Talk:AFC Wimbledon/Archive 1

Wimbledon/MK split
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C. about what to do with about the Wimbledon/MK split and how to detail it in a NPOV tone. Constructive contributions welcome. Qwghlm 09:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

This article needs organizing into sections. I've made a start but it's hard work. I guess we just need to be bold.PeterGrecian 14:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm also interested in exploring the not-for-profit status of the club, its ownership and legal status as this is one of the innovations of the club.PeterGrecian 14:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kingston Dons
I'm starting to have second thoughts about reverting the edit a couple of days ago which contained However AFC Wimbledon decided not play in there home town and moved some miles away to Kingston (hence the nick name Kingston Dons). There is a conflict here, though one which it is difficult to find references for: whilst committed to playing in Merton the club spend a huge sum on a stadium in Kingston. Also the sum was paid when there were no other concievable purchasers for the stadium. Suggestions for a section of the article covering this please. PeterGrecian 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ground Purchase
I note that the relationship between the two clubs is now listed as "paternalistic". My definition of paternalistic is "benevolent but intrusive". Also, do you feel you've given an entirely honest/neutral view of the situation "seen by both clubs fans as securing both clubs futures and an example of a mutually beneficial relationship in a sport so often perceived as being riven by greed and self-interest" Most Ks fans would tell you this was a pretty straightforward piece of SELF interest, tempered with a gesture in our direction... Prince Philip of Greece 11:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a lot of work on the ground purchase article to include some of the reasons for the purchase, including circumstancial factors outside of The Dons ie the financial decline of K's, which I hope was acceptable to all. The slightly sickly sentance added about a "paternal relationship" was not however mine and I would not protest if it were removed - lets be honest, while AFC Wimbledon believe they were helping out thier own club as well as K's by buying the ground - not all K's fans seem to feel the same.Matt derry 16:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, Matt. I should have been clearer in criticising the words and not the contributor... Prince Philip of Greece 08:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever! Have reverted version to remove the patronising "paternal relationship" reference added by 20.133.1.2. Hope what's left remains acceptibly neutral etc
 * Matt derry 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Attendances
I have added information on the average attendances, but could not find info on the first two seasons.

Recent Edits
The edits by 82.43.34.242 on 26th October were sometimes good, but mostly did not improve this article.

I propose; removing the line "However, many fans...Wonderful World" from the section "Ownership and Legal Status", reinstating the section on "Youth and Womens Football" and reinstating the AFC Wimbledon Ladies link in the section "Official sites". I'll leave this a few days to get feedback.PeterGrecian 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Done PeterGrecian 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

More Trophies ?
The pre-season friendly against the fledgling FC United of Manchester is noted, but wasn't this also for the Supporters Direct trophy? If this was the case, and as Wimbledon won 1 - 0, the trophy would presumably need to be added to the honours section at the bottom.

Landlord/Tennant ?
I would like to see some acknowledgement of the ongoing debate regarding the status of Kingsmeadow and Kingstonian FC and the landlord/tenant relationship between the two clubs.

The Womens Team?
Seems like the womens team deserve a sub-heading of their own.

As I understand it they transferred over from the old Professinal Wimbledon to AFC and are continuing to have success. Szczels 08:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've restored the section on the womens team - could do with improvement though :) PeterGrecian 14:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Foundation
I'd be interested in a sentence or two about the original players for AFC Wimbledon. It's suggested that the Women's Team transfered over from the old professional Wimbledon and continued playing under AFC colours. Did the same happen for the men's team? or was the team started from scratch? Did the fans' collaboration generate enough money for a committee to buy in a team, or was it made up of fans? I'd be interested to read in the Foundation section how the new team was formed. (MarkG)

Khosla debt
OK I've put in a bit about the Khosla debt as I feel its important with regards to the history of the club so far. Of course its still a current issue as well as its not being fully paid off yet.

OK I've put in a bit about the Barclays loan. Not too sure if it needs a seperate sub heading or not, as its still connected to the debt. What do others think?

