Talk:Rangers F.C.

Please consider reading the archived discussions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page or initiating any new debate.

Ok now we are starting to move towards a FA article

Ok now that we are getting the article to FA status never mind GA status, i think we should create a to do list

I also say instead of going through a GAC we go straight to FAC.

Please add things to the list to be done

• Finish conversion to cite Done
• Finish improvement of cite references, archive where it can be done Done
• Fix all cite references parameter to include the right information and add other where appiorate Done
• Check ever reference is using the right cite ie cite web should be cite news Done
• Get reference for stuff that is citation needed or remove it Done
• Add a hall of fame section, which would include the Rangers greatest starting 11, hall of fame in scottish fa for rangers players Done
• Condense the history section down a little Done
• Check all images use alt text Done
• Check the page is confirm to html5 standards Done
• Add more wiki links to other article where appropriate Done
• Expand and convert external links to cite Done
• Expand team manager section to have a brief information on past manager about 4 or 5 sentences long Done
• Expand notable players section to have a brief information on notable players throughout history about 4 or 5 sentences long Done
• Expand international payer section with details on international payers about 4 or 5 sentences long Done
• Expand youth section with information on the youths about 4 or 5 sentences long Done
• Make sure all wiki links are relevant if not remove them Done
• Move stuff in the see also section to appropriate parts of the main article and expand with any other appropriate see also articles Done
• Create a wiki book Rangers F.C just like Book:Manchester United F.C. and Book:Manchester City F.C. Done
• Add other templates like {{commons}} to give more information in the external links section Done
• Remove unnecessary white space Done
• Remove red links Done
• Once records section has been fully expanded with all records that can be sourced, trim it down after the records that are not so important for this page are moved to the records and statistics page with the sources so starting the work of improving that page to Done
• Add some links to fansites and news sites Done not sure if the fan sites should be removed.... Done
• Fix the prose of the articles including spelling and grammar mistakes
• Reduce the records section down and move records less important with there references to records article Done

• Check reference to make sure reference parameters are using the right information
• Check the sources confirm what is said in the part the reference is used
• Make sure everything that is in each section is referenced , if not try find one or remove it
• Check for more than one use of the same reference condense using /> referencing tag (exception bbc history of rangers fc to long to use as single reference)
• Check the article for weasel words
• Check for use of peacock terms

To be done after the above is done

• Run AWB and WPcleaner and DAB cleaner, nDash script, reflinks script or from website, autoed, date script, possible other thing to make sure the page is up to strach
• Delink over linkage of duplicate wiki links
• Get the page copy edited
• Make sure the page is using British English
• Peer Review

Whenever a job on the list above has been done please mark it done using {{done}} template so other know the work has been done or checked. once the work is done we can then do a peer review

anything else add it aboveAndrewcrawford (talk - -:contrib) 22:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Dab Solver has been run several times and as this is on my watchlist I see it every day. Reflinks doesn't pick up any issue although I can see a few that need manually fixed. If you want to go straight to FA I suggest asking for it to be copy edited by an experienced copy editor and ask for a last peer review. FA will be hard and your better getting it right. Personally I would go for ga as that's hard enough and work up. Blethering Scot 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Having just looked at other FA class articles i think this needs a bit more work. There are sections with no text purely a link. Other Fa class articles all have some form of text if not the full list, arsenal managers section for instance has explanatory text but a link for the full list. We need to address the team managers section in particular and come up with a better way of handling the links to other squads and past notable players. I would also suggest that List of Rangers seasons is added as an extra link as part of the History section and removed from see also. With regards to see also remember that links are also in navbox at the bottom of the article so we dont need a lot of them. I would suggest only non Rangers articles such as football in scotland and old firm is left. Duplication isn't necessary.Blethering Scot 00:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah i thought about peer review after i went to bed, i guess wether we go to FAor GA first will depend o the peer review, yeah those section bug me but i had to remove theinfomation that was ther ebecause black kite said it was a problemAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 06:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• The prose quality would have to be improved a great deal. I keep finding the most basic errors of grammar, and far too much of it is written in the passive voice. --John (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

i know hence why guild of copyeditors would probally fix that, but ill add it to the listAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If we went on the polish wikipedia this page would be good enough already for GA as it almost identical copy of this one witht eh same references etc. But i dnt propose submit this until all teh above is done which i should start work on tomorrow. although the italian wikipedia one need fixed we have got enough references and consensus from here to show ther ento dissovled that doesnt help the case here when other wikipedia ie different languages say different things.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to work commitments i will get work done soon but it will take me longer to do feel free to do any of the above also changing do not archive until 2015Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your definitely no "moving towards a FA article",What you are doing though is perpetrating a myth using outlandish lies for no other reason because thats what you want to believe-to hell with the truth,Rangers FC where liquidated, by simply looking up the definition of club this point is easily attained, furthermore suggestions that "The Rangers" formerly "Sevco Scotland" formerly "Sevco 5088" bought the club is equally as ludicrous because that football club was liquidated, again see definition of Club,what was sold was the business assets such as the Umbro and Tennents agreements with Ibrox Stadium,Murray Park and the car park, intellectual property was also sold as part of the agreement,none other than Charles Green himself has said failing a CVA would mean the history would be wiped away and flushed down the toilet(you know that)Terry Butcher,a former Rangers captain has said its a different club,and umpteen others associated with "The Rangers" brand. Its not a personal attack on "The Rangers" in a lot of ways I admire the way they have taken on the mantle from the liquidated club and I hope they stay true to the football traditions set by Rangers,its still something the fans can look back on and admire with pride,,thats fine, but they are 100% not the same club,I could never be Elvis even if I bought Gracelands changed my name,adopted Lisa Marie and married Priscilla because he died in 1977, just as Rangers where liquidated in 2012, There are still plenty of Elvis fans though who follow his impersonators, but no matter how hard they try or how good they are, those impersonators can never be the king, its just not how things work.Accept what you are and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.204.149 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information on the page

This entire page is written on the basis of The Rangers FC being the same entity as Glasgow Rangers FC which was dissolved. If this page is to talk about the team that currently is in the second division, there should not be mention of league or cup titles. Please see AFC Wimbledon for a comparable football club page which lists the history of the club linked to the old Wimbledon FC, but does not try to claim their titles.

