Talk:Huddersfield Town A.F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Official name[edit]

On 2 February 2005 the official name was changed from Huddersfield Town Association Football Club to Huddersfield Town Football Club. BlueValour 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headings[edit]

Please do not remove headings and overload the intro. To enable the reader to find what he wants, as much material as possible should be findable from Contents. BlueValour 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixtures[edit]

I have removed a list of fixtures for the upcoming season. Unfortunately they cannot be used, as they are copyright The Football League, who charge a fee for the right to use them. Oldelpaso 08:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced by a Results table which are OK. BlueValour 17:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pease do not keep adding forthcoming matches. Wikipedia is not licensed to carry fixtures and this is not important enough to put the Project at risk. If you consider the next match is OK, then by all means go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and see if you can get agreement. BlueValour 17:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin Hand[edit]

I can help with the Eoin Hand profile, can give you all the Irish info you need. Will update over the next few days --Dodge 01:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks. BlueValour 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular chants[edit]

This was split between the main article and the 'Smile a While' article. I have now combined them under Huddersfield Town F.C. - Popular chants. I have also added paras on the 'singing section' and 'Band' - amplification of these would be welcome. BlueValour 23:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do list[edit]

All help welcome!

A note on British English[edit]

British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979Talk to me 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure[edit]

At the moment the article is an uneasy combination of current results/news and more long-living material. The Results table will, of course, be moved to a new article before the next season. I think, therefore, that we may as well adopt a better structure now. I am proposing to create a new article Huddersfield Town F.C. season 2006-07 and move the Results and 2006-07 Events there. The 2006-07 Review would remain here, and be copied to the new article. That would enable 2006-07 to take the prose form of earlier seasons. The Events and Results would, of course, continue to be developed in their new home. May I have any comments, please? BlueValour 05:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early days[edit]

This section of the history is incredibly brief. Not being a Huddersfield fan, I know little about the pre-war history and this article tells me very little. How did the club recover from bankruptcy in 1912 to win the FA Cup in 1922 and then the Championship in 1924, 1925 and 1926? The Herbert Chapman article adds nothing (and concentrates on his Arsenal career). Who were the major players? Apart from Chapman who were the managers? The manager before him got the team to the FA Cup final (who was he?); the manager after won the League in 1926 (again, who was he?). The team won the FA Cup in 1922; surely this deserves more than a brief mention.

Maybe there's a historian amongst the Huddersfield Wikipedians who can expand this section. Daemonic Kangaroo 12:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable supporters[edit]

An editor has dropped by and removed this section. Each one of the supporters is sourced so I have replaced the section. This section should remain unless there is a consensus here for it to be removed. BlueValour 21:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was me. WP:FOOTBALL discussions in the past have backed the removal of celebrity fan sections. Even if you've sourced it, it's still fairly trivial and more information for the person's page rather than the club. HornetMike 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that, that was on the basis that these sections are rarely sourced and therefore not being verifiable. We have been rigorous on insisting that any additions to this section be sourced. The editors on here do not consider it trivial. In any case the authority for any article is the talk page so the section must remain unless you can generate a consensus on here for its removal. BlueValour 22:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, possibly. I'll either have a scratch around or bring it up on the football project. Tomorrow, though. Tomorrow! HornetMike 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are missing the main point - whatever the view of the project may be it is not their place to dictate what goes in individual articles. Editorial disputes - as here - are resolved by the regular editors on the talk page unless there is a clear breach of Wikipedia policy (which there is not in this case}. BlueValour 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this before I brought it up on the project - not that it matters, won't hurt to have a discussion on it. I respectfully disagree regarding the views of the project - whilst they don't set official policy, I think it makes sense for all articles to fall in line with their consensus. Anyway, as I've said on my talk page, it would have been polite of me to bring it up on here before removing sourced material, so for that I apologise. As there is apparently consensus of the editors on this page to keep it, I will not remove it again. However, should the consensus of the WikiProject suggest removing it, I would recommend following their lead and doing so. Cheers, HornetMike 09:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full and u-21 internationals[edit]

This list is now unmanageably large - I hadn't realised we had so many stars :-) My suggestion is two lists - one for Full and one for U-21. Any thoughts, pl? BlueValour 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • how about players who have only earned them while with us, although its hard to find out i guess Joe p15 09:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hudcrest.gif[edit]

Image:Hudcrest.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 07:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the real emblem? Apparently, the 'A' was removed in 2005. A quick search on google images shows emblems without the 'AFC'. RedvBlue 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Langley/Chapman[edit]

