Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 70

Mario Balotelli
There is a ongoing serious situation with the Mario Balotelli article. There is a fellow editor by name of User:Tobby72 who I have been watching with its edits on the Mario Balotelli article. This editor is seriously bad faith editing on the Mario Balotelli article and has been confronted for this by me and a fellow editor named User:BarretB, but the User:Tobby72 has ignored these confrontations and continues to include "un-football related", "serious allegations", "negative", "football career damaging" and "un-neutral" tabloid news agency information on the Mario Balotelli "Good article". Please fellow WikiProject:Football editors please see discussion and confrontation history between me and User:BarretB about User:Tobby72 edits to the Mario Balotelli "Good article" --> Talk:Mario Balotelli. MarkMysoe (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Finnish Map
Some work is being undertaken by Rakuten06 to improve 1930 Mestaruussarja and further early Finnish championship seasons. I have added a map but it is historically incorrect and am struggling to insert the 1920-1940 version - http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Finland_%281920-1940%29_location_map.svg&filetimestamp=20100216184500. Can anyone assist? Kind regards League Octopus (League Octopus 14:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Fixed it. -Koppapa (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Thanks Koppapa. League Octopus (League Octopus 15:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Great Britain olympic squad – flags
Just wondering what peoples's thoughts are on home nation flags with regards to the Great Britain olympic squad. Should the players have the flag icons of their FIFA sides (England or Wales) in the squad template or not? A discussion has started here. I'm leaning towards no, though mainly because of the consistency with other squad templates.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, no. – Kosm  1  fent  05:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

On a related topic, should membership of the Great Britain Olympic squad be listed under National teams in the player's infobox? For most players they were but they have now been removed with the edit summary "cleanup". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not, but I think it should make clear that it's an Olympic squad rather than just have "Great Britain". Cheers, Big  Dom  06:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

George Stewart
We have an article at George Stewart (footballer), which is fine, except there are four other players with articles (1920, 1927, 1932, 1947) and our first chap doesn't appear to have a DOB to properly disambiguate. Can anybody help? GiantSnowman 13:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Joyce has him listed as born Wishaw, 1883. He also gives his Manchester City league career as played 93, goals 11. The full citation is  .  --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. the birth details are also shown in the "Current comments" section of the Hibs player database. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks. GiantSnowman 14:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Club season articles
I have a bunch of club season articles that I could use help on. To find them, just go to my user page. Kingjeff (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Euro bronze medals
I can not understand the logic of article on the European national football teams. Why does the "UEFA European Championship record," the European Championship semi-finalists are marked bronze color, but in the section marked achievements simply as a semifinal, and profiles of players there are no notes on bronze awards. If the wiki does not know no match for third place does not mean the absence of a set of bronze medals. Two teams semifinal losers are awarded bronze medals. There is no match for the bronze - there are two bronze medalist. For example - Russia and Turkey were awarded real prizes in 2008, the magnificent ceremony was not, but the medals were awarded. I hope the problem will be fixed or will be made ​​public the reasons for the position of the wiki on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyBenoit (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's because many people don't know that the losing semi-finalists are given bronze medals. It's only the Women's Euros, UEFA under 21 and Euro 2012 competitions that have them as far as I know. TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Every Euro since 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddyBenoit (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan
Does this Afghan National League even exist? I find no sources right now. -Koppapa (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it's the exact same thing as the Kabul Premier League but those leagues don't seem to have been contested for a year or so now. Big  Dom  13:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Found some info on facebook and youtube: Talk:Kabul_Premier_League. It seems the afghan premier league is only about to start this september. they are actually casting players by a tv show currently. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe is time for FC Wikipedia to win some titles? :) FkpCascais (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming customs tag
We need to address this situation for coherence purposes methinks. Several players have the tag reading "this is a Catalan name", others "this is a Spanish name", when ALL should have the latter.

I elaborate: the persons/sportspersons are Spanish right? So, their name should be Spanish, the tag is only there to show that, unlike Portuguese people, the first surname is from the FATHER and the second from the MOTHER.

For instance Raúl Tamudo: apparently, his fullname is RAÚL TAMUDO I MONTERO ("i" being a Catalan link between surnames, opposed to the Castilian "y"). That is not even important in his naming tag – as for instance User:PeeJay2K3 used as his M.O. for claiming Gerard Piqué had a Catalan name – because it would read "first name is Tamudo, second name is Montero".

We need some coherence as i was saying, because what's next? Are we going to say Mario Bermejo has a CANTABRIAN NAME, or Álvaro Domínguez Soto has a MADRILENIAN NAME, or Javi Martínez has a NAVARRESE NAME? Inputs please, thanks folks. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think if a certain Autonomous Community has specific naming customs, as Catalonia does (detailed here) then those articles should have the appropriate template at the top, such as Catalan name. As far as I am aware, there is no such Cantabrian name or Navarrese name template, but there are similar ones for Basque and Galician names. These templates exist for a reason, let's use them. – PeeJay 15:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a Spanish name! All names are Spanish. It's a simple matter.- --Marcospace (talk) 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say it's a Spanish name as well. That Catalan name template was probably just created by some jealous Catalan nationalist. The first line in your link even says that Catalan people abide by Spanish naming customs. Big  Dom  06:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in general they follow Spanish naming customs, but there are some specific differences (please read beyond the first line in future). Having the specific Catalan name tag warns people not to change elements of the name because they don't fit with the standard Spanish naming customs. – PeeJay 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BigDom, that seems a tad offensive to Catalans. Its obvious there are differences between Spanish and Basque/Catalan names. However small or large they may be. And having these templates informs readers and tells editors not to change them to Spanish names. Adam4267 (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. Vasco, I beleave that you are missing the point here and not seing the difference between the official language and the Autonomous Community. There are 17 Autonomous communities of Spain and some have their own official language, some don´t. Now, what we call Spanish language is in fact Castillian language. It is the most common language troughout Spain, however there are some Autonomous communities which have their own official language´s.

This is easy to understand if you stick to this rule: all of Spain uses Spanish language except, Catalonia and Balearic Islands (which primarely use Catalan language, then Basque Country which uses Basque language, and Galicia, which uses Galician language. These are all official languages.

There are other provinces where there are ambiguos situations, like the Valencian Community where both Spanish and Catalan share equal status and where there is even a Valencian language which is mostly considered a dialect of Catalan; or the Navarre where Spanish and Basque share official status; and Aragon where Spanish and Catalan share official status; however in all of them the primary language is Spanish. Now, that is why we should use Catalan naming convention, but you wan´t see Madrilenian naming convention, because Catalan is an official language, while Madrilenian doesn´t even exist. You mixed official language´s with Autonomous Communities.

In my view, at least Catalan and Basque have reasons to be used for players born in Autonomous Communities where those languages are official. FkpCascais (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the vast majority of these tags are nothing but nationalist labels. They aren't disambiguation hatnotes. In general they should simply be removed from articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, initially it was about Spanish and Portuguese naming customs, and it was kind of usefull help as most people unfamiliarised with those naming costums usually has hard time exactly knowing why people are known in such way and where do all those names and surnames come from. It is particularly important because of the difference between the two, as Portuguese and Spanish use paternal and maternal surnames in an opposite way - Spanish uses first paternal then maternal, while Portuguese vice-versa.  Now, the thing is that once we use these ones for Spanish and Portuguese names, people from Catalonia felt that they should addapt one template for Catalan naming customs, as that is a different language than the other two, and is official and primary in Catalonia.  Basically, Catalan names should use a Catalan language template, and not any other one.  I understand that it may seem like a nationalistic POV pushing, but basically catalan language template has as much right to exist as the other two have, and it should be used in the same way the other two are used. FkpCascais (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But are there any difference between the Spanish naming customs and the Catalan naming customs? If there isn't I see no point with a separate template. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are differences. Adam4267 (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Playerhistory
This is currently in the process of being deleted following a TfD, DUCKISJAMMY has thoughtfully created a list of articles it transcluded on here so that we're not left with any unreferenced BLPs once it's gone. If anyone has time... GiantSnowman 20:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So there is no hope that the website will be reactivated soon? :( FkpCascais (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, looks like it's gone for good. GiantSnowman 10:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad news. Thanks for the update GS. FkpCascais (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad news indeed. I discovered the founder's twitter-account @Playerhistory, and on 26 May he wrote "Playerhistory have decided to go back to covering the history of football and will concentrate on the period between 1900-2000", which I do not know what means. I asked him when we could except the site to be back up and I will post here if I get a reply. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it means that they will focus on payed content only (as the pos-2000 was the free content)? On the other side, for me personally that ends up being the less painfull option, as the pre-2000 content is the one for which Playerhistory was so valiable and exclusive for, as the pos-2000 is mostly possible to be found on other websites.  Many thanks Mentoz86 for the update.  FkpCascais (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"California Clásico" or "California Classic"?
Is this edit correct? As far as I can see, the league is American and their official language is English, not Spanish. An anglicized version is occasionally used in the English media though. Ideas? Suggestions?

As as side note, the same editor seems to be calling it the biggest rivalry at San Jose Earthquakes, however this is unreferenced, but not completely unreasonable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends what the actual usage in sources is. Personally I do not know. But considering there is a "Real" Salt Lake I wouldn't be surprised if there was a California "Clasico". Its not as if Spanish is an uncommon language in California anyway. Adam4267 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The usage in reliable sources seems to be California Clasico without the accent. Hack (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that the subject has been brought up, is this rivalry like the other "Cup Rivalries" in the MLS. The Brimstone Cup, Lamar Hunt Pioneer Cup, Atlantic Cup, Cascadia Cup, etc deliver an actual trophy to the winner of the rivalry at the end of each season. So my question is, does the California Clasico have a trophy to turn in to the better team per season? The article makes no reference to such a trophy won, meaning there isn't really a "winner" after each season. --MicroX (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article needs a bit of work to show that it meets WP:NRIVALRY. Apart from a sentence in the lead, it doesn't really address the importance of the rivalry. Hack (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's sufficient third-party coverage of the rivalry, although I don't know if they're all in the article. Can't speak to whether the winners receive a cup or simply bragging rights. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not referenced but California Clasico suggests there is a cup. BTW as an aside to the original question there is no official language in the US. Hack (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or it could have been a user that just did a copy-edit of the Atlantic Cup. Other rivalries like the Brimstone Cup don't even include the results prior to the trophy's creation (Dallas and Chicago have played since 1998). --MicroX (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Redundant Olympic templates
I've already mentioned it here a couple months back, but no action was taken. I've noticed that there are 86 templates created solely for one 2012 Olympic football tournament, that cover all team squads (full rosters, not just small footer lists), all individual matches and group tables. I appreciate the effort, but I believe we don't really need any of that: -BlameRuiner (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The team rosters should definitely remain, not sure about the others - can someone with a more technological-mind please explain what they are for and why non-templates wouldn't suffice? Thanks, GiantSnowman 11:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an explanation if you enter the template: "The purpose of this template is to collect source text used in several articles in one place, in order to minimize maintenance and storage space. This is the Brazil roster in the men's football tournament of the 2012 Summer Olympics. The template is typically used in two articles: the article covering Brazil at the 2012 Summer Olympics, and the article covering the rosters of all participating teams of the tournament." My experience with such templates (primary league tables) is that while it reduce maintenance as you don't need to update it more than one place, it also reduces the chance of newcomers updating the template. Anyways, I don't think a squad will change much during a tournament, so those templates are redundant aswell as the match-templates. Table-templates might be useful though, as there are some changes through the tournament and it is used in several different articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Premier League fixtures
Seems to come around every season but does anyone know if these are still copyright? Someone has spent an age entering them at 2012-13 West Ham United F.C. season - OK to stay or copyright vio? Cheers.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The list of fixtures page on the Premier League website says "Reproduced under licence from Football DataCo Limited. All rights reserved", so I guess they are copyright. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're not technically copyrighted any more but you still need a licence from DataCo to be able to show them. Big  Dom  09:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. The European High Court has quite specifically ruled that Premier League fixture lists are not copyrightable: that logically implies that no copyright license need be granted, and as such we can include them at our discretion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know the EHC declared that fixture lists are not copyrightable, but DataCo still sell licences; go on their website if you don't believe me. The quote to be able to show West Ham's fixtures for this season is £266. Big  Dom  11:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They may still sell licences but if they have no copyright over the material then that surely means anyone can show them. Adam4267 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lists may not be copyrightable, but if Football DataCo is charging for licences (legally), that puts them on the legal high ground. If Wikipedia wants to remain free, it can't afford to take on organisations like Football DataCo just because we challenge their right to license their fixture lists. Just don't put them up. – PeeJay 00:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C
There is a serious dispute on Rangers F.C talk page and on a second article Newco Rangers over how the present situation with Rangers football club is handled. The dispute relates to if Rangers Football Club still exists as a club despite the liquidation of the company, or if the football club now ceases to exist entirely and should be described throughout the article in past tense. This issue fundamentally impacts the article and introduction, requiring dispute tags as a number of editors believe the present method is factually inaccurate and misleading. I hope others will be able to give opinions, and hopefully editors currently involved will give more detailed summaries of why the present article wording/method is right or wrong. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The legal identity Rangers Football Club (the brand name and name of the club, not to be confused with the registered name of the OldCo "The Rangers Football Club PLC" (1899)) is now owned by Charles Greens consortium (Sevco Scotland Ltd). Inclusive of the consortiums purchase was the rights to the legal identity of Rangers Football Club. From a legal standpoint, they are recognised & trade as Rangers Football Club and maintain the old indentity inclusive of the name, brand, club crest, logo, badge, colours, strip, website and all other intellectual property & copyrights. Quote: "A company can go through the entire process of ceasing business operations, selling its assets and paying off creditors while not formally dissolving. A business may do this if it wants to keep the legal identity of a business for use in another venture. Read more: Differences in a Liquidation and a Dissolution | eHow.com ehow.com/info_8282875_differences-liquidation-dissolution.html#ixzz207pqrjdy"

The precedent has been set by Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina, all are examples of Newco's that purchased the legal rights to the clubs legal identity & intellectual property from the OldCo. These clubs are presented and structured within the same page on Wikipedia however documents the corporate history, insolvency events & subsequent reformantions of new companies. This should not be confused with the likes of FC Halifax Town or Chester City FC who did not purchase the legal identity or any of the intellectual property from the OldCo's which were dissolved. As a result, such clubs are described as 'phoenix' clubs which had to start again from scratch, and could not legally use the same 'club name', badge, logo or any copyright or legal identity owned by the dissolved company. As a result the new club with the new identity, club name & badge logically takes on a new Wikipedia page. So which structure fits the bill in the Rangers situation as we strive for consistency? The closest precedent is Leeds. They intellectual rights & legal identity of 'Leeds United F.C' was purchased via liquidation of the OldCo (LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (THE)) by a Newco (http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06233875). Leeds & Rangers are not 'phoenix' clubs as the maintain the same legal identity which they purchased in amongst the assets. 'Phoenix' clubs do not purchase assets, or legal identities, and do not use the same name.

