Talk:Sunderland A.F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sunderland A.F.C. article.
Article policies
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Sunderland A.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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the England task force.
Sunderland A.F.C. was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 17, 2007
Peer review Sunderland A.F.C. has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Dick Malone?

Currently on the notable players list, never heard of him. Does he really exist?

Will remove and then if someone proves otherwise they can add it again

--Rboxer 09:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dick Malone most certainly did exist. Full back 1973 cup final. SAFCjl 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Yet again more vandalism, doesnt anyone have anything better to do, i changed what i could see im sure there is more. Sigh...

[edit] Entrance music

Can anyone tell me the titles of the music that Sunderland come on to the pitch with? thanks --Screen42 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dance of the Knights by Prokofiev followed by Elevation by U2. Elysium 73 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks--Screen42 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to add this to the main article - It is part of the article for Dance of the Knights, but is not mentioned in the Sunderland AFC article. Could someone possibly add a section on this?

23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready To Go

Veinor - why do you keep removing the link to Ready To Go from the external links? its probably the most popular Sunderland AFC website and its run by fans so hardly a "spam" link

[edit] Vandalism

To all those people who constantly vandalise this page, please use uncyclopedia instead. That's what it's there for.

The front page currently has a line that says: "Sunderland's best friends and bum chums Newcastle United." I tried to edit it but as an unregistered user could not. Maybe someone will want to change this yeah?83.61.2.236 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC). UPDATE: It's been changed back - well done!83.61.2.236 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Something I've just removed from the page

*Raikonnen is a bit of a bellend, and as such, supports a woefully poor football team: Sunderland.

Hilarious. Not.--Rboxer 11:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squad List

Sunderland and Newcastle are the only two Premier League clubs who have not adopted to standardised squad list template Template:Fs_player and there is a drive from the people on WikiProject:Football to get this done. The only problem is that we would lose the "Date Joined Club" and "Previous Club" fields, and we would be stuck with GK, DF, MF, CF positions. What do people think. Should we adopt the standard, or keep it as it is? John the mackem 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time there were three clubs that used an alternatve template, including West Ham United F.C.. That was until recently. I was in favour of not standardising as the previous template provided more information, position descriptions were more accurate (what happens if someone plays RB and CM???) and I believed that a real football fan wants to see that kind of info at a quick glance, without having to go through every players' individual pages. But I felt like I was fighting a losing battle against those who felt standardisation mattered. However, I found a compromise I could be happy with by retaining the information in a 'current season' page, the current one being West Ham United F.C. 2005-2006. I have placed a link to this page just below the standard template on the West Ham main page. Let me know what you think. At the moment there is only statistical information on the page, but it could include more information, in keeping with other West Ham United F.C. by season pages, such as transfers, results and general 'events' that happen during the season. Spyrides 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Sunderland also have a 'current season' page; I created it a while ago and I have been trying to keep it up to date as often as possible: 2005-06_Season_for_Sunderland_A.F.C.. Not quite as detailed in terms of player stats as the West Ham one.
      John the mackem 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Has Riera joined?

I read that Arnau Riera, FC Barcelona B player has joined Sunderland. Heres a link: [1]

[edit] Past Players/Noteable Players

This section is very poorly constructed. Not being a Sunderland fan I couldn't really say who should and shouldn't be there, but it needs some kind of structuring. Perhaps listing by the order they left the club, and displaying the years during which they were at the club and the flag of their nationality? See other club's former players pages if you are unsure of how to do this. Djdannyp 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Keane

There has yet to be an Official announncement from the club to say he is manager, so why is he up? It has tey to be confirmed.

It's been announced, but he has yet to sign a contract. Until then, I think his name should be removed from the infobox. NaLaochra 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
He's all over the official website and is listed as the manager.

[edit] Doing a Sunderland?

