Talk:Newcastle United F.C./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

History Section

This is a complete mess. I don't know who did it. But it starts before the contents. Has the contents in the middle. Then a quote box, with a quote that extends beyond the edges of the page, making the page more than 10 times as wide as before. Then the history section is normal again.Morstar (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NUFC Fan sites =

I don't think it is fair that seconds after making an addition of a popular NUFC fan site, the whole section then disappeared.

Why is it not OK for NUFC fan sites to be listed, but wiki pages on many other clubs can have this?

I'm putting it back.

If someone can give me a good reason for this, then I'm all ears --Tom NUFC 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) i think we will be in the finish in the top ten this season —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betteridge (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Players released at the end of the 2007 season

5 players were released on may 16th from the club

Record For Joe Harvey & Kevin Keegan

Somebody should add upp the number of games played, then add up games won, drawn and lost.

I've put the records down for all the managers now, as well as their start and finsh dates. Bababoum 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed section on Europe

Not really needed for the main article. Perhaps it could fit into a new article such as Newcastle United F.C. Seasons or Newcastle United F.C. in Europe. I've left the article below to maintain it and so it can be extended before being added to a more suitable article. Bababoum 19:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Europe section

I've transferred the info needed to Newcastle United F.C. season 2006-07. Sir-Nobby 20:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Intertoto Cup winner 2006

We have to define what meaning of UEFA Intertoto Cup winner is.

There is two winners, Third Round winner and overall winner. The overall winner of UEFA Intertoto Cup 2006 is Newcastle.

Shall we discuss now.

Before a decision was made, the overall winner of UEFA Intertoto Cup 2006 still be here.

KyleRGiggs 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused - going by the explanation at the UEFA site, the competition ends after the third round, so there doesn't seem to be an official "overall winner". Unless I'm missing something and UEFA has a formula for picking one winner out of the eleven, to declare an overall winner is arbitrary and POV. Ytny (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No they have been awarded the trophy for 2006 - see the official UEFA confirmation. It's the first time UEFA have done this - the team that gets furthest in the UEFA Cup from the Intertoto entrants is declared 'winner'. Qwghlm 19:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. I was confused with the format change - back then, they were all winners! --Ytny (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have still not answer the question - What the definition of UEFA Intertoto Cup shown in wikipedia is. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 06:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is why UEFA Intertoto Cup doesn't hold a final. Because the overall winner is not decided in the third round. So Third round is not the final. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh I found the article in the regulation of UEFA Intertoto Cup 2006

2.01 The clubs which qualify for the second qualifying round of the UEFA Cup and which subsequently go furthest in the competition each recieve a UEFA Intertoto Cup trophy.

That's it. So Newcastle is the UEFA Intertoto Cup trophy holder, but uefa.com made 11 winners sometimes. It let me confused of which winner should be declared. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 07:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The link you supply there clearly says Newcastle were the club awarded the trophy outright (end of third paragraph), so they are the overall winner out of the eleven "winners" at the trophy's end. I don't see where the confusion lies. Wikipedia doesn't get to define who the winner is (that would be original research), it can only report what UEFA has declared, and in this case Newcastle are the trophy-holders. Qwghlm 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, UEFA made double-standard. At the fourth paragraph, 11 winners shown! So how should we put the honour. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

New manager....not.

Er. Ryan ward ISNT our manager. So i er. changed it back to Glenn. Is there anyway we can stop idiots changing that kind of info?