It is therefore undisputable, and a matter of fact, that from a legal standpoint Rangers Football Club will maintain it's legal identity. Wikipedia must therefore recognise it as such and document the legal identity 'Rangers F.C' within the same page, in the same vein as Leeds United, Napoli, Fiorentina. Ricky072 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where Leeds United liquidated, or was it a parent company? In other words, is the situation the same, or are you trying to compare apples to oranges? Rangers were a company. The assets including the name, were transferred to another company. Just like Triumph EngineeringTriumph Motorcycles Ltd.Heywoodg  talk  13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that any 2 insolvencies are entirely identical but it certainly isn't comparing apples & oranges. Both clubs underwent the liquidation process.  Many contributors here don't seem to understand what liquidation actually means.  It means the process of selling an insolvent companies assets to give a return to creditors.  Please read the last 4 paragraphs of the following article from the Herald, on what happened to Leeds:  http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/quick-redundancies-are-brutal-but-also-fairer.16945235?_=50d0859b0f3b58690bcf42810401da775be22c96  Quote:  ""The CVA is the only insolvency mechanism we've got that preserves the legal entity," says Richard Fleming, head of restructuring at KPMG, who was the administrator at Leeds United. "If it fails, the sale to a newco becomes the only viable option."  The Administrators of Leeds KPMG sold Leeds to Ken Bates NewCo formed in 2007. Ricky072 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You will do much better if you stick to the facts rather than look at other clubs as if they are the same. Leeds United were not liquidated as far as I am aware. The club went into administration in 2007, and was then sold to Bates. Not the assets, the club. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/6920103.stm from the time. Rangers went bust and no longer exist (or will soon no longer exist). Heywoodg   talk  14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "You will do much better if you stick to the facts rather than look at other clubs as if they are the same." Sorry, that didn't come across how I meant it! I mean, using the facts of the Rangers case rather than relying on the fate of other clubs, is probably better! Heywoodg   talk  14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you as a matter of fact with solid proof that Leeds were liquidated. It's astonishing that few contributors are so reluctant to accept this arguement when i've supplied a link to the OldCo Leeds company page here:  http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600  COMPANIES HOUSE STATUS: IN LIQUIDATION. And to quote the Herald article:  "The assets were then sold to a newco Leeds United set up by Ken Bates"  Ricky072 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * : Id just like to add a few additional points too, but agree with those made by Ricky.
 * Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872, yet the previous company was only incorporated in 1899. Nowhere in the article at present does it even mention the date the previous company was incorporated, highlighting the article is about the Football club, not the incorporated Company that existed between 1899 and that went into liquidation in 2012.
 * Is a club simply the legal entity of an incorporated company or is it the club and its assets, including fans, stadium, some players, the website etc which continue to exist under the new company.
 * Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs which were heavily involved in this situation issued a statement saying ""A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. 'Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start."
 * It is clear from the wording from HMRC and other sources available that the football club continues, simply the former company is liquidated. The club and its assets are currently owned by Sevco Scotland Limited operating under the trading name "The Rangers Football Club". If a club can exist before an incorporated company is formed, how does it cease to exist when that company is liquidated with the club and assets being sold to a new company? This along with how other articles are handled as pointed out by Ricky suggests the current method / wording of the article is hugely problematic and an inaccurate emphasis is being placed, mixing up the club with a company. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is already fully protected and the project has been notified of the ongoing dispute multiple times. Rather than repeating one side of the argument over here, it would be best keeping the discussion on the Rangers talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is currently locked in a state that is grossly inappropriate and factually incorrect, the same applies to the "newco" page and both should be restructured with immediate effect. Ricky072 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it shouldn't have been reworded to use the past tense when the situation hasn't been resolved yet, but we have a process for making corrections to locked pages and this isn't it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot get agreement to change it back, because some editors claim the club no longer exists and must keep the current wording. Thats why we need additional opinions on the situation, it has radically changed since the last time this was raised on this wikiproject, nor did its previous mention focus on content wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

One golden rule of Wikipedia: when an article is fully protected, it is always the WP:WRONGVERSION.  Bald Zebra talk 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My (biggest) problem with the Rangers articles is that they are currently presenting the issue as if it has been clearly determined that "old" Rangers are no more (a liquidator has not even been formally appointed yet), and that this newco is being definitively described as a new club. Again, this is unclear, although the pronouncements of various authorities (HMRC, SFL, SFA) suggest that the club entity will be continued under a new corporate structure. Either way, the present situation on here does not reflect the reality that Rangers is in limbo, until the authorities agree some policy and new starting position. I think wikipedia is being used by some editors to push the POV that there has been a definite discontinuity in the history of Rangers. That might happen, but it definitely has not yet happened. I also think, judging by the way the authorities are pushing the issue so far, this project will be in the embarrassing position of having to reverse the trend of edits so far towards stating that Rangers has ceased and has been replaced by "Newco". James Morrison (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that there should only be one article. However, when that article was locked and the new one was not deleted. It effectively meant that the new article was always going to end up continuing the same debate and becoming more used. If we are going to have two articles (which at the moment it seems we are) then we might as well make sure that the second article is kept in good order. Adam4267 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When the second article was put up for deletion previously some suggested it be renamed and turned into an article about the administration/liquidation. It would make more sense to have that specifically dealing with the these matters and change the pasttense on the main page back to present tense, rather than duplicating much of the content on the main rangers article and having that article talk in past tense which is hugely controversial and inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of a 'club', if not the assets and people, compared to a company? CLUB - a group of persons organised for a social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose: the building or rooms occupied by such a group. COMPANY - a business enterprise. The two are no defined the same because they aren't. Therefore Rangers FC should be treated the same by Wikipedia as the other clubs e.g. Leeds Utd S2mhunter (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A 'club' is a rather loose term open to interpretation. In it's most basic form a club can be defined as simply a group of 2 or more people with a common goal.  I would define a football club as consisting of more than simply a company or shareholding.  A club can only exist with a group of fans/supporters, which cannot be owned by a company.  A company is nothing more than a legal entity that consists of tangible assets (player contracts, property/land, intellectual property such as the name of the club, the brand & legal identity, the strip, badge/crest etc....).  A club is a combination of these tangible assets & the fans or spirit of the club, and with the same common goal (in this case a football team).  In the case of Charles Green & Ken Bates, both purchased the tangible assets of the club, maintained the same support & legal identity, which in my view, is enough to satisfy the criteria for continuation of the same club.  In the case of Chester for example, the fans groups decided to recreate a phoenix club rather than raise the funds to purchase the tangible assets, including the legaly identity of the old clubs.  As a result the old company was dissolved and they could not, from a legal stand point, create a new club under the same name or use the same legal identities such as the badge.  Therefore, their 'phoenix club' takes on a new identity. Ricky072 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco is a new club. It is simple. Why is the transfer of league membership needed if it is the same club? This doesn't even entail the "company" aspect that so many Rangers fans are talking about as it is a decision based purely upon the *club*. Rangers still exist. For a few more weeks. They will then be replaced by Newco, which will be known as "The Rangers". It's quite simple, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.96.185 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because football association rules make it against their rules to transfer a membership from 1 entity to another to prevent clubs buying/selling memberships (for example when Newcastle were demoted to the championship Mike Ashley could not simply "buy" a share in the premier league from another club). Rangers & Leeds both have the legal right, in the eyes of the law, to be recognised as (and trade as) the same club because they purchased the "business & assets", including the legal identity of the clubs. Ricky072 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangers joined the SFL in 1890, as did the other clubs, without needing a company. However, the SPL of 1998 did. The automatic transfer would not be possible for the reasons given above. Rules evolve. I think however the EFL transferred membership to Leeds Utd without asking the other teams, different association though. S2mhunter (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fishiehelper, you're saying that if I create my own self-employed company, based on my name, and it goes bust, I would lose all of my individual history on Wikipedia and get a new birthday on the date that I create my next self-employed company, because I am the company? S2mhunter (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My tuppence worth: Bristol City (spits on ground) went bankrupt in 1982 and were immediately reformed by a new company (Bristol City 1982 Ltd), but there's never been any suggestion that this constitutes a separate club.  Bald Zebra talk 18:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good example, i dida little research but it's difficult to find information on an insolvency event dating back 20 years ago.  The OldCo was indeed declared bankrupt and dissolved, and Bristol actually word that "a new club" was created on their website, but then contract it by stating "saving the club", suggesting that they interpret that by creating a NewCompany (1982) the club lived on through the NewCo.  From forum posts returned in search engine posters have stated that indeed the NewCo purchased the assets such as the stadium in 1982, (although admitedly a forum post shouldnt be given much credence).  It does seem as though that Bristol Rovers are yet another example of club continueing when a newco has purchased "the club (the assets & business)" from the old company.  Which is significantly different from that of Chester, who created a Phoenix club with a different name & legal identity. Ricky072 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

just to give both sides a godo read foudn this and it supports the argument the club is dead according to fifa or cant be trasnferred at least read near the bottom, as i say foudn this on process of making request for comment Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is an opinion piece and offers no substance to the definition of a "club". You've also misinterpreted the FIFA rule, the rule is designed to prevent 1 company 'purchasing' a league share from another club.  For example if when Newcastle were relegated to the Championship they could not approach Wigan and offer to buy their share in the Premier League to ensure that Newcastle stay in the Premiership, not could they "swap clubs" meaning they couldnt just swap everything around, rename Wigan as Newcastel, change stadium etc...  so that Newcastle were in the Prem and Wigan in the Championship. Ricky072 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Newsnet Scotland is a rather biased website with political motives and not to be trusted as a neutral "source" on this. What that site says is as about as neutral as a celtic fans site.  BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The initial post is correct in both the legal sense, and also the wiki sense. I present the Cleveland Browns, whose franchise up and left and when a new team was created in the original town the owners of the copyright (the league) conferred all those rights to the Newco. The history is fluid, and anyone amending the article to past tense would be dealing with that finite time between the end of the club, and the immediate establishment of the new club. The only consideration at the moment is what league will they play in, given that they are at liberty to make applications to join pretty much any league they want. Also, out of curiosity - are they a "Scottish football team" or a football team that potentially plays in Scotland? Koncorde (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you koncorde, further proof that a Newco can purchase the business & assets, inclusive of the brand name, and continue to be recognised as the same brand. Wikipedia does not document Sports Clubs in the same vein as it documents companies. If it did, the pages woudl not document Rangers Football Club (brand name) it would document "The Rangers Football Club PLC 1899" and then "Sevco Scotland Ltd", and by the same token Leeds United would be documented as firstly the OldCO which registered in 1920 and liquidated in 2006, then the NewCo from 2007 until present.  But Wikipedia does not document Clubs as companies, it documens them by the club name (by the brand name, or legal identity).Ricky072 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So far this appears to be a very one-sided debate - let me try to describe a contrary view.

Rangers FC started life in 1872 as an unincorporated football club. In 1899, the football club itself became a limited company - there were not two entities ('the club' and 'the company') but a single entity - a football club that was itself a limited company. That orginal company - number SC004276 - had become Rangers FC PLC by the time it entered administration in 2012. With things looking increasingly bleak for the club/company, and no buyers willing to step forward to buy the club, Charles Green formed a consortium (the company Sevco 5088) and then offered £8.5M to buy the club if a proposed CVA were agreed by the creditors, and if that were rejected and the club entered liquidation, he offered £5.5M for the 'assets and business interests' of the club. HMRC announced on the 12th June 2012 that it would reject the proposed CVA, and it was indeed formally rejected on 14th June so the club entered the liquidation process. Green's consortium therefore went ahead and bought 'the assets and business interests' of the club. Key point: he had previously offered to buy the club; he now offered to buy the 'assets and business interests' - are those two things the same? I would say they are not the same - if you buy the club, you take on the club's debts unless fixed through a CVA. You would also have bought 'the club' so the club continues with history intact and ongoing. However, if all you do is asset strip - take all the assets from the soon to be liquidated club - you avoid taking all the debt with you, but 'the club' itself has been left behind to be liquidated. Therefore the debt is left behind, but the club dies with the debt.

