Talk:Newcastle United F.C.

Stadium Name

The official stadium name has been changed to sportsdirect@st james' park. Why can't we leave it at that. Bolton play at the Reebok Stadium and Arsenal plays at Emirates Stadium don't they? I think people should respect that the club stadium is no longer "st jame's park" but "sportsdirect@st james' park". I know this is painfull for all toon supporters but unfortunately that is now the official homeground name. Please stop reverting the stadium name.220.253.221.73 (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I agree. Retaining the name as St. James Park is not encyclopaedic content. The official name is no longer St. James' Park. User:Milzo1986

Agreed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.53.5 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Claudio Cacapa

Where is he? he hasn't left....

Bradden Inman

If someone could please insert a link to Bradden Inman in the team list it would be appreciated. His name is currently unlinked.

Additionally, as he is an Australian who has represented Scotland at an U19 level, could you please add the Australian flag beside his name along with the Scotland flag currently appearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fußballspielen (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

He's a Scotland international. How does he need an Australian flag? That's not common practice. RicoRichmond (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given he was born in Australia, he's an Australian until such time as he pulls on a senior Scottish jersey which he has not done yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.78.53 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Does MOS:FLAG say anything about it being based on senior squad? He is still eligible (the final factor for our purposes) for both but since he has played for Scotland at some level and not for Australia it makes sense to mark it as Scottish.Cptnono (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that he's playing fluff games for Scotland and hasn't made his senior debut, nor made his mind up, it makes no sense at all. Until such time as he's pulled on a senior jersey he's not a national [in terms of football] for any nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.213.166 (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Flag is based on sporting nationality and he has not played for Australia at any level. Sporting nationality is Scotland even if it is not senior level.Cptnono (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So now we're going to have a flag changing party every time he decides to play for Australia or Scotland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.182.164 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we could just not use the flag at all. And I am not sure if one training game against a club with the youth squad qualifies him as playing for Australia. Cptnono (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just like playing a game for the youth side of Scotland doesn't qualify him for playing for Scotland, as he's a youth player refering to FIFA rules covered under MOS:FLAG. Until such time as he plays at a senior level we might as well not use the flag at all to avoid any NPOV issues. --124.186.182.164 (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Current Squad Top Scorers

I have removed the table that was being held here, as it does not belong on the talk page per the guidelines. I am pretty sure it is not permitted anywhere, but it definitely cannot be stored and updated here until someone finds a home for it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Testimonials

The page states that Mark Lawrence was one of the players awarded a testimonial - and the hyperlink points to the refernce below. I know we have had some duffers in our time, but surely not him

---

Mark H. Lawrence, was the principal trombonist of the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra from 1974 to 2007.[1]

Lawrence was educated at the University of Michigan and the Curtis Institute of Music. His teachers have included Carlos Rivera, Allen H. Chase, Glenn Smith, M. Dee Stewart, and Glenn Dodson. He is an active soloist, clinician, chamber musician, and teacher. He has performed at the International Brass Conference, the International Trombone Association Conference, and is a frequent recitalist in the United States and abroad. He has been featured as a soloist with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra on several occasions, and has been guest artist with many other orchestras as well. He is a founding member of Summit Brass, an ensemble comprised of outstanding brass players from across America. In addition he is a frequent performer with Chicago's Music of the Baroque. Unlike other trombonists such as Joe Alessi, Mark Lawrence's sound is much more compact. Among the best aspects of his playing are his tone and clear, crystaline upper register.

He currently teaches at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music, the Colburn School and the Rafael Mendez Brass Institute. He has been on the faculty of Boston University, the Tanglewood Institute, and the Music Academy of the West, and has given master classes worldwide. Many of his former students have gone on to successful orchestral careers in the U.S. and in Europe.

^ Kosman, Joshua. "Sliding out on his own", San Francisco Chronicle, 2007-09-09. Retrieved on 2008-01-06. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lawrence" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.25.107 (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Does nobody actually watch this article?