To the user that keeps adding this:

Doing a Sunderland
As a result of Sunderland's somewhat unusual footballing history, the phrase "Doing a Sunderland" has been independently coined in many areas, often with wildly different meanings.
It can include a surprisingly good cup run, a reference to Sunderland's 1973 FA Cup win against Leeds, which made Sunderland the first non top-flight club in 40 years to win.
The phrase is also used to describe gaining promotion after a spectacularly successful season in a lower grade, as when Sunderland won the First Division with a record 105 points in 1999, enabling them to move up to the Premiership.
Most recently, "Doing a Sunderland" refers to being relegated in a humiliating or spectacular fashion. During the 2002/2003 season, although Sunderland were outside the relegation area at Christmas with 18 points, poor performances (they only picked up one more point) and a series of 17 straight defeats (only better by Darwin in League histroy with 18 straight defeats) saw Sunderland relegated with a then-record low points total in the Premiership of 19 points. Sunderland would break this in 2005-2006.


This is a pointless chapter, please stop adding it. It's purely anecdotal, not sourced, most of the information is duplicated from other parts of the Sunderland article, it does not conform to the Football Clubs template, and even if none of that mattered... it is stupid to have this as an entire chapter on Sunderland's headline Wiki article! John the mackem 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I personally have never heard it used. NUFC rubbish I suspect.

It's back again. Judging by the IP address it's the same moron as before (with an obvious void in his life). Whenever it pops up, just delete it. Elysium 73 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[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. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979Talk to me 12:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A.F.C. versus AFC

I've been helping out with requested moves. I was moving Leeds United A.F.C. to Leeds United AFC, a move for which the requester had cited consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that all "A.F.C." articles be moved to "AFC" articles. In the course of the discussion, somebody mentioned this article as an example of a name using the fullstops. I looked into the history at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and sure enough, there was consensus indicated here, here and here. Note also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Nevertheless, my move of this page was reverted by User:Robwingfield with the summary: moved Sunderland AFC to Sunderland A.F.C.: no consensus reached on removal of dots, bring in line with all other articles. Well, it's not the case that "all other articles" use the full stops, and how are we to implement consensus if people are going to revert, claiming no consensus, when they haven't looked into the discussions that have happened repeatedly? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be coordinated as part of a much wider move - all articles and categories and templates for all English teams (not just A.F.C. articles) need to be moved at the same time. It's not sufficient to just move the main article and let it be inconsistent with other articles for the same club and articles for other clubs. If you're willing to undertake the task for all English clubs I'll support you. If you just change one or two, I'll move the articles back. I think a better way to do this is to raise the issue at WP:RM, as an umbrella move for all English clubs. That way proper consensus can be reached. robwingfield (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that proper consensus had been reached, but if not, I'm willing to work on it, yeah. Right now there's some discussion restarting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and it looks a bit complicated. The consensus may vary from country to country, for example, but at the least it seems that all English football clubs could be consistent, all Norwegian clubs consistent, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Does it REALLY matter? SAFCjl 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No, not much. Consistency is nice, but if it's a lot of trouble to achieve it, then it's not worth it. Ultimately, writing articles about football teams on the internet doesn't REALLY matter at all, considering everything else that's going on in the world. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please block this page

This article has been repeatedly vandalised, over the past week by lots of diffrent accounts and IP's. I think we should block it, its getting ridiclous, and as I support Sunderland. I find it very offensive. Star of the north 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Management & Mick McCarthy

I like the new Management & Coaching Staff section, but i'm wondering if it would be better placed as a secondary header under a Management section as such:

1st Management
2nd   Managerial History
           ---
2nd   Current Management & Coaching Staff
           ---

What do people think?

Also, has there been a consensus reached regarding the nationality of Mick McCarthy? I originally added him to the Managerial History section as English, given that he was born in Barnsley and is clearly a Yorkshireman. But due to his Irish footballing pedigree he always seems to get reverted back to Irish. Again, what do people think? John the mackem 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please edit the current squad list, as Jon Stead and Chris Brown have departed. (No. 9 and No. 20). Thanks

[edit] Vandalism

Some Newcastle fans are obviously targeting this page for abuse. Get rid of it: In the history section there is an offensive sentence which needs to be removed.