According to my copy of Herbert Chapman, Football Emperor (ISBN 028563416X), Herbert Chapman joined Huddersfield Town in February 1921 as assistant manager and took over from Ambrose Langley a month later after the latter resigned. So there was no interim period where the coaching staff were caretaker managers as the list claims, and accordingly I've modified the Managers list here and the managers template as well. Qwghlm (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much recent detail[edit]

Whoever put the comments in about the season articles "mirroring" the main article and keeping them in synch, please could you have a look at WP:RECENT and WP:SUMMARY. Detail of which player signed on which day and who scored which goal in which minute belongs in the season articles - the main club article needs to *summarise* this detail not repeat it. If you repeat all the detail in the main club article it will become too long and unreadable. Not only does the recent detail need to be reduced, the early years need expanding so that coverage is proportional. --Jameboy (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this is undoubtedly the most ludicrously recentist article I've ever seen. The 1920s era, when the club achieved the then unprecedented feat of three consecutive league titles, merits two sentences, whereas the 2009-10 season gets thirty-seven sentences - absolutely ludicrous! In a summary of the club's 103-year history, does anyone seriously think "On February 1, Tom Denton and Lewis Nightingale joined Northern Premier League Division One North side Wakefield on one-month loans" needs to be included..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Terriers fan, but it is sad to see so much s### written about their recent history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.245.51 (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start, but someone needs to finish the job and add something about the club's earlier history. It reads a lot better now, with all the irrelevant detail moved to the proper places, but some fleshing out is required. I've removed the warning banners as I don't think they're relevant now. I've been respectful to the content that was here and gone to a bit of effort to merge the other pages properly (not just deleting willy-nilly). Patrick Neylan (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help expand West Yorkshire Derby?[edit]

I am calling upon all users with knowledge on the West Yorkshire Derby(s) so that the article can be expanded. Any help or co-operation would be much appreciated. Regards IJA (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that some muppet types keep editing our rivalries of late (most probably Leeds supporters)...

As a Terrier I know that our main rivals are firstly Leeds, then Bradford, and we've also had rivalries with Oldham, Barnsley and in the distant past, Halifax. There's no need to edit any of these as most fans will admit as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.223.131 (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sandy Mutch[edit]