Green's consortium is trying to promote the idea that by buying the 'assets and business interests' of the club, he has bought the club, not kept its debt but somehow kept its history intact. While some editors believe that by buying the assets, Green has bought the club, others of us see that this route - of a football club being liquidated and its assets sold as a job lot to a new company that then wishes to run a club by the same name - leads to an entity that is not the same club. It may be the club reborn, but it is a new club none-the less. Green's consortium has now applied for membership of the SFA for his club - the does not have to happen when a club is bought over by a new owner, but it has had to happen under this newco route, illustrating that it is not a continuation of the same body under a different owner. Though it is true that Green's consortium bought the name 'Rangers Football Club' as part of the asset purchase from Rangers FC, that means, to me, that Green's club - or newco Rangers as they are being referred to in the media - has a right to call itself Rangers FC in the future, but as a successor club and not the original club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What motive does Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have in putting out a statement saying that liquidation of the company does not prevent the proposed sale of the club? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fishiehelper, it's rather simple, included in the purchase of "the business & assets" is the Brand. The Brand name, the logo, the legal identity.  Check out the above example of Triumph, the motorcycle.  The OldCo went into administration and the Brand Name was purchased as an asset by a newco and Triumph continued to trade.  Different company, but same brand.  Check their website, they also lay claim to "110 years of Triumph" as is their legal right, as they OWN the brand.  Indeed you are correct that Charles Greens preffered method would have been to acquire TRFC plc (1899) via a CVA as it would remove such consequences such as European footballing licence, and the membership transfer, TUPE employment transfer etc....  but purchasing the "business and assets" from the company, instead of the company instead, still entitles him to the Brand, legal identity of Rangers F.C.  Ricky072 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly to reply to Britishwatcher: you only quote parts of the statement. HMRC also said that "Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox." - notice 'that football will continue at Ibrox' and not that 'Rangers FC will continue'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I quoted the full HMRC statement initially above. The point is HMRC said both, that liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club, and that the sale of the football assets could be made to the new company. Again, this all implies that Rangers as a club continues to exist despite the former company going into liquidation. What motivation would HMRC have to mislead people by claiming the club sale could still go ahead via liquidation. And what evidence do u have that specifically states or suggests that is not what happened. HMRC said the sale of the club could go ahead, Greens statement talked about getting the club. They seem to supplement not contradict each other? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With due respect Ricky072, the Brand is not the issue - from a footballing point of view, just because someone else has bought 'the Brand' from a club that is being liquidated so he can run a team of the same brand as that original club, does not make it the same entity. It is clearly related to the previous club; it may be regarded as a relaunched club; but it is not the same original club. That's what this disagreement is about: the newco Rangers is not the same original club whatever they call themselves, whatever colours they play in, wherever they play. The original Rangers FC is coming to an end: a new Rangers FC is seeking to replace it (assuming its gets SFA membership and a league to play in). Wikipedia needs to deal with situations like these by having an article for the original Rangers FC and one for the new Rangers FC. That is what the status quo effectively is just now, and that is how it should remain going forward. Whether or not Rangers fans like it or not should be immaterial. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The brand IS the club, it's the legal identity. In the yes of the law, (regardless of what you think a club consists of or whatever bizarre ideology you have a club becoming married to a corporate identity which can never been undone) Charles Greens NewCo has the legal right to represent itself as the brand Rangers and lay claim to the brands history (in the exact same way in which Motorcycle brand Triumph are claiming "110 years of Triumph").  Many sports clubs have undergone the exact same procedure before.  The procedure of liquidation is extremely common practice in the business world and allows many brands to 'live on' under a new corporate identity.  You are bring everything back to your own personal point of view in relation to what you believe a football club is, and if we are to buy into you're theory, we should be rewriting & restructuring potentially hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Sports Clubs to have undergone the same procedures. Ricky072 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly advice to all here, if you are going to contact other editors please do not canvas editor who will only support your side of the argument if you feel the need to post onto other talk page to get there input post in both sides of the argument not just one as this is canvasng which is against wikipedia rules, i have seen a few editors who could be seen to do this i am not goign to report or warn any user only give you al avice so you dnt get into trouble-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrewcrawford. I don't know if you are thinking about me or not but, for the record, I sent the following message to 4 editors who had contributed recently to discussions at either the Rangers FC or Newco Rangers articles but had not also commented here: "I'm not sure if you aware that there is a discussion about the Rangers dispute at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football to discuss whether there should be a single Rangers FC article instead of the two that presently exist for Rangers 1872-2012 and the Newco Rangers." I assume this is just being helpful to this process rather than 'canvassing' as the statement I made was not encouraging support for either side of the debate and the only editors I missed out (to my knowledge) were those who had already posted here and ips. Of the 4 I contacted, I believe two would support my view from previous posts I have read, and I don't know about the other two. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources that Rangers and Newco Rangers arent the same Club
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersPublicCensureFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersFCDisciplinaryNoticeFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8
 * http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830
 * http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09%20Articles.pdf
 * http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20%282%29.pdf
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29
 * http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf


 * http://i47.tinypic.com/1feomo.jpg
 * http://i46.tinypic.com/33b35fr.jpg
 * http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg
 * http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2vd6738.jpg
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg
 * http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those tinypics appears to work and many of the other links do not deny that the new company now owns the club and its assets. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! My view is that there should currently be two articles - one for the soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers and another for "Newco Rangers". However, if it later transpires that secondary sources treat the two clubs as one (e.g. football record books listing Newco Rangers as "Rangers" and stating their foundation date as 1872 and listing all the honours), then and only then do I consider that the two articles should be merged. Mooretwin (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Many sources are already treating the new ccmpany as owning the club which the article is about, HMRC stated that liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club, the club and its assets have been bought by the new company so it is the same one that was funded in 1872, decades before the previous company that is now in liquidation was formed. So there is justification for a single article now, but more importantly the article should not have been changed without consensus to controversially put everything in past tense. The case will be even stronger as time goes on when rangers would still be viewed as rangers by more secondary sources. But that makes it even more problematic for the article to have been changed to the past tense, predicting the club has ceased to exist despite it not being the case and would need to be changed in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ok here is a source that support the club is alive "The old Rangers is currently in administration and will be liquidated shortly. Charles Green transferred the assets to his newco Gers after buying the club for £5.5million. Di Stefano wrote: “I’m aware the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green, but I have spoken with the registrar at Companies House that confirms The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company still ‘only in administration’ and is capable of acquisition, transfer and/or assignment." says charles green bought the club and only the plc is in administration-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They are still alive Andrew. Thats why we know they're two different Clubs. Technically Rangers(1872) can still be saved, if someone goes to Duff and Phelps and Craig Whyte with £50million and attempts another CVA it will almost certainly be accepted and that person would then own Rangers, however they dont have a Stadium or anything now but I guess could apply to Ground share Hampden or even Celtic Park and since they've lost their license would need to re-apply to join the SFL but since they are already an existing Club and have filed accounts before, they'd still be accepted over the New Rangers and would be able to compete in European Competition from whenever they first qualified, like if they won the Scottish Cup this year they could play in Europe next season. However time is running out, if they are to be saved then someone only has probably mere weeks to do so.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, they would not own Rangers, they would own the majority shareholding (85%ish from Craig Whyte) of an empty shell of company called 'TRFC plc'. That company no longer holds the rights to the name 'Rangers' or even use the club badge, that is now property of Sevco. Ricky072 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'empty shell' is still a member of the SFA. Since only clubs can be members of the SFA - and the SFA have not moved to expel it - this empty shell must still be recognised as a club by the SFA. If the club is still held by the administrator, what Green's consortium has bought is not 'the club' - just a load of 'assets and business interests' - and the club/emply shell is still heading for liquidation. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McKinnon‎
At this page we have a editor adding an unreferenced year-of-birth to the article, citing the equally unreferenced German-language article. Can anyone locate a source please? GiantSnowman 08:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Premier League fixtures
Seems to come around every season but does anyone know if these are still copyright? Someone has spent an age entering them at 2012-13 West Ham United F.C. season - OK to stay or copyright vio? Cheers.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The list of fixtures page on the Premier League website says "Reproduced under licence from Football DataCo Limited. All rights reserved", so I guess they are copyright. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're not technically copyrighted any more but you still need a licence from DataCo to be able to show them. Big  Dom  09:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. The European High Court has quite specifically ruled that Premier League fixture lists are not copyrightable: that logically implies that no copyright license need be granted, and as such we can include them at our discretion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know the EHC declared that fixture lists are not copyrightable, but DataCo still sell licences; go on their website if you don't believe me. The quote to be able to show West Ham's fixtures for this season is £266. Big  Dom  11:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They may still sell licences but if they have no copyright over the material then that surely means anyone can show them. Adam4267 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lists may not be copyrightable, but if Football DataCo is charging for licences (legally), that puts them on the legal high ground. If Wikipedia wants to remain free, it can't afford to take on organisations like Football DataCo just because we challenge their right to license their fixture lists. Just don't put them up. – PeeJay 00:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C
There is a serious dispute on Rangers F.C talk page and on a second article Newco Rangers over how the present situation with Rangers football club is handled. The dispute relates to if Rangers Football Club still exists as a club despite the liquidation of the company, or if the football club now ceases to exist entirely and should be described throughout the article in past tense. This issue fundamentally impacts the article and introduction, requiring dispute tags as a number of editors believe the present method is factually inaccurate and misleading. I hope others will be able to give opinions, and hopefully editors currently involved will give more detailed summaries of why the present article wording/method is right or wrong. Thank you BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The legal identity Rangers Football Club (the brand name and name of the club, not to be confused with the registered name of the OldCo "The Rangers Football Club PLC" (1899)) is now owned by Charles Greens consortium (Sevco Scotland Ltd). Inclusive of the consortiums purchase was the rights to the legal identity of Rangers Football Club. From a legal standpoint, they are recognised & trade as Rangers Football Club and maintain the old indentity inclusive of the name, brand, club crest, logo, badge, colours, strip, website and all other intellectual property & copyrights. Quote: "A company can go through the entire process of ceasing business operations, selling its assets and paying off creditors while not formally dissolving. A business may do this if it wants to keep the legal identity of a business for use in another venture. Read more: Differences in a Liquidation and a Dissolution | eHow.com ehow.com/info_8282875_differences-liquidation-dissolution.html#ixzz207pqrjdy"

The precedent has been set by Leeds, Napoli & Fiorentina, all are examples of Newco's that purchased the legal rights to the clubs legal identity & intellectual property from the OldCo. These clubs are presented and structured within the same page on Wikipedia however documents the corporate history, insolvency events & subsequent reformantions of new companies. This should not be confused with the likes of FC Halifax Town or Chester City FC who did not purchase the legal identity or any of the intellectual property from the OldCo's which were dissolved. As a result, such clubs are described as 'phoenix' clubs which had to start again from scratch, and could not legally use the same 'club name', badge, logo or any copyright or legal identity owned by the dissolved company. As a result the new club with the new identity, club name & badge logically takes on a new Wikipedia page. So which structure fits the bill in the Rangers situation as we strive for consistency? The closest precedent is Leeds. They intellectual rights & legal identity of 'Leeds United F.C' was purchased via liquidation of the OldCo (LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED (THE)) by a Newco (http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06233875). Leeds & Rangers are not 'phoenix' clubs as the maintain the same legal identity which they purchased in amongst the assets. 'Phoenix' clubs do not purchase assets, or legal identities, and do not use the same name.

It is therefore undisputable, and a matter of fact, that from a legal standpoint Rangers Football Club will maintain it's legal identity. Wikipedia must therefore recognise it as such and document the legal identity 'Rangers F.C' within the same page, in the same vein as Leeds United, Napoli, Fiorentina. Ricky072 (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where Leeds United liquidated, or was it a parent company? In other words, is the situation the same, or are you trying to compare apples to oranges? Rangers were a company. The assets including the name, were transferred to another company. Just like Triumph EngineeringTriumph Motorcycles Ltd.Heywoodg  talk  13:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that any 2 insolvencies are entirely identical but it certainly isn't comparing apples & oranges. Both clubs underwent the liquidation process.  Many contributors here don't seem to understand what liquidation actually means.  It means the process of selling an insolvent companies assets to give a return to creditors.  Please read the last 4 paragraphs of the following article from the Herald, on what happened to Leeds:  http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/quick-redundancies-are-brutal-but-also-fairer.16945235?_=50d0859b0f3b58690bcf42810401da775be22c96  Quote:  ""The CVA is the only insolvency mechanism we've got that preserves the legal entity," says Richard Fleming, head of restructuring at KPMG, who was the administrator at Leeds United. "If it fails, the sale to a newco becomes the only viable option."  The Administrators of Leeds KPMG sold Leeds to Ken Bates NewCo formed in 2007. Ricky072 (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You will do much better if you stick to the facts rather than look at other clubs as if they are the same. Leeds United were not liquidated as far as I am aware. The club went into administration in 2007, and was then sold to Bates. Not the assets, the club. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/6920103.stm from the time. Rangers went bust and no longer exist (or will soon no longer exist). Heywoodg   talk  14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "You will do much better if you stick to the facts rather than look at other clubs as if they are the same." Sorry, that didn't come across how I meant it! I mean, using the facts of the Rangers case rather than relying on the fate of other clubs, is probably better! Heywoodg   talk  14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you as a matter of fact with solid proof that Leeds were liquidated. It's astonishing that few contributors are so reluctant to accept this arguement when i've supplied a link to the OldCo Leeds company page here:  http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00170600  COMPANIES HOUSE STATUS: IN LIQUIDATION. And to quote the Herald article:  "The assets were then sold to a newco Leeds United set up by Ken Bates"  Ricky072 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * : Id just like to add a few additional points too, but agree with those made by Ricky.
 * Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872, yet the previous company was only incorporated in 1899. Nowhere in the article at present does it even mention the date the previous company was incorporated, highlighting the article is about the Football club, not the incorporated Company that existed between 1899 and that went into liquidation in 2012.
 * Is a club simply the legal entity of an incorporated company or is it the club and its assets, including fans, stadium, some players, the website etc which continue to exist under the new company.
 * Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs which were heavily involved in this situation issued a statement saying ""A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. 'Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start."
 * It is clear from the wording from HMRC and other sources available that the football club continues, simply the former company is liquidated. The club and its assets are currently owned by Sevco Scotland Limited operating under the trading name "The Rangers Football Club". If a club can exist before an incorporated company is formed, how does it cease to exist when that company is liquidated with the club and assets being sold to a new company? This along with how other articles are handled as pointed out by Ricky suggests the current method / wording of the article is hugely problematic and an inaccurate emphasis is being placed, mixing up the club with a company. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is already fully protected and the project has been notified of the ongoing dispute multiple times. Rather than repeating one side of the argument over here, it would be best keeping the discussion on the Rangers talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is currently locked in a state that is grossly inappropriate and factually incorrect, the same applies to the "newco" page and both should be restructured with immediate effect. Ricky072 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that it shouldn't have been reworded to use the past tense when the situation hasn't been resolved yet, but we have a process for making corrections to locked pages and this isn't it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot get agreement to change it back, because some editors claim the club no longer exists and must keep the current wording. Thats why we need additional opinions on the situation, it has radically changed since the last time this was raised on this wikiproject, nor did its previous mention focus on content wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

