run it? Sites like nufc.com have become noteworthy as a reliable source of quality material (in fact it's even noteworthy enough to merit its own article on Wikipedia) and thus deserve a link. To be honest I don't see anything particularly noteworthy or unique about nufcpro.com to merit inclusion. DrFrench 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Interaction is the reason its different DrFrench if you read the post! It has news, interaction, stats etc, but if you actually looked at the site you would know this already.
You seem keen for it not to be included yourself... if this does not get included on here thats fine its getting advertised in many publications shortly to increase awareness of the website anyway with readership of over 200,000+ people.
Though I'm lost as to why you seem to be the decider of what goes here and what doesn't.gremlinprince
Nobody has decided anything, DrFrench is simply stating his opinion which is the whole point of a discussion - there's really no need for you to react so defensively. You state interaction as the reason for inclusion, but I just don't see how this is of benefit to Wikipedia. Also, your statement "if this does not get included on here thats fine its getting advertised in many publications shortly to increase awareness of the website anyway..." suggests that your main reason for wanting a link in the article is simply to promote the site, which is against Wikipedia policy. Of course, if you'd looked at WP:LINKS, you would know this already. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Barton/Luque

There has been no confirmation that Joey Barton has the no 7 shirt so please stop saying it is so Lewisbell 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the report from the Chronicle: [1]. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

that is not "official" only when is surfaces from club itself is it worthy to put in the article Lewisbell 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sambarton0707yo9.jpg

I'm pretty sure he's got it, look at the picture, looks like a number 7 to me. Also, the people who took the photos confirmed it.(BigHouse08 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Still that is not the official word, you may be jumping the gun a little bit 84.13.20.151 06:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's not official, but there's almost no way he doesn't have it. I didn't edit it by the way, I was just pointing it out. (BigHouse08 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

History Section

This is in real need of a clean-up. As stated before there is a lot of recentism in it with the inclusion of ultimately quite insignificant events that happened last season. There are also signs of POV and a lot of citations needed. Improving this section should be the focus for the article because the rest is rather good. Sir-Nobby 22:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

crest

the crest is wrong, i uploaded the real crest today but it has been changed back -why?

now its back again

Deco

Newcastle has not signed Deco. There has been speculation, but it is just that. Deco hasn't even been reported as a target of Big Sam for at least two weeks. The change has been made. Asnoel 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Harper's Number

I notice on the official website, Harper has been allocated two different numbers.

In the 2007-07 squad numbers link, he has 13. [2]

Whilst, in the profiles section, he is listed under 12 [3]

Can anyone confirm which he has? I think he wore 13 in a friendly, but am not sure

Sammayel 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Harper is 13 this season, the squad numbers were released by the club a while ago, but the "official" site is quite possibly the worst source of information (propaganda) available. He has been wearing 13 all pre-season.Toon 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankds, thats what I thought :). He had 12 before this season yeah? Sammayel 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he was 12 last few seasons but he has had 13 for all the preseason matches. I also agree that the site is probably the worst in the premiership. Nufc2006 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alan Smith

Smith hasn't agreed to personal terms, so how is he on the squad and number 17? Shouldn't be up there until it's official. (BigHouse08 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

He has now :) Nufc2006 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice opener he had too. :) (BigHouse08 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Footnotes / links

I noticed that some of the footnotes in this article are incorrect EG number 3 should be a note about Newcastles historic success, but goes to a note about something else. I'm not sure how to tidy these up. Anyone fancy it?


It does take you to an article about the historic success - its just in the first paragraph Sammayel 04:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Captain

Am I correct in assuming that there has been no official announcement of a season captain yet? I expect Geremi will be captain vs Bolton, but considering the number of players absent from that lineup, can we assume he will keep it? Sammayel 11:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been announced as captain for the season. See here. Mattythewhite 11:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Away kit template

Why can't I see the away shirt (adidas snake black) body? All I see is a thin blue stripe where it should be. The only place I can see it is here. I can see all other kit templates properly, but not this one (or the snake blue design either). I'm assuming no-one else is having this problem since no-one has mentioned it or reverted. Does anyone know what might be causing this? Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Having made the template I can say that it comes acroos fine on my computer :). However, when viewed on a computer with IE6 it did not seem to work properly. Sammayel 00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags

I'm going to put a lot of citation tags on the article where needed, a lot of it may seem meanial, but having put Juventus F.C. up for a peer review and a couple of other articles, this is generally the kind of thing that needs to be done to get the article for consideration under good article or even featured. - The Daddy 10:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Squad Top Scorers

I have moved this from the main page to here. I personally am thinking that its a bit of an overkill to include this (particularly to a depth of ten) when half of the players on there have single figure goals for the club.