Some idiot has ripped out the entire history section and the entire stadium section yet nobody has bothered to put it back? - Talk of the Toon (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

john Tudor

Someone might wish to add John Tudor info to this page. --  Chzz  ►  20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Top Scorer

Surely there should be a section for top scorer each season and which division it was. Good piece of information missed out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.137.76 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Found this: http://www.toonarama.co.uk/players/top%20scorers/newcastle_top_scorers_history.html . It looks accurate from a few minutes of research. Unfortunately it doesn't get into the competition detail (friendlies, cups, etc). I do think it serves its purpose in highlighting an important feature of each season's squad, though.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Coaching Staff

Some changes that need to be made

1. Chris Hughton is currently acting as Caretaker Manager

2. First Team Coaches needs to be changed to First Team Coach as theres only one.

3. Steve Tweddle is NOT a youth coach at the club

4. David Henderson's name needs changing to Davie Henderson

5. Add Ian McGuiness as a physiotherapist

6. Need to add Chris McMenemy & Ray Gooding as Scouts, the latter just joined today after leaving Coventry at the end of alst season.

(Michaelfoster87 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Notable fan sites

{{editsemiprotected}} The NUFC fan site/forum Newcastle-Online has changed domain from .com to .org. Please edit the hyperlink.

Thank you,

Dave Admin, Newcastle-Online.org

Y Done, thanks. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle training.jpg

I have uploaded this on wikicommon, [1] If anyone wants to use it then can. It's at White Hart Lane when Newcastle beat Spurs 4-1, some of the players are training before the game in it. Leave us a note if you do decide to use it. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ownership

Newcastle has been taken off the market and is not currently up for sale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.49.44 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Badge

Hello,guys.Please could someone tell me what are those horses with fish tail called in heraldry? I really need it. Thanks! Nicholson1989 ; talk

They're sea-horses, according to the club's website. The crest is based on the Coat of Arms of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, blazoned here. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris Hughton - English or Irish?

Chris Hughton's little flag in the infobox is pingponging between Irish and English at the moment. Could we reach a consensus on which applies (or use both)? The Chris Hughton article describes him as an English-born Irish former footballer [who] was a full Republic of Ireland international so either flag appears to be applicable, depending on whether it means "place of birth" or "national affiliation". Tonywalton ^Talk 17:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My 2c worth - as a player, he had an affiliation with the Republic of Ireland. Currently, in his role as assistant/caretaker manager, he has no affiliation with Ireland, so it should be English. However, I think players who were born in one country but represents another should have both flags (eg. Shola Ameobi [Nigeria/England], Frank Wiafe Danquah [Ghana/Netherlands], Bradden Inman [Australia/Scotland], etc...) - TheMightyPeanut —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyPeanut (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The flag shows which country the player has chosen to represent at national level under FIFA eligibility rules.

User:Milzo1986 —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Current Squad

Why are random names going into the squad sections? Should the article be semi-protected again?Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, actually, there's no need for the squad section to be updated till 1 July 2009 anyway! TheMightyPeanut (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that Bradden Inman's flag has been changed a few times. I did it once before hearing the recent news. It sounds like he played for Australia's youth team but just recently expressed intererest in playing for Scotland since he wasn't called up and ass tri-citizenship. It sin't a big deal either way but it looks like he should have the Aussie flag until commitments are made from both the player and Scotland. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection for all of the recent other players that do not actually exist being added, Sandcastle FC, not a big club rant, etc edits by IP's.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Cptnono in regards to Inman, and I have dug up a source for you all to show Inman still refers to himself as Australian: http://www.nufcblog.com/2009/06/02/newcastle-spotlight-on-youth-17-year-old-brad-inman/ The website it self is that of a Newcastle supporter, it clearly mentions Brad Inman as Australian and he Inman is quoted as saying: “I did think if I can come over to Newcastle then the next step is to try to play for Australia.” So in regards to the well documented nature of his choice as Scotland it is not true as there are still harboured dreams of representing Australia, and he still sees himself as Australian, not Scottish. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patmeek (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I had to change my position on it when he played for Scotland. According to MOS:FLAG we have to use his "sporting nationality". If Australia does say he is being considered and things do pan out with him pursuing Australia it will get complicated. The source mentioned also says "Inman says his current preference is to continue playing for the Scotland youth teams" so it is a little confusing of what his childhood dreams were, his ambitions are now, what will happen if he doesn't continue with Newcastle and so on. It just isn't clear so who he has played for is a good back up. We can always use neither to prevent confusion if needed but that could be worse. "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality."Cptnono (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

imao,this is vandalism--70.183.184.26 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Transfers 2008/09

I removed this section from this page. It already appears on the Newcastle United 2008/09 season page, which seems to be more correct anyway. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)TheMightyPeanut

That looks like a good idea to me. Transfers in a given season in the article on that given season. It also avoids having two things to keep in sync. Apologies if this (which I reverted) was you, but without an edit summary...Tonywalton ^Talk 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me, but whoever made that edit make me think about the relevance of the transfers section on the main NUFC page... TheMightyPeanut (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)TheMightyPeanut

Shearer? Not Shearer?