Player profiles
I'd like to add some information on the players, similar to the way I've done it at FC United of Manchester. I realise that the player info is in the style that's recommended at WikiProject Football, but I think the system used at FC United is more appropriate for non-league clubs as it's often not possible to get enough info about each player to justify a standalone article and such articles haven't done well on AfD recently. For players where there is enough info to give them their own article, we can always use summary style. What does everyone think? CTOAGN (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the player information in FC United of Manchester is too much unnecessary information. I prefer it the way it is. Arnemann 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

home colours
Aren't the AFC Wimbledon colours more like this? The colours on the article are way too dark, or maybe I'm colour blind... Arnemann 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right they are more like that, only with yellow bits. Bababoum 14:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed it. Anyone fancy putting in the yellow bits? PeterGrecian 12:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
The majority of my latest edit merely reverts much of the vandalism done by 195.93.21.136; 80.41.8.5; 86.130.22.94; and 80.229.221.14. The edit includes the following changes: Matt derry 15:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Removed pejorative edits under club's nickname;
 * Removed offensive edits to a reserve player's name;
 * Reverted deletion of Rob Ursell since he has not actually been released by the club (despite clearly not having a future at AFC Wimbledon);
 * Retained insertion of Scott Fitzgerald to squad, and added "on loan";
 * Removed line: "although the club never actually owned the ground" as Kingstonian F.C. did own their ground at one stage;
 * Removed line: "This move was welcomed by supporters of both clubs" as it is quite clear that many K's supporters were not happy about it - e.g. see discussion under Kingsmeadow


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move. --  tariq abjotu  01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (old)
A.F.C. Wimbledon → AFC Wimbledon — To remove unnecessary full-stops from article title, as per format on club's official site. (Move is to restore the page to its original location from which it should not have been moved without discussion and consensus). -- MLD · T · C · @: 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.