However, the reason for the move is that it needs to be updated constantly to reflect current events, and that does not seem hugely relevent to the general tone of the article.

Of course, if general consensus is that it be relocated back onto the page, I just hope someone else can work out who the new 10th place person is after Dyer's move

I was the person who included the table, can anyone think of a better place for it? I think it is relevant to be included as I'm sure many supporters would be interested in these statistics, and it is hard to find them anywhere else. Your point about needing constant updating is not really relevant, as it only needs updating at most once every 3 days, for only 9 months of the year, and again, I'm sure there are many fans who would update the table straight after matches. MJCamp01 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The information is more or less already included in the players articles. Mattythewhite 13:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The information on goals scored in the individual player profiles is inconsistant in such that it has no guidance as to which goals are included in the score, and also means that anyone who wants to know the information in this table would have to search every one of the players profiles, this table is accurate, with information sourced from the official club website and due to its layout, only goals scored this season need to be updated, I definately think it should be included, but where? MJCamp01 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It might be better to have a separate page for Newcastle leaders and records, with current-roster and all time leaders in major statistics (appearances, goals, cards, saves, etc). Might be worth making a template for the Football WikiProject. I can do it if there's any interest. Simianvector 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea Simianvector,do it! MJCamp01 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Current Squad Top Scorers

As of December 29, 2007.[1]

Name Pre 2006-2007 2006-2007 2007-2008 Total
1 Shola Ameobi 41 5 0 46
2 Obafemi Martins 0 17 7 24
3' Michael Owen 7 0 3 10
3' James Milner 4 4 2 10
5 Charles N'Zogbia 6 0 3 9
6 Belozoglu Emre 2 3 1 6
7' Mark Viduka 0 0 5 5
7' Steven Taylor 0 4 1 5
9 Nicky Butt 1 1 2 4
10' Joey Barton 0 0 1 1
10' Habib Beye 0 0 1 1
10' Caçapa 0 0 1 1
10' Damien Duff 0 1 0 1
10' David Edgar 0 1 0 1
10' Stephen Carr 1 0 0 1

Note: This table includes goals scored for NUFC in competitive League Matches, Domestic Cups and European Competitions

Removal of discussion sections

I feel that there are a lot of sections in this discussion forum that are past the point of usefulness and should be deleted, anyone agree? The sections I mean are:

New manager...not, Recentism, Gleneth, Barton/Luque, Crest, Deco, Harpers Number, Alan Smith, and Captain.

If anyone has a problem with these sections being deleted, list the one you want to keep here, otherwise I shall delete the sections listed in 24 hours time. MJCamp01 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're supposed to delete stuff from talk pages, it would probably be better to archive the page. Dbam Talk/Contributions 09:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, deletion isn't the way to go; but I agree there's a lot of discussion which is over. Archive if necessary, all of discussion up to "Citation Tags" I'd say. Toon 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There's already one archive here (though the "there is an archive" box appears to have gone missing from this talkpage). See WP:ARCHIVE for the procedure to create another one (if nobody gets round to it in a week or so, and there are no objections, I'll do it). Tonywalton  | Talk 09:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I put the archive box back, at least. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protection

The Newcastle United page has been subjected to ALOT of vandalism over the past few days, and also in the past, I suggest that the page should be placed under wikipedia semi protection, which stops users who are not logged in to with wikipedia from editing the main page, other users can still edit the talk page, or register to edit the main page.

What do other think of this idea? Does anyone know how you do this? MJCamp01 21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 Note: I have discovered how to, and requested semi-protection for the main page to stop
 random vandals, I hope no-one has a problem with this. 172.216.170.172 22:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Barcodes"

I notice NUFC's postmodern nickname isn't mentioned in the article. Sure, it seems to be used as less than endearing term used by supporters of other teams, but it seems to be used enough to deserve a mention. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's properly cited, I don't see why not. It would probably best to mention it in the rivalries paragraph in the "Supporters" section, if anywhere, since it does seem to be used only by opposition fans. I don't think it would be appropriate to include it in the lead or infobox, though. Dbam Talk/Contributions 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links section

The external links section is starting to get ridiculous again. I think that only official and news (eg. BBC, Sky Sports, etc.) sites should be used. Any unofficial sites should be used only as references, as long as they are considered to be reliable sources. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick-failed "good article" nomination

Per the Good Article quick-fail criteria, any article with multiple {{fact}} tags, such as this one, must be failed forthwith and without an in-depth review. I count four fact tags, all correctly placed. There are also other major issues with attribution, including large chunks of text without inline citations and even cites that give an error message (i.e. are empty, so they verify nothing). Once the issues brought up by these templates have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)