I'm seriously considering putting this page on WP:RFPP until there is a definitive statement from NUFC regarding the return or otherwise as manager of Shearer. As far as I can see from the news sources (BBC, Sky, etc) are all either reporting with weasel words such as "BBC Sport understands or are reporting what each other are saying (notably Reuters who are reporting what they've seen on the telly). nufc.com are at least remaining neutral-ish, saying "A Thursday press conference has been mentioned - but as of 12 noon, nothing had been forthcoming direct from SJP or Shearer - despite multiple media claims of behind the scenes "club insider" type briefings. " Let's not forget it is 1st April and it's entirely possible for April Fools jokes and similar misunderstandings to gain lives of their own. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be a particularly cruel April fools joke! I've added a hidden comment next to the manager's name advising against adding Shearer as manager until we have it confirmed. If people keep adding it, it would be worth requesting semi-protection. – Toon^(talk) 16:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Come to that if it gets silly enough and we reach consensus here I'll just click the "protect" tag myself. As for the possibility of it's being a joke, these things can snowball, even when not meant as a joke. I find it a little puzzling that the news media are still merely repeating each other. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm doubtful it is a joke, not least because Sky Sports broke the "news" on March 31st - hopefully that means it's not an April fool. If so, it's tricked all of the major news sites... but that doesn't mean that it's complete - plus even those news reports say that he "will be appointed" - he clearly isn't the manager right now. – Toon^(talk) 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm doubtful as well, but there's nothing verifiable. As for tricking all of he major news sources, when you get Reuters (who supply news sources) reporting what they've seen reported, then that report (tagged "Reuters") appears somewhere else, which is taken as "having been reported"... For a classic case of one apparently reputable source being accepted by other sources, which acceptance leads to further acceptance, see Amarna Princess (though I'm not suggesting any malicious intent in the Shearer thing). Tonywalton ^Talk 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NUFC ARE CURRENTLY MANGERLESS AS SHEARER'S AND KINEAR'S CONTRACTRS HAVE EXPIRED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.240.247 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Honours

The listing for the 95/96 and 96/97 seasons refer to the First Division. Should this not be the Premier League?

Also, the 92/93 season lists Newcastle as winning the 2nd Division, rather than the first.ImaginingTheGreenIsRed (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch this article please

Two instances of vandalism have had to be reverted in as many days. Great Unwashed - what an insult to Sunderland! Digifiend (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has a high rate of vandalism. Unfortunately, an admin did not grant a previous request to semi protect the article until the end of the season since it is not high enough. Basically, editors who care have to put it on their watch list as you suggested.Cptnono (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

League

I noticed there was a back and forth on the league. I was trying to think of a good time for it to be switched (now, first friendly, first day of the season, etc) I was thinking a good point would be when RS like BBC switch their web pages. Right now, NUFC is under EPL at their football site but this will obviously change sooner or later.Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It has however changed on some parts of the sky sports website Carrnage93 (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't obvious. The EPL Premier League Handbook, Rule B.28, says "Subject to Rule B.29, the bottom 3 clubs in the table at the end of the Season shall be relegated to the Football League". B.29 deals with clubs which leave the Premier League during the season (go bust, for example) so isn't relevant. The "Season" is defined as "the period commencing on the date of the first League Match on the League fixture list and ending on the date of the last". So far so clear, but I can't find anything in there which says when relegation actually becomes effective. There's a rule about a relegated club giving back its share in the Premier League, and various things about broadcasting rights, but I can't see any time limits or "effictive from" dates. The Football League website doesn't appear to have any links to their formal rules at all. Just out of interest though, both the Premier League and the Football League websites are still showing the 2008-09 team lists. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice! The rule would lead me to believe it is effective immediately. We could just go by when the leagues actually gets around to updating their sites to prevent any confusion. This must have been dealt with before on Wikipedia but it really isn't a big deal. I would personally prefer not to have editors reverting it back and forth but besides that it will be changing eventually.Cptnono (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, the editing anyway's. I support Newcastle United and I have a lot of knowledge about the club, I was wondering if you could possibly include information regarding the clubs league history in the league finishing positions section? I don't know if I have posted this correctly or in the right place, I would appreciate it if somebody could help me out on editing wikiepedia to make it better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerowing22 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bryan 'Pop' Robson

