Talk:Chelsea F.C./Archive 1

Getting Roman to show up in the infobox

I've just tried to get Roman to show up in the info box. He is more deserving of this honour than Bruce Buck. Someone had already added his name, and I made it a wikilink, but it doesn't show up. This is because it is non-standard I suppose, but perhaps someone with better technical knowledge could sort it out. CalJW 16:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem possible to break out of the standard infobox categories. So I have mentioned his name in connection with the Chairman, since Bruce Buck is effectively Abramovich's viceroy in that position.Chelseaboy 09:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Just changed it and the link works so problem solved! [unsigned edit by Gleb Belov 06:56, 11 December 2005]

The problem is not to name Abramovich as Chairman (which he isn't) but to show him as owner, which the infobox won't allow. So the best we can do is to show Bruce Buck as Chairman (which he is) and to note that he holds that position for Abramovich 86.134.106.82 00:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better. There will be no misinformation when worded like that. - Squilibob 00:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Awards

An anon. user posted this:

Frank Lampard and John Terry, regular Chelsea players, have both had outstanding seasons this year, (04-05). Frank Lampard has won the Writers Award for player of the season, and John Terry has won the PFA player of the year award. This is great for English football as this is the first time in many years two English players have won this award. If these two play like they have for Chelsea, for England, then surely England will win the world cup next year!...lol

by the way can someone change the emblem because it has recently changed. The new one is on the chelsea website. www.chelseafc.com

I have reverted it, but it raises some valid points. Should there be any mention of Chelsea players who have been given major awards while at the club? Also, we should mention the logo change. Would a seperate section on the logo be a good idea? --Apyule 06:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be a very good idea, but I think it would be better to create a section about all logo's and crests Chelsea has used so far. (For instance, Chelsea's first logo was a Chelsea Pensioner.) Aecis 8 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

"2005-06 will be Chelsea's chance to win another title"

This paragraph seems somewhat irrelevant and opinionated. Of course a club will want to win the competitions that it enters. The statement about the Champions League doesn't really have much source to it. Peoplesunionpro 16:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't add anything useful to the article, and it just sounds like somone's personal opinion. I think that it should go. --Apyule 04:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I third that opinion so I'll take it out. If anyone strongly objects, we can discuss it? -sars 14:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

GO CHELSEA

Chelsea are indeed 2005-06 Champions. Source espn.soccernet.com. 38 games played, topped with 91 points, 8 points above Manchester United.

Will the new emblem appear on the 2005/2006 shirts of Chelsea?

Presumably yes, since the club website has announced it as the official emblem from May 2005 -- that's one of the bad things about clubs celebrating a centenary, they seem to feel an irresistable urge to go back 50 years for the club's emblem! -- Arwel 20:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Arch-Rivals

Does Chelsea has any ARCH-rivals?

Yes. Fulham F.C. are their closest rivals. KeithD 13:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

An Arch-rival is a major rival - not just the one closest to the front door. Ful4any Chelsea fans under 60 regard them as rivals in any sense at all now.Chelseaboy

Chelsea historicaly have only had one arch rival, Q.P.R.

For us baby-boomers, it's LEEDS UNITED. Or it would be if they were any good these days. PalX 13:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Chelsea could even be arch rivals with Millwall or even Manchester United (in recent times). It depends on how you define arch rival and how long the history of rivallry goes back in that context. - Squilibob 09:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

SPURS - obviously!

Liverpool and Arsenal are the new arch rivals, Chelsea fans want more wins against them - Yu5uF

If semi-final defeats are anything to go off, and Maureen's refusal to acknowledge them as being 'fair', then surely Liverpool should now be regarded as Chelski's arch-rivals numero uno (sorry, don't know the expression in Russian :() Dalglynch-72 04:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I think Liverpool are Chelsea's biggest rivals as they denied us the place in the final of the Champions League and FA Cup. Arsenal were one on Chelsea's rivals last year but this year their away form was terrible. And Barcelona could be considered a mini-rival because of the games over the last 3 years between the clubs** Nguyenk7

Ken Bates' £17 million profit?