Recentism

IMO there is way too much information on recent times, which in the overall history of the club hasn't been that notable. Lets get it trimmed to the essentials. - Daddy Kindsoul 05:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Bababoum 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright I cropped it down to the essentials, but some anonymous genius keeps undoing it. - The Daddy 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you reverted it back to your version? Sir-Nobby 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gleneth

Chaps - roeder will be gone by the end of the week, or tomorrow cos of result tonight (Freddy was desperate they lose tonight). But, the plan was by "the end of this week" (some email seen) - but it should come sooner. So this has impact on future of this article - when it happens use good sources and citations to report matter as per wiki guidelines. Whataboutbob 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Transfers - speculation v fact

There's been a lot of speculative editing recently of the squadlist, based on transfer rumours and not fact. This is a request to all editors to please bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so changes the squadlist should only be made after confirmation of a move by a reliable source. Rumours you heard down the pub, read on the internet or heard on Metro are not reliable sources. Unverified changes are only going to be reverted, so please save everyone the bother and wait until the move is confirmed before making an edit. DrFrench 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

External Link Discussion NUFCpro.com

Discussions with users on this site regarding the inclusion of the website NUFCpro.com to the Newcastle United page has led to the idea to discuss the inclusion of it on wikipedia here.

The purpose of the site that is Different to the others listed is to mainly bring News from various sources in one place and for users to Interact with other users in the way of Discussing News Within The News Story, Rating News As Good Or Bad, Discussion Forums for further discussion, Submission Of News And Rumours By Users and so much more, basically its a Highly Interactive Website not just a 'read the page' site.

It's not just a news site and its not just a fan site, its a mix with full interaction.

Discuss. —The preceding comment is by Gremlinprince (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC): Please sign your posts!

You seem quite keen on including a link to this site. Do you have any connection with it, or the people who run it? Sites like nufc.com have become noteworthy as a reliable source of quality material (in fact it's even noteworthy enough to merit its own article on Wikipedia) and thus deserve a link. To be honest I don't see anything particularly noteworthy or unique about nufcpro.com to merit inclusion. DrFrench 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interaction is the reason its different DrFrench if you read the post! It has news, interaction, stats etc, but if you actually looked at the site you would know this already.

You seem keen for it not to be included yourself... if this does not get included on here thats fine its getting advertised in many publications shortly to increase awareness of the website anyway with readership of over 200,000+ people.

Though I'm lost as to why you seem to be the decider of what goes here and what doesn't.gremlinprince

Nobody has decided anything, DrFrench is simply stating his opinion which is the whole point of a discussion - there's really no need for you to react so defensively. You state interaction as the reason for inclusion, but I just don't see how this is of benefit to Wikipedia. Also, your statement "if this does not get included on here thats fine its getting advertised in many publications shortly to increase awareness of the website anyway..." suggests that your main reason for wanting a link in the article is simply to promote the site, which is against Wikipedia policy. Of course, if you'd looked at WP:LINKS, you would know this already. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Barton/Luque

There has been no confirmation that Joey Barton has the no 7 shirt so please stop saying it is so Lewisbell 20:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the report from the Chronicle: [1]. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

that is not "official" only when is surfaces from club itself is it worthy to put in the article Lewisbell 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sambarton0707yo9.jpg

I'm pretty sure he's got it, look at the picture, looks like a number 7 to me. Also, the people who took the photos confirmed it.(BigHouse08 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Still that is not the official word, you may be jumping the gun a little bit 84.13.20.151 06:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's not official, but there's almost no way he doesn't have it. I didn't edit it by the way, I was just pointing it out. (BigHouse08 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

History Section

This is in real need of a clean-up. As stated before there is a lot of recentism in it with the inclusion of ultimately quite insignificant events that happened last season. There are also signs of POV and a lot of citations needed. Improving this section should be the focus for the article because the rest is rather good. Sir-Nobby 22:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

crest

the crest is wrong, i uploaded the real crest today but it has been changed back -why?

now its back again

Deco

Newcastle has not signed Deco. There has been speculation, but it is just that. Deco hasn't even been reported as a target of Big Sam for at least two weeks. The change has been made. Asnoel 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Harper's Number

I notice on the official website, Harper has been allocated two different numbers.