Surely Pop Robson deserves a mention, top scorer for several seasons in the late 60s / early 70s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.195.47 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

2009/10 Kits

I'm not too sure if anyone noticed yet but the kit represented on the general Newcastle United page and the 2009/10 page does not match the current kit. It would be great if someone could rectify this discrepancy. Same goes for the away kit as well.

The home kit can be seen here: http://www.epltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/new-newcastle-united-home-shirt.jpg

The away kit can be seen here: http://www.footballshirtculture.com/images/stories/newcastle-united-09-10-adidas-kits.jpg

WMXX (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

History section a bit out of hand?

The "History" section in the main article seems to be getting a bit bloated, especially considering there's a whole separate history article as well. Time to prune it a little, maybe? Tonywalton ^Talk 08:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself. but make sure no information is lost from here that is not put in the History article. MickMacNee (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy to sofixit (and for that matter WP:BB, but I thought I'd mention it here first before some nasty edit war ensues. Perhaps I spend too much time on WP:AN/I, but you'd be amazed at how much people think they WP:OWN stuff! Tonywalton ^Talk 13:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Captain

Stop bickering over who the captain is. If Smith is temporary he is temporary. If he is permanent he is permanent. Find a source and use it already.Cptnono (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

True or false

An IP has just added that newc has been bought for 95 000 000 is this true or false? Off2riorob (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. If a reliable source can't be provided, it doesn't belong here. If and when it is official there will be plenty of coverage and can be added in then.--ClubOranje^T 12:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew it was false but I was out of reverts, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stadium rename

A lot of edits today about this, there are some articles releasing this and going along with the rename, something should be added, but what..have a look Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC) also here according to bbc newcastle. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be added here wrt tp the infobox, SJP is still the name of the stadium article, and the common name of the stadium, and we do not include sponsorship names in infoboxes. The nature of this 'rename', which isn't even a permanent sponsorship tie-up but rather a temporary move, is already adequately explained in the stadium article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with MickMacNee in part, WP does have several precedents for inelegantlysponsor-named stadium names in infoboxes; Galpharm Stadium, KitKat Crescent (now back to its original name after the sponsorship expired) and Emirates Stadium for UK examples just off the top of my head, two of which have been to a greater or lesser degree "impermanent". Like it or not, and I sincerely don't, SJP has a clunky name for the moment, per http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6903228.ece and others. Rather than the name in the infobox flipflopping as it is at the moment, is there any WP guideline on this? Apart from the simple nastiness of the name this does affect article stability, if names are to be chopped and changed on a frequent basis - as another example the Galpharm name will likely soon be changed (see Huddersfield Examiner. As "naming rights" become more lucrative this looks like becoming a more prevalent problem. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The infobox parameter uses the article title, that is the standard practice. The cases you cite are frankly incomparable. If you could somehow delete the understandable news reports this 'rename' generated, then there would be zero evidence it had even happened. It was a botched marketing exercise, and if they were ever planning to, which I doubt, not even the club are using the name now, let alone anybody else, who never even bothered to acknowledge it beyond the initial reports. MickMacNee (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you in principle, but I can't see that the cases (apart from, arguably, the Emirates) are not comparable. The Galpharm was temporarily (though not officially once opened) the Kirklees, then the McAlpine; the name was changed to the Galpharm and now it's up for grabs again (I think you'll agree the Huddersfield Examiner report I cite is reasonably comprehensible!) Bootham Crescent became KitKat Crescent and is now Bootham again. Even the Emirates deal expires in 2019. The fact that SJP was renamed something weird and unsustainable isn't particularly relevant; it was reported as having happened in reliable Press reports. What evidence apart from reports in reliable sources would you accept? Please don't think that I am advocating changing the name in the infobox to whatever nonsense has been publicised, but I feel that some WP guidelines may be called for. As I say, this sort of nonsense may become more of a problem (WP-wide, not just regarding SJP) as the sort of marketing pillocks who invented Consignia as a name scent a way to make money. Emirates_Stadium#Name touches on the concept of an "official UEFA name". I wonder if this might be lookable-at. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

