Talk:Scarborough Athletic F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Scarborough Athletic 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-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.
Yorkshire
Portal
Scarborough Athletic F.C. is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's assessment scale.
Please provide a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Low This article has been rated as Low-Priority on the Project's priority scale.

Contents

[edit] North Yorkshire

Like it or not, North Yorkshire is the correct administrative area, not the North Riding, and since this is an encyclopaedia we have to be factually correct. BlueValour 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough F.C.

This club is a new club, not a continuation of Scarborough F.C.. Consequently, any history of Scarborough F.C. in this article is not appropriate. Scarborough F.C. has its own article which is the correct place for its history. I have also removed the Italian reference which is a story about Leeds United - even less relevant! BlueValour 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

if they was not a continuation of the olds club then they would have started at the very bottom of the football leagues. but because they are a continuation of scarborough fc they are allowed to start two league systems down (NCEL).-- SalvoCalcio 10:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
F.C. United of Manchester and A.F.C. Wimbledon both started part way up the pyramid. Scarborough Athletic FC are a different club from Scarborough FC, legally and in the eyes of the football authorities, and play in a different league, at a different ground with different management and different players. If you can add any official source that say they are the same club please do but until then please do not continue to add irrelevant information. Also adding a reference to an Italian article on Leeds United constitutes vandalism. Please desist. BlueValour 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me also draw your attention to this statement from their trust here which says "All of us at Seadog Trust would like to express their thanks to Ian Scobbie for his efforts to save Scarborough FC and his continuing commitment to football in Scarborough but we feel that a new club owned by fans is the best, if not only way forward." (my bold). BlueValour 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
it is a continuation of the old club's legacy and it warrants a mention, the Wimbledon & Manchester situations are difference cause the older clubs still exist.
"We will be able to get a side together and the players will all have to roll their sleeves up and be aware that although Scarborough Athletic is new club they still carry the name of Scarborough. It's a big club with a big name and teams will raise their game to beat us."[1]
what has Scarborough Athletic done to assert itself as a "big club" if it was an entirely separate entity? nothing, yet they're making the association to the old club and they're formed by the supporters trust of that club. They're not some new people who have just come to the town and have no association with Scarborough FC. they even have the same colours, same nickname, same motto and even the same crest[2] for godsakes. medias articles such as the BBC mention it as a "rebirth" not just a "birth"[3].
oh and the content of the link was change to a different topic by the website after i'd put it there so its not "vandalism" you blanking part of the clubs past is though. -SalvoCalcio 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As a compromise I have established a new background section to demonstrate why this club came into being. BlueValour 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

why did you blank their logo, which is shown on scarboroughathletic.com? (the one also used by the old team).--SalvoCalcio 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That was a mistake - it can go back. BlueValour 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

its ok, as i've put it back a while ago. but just for the sakes of discussion, as your opinion is that this club is nothing at all to do with the old one, how would you explain the use of the same logo, colours, motto, nickname, etc if they're unrelated? and the BBC stating explicitly "Scarborough Football Club, which went bust last week, is to be reborn under the name Scarborough Athletic."? Also on the official club website of Scarborough Athletic they have the history of Scarborough FC[4] as their own club history. --SalvoCalcio 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that AFC Wimbledon and FC United of Manchester are not the most similar cases, perhaps we ought to look at AFC Telford United and AFC Hornchurch for more recent and compatible cases. - fchd 15:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree; both those articles demonstrate how they came into being through the liquidation of the earlier club but have no other history. It is back now in the best agreed format - it should now remain as this pending agreement here on any changes. BlueValour 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

you agree? yet you just undid the whole thing anyway. nice try. you haven't even tried to discuss any of the points brought up above, you've just tried to ignore them and blanked vertified infos. a short one paragraph summarising what the old club did and its original founding date is not too much. especially as the official website of scaborough athletic carries the entire history of the older club.

as it is now is the compromise. if you'd rather start a whole new chapter of merging the two articles entirely, then we cans roll that ball. --SalvoCalcio 14:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i take it that by you completely ignoring the vertified points brought up above and lacking the conviction to even approach dicussing them, that you've "got nothin"?--SalvoCalcio 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chairman announcement, BlueValour can stop now

you can stop screwing with the article now thanks BlueValour. from the official website,[5] Just added yesterday, the chairman of the club stated clearly "we recognise that Scarborough Athletic represents a continuation of Scarborough FC"... that is as clear as day, black and white as you can get on the subject.

