Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Non-league football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Want to help doing North West Clubs

I would like to help by oing any North West Clubs. Especially West Cheshire League.. User:Vauxhallfc04

Go for it, but remember that a club has to have played in the top ten levels of the English football league system to merit an article based on the WP:CORP policy. Any articles created for teams that don't meet that criterion are likely to be deleted..... ChrisTheDude 20:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enquiry

I would definitely like to help out. But does non-league football refer to English clubs only or the whole world? I feel countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and other nations having non-league football should also be included in this project. If ALL football clubs are being represented and quite a number of these articles reach Featured Articles standard, then Wikipedia will truly be a global encyclopedia! --Siva1979Talk to me 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's something that needs to be decided. I personally think we should limit our scope first to English non-League football, then expand to the rest of the UK, then the rest of the English-speaking world, then everything else. Tompw 18:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I set up the project because I noticed a few new editors were interested in English non-league football and was going to call it "English non-league football" but decided to expand it to any non-league football at Siva1979's request. I don't know how many contributors are interested in non-league football outside Britain at the moment, but it can't hurt to include other countries in the project and if any work we do on templates, standards etc is useful for articles on clubs in other countries then that can only be a good thing. CTOAGN (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should proceed step-by-step first. But if contributers are able to create good articles on clubs from other countries having non-league football, we should also help out. But the real goal of this project should include ALL clubs in the footballing world. If we limit our scope first to English non-league football, we should also not neglect clubs from other countries as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King's Lynn

Apart from ongoing work on Gloucester City and Brian Godfrey, I intend to make King's Lynn my priority. Dave Hatton 23:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added some info to Kings Lynn from the club's website. I'm intending to do some work on AFC Wimbledon for a while - does anyone want to help? There's so much content already there that with a bit of tidying up and some info on the players I think we could get it onto the main page.

I think going Division-wise is helpful, well for me at least, since I'm not all that well-versed with all the divisions. I think I'll begin with Northern Premier League, Burscough F.C., to be more precise. -Aabha (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since King's Lynn is Dave's priority, I intend to make Gloucester City my priority to make sure if it relegates or it promotes then sending the end-of-season reports of either the relegation point or the promotion point for the next season.

Rakuten06 21:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English football club stubs

There are over 809 articles in Category:English football club stubs. In order to help bring this number down, I'd like to propose that we introduce a "letter of the week". The object will be to spend a week de-stubbing all club names begining with that letter. What do people think of this? Tompw 14:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I do like this idea of focusing on a letter, but feel that a week may not be long enough to make any substantial inroad into the lists of stubs, what with the day job and other commitments that most of us have. In addition, there appear to be a limited number of us here in this section. Would a month be a more workable timescale?Dave Hatton 22:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My thought was to start on the letters with relativly few club stubs, and then move onto more common letters as the number of participants increases - though I agree some may require over a week, and for those, we could make it a fortnight or a month as required. Tompw 23:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

B S C W H L R A M T P N D F G E O K I U V Y misc Q J
100 86 70 68 67 46 42 41 40 40 35 31 28 27 25 24 21 15 7 4 4 4 3 2 1

(As 14th Feb 2006)

I agree, It will be more easy to get through the stubs in monthly basis, starting with "A"

Rakuten06 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help as much as I can.

Freshprince 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've had a good crack at AFC Sudbury (think that's sorted) and Alsager Town F.C. (needs a bit more). Dancarney 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Who will be responsible for de-stubbing the articles?? I and Dancarney finished Abingdon United F.C. but still waits for the approval to de-stub the article...

Rakuten06 16:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm slowly going through the teams in the Eastern Counties Football League Premier Division. I've finished AFC Sudbury, Clacton Town F.C. and Bury Town F.C., but the latter 2 need checking before de-stubbing. Dancarney 01:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no approval needed for destubbing articles. I removed the stub tag from Clacton Town F.C. and Bury Town F.C., they aren't stubs anymore, in my opinion, going by Wikipedia:Stub. I've also made the infoboxes a bit narrower, by breaking the name of the league, I hope nobody minds that. -Aabha (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have had a go at editing Tonbridge Angels F.C., tell what you think and if it's good enough to de-stub. Freshprince 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Freshprince,