In the 2007-07 squad numbers link, he has 13. [2]

Whilst, in the profiles section, he is listed under 12 [3]

Can anyone confirm which he has? I think he wore 13 in a friendly, but am not sure

Sammayel 00:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Harper is 13 this season, the squad numbers were released by the club a while ago, but the "official" site is quite possibly the worst source of information (propaganda) available. He has been wearing 13 all pre-season.Toon 23:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankds, thats what I thought :). He had 12 before this season yeah? Sammayel 00:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he was 12 last few seasons but he has had 13 for all the preseason matches. I also agree that the site is probably the worst in the premiership. Nufc2006 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Alan Smith

Smith hasn't agreed to personal terms, so how is he on the squad and number 17? Shouldn't be up there until it's official. (BigHouse08 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

He has now :) Nufc2006 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice opener he had too. :) (BigHouse08 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

Footnotes / links

I noticed that some of the footnotes in this article are incorrect EG number 3 should be a note about Newcastles historic success, but goes to a note about something else. I'm not sure how to tidy these up. Anyone fancy it?

It does take you to an article about the historic success - its just in the first paragraph Sammayel 04:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Captain

Am I correct in assuming that there has been no official announcement of a season captain yet? I expect Geremi will be captain vs Bolton, but considering the number of players absent from that lineup, can we assume he will keep it? Sammayel 11:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been announced as captain for the season. See here. Mattythewhite 11:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Away kit template

Why can't I see the away shirt (adidas snake black) body? All I see is a thin blue stripe where it should be. The only place I can see it is here. I can see all other kit templates properly, but not this one (or the snake blue design either). I'm assuming no-one else is having this problem since no-one has mentioned it or reverted. Does anyone know what might be causing this? Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Having made the template I can say that it comes acroos fine on my computer :). However, when viewed on a computer with IE6 it did not seem to work properly. Sammayel 00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags

I'm going to put a lot of citation tags on the article where needed, a lot of it may seem meanial, but having put Juventus F.C. up for a peer review and a couple of other articles, this is generally the kind of thing that needs to be done to get the article for consideration under good article or even featured. - The Daddy 10:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Squad Top Scorers

I have moved this from the main page to here. I personally am thinking that its a bit of an overkill to include this (particularly to a depth of ten) when half of the players on there have single figure goals for the club.

However, the reason for the move is that it needs to be updated constantly to reflect current events, and that does not seem hugely relevent to the general tone of the article.

Of course, if general consensus is that it be relocated back onto the page, I just hope someone else can work out who the new 10th place person is after Dyer's move

I was the person who included the table, can anyone think of a better place for it? I think it is relevant to be included as I'm sure many supporters would be interested in these statistics, and it is hard to find them anywhere else. Your point about needing constant updating is not really relevant, as it only needs updating at most once every 3 days, for only 9 months of the year, and again, I'm sure there are many fans who would update the table straight after matches. MJCamp01 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The information is more or less already included in the players articles. Mattythewhite 13:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The information on goals scored in the individual player profiles is inconsistant in such that it has no guidance as to which goals are included in the score, and also means that anyone who wants to know the information in this table would have to search every one of the players profiles, this table is accurate, with information sourced from the official club website and due to its layout, only goals scored this season need to be updated, I definately think it should be included, but where? MJCamp01 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to have a separate page for Newcastle leaders and records, with current-roster and all time leaders in major statistics (appearances, goals, cards, saves, etc). Might be worth making a template for the Football WikiProject. I can do it if there's any interest. Simianvector 21:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea Simianvector,do it! MJCamp01 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Squad Top Scorers

As of December 29 2007.

	Name	Pre 2006-2007	2006-2007	2007-2008	Total
1	Shola Ameobi	41	5	0	46
2	Obafemi Martins	0	17	7	24
3'	Michael Owen	7	0	3	10
3'	James Milner	4	4	2	10
5	Charles N'Zogbia	6	0	3	9
6	Belozoglu Emre	2	3	1	6
7'	Mark Viduka	0	0	5	5
7'	Steven Taylor	0	4	1	5
9	Nicky Butt	1	1	2	4
10'	Joey Barton	0	0	1	1
10'	Habib Beye	0	0	1	1
10'	Caçapa	0	0	1	1
10'	Damien Duff	0	1	0	1
10'	David Edgar	0	1	0	1
10'	Stephen Carr	1	0	0	1

Note: This table includes goals scored for NUFC in competitive League Matches, Domestic Cups and European Competitions

Removal of discussion sections

I feel that there are a lot of sections in this discussion forum that are past the point of usefulness and should be deleted, anyone agree? The sections I mean are:

New manager...not, Recentism, Gleneth, Barton/Luque, Crest, Deco, Harpers Number, Alan Smith, and Captain.