They are incomparable because you will not find anything except the initial news reports to show that it has even happened, and this is already dealt with in both articles in the appropriate weight. Per wp:creep, there is no need for guidelines, just common sense, to be applied to each situation in turn. MickMacNee (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference-Link incorrect

The link http://www.weltfussballarchiv.com/Vereinsprofil.php?ID=4179&lang=en is changed to http://www.weltfussballarchiv.com/Vereinsprofilnew.php?ID=4179. 23:43, 6 November 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fußballgott (talk • contribs)

Tim Krul

Tim Krul makes flying saves so why dont we put him in

Tim Krul

Tim Krul makes flying saves so why dont we put him in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.11.218 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What? Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sponsership

Why is Puma listed as the new kit sponser when its only rumoured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.99.250 (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

need to speak or get in touch with colin caulerwood regarding the death of a friend of his

could anyone who is close to colin plz let me know how to get in touch with him.as the funeral is on friday of this coming week please help as i dont know any other way to get in touch.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.249.186 (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

NUFC.COM and NUST

Article states that NUFC.com started the supporters trust. I believe this is incorrect. They have helped publicise it only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.228.190 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Gallowgate End is traditionally home to Newcastle's most vociferous supporters. Incorrect.

The Leazes end was traditionally this 'home of most vociferous supporters', until the roof was pulled down and the capacity drastically reduced. Only then did the Gallowgate end lay claim to this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.228.190 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

James Tavernier

I feel like I am wrong, but I cannot find the listing for the player James Tavernier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tavernier) who is currently contracted to the club but is not listed in the main squad or the Reserve/Academy squad. Is this an error? He has not left the club, having played in last week's friendly against Norwich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.196.123 (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Toon Army (in lead)

Regarding the lead, isn't Toon Army a nickname for Newcastle United's fans, rather than for the club itself? --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Newcastle United F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Howay then, let's go. I'll make staightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• Better looking not to use bold text in the "History" section. Italics can be used sometimes to emphasise word-as-word.

• lead focuses too much on recentism. I'd mention the successful period in the 1910s here, and probably trim off this bit about the premier league "the inaugural 1992–93 season and the 2009–10 season"

• That season Frank Watt became secretary of the club with the aim of bringing the team success. - erm, isn't that the aim of every manager/secretary/owner/captain etc.... --> I'd merge into the next sentence so:

" That season Frank Watt became secretary of the club, and he was instrumental in promotion to the First Division for the 1898–99 season. However, they lost their first game 4–2 at home to Wolves and finished their first season in 13th place."

• Striker Malcolm Macdonald was bought by Harvey for a club record fee in the summer of 1971. - awww, can't leave me hanging like that, can someone slip in the pricetag?

Otherwise looking pretty good - now it is 1am here (Oz) and I need to sleep. Back tomorrer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

let me think...will have another copyedit run over.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: I think it could do with some more prose polish, but is ok for GA. I was musing on the recent bit with all the managers coming and going...but then this reflects...well, managers coming and going....so, overall this gets over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the fans are collectively known as The Toon Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.95.112 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 November 2011

change the ground name to Sports Direct Arena. that is what it is called so change it to make it correct! otherwise wiki is wrong.

87.102.61.82 (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus is that Wikipedia does not use sponsored names for football stadiums except in cases where no other name exists (e.g. the Emirates Stadium). This is why there is a note in the coding to say "Do not change to the sponsored name" (which you childishly changed). If you would like to debate this issue further, please comment on WT:FOOTY. Number 57 13:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How can you say that when Man City is Etihad Stadium? Your talking out of you a**! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.61.82 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The Manchester City ground article is located at City of Manchester Stadium. However, someone had edited that article against consensus. This has now been rectified. As I said, if you are unhappy with the consensus and would like to restart the debate, please comment on WT:FOOTY. Number 57 14:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hold on Arsenal is Ashburton Grove as listed by wiki so why say Emirates Stadium? one rule for one and another for another?

