Talk:Swindon Town F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Swindon Town F.C. has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Swindon Town 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-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] POV

This page has been accused of POV but it's real problem is that it is written in such a familiar style presumably by a fan. Take a look at the Arsenal F.C. and Liverpool F.C. pages, something in between them would be ideal. --Bob Palin 02:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what POV stands for but I guess it means plagiarised from another site. As you say Bob, thats not the case, but as Swindon Town is a small club, the existing literature on it is very limited and therefore might look familiar. A better history of the club can be obtained on www.swindontownfc.co.uk (I'll add the link to my page). Guilty as charged with being a fan, and perhaps writing as one. I'll check out those Liverpool and Arsenal pages when I have a moment and amend accordingly. Please take into account though, that long-standing top flight clubs always attract more neutral academic interest than their lower league counterparts. Therefore pages like this will almost certainly be written by fans - some more rabid than others. I'll be as even-handed as possible, and I haven't made any derogatory remarks about our rivals Oxford, so there is some hope.

Simon

Simon, POV mean "Point Of View", in other words somebody considers what you wrote to expressing a biased point of view rather than just the facts. As I noted above I don't agree. Would be good to have some more stats etc on the page. --Bob Palin 01:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I'm with you now. Yeah, statistics would be good. I'll look into it and see what I can dig up. Thanks

Simon

I came back to this article recently to update some info. I was going to add more statistics as advised. However the best source for these is www.swindon-town-fc.co.uk. Rather than plagiarise their hard work, I've just added the link to their website. It's pretty comprehensive and it's a much better reference for the older history of the club - something that my article lacks a bit. Simon

[edit] Major cleanup

There was massive duplication in the article. I've merged them all together and done some heavy pruning, but I'm sure that it could be tidied even more. --Concrete Cowboy 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Violence

(Currently Hidden:) "Notorious throughout these years for violence, recently against fans of Gillingham, in which women and children were targeted." - Source? Evening Adver for example

Now, I'm a Gillingham fan, although I wasn't at the game in question. From the accounts I gathered at the time, both from Gillingham and Swindon forums, that's pretty much true- a group of hooligans in Swindon shirts (I'm not going to call them fans, as that's an insult to their real fans) set upon the family enclosure at Priestfield after the game ended, and this is pretty much verified by local news sources: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. The question is whether or not that's notable enough to warrant mention in the article- standing alone, it certainly doesn't constitute being "notorious for violence", and I'm unaware of any other reputation for roughness. The original edit was probably kneejerk vandalism. That said, it's almost guaranteed that trouble will flair up again on Valentine's Day, when Gillingham and Swindon meet again, and this could become the case for all future encounters, so I'm torn. I'm leaning towards not encyclopedic... yet. --Lawlore 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lawlore! Like you I spotted the edit and its reversion, did a little Googling, found some support for part of the claim made, but decided that the anonymous edit was a heat-of-the-moment job. After reflection I remained silent—let the revert stand—simply because no evidence was given that Swindon fans were ‘Notorious throughout these years for violence’. That would have been (worryingly as a Town fan!) encyclopaedic and worthy of inclusion. On the immediate incident, my judgement was that while it was probably true that (as you delicately put it) ‘hooligans in Swindon shirts’ had behaved reprehensibly:

  • 1) It didn’t really represent something big enough to put up here—I mean if all the league clubs entered every similarly horrible incident we might bring wikipedia’s servers to their knees, and
  • 2) There’s the whole sub judice thing to consider. This isn’t Wikinews, and there are many reasons to let cool heads consider the facts before we rush to print.

So far I think that I have merely found a long-winded way of saying: ‘Yes, I agree with you.’

One other thing struck me however, in my Googling. Why we hate Swindon [I paraphrase the title] gives an interesting account of a feud which apparently dates back a couple of decades or more. Might that rivalry be worth a mention? I don’t know. I don’t live in Swindon these days, so don’t have a sense of who really hates whom. (In my day you could say that we rather enjoyed beating either of the Bristol teams, and (to a degree) Reading, but didn’t get seriously hormonally imbalanced until that upstart bunch from Oxford came onto the scene.) But as far as I can tell Gillingham is regarded as an ‘enemy’ by a relatively small number of Swindonians, while Swindon features much more clearly on the Gill’s radar. So, I thought, maybe a rivalry/ancient enmities piece might be interesting, but probably the Gillingham page would be where it would fit best. Ian Spackman 19:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hey, Ian. I think what you've said is pretty much accurate- Swindon have closer and more important rivals in Bristol and Oxford, whereas Gillingham simply don't- nearest we've got is in London, who are all busy caring about each other [4]. So Gillingham fans have long centred on Swindon, entirely due to the Playoff match which was before my time. For the two teams never to have met in a match in the 25 years since then is quite incredible. When the fixture list came out, there's no doubt they were the first ones circled by Gills fans, whereas for Swindonians, it probably didn't mean much at all- it's been reported a lot of the real away fans were shocked at the strength of the Gills' take on the rivalry when they got to Priestfield. Either way, I will be at the County Ground game on the 14th, and in all honesty the police up there would do well to assume the worst is going to happen from the outset- it could be very serious. Anyway, since I'm drifting, I agree the rivalry could be worth at least a passing mention on the Gills page, I'll take a look and see where it can be incorporated. As for here... probably not yet, but if we stay in the same division for a few seasons and Swindon start returning the venom, there might be something in it. --Lawlore 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Fans

