Talk:Watford F.C.

Alhassan Bangura

deported mid season 07/08 Quee1797 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No he wasn't. He got pretty close to deportation, and lost an appeal against deportation mid-season. However, with the help of the club staff, the local MP and the fans, he managed to get special dispensation to apply for, and received, a work permit while still in the UK. PaddyUniv (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Luton Town

Reading through the article the only comment I have to make is that 'generally good-natured' is definitely NOT a term I would use to describe our rivalry with Luton Town - 2002 was mild in comparison with some of the problems I have known Watford fans to have experienced in the past, including rock-throwing by some Luton fans at a League tie in the 80s and vandalism to vehicles parked in Luton bearing any signs of a Watford-supporting owner. From participation in message boards in recent years I would suggest that rather than 'good-natured' the rivalry continues to be bitter and fairly vicious at times, particularly from the Luton fans.

Well maybe it's a bit subjective - never felt myself that it was vicious or bitter. Perhaps we can think of a more neutral wording here. Worldtraveller

It is with great neutrality that I declare that Luton suck :) Wikinista 06:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find references to the FourFourTwo magazine rivalry description on the internet. So I suggest we remove this reference and change the opening line to simply: "Watford fans maintain a strong rivalry with those of Luton Town." HornetEd 13:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sansom/Moralee

Whilst Kenny Samson is a former Watford player and is a famous player, I feel that that section should only include Watford players who are team "heroes," so to speak. After all, players like Kenny Jackett are hardly "famous," but are included. The "famous" definition applies to within the Watford fanbase, and thus Samsom shouldn't be there.

I've removed Moralee, as he isn't famous in either sense of the definition. (This was written by me before I was familiar with Wikipedia I've re-arranged it to the point chronologically where it should be, and to tidy up the talk page.) HornetMike 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone seen Kenny recently....who would know he played football, let alone was good !! (I almost said good enough for England but that doesn't mean much anymore) Wikinista (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I being blind, or is Luthor Blisset not listed?! Surely he should be for several reasons? Swfblade (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Luther has his own section in the current article, and six other references to him "Luther Blissett, 1976–1983, 1984–1988, 1991–1992 Making his debut in 1976, Blissett played for Watford throughout their ascent from Division Four to Division One. He was the first Watford player to be capped for England. He had three spells at Watford in total, and holds the club records for highest all-time goalscorer and most appearances. Blissett had a spell as coach at Watford from 1996–2001"

Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Fans

Whilst our one was sparse, a lot of club pages do have it. It doesn't exactly do any harm, does it?

I removed it because it's not verifiable information, and really not relevant to the club or of interest to the general reader, so inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. If other club pages have it, they shouldn't have. Worldtraveller 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Records etc.

Why on earth has someone edited out the records section? And all the catergories stuff and half the managers? I don't know how to get this back, I hope someone else does because I really don't want to have to write it all out again.

Re: other changes. I know the new squad list is now in the official football squad fromat, but it actually now displays less information! What's the point in changing it?

Regarding the Heroes/Famous players section. I agree that if you call them "heroes" you're going POV. But I do feel the way we've got it now ignores huge amounts of notable Watford players just because they're not particularly famous. Maybe if the "heroes" list was restored under a header of "notable Watford players" Bit ambigous though, thoughts?

No idea why the records section was removed, but don't worry - every previous revision of an article is stored and anything can be retrieved. To revert back to a previous version of an article, you just need to click on the 'history' tab, click on the version you want to restore, then edit it and save it.

As for the heroes/famous players/notables, I think maybe a list is not that useful anyway - what would be much more informative would be a list that includes a note explaining why each player was significant. I think 'Notable former players' or something similar would be a good title for the section. Worldtraveller 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Players Section

Whilst I understand that the squad has now been in an official Wiki template, I do feel the old chart (with a little bit of re-organisation) would be far better. Admittedly it's slightly larger, but it contains more information (birthdays - although I'm not researching them unless the consensus on here is good, date of arrival, previous club etc. The positions are slightly less generic as well.) Personally I think it looks better as well.