As far as I am aware, the stadium was never known as Ashburton Grove, this was only the name of the site it was built on. Emirates Stadium was adopted as the name two years before it was opened. However, for the final time I will point you to WT:FOOTY if you want to discuss this issue, as you will not get the edit approved by commenting here. Number 57 14:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand you wont approve it which is fine. my point is that as a admin for wiki you should really be bringing up the issue. if Arsenal was never known as Ashburton Grove why does wiki say "Ashburton Grove, currently known as the Emirates Stadium" is this wrong? if its wrong it needs removing but if its right then the Arsenal page needs changing to ground Ashburton Grove or Newcastle and Man City page needs changing! You must understand where i'm coming from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.61.82 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expect. Neither myself nor any other admin cannot check the hundreds of articles on English football every day to make sure uninformed editors have not made any edits that are against the various consensuses we have. As far as I am concerned, the Emirates Stadium article is at the right place and the Arsenal F.C. article lists the stadium name as "Emirates Stadium" - both of these are in line with the consensus. The introduction of the Emirates Stadium article (and how it describes the names) are a slightly different issue and something I do not have time to get involved with. Number 57 15:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Anon IP, if you're serious about this, then I suggest you make a proposed move of St James' Park to SportsDirectArena at St James' Park (or whatever nonsense it is) and then we'll get a determination of consensus. Then, if the move goes ahead, it would be right and justified to change the name here and elsewhere. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems unrelated - WP:COMMONNAME only says to choose an article title according to its most common name, it doesn't cover how to write about the subject of the article in other contexts, or how to write infoboxes. If there is a consensus on how to record the name of a sponsored stadium in an infobox, could somebody link to it? --McGeddon (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find it (it doesn't help that we have 60+ pages of archives). However, I hope the fact that three other WP:FOOTY members also reverted the IPs is enough to show that this is the case. Number 57 15:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@McGeddon, sorry, but if the main article isn't moved to the BetfairPlusRipoffSponsorWhoSaidThatArena, then why would we change the infobox here that links to it? Would be interesting to hear your logic here. Start with the main article (since you wish to call WP:COMMONNAME) then ripple out from there. Simples. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles use common names because they're the names that readers would recognise, and there's a manual of style page to back that up. I've no idea whether the same goes for football infoboxes, or whether they're intended to be more technically accurate (perhaps listing both sponsored and common-use names). If there's a consensus about how to present stadium names in infoboxes, that's fine, but it would be more helpful to just point the IP user (and other editors) at pre-existing discussion of that consensus, than to send them on the unrelated fool's errand of renaming the St James' Park article away from its blatantly common name. --McGeddon (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I recall no discussion about the nomenclature recommended for use in the football infobox specifically. But why it should be different from the name of the ground as defined by its common name would seem, on the face of it, to be entirely illogical. Anyway, this debate is going nowhere slowly so I'll leave someone else to determine why infobox stadium names should be different from their article titles. Should be an enjoyable debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

How can you say the arsenal page is correct when it goes against the consensus you are talking about. Wiki even has a list of grounds with original and sponsor names which has arsenal on it! Do the Republic of Ireland play at Aviva Stadium or Lansdowne Road? Do Gillingham play at Priestfield Stadium or KRBS Priestfield Stadium? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sponsored_sports_stadiums. I’m sorry but you are wrong and I guess your just a disgruntled Newcastle fan?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.61.82 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 November 2011‎

Do Gillingham play at Priestfield Stadium or KRBS Priestfield Stadium? Neither ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

foundation

According to official site the club was founded in 1881 (130 years ago). I suppose the foundation year on the wiki page should be changed, as it was only a name change! Stanley FC (1881-1882), Newcastle East End (1882-1892) and then Newcastle united after the merger of Newcastle East End and Newcastle West End in 1892. Wbel (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Signs removed

It is no longer named St. James' Park [2], plus dozens of other references [3]. Just get over it, or provide a current source that it is still called SJP. Leaky Caldron 11:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We do not use sponsored names for stadiums - that is consensus established by WP:FOOTBALL. Please stop removing the name. GiantSnowman 11:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Stadium name RFC

What should the name of the stadium in the infobox be? Should it:

1. match the name of the article it links to (St James' Park)
2. be the sponsored name (Sports Direct Arena)