Be Bold in removing stub tags yourself! Have a read of Wikipedia:Stub, it is the amount of info in the article that determines its status as a stub, so if you're the one who has worked on the article, you're the best judge. Aabha (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Just to let everyone know, today the number of stubs in the category has dropped below 600 for the first time..... ChrisTheDude 10:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi I have been working like a trooper on Buxton Fc and notice some of you have been helping ... thanks on behalf of the Bucks !! Ladybucks 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Do I need to do anything to formally join this project other than add my name to the list on the project page? I would like to do some work on clubs in the West Midlands (where I live) and Kent (where I'm originally from) - I made a start with Pelsall Villa F.C., please let me know what you think..... ChrisTheDude 13:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris,
Yup, just add your name to the participant list on the main page. If you want to pick a specific division to work on, go ahead and do so. And that's great work on Pelsall Villa. -Aabha (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have now de-stubbed all 22 clubs in the West Midlands Regional League - hurrah!!! ChrisTheDude 12:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Great job, ChrisTheDude! --Siva1979Talk to me 20:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
And now I've finished all the clubs in the Kent League Premier Division....think I'll have a little breather now :-) ChrisTheDude 12:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History section

I was just wondering if there should be uniformity in the way the club history is given. Pelsall Villa F.C. for instance, uses a year-wise list, while Clacton Town F.C. has paragraphs. What does everyone else think? -Aabha (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I went for the bullet point approach with Pelsall Villa simply because that was the only info I could find and I thought it would look a bit rubbish to have a paragraph that just read "In this year they got promoted, then in this year they got relegated, then in this year they got promoted again". If I can locate some more in-depth info on the club's history I will try and flesh that section out into a proper paragraph, as I personally prefer that approach..... ChrisTheDude 08:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the paragraph form is preferable. I've just had a quick look at Pelsall Villa's website and their club history section is pretty uniformative. Unfortunately for them it appears that for most of their history they've been a mediocore team in a low division so it's difficult to know what you else can other than what ChrisTheDude has included. At least Clacton have had a bit of a topsy-turvy existance, and their league's website provided an excellent 2-page history of it all. Dancarney 11:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
In general, the year-based bullet point information is drawn from the Football Club History Database. The bullet-point list has the advantage of providing concise list of milestones in the club's life. I think paragrpah based material should aim to provide the bigger picture, or detail on specific episodes of the club's life. Tompw 12:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
But please try to gain some verifcation of FCHD information. I do as much as I can to cross-check stuff, but it's a personal web-site after all and it won't have the same standard of independent checking as Wikipedia. With over 6000 club entries, each averaging over 4K of text, most of it manually entered, there are bound to be numerous errors. fchd 07:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The FCHD site is invaluable for this stuff (thanks Richard). While errors will be a concern if compiling season-by-season totals for clubs, when using the site for broader historical purposes, it's fairly invulnerable. It's easy to mistype the number of goals scored in a season, but it's much less likely to have a mistake where it is stated that the club was in the wrong league than in reality. I've been beefing up clubs' histories and notable FA Cup/Trophy/Vase this way. While I don't have all the information necessary to un-stub them, it's progress. Balerion 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006-07 Restructuring in England

What with the English National League System being restructured, lots of 'non-league' league systems, team pages, etc. are now out of date and need updating. I've had a good crack at the Isthmian League First Division North and its teams, but I suspect there's a lot to be done in the summer break. Dancarney 23:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this. In fact, updating the information on the league systems and clubs is a yearly affair which I am eager and passionate about to keep the articles up-to-date. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop's Stortford and Fisher Athletic

I've made some changes here, adding the teambox, but I am completely baffled by how to edit the kit colours. When I delete that code, the kits just show up as black, which is how I've left Fisher Athletic. I'd like to help out more but don't want to mess things up. As well, if the ground capacity and general manager are unknown, I've left them in the template and just written "unknown" afterwards. Is there a standard that I'm not aware of in cases like this? Jmcnally 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, hope I can help out a bit. Within the infobox you should see fields for leftarm1, body1, rightarm1, shorts1 and socks1 - these represent the different portions of the kit. There are also equivalent fields for the away kit, with 2 instead of 1 in the descriptions. To select the colour of a portion of the kit, all you need to do is add the six character "web colour" code for the colour you wish it to be after the = sign, for instance typing leftarm1=0000FF will turn the leftarm blue. If you don't know the colour codes for the colours you need, check out Web colors, or alternatively (this is what I do) look up another team who wear the same colours and copy it from there!!
To add a pattern (eg stripes) to a section of the shirt, colour it in as normal and then add the name of the pattern after (for example) "pattern_la1", so if you had already coloured the left arm blue as described above and then you set the pattern_la1 field to pattern_la1=_white_stripes, you would see a blue sleeve with white stripes. The full line-up of available patterns can be found at Template_talk:Football_kit#Pattern_files. Hope this helps..... ChrisTheDude 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Chris. I've done my best but the away kit for Fisher Athletic is not exactly right. But I've learned a thing or two! Jmcnally 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] League vs. Division articles

I realize this has been discussed on WikiProject football a while ago but I thought it was a bit more relevant here; as we are delving more and more into adding information to lower leagues we should figure out how we are doing this before loading ourselves with tons of reformatting work. A few weeks ago I fleshed out the Middlesex County Football League and created pages for the top three divisions. Yesterday I added a bit more info and merged the individual division pages back into the league page. The fact is, there is very little , if any, information about each division that can't be placed in the main league article. I plan on working through the Step 7 leagues soon, but before I make a lot of changes I'd like to figure out what the consensus is.