Ken Bates finally sold Chelsea F.C. in June 2003 for £60 million making a personal profit of £17 million on the club he had bought for £1 in 1982.

how was a £17 million profit calculated on a realisation of £60 million on a £1 investment?

--Xorkl000 05:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

He personally owned a stake of just under 30% at the time of the sale as his stake had been diluted by sales and rights issues (though the beneficial ownership of some additional shares held in offshore trusts was always a mystery).

I think West Ham should be considered as a rival. We've been more-a-less in the same league through-out history and there is a massive rivalry between the fans considering spurs and arsenal see themselves as each others biggest rivals. Maybe Millwall should have get a mention also, for off the pitch reasons.

This article is too long

This article is too long and turning it into a match by match commentary - including comments on whether home or away supporters sang more loudly at one point of one particular match does not seem to me to be the way forward.Chelseaboy 12:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's time to cut the cruft out of this in a big way. --Apyule 13:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. The 'Current Season' subtopic could do without all those unnecessary details. Aabha 13:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Concur. There is too much narrative for the 'Current Season' heading. Is it really necessary to have a description of every match?SteveO 23:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is not paper. Although lists and such would be better off in a separate article, think twice before shortening down articles, reasoning it with "being too long". NuclearFunk 13:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Although Wiki is not paper, I don't understand this to refer to article size, for the reasons stated in Article size and, indeed, in Wiki is not paper under the heading "Organization". I suppose there could have been a spin-off page devoted to Chelsea F.C.'s games this season but I doubt that it would have been encyclopaedic. Chelseaboy 15:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How long is the article before it gets split?

I'd argue the article isn't long enough!!! Surely more could be made of Roman Abramovich's desire to make a mockery of our beautiful game with the apparant total compliance of Chelsea's not-too-substantial 'loyal' following. It doesn't happen everyday. Furthermore, I couldn't spot a single reference to the goal that Maureen failed to spot. Isn't Garcia's wondergoal the stuff of myth yet? Does this not qualify as an interesting footnote in Chelski's history? I'm sure the blues lost many a future fan the day unsporting, brat-like behaviour came to town. Dalglynch-72 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I love my Blues as much as the next man, but Wikipedia isn't a fansite, or a blog. This article is becoming a joke! It should not be attempting to keep a minute by minute record of every twist and turn in Chelsea's recent history, but rather an encycopedia entry for people wanting to know what Chelsea FC actually means! So just some facts and figures and an overview. For anyone wishing to have a more detailed account, there are billions of websites we could link this article to. It seems to have become a forum for fans to air their views - this is not the purpose of Wikipedia! Bobble2 09:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Do I take it we have another "dignified" mad Mouser on here? Two a penny... ;-) SteveO 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh?Bobble2 14:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

I was referring to Dalglynch-72's post. SteveO 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see! I am having a rotten day. There's a constant stream of people in my office taking the p*** because of Saturday. Even non-footy people are having a go! They don't half hate us at the moment! Ah well.... Bobble2 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Ah well. I guess we'll just have to settle for being back-to-back league champions (assuming we beat ManUSA of course!). There are Liverpool fans old enough to vote who don't remember the last time they did that! As for being hated, it's usually just sour grapes. The British generally love a good loser and can't stand winners...SteveO 15:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can always cry into our trophy, he he. Those scousers would swap a cup final place for our position in the table any day. Walk on...with a pen in your hand...and you'll never get a job! Bobble2 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Bobble2

Maybe the page should include the lyrics to "5 times", you know the song... the one that celebrates Chelski's biggest ever achievement... that is beating Liverpool five times (RELATIVELY meaningless games or otherwise) over the last two years. Dalglynch-72 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC) *(edited by Dalglynch-72 after SteveO's reply)

Liverpool's priorities have certainly changed over the years then. The League used to be their bread and butter. Now it's dismissed as relatively meaningless in favour of the cups. That must be why they gave up winning it almost two decades ago.