there you have it from the very horses mouth. the BBC was right, i was right... you were wrong, so just pack it in. vertified fact > the misguided opinion of some random guy on the net.--SalvoCalcio 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Casting insults at other editors doesn't help. My objection is that your editing is very bad. For example "Things started to go wrong for the original club in 1999 after they were relegated from The Football League. By 2006 they found themselves in the Conference North with spiraling finanical problems" is completely unsourced. You have also left the article in a disjointed form. I have added back the reference on the 'continuation' as a compromise though this is an attitude of mind not a legal status. Please leave things be. Bridgeplayer 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Casting insults? you're joking right. You clearly know nothing about the topic at all, so how about moving on to something you do know about instead. You're asking me to add citations for information which is common knowledge, while you vandalise the article and remove sourced information for more recent stuff sourced from the league website, the BBC and the chairman of the club? LOL.--SalvoCalcio 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

you asked for sources in those specific areas, american. they were added, yet you still continue to vandalise the article. got nothing better to do with your times?--SalvoCalcio 19:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You've got one "reliable source", the BBC, which as I've already shown on another news article treats them as a completely new club. The club's own website, by Wikipedia's own policies, is a Primary souce, so is not a reliable source. I don't see what you're getting at here. Consensus, except you, has been arrived at. One single editor's continuing insistence on the infallibility of his/her opinion is not contributing to the overall project. Your attitude, referring to all other edits as Vandalism, and accusing other editors of "raping the article" are also not the best way of gaining respect for your point of view. - fchd 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
And I've just seen on the Scarborough Athletic page anyway, the passage about the kits etc. - "The board of Seadog Trust have confirmed that the newly formed club Scarborough Athletic will be using the kits intended for use by Scarborough FC in the coming season." - note "NEWLY FORMED". Even the club itself is now admitting it. - fchd 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

yeaaaah, a source quoting what the chairman of this articles subject has stated on the club saying "we recognise that Scarborough Athletic represents a continuation of Scarborough FC"[6] is really not a "reliable source". a source directly from the league system itself is not a "realiable source". wake up. the defacement of those sources and infos which is goes with is clear vandalism.

I may remind you that wikipedia works on policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability not things that are against policy like "unvertified opinion" or "violative straw man , yes no vote without discussion", mine stance is heavily vertified. yours is not, though your only stances seems to be to de-link which leagues the club play in, in the info box (which you do overs many articles, rather weirdly).

the BBC, the chairman, the club, the league (all sourced) > you or any other internets superstar with an "unvertified opinion".--SalvoCalcio 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok,to take your points one by one.
1. The Scarborough Athletic Website is now saying on its homepage [7]"The board of Seadog Trust have confirmed that the newly formed club Scarborough Athletic..." - Verifiable. I don't like the inference in WP:RS about primary sources either, but there we are.
2. While the BBC maybe saying a continuation on one page, on another as I've clearly shown here, [8], is saying "Newly formed Scarborough Athletic..."
3. The Northern Counties East League web site, on it's home page, also includes the phrase "newly-formed club Scarborough Athletic", although this may be a direct quote from the Scarborough Athletic website article. But, deeper in on the club page on the League site, it does state "Formed 2007".
These are all verifiable. Nothing to do with "straw man arguments", "yes/no arguments" or anything else. Your stance is being whittled away from under you with every source found.
4. I do not de-link the leagues that clubs play in, only the divisions. Rather different. My stance is that the individual divisions of all leagues below the football league are non-notable, and there is no content in divisional articles that would not be better served in the main league articles. De-linking now will make it easier for me in the future when I get to the North East. This, however, is an arguement for another place and I would be happy to discuss this over at WP:FOOTBALL or the like. - unsigned by user:Richard Rundle

1. the chairman was quoted as saying "we recognise that Scarborough Athletic represents a continuation of Scarborough FC"[9] OK. you and some of your buddies seem to think you can just "pretend that didn't happen", but he said it, clearly, vertified, its there. you can try to skirt around it all you like son, but its still gonna be there clear as day.

its not as if i'm arguing for the two articles to be merged, just a short one paragraph of it summarising the level of the older version, which this club is specifically quoted as a "rebirth" and "continuation" of. a one paragraph league/cup history describing what happened in 100 years of their football is not too much at all.