On related stylistic note, I see that Richard Rundle (among others) has done a fine job with the Anglian Combination. In the member clubs section, he created a list of clubs per division in a more compact manner than I did in the MCFL. I think I like his way better - what do others thing? --Balerion 16:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I just added to one, I think that divisional pages for Step 5 leagues are pretty pointless. What useful information can we put in the division articles that can't go into the league pages? It's not like any of the Step 5 league articles are overflowing with information. I propose that we merge divisional articles for the 14 Step 5 and related Step 6 divisions into their respective league articles. --Balerion 06:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A concern

I wish to raise up a concer with regards to this project. Recently, an article about a non-league football club, Uppermill Football Club was listed in AfD. The result of the debate was Delete. This club is quite notable at the local level, even though it was a level 14 club of the English football league system. It even has its own website. If this precedence was to carry on, it is in my humble opinion that this project would be redundent and unnecessary. Is there any way to address these concerns? Moreover, I feel that the statement at WP:CORP#Criteria for sporting clubs is unusually absolute in nature. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Football has passed a proposal that only clubs levels 1-10 are inherently notable and they seem to be deleting all clubs below level 10 unless they have played at a higher level in the past or are in a particularly strong level 11 league (SWL, Devon County, CML, etc). I'm with you and don't entirely agree with this. We don't need a bajillion stubs about clubs in Division 9 of the Mid-Sussex Football League, but if someone contributes to Wikipedia by writing an informative article about, say a level 14 club, that has sources and interesting information, I suggest we use common sense and keep it.--Balerion 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I advise we non-league enthusiasts play the long-term game.... concentrate on getting articles on clubs at levels 1-10 up to scratch... then it becomes far easier to argue keeping an article on a club that happens to be at level 11. Tompw 14:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is a fair comment. These articles (level 11 -24 clubs) would be created for sure in the near or distant future when information about them is verifiable in a great detail. Let us now refocus on our goals in de-stubbing the current non-league football club articles and we shall take it from there. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm new!

Also, for those active members of WikiProject Non-league football, I've done a quick userbox template (see my user page for how it looks - MLD). To add it to your own page type {{Template:User WikiProject Non-league football}} on your userpage.
--MLD 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Lately it seems that efforts have been concentrated on the English football league system and all the leagues/divisions therein. It's something that requires constant maintenance because we discover new leagues somewhat frequently, plus we have to deal with the vagaries and inconsistencies within the pyramid.
But really, the next important step is to really flesh out the club articles. There are a ton of stubs, especially in the Step 5 and Step 6 leagues. You seem to be an AFC Wimbledon...perhaps you could start by working on Isthmian Premier League articles? A lot of them already have some information, but most of them could use some formatting and adjustments. --Balerion 16:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should I do??

What club stubs should I do now?? I joined this a few months ago but I forgot about this, can anyone give me an assignment??

Reply to me when you find an assignment

Rakuten06 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just do whatever takes your fancy, dude.... ChrisTheDude 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


We don't really hand out assignments. It's Wikipedia, improve the articles on subjects you know something about. We have a ton of club article stubs, especially in the level 9 and 10 leagues. Most of the league pages have been improved over the past few months, but the club articles could definitely use some help. --Balerion 20:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Really?? Which club articles should I start helping?? Rakuten06 20:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned above, it's really up to you, we're all editors together, nobody is a "senior" editor who's going to tell you to edit such-and-such, but if you really don't know where to start, just as a suggestion, how about having a look at the clubs in the Combined Counties Football League Premier Division - lots of stubs there..... ChrisTheDude 08:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic content vs News

Hiya, I'm new to this project and all. I'm a Hyde United fan (I know, this page really needs sorting out too!) and will help out where I can. I've noticed quite a few football articles are a bit 'newsy', and have a lot of focus on recent results. Something to look out for, I'd think. One quite bad example is the FCUM page which has such delights as

"FC United defeated Brodsworth Welfare (Doncaster) by 3-1 in an away fixture (taking most of the 1,251 crowd), then went to Padiham F.C. in Round One where goals by Simon Carden (2) and Stuart Rudd gave FC United a 3-0 victory in front of 1,371 supporters"