One golden rule of Wikipedia: when an article is fully protected, it is always the WP:WRONGVERSION.  Bald Zebra talk 14:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My (biggest) problem with the Rangers articles is that they are currently presenting the issue as if it has been clearly determined that "old" Rangers are no more (a liquidator has not even been formally appointed yet), and that this newco is being definitively described as a new club. Again, this is unclear, although the pronouncements of various authorities (HMRC, SFL, SFA) suggest that the club entity will be continued under a new corporate structure. Either way, the present situation on here does not reflect the reality that Rangers is in limbo, until the authorities agree some policy and new starting position. I think wikipedia is being used by some editors to push the POV that there has been a definite discontinuity in the history of Rangers. That might happen, but it definitely has not yet happened. I also think, judging by the way the authorities are pushing the issue so far, this project will be in the embarrassing position of having to reverse the trend of edits so far towards stating that Rangers has ceased and has been replaced by "Newco". James Morrison (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that there should only be one article. However, when that article was locked and the new one was not deleted. It effectively meant that the new article was always going to end up continuing the same debate and becoming more used. If we are going to have two articles (which at the moment it seems we are) then we might as well make sure that the second article is kept in good order. Adam4267 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When the second article was put up for deletion previously some suggested it be renamed and turned into an article about the administration/liquidation. It would make more sense to have that specifically dealing with the these matters and change the pasttense on the main page back to present tense, rather than duplicating much of the content on the main rangers article and having that article talk in past tense which is hugely controversial and inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of a 'club', if not the assets and people, compared to a company? CLUB - a group of persons organised for a social, literary, athletic, political, or other purpose: the building or rooms occupied by such a group. COMPANY - a business enterprise. The two are no defined the same because they aren't. Therefore Rangers FC should be treated the same by Wikipedia as the other clubs e.g. Leeds Utd S2mhunter (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A 'club' is a rather loose term open to interpretation. In it's most basic form a club can be defined as simply a group of 2 or more people with a common goal.  I would define a football club as consisting of more than simply a company or shareholding.  A club can only exist with a group of fans/supporters, which cannot be owned by a company.  A company is nothing more than a legal entity that consists of tangible assets (player contracts, property/land, intellectual property such as the name of the club, the brand & legal identity, the strip, badge/crest etc....).  A club is a combination of these tangible assets & the fans or spirit of the club, and with the same common goal (in this case a football team).  In the case of Charles Green & Ken Bates, both purchased the tangible assets of the club, maintained the same support & legal identity, which in my view, is enough to satisfy the criteria for continuation of the same club.  In the case of Chester for example, the fans groups decided to recreate a phoenix club rather than raise the funds to purchase the tangible assets, including the legaly identity of the old clubs.  As a result the old company was dissolved and they could not, from a legal stand point, create a new club under the same name or use the same legal identities such as the badge.  Therefore, their 'phoenix club' takes on a new identity. Ricky072 (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco is a new club. It is simple. Why is the transfer of league membership needed if it is the same club? This doesn't even entail the "company" aspect that so many Rangers fans are talking about as it is a decision based purely upon the *club*. Rangers still exist. For a few more weeks. They will then be replaced by Newco, which will be known as "The Rangers". It's quite simple, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.96.185 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because football association rules make it against their rules to transfer a membership from 1 entity to another to prevent clubs buying/selling memberships (for example when Newcastle were demoted to the championship Mike Ashley could not simply "buy" a share in the premier league from another club). Rangers & Leeds both have the legal right, in the eyes of the law, to be recognised as (and trade as) the same club because they purchased the "business & assets", including the legal identity of the clubs. Ricky072 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangers joined the SFL in 1890, as did the other clubs, without needing a company. However, the SPL of 1998 did. The automatic transfer would not be possible for the reasons given above. Rules evolve. I think however the EFL transferred membership to Leeds Utd without asking the other teams, different association though. S2mhunter (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fishiehelper, you're saying that if I create my own self-employed company, based on my name, and it goes bust, I would lose all of my individual history on Wikipedia and get a new birthday on the date that I create my next self-employed company, because I am the company? S2mhunter (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My tuppence worth: Bristol City (spits on ground) went bankrupt in 1982 and were immediately reformed by a new company (Bristol City 1982 Ltd), but there's never been any suggestion that this constitutes a separate club.  Bald Zebra talk 18:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good example, i dida little research but it's difficult to find information on an insolvency event dating back 20 years ago.  The OldCo was indeed declared bankrupt and dissolved, and Bristol actually word that "a new club" was created on their website, but then contract it by stating "saving the club", suggesting that they interpret that by creating a NewCompany (1982) the club lived on through the NewCo.  From forum posts returned in search engine posters have stated that indeed the NewCo purchased the assets such as the stadium in 1982, (although admitedly a forum post shouldnt be given much credence).  It does seem as though that Bristol Rovers are yet another example of club continueing when a newco has purchased "the club (the assets & business)" from the old company.  Which is significantly different from that of Chester, who created a Phoenix club with a different name & legal identity. Ricky072 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

just to give both sides a godo read foudn this and it supports the argument the club is dead according to fifa or cant be trasnferred at least read near the bottom, as i say foudn this on process of making request for comment Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is an opinion piece and offers no substance to the definition of a "club". You've also misinterpreted the FIFA rule, the rule is designed to prevent 1 company 'purchasing' a league share from another club.  For example if when Newcastle were relegated to the Championship they could not approach Wigan and offer to buy their share in the Premier League to ensure that Newcastle stay in the Premiership, not could they "swap clubs" meaning they couldnt just swap everything around, rename Wigan as Newcastel, change stadium etc...  so that Newcastle were in the Prem and Wigan in the Championship. Ricky072 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Newsnet Scotland is a rather biased website with political motives and not to be trusted as a neutral "source" on this. What that site says is as about as neutral as a celtic fans site.  BritishWatcher (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The initial post is correct in both the legal sense, and also the wiki sense. I present the Cleveland Browns, whose franchise up and left and when a new team was created in the original town the owners of the copyright (the league) conferred all those rights to the Newco. The history is fluid, and anyone amending the article to past tense would be dealing with that finite time between the end of the club, and the immediate establishment of the new club. The only consideration at the moment is what league will they play in, given that they are at liberty to make applications to join pretty much any league they want. Also, out of curiosity - are they a "Scottish football team" or a football team that potentially plays in Scotland? Koncorde (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you koncorde, further proof that a Newco can purchase the business & assets, inclusive of the brand name, and continue to be recognised as the same brand. Wikipedia does not document Sports Clubs in the same vein as it documents companies. If it did, the pages woudl not document Rangers Football Club (brand name) it would document "The Rangers Football Club PLC 1899" and then "Sevco Scotland Ltd", and by the same token Leeds United would be documented as firstly the OldCO which registered in 1920 and liquidated in 2006, then the NewCo from 2007 until present.  But Wikipedia does not document Clubs as companies, it documens them by the club name (by the brand name, or legal identity).Ricky072 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So far this appears to be a very one-sided debate - let me try to describe a contrary view.

Rangers FC started life in 1872 as an unincorporated football club. In 1899, the football club itself became a limited company - there were not two entities ('the club' and 'the company') but a single entity - a football club that was itself a limited company. That orginal company - number SC004276 - had become Rangers FC PLC by the time it entered administration in 2012. With things looking increasingly bleak for the club/company, and no buyers willing to step forward to buy the club, Charles Green formed a consortium (the company Sevco 5088) and then offered £8.5M to buy the club if a proposed CVA were agreed by the creditors, and if that were rejected and the club entered liquidation, he offered £5.5M for the 'assets and business interests' of the club. HMRC announced on the 12th June 2012 that it would reject the proposed CVA, and it was indeed formally rejected on 14th June so the club entered the liquidation process. Green's consortium therefore went ahead and bought 'the assets and business interests' of the club. Key point: he had previously offered to buy the club; he now offered to buy the 'assets and business interests' - are those two things the same? I would say they are not the same - if you buy the club, you take on the club's debts unless fixed through a CVA. You would also have bought 'the club' so the club continues with history intact and ongoing. However, if all you do is asset strip - take all the assets from the soon to be liquidated club - you avoid taking all the debt with you, but 'the club' itself has been left behind to be liquidated. Therefore the debt is left behind, but the club dies with the debt.

Green's consortium is trying to promote the idea that by buying the 'assets and business interests' of the club, he has bought the club, not kept its debt but somehow kept its history intact. While some editors believe that by buying the assets, Green has bought the club, others of us see that this route - of a football club being liquidated and its assets sold as a job lot to a new company that then wishes to run a club by the same name - leads to an entity that is not the same club. It may be the club reborn, but it is a new club none-the less. Green's consortium has now applied for membership of the SFA for his club - the does not have to happen when a club is bought over by a new owner, but it has had to happen under this newco route, illustrating that it is not a continuation of the same body under a different owner. Though it is true that Green's consortium bought the name 'Rangers Football Club' as part of the asset purchase from Rangers FC, that means, to me, that Green's club - or newco Rangers as they are being referred to in the media - has a right to call itself Rangers FC in the future, but as a successor club and not the original club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What motive does Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have in putting out a statement saying that liquidation of the company does not prevent the proposed sale of the club? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fishiehelper, it's rather simple, included in the purchase of "the business & assets" is the Brand. The Brand name, the logo, the legal identity.  Check out the above example of Triumph, the motorcycle.  The OldCo went into administration and the Brand Name was purchased as an asset by a newco and Triumph continued to trade.  Different company, but same brand.  Check their website, they also lay claim to "110 years of Triumph" as is their legal right, as they OWN the brand.  Indeed you are correct that Charles Greens preffered method would have been to acquire TRFC plc (1899) via a CVA as it would remove such consequences such as European footballing licence, and the membership transfer, TUPE employment transfer etc....  but purchasing the "business and assets" from the company, instead of the company instead, still entitles him to the Brand, legal identity of Rangers F.C.  Ricky072 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly to reply to Britishwatcher: you only quote parts of the statement. HMRC also said that "Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox." - notice 'that football will continue at Ibrox' and not that 'Rangers FC will continue'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I quoted the full HMRC statement initially above. The point is HMRC said both, that liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club, and that the sale of the football assets could be made to the new company. Again, this all implies that Rangers as a club continues to exist despite the former company going into liquidation. What motivation would HMRC have to mislead people by claiming the club sale could still go ahead via liquidation. And what evidence do u have that specifically states or suggests that is not what happened. HMRC said the sale of the club could go ahead, Greens statement talked about getting the club. They seem to supplement not contradict each other? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With due respect Ricky072, the Brand is not the issue - from a footballing point of view, just because someone else has bought 'the Brand' from a club that is being liquidated so he can run a team of the same brand as that original club, does not make it the same entity. It is clearly related to the previous club; it may be regarded as a relaunched club; but it is not the same original club. That's what this disagreement is about: the newco Rangers is not the same original club whatever they call themselves, whatever colours they play in, wherever they play. The original Rangers FC is coming to an end: a new Rangers FC is seeking to replace it (assuming its gets SFA membership and a league to play in). Wikipedia needs to deal with situations like these by having an article for the original Rangers FC and one for the new Rangers FC. That is what the status quo effectively is just now, and that is how it should remain going forward. Whether or not Rangers fans like it or not should be immaterial. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The brand IS the club, it's the legal identity. In the yes of the law, (regardless of what you think a club consists of or whatever bizarre ideology you have a club becoming married to a corporate identity which can never been undone) Charles Greens NewCo has the legal right to represent itself as the brand Rangers and lay claim to the brands history (in the exact same way in which Motorcycle brand Triumph are claiming "110 years of Triumph").  Many sports clubs have undergone the exact same procedure before.  The procedure of liquidation is extremely common practice in the business world and allows many brands to 'live on' under a new corporate identity.  You are bring everything back to your own personal point of view in relation to what you believe a football club is, and if we are to buy into you're theory, we should be rewriting & restructuring potentially hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Sports Clubs to have undergone the same procedures. Ricky072 (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly advice to all here, if you are going to contact other editors please do not canvas editor who will only support your side of the argument if you feel the need to post onto other talk page to get there input post in both sides of the argument not just one as this is canvasng which is against wikipedia rules, i have seen a few editors who could be seen to do this i am not goign to report or warn any user only give you al avice so you dnt get into trouble-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrewcrawford. I don't know if you are thinking about me or not but, for the record, I sent the following message to 4 editors who had contributed recently to discussions at either the Rangers FC or Newco Rangers articles but had not also commented here: "I'm not sure if you aware that there is a discussion about the Rangers dispute at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football to discuss whether there should be a single Rangers FC article instead of the two that presently exist for Rangers 1872-2012 and the Newco Rangers." I assume this is just being helpful to this process rather than 'canvassing' as the statement I made was not encouraging support for either side of the debate and the only editors I missed out (to my knowledge) were those who had already posted here and ips. Of the 4 I contacted, I believe two would support my view from previous posts I have read, and I don't know about the other two. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources that Rangers and Newco Rangers arent the same Club
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/companies/plusCompanyDetail.html?securityId=10824
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersPublicCensureFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8
 * http://www.plus-sx.com/infostore/Company-Accounts/RangersFootball/RangersFCDisciplinaryNoticeFeb2012.pdf;jsessionid=9EA142C7247E4F79D12253203EE173C8
 * http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830
 * http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09%20Articles.pdf
 * http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20%282%29.pdf
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28business%29
 * http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/fe/a8/0,,5~174334,00.pdf


