Talk:Celtic F.C.

Sectarianism

The first Old Firm match was won by Celtic and there have been nearly four hundred matches played to date. The Old Firm rivalry has fuelled many assaults and many deaths on Old Firm derby days; an activist group that monitors sectarian activity in Glasgow has reported that on Old Firm weekends, admissions to hospital emergency rooms have increased ninefold over normal levels[citation needed] and journalist Franklin Foer noted that in the period from 1996 to 2003, eight deaths in Glasgow were directly linked to Old Firm matches, as well as hundreds of assaults.[91] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daymac786 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

UEFA probe over 'hate songs'

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3931165/Celtic-UEFA-probe-over-hate-songs.html I thought I would bring this up here before attempting to add this information to the page. I know the Old Firm pages can lead to heated exchanges. --BadSynergy (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we wait and see the outcome of the probe and then decide whether to add anything to the page or not. Adam4267 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been informed before Adam that the most up to date information should be included in wikipedia. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Treading a fine line here, with regards to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The tabloids are being their usual selfs and having a field day with this before anything is actually handed towards Celtic. The complaint was made by an ex-police officer not any kind of UEFA or FARE representative that was present, so that lends even less credibility to this story; but, UEFA still need to follow it up with an investigation. Wait until a decision has been reached, if the fans are found guilty, put it in the "Sectarianism in Glasgow" article or something. Also, the complaint is against a chant about a player (namely "Paddy McCourt's F***** Army") not exactly a "hate song". --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a classic example of double standards on wikipedia. I repeat the most up to date information goes into the article. That is not acting like a newspaper. A similar situation happened with celtics old firm rivals rangers last year where by 'the most up to date info went into the article'. Your argument about including such information in the "Sectarianism in Glasgow" article has some weight. But until there is an agreement on both articles then i dont know how you can argue that.Monkeymanman (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

the complaint was made by a current police officer. This has occurred in plenty of matches not just in this one. The bare facts should be mentioned without the media spin. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be in the article, however is it not better to wait and see the outcome. If Celtic are not given into trouble then it is really not meritious of being in this article. If they are then we can add it in, with the full version of events once that happens. Adam4267 (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Managers

Wim Jansen was manger for only 1 year entry in managers section is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.216.214 (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

• It features a sort function
• Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
  • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
  • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
• It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
• It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
• It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Celtic F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, —WFC— 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

User:Haldraper performed a bit of a tidy on the lead sentence, which was reverted. I am in agreement with what was done. Specifically;

• "based in the Parkhead area of Glasgow". The district of Parkhead means absolutely nothing to most readers, so telling them this in the lead leave them any the wiser. Nor is it particularly relevant that Celtic are based here, rather than in any other part of Glasgow. But mention of it in the lead implies that it is. What is far, far more significant and informative is that they are based in Glasgow. So the detail about Parkhead is largely irrelevant, distracting and should be removed.

• "currently plays in the Scottish Premier League". "currently" here is completely superfluous verbiage that doesn't tell the reader anything useful. Time relative references should be avoided in Wikipedia. The reader does not know when "currently" was written, so does not know if this is still accurate. It could also be inferred that this status is in a state of change, or liable to. It would be better if this simply said "plays in the Scottish Premier League". Should this fact ever change I'm sure it will promptly be updated.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Its the based in Parkhead bit which i specifically object to being removed. Its informative Glasgow is fairly big and it identifies the clubs location. Whether it means anything isn't the point we are an encyclopaedia its easily referenced and it links to the article to tell people where parkhead is. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between telling the reader everything, and telling them detail up front before other far more important information. Frankly I doubt most readers give two hoots which part of Glasgow Celtic are based in and will skip over this in search of something more informative. It's simply not that important and could easily be left to later. But if it must be there, then can it not be abbreviated to "Parkhead, Glasgow"? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Together with their Glasgow rivals Rangers, they form the Old Firm, one of the most famous and fierce rivalries in sport. The club's traditional playing colours are green and white hooped shirts with white shorts and white socks."

The first part of the section above is both unsourced and not required in the lead. Why not just state "Celtic have a fierce rivalry with their cross-city opponents Celtic; the two are collectively known as the Old Firm" The old firm article and other areas of the Celtic article have the details.

The second part is dubious because it shows the clubs colours in the info box with further details in the article.

"were all born within a 30-mile radius of Parkhead." Extra information stated in detail in the main body of the article.

"An estimated 80,000 Celtic supporters travelled to Seville for the occasion. Celtic fans received awards from UEFA and FIFA for their behaviour at the match. In April 2003 the club was estimated to have a fan base of nine million people, including one million in North America."

First part of above is undue for the lead to include how many fans travelled to a one off game. Explained in extensive detail in main body and the celtic fc supporters article. Same with award, what relevance does this have above others, suitable for match article, main body and supporters article. Second part about the nine million fans is seriously outdated and questionable to its factuality. Suitable for the main body as a statement of that time period and supporters article. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

{editconflict)Celtic is (should it not be are?) a Scottish football club based in Parkhead, Glasgow. They compete at the highest level of football in Scotland, the Scottish Premier League, and have done so since top level football was established in 1890.

My proposal for a better introductory segment. I personally think the whole lead needs a re-write, it reads sort of like an advertisement and does not comply with MOS:LEAD. Adam4267 (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Im really not bothered in which way or form Parkhead is mentioned but it should be there.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Adam4267's proposal above is good, can we do this?

The whole is/are thing is complex, but usually hangs on whether you are talking about the club (singular "is") or the team (plural "are"). In this case it's singular because it goes on to say "football club". In the article you link to it uses 'are' because Lawwell is including himself in "We". If he had talked about "Celtic football club" he would have said "is in decent shape". He wouldn't say "Celtic football club are in decent shape". A commentator, however, may say "Celtic are in decent shape" when talking about the team during a game. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)