The article Sandy Mutch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find published (gBook) support for this subject winning the FA Cup, as this is the primary claim to notablity the article fails WP:V and WP:N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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: page moved.(non-admin closure) —innotata 05:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield Town F.C. → Huddersfield Town A.F.C. – The club appears to be an AFC rather than an FC. Evidence includes the club's website (www.htafc.com - title "Official website of Huddersfield Town AFC") and twitter account (twitter.com/htafcdotcom, which uses the hashtag #HTAFC). --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 23:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Number 57 11:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per official club sources. LRD 11:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what about the (unsourced) claim at #Official name? GiantSnowman 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have assumed the club would be using the hashtag #htfc and have changed their website details if that were the case. Also, I think the editor may have misunderstood what's written in the article ("The badge was further redeveloped with a small but significant adaptation in February 2005. The club took the decision to remove "A.F.C." from the text leaving only the wording 'Huddersfield Town'"). Number 57 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. The local paper calls them 'FC' and the club website, while at an 'AFC' URL, actually uses 'Huddersfield Town Football Club' as their description... GiantSnowman 17:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there's also the possibility (my own research, might I add, so feel free to ignore!) that the club is using a 'HTAFC' hashtag to set themselves apart from #HTFC. GiantSnowman 17:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just my 2p's worth. The local paper also had them under "Huddersfield FC News" so there is a lack of consistency in their naming. My eyes may be failing me but the header at the official site specifically states "Huddersfield Town AFC" and there was no mention of "Huddersfield Town FC" on that page. I don't think a club would add a meaningless 'a' in their twitter account or hashtag either, especially when their supporters known there's no 'a' in "Huddersfield Town". LRD 03:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Re the hashtag thing, the only HTFC club approaching Huddersfield in terms of notability is Halifax (the only other club in that list to have been in the Football League). However, Halifax were also an AFC and also very close to Huddersfield (the two towns are five miles apart) - you'd assume if they'd wanted to use a hashtag to set them apart, it wouldn't have been HTAFC. Number 57 07:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the official name of the Halifax club is FC Halifax Town despite the fact that their website is halifaxafc.co.uk, so they probably wouldn't use #HTFC or #HTAFC as their hashtag. -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkudlick: Halifax Town A.F.C. were wound up in 2008 (why I referred to them in the past tense). FC Halifax Town is the new club that was formed to replace it. The old club (HTAFC) were still around when Twitter was established. Number 57 15:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support let's use the name by which the club and the fans use. If a few so called reliable sources blatantly get it wrong then that's their problem. Wikipedia should not follow the same trail of error. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. On the evidence above, the official name might have no wider usage at all. The few so called reliable sources are the most relevant evidence so far cited in terms of policy. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrewa: On what basis should the article continue to be at "Huddersfield Town F.C.", when that's clearly not the correct name for the club? We have to have it at either F.C. or A.F.C. to fit in with the generally accepted naming criteria for English football clubs (which is based on the consistency part of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA), so rejecting a move to A.F.C. just means we continue to have an incorrect name. Number 57 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the basis that we prefer a common name to an official name. The question of whether this is correct or incorrect does not arise. Andrewa (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Andrewa: WP:COMMONNAME specifically states that "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Many sports or media websites appear to be set up to refer to all clubs as "FC" as "AFC" is relatively rare (the Manchester Evening News refers to Oldham as an FC even though they are an AFC), which is probably why it is fairly common to see FC used, even though it is inaccurate. Wikipedia is able to differentiate article titles to use the correct form, and we should be doing that. Number 57 11:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you mean that to justify the arguments so far (including below) put that the name should be changed to a more correct name, I don't think that's the meaning of this policy at all. Both names appear to be used in reliable sources. The phrase inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources doesn't cover this case. In terms of reliable sources, both names are accurate. So it may well be that there a case can be made for the move, but the arguments put so far don't establish one, and a move for the wrong reasons would set a bad precedent. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my "vote" to neutral. It's been hinted that there may be possible confusion with a previous club, but History of Huddersfield Town F.C. and this article both read as if the club that plays today is still the one founded in 1908, and the scope of this article seems to cover both in any case. But let's not waste more time on this. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The title on the club's website is Official Website of the Terriers - Huddersfield Town AFC latest news, photos and videos. If the club's official website names the team as AFC, who are we to say they are wrong because their Wikipedia article states differently? -- Jkudlick (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Echoing what others have said before me, I believe that the name has got to be changed to A.F.C. As @Number 57: pointed out, their own website is abbreviated as HTAFC and the club's twitter account is labelled The OFFICIAL #HTAFC tweet!. Don't really understand why anyone could have objections to renaming their wiki page to the correct name of the club. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is simply that these arguments (in fact as far as I can see, almost all of the arguments above) ignore our policy, which sets a bad precedent. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2014 (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.

Moving subarticles[edit]

'All' that remains to be moved of the subarticles, categories, and templates for this club are the 106 season pages, and Charlton Athletic F.C. 7–6 Huddersfield Town F.C.. Would anyone else mind moving them? Now that there's been a requested move, you can just point to it, and you can't move the pages yourself, list them at WP:RM#Uncontroversial technical requests for an admin to move them. Also, should 'F.C.' be kept for some of the club's history? Doesn't sound like it, but thought I'd bring it up. —innotata 05:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have done the Charlton game article, and will move the season articles. No, F.C. was never the club's name as far as I understand, so won't be retained for any part of the history. Thanks for closing and your work so far though! Number 57 22:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now finished all the season articles. Number 57 13:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Huddersfield Town A.F.C./Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates and complete details
  3. Copy edit for WP:MOS
Keith D (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huddersfield Town A.F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"..the first English club to win three successive league titles, a feat which only three other clubs have matched, and none has bettered."[edit]

Sorry but Manchester United won a second 'triple' between 2007 and 2009 and as the only club to have done this twice might be said to have 'bettered' even Town's fine achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.65.94 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2017[edit]

The last line of the section "History" should have the result of the penalty shootout changed into the version with the dash (–) instead of the small hyphen used by an editor earlier on today.

4-3 → 4–3
86.186.188.21 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done in this edit, but I changed another hyphen to a dash. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Huddersfield Town A.F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huddersfield Town A.F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chants[edit]

The section of chants is puerile and seemingly based on original research.

It has no place in what should be a definitive reference source for the club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.147.59 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huddersfield Town A.F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017[edit]

Change https://web.archive.org/web/20110113191857/http://www.htafc.com/page/Home to https://www.htafc.com/ Change the website of Huddersfield Town A.F.C. in infobox The website is https://www.htafc.com/. Current website redirects to wrong link Manugupta10 (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SVG logo?[edit]

Shouldn’t a club as big as Huddersfield ought to have an SVG logo? The PNG version looks extremely blurry on mobile. Joseph1891 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huddersfield_Town_A.F.C.&oldid=1207660725"