I know they're only a recently formed club, but I feel it does set a bit of a precedent. Thoughts are appreciated - tell me I'm out of order if you like. As I said, I'm new to Wiki etiquette! --Gavinio 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree, there is certainly far too much detail on the FCUM page - we don't even have match-by-match accounts of the current season for most Premiership teams, let alone a team that plays eight levels lower. It definitely needs trimming (WP is not a news wire, after all). As I see it (and this goes for league teams as much as non-league) we should be aiming for an overview of each club's history and highlights without falling victim to the curse of "recentism" (whereby the last couple of years are detailed in painstaking detail whilst whole decades from earlier in the history are glossed over in single sentences)..... ChrisTheDude 08:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree, too much detail on the main article. Perhaps if whoever is updating this article feels the need to keep such detailed information about each match they should be in season-by-season articles like Plymouth Argyle F.C. season 2006-07. Also, it may be original research, has all of this information been published before? Gasheadsteve 09:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see I'm not on my own with that one - shall I be the one to wield the sword then? Anyway, as for the original research, I think you're always going to struggle without that in small non-league clubs. I've seen other clubs do the same outside the non-league arena too. The difficulty with FCUM is that they're so recently formed - there's not much beyond that. I'll give it a go - watch the revert war commence from fans who think they're being victimised... :o) --Gavinio
OK - I've done it! Can people please take a look at the FCUM and FC United of Manchester Season 2005-06 articles and tidy up if needs be? I'm a bit busy at the moment! --Gavinio

[edit] Carshalton Athletic

I've just finished rewriting the history for Carshalton Athletic and would appreciate someone having alook and seeing if it is OK (I've a feeling I've been a bit long winded!). Will be working on the grounds section over the next couple of days. Thanks Vicard 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, especially in that you've given equal weight to every era of Carshalton's history...recentism can be a problem with football articles. My thought is that we could make use of WikiProject's Assessment drive to get it up to Good Article status without too much more work. There are currently only 14 football articles with such status and to get an article in there that is within the scope of the non-league world would be a nice advertisement for our sub-Project. --Balerion 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sadly from looking at their priorities and recent nomination habits, it doesn't look likely that a non league article would get very far at all, even the Watford article failed to get nominated. Judging from the discussions on WikiProject football, it needs a bit of formatting and fitting to their style template for clubs but that shouldn't be too arduous. Only real difficulty will be getting the info on club colours and the badge (which has changed a couple of times recently) / motto. Still wondering how to do that without falling foul of No Original Research - suspect I can get it from the club (advantage of living round the corner) but citing its going to be difficult. Will wait to see if a request for their assesment throws anything up. Vicard 07:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Chasetown F.C.

What are people's thoughts with regard to the huge "Statistics and records" section in this article, which is essentially the fixtures/results for this season with scorers, etc, as you might find in a club programme? It's being meticulously maintained by a couple of IP editors, but (overlooking the fact that it isn't wiki-formatted) it just seems to be way too much detail to include on WP (under the "WP is not RSSSF" principle), especially for a step 4 non-league team. I didn't want to just go ahead and delete it all (although presumably it would be deleted at the end of the season anyway unless the IPs were planning on adding on next season, and then the one after, and then the one after that, etc, which would certainly be inappropriate) but wanted to see what other editors thought......? ChrisTheDude 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the records are fine, and should be left in. A club's position in the previous season's table is something that always be included. However, the individual results should go... one can find this information in plenty of other places, not least the club's website. Tompw (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Tompw, there is definitely no need to have the full match record there, it is just clutter. Also needs 'Wikifying' as a lot of it seems a very chatty nature. Harrias 11:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
They could be moved to a new article, "Chasetown F.C. 2006-07 Season", where they could use that information, and even expand upon it. I don't know if that article would be notable enough to qualify for Wikipedia, however. Che84 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, F.C. United of Manchester season 2005-06 exists, and at the time they were playing at Step 6, whereas Chasetown are at Step 4. Of course it could be argued that FCUM are a special case..... ChrisTheDude 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of WikiProject Football task forces

A proposal to reorganise all football related projects has been made here. Input from members of this project is wanted. – Elisson • T • C • 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern League

I have been involved in a minor naming battle with User:Daddy Kindsoul about the title for the Northern League article. He wants it at Northern Football League while I and another user have moved it a number of times to Northern League (football) which includes its correct title (it has never been known as the Northern Football League and the standard method of disambiguating articles with the same name, i.e. an identifier in brackets. Does anyone have any thoughts? - fchd 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please show an example of any other English football league on Wikipedia that has the ugly "____ (football)" thing as its title, which isn't its name anyway. All of the articles which I have come across (keeping in mind I've also edited heavily non-league articles) they've had ____ Football League, unless the standard ____ League title was available. Those seem to be the standards for leagues, while the brackets doesn't seem to be IMO and it looks terribly ugly. - The Daddy 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd be happy to help

but I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know how to join a wikiproject. I would like to expand Fleetwood Town Fc and work other Unibond League teams, and other teams local to me. Count me in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veganfishcake (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Blue Square Premier