If anyone has a problem with these sections being deleted, list the one you want to keep here, otherwise I shall delete the sections listed in 24 hours time. MJCamp01 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're supposed to delete stuff from talk pages, it would probably be better to archive the page. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 09:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, deletion isn't the way to go; but I agree there's a lot of discussion which is over. Archive if necessary, all of discussion up to "Citation Tags" I'd say. Toon 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There's already one archive here (though the "there is an archive" box appears to have gone missing from this talkpage). See WP:ARCHIVE for the procedure to create another one (if nobody gets round to it in a week or so, and there are no objections, I'll do it). Tonywalton  | Talk 09:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the archive box back, at least. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi Protection

The Newcastle United page has been subjected to ALOT of vandalism over the past few days, and also in the past, I suggest that the page should be placed under wikipedia semi protection, which stops users who are not logged in to with wikipedia from editing the main page, other users can still edit the talk page, or register to edit the main page.

What do other think of this idea? Does anyone know how you do this? MJCamp01 21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 Note: I have discovered how to, and requested semi-protection for the main page to stop
 random vandals, I hope no-one has a problem with this. 172.216.170.172 22:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Barcodes"

I notice NUFC's postmodern nickname isn't mentioned in the article. Sure, it seems to be used as less than endearing term used by supporters of other teams, but it seems to be used enough to deserve a mention. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's properly cited, I don't see why not. It would probably best to mention it in the rivalries paragraph in the "Supporters" section, if anywhere, since it does seem to be used only by opposition fans. I don't think it would be appropriate to include it in the lead or infobox, though. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links section

The external links section is starting to get ridiculous again. I think that only official and news (eg. BBC, Sky Sports, etc.) sites should be used. Any unofficial sites should be used only as references, as long as they are considered to be reliable sources. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick-failed "good article" nomination

Per the Good Article quick-fail criteria, any article with multiple {{fact}} tags, such as this one, must be failed forthwith and without an in-depth review. I count four fact tags, all correctly placed. There are also other major issues with attribution, including large chunks of text without inline citations and even cites that give an error message (i.e. are empty, so they verify nothing). Once the issues brought up by these templates have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky ^Talk 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Watch your language, you don't want to offend anyone. ♪♫19maxx♪♫ 02:23, 11 March 2012 (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

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

Newcastle training.jpg

I have uploaded this on wikicommon, [4] 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 —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

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)

Claudio Cacapa

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.27.139 (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2009‎ (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 [5], plus dozens of other references [6]. 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: [7]. 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)

I apologise if I misled you on this point, but unfortunately your appalling behaviour and attitude make it very difficult to keep a cool and clear head and to think straight. Number 57 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question: What name does the media use for it? (Or are they also divided?) Eomund (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I was watching for this today. Both Sky and BBC use the official name - Sports Direct Arena - on their captions. I'm fairly certain that this will be a contractual obligation, after all, the whole point of the change is for commercial reasons. Jeff Stelling on Sky called it SJP at least a couple of times. Leaky Caldron 18:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The fans held a mock funeral before the match today from the Strawberry (local pub) to the ground. R.I.P SJP, a coffin and wreaths. On local TV now. Looks like even the fans have accepted it. Everyone except Wikipedia it seems! Leaky Caldron 18:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