 * Oppose should be like A.F.C. Bournemouth Sunderland A.F.C. and loads of others PeterGrecian 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - either this should be completed along with all of the other football articles (and the RM should state that), or this article should not be moved as it should be consistent with other articles, as PeterGrecian has said. robwingfield (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Move this and all other similar articles per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Punkmorten 15:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's not what this RM is about. The RM states only moving this article, which I would be opposed to, as we should be consistent. robwingfield (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per precedent of every other football club article on Wikipedia. I don't like the periods either, but just moving this article won't fix anything. Recury 17:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose Discussion on dots is disputed. Please keep not change anything before discussion have solution. Matthew _hk   t  c  21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The club consistently says AFC Wimbledon (without the periods) on its website and so this is what should be followed. DavidB601 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support If the dots are not there on the official website i see no reason why they should be on wikipedia. --Sunderland06 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. BlueValour 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: re PeterGrecian's point, I don't see why the current naming of other clubs is relevant, particularly if there has been no discussion on them. Incidentally, both the FA and UEFA, as well as Sunderland AFC and AFC Bournemouth themselves, all print "Sunderland AFC" and "AFC Bournemouth" respectively on their websites (without any dots).  Please refer also to the discussion taking place here.  -- MLD · T · C · @:  18:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not particularly for or against having dots in the article name, but we should be consistent. Also, the fact that other organisations don't use dots is irrelevant.  The dots signify that the "A.F.C." part of the article is an initialism.  As a community, we should decide whether or not initialisms should contain dots when they are in an article name.  robwingfield (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Representative
I would have to query the use of "representating/representative" in the opening paragraphs of this article. It suggests a mandate or authorisation by the people for this club to represent them, and I do not believe that any club has that status: I have not seen such a claim on the article for any other football club I have seen on Wikipedia. I do not feel in any way represented by the team of the town in which I live, and would consider it inappropriate for them to claim that they do: AFCW's record attendance, even if everyone at the game was a AFCW supporter and lived in the Borough of Merton, is less than 1 in 40 of the borough's population. A football team can be said to represent its own traditions, the interests of its owners and stakeholders, and the hopes of its supporters, but I think it presumptiou in the extreme to say that it represents its local area (unless it has qualified in some tournament for the right to do so, or is selected exclusively from the local population by some authority in that area, such as a district schools team). Sorry if this appears excessively pedantic, but I think that the supporters of the old WFC, for whom I have every sympathy, are overstepping the mark if they are claiming the right to represent the district of Wimbledon. Bearing the name is not the same as representing the district: I am not represented by Colchester Skip hire Ltd! Kevin McE 20:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Bearing the name is not the same as representing a district: I am not represented by Colchester Skip hire Ltd". So you are not represented by the England national football team then?!!  (There is no "mandate" from the people of England which says that the national team has the right to represent them; there is no tournament which the players have competed in to gain the right to represent the country; certainly England attendances vs national populations wont be anywhere near as successful as 1 in 40!)  What a load of non-sense!!
 * Your post doesn't at all come across as pedantic, just erroneous. Suggesting that a sporting team bearing the name of an area represents that area is not at all presumptious.  It is simply a matter of fact and suggests no such "mandate" or "authorisation".  Whether you identify with the football team of your town or not is irrelevant, that team still represents the town - there is no need for some kind of referendum on whether it has permission to do so.
 * AFC Wimbledon represents the area of Wimbledon at football, just as Wimbledon Rugby Club does at rugby, Wimbledon Speedway team does at racing and Wimbledon Cricket Club does at Cricket. Similarly, the England national football team represents the nation of England at football, just as the England Cricket team represents England at cricket, and so on.
 * Incidentally, it's a shame that you don't feel that your local football team, Colchester United I presume, represents you. Maybe you should go down there and watch a few of their games to see if that changes your view - or are you just content to follow some identikit global franchise like Chelsea or Man Utd on Sky from the comfort of you sofa?! -- MLD · T · C · @: 15:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not consider one abusive rebuttal (see MLD's talk page if you wish to see my response to him) to indicate that my reservations about the appropriateness of the word "represent" are unfounded, and I have edited accordingly. Kevin McE 19:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no more abuse in my rebuttle than sarcasm in your initial post; just a dismissal of an argument which, at its strongist, is mere pedantry! (And by the way, I noticed you made the change without any discussion first.)
 * I reiterate: AFC Wimbledon is a sporting representative of the area of Wimbledon. Fact. Just as the other Wimbledon teams, mentioned above, are also representatives of Wimbledon. Fact.  If you are looking for some kind of "mandate" (which is a total red herring) how about that the club is directly owned by over 3,000 members of the local community.  AFC Wimbledon is founded on the ethos that a football club is a community and the club has strong ties with its local community, running local coaching sessions and community football courses for kids in Merton, and even promoting community recycling schemes & local health issues!!  If any sports team is representative of its area, then AFC Wimbledon is. -- MLD · T · C · @:  15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I found your reply extremely abusive: did you intend "are you just content to follow some identikit global franchise like Chelsea or Man Utd on Sky from the comfort of you (sic) sofa?!"  to be a compliment? Your arrogance in assuming my nationality and telling me what team I should support was equally unwelcome.  I presented my reasons (please note, reasons, not mere assertion) on this talk page two weeks before my initial edit, and at the time of making the change to the article stated that yours had been the only counter-opinion raised.  At that time, you had not addressed my response to your first contribution to this thread.  I look forward to receiving your retraction of the accusation that I edited the article without prior discussion.  I am sorry that you found that initial posting sarcastic, but on reviewing it I cannot see anything that merits that description. I do not accept that the need for some kind of mandate to be accurately described as representative is a red herring: I believe it is semantically justified, and I would be interested in what definition of representative you would cite to refute that.  Indeed, you almost make the point for me:"If any sports team is representative of its area, then AFC Wimbledon is": I contend that no club has the right to call itself representative.  I have no beef with AFC Wimbledon: I wish them well, and, as I said previously, I have chosen not to attend matches of my team against MK Dons. The team I support also has about 3,500 shareholders: I do not believe that that makes them representative of their district.  Wikipedia is not the place to try to be stubborn about old arguments: indeed, if use of the word "representative" has been contentious, I would suggest that the best way of remaining NPOV is to avoid it.  Community-based football is often used as an outlet for information by local groups: it's good to hear that AFCW fulfil that role well, but that is not the same as being representative.  Kevin McE 19:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As neither MLD, nor any other user, has presented any justification for the use of the word in question, I will re-instate my previous edit, and would ask that the specific points I make here are addressed in the course of any reversion. Kevin McE 21:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wimbledon FC
The name has been reverted back to AFC Wimbledon. The club is officially known as AFC Wimbledon and is only colloquially referred to as just "Wimbledon". Official change may happen in the future but has not happend yet.

