Talk:Newcastle United F.C.: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:23, 14 January 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newcastle United F.C. article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Newcastle United F.C. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 31, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 11, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England GA‑class High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Football: England GA‑class High‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

North East England GA‑class Top‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator. —sroc 💬 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle United F.C. → Newcastle United FC – Per MOS:ACRO: "Wikipedia generally avoids using full stops in upper-case acronyms." Is there any reason for this to be treated differently? —sroc 💬 03:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For consistency with all other British clubs. See Category:Football clubs in England. The only exceptions are clubs where the letters do not stand for anything. Any discussion on this issue should be a central RfC, not a discussion on one of hundreds (if not thousands) of articles using this naming convention, which was agreed many years ago (which is why all the articles use dots). Number 5 7 07:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Enlightening. Withdrawn. —sroc 💬 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm still curious why there is so much variation, e.g.:

Category:Soccer clubs in Australia—all without full stops
Category:Football clubs in Germany—all without full stops
Category:Football clubs in Spain—all without full stops (except Real Madrid F.C.)
Category:Football clubs in France—mostly without full stops, a few with full stops
Category:Soccer clubs in the United States—some with, some without
Category:Football clubs in Greece—all with full stops (except OFI Crete)
Category:Football clubs in Wales—all with full stops
Category:Football clubs in Italy—all with full stops

Why is this not consistent? —sroc 💬 09:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued this conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#"FC" or "F.C." for football clubs. —sroc 💬 09:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Newcastle United Page

There is a seperate wikipedia page called 'History of Newcastle United F.C." in which further detail can be added. The promotion from the championship section is becoming excessively detailed. May we consider moving this detail to there and abbreviating long paragraphs as have been done in previous sections?

ToonIsALoon (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That section is not just re the Championship-winning season. But, yes, it probably falls foul of WP:RECENT, so I'll support moving that to the history page and replacing it with a summarised version. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

71.187.52.194 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Has not been officially confirmed by either of the clubs involved. LRD NO (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Height data

Thirty-one of the Newcastle United player profiles are metric first and 4 are imperial first. I think it would be better if they were consistent. After all,

Newcastle United profiles are metric first. See [1]
Premier League player profiles are metric only.
Most (31/35) player profiles are metric first now.
It only needs four edits for me to make them all consistent.

Please let me know if you approve or diaapprove of this change. Michael Glass (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say go for it (as per WP:BRD). This sounds like something that can be discussed ad nauseum without any proper consensus ever being reached though. According to WP:UNIT, "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric [...] except that: [...] the primary units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds," so for a U.K. player based at a U.K. team, there probably won't be a proper justification for changing it to metric. But try your luck anyway – if you use a template to display both metric and imperial, i.e. {{convert|x.xx|m|ftin|abbr=on}}, then hopefully there won't be too many dissenting voices. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave it as per MOS:UNITS with heights in feet and inches first for UK related articles. Any change should first be agreed at MOS:UNITS in my opinion. It's not as if the unit order affects any football-related content. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all other team members should be changed to comply with the feet/inches first clause in MOS:UNITS as there is no football related reason for the non-compliance. Baaarny (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:20, 14 January 2015 edit Baaarny (talk \| contribs) 97 edits →‎Height data ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:23, 14 January 2015 edit undo Baaarny (talk \| contribs) 97 edits →‎Height data Next edit →
Line 95:		Line 95:
	: Personally, I'd say go for it (as per [[WP:BRD]]). This sounds like something that can be discussed ad nauseum without any proper consensus ever being reached though. According to [[WP:UNIT]], "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric [...] except that: [...] the primary units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds," so for a U.K. player based at a U.K. team, there probably won't be a proper justification for changing it to metric. But try your luck anyway – if you use a template to display both metric and imperial, i.e. <nowiki>{{convert\|x.xx\|m\|ftin\|abbr=on}}</nowiki>, then hopefully there won't be too many dissenting voices. [[User:TheMightyPeanut\|TheMightyPeanut]] ([[User talk:TheMightyPeanut\|talk]]) 10:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)		: Personally, I'd say go for it (as per [[WP:BRD]]). This sounds like something that can be discussed ad nauseum without any proper consensus ever being reached though. According to [[WP:UNIT]], "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric [...] except that: [...] the primary units for personal height and weight are feet/inches and stones/pounds," so for a U.K. player based at a U.K. team, there probably won't be a proper justification for changing it to metric. But try your luck anyway – if you use a template to display both metric and imperial, i.e. <nowiki>{{convert\|x.xx\|m\|ftin\|abbr=on}}</nowiki>, then hopefully there won't be too many dissenting voices. [[User:TheMightyPeanut\|TheMightyPeanut]] ([[User talk:TheMightyPeanut\|talk]]) 10:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

	:Please leave it as per MOS:UNITS with heights in feet and inches first for UK related articles. Any change should first be agreed at MOS:UNITS in my opinion. It's not as if the unit order affects any football-related content. [[User:Baaarny\|Baaarny]] ([[User talk:Baaarny\|talk]]) 07:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)		:Please leave it as per MOS:UNITS with heights in feet and inches first for UK related articles. Any change should first be agreed at MOS:UNITS in my opinion. It's not as if the unit order affects any football-related content. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all other team members should be changed to comply with the feet/inches first clause in MOS:UNITS as there is no football related reason for the non-compliance. [[User:Baaarny\|Baaarny]] ([[User talk:Baaarny\|talk]]) 07:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)