Jump to content

Talk:Wigan Athletic F.C.

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

Location

[edit]

The stadium ia located in Newtown, and isn't nearest to Springfield / Beech Hill geographically like some people believe. see for the club's address on the offical website.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Newtown mentioned/included in the stadium's address on the back of match tickets? Sorry, no link, I'm afraid. Also, there is poor grammar in the 'Traditions at Wigan Athletic' section: 'Wigans', 'premiership' etc.82.31.33.178 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

This article could really use a lot more in terms of Wigan's history, especially with the club now playing in the top flight of English football. Perhaps someone more familiar with Wigan's history could add to this article. See other Premier League teams for examples. - Pal 14:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this has been partially resolved to the extent of being able to provide a reasonable history from 1978. other premier league clubs have famous player lists, which could be added, but other than that - its pretty much wholly completed (history at least) ~Markz17

Table

[edit]

the League table needs to be in table format: anyone up to it?

Capacity

[edit]

Most "Capacity" posts do not consider that actual (even verifiably reported) attendance can and does occasionally exceed actual (and reported) capacity. It shouldn't. But sometimes it does, like the first FA Cup Final at the original Wembley. There is a room to quote an official capacity, and also to state the highest actual attendance. ChrisJBenson (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today's (26 Dec 2005) attendance has been reported as 25,017 by every source I can find, meaning the capacity of 25,004 stated in the article must be incorrect. Wigan's official site states the capacity as 25,000 exactly, [1] states 24,826. I'm going to put the capacity as 25,017 for now, but if anyone knows the correct figure could they please update it Oldelpaso 19:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC) ITS 25,138[reply]


-- sorted. the ground has recently had 120 odd seats added.

Wigan's FC site is not a reliable source, you need a reliable third party source. The offical JJB site lists the capacity at 24,826, and I have restored that figure. What's important is verifiability not truth, it's probable the current capacity is more than that but without reliable third party sources please do not change it. One Night In Hackney 08:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stadium is jointly owned by Wigan Athletic and Wigan Warriors, they are no less reliable sources than the JJB Stadium site. The JJB Stadium site has not been updated in over a year, the Wigan Warriors site is more up to date: The stadium is an all seater arena with a seating capacity of 25,138 (this was increased from 25,004 in December 2005 following building work). Third party sources: BBC, Setanta, ITV. Oldelpaso 10:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a wiganer and happen to know that the record attendance at the jjb is 25,023 vs liverpool in 2005/2006 season as I went to that match. So far no crowd has surpassed that not in rugby or football. Also every seat was filled for that game there was absolutely no seats left so I'm geussing that is the true capacity. Wiki235 09:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The record attendance at the JJB Stadium for Wigan Athletic is 25,133 for a match against Manchester United on May 11, 2008:[2] Dean1960 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official capacity is 25,138 and the latest record attendance was some match vs Manchester United and the attendance was 25,133 FootyLad42 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current events

[edit]

A lot of this article is written in the style of a newspaper article. Please consider adding such content and commentary to WikiNews instead. Stifle 12:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

resolved to an extent in the big edit i made a few weeks ago - Markz17


Old club badge

[edit]

Should there be a picture of the old 'Tree and Crown' badge on the page? Maybe in the history section.

I AGREE, but dont have the image, anyone can help ? - Markz17

I have a picture, anyone who can put a pic on the page, please e-mail me, [email removed]- Tedders

Captain

[edit]

Why is there a "club captain", "team captain" and "vice captain"? Surely it's just "captain" and "vice captain", the latter being captain a lot due to the former not playing. The captain should neither player be on the pitch is surely not set in stone?

Officialy, Matt Jackson is the club captain but Arjan De Zeeuw has been appointed as the team captain, with Baines as vice. Tedders

Cleanup

[edit]

I've cleaned up the 'Traditions' section, adding links and improving the ridiculously informal tone and grammar. Also, can i suggest that Keith Gillespie be included as a notable former player, as his stint at Man United made him fairly famous. 82.31.32.48 14:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New kit

[edit]

can someone make a kit that has big shoulders like Wigan's real one?