PS. the title of this section is very relevant here. If you really must carry on this pretty pointless tiff, please go to my talk page. Regards. SteveO 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Records

I read that Lampard has made the record in longest successive appearance in nearly 3 years (The man with no lungs) and has to end it recently because of a flu. Should this be added? Thanks. Tac ke 15:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's more of an individual achievment than one for the club. Not sure where it would go in this article. In any case, it's mentioned in the Frank Lampard article. SteveO 16:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The John Obi Mikel Saga

I think that this article could improve by adding information about the John Obi Mikel case that has been going on for more than 9 months now. Both in this article, and in the Manchester United article. Although the dispute is far from finished, that shouldn't be any reason for us not too include information about the case. I think it is of interest. Does anyone have any comments to this? NuclearFunk 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As Chelsea have already stated (a lot of times, too), the so-called "saga" has NOTHING to do with them. It's between Lyn, MU and FIFA. Yes, Chelsea want the player (who doesn't?), but there's have not been involved officialy (no offers etc.). If the kid said he wants to play for Chelsea, that's his problem, not Chelsea's. It's an encyclopedia after all, give it a break. Only facts deserve to be in this article, not speculations. Lars 07:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is pure speculation and holds no relevance to the club (the Jon Obi Mikel story).

chelsea home kit

why is it black? isnt it supposed to be blue?

Whether it was accidental or vandalism, I've reverted it now. I've also restored some other parts of the article that had been lost recently. SteveO, 17:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good work on the clean-up Steve0! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long (part 2)

The article is now 45kb and should probably be broken up. Perhaps a History of Chelsea F.C. page? SteveO 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article on Klingon language is over 75Kb. Considering Chelsea FC is a non fictional entity I don't see the problem. RichChestmat 13:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

History Moved

I've moved the history to a separate History of Chelsea F.C., since this article was becoming too long. SteveO 18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Crest

The article talks about four crests, but only shows three together under "Crests". I know the new one is at the top of the page but it would be nice to have it repeated in the "Crests" section to avoid having to scroll back up again when reading the text. Bazza 14:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

It is not true that Chelsea's highest atendance was against Arsenal. It was the Moscow Dynamos match in 1945 with a gate of over 100,000

The 100,000 figure for the match against Dynamo is an estimate. Chelsea's highest recorded attendance is the 82,000+ against Arsenal in the League. It's best to mention them both, with a caveat for the Dynamo attendance. SteveO 22:12, 13 April (UTC)

Ok mate, fair enough. Come on you Blues!Bobble2 03:04, 14 April (UTC)

Any official reference? If you cite this information, it will prove to be more credible. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the club's official website (about 2/3rds of the way down), the recorded attendance for Dynamo was 74,496, but notes estimates of 100,000. SteveO 23:16, 23 April (UTC)

ok there

Mickey Thomas

There is now a Mickey Thomas (football) page, so feel free to add him to your former players.Wayneamlwch 18:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Squad list

Just my opinion but the bold names ont the player looks awful.

Jimmmmmmmmm 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also on this subject, Jimmy Smith HAS played for the first team, he came on as a sub for the lst 15minutes against Newcastle on the last day of the season - he was wearing no.46. Mancienne was on the bench for that game, but didn't come on (he was no. 44). If you want to remove him - you have to remove Sinclair/Elmer as well since neither of those have played for the 1st team. But Jimmy Smith has. Any more opinions on the blod players? I can change them no normal if so wished. Hardrada 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think you should it looks silly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C. look so much better. Not provoking by pttuing Arsenal just using an example. Jimmmmmmmmm 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Already done it Jimmmmmmmmm 12:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought Jimmy Smith was given a squad number? Scott Sinclair is bound to get a couple of games this season, what with Chelsea only having two proper strikers and Kalou as backup. But then, Smith and Sinclair haven't been given shirt numbers I guess they can't really be listed. Bobbyfletch85 14:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Transfer Fees