Does anybody actually have any evidence of Jamie Cullen saying he's a fan?? I know he grew up in Wiltshire, and therefore is a local, but I've never heard him say that he supports Swindon.DAylen

Hi, is there any evidence of Nasser Hussain supporting Swindon? Surely this can't be true. I've found sources that say he supports Leeds. Bob

[edit] Lists

I've just stumbled upon this page knowing very little about Swindon Town. The history section is quite good, but I'm not sure what order the lists (famous players, current squad etc.) are in - no order is evident. It would be good if Template:Football squad player could be used for the squad, arranged in shirt number order. I would probably recommend using alphabetical order for ordering any non-chronological lists. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive List of Former Players

It surely warrants a separate article, and it surely isn't comprehensive.
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism

I am sorry I don’t have time to do it at this moment, but there have been some odd additions to track down and weed out. Specifically User:195.93.21.70’s contributions need checking. But there are probably others. Cheers! —Ian Spackman 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

"Swindon Town Football Ground hosted the first show in Still Existing's 2006 tour "Everlasting Loop"." - who or what is/are Still Existing? And is this really a notable fact to mention in the article.....? ChrisTheDude 14:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Appears to be a non-notable local band, so I have taken it out of the article ChrisTheDude 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appraisal

Some comments following the request at WikiProject Football:

  • The main issue with the prose is that there are lots of short paragraphs of only one or two sentences. Merging some of these would improve the article flow. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a may also be of use.
  • The "notable games" section need not be there - these matches are already mentioned in the history. If they need more emphasis then expand their coverage in the history section.
  • Get rid of the "mackerel" trivia. The Atkinson incident is also pretty minor and probably doesn't merit a mention.
  • A section on other Swindon teams is fine, but down to under-8's?
  • Describing the current kit down to the last detail seems excessive, and is very time-sensitive. Describing the usual colours in more general terms might be a better option.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 20:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this appraisal, it certainly gives me areas to work on.
Most of the notable games have their own articles so I'll snip them out and expand the history.
I agree with the mackerel bit, it's just one of those things that keeps appearing so instead of deleting it for once I tried to integrate it into the text. The Ron Atkinson bit was added as an afterthought in a "well SOMETHING else must have happened in the media that relates to the club" moment, so removing the whole section won't be an issue I don't think.
Going down to Under-8s does seem a little extreme on reflection, I'll attempt to turn it into a summary in the style of "150 females represent the club in teams from 8-16 years old" and leave it at that.
With the current colours, I'll remove that seeing as the new kit is coming out anyway and just go with the main design and try to refrain from commenting on it as "white fluting in twill with integrated silver cotton" in the future.
Again, my thanks on having a look over the article for me. Cheers - Foxhill 17:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] February restructuring

In my onward improvement goal, I have re-arranged the article into what *I* think is a possibly more logical flow of Prose and the Lists. I understand that this may not suit everyone's tastes and would like to open a discussion to see if anyone objects. Some elements like notable fans and the mackerel trivia are things that are or can be described on their subjects article (in fact mackerel already does). The manual of style asks us to try to integrate trivial items into the main body of the article, and since this would be hard for something as obtuse as the fish fact - I think it's probably better to leave it out altogether.

I am at the moment at a loss for where to place the other team info as well and would welcome input from any interested party on helping to continue to improve this article. Cheers, - Foxhill 18:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A missing half-century

I am sure that last time I made a serious contribution to this page—perhaps a year ago—the years 1920–1969 were not empty. I suppose Wikipedia suffers from moth, rot, and rust like everything else. But something from the history of the page is probably worth restoring. —Ian Spackman 19:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (A townender from the 1960s)

I think the FA Cup QF from 1924 could come back in, I'm up to 1945 in my basic research and have stalled there on History of Swindon Town F.C. trying to pad that out enough to bring other things across and improve the flow. The whole old history section was moved over to that article when it grew massively long so anything you contributed into it should still be there. Hopefully I'll have the 1930-50 history fleshed out a bit better by next week if it isn't too depressing. Cheers, - Foxhill 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. But huge Swindon Town fan as I am, I really find having the history split off into a seperate article a bit bizarre. We have a history worth telling, but one that really doesn’t merit more that one article on Wikipedia. Remember that the history of a football club is a subset of history in general: it’s not just the trophies that are of importance. But I certainly recognize that you are doing good work, Good luck! Cheers, Ian Spackman 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My appraisal

After carefully reading the article and making several grammatical corrections, here are my thoughts.