I thought this would be good:

No.		Player	Position	D.O.B	Year Signed	Previous Club
1		Alec Chamberlain	GK	20.6.1964	1996	Sunderland
2		James Chambers	RB/LB		2004	West Bromwich Albion
3		Jordan Stewart	LB		2005	Leicester City
4		Malky Mackay	CB		2005	West Ham United
5		Clarke Carlisle	CB		2005	Leeds United
6		Jay Demerit	CB		2004	Northwood Town
7		Chris Eagles	RW		2006	On loan from Manchester United
8		Gavin Mahon	CM		2002	Brentford
9		Marlon King	CF		2006	Nottingham Forest
11		Sietes	LB		2005	Real Murcia
12		Lloyd Doyley	RB		2001	Academy
14		Dominic Blizzard	CM		2002	Academy
15		Ashley Young	RW/CF		2003	Academy
16		Richard Lee	GK		2001	Academy
17		Jamie Hand	CM		2002	Academy
18		Hameur Bouazza	CF		2003	Academy
19		Anthony McNamee	LW		2002	Academy
20		Alhassan Bangura	CM		2005	Academy
21		Toumani Diagouraga	CM		2004	Academy
22		Junior Osbourne	RB/CB		2005	Academy
23		Adrian Mariappa	CB		2005	Academy
25		Matthew Spring	CM		2005	Leeds United
26		Ben Foster	GK		2005	On loan from Manchester United
27		Joel Grant	CF		N/A	Academy Player
28		Francino Francis	CF		N/A	Academy Player
29		Darius Henderson	CF		2005	Gillingham FC
31		Alex Campana	CM		N/A	Academy Player
32		Les Ferdinand	CF		2005	Reading F.C.
34		Ben Gill	CM		N/A	Academy Player

Thoughts? The only problem I can see is that there's no way of showing Richard Lee's on loan without messing it up a bit. HornetMike 19:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been investigating the Wiki - template for football squads. There are some interesting arguments for both formats:

Conventional format's main points

• Creates a standard template across the football league
• Is small and concise

However the chart format (originally borrowed from now removed chat on Liverpool site) provides more information. This is more important with lower league teams, I feel. Whilst Premiership clubs can justifiably create articles for each of their players, containing information on join dates and so forth, it would be ridiculous for players such as Ben Gill to have their own article. Thus the information should be contained. The information in the above chart gives an indication of the average age of the Watford squad, as well as the general source of it's players (i.e. academy and signings from other clubs of our level) and how established the side is (i.e. Lewington's squad would had a series of joined dates quite far in the past. The Boothroyd squad chart shows it to be a recently assembeled squad.)

Furthermore, I don't really understand the need to have a smallish chart. This isn't much bigger and there are bits of the article that are larger anyway. What's the problem? As for keeping the same format across the league, I find this a faintly ridiculous argument. Each football article is entirely different, depending on the amount of work that has been invested in it by fans. Why insist on unifromity for one tiny section but not the rest?

Another interesting point made in favour of the Wiki-format is that "a lot of people invested time in it" So? Just because they invested time in it doesn't mean it's necessarily the right format to use in the circumstances.

I await correspondence from some people before I change it back, of course. HornetMike 18:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that this table is brilliant. It is much more informative than the current one, and who cares about the size? This really should be the standard table, for Squads and Managers. As for Richard Lee, add a note at the bottom or something, maybe put it in the last column. As I say, I feel it is much better and more informative, and I support putting it in the article.Kingfisherswift 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

New Update

I've just started the first part of a new revamp - the Luton rivalry section. Over the next few months I plan to add sections on the club's colours and crests, boost the history section, revamp the notable players section and add more statistics. HornetMike 13:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the notable players section. I've made it as non-POV as possible, focusing on the players achievements with the club. If anyone knows anything about Dennis Uphill, Dennis Bond, Mo Johnston, Steve Terry or Keith Eddy could they please add sections. Also, I know Callaghan had two spells at Watford, and I think the official site lumps them all together as 1980-91. I've put this date in, but if anyone knows the two spells, could you please include them. I also can't find the debut year for Tom Walley.

I'm debating over which players to include from the play-off side. I think Richard Johnson, perhaps, but who else? Kennedy? Smart? Wright? Hyde? Rosenthal (from 97/98, obv)? Are Helguson and Robinson worthy of mention?

In terms of players who didn't make a huge contribution at Watford but did at other clubs, I've included David James and Pat Jennings, but omitted Kevin Phillips, as he only really had one good season with us.

Not sure about Gerry Armstrong - thoughts? HornetMike 03:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Managers

I've noticed that the managers table has half the months in and half out. Using soccerbase.com (Link at base of page) can somebody assist me in cleaning up the managers for good? Thanks.Kingfisherswift 19:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, although Soccerbase looks like it has a few errors in that department. I double-check it against Trefor Jones when I get home.HornetMike 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Not a news service"

HornetMike - while I agree Wikipedia ain't a news service, it might have been productive to edit the changes to be more of a description of what went on in the first leg of the semi. It's unavoidably relevant what happened in it, after all!