 * http://i47.tinypic.com/1feomo.jpg
 * http://i46.tinypic.com/33b35fr.jpg
 * http://i48.tinypic.com/ja9swl.jpg
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/xpbscj.jpg
 * http://i50.tinypic.com/1enw34.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2vd6738.jpg
 * http://i47.tinypic.com/21jt8o8.jpg
 * http://i49.tinypic.com/2eujzq1.jpg
 * http://i45.tinypic.com/2wf0nzt.jpg --Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those tinypics appears to work and many of the other links do not deny that the new company now owns the club and its assets. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! My view is that there should currently be two articles - one for the soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers and another for "Newco Rangers". However, if it later transpires that secondary sources treat the two clubs as one (e.g. football record books listing Newco Rangers as "Rangers" and stating their foundation date as 1872 and listing all the honours), then and only then do I consider that the two articles should be merged. Mooretwin (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Many sources are already treating the new ccmpany as owning the club which the article is about, HMRC stated that liquidation would not prevent the sale of the club, the club and its assets have been bought by the new company so it is the same one that was funded in 1872, decades before the previous company that is now in liquidation was formed. So there is justification for a single article now, but more importantly the article should not have been changed without consensus to controversially put everything in past tense. The case will be even stronger as time goes on when rangers would still be viewed as rangers by more secondary sources. But that makes it even more problematic for the article to have been changed to the past tense, predicting the club has ceased to exist despite it not being the case and would need to be changed in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ok here is a source that support the club is alive "The old Rangers is currently in administration and will be liquidated shortly. Charles Green transferred the assets to his newco Gers after buying the club for £5.5million. Di Stefano wrote: “I’m aware the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green, but I have spoken with the registrar at Companies House that confirms The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company still ‘only in administration’ and is capable of acquisition, transfer and/or assignment." says charles green bought the club and only the plc is in administration-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * They are still alive Andrew. Thats why we know they're two different Clubs. Technically Rangers(1872) can still be saved, if someone goes to Duff and Phelps and Craig Whyte with £50million and attempts another CVA it will almost certainly be accepted and that person would then own Rangers, however they dont have a Stadium or anything now but I guess could apply to Ground share Hampden or even Celtic Park and since they've lost their license would need to re-apply to join the SFL but since they are already an existing Club and have filed accounts before, they'd still be accepted over the New Rangers and would be able to compete in European Competition from whenever they first qualified, like if they won the Scottish Cup this year they could play in Europe next season. However time is running out, if they are to be saved then someone only has probably mere weeks to do so.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, they would not own Rangers, they would own the majority shareholding (85%ish from Craig Whyte) of an empty shell of company called 'TRFC plc'. That company no longer holds the rights to the name 'Rangers' or even use the club badge, that is now property of Sevco. Ricky072 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 'empty shell' is still a member of the SFA. Since only clubs can be members of the SFA - and the SFA have not moved to expel it - this empty shell must still be recognised as a club by the SFA. If the club is still held by the administrator, what Green's consortium has bought is not 'the club' - just a load of 'assets and business interests' - and the club/emply shell is still heading for liquidation. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McKinnon‎
At this page we have a editor adding an unreferenced year-of-birth to the article, citing the equally unreferenced German-language article. Can anyone locate a source please? GiantSnowman 08:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Leeds United, Bates Takeover, Administration & Liquidation
I've been researching the complexed administration & subsequent exit that took place at Leeds United in an effort to establish a precedent in the debate surrounding Rangers F.C. I also feel that the Leeds United Wikipedia page could document this episode with greater clarity.

1. Bates Takover 2005 & 'Roman Heavies' Liquidation 2006
 * On the 17th of January 2005 Ken Bates registered a new limited company called "Leeds United Football Club Limited (company number 05334247)" (later renamed to Romans Heavies on the 2nd of December 2005).
 * On Friday 21st of January 2005 Ken Bates completed his takeover of Leeds by acquiring a 50% stake in the company Leeds United AFC Ltd (company number 00170600).(Original Leeds company 1920)
 * On the 20th of January 2005 Ken Bates became a director of Leeds United AFC Ltd.(original Leeds company 1920)
 * On the 2nd of December 2005 Bates renamed his NewCo "Leeds Football Club Limited" (company no. 05334247) to "Romans Heavies".
 * On the 6th of March Company 05334247 (romans heavies, formally leeds football club limited) enetered compulsory liquidation.
 * What was the purpose of NewCo Company 05334247? Why was it renamed from LUFC ltd to 'romans heavies'? And why did it go into liquidation?

2. Administration
 * On the 1st of May 2007 Ken Bates created another new company called LEEDS UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED company number 06233875. Although the same name as the one registered in 2005, this is a different company from the one renamed to Roman Heavies and placed into liquidation (different number).
 * The Leeds United Association Football Club Limited (company number 00170600) (the original company from 1920 operating LUFC) went into administration 3 days later, on 4th May 2007.
 * Administrators announced that a bid from Bates to buy back the club via a CVA. Although a CVA was agreed, HMRC challenged the CVA, and subsequently the CVA was abandonded.
 * Adminstrators then sold the business & assets of Leeds United AFC Ltd to Bates 'Newco' registered on 1st May 2007, Leeds United FC Ltd.

3. Liquidation & continuation as the same club
 * The status of the 'OldCo' ) The Leeds United Association Football Club Limited (00170600 establish 1920) then became: "in liquidation".
 * What date was LEEDS UNITED ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED officially placed into liquidation?
 * Because no CVA took place, Leeds applied to the Football League to have thier membership in the league transferred from the OldCo to the NewCo. Lord Mawhinnie who attended meetings between the League & Leeds said "One of the issues [the parties have been wrestling with is that the administrators have sold to [Bates's ] Leeds United 2007 certain assets and liabilities, including Elland Road and the players' contracts]"
 * The Football League granted Leeds request to move their share in the league from the OldCo to the NewCo but also applied a 15 point penalty as a result.
 * Leeds have since continued under the guise of the same club, under the same name & same legal identity, using the same badge and laying claim to the same history despite being operated by a 'NewCo' & the OldCo being placed into liquidation.

Feel free to answer the above questions put forward relating to the uncertainty surrounding the Leeds takeover, corporate structure & administration/liquidation processes.

I would argue that the this sets precedent for the Rangers situation, as neither club was able to achieve a CVA, instead, a purchase of 'the business and assets' took place and was placed into a newly formed company in both instances. How the situations were handled afterwards by their respective governing bodies has varied however, with Leeds United being granted their membership transfer, while Rangers were not. Ricky072 (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the response I posted elsewhere when Ricky072 first posted his comment -I've added it here also.:
 * That is a good bit of work Ricky072. One point I should add, which may (or may not) be relevant was the justification for Bates having to acquire the assets and business interests: I believe that having won the CVA vote, only to see HMRC lodge a legal challenge, the reality facing Bates was that if he then waited for the legal process to either uphold or dismiss the HMRC legal challenge, Leeds United would lose their place in the league and end up bankrupt. Therefore he could have potentially found himself in a situation where an agreed CVA to save Leeds United was upheld by the courts, but the waiting for that court judgement prevented their salvation! Faced with this, he felt he had no option but to go ahead in the way he did and plead his case to the League to have the share in the league transferred from oldco to newco. Under these particular, and highly unusual circumstances, the League allowed the transfer but thought it appropriate to deduct 15 points as a penalty for technically not emerging from administration by means of an agreed CVA. (I'm not sure but I seem to recall that following this, HMRC eventually dropped their objections and Bates acted as though the agreed CVA was in place, paying creditors etc - but I'm not totally sure.)


 * Anyway, there are differences between the Leeds United case and that of Rangers FC:


 * Firstly, Bates did get an agreed CVA for taking Leeds United out of administration whereas Rangers FC didn't - Bates was then prevented from delivering his CVA by court action.


 * Secondly, it could be argued that Bates had no choice but to take over the day to day running of the club by acquiring the 'assets and business' as to wait for the legal process would have killed the club (even if he eventually won in court): this was different from the Rangers situation where Green struck an agreement with the administrators to purchase the assets and business of Rangers FC in the event that his proposed CVA was rejected. By doing this, he made it clear to the creditors that there was no possibility of him coming back with a more generous CVA proposal, or of another bidder being able to offer a more generous CVA, in the case of rejection of the first CVA proposal.


 * Thirdly, 'sporting integrety': every case of a club going into administration is seen as 'inappropriate conduct' in the sense that clubs have often been benefitting from signing players when they could not afford either the fees or wages, and obtained a sporting advantage unfairly. That is why clubs are punished for going into administration by having points deducted. Once in administration, it is expected that clubs should leave administration by means of an agreed CVA. Clubs which followed this rule carried on without further penaly, history intact. Generally clubs that didn't, and were liquidated, had to start as 'new' clubs. Leeds United 'got away' with coming out of administration by buying the club's 'assets and business' because of the particularly unique circumstances in their case - and that led to an additional penalty of 15 points deducted. but the same club carrying on. Rangers are not in a particularly unique situation like Leeds United were. Rangers proposed CVA was rejected - not agreed and then blocked by legal action. What Green's consortium has done is essentially an attempt to 'ditch debt' without getting an agreed CVA. Should Rangers FC be allowed to 'get away' with not being liquidated like other clubs have, merely because they have chosen not to exit via an agreed CVA? Would that not be a form of rewarding cheating?


 * In summary, I don't believe Leeds United sets a precedent for Rangers FC because of the unique nature of the Leeds United case. I think a better precedent would be Halifax Town AFC who couldn't manage to get an agreed CVA, were then liquidated and reformed as FC Halifax Town, starting a few leagues lower in the English pyramid as a 'new' club. (Of course, under FA rules they have had to adopt a slightly different name but they were playing in the same ground, for the same fans who supported the 'brand' 'Halifax Town'.)


 * Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishie, with all due respect it seems almost as if you are 'making excuses' to fit your 'point of view' without fairly assessing the facts in this case. Part of Bates "75%" was that 1 creditor completely wrote off debt of around £17m and HMRC flagged this up as being dodgy (potential collusion between Bates and creditor to pass the CVA), and this was 1 of thier reasons for objection. Bates original offer was 1p/£ then 8p/£ (meaning he wanted to 'dump' (in your words) up to 99% of the debt). But these are all 'reasons why' and you yourself are making exceptions why you think it's OK for Leeds to retain identity via a liquidation process, but not Rangers. It's almost like 2 students failing an exam, yet you are looking for 'exceptions' or 'excuses' why 1 student should recieve a pass anyway, but the other should not because you dislike the other 1. Lets try to deal only in undisputable facts & not point-of-view. The facts are:


 * Leeds UAFC Ltd did not exit administration via a CVA
 * Leeds UAFC Ltd then sold its business and assets via liquidation to NewCo Leeds
 * The EFL granted the transfer of membership from Leeds OldCO to NewCO but imposed 15 point penalty
 * The Rangers FC Plc did not exit administration via a CVA
 * The Rangers FC Plc then sold its business and assets via liquidation to Newco Rangers
 * The SPL refused to transfer the share
 * Halifax Town was given a winding-up order by HMRC and was 'wound up' in court
 * There was no sale of the 'business and assets' to a new co
 * Supporters groups formed a new phoenix club with a different club name, badge, etc... and has no legal link to the old club or old company as they did not purchase the assets.

Those are the undsiputable facts. Yet somehow you maintain that Hailfax is precedent for Rangers, not Leeds? Even though Halifax did not purchase the business and assets. That is the most important point in the whole debate - that because the NewCo's purchased the business and assets, some people & media outlets percieve the 'busines and assets' to mean 'the club', even if that is not your perception, another undisputable fact is that by 'purchasing the business and assets' you have purchased the legal rights to trade as, & maintain the same legal identity as the club. Halifax did not do this.Ricky072 (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Buying the club, business, whatever must constitute more than the equivalent of the Halifax case. It's interesting to see the Rangers website is sporting an 1872-2012 logo "celebrating 140 years". Koncorde (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, a "club" is a different legal entity to a plc. Most times, the club is a subsidiary of the plc, with the assets of the club transferred to the plc (and the club "subsidiary" being yet another asset). Spurs were the first club (albeit in England) to take advantage of this cunning way to bypass the FA's rule 34. A Football League is run by granting a "football share" in the league to a club - and this share cannot be transfered. Also, if a "club" (and not the plc) has any material changes to its financial structure (and this includes going into administration) they lose their "football share" (and note that if the parent plc goes into administration, the club has also). So strictly speaking, in the Rangers situation, the "club" has been acquired by a new plc. It lost its "football share" and hasn't managed to get it back. But it's actually the exact same club, just a different owning plc. --HighKing (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good contribution HighKing, i'm interested to read more on the Spurs situation if you have a source? Also, from my above research of Leeds vs Rangers the only significant difference i can see is that Leeds were granted eprmission to trasnfer 'the football share', while Rangers were not. Ricky072 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of places you can look for info. Some info in this essay, some info on the Spurs situation here.  There's a few Sports Management courses that go into this topic in detail too, I'll see if I can dig anything up.  --HighKing (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a statement from Club 9 Sports which seems pretty clear too. It says In an asset purchase, all of the good and valuable assets (records, marks, names, trophies, players, staff, history) are preserved and separated from the bad and harmful liabilities (tax bills, bad contracts, creditors), which have put the club into administration and which act to force the entirety into liquidation.  By putting all of the assets into a different corporate structure, the assets are in fact rescued from liquidation.  Such a transaction would be very similar to the one that occurred at Leeds United in 2007, which simultaneously rescued that club, maintained its proud history and allowed the club to shed its debt burdens so that it could have the opportunity for future success.  --HighKing (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing more evidence to back the theory that Leeds Utd F.C set precedent for Rangers F.C. Unfortunatly however the Rangers F.C wikipedia page has been locked in a state of vandalism where by Celtic fans have edited the page to refer to the club in the past tense and started a new page entitled 'newco rangers', to represent Rangers F.C as 2 seperate clubs. Ricky072 (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't provided any "evidence". TBH, it probably adds a little more weight to one side of the argument.  It's a complex issue, and most people wouldn't grasp the idea that the plc and club are two separate legal entities, especially as they're often reported and spoken about as the same thing.  I mean, who in their right minds would admit to cheering for a plc?  Might as well cheer for Microsoft in a patent dispute... Loyalty is to the club.  But there's no need to resort to name-calling.  I doubt if Celtic supporters solely use the phrase 'newco rangers' - I've seen it used widely in the press over here.  And articles get locked to damp down "drama" - usually edit warring.  Locked articles are always "in the wrong state".  So take a longer term view, and aim to get the article unlocked and back to a good article.  --HighKing (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