BBC Final Score, Chappers made a deliberate effort (many times) to call it "St James' Park". Probably (as you say Leaky) against contractual obligations... Perhaps we need an RFC for renaming the "FA Cup" as the "FA Cup with Budweiser" in that case.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed that Five Live and World Service both referred to it throughout the afternoon as St James' Park. Number 57 18:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Question has it been "legally" renamed? Like our League Cup (which has variously been the Coca Cola Cup, the Carling Cup etc) we always defer to the non-sponsored name, i.e. League Cup. Is there a difference here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't answer that one RM. I suppose the owner can call it what he likes. The City Council have said that they will not change direction signs and related street furniture but remember, there is actually a park (grass, trees and a boating lake) there which is still called SJP. The ground just happens to sit on the edge of the park, which extended further 120 years ago when the ground was built. I'm a Sunderland supporter but I know a great many Toon fans who are up in arms about Ashley. The fact is however that the club have formerly dispensed with SJP in their ground designation. An encyclopaedia must be dispassionate and report the facts. Leaky Caldron 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll defer back to the "League Cup" example. It's always the League Cup, just sometimes it's the Coca Cola Cup. What's the difference here for SJP (and I'm asking honestly, not to cause trouble!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

@RM. The League Cup and FA Cup are officially retained designations. The respective rights owners would be most unlikely ever to give up that element of the name, but are happy to add a sponsor to it. In the case of SJP, the owner has expunged the name (formally this can be seen on their website) and replaced it with Sports Direct Arena (note, not SDA at SJP, or the SJP Sports Direct Arena). If the club says that the ground is "formerly called SJP" and that is reported by reliable media and so used, I cannot see how we can dispute the fact. Leaky Caldron 19:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the League Cup website is actually "Carling Cup", so your assertion appears to be not 100% accurate. And perhaps in a couple of years it'll be the Barclays Cup or the Mini Cheddars Cup, but it seems that we still will call it the League Cup. (Also, the title of the FA Cup page is "The FA Cup with Budweiser" for what it's worth). I'm not sure (yet) what the difference is here between a sponsorship deal and a "expunging" of a former name? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Carling Cup, you are quite correct. IIRC when the FA Cup was first sponsored there was an uproar about keeping the phrase "FA Cup". As far as this article is concerned, we know that the club has renamed St. James' Park to Sports Direct Arena. In answer to the question, "name NUFC's stadium" a fan would likely say St. James' Park. Yet we know that officially it is called Sports Direct Arena. Therefore, if the question was asked for encyclopaedic - factually correct - purposes, the answer would have to the Sports Direct Arena because that is what the owner's tell us it is called. Unlike some clubs who have incorporated the sponsor name within the historic ground name, these owners have pointedly killed off SJP. It may of course be reinstated when a willing sponsor is found - but that is crystal gazing. Leaky Caldron 19:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose this is age-old verifiability over truth. And a hint of COMMONNAME. I would be tempted to keep St James' Park and note that, for sponsorship reasons, it has been renamed after goodness knows how many years as SJP. It's clear that modern press and people use the old name as a standard. It doesn't make it right but it makes it verifiably adequate for inclusion here, doesn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The press have widely reported the name change and TV call it by its new name. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to article content, it is for article names. This article is NUFC, not St. James' Park. Because an article name has not yet been changed surely does warrant incorrect and misleading facts to be included here? Any further thoughts? Leaky Caldron 20:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, some TV may call it by its sponsor name, and some press too, but as I've noted, it's far from universal. You're right, this is about NUFC but I lurk around MCFC's article, where it's simply "City of Manchester Stadium" (despite being Etihad Stadium for sponsorship reasons), and Brighton's page lists their stadium as "Falmer Stadium", not AMEX stadium. (On second thoughts, is there a difference between these clubs and NUFC? I don't know so I'm sorry if I've missed something obvious, but they're both new stadia, both sponsored but on the club pages, both noted by their unsponsored names.... what's the difference?) I think this discussion isn't just about NUFC's ground, it's about all these kind of modern sponsorship deals. In my opinion, just because something is temporarily renamed (like the League Cup, the FA Cup etc), the unsponsored name should persist with a note describing "current sponsorship" naming. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