I've noticed that several articles, eg Oxford United, have started to use the name "Blue Square Premier" as the league in which they play. As far as I'm aware the consensus is that we should always use the un-sponsored name, and the un-sponsored name remains "Conference National" - what are other people's views.....? ChrisTheDude 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should keep consistency with the official name. Mattythewhite 11:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] England Football task force

For anyone that's interested, there is now an England task force at Wikiproject:Football. You can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/England task force. I'm not sure how best to proceed with having both that one and this one, the main advantage of the task force for me is that the assessment stuff is inherited automatically. I'm happy to help people if you'd like to turn Non-league into a taskforce rather than a child WikiprojectPaulbrock 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still no answer...

so i'll try here. I would love to help out with Keynsham Town F.C. and have instant access to relevant information, but it seems no-one will listen. Calling all responses. How do I join Wikiproject or anything else? Answer at my talk page, or here, or the Keynsham Town F.C. discussion page, or anywhere I can find it. Muffin Man 23 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just go ahead and edit the page, mate, you don't need permission or anything. Just remember that all information must be attributable to reliable sources - see WP:RS and WP:V ChrisTheDude 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. I think the source is reliable, ummmm, the manager. That is good, i will edit the page before the next season. Do you have any suggestions for new topics, as I am new? Muffin Man 23 15:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I would advise you to read WP:RS, WP:V and also WP:REF before you edit the article. As for what the article needs, it needs a Notes/references section and it definitely needs sources added as at present there are none. An infobox would also be useful. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the manager is your dad, but word-of-mouth information from him is not a reliable source as defined by the WP:RS policy. As Tangerines says, you would be well advised to familiarise yourself with that policy before editing the article - essentially, any content you add must be attributable to a reliable independent source which other editors can double-check i.e. a webpage published by a third party, a newspaper article, a book, etc. I'm sure you can appreciate that if you were to put in some info which you obtained from your dad, we'd only have your word for it that he'd said it, and we'd only have his word for it that it was true, neither of which can be double checked by other editors. As for what the article needs, take a look at some other non-league club articles and see what sections they tend to have. A good example would be Margate F.C., which is a Featured Article, meaning that it has been assessed and considered to meet every requirement of being a top-notch WP article. As Tangerines says, a references section is absolutely essential and an infobox would probably be next priority - if you need any help with infoboxes, leave a message on my talk page, I'll be happy to help. Hope this helps.... ChrisTheDude 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for all your comments, they are very helpful. I will read all the policies and only use my dad for the first team, and not any history aspects. I would still like to help out with the wikiproject but dont know how. I will edit the page in 2-3 weeks when my dad gets back from holiday. Once again, thanks for the comments and advice. Muffin Man 23

[edit] How do I do an Infobox

Hi, I've been editing the Murton AFC wikipage and would like to include an info box but have no idea how to do one any help would be appreciated. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here, this should tell you everything you need to know about the football club infobox, if not feel free to leave a message on my talkpage. A couple of other points while I'm here with regard to the article:
  • the 8th step of non-league is the 12th overall level of English football, not the 13th (Prem, Champ, L1, L2 + 8 = 12)
  • at one point the club is referred to as "we", that needs changing as first person should never be used in a wiki article
  • the paragraph in question is quite "haranguing" and not really written in a neutral style, it could do with being re-written to be less partisan in line with WP:NPOV
  • please try and add references to the article, see WP:REF for more on this
Hope all this helps, anyway..... ChrisTheDude 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable former players

As promised in the Leek Town F.C. peer review (here) I'm raising the issue about notable former players, or at least for non-league club articles that are aspiring to eventually attaining GA or even FA status.

There are two solutions to this issue.

Option one is to create a category of notable former players for that particular club (for instance Category:Leek Town F.C. players)

Advantages:

+ This method is consistent with the format used for FA articles of League clubs.

+ In principle this method prevents irrelevant or misleading information being displayed on the club's main page; a player himself may be world renown, but that doesn't mean to say he was an important part of that club's history.

Disadvantages:

- As a general rule league clubs require the creation of this category for length reasons. On the other hand there will usually be an insufficient number of wikilink-able players to make this category appropriate for clubs below the Conference National.

- This could potentially lead to a player central to a club's history not being mentioned on the main page.