Could we leave the fees as undisclosed until they have been confirmed by Chelsea and the other club? Estimates even from reliable sources vary. BBC says £30million for Sheva, whereas the Gazetta Dell Sport (sp.) says around £40million. So best to leave it as undisclosed I feel.Hardrada 10:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But maybe add a note explaining the unclear fee. SteveO 10:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ballack: No. 42

Is that true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.6.179.40 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

GA failed

It fails on point 5 of the GA criteria list, it is not stable at the moment, bring it back to nomination once it is stable. Lincher 14:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have re-nominated it as per Lincher's advice on Disputes page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

GA promoted. Lincher 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rivalries

For the anonymous editor who added a detailed account of Chelsea's recent rivalry with FC Barcelona, I've removed the piece and added a footnote. This article is meant to be an overview of the club in general but has a tendency to become a long, long narrative of Chelsea's recent history. There are sub-articles where more details can be added. I'm happy to discuss, though. SteveO 15:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding Unnofficial Chelsea fan sites

Does anyone have a problem with me adding my non commercial Chelsea fan site to this page. It has useful links and bits on history etc. I have already been warned not to add my site as this is not a place for external links, even though all the links on the front page for Chelsea are of a commercial nature. My website id theleftback.co.uk if you want to check. Thanks

Valky78 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page first. If you have not already done so, you may wish to read the advice given by the guidelines Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. There are countless fansites in existence, and while a link to one major fansite or a directory of fansites may be appropriate, if links to all fansites were included the links would take up half the article. Theleftback does not look to have primacy among Chelsea fansites (I note the forum has just 6 members) and does not look to provide a unique resource of information unavailable elsewhere (such as extensive historical or statistical resources). Oldelpaso 18:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. If you are going to judge a website by a forum that has just been set up then fine. In 6 months I have had 20,000 unique vistors to the site. The website contains many old pictures, historical information and so on. I wish I hadn't donated to Wikipedia now. You have included websites that make money: mine does not. Valky78 21:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands the only external links for this article are the BBC, the FAPL, the official Chelsea site and one unofficial fans' site. The FAPL and the OFCW are both official organisations linked with the club while the BBC is an established and generally impartial source for information. One of the main concerns for external links is whether they conform to a neutral point of view, (read this, which states unofficial fans sites should normally be avoided for that reason). If your site does contain useful (and accurate) historical information on the club, it would be far better if this information was directly included in Wikipedia rather than as a link. SteveO 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Squad numbers

I'm aware that Ballack has a preference for the no. 13 shirt, but the OFCW still lists Gallas as wearing it while Ballack, according to this, hasn't yet had his number confirmed. For the various users who keep reversing the two, it would be nice if some reliable sources were added. Thanks. SteveO 18:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen a Sky Sports piece about Ballack settling in at Chelsea and one of the pieces of footage shows Ballack holding his new shirt. It definitly had '13' on it. It looks like Gallas is either leaving now, or will be getting another number. Gran2 08:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

New kits

I went ahead and changed the away kit, as it was released today.--Pinkfloyd123 20:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the shirt pictures and it has stripes like the Argentina home shirt, I shant edit it as I don't know how to. Melmer 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true, I think, but the stripes are such a light grey you almost can't see them. I don't know how to edit this in either, can anyone help?Pinkfloyd123 06:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shoulders

We should probably have consensus on whether to use "whiteshoulders" or "whitelines" on the arms for the home kit, since this is going back and forth. IMO the stripes look better since they are more accurate to the adidas stripes than a bold white block. There is precedent for either. The Liverpool FC page uses stripes whilst Real Madrid uses shoulders, both are replications of adidas kits. Also if we are going to use shoulders it should be for both home and away and the same is true of stripes. On a tangent we should defo keep the grey stripes on the away kit 'cos they are certainly noticeable IMO. Hardrada 16:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuno Morais and Jimmy Smith are not in the team!