NUFC is an ancient stadium renamed. MCFC is a relatively new stadium renamed, Brighton is a new stadium this season but I know nothing about its naming history. Leaky Caldron 21:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I know all that, but perhaps this is something that transcends this localised RFC and is something we'll need to deal with Wikipedia-wide. What makes the difference between "ancient", "relatively new" and "new"? So far the two modern stadia retain their "historic" name in their club articles while you want the "historic" stadium to be changed to the sponsored name in this club article. Seems that we need to discuss this across all of Wikipedia rather than just here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I was led to understand that there was a consensus at WP:FOOTBALL but it amounts to little and certainly not substantive enough to establish a standard approach. For my part RM, I just look at the facts on a case-by-case basis. I hate all those long-winded, opinionated, puffed up deabtes. I try to look at the established facts, the policy and guidelines. In the case of this article I believe that WP:NPOV, WP:V, [WP:RS]], WP:LEAD and What an infobox should contain confirm that continuing to use the defunct St. James' Park is not sustainable. Leaky Caldron 22:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I just like some level of consistency, and for the other two clubs I've mentioned to use the unsponsored name without any sign of kerfuffle, but all this debate here, I think it should be worthwhile (with this kind of thing inevitably happening more and more frequently in the future) getting some kind of project-wide consensus on how to deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested a straw poll on WP:FOOTY to clarify/establish consensus a couple of times, but the idea was rebuffed. Number 57 22:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely it needs more than a few editors sticking their hand up for their favourite option? Where does content policy come into the debate? Leaky Caldron 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we get a decent consensus at the project then that should suffice. That tends to be how it works, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus based on proper discussion of relevant policy and guidelines, yes. Leaky Caldron 22:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To me that just sounds like a weasley way of saying that if you don't get your way in any straw poll, you'll disregard the results as invalid because you don't agree how other editors came to their conclusions. Number 57 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Think what you want to. WP:CONSENSUS requires discussions and ultimately consensus to based on proper discussion of relevant policy. I would accept that because it is a proper discussion, unlike the non-event I was led to believe constituted consensus already on WP:FOOTBALL. Thanks for your input RM, you are showing a way forward. Leaky Caldron 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A project-based RFC with invitation to whoever is interested, closed by a neutral admin should be just fine, regardless of any kind of perceived weaselness. And once that's achieved we should then adjust the status quo accordingly. Until then, we should revert to pre-debate normality and seek wider input and a neutrally arbitrated approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: My opinion on the infobox is that it should mirror what the article is named. Perhaps the article name should change, but that is not what this discussion is about. Eomund (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What an infobox should contain i.e. already cited elsewhere in the article (which it is) not contained in a different article I would suggest. Leaky Caldron 20:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a settled consensus to refer to stadia by their common names. Typically, this situation has occurred because a stadium is temporarily renamed for sponsorship reasons, but we have plenty of examples of stadia which are referred to by common names which are "unofficial" and vary from the official name including Love Street (stadium) (see its RM). In this case, Leaky Cauldron has strongly opposed this for the following reasons:

1. WP:FOOTY and any consensus formed by the WikiProject is illegitimate
2. The ground has been officially renamed and the old signs have been taken down
3. Reliable sources now use the new name
4. "SJP is dead" and can't you people accept it's dead and move on