Kit edit war

[edit]

Aa a couple of users are revert-warring over what kit to use in the infobox, a little discussion wouldn't go amiss. Two points: firstly, the infobox kit representations are supposed to be general, not featuring every last detail and secondly, to me Image:Kit_body_Wigan_home07.png, with its jagged edges does not look much like the actual kit itself, so thinwhitesides looks like the right template to use. Oldelpaso 23:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I made a new one! FootyStavros 22:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wigan athletic badge.png

[edit]

Image:Wigan athletic badge.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) 05:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New crest

[edit]

Wigan Athletic have revealed a new club crest on their website - can someone legally upload it onto the Wigan page? Steveweiser (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honors

[edit]

"2007/08 Season 17 home games without defeat. They play Manchester United in the last game of the season with the chance to become the only team not to lose at home during the season."

Even as a fan with wishful thinking, I know this is not right. Premierleague.com has them standing at 8-5-6 on the season, far from unbeaten at home. An impressive record, but not unbeaten. I assume it should therefore be removed. NJDevils1087 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

[edit]

While I accept that Wigan's stint in the Premier League is hugely significant to the club's history, the fact that the last two seasons gets almost three times as much coverage in the "history" section as the preceding 70-odd years is ludicrous. The Premier League section needs trimming considerably...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly this is the case - but attendances have gone up by a factor of 10 since successive promotions - hence recentism is inevitable. I feel that rather than trimming Premier League history extensively - it may be more appropriate for someone to bulk up the early history (see Blackburn Rovers, Manchester United I'd gladly do it - but sources are difficult to find. markz17 (talk) 04:53, 04 June 2008 (GMT)

Current Squad

[edit]

Can people please stop messing around with this section by putting in players who haven't even signed Wigan (yet?). Please enter a suitable link as proof, in the players profile. Also the current squad is for those players who have signed professional contracts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctormouse (talk • contribs) 13:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Zaki

[edit]

Not sure when a player who has just signed up for the club becomes a "former player". Have removed his name from the list of "Notable former players". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmisra (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Football League Second Division playoff final

[edit]

While I'm sure you guys would rather not be reminded of that day (although looking at our respective league positions now, I think you could be said to have had the last laugh :-) ) I was wondering if anyone could tell me who WAFC's captain on the day was, as I understand the usual captain at that time was Carl Bradshaw, who was left on the bench that day........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Stuart Balmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.157.226 (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election to The Football League

[edit]

"Boston United were the Northern Premier League leaders, therefore Wigan, as runners-up were put forward for election." -- I don't see how that follows. Why were Boston United not put up for election? --Jameboy (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston's ground was not up to League standard. Has been amended accordingly. James3500 (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan Warriors

[edit]

The Fanbase and Supporters section sounds like it has been hacked several times and is trying to balance some personal opinion and objective facts. There are several sentences that are clearly written by several people e.g.

"Attendances at Wigan Athletic games are certainly disappointing by Premier League standards but easily outweigh those of the Wigan Warriors Rugby League, showing the shift in popularity from the failing Super League side."

I think that this is two sentences, written by two people and the subjective second half is barely worth keeping in this section as there is another section covering this subject. If it is staying then citations are needed for comparing the attendances between the clubs and for suggesting that Wigan Warriors is a 'failing Super League side'. I think the 'failing' adjective should be removed. Amelvin1968 (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claim in the Fanbase & Supporters section about the Latics' attendance outweighing the Warriors' for two reasons:
1) This fact can be disputed, depending on whether you count away support, pre-season fixtures, cup fixtures, or when you look at timescale. When making a claim, make the point, and then follow with explained evidence, and provide a source to back this evidence up. "Athletic have more fans than Warriors", or vice versa, is an empty statement on its own.
2) It's not appropriate for this article. The only link between the Latics and the Warriors when it comes to attendance is the JJB Stadium, therefore, such analysis should be provided there (and has been already). GW(talk) 18:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable former players

[edit]

Could do with a cleanup, since there seems to be a lot of players from the past couple of seasons in this section. It's understandable somewhat, but can former loan players such as Marcus Bent and Neil Mellor really be considered "notable"? J Mo 101 (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latics?