You have to do something about Nuno Morais and Jimmy Smith,because they are not in the official team and there are some people that insist to put them in the squad,even if they are not in the official Chelsea FC website.--Tiago Heitor 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's standard wikipedia practice to include margianal squad players in the team lists, see Manchester United FC or Arsenal FC for example. Given that these 2 will likely make the 16 man (PL) or 18 man (CL) squad at some points during the season, they should be included. Smith went on the USA tour with the 1st team squad also. Arguably (if anything) Mancienne should be added as well. Hardrada 15:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK,i understand,but you fills the teams of players,sometimes with wrong numbers,and the team doesn´t count with them and you rarely see them playing because they are on reserve´s team most of the time.--Tiago Heitor 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Chelski

I am unsure of the need to refute the linguistic accuracy of the tag Chelski. Ski/sky might be more common elsewhere, but plenty of Russians have names ending that way (e.g. Fyodor Dostoevsky, Wassily Kandinsky, Boris Spasski). Oldelpaso 10:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are English people with names ending in sky/ski as well. The fact is this suffix *is* associated with Poland more than Russia. Note : List of most common surnames the difference between the most common Polish & Russian names is marked. The fact that the difference between the two sets of common names is so substantial makes it a worthwhile observation. Hardrada 10:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

-ski in Western popular culture is associated with Russia rather than with Poland. see Concorde and Concordski. Sure, surnames ending with -ski are very popular among Poles too, but this is not the article about Polish surnames Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And it is listed as a suffix in both languages in Family name affixes, though both that and List of most common surnames are not referenced. In any case, I don't think the matter is particularly pertinent to an overview of the club. Accurate or inaccurate, it is used frequently by the tabloid press, and referring to the name as a "tabloid russification" would suffice IMO. Incidentally, club have tried to trademark the name [1]. Oldelpaso 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's a fairly unimportant piece of information, although I'm sure I read somewhere that Abramovich himself was intrigued by the name due to it sounding Polish, but I don't have a source for that. Tabloid Russification sounds a reasonable compromise. SteveO 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm confused. The name "Chelski" is mentioned in the article but there seems to have been an edit war over including it as a nickname in the infobox. What's the scoop? Seems legitimiate to include it in the infobox. What am I not understanding?

The edit war was between SteveO and an anonymous editor. I stepped in, supporting SteveO. "Chelski" is a derogatory nickname, used by opposition fans to insult Chelsea and suggest that their success is only due to their money. It reflects a negative POV, and therefore should not be in the infobox. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Chelski: It is a well-known pejorative name for the club, but every other football club infobox only lists official nicknames, or ones the club's own fans use, so I don't see why this article should be any different. SteveO 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

When I first read the above comments, I was going to accept the arguments of Hildanknight and SteveO but a recent anon's re-insertion of Chelski has pushed me back over onto the side of favoring inclusion of Chelski in the infobox.

First of all, Hildanknight is wrong in asserting that because X is a negative POV, therefore it should not be in the infobox. The NPOV standards for the infobox should not be any different from those of the rest of the article. To wit, refusing to include negative POVs is not NPOV (neutral POV), it is positive POV which is, by definition, a POV. It is not Wikipedia's job to be a hagiography of Chelsea FC. I'm sure they have a website for that purpose. Wikipedia's goal is to describe the world (as sourced to reliable sources).

Second, SteveO is right in asserting that, since the standard seems to be to leave pejorative nicknames out of infoboxes, therefore Chelsea F.C. should follow suit. That argument makes sense. However, I suspect that this sort of battle against insertion of commonly used pejorative nicknames is never-ending battle that has little real value. Why not include Chelski with the qualifier "pejorative" in parentheses? Doing this adds to the knowledge of the reader and that is the goal of Wikipedia. If the user knows the nickname is pejorative, he/she can make up their own mind whether they want to use the nickname and in what environment. It might make sense for the Chelsea F.C. article to break ranks with the other articles on football clubs and include the pejorative nickname. If there is a WikiProject for football clubs, then this question should be taken up there.