Started in Premier Division
How come AFC started their first season in the Combined Counties Football League Premier Division? why not one of the lower leagues. Would be interested to know, a sentence on this in the article would be great. Excuse my ignorance of how teams get placed in leagues, was it because AFC asked to start at this level, was there a vacancy, was it something to do with the team being semi-pro and not amateur, or the history of the club? --mgaved 23:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New teams at this level apply directly to the relevant league for membership and are voted in by the existing member clubs. There are various criteria that must be met in order to be elligble for mebership, most specifically relating to ground facilities and the financial situation of the applicant club. AFC Wimbledon initially applied for membership of the Ryman League, but were refused. They then applied to the Combined Counties League, a level below in the pyramid but still semi-pro, were duly elected and appointed to the top division of that league largely for safety reasons, on the basis of the potential crowd size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.203.165 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial observation
Provide as many details as possible in the refs: date or publication, work, accessdate, etc. The ref should immediately follow the punctuation mark: I can see a couple of instances where there is a space. The JPS talk to me  13:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the information on the references as much as possible.--Sunderland06 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Better. Thanks. The JPS talk to me  16:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review comments
Here you go... So with the large lack of citation I'll have to fail the GAN for now. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ done Use en-dash per WP:DASH for all scores and date ranges.
 * ✅ changed to A.F.C. "A.F.C." or "AFC" - either way it must be consistent throughout the article.
 * ✅ done Nicknames in infobox ought to be cited.
 * Use WP:HEAD for headings (e.g. no over-capitalisation)
 * "The club was founded by the supporters of Wimbledon F.C. in May 2002..." already confusing since the infobox describes the foundation in 1889.
 * "Wimbledon FC" or "Wimbledon F.C."?
 * "The name A.F.C. does not actually stand for the usual "association football club", in January 2005 Marc Jones - one of the founders of the club - suggested that in actual fact the initials 'AFC' meant nothing in particular... "we thought it sounded 'non-league' but it never really stood for anything." That said, an alternative meaning "A Fan's Club" has been used by some." needs rephrasing, needs citation and seems, at the moment, to be a bit misplaced.
 * Citations should be moved per WP:CITE.
 * "Wimbledon FC Ltd " - is this the same as "Wimbledon F.C."?
 * "Soon after moving, Wimbledon FC Ltd went into administration[4] and the business was bought out by Pete Winkelman[5] who, against the conditions of the club's move, cut all ties with the area of Wimbledon, launching a new club Milton Keynes Dons in 2004, with a new badge, name and colours,[6] leaving them as well as their fellow ladies and junior sides as the sole bearers of the "Wimbledon" name." - too much run-on...!
 * "By then, all organised supporters' groups that had followed the old club had long since pledged allegiance to AFC Wimbledon." citation needed.
 * "In order to assemble a competitive team at such short notice, they held player trials over three days on Wimbledon Common in June 2002, open to any unattached player who felt he was good enough to try out for the team. From these trials, the club's squad for its inaugural season was chosen." citation needed.
 * The history is not good. A season-by-season synopsis is okay I suppose since you have only five or so to talk about, but a list of league finishes on each season is not good enough.  Try looking at some F.C. Featured Articles for what to do here.
 * Ownership, Ground purchase, Youth sections completely lack citation.
 * Records section should be written as prose.
 * Ensure all web citations aren't just URLs.

To remove unnecessary full-stops from article title,
They are not "unecessary", they are, purely and simply, wrong. The name of the club is AFC Wimbledon and not A.F.C. Wimbledon. The only people who can vote to change that are members of our Trust, not Wikipedia contributors. There really is nothing more to be said on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisstewart (talk • contribs) 22:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)