Just a thought, as they say. Nmg20 21:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not replying sooner, my IP's been blocked because some idiot at the University was vandalising. I removed the reference because I didn't want 2005/06 to revert back what it had previously been - lots of itty-bitty statements about favourite players/good matches all stuck together. I was going to add something after the completion of the tie, but obviously some people are ahead of me! Cheers, HornetMike 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I think it looks pretty good right now - but we'll review in ten days time, eh? :-) Nmg20 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

O-ho-ho, certainly! HornetMike 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Grammar question?

"Watford Football Club are an English professional football club based in Watford, Hertfordshire." wouldn't "Watford FC is" be more grammatically correct?

I agree

I don't agree - Although common usage is in both the singular or plural, It is more common and accurate to use a discretionary plural when taking about clubs, particularly in British English. [1] As it is a British club, it is perhaps even more appropriate to use the plural. •CHILLDOUBT• 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Stock Exchange

Is Watford F.C. a publically traded company and if so what is thier ticker symbol. Thank you. John R G 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Watford's a PLC, yeah. No idea what the ticker symbol is, sorry. I don't know much about shares, unfortunately. One place to look is any portfolio of Michael Ashcroft, if they're available. HornetMike 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I found the ticker symbol and added it to the main page. John R G 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Les Ferdinand

Is he still a Watford player I thought he retired at the end of last (05-06) season. Kingjamie 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

elton John bought for a pound??

I think I remember hearing that Elton John bought a football club for a pound. I know know that he was owner of Watford, but did he pay a pound for them as I remember??

Naa, you're probably thinking of Ken Bates and Chelsea. DJDannyP//Talk2Me 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Players of Note

Added Mo :-)

Length

This section is quit long and would perhaps be better suited to a separate article, with only the players' names listed here, alongside See main article... Fedgin | Talk 10:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would. I'm currently working on that page, based on the same format as List of Arsenal F.C. players. Should be about at some point. HornetMike 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hi all who keep this excellent page up to date, very good work.

In the last week I've been attempting to add our own "External link" which is a 100% Watford FC related forum called WFCForums, (www.wfcforums.com). It's run for free and has no advertising of any type on the pages. It's 100% non profit making but run entirely for the benefit of the Watford supporting community, take a look if you need proof. Unfortunately this link keeps being removed by HornetMike with the reason being, "not a link farm".

The heading is "External Links", WFCForums is a 100% Watford FC related external link, so can someone please explain why it keeps being removed? As already explained, we're not making money but just providing a valuable service and information point for Watford supporters worldwide. The one link for an unofficial Watford FC page you do have is now unsupported and out of date.

If this would be better discussed in private please drop me an e-mail: admin AT wfcforums.com

Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.78.6 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I'm the chap who's been removing the wfcforums link from the article. I know it looks a bit malicious and anal, sorry about that. I'm following the Wikipedia policy on external links, which can be found here: WP:EL The criteria there pretty much excludes wfcforums from being included there. Believe me, it's nothing personal - I've had to remove GloryHorns and various other blogs/forums from there in the past. Hope you understand, HornetMike 14:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL says"Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." As www.wfcforums.com is accessible and appropriate, im not sure what problems you can see HornetMike. The site as explained is watford fc forums, it is beneficial to most, and causes no harm to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albangura9 (talk • contribs)

It's not appropriate though. I feel you mis-interpreted the policy from reading the nutshell piece. I refer you to:

• "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" - This is an encylopedia entry, is a forum useful, informative and factual - frequently not. It's a discussion website, an entirely different to an encyclopedia and not appropriate for the neutral looking to do further reading.
• "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material" - as forum discussion is frequently based on opinion, it is neither of these.
• And, most significantly, under "Links normally to be avoided" - "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET."

Fairly conclusive, I feel. Cheers, HornetMike 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Who Made the Nazi's?" Mark E Smith Wikinista (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Smith - notability

Looking at the notable players section and seeing Marlon King and Ashley Young there, I am wondering if Tommy Smith should be added: 2 spells and over 150 appearances, that seems enough for me, but I'd like a general consensus. Cheers, к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not bothered, to be honest. I'm very gradually creating a page similar to List of Arsenal F.C. players that will replace that section, so don't mind who's added under the fairly loose criteria at present. Go for it. HornetMike 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks very much. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт

Fair use rationale for Image:Watford2.gif

Image:Watford2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Club history

For a club founded in 1881, it seems odd that the History section only starts in 1977. Did nothing of merit happen in the first 95 years? Daemonic Kangaroo 08:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Some would question since :-) Wikinista (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Watford crest.png

Image:Watford crest.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hertfordshire Rangers F.C.