MOSFLAG and OVERLINKING at 2011 World Football Challenge
2011 World Football Challenge was a great example of both. It's not an officially sanctioned tournament. The European clubs are using the even as pre-season warm-up and to trial players. The North American clubs are using it to fill seats and increase awareness of their clubs both at home and abroad. The flags should not be included because the teams do not represent the nations despite the selection process: winners of national and league awards. The selection is limited. Notice that the nations invited are those of major football countries (England, Spain, Italy, Germany) not all of Europe (the Netherlands, France, etc.). Please comment on the talk page as well. The overlinking is obvious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And not adding the flags makes the page look bland and uninteresting. The whole point of the World Football Challenge was that the teams came from various countries around the world; they may not have been officially representing those nations, but they are from there, and that's what matters for this friendly tournament. – PeeJay 16:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So personal aesthetic of "bland and uninteresting" vs guidlines for correct use. I know which I reside with. The teams are not representing the countries from which they come, they simply originate from them. That's why you're wrong. Please self revert now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I choose to ignore those guidelines because this way makes for a better encyclopaedia. These flags are not obtrusive or ugly; in fact, they help provide the reader with useful information. – PeeJay 23:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I then choose to ignore your personal aesthetic because it makes it ugly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would someone else please comment because this is going nowhere. – PeeJay 12:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All other friendly tournament have flags too. I don't find it too boring without flags. -Koppapa (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I question the need for an article on this. Can't the outcome just be merged into the main article on the tournament? Number  5  7  12:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. And not all other friendly tournaments have flags. Remember, the European clubs are using these as pre-season events to test new players. The MLS teams are using it to increase interest in their "product". It's not a home-and-away tournament and the results aren't recognized by any other body. Merge it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Premier League
Having a bit of trouble with User:Sincerelywikis who is intent on changing just one use of the word "football" in the Premier League article to read "association football" despite the context of the article being clearly established by that point. I've probably violated 3RR by now, so can someone else do the reverting for me if he starts up again? – PeeJay 00:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that additional word does no harm. -Koppapa (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone referred to this article. By the way, Who has trouble is clearly User:PeeJay2K3. Premier League is 4th of "football" league behind National Football League, Bundesliga and Australian Football League. He believes the code of football means association football but other people don't. The editors of Bundesliga had also understood this basic information but User:PeeJay2K3 rewrote EPL and Bundesliga into false ranking. I don't care about this problem anymore but just hope other users correct those ranks. Sincerelywikis (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Koppapa; I think it's unnecessary. People know what kind of football we're talking about by that point. – PeeJay 12:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that it's not necessary, but it's not a problem either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * However, if we let people change football to 'association football' at will then we will end up with absolutely no consistency and terms interchanged throughout articles for no reason. Adam4267 (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Adam made one 100% accurate point there, we can mislead people to think Dudu Aouate plays one sport and Ricardo Carvalho (just examples) plays another if their intros are not coherent in display. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Everybody knows the policy is not to repeatedly say "association football" as it is not the common term for the sport. in-line link it or something if you must, but don't cause the flow of paragraphs and sentences to become bogged down in needless terminology. Koncorde (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. WP:COMMONNAME. Football for most locations. Soccer in a handful of others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheffield Rules
Hello everybody! On it.wiki we are translating the en.wiki article "Sheffield Rules". We have a doubt about the meaning of one sentence:


 * Many of the original members were from the local Collegiate School, which favoured the kicking style of the game, rather than handling the ball. The kicking game was also prevalent in the local villages of Penistone and Thurlstone.

Well, they are two sentences. Anyway: what does "the kicking style of the game" refer to? The Collegiate Schools favoured the players' use of feet (therefore encouraging shots and passes), and discouraged the use of hands? The Collegiate Schools wanted their players to kick the ball, instead of handling (meaning: organizing the game, i.e. precise passes, ball possession...) it? The Collegiate Schools wanted their players to kick each other during the game (meaning: a more violent game), instead of just standing there with the ball? (LOL) I think we are talking of "handling" meaning "touching the ball with hands", but I am not sure of it. Can you please explain me the meaning of the sentence? Thanks in advance. --Triple 8 (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You've pretty much got it - there were two styles, one involved using hands to control the ball (like rugby) and one involved using feet to control the ball (football). GiantSnowman 11:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Confusingly, both the "carrying" and "kicking" styles allowed a fair catch or mark. The difference was that the "handling" versions allowed the player to run with the ball in general play whereas the "kicking" games forced the player to kick immediately after catching the ball. Hack (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This may well help you: History_of_rugby_union --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What the hey?
Received a friendly message/request that left me clutching for straws, can't make anything of it. User:Ulof4 has just asked me to upload a picture i DON'T HAVE, telling he has faith in me and all that (nice) stuff. As far as i can see from our conversation, he does not have one either; thus, how can i make an omelette without eggs?

The article is Víctor Hugo Ávalos, and he wants the piece to have a picture as a form of (late) homage. Anybody out there has one uncopyrighted image that can be used? Paraguayan and Chilean users could be very welcome now (they are in general, but now even more ;))

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you check his date of death? The lead says "dead 3 April 2009", but later says "he died on 16 April 2009". The source news article is dated 3 April 2009 and says (if I'm translating OK) he "died on Thursday night". As 3 April 2009 was a Friday, surely that means he actually died on 2 April 2009. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No feedback at all (no words here, no edits in Ávalos), why am i not surprised? ;( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea how to find pictures of him that are not copyrighted - the online Paraguayan newspaper site ABC has many pictures, but all are copyrighted. Jogurney (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no experience in uploading pictures into WP, it´s an area I am totaly unfamiliarised with. Sorry Vasco. FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have pictures available (or can point to where they can be found), I'm sure there are plenty of people here who can help you upload them. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with uploading pictures and there are licences useable on Wiki for a pic of Víctor Hugo Ávalos especially as he is a deceased person. However being unfamiliar with the subject would not wish to choose a picture. If someone who knows the subject would like to select one/some possible pics I'll see what I can do.....--Egghead06 (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my whining (again!) but i do find it strange folks, most of the queries are answered within minutes, mine stay for days without nothing (most of them, i have to stress out, not all), i also admit i'm a whiner :)

Anyways, after the teamwork above, found this, especially for Egghead: here (http://www.elgrafico.com.ar/2009/04/03/C-1461-victor-hugo-valos.php), the ONLY ONE i managed to scrap, odd for a guy that played pro football until a short time ago, and was an international.

For Kangaroo, the confirmation, he died on the 2nd (or 3rd?) not the 16th. He died after scoring a goal, if that's not tragic i don't know what is... Kind regards to y'all, RIP Mr. Ávalos --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * El Mercurio has a picture of him here but I'm certain it's copyrighted. ABC has a lower-quality picture here which is watermarked and obviously copyrighted. Jogurney (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Image done - fairly low resolution (and a bit grainy) but should be OK for fair use for an atricle on a deceased person.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Galatasaray protection request
There's a protection request talk|history|links|watch|logs)|here for Galatasaray S.K. (football team) for what is attested to be a high level of IP vandalism. This seems to be a case where someone with knowledge of Turkish football needs to be able to distinguish between constructive and vandalism edits; could an admin at this project with sufficient knowledge help, please? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OFC Champions League
Someone able to undo this move? Whole competition happend 2007. -Koppapa (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking it to WP:RM would be a suitable course of action. GiantSnowman 15:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. -Koppapa (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor moved some more earlier seasons. Please share your view here. --Koppapa (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it goes through (no votes so far) i'll tag the other redirects for speed deletion and move the articles back. -Koppapa (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Consistency
Following on from the Rangers debate, which isn't going to go away soon, the best thing all around here is consistency. Rangers no longer exist, and a new club will be created with a similar name. However, all clubs in this situation should be treated the same. Either Wikipedia treats clubs as the entities they are (and creates new pages for new clubs), or the community treats the new club as the old club and uses the same page. With no consistency, those who feel like Rangers should continue using the same page would be right to feel aggrieved in the current situation. Heywoodg  talk  20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangers do exist because they are a brand name, or a legal identity if you prefer, which was purchased. It's very similar to your own previous example of Triump Motorcycles.  The "brand" Triumph motorcycles still exists, because the brand was purchased.  The brand still exists, and infact if you visit the Triumph website they have a section "celebrating 110 years of triumph".  The company that ran triumph did not make it to 110 years, but the brand is seen to have existed that long.  So how does Wikipedia differ between it's documentation of Triumph & Rangers?  Well, it's fundamentally different in how Wikipedia deals with a company, and a club.  Where companies are concerend, Wikipedia documents the company.  Therefore it has an article for the old company, and then a new article to the new company which now runs Triumph.  But football clubs are different because Wikipedia does not document them as companies.  Wikipedias document them as the clubs name (or brand name if you prefer).  If Wikipedia recorded companies in the same manner in which it documented football clubs, Triumph would have it's own page, as the brand has lived on under a new company, and it's corporate history & buy over would be contained within the same page.  And by contrast, if Wikipedia documented football clubs in the same way in which it documented companies, then the likes of Leeds United (or Bristol City, or any other club to have gone down the Newco route) would have 1 page for the original Leeds UAFC company established in 1920 and liquited in 2006, and then a new page for the Newco from 2007-present.  I agree with you that Wikipedia needs consistency, to me some contributors have failed to establish the above explanation as to how Wikipedia documents "Clubs" differently from companies.  If the newco's in the case of Leeds (Rangers, Napoli etc...) then the New company has purchased "the brand" in the same way Triumph's Newco purchased it's brand name, and that brand will continue to live on under the Newco, and Wikipedia documents the "brands" when dealing with Sports Clubs.  If however in the case of Chester or Halifax, these clubs did not purchase the brand rights.  They therefore are both New clubs, new brands & new companies.  This would be more like creating a new motorcycle company named "Triumphant" rather than actually purchasing the brand name "Triumph". Ricky072 (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We've got by quite easily using the tried and tested method of being accurate with each case previously, and no disputes that I have seen. I don't even see why there is a debate here other than the Rangers situation is in itself contentious. Koncorde (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly the debate has had to come here because grossly inaccurate changes were made to the rangers article without consensus which have been locked into the article and now make the whole article bias and wrong. Yet a couple of editors insist the club no longer exists so must not be changed, despite the huge evidence suggesting this is wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rangers clearly do continue to exist as a club as the debate and sources provided above and on the various pages. Consistency would be good, which means clearly the current wording in the rangers article needs fixing because it is inaccurate. Although there are differences in circumstances in some of these examples, the precedents suggest the wrong path has been taken and it was imposed on the rangers article with NO consensus. That article invalid and inaccurate throughout so that is something that needs resolving urgently, rather than waiting for a far larger debate on trying to see if it is possible for a single approach everywhere. Would this just stop at football in the UK< or would it apply to any sports club in the world, we could be talking about a lot of examples to look into. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would contend that the club that now exists, based at Ibrox, is a 'new' Rangers. That is supported across the media where this club is now regularly referred to an 'Newco Rangers' or 'the Rangers newco'. For example: Rangers newco: Charles Green consortium ‘put £50m sale price’ on club, Ally McCoist: Newco Rangers should start life in the Third Division, SPL clubs vote to reject newco Rangers' application to join league. That is why there is a Newco Rangers article to chart the rise of that club. The Rangers FC article records the club that has existed from 1872 until liquidation this year. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangers is the brand name. It was purchased.  The brand, or legal identity if you prefer, still exists.  'Triumph' the motorcycle brand, still exists.  The original company that founded it does not.  Despite the newco forming in 1984, Triumph are celebrating "110 years of Triumph", because they brand has existed for 110 years, and the Newco has the legal right to be recognised as the same brand for 110 years.  This is the case with Rangers, the Newco purchased the brand, the legal right to be recognised as the same brand that has been in existence since 1872.  Wikipedia publishes articles on sportsteams as 'the brand' and not the company, (for example, Arsenal is presented as Arsenal F.C, and not Arsenal Holdings PLC).  The article concerning Rangers F.C deals only with the 'brand name' which is now owned and operated by Charles Greens consortium.  It therefore should be included in 1 single wikipedia entry and the corporate history of the companies which have owned it can be documented within. Ricky072 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Football clubs arent brands though, they are sports clubs, the copyrights and trademarks of the club can be seen as brands but at the end of the day they are names and emblems they're not clubs. As an example, Celtic could change their name to Celltik and change our badge to a Green square that says Celltik on it and sell the trademarks and copyrights of Celtic for £25million to Stalybridge Celtic but Stalybridge Celtic wouldnt become Celtic and Celtic wouldnt change other than name and appearance it would still be the exact same club formed in 1888, looks a lot different but still the same under the make-up. what your trying to say is that creating a New Club but dressing it in the clothes and make-up of a dying one means it becomes it which is false.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That did not make a lick of sense and everything you post on the matter should be disregarded as prejudicial, considering your agenda, motives & also due to the fact you posted a secterian youtube clip as a serious attempt at establishing a source. Ricky072 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it did, you said that the Brand was the legal identity, you were making stuff up. I was just telling you that a brand is nothing but names and logos, not a club. You know im right, you know the Rangers are dead. The youtube clip is an 18 second clip and 16 seconds is Charles Green saying that a CVA retains History and Tradition and a Newco doesn't, the 2 pictures at the end, neither is sectarian althogh they are childishly mocking the death of Rangers.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that (mentioned above) Leeds United is not a good precedent to use. It's a bit (well, a lot) more complex than this due to Mr Bates' fronting companies, but effectively the club was sold as a going concern by the OldCo (Leeds United FC Ltd) via some technical wrangling to the NewCo (The Leeds United AFC Ltd) before the OldCo went into compulsory liquidation (as you have noted above) in March 2006.  The NewCo then went into administration in 2007 but exited via a CVA (after another long kerfuffle with HMRC) without being liquidated, which is why they kept their Football League "golden share" (although via the League's "exceptional circumstance" clause).  Hence Leeds United ("the club") were never liquidated and hence subject to the Insolvency Act at any point. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BlackKite, that is not a good explanation (kerfuffle? technical wrangling?) to refue evidence and sources previously supplied. What exactly was 'sold' from Leeds OldCo (the company that is "in liquidation" according to Companies House) ??  According to the Judge who sat in the meeting between Newco Leeds & The English Football league:  "One of the issues [the parties have been wrestling with is that the administrators have sold to [Bates's ] Leeds United 2007 [NewCo ] certain assets and liabilities, including Elland Road and the players' contracts,]"Ricky072 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a separate issue between the two NewCos. Leeds United 2007 (the 2nd Newco) are the company that bought the club from the Forward Sports Fund (The Leeds United AFC Ltd, the 1st Newco which went into administration in 2007), who as I said purchased the club from the Oldco before the Oldco went into liquidation. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You refer to "The Leeds United AFC Ltd" as 'the 1st Newco' but isn't this 'the oldco' or original co from 1920? Ricky072 (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the oldco was "Leeds United FC Ltd". When Forward and their difficult-to-untangle web of fronting companies bought the club in 2005 they named their company "The Leeds United AFC Ltd". Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gah, I've got that the wrong way round (of course). Wait a tick... Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(indent). OK. Oldco = "The Leeds United AFC Ltd". Was sold to Forward Sports Fund &co in January 2005. FSF moved the ownership of the club from the Oldco to an offshore holding company in 2006 and the Oldco was then liquidated. The holding company then sold the club to "Leeds United FC Ltd" (Bates & co) in May 2007. This is the company that officially entered admin in 2007. Club (50.1%?) sold to "Leeds United 2007" in 200 8 7. I believe that the club is now actually owned by the first Newco (Leeds United FC Ltd) again, it having exited admin. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do conceed that what happened at Leeds was a more complexed scenario and researching them at companies house there seems to be records of all sorts of holding companies. You will have to explain however, how did Leeds exit administration?  Please read the last 3 paragraphs of this article, which includes a statement from the Leeds Administrator:  http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/quick-redundancies-are-brutal-but-also-fairer.16945235?_=50d0859b0f3b58690bcf42810401da775be22c96  QUOTE:  "HMRC changed their position and blocked the CVA. The assets were then sold to a newco Leeds United set up by Ken Bates" and QUOTE the administrator: ""The CVA is the only insolvency mechanism we've got that preserves the legal entity," says Richard Fleming, head of restructuring at KPMG, who was the administrator at Leeds United. "If it fails, the sale to a newco becomes the only viable option." Ricky072 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the end the CVA was scrapped by KPMG and the club put on the market again, and was bought wholesale (the same day) by Leeds United 2007 Leeds United CVA approval squeezes through, including its liabilities (and hence preserving the legal entity). HMRC did object to this but eventually dropped their challenge, and the League imposed the 15 point penalty because they voted that particular method of exiting a CVA to be very dubious (which it undoubtedly was). Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The link which you provided is news of the CVA being agreed on 4 June 2007. HMRC Blocked the CVA on 3rd July 2007 and Leeds did not exit administration via CVA.  Could you explain in detail what you mean by "the club was baught wholesale"?  It seems to me, from sources provided above, that the alternative to a CVA was selling the assets to a newco, evidence supported y my above sources & direct quotes from the Leeds administrator & Lord Mawhinney. Ricky072 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To add to that, this article may be of use: http://www.lawteacher.net/company-law/essays/football-club-administration.php  abouthalf way down it gives a detailed summary of the Leeds adminstration.  It claims it was the OldCo (LUAFC Ltd 1920) that went into administration. Ricky072 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Leeds are irrelevant. Why do they keep coming up? The situation is in a different country, and in a different situation. Just stop it. "Rangers" only exist whilst in the process of liquidation. "New Rangers" will replace them. It is really that simple. I think this whole discussion smacks of bias - The only people claiming that it is the same club are Rangers fans - Is it seriously a massive coincidence that everybody else realises they are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.92.139 (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Leeds ar enot irrelevent it's the same situation. It's really this simple:  New Companies bought the football clubs.  How do you know which editors are fans and which ones are neutral contributors with an interest in British football? Ricky072 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is probably the biggest scandal ever to hit British football and it's very disappointing that some of the most talented football editors on here are staying aloof. I don't understand this sort of nervy, small c conservatism. Why wait? The Rangers case is very different to Leeds and others because, as well as common or garden overspending, they also deliberately withheld PAYE. By admission there were many other disreputable practices still being investigated by various sporting and criminal authorities. As an outsider it took me a while to realise why the other smaller clubs were so unsympathetic when Rangers were in their death throes. If Leeds, for example, had cheated the taxman and other clubs in the same way as Rangers, HMRC would surely have terminated them with extreme prejudice. Not only that but the revulsion of the other clubs means the newco must enter lower down the leagues and probably be subject to heavy sanctions earned by the old club. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clavdia, Rangers & Leeds both have very different reasons for going into administration. 'Reasons for going into administration' is not being compared here.  It is the process of administration & subsequent aset sale to a newco that is being compared.  After a club goes into adminsitration it would seem it can go down 3 routes; 1. Agree a CVA and come out of administration as the same corporate entity (same company), (e.g Motherwell F.C).  2.  A 'newco' purchases the assets from the company in administration, which is then placed in liquidation (e.g Leeds United).  3.  The club is wound up and nobody purchases the assets, or the legal rights to the clubs name, badge, etc.  Supporters groups get together and form a 'phoenix club' which must then come up with a different name for the club & new badge etc (e.g Halifax). Ricky072 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely a club can exit administration in various ways. My understanding is that the original preferred bidder, 'Tow Truck Tycoon' Bill Miller, dreamt up some novel solution not included in either of the three options above. But Rangers fans chased him away because they wanted to avoid liquidation altogether and preserve the 1872 club and its history. Sadly, unlike Leeds the club was ultimately liquidated. Ken Bates did not preside over a newco with hardly any players which had to bow and scrape to lower division teams to be able to enter the league. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The dispute is totally fair, don't see why there's anyone objecting to a fair debate on the matter. Sparhelda 04:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant to this debate: BBC News report speaks of 'the demise of Rangers' and 'under which circumstances Charles Green's Ibrox newco will take its place". Check the meaning of 'demise' in your dictionary - my one says 'death'. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Newco Rangers treated as new club by SFL
Newco Rangers have just been admitted to the SFL with associate membership. However, rule 15.1 makes clear that "Notwithstanding any other provision in these Rules, any football club which is relegated, in terms of the Settlement Agreement between the League and The Scottish Premier League, from The Scottish Premier League, shall automatically be admitted to full membership of the League and shall in the season immediately following that relegation participate in the higher or highest Division of the League."