  1. This article nicely follows the established MoS for a football club.
  2. The 'colors and kits' section needs to be shortened and revised, also, there is not a need for five sample kits.
  3. The second paragraph of the 'supporters' section may belong in the 'stadium' setion. Debatable
  4. The 'rivalries' section is rather long and should be shortened and merged with 'supporters'.
  5. I do not like the format of the 'achievements' section as it differs from the usual MoS style for this section.
  6. As per my personal preference, I like articles that have as least one picture from the early history of the club and one from recent times in the history section. minimal importance but also easy to recocile

Timpcrk87 15:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Hi, I'm wading through a GA review as I write (well, after I write this I'll go right back to it) and will be jotting individual stuff to be tweaked as I go. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this the once over Cas, I've updated the page as per the majority of your suggestions and commented below on other areas. Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In para two of lead there should be a better way of synthesizing the info, something like The club has enjoyed two brief periods of relative success.. and then highlight the late 60s and early 90s. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Done Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Para 3 of lead needs tweaking - Their lowest points include relegation... sounds a bit wooden. Try The club went through a lean period... or something. That sounds a bit cliched but may be OK. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Done Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Para 2 of History - Swindon reached the FA Cup semi-finals for the first time in their history in .. - bolded bit redundant. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Done Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Para 3 of History - remove opening "in", and typo - "Titantic" cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Done Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • History section is pretty long without subheadings - maybe a subhaeding for the 60s period and some others? (optional this one) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit hard to come up with areas to divide for the subheadings so I'll leave this one for the moment until I can give it more thought. Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In Crest section you have Following the 1985-86 Division Four Champions season, the "Steam Train" badge was re-introduced onto the kits. The crest was re-styled and the text "Division Four Champions 1985/1986" replaced.. - you can remove bolded bit and choose to use dash or slash for seasons. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed repeated info but left seasons in text as 1985-86 per WP:WPF MOS and the quoted badge text as "1985/86" as it is in the source Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The layout of images in the Crest section is ugly when in a gallery like it is. I was going to suggest a column down the RHS but then I saw the next section...
I'd maybe do one of two things, both I'd remove the current badge as it is in the box at the top.
either a gallery of four in hte middle of the section then the 3 fan's choice nearer to the bottom of teh article or a LHS column. Have a playaround. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It does look ugly, what I will try to do is to take representative images from the set's of three so that I can do a Left Right alternating pics scheme down the section. So it'll be 'early shield' 'traffic sign badge' '80's shield' 'diamond badge' 'fan choice'.Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • last para home kit section - teams short-lived kit - needs an apostrophe.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Done Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't use ???? in an encyclopedic article, leave blank instead. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • beating Arsenal by just a couple of weeks - a mere couple or just remove "just" altogether. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed un-needed 'just' Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In the Supporters section, there is no detail after the introduction of teh Red Army Loud and Proud. Has it been successful?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The hard thing to do with supporters groups is to find decent sources for impact, although the ticket sales etc of the club are up, it's not easy to see if this has been influenced by Red Army Loud and Proud or just the teams recent improved performance. So I'm unsure what to do for this one. Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The recipient of Swindon fans' most intense rivalry... try the subject of Swindon...etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Changed as suggested Smirnoff Black 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

Apart from the several minor issues imteized above I feel the article satisfies the GA criteria. It is nice and neutral, comprehensive and referenced. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done and done! GA OK!cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 12:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mackerel

Someone should have mentioned Mackerel on here by now - if you know about English football you'll know what I mean.

86.135.91.79 10:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been added and deleted many many many many times (most recently as suggested during article improvement above. As it's addition is dissuaded by Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles it was felt better to keep the note on the Mackerel article. Foxhill 11:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh and as an aside the Mackerel fact is technically wrong since the name of the club is Swindon Town Football Club, which shares 3 letters with the word. - Foxhill 17:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Swindon Fans known as 'west country yokel inbreds'

There is a line in one of the opening paragraphs that says "Their fans are also known as 'west country yokel inbreds". Something doesn't seem right about that lol. Removal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.215.236 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was left by IP address Special:Contributions/217.40.89.165 who had also vandalised the Oxford page. Presumably a Reading fan then! Swindon LS12 (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)