[edit]

There are more than a few references to 'the Latics' in the article. Apart from the argument that the term is used in a non-encyclopaedic way, why is there no explantaion anywhere in the article about its use and etymology. Richard Avery (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nickname is just a shortened version of Athletic, which is also used by Oldham Athletic. Added something in the lede about it though. I agree that using the term in the article is unencyclopaedic, and would need cleaning up at some point. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development Squad

[edit]

I've entered in the development squad, in order to bring the page up to the standard of that of other clubs who have theirs listed. All the players listed have been given a squad number by the club (see: http://www.wiganlatics.co.uk/team/player-profile/) so therefore are more than eligible to be mentioned here. I suggest (as in the case of Filip Orsula) once they make a first-time appearance, then they should be entered into the first team squad section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.69.177 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Spaniards in the FA Cup

[edit]

Martínez and Díaz were not the first. Paul Gascoigne was replaced in the '91 final by Nayim. 98.251.1.61 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire

[edit]

Wigan is in Lancashire, not Greater Manchester. Greater Manchester is the administration authority. Geographically Wigan is in Lancashire............... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.142.248 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a history article?

[edit]

The history section of this article is very long, compared to FA-class articles like Arsenal, which have a "History of-" article. Any support for one for Wigan, and keep the most important information (founding, election, Premier League, League Cup Final, FA Cup win) in a shorter one on this article? Tátótát (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Earlier today, someone edited the Wigan Athletic F.C. article to read Wigan Pathetic Football Club in the club name section on the right-hand side of the article's intro. You'll be pleased to hear that I spotted the error and quickly reverted the edit back to the previous revision from 16:03, 26 July 2015 by RichardOwen97. Discovered that the same user had committed the same offence twice, but this time it was in the club name section at the top left of the article.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wigan Athletic F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Kit 2016/17

[edit]

I dont know how to edit the kit, can someone do it? FootyLad42 (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wigan Athletic 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wigan Athletic 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collective Noun

[edit]

It strikes me that, given the club's name is a collective noun, that it should be treated as singular, rather than plural (e.g. 'the club was' rather than 'the club were') in almost all scenarios. American English calls for these to always be treated as singular, whilst British English calls for either singular or plural depending on whether the group is being considered as a composite whole or individual members (with all references in the article, I believe, falling into the former camp). See the 'that team' reference here for reference.WP:MOS calls for commonality in use of language where possible and, given that British English allows for either, the use of it as a singular would seem the right choice here even if the argument on who, exactly, we're referring to is dismissed. Itsfini (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion it should be "are". Nobody in the UK that I've met would say "Wigan Athletic is a football team", and the BBC World Service don't get to decide grammar rules. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in terms of consistency/commonality, changing it to "is" would make it inconsistent with almost every other article about a British sports team on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read any UK media source in relation to football clubs and you will see that 99% of the time the word used is "are". So we follow the sources (and to an extent WP:COMMONNAME). The reason that BritEng "allows" for either is that in many cases both are used in relation to things like companies. So for example, either "Tesco is a supermarket company" or "Tesco are a supermarket company" would not be exceptional. However in terms of football clubs, the sentence is so often couched in the fact that we are referring to a team, and so we use mass nouns. See also musical groups ("Coldplay are a band from England"). Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit like (a vs an), Govvy (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent history edits

[edit]

Hello User:Sir Knson (I am assuming you were also the unnamed IP editor reverting previous changes). You have been repeatedly reversing changes made by multiple editors - see also WP:3RR - without explanation. From my point of view, it is inappropriate to be stating Wigan Athletic "is" (present tense), when the rest of the paragraph is about the past ("was"). The section is about the history of the club. The longer wording establishes a strong link from the demise of Wigan Borough to earlier previous history. Please give reasons for your changes and work to build consensus. Paul W (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wigan_Athletic_F.C.&oldid=1210961771"