I have created a stub article on Hertfordshire Rangers F.C. who appear to be one of the fore-runners of Watford F.C., but I am a bit confused about their history. Unfortunately the Watford F.C. article says little about the very early history. My searches on the web have come up with several very different versions.

Here it says "Formed around 1865, Rangers featured in the FA Cup between 1875 and 1881. In 1898 they merged with Watford St Peters to form the modern Watford FC.", which was the basis for my initial article.

Here, however, it says "In December 1870, the Watford Observer carried a report on Hertfordshire Rangers - the forerunners of Watford Rovers. Watford Rovers was formed by a group of lads in 1881 who had been given permission by the Earl of Essex to kick a football around in Cassiobury Park. In 1882, home games began in Vicarage Meadow and a year later, the club's name was changed to West Herts. In 1898, a rival club, Watford St Mary's, was absorbed by West Herts and the name 'Watford' was formally adopted."

Version 3 says "The club takes the year of its formation as 1881 when Watford Rovers was formed. This club amalgamated in 1890 with West Hertfordshire Rangers, believed to have been formed in 1865. In 1896, the club joined the Southern League Second Division, turning professional the following year. For a period the town boasted two professional clubs but it quickly became clear that this was not sustainable and in 1898, West Herts Rangers and Watford St Mary’s FC merged to form Watford FC."

Finally, we have "They were formed in 1881 as Watford Rovers. They later merged with Hertfordshire Rangers and Watford St Mary’s to become Watford FC."

Unfortunately, the history section of the club's own website is "under construction" so is of no help at all at present. Can someone clarify the position and perhaps include a brief summary of the early history in the Watford article, and correct any errors in the Herts Rangers page. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

QPR second rivals?

There appears to be an edit war starting with regards to the survey that shows that Watford's second rivals are QPR. So I thought maybe we could canvas opinion of whether this nugget of information should be included. Perhaps giving away my opinion on the subject, I'd like to make three points:

• Who ever heard of second and third rivals?
• The reference cited is a fan site, and does not say how many "fans" were consulted in the original survey.
• It must be considered total nonsense given such pieces of information as "Luton's third rival is Plymouth" and that "Plymouth's third rivals are Burnley".WW9066 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a very woolly concept. As you say, it's a fan site, thus unreliable content, and the amount of people in the poll is undefined. Invariably, after your main rivals, there will be some feeling with other local teams which you could supposedly term "second rivals". But it's not a term that's used, and isn't something that comes up at all often. As a Watford season ticket holder, I've never even heard of any rival stuff between us and QPR. Definetely not worthy of inclusion in my view. HornetMike (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the proponent of the QPR rivalry could be appeased slightly with a factual statement at the start of the rivalry section, something along the lines of "Despite Queens Park Rangers being the closest league ground to Watford, the club have had a longstanding rivalry with Luton Town FC." WW9066 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been told by a mate (who happens to be a QPR fan), that quite a few Rangers fans consider us to be their rivals, though to be honest, I haven't ever really heard anything in the opposite direction. Due to this, while it has its merits, the Watford page may not be the best place for it (can be included in the QPR page if their fans have strong feelings on the matter, then perhaps consider inclusion for consistency). PaddyUniv (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

BHaPPY External Link

Whilst I am an avid reader of this site, it's a blog/message board and contains no factual information, so should this be included in a Wikipedia page?WW9066 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed it in my last tidy. It should be removed. HornetMike (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Andy Hessenthaler

I'm trying to get this article up to GA status (maybe even FA, but that's a heck of a long shot....), but currently there's only one sentence about his time at Vicarage Road, and I don't know what else might need adding. Surely there must be something else to say about a five year stint at a club one division below the top flight? Any thoughts.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Hess was part of my first team - started watching in 94-95 aged 7. Summoning memories of him - the hardworking stuff is a given. His transfer came just after Watford had been relegated at the end of the 95-96 season, so that with the apparent poor form (I can't recall that, but it's mentioned in this BSaD article) might be worth a mention. There's certainly a split perception of him amongst Watford fans to this day - as I recall some think he claimed he was going to a club in the First Divsion (as was), but then decided to switch to Gillingham (in the league we dropped into) for more money. Others refute this, saying it was near his home etc. Fairly unciteable unless you can find an interview with him where he discusses it. He was out of contract as I recall, rather than one of the many released. He was quite possibly our captain - it seems obvious that he would be, and looking at a few line-ups from that time I can't recall anyone else filling the role. Again, not sure of any citation for that. Otherwise - nothing I can summon that's particularly notable, he was a regular in a distinctly unremarkable side, neither relegation nor promotion candidates. Nearly got relegated in 93-94, actually. At a push - any games when he scored twice/sent off etc.? My Watford player book is at home, I'll have a gander but it was published in 1996 so probably doesn't a summary of his Watford career akin to those that had already left the club. Will look, though. HornetMike (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Mike, that's something to start with anyway....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Watford F.C. managers