Option two is to list wikilink-able former players on the main page in the "Notable former players" section.

Advantages:

+ The section will almost always be of appropriate length (exceptional cases may dictate option one, for instance potentially AFC Wimbledon).

+ Players key to a clubs notable achievements are far more likely to be given due credit in the article.

Disadvantages:

- Adopting this option could lead to a "one rule for the league, one for non-league" attitude, which would be unwelcome and in some cases inappropriate.

- Disproportionate representation of famous players who haven't contributed to this particular club (for instance Ben Foster at Racing Club Warwick F.C..


My question is whether one of these styles should universally be accepted over the other with reference to non-league articles being edited to GA status or better, whether there is a threshold over the number of players that can be listed before option one is more approprate, or whether neither option would detract from an article's quality (please bear in mind I'm talking about articles hoping to obtain FA status, and thus "option three: don't have the section at all" normally isn't appropriate). BeL1EveR 20:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keynsham Town F.C.

Should the first team squad be on this page? An incomplete version was, but has been removed because 'they are not notable.' I noticed Portishead A.F.C. had this and wondered if anyone believed Keynsham Town F.C. should have it as well. I can get this information instantly. Muffin Man 23 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So long as it's verifiable, I see no problem. WP:NOTE does not itself restrict the content of articles (see last paragraph). --Malcolmxl5 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enfield

(cross-posted from the article's own talk page)

Is Enfield (1893) F.C. really a "completely new club", as the Enfield F.C. article claims? I mean, in 1986 Middlesbrough went into administration and were officially/legally re-formed as Middlesbrough (1986) F.C., but nobody treats the post-1986 version as a separate club. If, however, it's felt that Enfield (1893) really is a completely separate club, then it should have its own, separate, WP article. Currently the Enfield article can't seem to decide which way to play it - the infobox makes it look like the club's defunct, but the current ESL template is on there and the article isn't in the "defunct clubs" category..... ChrisTheDude 07:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tamworth FC in need of some serious editing.

Can anyone help out with this horribly long and news-like Tamworth F.C. article?

I don't know where to start! It needs a serious surgeons knife taking too it. --Gavinio 09:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on this, though anonymous users do keep undoing my work. Additionally, there are the associated articles History of Tamworth F.C. and Tamworth F.C. seasons, plus loads of player articles to be looked at. For example, Tamworth's current goalie, José Veiga , appears to have played many times for the first teams of both Benfica and Levante, but all of the info is on his Tamworth career! Dancarney 08:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also Tamworth F.C. season 2007-08 which seems to be some kind of news service. Does anyone think that this page is completely excessive? Dancarney 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem significantly different to all the other articles in Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2007-08 season..... ChrisTheDude 15:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but they seem pretty excessive to me too.Dancarney 10:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Complete and utter overkill. Can someone with a bit of clout put in a RfD? --212.169.34.18 10:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
An RfD is a Redirect for Deletion, how's that relevant....? ChrisTheDude 10:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to include level 11 clubs into this project!