--Richard 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a question on the WikiProject Football talk page. SteveO 11:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless the tide turns in a dramatic way, it looks like the consensus is running against including pejorative names in the infobox. I continue to disagree but I'm just one vote. Oh well, thanks for being open to the idea. I will leave you to have fun reverting the anons... --Richard 14:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable former players

Some criteria should be established for this section. In recent days, the likes of Chris Sutton, Alexey Smertin and Mateja Kezman have all been added to the list, though none was at the club for very long or had a particularly significant impact, thus they aren't notable enough, in my opinion. The section is only meant to be a summary, and five or six players from each decade should suffice. SteveO 11:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree totally. The problem is each of use will have different ideas as for which players are notable enough. It should, however, be fairly obvious that Sam Dalla Bona does not deserve a mention. What about George Weah? He is very famous, but never really had a huge impact at Chelsea (despite playing in the cup final...). Hardrada 12:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it should be based on number of games played (maybe 100+) and length of time spent at the club, which should narrow it down. For those who don't fit that criteria, but did something significant, they could be classed as "otherwise notable" (ie the likes of William Foulke and Nils Middelboe would fall into that category). As for Weah, can someone who made only 15 appearances really be a notable Chelsea player? Then again, he did score the winner against Spurs... SteveO 14:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Stamford Bridge is in West London - not South West

Can this be changed in the opening paragraph of the article please? See the Wikipedia article on West London for confirmation - there is no such place (in geographical terms) as 'South West London'. The SW6 postcode is a complete red herring.

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few citations and the article seems fairly well referenced now. Is there anything specific you feel ought to be cited? SteveO 11:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing Member on Management Team

Should we include some missing members on the Management Team?

• Mick McGiven (First Team Coach)
• Ruud Kaiser (Youth Team Coach)

Verifiable Source

I cannot find any information on which country they are from.

Joelee.org 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Is McGiven ex-West Ham defender? Then he is an english player reference -> West_Ham_United_F.C._1975-1976 and there is Dutch U-17 coach by name Ruud Kaiser he seems to fit the profile of youth team coach.[World championship]. Tirupraveen 12:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kaiser is a Dutchman, I have seen this referenced many times. These two should defo be included in the article staff list. Hardrada 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Confirming that Kaiser is dutch. He is featured extensively on the Sky One TV program Football Icon 2 as the youth team coach for Chelsea FC RichChestmat 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Any thoughts on removing this section altogether and incorporating anything useful into the main article here or History of Chelsea F.C.? SteveO 11:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Additions

Someone can include that Chelsea F.C. makes an appearance in Anthony Horowitz's book, Ark Angel. It's just a suggestion as the team's appearance in the game is a major part of the story. 70.107.24.245 05:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. SteveO 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is Roman Abramovich?

In Chelsea F.C., is there a man called Roman Abramovich? [2] And is his title in the team? --AACCAA 3-2 18:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you consider reading the article on Roman Abramovich? For your information, he is a Russian oil tycoon, and he bought the team in 2003. He is therefore owner of the club, not a player or manager. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea & Rangers

Should it mention the affinity between Chelsea and Rangers fans?

I think so, yes. --Mully82 13:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, but such an affinity would probably be difficult to source. Unlike Liverpool and Celtic, Chelsea and Rangers have never (to my knowledge) played a competitive match, so the issue will have had only limited converage in the media. SteveO 11:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reserve squad

On all the other football clubs, there is a list of the reserve squad, someone should make one for Chelsea.

Death threats

Perhaps it should be noted in the article, in the supporters section, about their tendency towards sending death threats to referees ( http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1717081,00.html ). Also a mention of the Chelsea Headhunters group is notable. Peoplesunionpro 16:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Headhunters should get a mention. As for the "tendency towards sending death threats", Chelsea fans are by no means the only ones to be accused of such things, and there is no mention of similar cases for other clubs (ie threats to David Elleray from alleged Man Utd fans after he sent off Roy Keane[3] or threats to Steven Gerrard when it seemed he would leave Liverpool[4]), so I don't see why this article should be the exception. SteveO 21:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it death threats are not necessarily representative of the club. Sent threats may not be sent by fans of the said club. Alistairlp 17:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Cole is not on the team... Someone fix it please Purplesnake 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid Ashley is on the team. The squad list in the Chelsea article is correct. Ashley is in the squad. Miss kat 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Gullit world player of the year?