[edit] Other Rivalries

I've added Middlesbrough back to the other rivalries sentance. If Leeds is there then surely Middlesbrough have to be too. SAFCjl 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Additional vandalism has been added to the rivalries section past the Middlesborough bit. I can't click on this page without there being some sort of vandalism any more--Rboxer 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Now removed

[edit] Vandalism of Squad

Someone keeps adding players to the squad which should not be there, namely John H Deacon. It seems to have gone unnoticed for a while, so it might be worth checking that section more often.


A player has been added to the squad called Aaron Phillips. I'm not aware of this person and I think he is fictious. Could this page be reverted please? --20.133.0.14 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAFC

Do Sunderland have some kind of exclusive right to the abbreviation SAFC? I ask because on two occasions the disambig page I created has been changed back to a redirect to Sunderland A.F.C.. Surely Stirling Albion F.C. also abbreviates to SAFC (see here), albeit that they are a less notable club? --Jameboy 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) The club and fans of Sterling Albion don't seem to use the abbreviation that often that I can see, as opposed to Sunderland who use it frequently (i.e. www.safc.com). There is also a gulf in notability as well. I suggest reverting it back and leaving SAFC as a redirect to Sunderland. Elysium 73 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Discussion at WikiProject Football regarding this. --Jameboy 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up needed

article is very long, messy and disjointed and contains waffle and fan based POV. I think maybe Sunderland fans are considering this page their own and only they are qualified to contribute. I've cleaned up some sections but work still needed. Speed Air Man 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update needed

Could you please notice that the players Johnny Evans and Danny Simpson have left the football club and returned to Manchester United. 81.151.83.107 10:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Some one has replaced the main image with a pooper scooper picture

[edit] Raimond van der Gouw

Do we know if he has been allocated a squad number or not? The official website initially said he had but it was removed later. Yesterday's programme said he was registered and number 17 too.

[edit] Nyron Nosworthy on squad list

Is Nyron Nosworthy Jamaican or English. --Sunderland06 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The page on him here says he was born in England but has been in the Jamaican international squad. I'd say Jamaican.--Josquius 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity fans

Irregardless of if other teams also have it (the same applies to them): is this section really nessesary? It doesn't seem very fitting of an encyclopdia to me--Josquius 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be removed. This information should be moved to the "celebrities" articles. Mattythewhite 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick failing Good article

I'm quick failing this because:

  • Most important reason: many sections lack inline citations. Compare this to the comprehensive referencing in an article such as Liverpool F.C..
  • Trivia section needs exterminating. Any important factoids should be accommodated in a different section, and the rest obliterated.
  • As above, the celebrity fans is a little trivial. It's also uncited.
  • Some references are not formatted correctly.
  • 'Under 18's' has no apostrophe (plural = more than one under 18)
  • A lot of very fragmented paragraphs, esp. in 'Top flight'
  • 'Fanzines' should be developed.

Good luck with it. As I say, the most important point is that it needs far more references; therefore, the article did not receive a full review and subsequent reviewers might highlight further issues. The JPStalk to me 16:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Safc badge.png

Image:Safc badge.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 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martyn Waghorn

I have set up an article on Martyn Waghorn as he is now "notable" after making his first professional appearance for his club against Manchester United. Spinnerdisk7 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1989

Can someone check the dates in the history section? It says we joined the league in 1989 ereplacing Stoke... that doesn't sound right to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.243.206 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sunder.gif

Image:Sunder.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sunder.gif

Image:Sunder.gif 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The carribean 8

Source for these alleged players we have scouted. 81.132.214.251 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah found the list [2]. 81.132.214.251 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

These players aren't Sunderland players, they spent only a week training at the academy, therefore I've removed the list of redlink players. -Toon05 13:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)