I've started drafting a list of Watford F.C. managers in my sandbox. It's very much in the early stages, but if anyone would like to lend a hand, that would be grand. Also, can anyone recommend any sources for this, either printed or online? Thanks. Seegoon (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article

I'm working on a couple of side-articles at the moment (managers, current season, players of the year). I want to do players as well but I don't have a proper reference for them, so that might have to wait. Anyway, after I'm up to date on recent season articles it will be easier to brutally trim the history, so at that point I was planning on taking this article itself on, with the aim of making it a Featured Article.

My opinion is that we should list the hall of fame inductees in a table (Luther Blissett, John McClelland, Les Taylor, David James, Ian Bolton, Tommy Mooney and Tony Coton), with a sentence or so about each of them, and have the rest of them listed like they have done here, with criteria similar to the ones we currently have. I think that anything about the individuals which is so important that it must stay on this page could be incorporated into the history, otherwise it can go in their articles.

Just wondering if people had any other opinions about things that could be done to improve the article as a whole, or if anyone has any alternative ideas? WFCforLife (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work. I like the separate articles, now we can trim the main page, particularly the History section to about 3 paragraphs? The list of notable players could do with work, as you say some of them are better mentioned in the history page, and instead only include Hall of Fame inductees. HornetEd (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Three paragraphs would be a bit difficult. The first two paragraphs seem perfect to me. Don't get me wrong, there's still far too much focus on recent history, but a lot has happened in recent decades which is very significant, compared to a 40 year period from 1920-1960 where very little of note happened. WFCforLife (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How long is a paragraph though! I mean to suggest the article would be best about half it's current length. HornetEd (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling fairly embarrassed that you've done more in a month than I've done in about 4 years. I've sort of given up on this article in the last year, partly due to being away, partly because I didn't get round to making significant improvements. I do have lots of reference books to cite this article, everything by Trefor Jones and Oliver Phillips other than the season by season book. I'm a little wary about a table for hall of fame players, I think the bulleted list you've shown in the Spurs article is just fine for them. Any other player criteria I think you'd have trouble getting through the FA process, and personally I don't like large lists of players, I think a player list article largely does that job. Anyway, good luck and I'm ready to assist where I can. PS: Re: Eddie Oshodi, you did exactly right. Regards, HornetMike (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the Who's Who by any chance? I was looking at ways to get older, free pictures in. If a picture is over 70 years old and you can demonstrate that you've taken reasonable steps to show that the photographer died over 70 years ago, or you can show that you have reason to believe the photographer is unknown, the copyright can be considered to have expired. I'm 99.9% sure that pictures of individuals on the club website are taken from the Who's Who (for instance the ones here and here), so there's a chance that the photos of pre-war players could be used if there's no photographer credited.

They'd make great additions seeing as the oldest picture at the moment is from 1999. I was also thinking of putting one of the club's older badges in, but I'm just wondering if they could be considered fair use? WFCforLife (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Honours Section

I would state that the League Cup is a major honour, it's entered by the best teams at the time. The lower division titles are not major honours, because winning the Championship is coming 21st in the football league. HornetEd (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to start an edit war so I thought best to take it here first. I missed out an extremely important word in my edit summary: semis.

The reason I made the change was in line with clubs whose articles are featured; they have all tabulated the honours. There isn't really consensus on what is and isn't notable, so here's my rationale. A runners up spot in the top flight and FA Cup is unquestionably notable. Being champions of the lower tiers is notable (in particular the Southern League- most southern clubs didn't join the Football League until 1920-21, so in effect we were Champions of Southern England), and if we happen to have finished second in those leagues that may as well be mentioned. Personally I think semi-final appearances are borderline, as is the Third Division South Cup, but then again it's equivalent to the Football League trophy so that's debateable as well.

Do you disagree with the idea of putting the results into a table Ed, or was the revert solely because I've changed the content? WFCforLife (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've merged the two sections. WFCforLife (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, agree table is better. Honours are all debatable, I thought of including the Southern League (after doing the List of Seasons) but other clubs don't include Southern League titles as honours. Our Match Day programme lists honours for all Football League divisions where we were champions, runners-up or promoted, and for FA Cup and League Cup as finalists or semis. Personally the FA Cup and League Cup have similar 'honour' status, because of the teams involved. We should use other clubs pages and featured articles as a reference, but also to Watford until we start winning trophies our semi-final places are significant ;) HornetEd (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)