Talk:Swansea City A.F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Swansea City 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Swansea City 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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.


Contents

[edit] swansonline.co.uk

This site contains no original content and is simply a list of links to incorrectly-dated news stories hosted by newspapers and video clips with no copyright information. As it stands (29 May 2006), it is not a sufficiently unique resource to warrant inclusion as a link in this site.

This has been explained to the site owner, but other anon users with similar IP addresses have now appeared. Advice has been sought from other users at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Links_to_pages_containing_no_original_content so please desist from adding this site unless and until it contains original content. - Stevecov 11:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Stevecov seems to have a bug about this site. If you check some of the main Swans forums you will see that this site is often linked to. The site has lots of relevant info, including a season review, wallpapers and video relating to the club. matt_the_jack

Steve has no bug about this site, but the house rules require sites to be relevant and unique. There is nothing unique about this site and its owner has refused my explicit invitation to contribute his photography to the Swansea City Wikipage. - Stevecov 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed the new content listed and given the flagrant breaches of copyright entailed by the video and audio section, I conclude that this site is extremely dubious. I shall delay deletion pending the views of other Wikipedians with substantial edit histories. - Stevecov 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can not comment on the site owners lack of response to your invitation, but can only comment on how useful I have found this site since I first saw it on Jackarmy.net. I have made numerous edits to this and other topics in the past, and I commend you on your decision not to delete it. However, I would like to point out that you are not the leading authority on Swansea City FC, and do not have any more rights than any other Wiki users to make edits. I am a long term fan and season ticket holder of SCFC and believe my opinion to be as valid as yours. How many games do you go to a season? - matt_the_jack

From a policy standpoint, this falls under Wikipedia:External links#Occasionally acceptable links, specifically:
3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)
and
5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).
Currently there are 4 fan sites listed, which from a cursory glance look to provide similar info, so from what it says in #3 these need trimming. #5 is what is concerning Stevecov, due to the video section, and swansonline probably should not be linked to due to its (presumably unauthorised) hosting of video from Soccer AM et al. Oldelpaso 15:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


3. ..........marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

So should we delete all the other fan sites as swansonline has a directory of fan sites on it? or as there is only a handfull of links there, just leave it as it is - matt_the_jack

Why is this so important to you, User:matt_the_jack? Are you connected to the site owner and, if so, does he give you a cut of his cash-for-clicks money? - Stevecov 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The links to all bar one of the fansites should probably be deleted, but swansonline should not be the one retained due to the copyright concerns. And can we please keep discussion civil? The site doesn't look to me to be a link referral farm to me. The links to news stories don't look as though they have a click-through ID. But there are copyright concerns over the video section. Oldelpaso 15:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no connection to this site or it's owner, nor do I get any cash from the site. However I have noticed this site being added and deleted (only by yourself I may add) in the history many times. I use swansonline often and have found it very useful (the thank you thread on JANET to the site owner my have given you an idea of how much the average jack appreciates it). I checked in on WIKI after the play offs with a view to amending the forthcoming vandalism from rival clubs, and found the site be vandalised from within. - matt_the_jack


I have just checked the site over once again, in the chance that I had been duped into backing a click farming site. All the sites it links to, link directly to the sites, and have no click id, so I cant see how the owner would get paid. Also even the video does not seem to be hosted on the same domain, chance are they are linking to the original video, which would not be a problem, as the video would not have been taken and hosted elsewhere. - matt_the_jack

IMO swansonline looks like a useful site, but if there are reasonable suspicions of copyright violation, it's best to avoid linking to it. It's also a good idea to reduce the number of links to fansites (probably leaving only Jackarmy). Conscious 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Good grief!

I've resisted joining this banal debate, but I can't sit on my hands any longer.

All this fuss over a simple link to a simple and humble fan site. I thought it would be a great idea to have a fan site which has a current and up-to-date list of all the great Swans related resources on the Internet.

Was this such a bad idea?

The feedback and clicks I receive suggest not, but for an unknown reason some Wiki user has taken it upon himself to rid the world of my evil and useless site.

Fine. Whatever.

Life is too short to argue about this and I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it.

And for the record. My site is certainly NOT a farming link site (or whatever that is). All links are immediate and direct to their respective destinations. I spend a considerable amount of my time each week making sure that the links are still valid, whilst searching for new and exciting content at the same time.

When I have some spare time from my demanding career and family life, I even write the occasion article, as I have done this weekend with two pieces (Season review and History of Swansea Jacks).

Still convinced I'm a unscupulous money grabbing web guru?

Swans Online.co.uk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SharkyJack (talk • contribs) .

[edit] My opinion

Personally, I find this debate silly, but here is what I think, according to WP:EL:

(NOTE:The following are my opinions on what should happen. However, my opinions are not necessarily what should happen. It is just what I see with the external links. It is by no means a concrete list of what should stay or what should go.)

Of the links in the section, listed below:

Hope that helps! Once again, only my opinion — Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not going to be of huge use here. As a site, SwansOnline seems to be fine, apart from the YouTube video copyright. I have to say, I am slightly wary of persistent adding of an external link if it's been removed, generally the motive for re-adding is a bit suspect. Not sure if that's the case here, though. HornetMike 02:09, 30 May 2006 (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 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Why was the paragraph about Swansea Cities attendence figures dropping due to a degree of underperformance in the league this season removed as vandalism?? The page itself says how the Swans spent most of last season in the automatic promotion places, yet this season they are just about in the playoff zone. Is this not a degree of underperformance in the league??

here are Swansea Cities attendence figures for last season http://scfc.co.uk/results0506.html here are Swansea Cities attendence figures for this season http://www.scfc.co.uk/results.html

It is quite clear here that while attendence figures were often impressive last season, a degree of underperformance in the league this season has seen attendence figures drop somewhat. Is anyone willing to dispute this? These figures are taken from www.scfc.co.uk - a reputable site. I think this edit was removed from a Swansea fan who is unwilling to accept what the article said before it was edited for "Vandalism" Bluebird john 22:59, 9 December 2006 User:bluebird john 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because a team which is in a comparable position to that in which it ended the previous season cannot be said to be underperforming. Now get back to improving your own club's page and stop wasting editors' time. - Stevecov 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous statement to make. Of course they can be seen as under performers. I think you would agree that if Man United finished in 20th two seasons running, they could be said to be underperforming. Just because YOU don't agree with a statement DOES NOT make it incorrect

[edit] History sections

These need some help as some of them are awful, full of typos and factual inaccuracies. It's been possible to break up the club's recent history into phases such as Rise and Fall. However, it seems that some of these sections are little more than lists of wins in cup competitions and insignificant league results.

These sections need some work; will anyone volunteer to take a section and try to bring it to the standard of the 1977-1986 paragraphs which are accurate, concise and chronologically faithful?

I will take 1986-1995 which is within my own memory span, although I will need to refer to sources for details. I suggest other contributors do likewise to ensure accuracy. - Stevecov 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism (again)

I seriously doubt that we had a manager during WW I called 'Rob is the sex' so I reverted back to the acknowledgd 'no manager' for that period Hackerjack 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time, you ought to warn the vandal instead of mentioning the edit on the talk page. BencherliteTalk 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)