Talk:Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC

Maintenance templates
Various maintenance templates have been added to the top of the article just to let others new that the article has certain problems which need addressing. These templates should not be removed until the relevant issue as been resolved as explained in Help:Maintenance template removal. The most serious issues are the lack of citations to independent reliable sources for verification purposes, the Wikipedia notability or lack thereof of the orgainzation, and the possibility of conflict of interest editing.

All article content, particularly content about living individuals, is supposed to be supported by citations to reliable sources. Wikipedia article content is only supposed to reflect what reliable sources have written about the subject, and citations are required to verify such a thing. In a nut shell, Wikipedia is doesn't really care what the subject, etc. has said or posted about on itself on its official website or it other stuff, but rather what other published sources independent of the subject are saying or writing about it. Moreover, content simply based upon personal knowledge or experience (original research), or otherwise unsupported content may be true, but it can be removed at anytime if it's not supported by a reliable source. Many people consider themselves to personally quite reliable and they most likely are, but a "reliable source" is defined in a certain way by Wikipedia and only citations to such sources are considered acceptable. Without any citations to independent reliable sources, it is very difficult to assess the Wikipedia notability of the subject matter and determine if it is appropriate to have an article written about it. There are variouse guidelines about notability, but the one which appears to be most relevant here is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Unless it can be clearly shown that the team is Wikipedia notable enough to have an article written about it, the article is going to be at a constant risk of deletion. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service, and the fact that something exists does not necessarily mean an article should be written about it. Furthermore, primary sources are not considered acceptable for establishing Wikipedia. Wikipedia notability is established through significant coverage of the subject in independent secondary or third party reliable sources.

The COI template was added because it appears that the creator and primary contributor(s) of the article are connected in some way to the team per User talk:Marchjuly. COI editing is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is highly discouraged because it can lead to more serious problems. COI editors in general tend to be editing for the benefit of their organization, etc. and not for the benefit of Wikipedia. The fact that the article was created by someone connected to the team does not mean it needs to be automatically deleted; however, in combination with the lack of sourcing and notability issues, it does mean that it probably would've been better for this to have been submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, so that it could be properly reviewed and assessesed instead of just being directly added to the article namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the COI tag since there is now at least one editor besides myself trying to clean up to content and make it more appropriate per relevant policies and guidelines. So, anyone connected with the club should read through WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI before editing the article. Making minor changes is probably OK, but any major changes would be better discussed here on the talk page first. The article content is better sourced than before, but the club's notability is still (IMHO) a bit iffy, so any attempt to try and return the article back to its previous PR-ish state will only increase the chance of someone coming along and nominating it for deletion. Many Wikipedia articles are actually improved by removing excessive unsourced content and focusing on what can be supported by citations to reliable sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Kit images
I originally moved the two images of the team's kits to the "History" section as part of my initial attempt to clean up the article. I'm not sure if there's enough discussion of the kit itself to support a stand-alone section, but the images now appear to be in the way of other content being added to that section. Since you're part of WP:FOOTY, perhaps you can suggest a better place for the kit images or maybe clarify whether they're even needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There probably is some rule about what kits should be included and where they should go, but it's not something I'm really aware of. Normally they'd go at the bottom of the infobox but I'm not sure if that box would support the images rather than the kit template, and to convert the kits to that, which would be quite easy technically, would have to include shorts and socks, which doesn't seem accurate for this club and might even be insulting to the players without the use of their legs etc? In the meantime I've stuck the home kit image where the badge should normally go, but it could easily go elsewhere or be removed altogether depending on on what you think. In fact I've just had another idea... Crowsus (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point about the socks. There might be a good way to incorporate just the jerseys into the infobox. is really good with templates, so perhaps he can suggest something. He also apparently went to the University of Glasgow, so he might have suggestions about notability and sources.
 * As for the badge, it can go in the main infobox, but the problem was that it kept being uploaded to Commons without meeting c:COM:L. I tried explaining things to the uploader, but never got a response. Of course, it can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free, but there’s no point in doing that as long as the article’s chances of surviving an AfD are a bit iffy, at least not in my opinion. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kit images can be added to the Infobox football club by using the various pattern/kit parameter names (see the template for the specifics). I'm pretty sure you can just add it in directly, but if not you'd You'll have to deconstruct it so that it would match the various Football kit templates but it's definitely doable. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info . Is there a way to just add the jersey/shirts a wheelchair soccer team uses, without adding any shorts/sock imagery? Would it be possible to add File:Glasgow Gladiators Kit Away.png and File:Glasgow Gladiators Kit Home Wiki.png to the bottom of the infobox in some way if the parameter stuff cannot be sorted out? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * no will turn off the socks. No idea bout the rest, though. There are no "free" parameters in the infobox that would allow the addition of a straight-up image. Might be worth dropping a note at WT:FOOTY since they'll be more knowledgeable about this, and some of them might even be willing to make the required templates. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Primefac. Will see if anyone has any ideas at FOOTY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added the home kit to the infobox. Although it's not completely accurate it's at least a starting point and provides a fair representation of the kit. I've also added black shorts as most of the players appear to be wearing black trousers. If anyone feels like trawling through Category:Association football kit templates or creating a more accurate template then please go ahead! Exxy (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping sort this out . Is it possible to add both home and away kits to the template? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Current kit images should be added to the infobox - historical ones should not be included anywhere per WP:NOTGALLERY. GiantSnowman 09:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Player flags
I don’t think the Scottish flagicons are needed for the “Players” section. The teams appears to be local ones at best, and different player nationalities is not likely to be much of an issue; moreover, none of the players, at least now, appear that they are ever going to be Wikipedia notable enough where there nationality might be encyclopedically relevant. Even though ut’s not an infobox per se, the reasons given in WP:INFOBOXFLAG not to use flagicons in such a manner seem applicable here. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)