So far as I can see, none of those carry very much water as arguments. The first would be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS if WP:FOOTY were overriding a wider consensus elsewhere, but I've seen no argument to that effect. The second is irrelevant as we are not beholden to use official titles. The third is dubious and there is significant evidence to the effect that common use, as opposed to official use, still favours SJP (including from associations such as the BBC, which has repeatedly hosted critical commentary and opinion pieces on the rename). The fourth is not an argument at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a contrived and unfair interpretation of everything I've argued Chris. I do not intend to refute your comments line by line. I would just point out 2 things. First, there is no documented consensus relating to Stadium naming at WP:FOOTY. If you know of one please can you provide a link because any prior discussion would certainly help. Second, "SJP is dead" is not my opinion, nor is it a fact. I reported it above as it was a rather sad prelude to yesterday's match - not obviously a definitive statement of fact and not intended to influence this discussion. Please share the settled consensus discussion and we can begin to move forward. Leaky Caldron 14:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Now we're getting into no true Scotsman territory. A half-dozen editors involved in WP:FOOTY for years have asserted this consensus, linking to everything from RMs to talk archives. You seem to be suggesting that this consensus is invalid because they have not pointed to some formal codification. Codification is not, in fact, the same as consensus: we derive our use of "consensus" originally from expressions such as "rough consensus and running code", which implies no formal process. If those parties involved in the discussion generally agree with one another, which they do in this case, then there is consensus. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe in codified things. They prevent confusion and ambiguity. How is an outsider to WP:FOOTY expected to contribute to articles when he is told that "consensus" exists at WP:FOOTY and when they ask for the discussion they are told it is, in effect, "a meeting of minds". I have been pointed at this WP:CONSENSUS. That is a policy and suggested process. I'm not seeing much of the process, just a group of like-minded editors who jump on anyone who has the temerity to disagree. It might be a consensus, it could easily be viewed as something less healthy or collaborative. What you are essentially saying is trust us, we know best so bugger off. Why not take the advice from TRM above and establish a proper consensus for all to share in the outcome? Leaky Caldron 15:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether you "believe in codified things" or not isn't really the point here. I think everyone would agree that it would be a good idea to formally put the consensus in question down somewhere, to help to avoid debates like this in future; however, the absence of codification does not indicate the absence of "proper consensus". You once again insist on characterising a long process of normalisation which has occurred on and around a WikiProject as some insular "that's how we do things" attitude, and that is unhelpful: at every stage editors have attempted to accommodate you, debate with you and try to convince you of how this consensus came to be only to be dismissed due to a lack of some formal documentation which the process of consensus does not and never has required. What you characterise as a "temerity to disagree" could also be described as a hostile predisposition to disregard the normal process of consensus-forming on the basis that you happen to disagree with a given decision, in particular the Wikipedia-specific fallacy that "unless you can point to something which forbids what I suggest then it is permissable". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Newcastle chief Derek Llambias has admitted that the club's owner Mike Ashley still calls their home ground St James' Park - and says the fans should too. GiantSnowman 13:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, from a personal standpoint I'm completely in Number 57's corner: Death to corporate tyrants who attempt to appropriate the peoples' civic monuments for financial gain. I will never in context refer to "Sports Authority Field at Mile High" without a figurative gun to my head.

Nevertheless, corporate takeovers are the way of the modern sports world. Look at baseball: Wikipedia refers to O.co Coliseum not "Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum," among several commercial name changes. (I note that even some of the most historical ballpark names are themselves insidious corporate shills, such as Wrigley Field and Busch Stadium.) In American Football, I count at least ten stadia that Wikipedia lists under a non-historical corporate name. St. James' Park is no longer the name of Newcastle United's home pitch. So while Wikipedia can and should include reliably sourced material about the public uproar, we should refer to the official name, however distasteful.

That said, there's nothing preventing the St. James' Park article keeping that name, by the conceit that we're talking about the venue as it existed until this year; and the "Sports Direct Arena" article can be a stub with a prominent link to St. James' Park. Look how Mile High Stadium still exists in homage to the Denver Broncos' longtime home. But in the infobox, Newcastle United plays at Sports Direct Arena. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The dispute in question actually doesn't concern the SJP article name. It is about putting the correct official name in this article's infobox per the policy on Infobox content - What an infobox should contain. Some others have unnecessarily transcended this debate into whether the article name of the stadium should change. Leaky Caldron 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Graham Souness?

Just wondering why his tenure is under the "Success Era" section of the article when most fans consider him to have been a massive failure (5th place to 14th in one season). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.242.26 (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

FRENCH!!!!!1

SOME IMMATURE T**** HAVE CHANGED MOVEW OF IT TO FRNCH STYLE EVEN THOUGH IT IS MAINLY ENGLISH! F*** SAKE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.200.102 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)