I feel that it is now time to include level 11 (or step 7) clubs of the English football league system to this project. This means that ALL the level 11 clubs should be considered inherently notable. It is because these clubs are part of the National league system and are also eligible to compete in the FA Vase, which is a national competition. By including these clubs into this project, Wikipedia would have a very comprehensive list of English football clubs. It would also make this project more in-depth in nature as well. Any comments on this would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. Most of the clubs at Step 7 are minor entities, with no notability outside their own very local area. Crowds will very often be below 30. Finding significant coverage in third-party sources on many of them would, I believe, be beyond us all. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on the notability required to sustain an article, and it is my contention that well over 90% of Step 7 clubs would fail. Also two points of clarification - very, very few Step 7 clubs are eligible to compete in the FA Vase - only those from certain divisions and even then only those with lights; and the clubs themselves are not part of the National League System - only the leagues and divisions themselves are. This may seem a little pedantic, but this is one of the reasons why more leagues are notable than the clubs which play in them. I say this as a great fan of non-League football (indeed I visited a club newly promoted to a Step 7 division on Saturday), but on this occasion the head rules the heart. Siva1979, if you feel differently, why don't you try making a proper article for two or three of them - not just a stub of "XYZ F.C. are a football team that for the 2007-08 season play in the ABC League Division D", bit a real, sourced, verifiable article. - fchd 11:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be some flexibility on this, and it should decided on a club-by-club basis. I think that teams like Tuffley Rovers F.C. have got every right to have an article, even though they play at level 11, given the fact they have played at a higher level in the past. Taverners F.C. are perhaps pushing it a bit too far and there is a strong case for deletion, as it looks like it's mostly OR. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Clubs that play at level 11 but have been higher in the past would qualify for an article anyway based on that fact, but the debate here involves creating articles for ALL step 7 clubs. I estimate that there's just over 700 clubs at step 7. Even if we assume that 200 have played at a higher level in the past (and I'm sure that's massively overstating it) then that would still leave 500 new articles which, as Richard points out, realistically have very little chance of ever progressing past stub status (for instance take a look at the Google results for Heath Town Rangers - there's simply nothing there), and at the end of the day is there really much point in creating 500 new stubs which tell the casual reader nothing.....? ChrisTheDude 12:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I DO feel differently, Mr. Richard. In the future, I will do my best in creating a proper article for these teams. In the meantime, I am very disheartened that you put Littleton F.C. on AFD. One must take note that these clubs have the potential to have substantial information on each of them. For example, Littleton have their own website and some bits of information can be taken from that website. Personally, I dislike red-links and it was my personal goal to create articles for these clubs. You also must have noticed that I was the main editor who removed ALL the red-links in the English football pyramid article a couple of months ago. Now, that you have started putting the above mentioned club on AFD, I am strongly discouraged in creating articles about them. It saddens me that despite stating that you are a big fan of non-league football, you seem eager to delete these level 11 club articles from this project. In any case, I am not sure how to proceed from here. Do you want me to completely stop creating articles about these level 11 clubs or do you want me to wait for another year or two before proceeding to creating these articles? It is my hope that in the future, consensus will change and ALL level 11 clubs will have their own articles. Do you, Mr. Richard, share the same vision that I have concerning these level 11 clubs? --Siva1979Talk to me 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't share your vision that level 11 clubs are at all notable. Taking Littleton F.C. for example. I've been there and seen a game. The crowd was about a dozen. I ask again, where is the significant coverage in third-party sources that prove notability. Their own website isn't a third party source. If you can demonstrate otherwise, about this or any other club - feel free to build one or two, and then keep creating them. Otherwise, I'm afraid you'll have to get used to seeing them on AfD. This isn't a reflection on you, but on the application of the WP:N policy. Please contribute to the AfD debate on Littleton, your point of view being the opposite to the nominator (i.e. me), is very valuable when establishing consensus. - fchd 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, first of all, allow me to clarify that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines are not set in stone and editors have every right to be bold about this. The information in Littleton F.C. is verified; this means that it is very unlikely that the information in that article is false or incorrect. Currently, I feel that it is now time to change this notability and include level 11 clubs into this project. This will make this project very, very comprehensive in substance as well, which I feel that few websites would be able to match. This is my intention in creating articles about these clubs, so that Wikipedia would become more comprehensive in nature with regards to football (soccer) articles. In fact, I had this dream way back in January 2006 when I started editing on this project. You must have noticed that I was the main cause of creating articles on dozens, if not hundreds of non-league soccer clubs. My goal was to have articles on ALL of these clubs. I was disappointed that consensus by Wikipedians stated that level 11 clubs are not notable in nature. However, I felt that consensus will change in the future when more level 11 clubs would have their own websites, stating important information about them. Now, I feel that it is the right time to state that ALL level 11 clubs are inherently notable. In the far-fetched future, it is also my hope that level 12 clubs would be inherently notable as well, but that is a different story. Right now, allow me to persuade fellow soccer fanatic Wikipedians to change their stand and include level 11 clubs into this wonderful project. In any case, which website in the world has comprehensive details about non-league football? --Siva1979Talk to me 10:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem with including level 11 clubs IF the articles are verifiable and not original research. Remember (from WP:V) Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This very much depends on how good the local press are in the area that a team plays, but if the information is published, it seems silly not to include it on Wikipedia just because of a general blanket ban on level 11 clubs. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 11:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in fact all the articles which I have created on level 11 clubs are correct information, as far as I am concerned. None of them are based on original research. Of course, the local press is also responsible for publishing correct information. I feel that now it is the time to remove the general blanket ban on the creation of level 11 clubs. Remember, these clubs are also part of the WikiProject on non-league football as well. So, now it is the time to include these clubs into Wikipedia. I have actually waited patiently for over one year on this issue as well! So, I feel that fans of non-league football should now voice out their opinion on this issue as well before ALL level 11 clubs are sent to AFD for deletion! --Siva1979Talk to me 12:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The information in Littleton F.C. is verified - it's hardly taxing to verify an article when it says nothing except what town the team plays in, its year of formation and the league it plays in..... ChrisTheDude 15:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In the club website, it is stated that they will provide a comprehensive history of the club very soon. Moreover, the club was founded in 1890, making it a very old club rich in history and tradition. Surely, that is notable in itself? --Siva1979Talk to me 02:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Personally I don't believe that ALL level 11 clubs should ever be deemed "inherently" notable. This season there's been a level 11 match (The 61 v Totternhoe in the Spartan South Mids League Division 2) at which the paying attendance was 5 people - how on earth could we justify making ALL clubs at that level inherently notable when some of them pull in that sort of "crowd".....? ChrisTheDude 10:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I believe Step 7 clubs should only be included if (a) they have played at a higher level in the past and/or (b) have competed in the FA Cup/Vase/Amateur Cup in the past. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(<) I'm sorry to come into this a bit late. Personally, I feel that even level 10 is a rather low bar for notability but that's beside the point. If Siva can demonstrate that substantive articles that meet WP:NOTE can be written about say 80% of level 11 clubs then I would be happy to support the contention that all level 11 clubs are inherently notable; the converse is of course true, I oppose otherwise. By substantive, I of course mean that articles should amount to somewhat more than just being an entry in a directory. --Malcolmxl5 21:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to notablity criteria