Number 57 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I support option 1, both because this is a long-standing WP:FOOTY convention to not use sponsored names when there is an alternative and because it is fairly clear to me that title in the link should match the article it links to. There is a long discussion about this on WP:FOOTY for anyone who wishes to read it. Number 57 19:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• 2 Reliable sources, UK media sources, the club's own website and the Premier League website no longer refer to SJP. There is no need to change the name of the SJP article - that is an historical venue. However, the club no longer reference SJP in any part of its designation. Based on WP:V and WP:RS we must reflect the correctly designated official venue until it is once again changed. If it was Sports Direct @ SJP or the SJP Sports Direct Arena then retaining SJP might be acceptable. However the name change here is quite different to many of the other examples mentioned elsewhere in that SJP has been officially expunged by the ground owners. Finally, there is no documented consensus about this. The only evidence provided relates to clubs changing names, not ground names. Other applicable policy relate to the lead and the infobox which clearly state that they must reflect the content of the article, not the content of a different article. Leaky Caldron 19:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The only evidence provided relates to clubs changing names". This is patently false. The link I provided to evidence the consensus starts with the sentence "I know we normally keep grounds and leagues at their "unsponsored" names"". Number 57 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not a consensus on the substantive point, which you and Giant led me to believe had been reached on the project page (see previous section). Note also it says "normally keep". That is not a consensus its a tendency and this is not a normal situation, the name of the ground having been changed in its entirety. Leaky Caldron 19:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(a) I never led you to believe it had been reached on the project page, merely that it existed and (b) this is a not "not normal" - plenty of stadiums are given sponsored names in their entirety. Number 57 20:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(a) is semantic. Giant certainly said it was on the project page and your first edit there referred to a consensus. You also said " sponsored football stadium names are not used on Wikipedia except in cases where the sponsored name is the only name". The owners having expunged the name SJP, I think that is exactly what we have here - a sponsored name only. Leaky Caldron 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Semantics indeed. The sponsored name is clearly not the only name because it is still known as St James' Park. There is simply no consistency in your argument - you cannot claim that the sponsored name is the only name, yet be happy to keep the stadium article itself at St James' Park. Number 57 20:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an indisputable fact that the club owners have expunged the name of SJP. That should be the starting point for encyclopaedic discussion. I do not see an absolute dependency on the article name of the SJP being changed. For what is possible on name changes take a look at Ayres Rock#Name. Not a football ground but.... Leaky Caldron 20:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Could we not mention both? Something like 'Sports Direct Arena (St. James Park).' It seems to have to names, (one offical, one in common use). Eomund (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  A reasonable suggestion given the controversial renaming (controversial as seen by many genuine NUFC supporters) but #57 has rejected it because they insist that the main article on SJP must be changed first. All we are disputing here is a couple of words in an infobox and the lead to make this article consistent with the relevant section of the article - Nufc#Stadium - per policy on WP:LEAD and what an infobox should contain i.e. already cited elsewhere in the article. Failing to update the infobox presents readers with misleading details. Leaky Caldron 11:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not think a stroke city style solution is appropriate, as (a) it is not something we do for other things with disputed names and (b) it is not used in any other of the many cases in which there is a sponsored stadium name. I do not see why a long-standing consensus should be broken to please one editor who refuses to accept it exists. Number 57 12:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus. I asked you for it and you provided a short discussion about something else. You then called it a "convention" when in fact, if it is anything at all, it's your personal preference based on absolutely no encyclopaedic policy whatsoever. I suggest you base your argument on POLICY such as WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Last week you took the discussion to WT:FOOTBALL against my wishes expressed on your talk page. Having got no traction there and having had the alleged consensus there exposed as non-existent, you have brought the matter back here. You should also re-factor you comment above at "(a) I never led you to believe it had been reached on the project page...". You did indeed tell me that there was consensus on the WP:FOOTY page, here: [4]. Leaky Caldron 13:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(a) I am using the terms consensus and convention to mean the same thing, (b) the consensus has not been exposed as "non-existent" as you have been shown proof that it exists and have directly been told so by at least one other editor (and your refusal to accept a straw poll to provide further proof) and (c) the only reason I moved the discussion here is to spare everyone who reads that page the hassle of a long tedious thread which was going round in circles. Number 57 13:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why have you swerved the issue regarding your denial about telling me that there was consensus on the project page when that is precisely what you said in the diff. I provided above? When I incorrectly said you had raised the issue about WP:Commonname I apologised as soon as my error was pointed out. You have blatantly ignored your own misleading statement. I think that is bad faith. Leaky Caldron 14:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)