This page, being as completely factually incorrect as it is, is acting as a political page by suggesting that the two Rangers clubs are one and the same. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be for, it is supposed to be a factual resource.

Please remove this page immediately and have it edited. Otherwise, Wikipedia can no longer claim to make any attempt to provide factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.31.38 (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

See http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/rangers/ . Cheers, VanguardScot 19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually think Charlton Athletic & Middlesbrough are a better comparison for what happened with Rangers. They both created new companies and took over the running of the club. Rangers are not the first to do this and certainly wont be the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.216.144.200 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been debated, many many many times, and the best consensus that could be reached is detailed in the FAQs above etc. This article, and articles like it, are inevitably going to fall victim to one bias or another, but so long as things are suitably referenced I have no issue with this article. --Connelly90 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2014

I request that this page is edited to show the true history of rangers fc. The current club was formed in 2012 after the liquidation of the previous rangers fc who were formed in 1873 following investigations by HMRC and other creditors. The current club began life as Sevco 5088 on which an article can be found on Wikipedia. This in turn means that the whole page on rangers fc is wrong other than the entries from 2012. Thanks. Tee67 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Automatic decline, there are plenty discussion on this page showing the community consensus. As long as the SPFL & SFA consider them to be the same club, thats not likely to change and the article already provided extensive history on this as does the administration article.Blethering Scot 20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Richest Football Clubs?

I've removed "Richest Football Clubs" from the "See Also" section. The last time Rangers appeared on this list was 5 years ago, and I think you'll have a hard time arguing they are in the same financial position now. --Connelly90 09:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would even attempt to argue they are now. However that page provides the richest club lists going back to 2007, as they were on the list then the link to it is still more than valid.Blethering Scot 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they should include lists so far back on that page either, and it seems like they added a "historic data" section back in 2009, but it was reverted for some reason. 2007 2009 sounds like it was just "a couple years ago" still, and I'm guilty myself of thinking that from time-to-time, but that was 7 5 years ago! it's definitely no longer relevant in my opinion. --Connelly90 09:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been on here in the recent past (Pretty sure it was you that was trying to remove it/get it removed, but I don't have time to go through the archives to prove that). Whoever it was, was told to leave it as it was perfectly valid and as Rangers are mentioned in the article it is a valid 'see also' page. VanguardScot 18:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Turns out it was me who brought this forward back last summer, I thought that discussion was regarding the Celtic F.C. article tbh, so apologies for bringing it up again so soon on the same article. But a consensus was far from reached. The only "discussion" involved me and you stating our opinions on its relevance, and an IP telling me my "opinion didn't matter". These articles (i.e. Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C. and all related articles) are plagued with POV issues caused by people trying to promote their chosen side, and I think this is clearly one of them.

Regardless of whether "The Big Two" (or anyone else for that matter) appear on the article for Richest Football Clubs, they are no longer on the actual current list, and are no longer one of the richest football clubs; therefore, I argue that it's not relevant to the current state of ANY football club to consider their financial position in 2007 2009—much less a club who has changed so dramatically as this one—and doesn't improve the article to include "Richest Football Clubs" when they are clearly no longer included. This is a POV issue stemming from an editor wanting to promote their club. --Connelly90 09:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is nothing of the sort and is a perfectly reasonable see also page, as both clubs are involved in the page. There are two experienced editors here saying leave it and one saying get rid, if you want to take it further go to WP:Football to try to get some more input here from other experienced editors. Until then it stays as you have not given a good enough reason to remove it and you do not have a consensus to do so. Cheers, VanguardScot 10:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I also just noticed your most recent edit, that seems like a good compromise. VanguardScot 10:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Incase anybody want's to throw their two cents, I've added this issue over at Talk:WikiProject Football. --Connelly90 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Connelly90: It would be helpful to link to the previous discussion here and at WP:Footy, seen as both of you seem to have seen it can you do the honours.Blethering Scot 18:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Previous discussion is here --Connelly90 10:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm. Not really enough to say it came to any sort of real conclusion or that could be called a consensus. I can see both points of view to be honest, I've not got a pov on it as not a Rangers or a Celtic fan. I don't see the see also as indicating bias however its is notable to be mentioned that at one point they were on the list. I've not got time to look through full article can anyone say if it does do so somewhere. Blethering Scot 13:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's without a doubt notable that they were once one of the richest football clubs in the world, and that this should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the article. However, I also think that including this link in the "See Also" section (even with the qualifier I've added) doesn't really do this properly. The "Ownership and Finances" section is where this should go instead, and seeing as that section could do with a little less emphasis on the Liquidation/Administration process—to give a more general picture of their ownership history—This issue could be incorporated into that. Especially since the list is actually "most valuable" football clubs, not "richest", it needs a bit more explanation than can be given in the See Also section. --Connelly90 14:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)