2. the BBC is saying "rebirth", the chairman of the club is clearly saying "continuation" here[10]. done.

3. the NCEL leagues citation shows how the club takes on the same colours, crest, nickname, motto as the previous incarnation.. showing clearly how they are intertwined, this evidence was vandalised needlessly via blanking by an "unvertified opinionist".

as i said in the previous one, the BBC, the chairman, the club, the league (all sourced) > you or any other internets superstar with an "unvertified opinion". too bad, that is the policy of it.

4. the leagues and specific division which these teams play in have articles for them. you unliking them for no reason at all defeats the whole object of having articles for the divisions in the first place. very odd/suspect behaviour. it would be like somebody changing the Bradford City infobox to "The Football League Two" when the more specific one of "Football League Two" exists. its pointless and weird.--SalvoCalcio 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History - straw poll

In order to bring this squabble to the end I suggest that we simply put this to a vote. Please indicate if you think an extensive history of the earlier club is in order or whether the history should start with a description of the liquidation only. BlueValour 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia does not work on a straw man vote basis; the project is WP:NOT an experiment in democracy. it works on discussion of points, WP:V and various other policies. policies which you violat by refusing to fully partake in discussion of the article above, feel free to discuss any points there unless you've still "got nothin".--SalvoCalcio 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia works on concensus. Which I think we have reached here, by looking below. Mattythewhite 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

however, concensus is to be reached via rational discussion, not strawman votes, read WP:NOT sometimes. turning up on a page and just saying "yes" is not enterting a discussion, putting points across with sources, etc and so it means nothing to what should be in the content of the article, hense why this is wikipedias policy on such issues.

you're more than welcome to try and disprove any of the heavily sourced points brought up above by joining in a discussions, otherwise too bad. a randomguy on Wikipedia just showing up saying "yes" does not overide those citations from media such as the BBC, the club manager and the clubs official website itself. --SalvoCalcio 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference that you complain was deleted is still in the article twice. The word reborn is just a journalistic term and doesn't mean it is the same club. The history of Scarborough is covered in full in that article and you have no consensus for putting in POV phrases such as "Things started to go wrong for the original club" or bits and pieces of history. Move on. Bridgeplayer 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the Scarborough Athletic web site, article http://www.scarboroughathletic.com/news/index.php?news=2524, it is entitled "Scarborough Athletic is born". The information on the "club" page, which has the history etc. as sub-sections, says that the details on this section will be updated. Also see the bbc page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_conf/6256564.stm - "Newly-formed Scarborough Athletic...". Verifiable enough for you? - fchd 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
you're refering to an entirely different citation, try to keep up son. the one in question was hosted by Anglo-Calcio.it which was moved by that site and has been removed long back.
as i said to the other poster, feel free to enter the discussion above with any points you may have (if you can keep up of course). as already pointed out above, not only do the BBC state that it is a rebirth, but Scarborough Athletic contain the history of the older club on their official website as their own. the manager of the club has made the association to the older club and they carry the same logo, colours, motto and nickname. we go by WP:V provide evidence to disprove my mountain of sources. if you think you can. -- 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SalvoCalcio (talk • contribs)
Hi. I think the format of the Scarborough AFC article is fine as it currently is. I am just concerned that the club is not notable enough to warrant an article! What has it achieved in its short life that makes it worthy of an encyclopaedic article? My apologies for going off-topic. --Malcolmxl5 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The consensus is that a club is deemed notable if it is in the top 10 levels of English football - which this one is, just! BlueValour 01:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated. --Malcolmxl5 18:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full history of Scarborough F.C.


[edit] Description of liquidation onwards only

  1. BlueValour 15:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Mattythewhite 15:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Dave101→talk  16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Number 57 16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keith D 16:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. fchd 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Bridgeplayer 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Punkmorten 08:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. --Malcolmxl5 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)