In case no-one has noticed, the notability criteria for players has been bypassed/changed to allow players who have never played in a fully professional league to have articles (See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Gavin_Hoyte). I am arguing that since this rule has been used to delete & prevent articles about conference level players, and it is now being bypassed, we need to redefine the notability criteria. My suggestion is something like this:

  • Has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure or in the FA Cup.
  • Has played senior international football or football at the Olympic games.
  • Has been included in a squad (has a squad number) at the highest level of continental club football (Champions League, Copa Libertadores) or for a senior international team.

This would allow for the inclusion of articles about players at Professional teams in the Conference. If anybody has strong feelings about the issue feel free to comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, Regards, King of the North East (T/C) 16:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To support such a rule would need 100% concrete proof of which clubs are fully pro and how long they've been fully pro - is this readily available.....? ChrisTheDude 16:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The burden of providing the proof should be with whoever is creating the player bio. Whether they get this from an online source or by contacting the club directly is up to them. I just want to use the opportunity to establish that professional players at the national level of league competition should be included.King of the North East (T/C) 17:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of the Southern League

Can anyone clarify the various "sections" of the Southern League in the 1930s? I have two queries:

  1. In the early part of the decade there were Eastern and Western sections, with a play-off between the winners, but there was also a Central section, and for two seasons Margate played in both the Eastern and Central sections at the same time?!??!
  2. In the 36/37 season there was a "Midweek Section" in addition to the main league - what was this all about?

Any answers gratefully received :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a 'Central Section' was introduced in 1933-34 and continued until 1935-36. Margate were of course not the only club to play in both the main league and another. Paul Harrison's book (Harrison, Paul (1989). Southern League Football: The First Fifty Years. Gravesend: Paul Harrison, pp.62. ISBN 0951500104. ) says on page 45, "The decreasing number of member clubs brought on by the severe financial depression engulfing the country resulted in a central section being formed to give clubs more fixtures, although the play-off for the championship would not involve this section." The 'Midweek Section' was introduced in 1936-37 and continued until 1938-39. It is noted in the book that "For three seasons in the late 1930's a mid-week section was created at the request of clubs." No reason is given but it would seem reasonable to assume that the purpose was the same, to provide more fixtures. --Malcolmxl5 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Malc, most helpful! ChrisTheDude 22:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crest help

Could someone with access to a more sophisticated image package than MS Paint have a go at tidying up the bottom of the Ipswich Wanderers F.C. crest.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template update

I have logged a proposed change to {{football}} that if implemented would move this project's notice into the same area used for taskforces and use Image:Olympic pictogram Football.svg as an icon. This will get around the issue on the template when both Irish=yes and Non-League=yes, currently when both are displayed - the template breaks. As this directly affects how this project is shown in the banner, your comments on whether this would be a good thing are welcome at Template talk:Football#Template update - non-casesensitive and rearrangement. Nanonic (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

I messed up the page while trying to add my name to the list. Can someone undo my edits please.

Sorry.

--TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A.F.C. Sudbury

I've submitted A.F.C. Sudbury (a page I've done a reasonable amount on) for peer review. Please have a look and leave your comments. Cheers. Dancarney (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Histon F.C. also initiated. Dancarney (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ipswich Wanderers

Can someone help me with the page... I have put a bit of work in and just need some finishing touches to make it a bit better... Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipswich_Wanderers_F.C. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done some work on this page, the main thing needed is some references. A list of honours would also be useful. Seems good otherwise. Dancarney (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Who deleted half of it?
I'm not good at code but if i give you the details on your talk you can do it. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted a considerable chunk because it was opinionated and appeared to have been written by someone from the club (using the phrase "we" a few times). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)