Talk:Walter Smith (footballer)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
The article on Walter Smith (footballer) 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. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Fuming
I spent 30 minutes translating this bloody article into French Wikipedia, but lost it all due to some computer shit thang.--Dangherous 17:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jumping the gun
Why has someone set Walter Smith as the current manager of Rangers? As of 12.20pm on the 5/1/07 even the Rangers Website havent announced that! Anyway, it will be unlikely that Smith will be the day-to-day manger due to his commitments to Scotland.
[edit] Opinion
Walter will be the next manager believe you me and he will bring the good times back to Ibrox just as he has with Scotland. The pull of going back to his spiritual home is just too strong to ignore for him.
I added a short line just to report on the press speculation, can be updated pretty soon I bet - Niall McG.
[edit] Unsigned comment #1
Surely we can accept BBC sport as being a good enough source so that we can state he is the new Rangers manager?
Looks like he isnt now, Scotland have rebuffed the Approach?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/6233237.stm
[edit] Unsigned comment #2
BBC Sport reporting that they 'understand' something is not the same as it being true. They are guessing as much as anyone else.
[edit] Best Possible Start
Seems unencylcopedic to say this. It seems like opinion. Besides a 6-0 win is better than a 5-0 win so how can 5-0 be the "Best Possible Start"? How about "very convincing" or "very positive", either way "Best" needs to go.
[edit] Best Possible Start2
I changed the sentence to be more encylcopedic, however it has been reverted. The origonal was POV.
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page to the plain title, per the discussion below. A different parenthetical might be better, and if necessary, action can be taken to move the page to any unblocked target. Dekimasuよ! 03:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Walter Smith seems to me to be a more suitable title, as he isn't well known as a footballer. Template:Otherpeople can be used to point to the disambig page. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems to be a daft move, considering that other Walter Smiths are equally as prominent (Personally I would expect to see the US General when I went to Walter Smith). Perhaps Walter Smith (Football) would be better? Drop the er. Narson (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too many people share this name. If he is not know for football, why is that the focus of the article? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Common name and subject is not significantly more notable than the others. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Vegaswikian. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Vegaswikian (and I'm from Glasgow). Definitely the most high profile at the moment, but that's completely different from notability. Agree with User:Narson that you can just shorten it to Walter Smith (football) if you feel the current title is misleading. --DeLarge (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