The statement is unequivocal: "any football club which is relegated...from The Scottish Premier League, shall automatically be admitted to full membership". (The clause I have missed out from the whole sentence merely explains that this provision is "in terms of the Settlement Agreement between the League and The Scottish Premier League")

In other words, if the SFL had viewed the New Rangers as a continuation of the club that had played in the SPL last season, their entry to the SFL would have been treated as a relegation and they would have received full membership - that they have been given associate membership means that the Newco Rangers is being treated as a new club rather than the original Rangers FC moving down from the SPL. Therefore, we should keep the article for the new club, separate from the article for the original club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Too early. We will need some WP:RS and in any event, should wait until the SFA have ratified the decision. Leaky  Caldron  15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrespective of whether this is ratified, it shows that the SFL clubs view the newco Rangers as a new club and not a continuation of the one that was playing in the SPL last season - if they had, they would have granted full membership rather than the associate membership they have granted.
 * I realise that many editors who supported oldco Rangers will find this difficult to accept, but that is the way it is. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am completely neutral, I could not care if, when or where Rangers, old or new play. We should wait until the SFA ratify and WP:RS report the eventual final outcome. There is still a chance for matters to change. Your observation on the rule book is essentially WP:SYNTH & WP:OR until reported by WP:RS. Leaky  Caldron  16:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We have already established that a club can continue on as it was after being liquidated & purchased by a Newco (see Rotherham, Luton, Leeds, Bourenmouth, Charlton, Napoli, Fiorentina). The next stage in the debate is if the governing bodies recognise them as the same club & allow them to continue under the same club name. Thus far we have had documents from the SPL & SFL both referring to the newco as "Rangers F.C" which would assume they are. The 'evidence' you posted above is merely a basic & obvious rule, that when SPL clubs are relegated they automatically recieve full membership in SFL & compete in division 1. This particular rule offers nothignto the debate. Rangers were never relegated from the SPL, they were refused re-admittance to the SPL. In theory, an SPL club could have their SPL membership terminated for a rule breach, but enter the SFL division 3 under an association membership like Rangers did. This does not make them 'a new club'. Ricky072 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ricky072 I confess that I had expected more of you than to seek to dodge the evidence I have presented in the way you are. If your view is correct, than Newco Rangers and Rangers is the same club, then you must believe than Rangers have been relegated from the SPL to SFL Division3. BUT, if that were the case, rule 15.1 would mean that the SFL would admit Rangers as a full member of the SFL. The fact that they have only let the new Rangers join as an associate member shows they do not regard them as the same club as the Rangers that played in the SPL last year. I believe you fully understand this point so I have to conclude that you are merely refusing to accept a conclusion that you don't want to be true. As I say, I had expected better than this. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "If your view is correct, than Newco Rangers and Rangers is the same club, then you must believe than Rangers have been relegated from the SPL to SFL Division3." How can anyone possibly beleive "Rangers have been relegated".  They were not relegated. Ricky072 (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How can anyone possibly not believe Rangers have been relegated. Check Google News.  There are hundreds of headlines saying "Rangers Relegated".  There are none saying "Rangers dissolved". Nfitz (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of headlines don't always make WP:RS. A neutral reading of the situation suggests that they were denied continued membership of the SPL and allowed to enter the lowest level of the SFL. None of this is yet sanctioned by the governing body and until it is their future remains uncertain and therefore non-encyclopaedic until confirmed by WP:RS. Relegation would be if they had been deducted 75 points - which they probably wish had happened! Leaky  Caldron  19:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely possibly teams can have their SPL membership terminated for violation of rules, then apply to the SFL, gain an association membership, and start in division 3. Does this mean the SFL then deems them to be an entirely new club? Ofcourse not. Ricky072 (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are assuming, are you not, that a club in the circumstances you describe would get a associate membership rather than a full membership. Considering the club would be a member club of the SFA and had previously been in the SPL, there is no reason to assume it would not get a full membership.
 * Anyway, I suggest that if the new Rangers had been granted full membership of the SFL, some editor would be on posting that getting a full membership was proof that the new Rangers was regarded as a relegated club and therefore regarded as the same club as old Rangers. Well whether or not editors regard it as conclusive proof (and for some editors, that will never happen because they won't accept anything that contradicts their own POV) what is beyond doubt is that what has happened is entirely consistent with a 'new club' interpretation. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fishie, i am not assuming, I quickly downloaded the SFL rules to read the differences between membership (http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/SFL_Constitution_and_Rules.pdf). Let me explain;


 * 1. Anyone wishing to become a member must apply to the SFL
 * 2. Successful applicants are ganted a place in the bottom division
 * 3. Successful applicants are given an 'association membership' (associate members are denied such rights as voting rights)
 * 4. Association Members can only become 'full members' after 4 years of being in the SFL
 * 5. The only exception to the above rules is when a team is relegated from the SPL, whereby they recieve a position in the top division & granted 'full membership' inclusive of voting rights. (This is the rule you quoted).

Now if a team from the SPL loses it's membership for any reason other than being relegated, they would have to apply to become association members in division 3. So in my example, if a team had their SPL membership terminated for breaking the rules, or if for some reason a club decided to resign from the SPL, then these clubs could apply to the SFL. Would they qualify for the exception (5) as being relegated SPL clubs? No. Would that mean they are entirely different clubs if they end up in SFL3 with an association membership? No.

This process & the rule you cited is not evidence towards the 'SFL recognises Rangers as an entirely different club' that is merely your interpration in your search for evidence to support your POV they are a different club. This is simply evidence that Rangers were not relegated. This isn't even being disputed, nobody believes Rangers were relegated for finishing last, or relegated as form of punishment. They lost their SPL licence due to their insolvency.Ricky072 (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Middlesbrough F.C.
Leeds are being used as an example a lot in the Rangers dispute but I'd like someone to explain why Middlesbrough can have one article if Rangers cannot? By all means it seems a liquidation took place, indeed their ground had padlocks on at one point, no CVA was involved and a new company was, unlike Rangers it seems they even had a change of crest. There's several teams people menton, I pick out Middlesbrough because they were in a European Final as recently as 2006 and seen very much as the club formed in 1876. At the same time I can't claim to be an expert on the Middlesbrough situation so i'd like to hear someone in favour of these two articles explain in detail what entitles them to be considered the same club while Rangers cannot. Sparhelda 04:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If sources say it's the same club, then it is wikipedia-wise. We'll see soon for the Rangers situation. -Koppapa (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a specific article here: Middlesbrough F.C. survival from liquidation. Have Rangers survived liquidation?--EchetusXe 17:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I say Rangers did yes, like Middlesbrough the company that they were working under before has been or will be liquidated, but the club continues under a new structure, business is going on as usual at Ibrox, the manager remains the same and some players have remained. Sparhelda 22:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

China PR
When will the link China national football team become China PR national football team becuase this is the only national team link which is not right. Could somebody correct it please? Mr Hall of England (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have issues with the redirect/destination? GiantSnowman 13:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is the issue but if you key in this points to China national football team rather than China PR national football team.  --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the nft coding. Number   5  7  13:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Still the same problem 🇨🇳 china the flag link is China national football team not China PR national football team this is the only national team with the wrong link and it should be correct asap. Mr Hall of England (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it would have been helpful if you'd have said which template in the first place. Unfortunately it doesn't look like Fb can be fixed in this manner as all it does is append "national football team" onto the end of a country's name. You'll just have to do it manually (e.g. 🇨🇳 China PR ). Number   5  7  12:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why and where are we using these flags? GiantSnowman 13:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically in league tables for tournament groups (e.g. Euro 2012). Number   5  7  14:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be correct because all the 207 national sides don't redirect like China. Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Task force request
Hi guys, i'm Ulof4 and i want to improve several articles of the Chilean football like players, stadiums, clubs, history, the four leagues of the Chilean system, among other elements, the interested users, please, leave his message at my talk.