Since the title usually refers to the FIFA award, it doesn't seem appropriate to describe Gullit as a 'world player of the year' while referring to World Soccer Awards. Perhaps calling him European Footballer of the Year would be more correct. Razororz 20:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to European Footballer of the Year. SteveO 14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Ben Sahar in the squad?

Ben Sahar the Israeli youth national team player was promoted not long ago to the senior squad, why isn't he in their squad here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.134.224 (talk • contribs)

The club's official website has Sahar in the Academy section and not the first team SteveO 21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Managers

User:Bole2 removed the managers section, leaving just a link to the daughter article, List of Chelsea F.C. managers. I've restored it, since an article about a football club must surely have some mention of its managers. Of the featured football club articles, Arsenal F.C. has the full competitive record of their managers, and Manchester City F.C., Everton F.C. and Sheffield Wednesday F.C. have details of just their more notable managers. None has a completely blank section. SteveO 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous fans

Various users have recently been adding and re-adding a list of famous supporters to the article. Per discussions here, here and here, such information is generally regarded as unnecessary listcruft and should be avoided. SteveO 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

i think that is a good idea, i could compile a list. But the page is also a bit long. Cut out our relevance to popular culture or soemthibng like that if anything. Also not many chelsea fans are from kensington and chelsea as we are still mainly a working a class club, and come from other areas of S.W London such as Stockwell, Brixton and Wandsworth, or at least used to before mass immigration in those areas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfc88 (talk • contribs)

Comedian Sketches

Can you give me details of comedians (mario rosenstock e.t.c) who hev done chelsea sketches? There's also in paticular a recent one of the schevchenko arguement. Thanks. Rogsmer 18:51 19 January 2007

Ben Sahar

Ben Sahar is polish-israeli player not only israeli

Away match aeroplane

Chelsea were the first English side to travel by aeroplane to an away match, when they visited Newcastle United on 19 April 1957

Not absolutely true - Arsenal used to regularly play Racing Club de Paris in a friendly competition, and one of my history books recalls that in November 1938 the plane carrying the Arsenal players to Paris almost crashed as it overshot the runway, forcing the club to adopt a policy of splitting the first-team squad into two for all future flights. What the claim probably means is that Chelsea's was the first for a domestic match, which is probably fair. Qwghlm 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The orginal reference (Glanvill, p. 96) states they were the first to fly to a domestic match. SteveO 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Lowest Chelsea attendance?

I think this was some time in the late 1970s or the early 1980s, but I'd appreciate some more information if anyone has any. Thanks.

Just to add, im looking for the lowest ever attendance in all leagues.........at Stamford Bridge (Chelsea seem to be hiding this piece of trivia!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.216.44 (talk • contribs)

another reference here or here

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jor70 (talk • contribs)

Chelsea's lowest-ever attendance came less than a year after they were founded, on 17 February 1906. A mere 3000 souls turned up to watch them play Lincoln City in the old Second Division. Hope that helps. SteveO 11:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Steve

Was that attendance recorded at stamford bridge ?

I thought our lowest attendance would have been in the late 70s/early 80s.

Where did u get that information from ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.132.180 (talk • contribs)

Yes that is Chelsea's all-time lowest attendance at Stamford Bridge.

Source: Glanvill, Rick (2006). Chelsea FC: The Official Biography - The Definitive Story of the First 100 Years. Headline Book Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7553-1466-2.

SteveO 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fulham are not rivals!

Fulham is NOT Chelsea`s rival. They are more like our little brothers from down the road who think beating us is like winning the prem.

Also, carefree redirects back here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.176.69 (talk • contribs)