 * Ulof4, 12 July 2012, 16:49 (UTC) at Macul, Santiago de Chile.


 * I am interested. Tell me where you need improvement with the articles and I will do it. Also I think we could just get one more editor to help out and than create the task force. I mean there are task forces with only 3 members, like the Vietnam one. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A task force with only three members shouldn't be a task force. GiantSnowman 20:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. and Newco Rangers
It looks like Celtic supporters have managed to edit the Rangers F.C. to refer to the team in the past-tense, gotten the page locked, and created a new page at Newco Rangers to reflect the demoted team. This is the same as many recent financial actions - and the entire thing is still in flux. There's huge crystal ballery going on here. It's quite clear that there should only be one article on the existing team, at this time. However any attempt to fix the situation is quickly reverted. Thoughts? Nfitz (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've told you at WP:AN, where you have been forum shopping, please keep this on the article talk page and keep your accusations of people being Celtic fans to yourself. GiantSnowman 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just coming here to put a pointer there. Thanks for violating WP:GOODFAITH Does seem to be Celtic supporters getting involved in this. I didn't think there was any question about that. Really, they should stay out of it. I support neither team BTW - or any other Scottish team. I'm so neutral I can't even remember which one of the racist supporters groups is Catholic and which one is Protestant.  Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Has been discussed here long in detail if you scroll up. Time will tell what happens. -Koppapa (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, it has been. And I actually scanned the page for something ... and searched too ... I guess I should have used Rangers instead of Glasgow as a search term.  Doh!  Sorry.  Anyhow, someone has now created Articles for deletion/Newco Rangers so I guess the debate should be there now. Nfitz (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that one of the biggest pushers for this whole two wiki split, previously edited Newport County A.F.C. on the 16th of June and appeared quite happy with that page set-up.
 * This whole debacle appears to be intrinsically tied to the flawed creation of a separate article in the first place (initially as a redirect) and subsequent attempted edits by Superbhoy, that were good faith corrected into company terms by Thumperwad and co before being wholly messed up on the 16th of June. I'm only bitterly sorry I was unfortunately distracted enough for this whole thing to not come to my attention earlier. Koncorde (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is not the fact that the second page exists, but this terrible past tense wording which is blatantly inaccurate and grossly offensive. Action is clearly needed to sort out the mess. The SFL statement today was very clear, Rangers F.C will play in the third division, yet the wiki article claims it no longer exists and nor does the rivalry with celtic. Even if it was technically the case the club was dead (which it isnt, the company is new, the club aint), we all know this is not what has happened in the real world, the media, and fans and most people would see this as rangers still. sadly a few editors on the page continue to prevent any fixing of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to Koncorde above, I edited the Newport County A.F.C. article on 16th June - my edit comment was "making clearer that the club is a different Newport County than the one that went bankrupt in 1989, though regarded as a continuation" I have already stated that I could see a possible compromise way forward being to have a single article for Rangers FC set out like the Clydebank F.C. article, which starts off describing the current club and then makes reference to previous clubs. Would Rangers fans and other editors opposed to having two articles accept such a compromise? Another possible way forward would be to move the current Rangers FC article to 'Rangers FC (1872)' and then move Newco Rangers to 'Rangers FC'. I don't see any suggestions coming from those who oppose the current two article set up. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I already made a perfectly reasonable suggestion that the 2 articles be set up in the same way as the Leeds United page, in the way that there is firstly the club page, & the second page is "Leeds United Football Club Limited" which describes the company, why it was set-up, and the process in which it purchased Leeds. Ricky072 (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been multiple suggestions to merge and amend Fishie. The big issue is that a new "club" article has been created at odds with the previous format and rather than resolve the root of the issue, we're having multi-page arguments over whose personal opinion and interpretation is accurate. We should go solely by what we know. Rangers are a football club in Scotland, in Division 3, they were originally incorporated in 18xx and reformed in 2012. There should be one article, and any "reforming" or otherwise can be mentioned on that page as with Fiorentina, Newport and Clydebank if required. That's how it should have been from the start. Koncorde (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just don't see how any editor is having any difficulty solving this. How is this any different to Leeds? Or Newport A.F.C. for that matter. Editors seem not to be consistent with past decisions. Nfitz (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If only it were that simple. The Clydebank FC article, for example is about a relatively recently formed club that now legally owns the name and identity of the previous Clydebank FC - yet that article speaks about the current club, and 'previous clubs' to have held that name. I suggested that this approach would be a sensible way forward for dealing with Rangers, but I am met with 'no compromise is possible'. As I have said elsewhere, that attitude will mean that this dispute will have to be resolved 'higher up', and even then the articles will require ongoing protection.
 * And another thought: there is an overwhelming feeling in the mainstream media across Scotland that 'Green's Rangers' (as it is sometimes called) is not the same club as the original Rangers and this in indicated to readers/listeners/viewers by referring to the club as 'newco Rangers' or 'Rangers newco'. Can you remember similar 'newco' references in the mainstream media with Leeds United such as a newspaper report saying 'XXXX becomes first newco Leeds United signing'? (We have had that headline for the Newco Rangers.) Regards
 * I seem to recall similar media articles about Newport County being a different team. How is this any different? Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I AM BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YA! YA! YA! YA! YA! YAAAAAAA!
So ya, from the title you can see that I am bonkers and that I am back. My month long block finished around 5 minutes ago. I dont know, it felt like I was in some sort of rehab. Anyway while I was gone I was still checking up on things and a lot of vandalism has occurred in terms of Indian Football. I have tried to get in touch with other Indian wiki users but they have university at the moment so most cant be here. Anyway I am just warning you guys that I may need help cleaning all these pages and I will probably add a bunch of topics here so watch out. If anyone wants to help than just mention it and I will tell you how you can help. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you back, hopefully you've learnt a valuable lesson and can get on with proper editing again! Let me know where you need help. GiantSnowman 20:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Currently I am trying to finish something so when I get to the vandalism I will tell you. Thank you Snowman. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Competiton names
A rather rambling and entrenched discussion has been ongoing and can be found here regarding the use of sponsored names for competitions in articles on individual seasons. A wider range of opinions is needed and a broadening of the discussion is needed to ensure consistency across all articles or confusion will reign.Sport and politics (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh here we go. Last night Sport changed all season articles which wikilink 2011-12 Challenge Cup to Ramsdens Cup, i approached him to discuss and he ignored me and continued. I reverted correctly per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, he then reverted me without providing a reason again. He then accused me of Working for Ramsdens, removing his comments on a talk page, which happened due to an edit conflict in which i immediately replaced and then accused me of being aggressive plus loads of other which he has not either retracted or apologised for. As a new editor i was fairly patient and ignored the edit warring whilst providing links. Instead he was only made accusations against me.

The main argument is here. He refers to The William Hill Scottish Cup being a sponsors name, and we use Scottish cup which is the legal and common name of the competition. The challenge cup is not the WP:Commonname a search for Ramsdens Cup shows multiple reliable sourced use that name, a search of the Scottish Challenge Cups mainly shows stat site which cannot be used to show common name. Season articles are only relevant to that season not the wider picture of the history. We should use the name of the competition that season especially whilst that is the common name, also we wikilink to the main article which already provides notes saying Ramsdens Cup is the name of the comp that season. :Sport and politics has made it very clear he will not stop and edit war over this even if consensus goes against him, therefore we can discuss this but he does not actually care about the outcome. Why would anyone converse with someone who makes minor attacks and when shown wrong he does not retract or apologise for. Look at the history which shows he carried on even after i started discussion and then just reverted me again, i won't edit war with him its not worth it however he needs to be advised about being civil and not making unfounded accusations whilst allowing discussion to take place. Lets keep this discussion in one place[here ] where others had already responded. One saying he is fine either way as long as we are consistent and the other saying we shouldn't but not citing a policy [[User:Edinburgh Wanderer|Edinburgh ]] Wanderer  17:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not use sponsored names. GiantSnowman 17:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a policy that overrules WP:Commonname when i can demonstrate that this is the case. Can you say that is accusations of me stalking him, working for ramsdens are founded. Cite policy.Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you back up why we should not use the common name of the competition that season in a season article. Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Long-standing consensus, which is why we don't use sponsor names for leagues or stadiums either. GiantSnowman 17:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not policy WP:Commonname is. You also faill to see his attack on me or his non providing any evidence i have shown him it and he has been removing my comments and his after i replied to them.Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is we don't use Sponsored names unless they are the only name or they are the WP:Commonname which is policy. Ive provided evidence to Sport and politics that in this case it is the common name. He cannot provide evidence to the contrary and instead made attacks against me.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is now no longer the issue and EW is being disingenuous in their comments, I have not said "I will edit war". EW is just the only user pushing the must use the sponsored name or else its wrong argument.
 * And in what way does it confuse readers only someone who does not look at the wikilink that clearly explains that the name of the comp in that season in the Ramsdens Cup. The common name should over rule the sponsors name when reliable sources show that the non sponsored name is not used other than on stat sites which means it is not the common name of the competition where as the Scottish Cup is the common name over the William Hill Scottish Cup. You made attacks as a new editor within a short time of making your account and won't apologise or retract them. Mo wonder I'm getting pissed off at you pushing a pov.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue now is the use of names for competition and the need for a consistent policy on it and as such a wide discussion is needed.Sport and politics (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You did say that. And you cannot cite a policy i can. WP:Commonname is a policy. If something is a common name then we should go with that especially in season articles where that name is relevant to the season. If it isn't the common name then we should go with the non sponsored name.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * EW you are blanket stating your opinion as fact again and claiming your opinion on the common name is cold hard fact. Its not. You need to realise that and accept that the common name you keep claiming is just your opinion.Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is me providing you with links to sources not proving it isn't just my opinion. That it isn't the common name is your opinion and not backed up by the links i provided you. You won't retract your personal attacks which means your augments are diluted because they don't make any sense. Saying do you work for ramsdens or you are staking me when faced with someone showing you why its the common name is unnecessary and Childish.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just released he has been removing his comments after i replied to them and removed my comments as well without replacing them.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Competiton names (2)
This is a discussion on generating a policy on the use of sponsored names in football competitions. Should this be the sponsored name or un-sponsored name. This would apply to ALL articles including individual players and individual season articles, and individual season articles for individual clubs. 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous we should only used a sponsored name if it is the Common name what part of that are not getting. When something is the common name we should use that. How does me providing you links that show that Sources show that the Ransdens Cup is the common name backed up by sources where as the Challenge Cup is not. What part of this are you not getting. You argued for consistency in the season article which was already there.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW your comments throughout demonstrate unequivocally the necessity for a unified policy. Please stop being obstructive and attempting to stop a discussion on wider policy just because you fear you will not get your own way. Again EW you are conflating your opinion on what constitutes a common name with the facts. You need to stop pushing your opinion that Ramsdens cup is the common name as a cold hard fact. It is not a fact it is just your opinion.Sport and politics (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh this is getting ridiculous if the sources show it is then it is. You have not provided any evidence, i have. Show me a policy or provide the evidence contrary to mine.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh   Wanderer  17:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete my contributions EW. Sport and politics (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is already above we don't three section heading saying the same thing repeated. You removed my comments and then yours after i replied in detail. We don't need three section heading especially when you are repeating what we have said above like this This is a discussion on generating a policy on the use of sponsored names in football competitions. Should this be the sponsored name or un-sponsored name. This would apply to ALL articles including individual players and individual season articles, and individual season articles for individual clubs. 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd go with Challenge Cup. See Scottish_Challenge_Cup for how often the name has changed. It just makles things complicated. -Koppapa (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if you can provide evidence that that is the Commonname. I have provided evidence that not only is the cup not commonly known as that. I have also explained why in a season article we should use the name of the comp as it was known in that season.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How often it changes is only relevant to the naming of a main article not a season article that only documents events in that season. So the name is relevant to that season. Also what that shows is that the comp has never been known as the Challenge Cup in the whole time the cup has been done.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW you are looking increasingly lonely all by your self on your limb pushing your common name opinions. Please stop opposing every single other use with the same opinion you keep parroting. If you want to be constructive the contribute to the development of a sensible discussion on the wider issue. You are failing to be constructive.Sport and politics (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW you are now being intentionally disruptive this discussion is no place for a sensible discussion the discussion below is for a sensible discussion and not for disruptive comments and continual deletion of other users contributions as for the deletion of your contributions it was purely accidental and they were re-added in full. What you are now doing is intentional deletion of another users contributions. Sport and politics (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's close enough to Challenge Cup for me. Used by e.g. BBC, soccerway, statto, espn. Why is there no Barcleys in the 2011–12 Premier League title then? -Koppapa (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Koppa they are stat sites not reliable sources. Also how are these names similar to Challenge B&Q Centenary Cup, B&Q Cup, latterly some included Challenge cup but non where ever called just Challenge Cup. These links include reliable sources these for challenge cup mostly include stat sites<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh   Wanderer  18:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That link shows it has never once in its whole history been known as the Challenge Cup. It proves the point it cant be the common name.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW please do not swear at the edits that I make. Sport and politics (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion with Adults so we can use words like that. Its not a personal attack directed at you. You should try having discussions with Malleus if you think the F word used in the statement for Fucks sake isn't allowed. Not directed at you it is clearly used to show frustration particularly frustration caused by someone who cannot provide evidence. Like other editors have.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW you are now being intentionally disruptive this discussion is no place for a sensible discussion the discussion below is for a sensible discussion and not for disruptive comments and continual deletion of other users contributions as for the deletion of your contributions it was purely accidental and they were re-added in full. What you are now doing is intentional deletion of another users contributions. Sport and politics (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW please do not swear at the edits that I make. Sport and politics (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I re added them not you. It wasn't unintentional you used the undo button clearly shown in edit history. Your attacks are disruptive, your adding section headings duplicating text already there is disruptive. Your non providing of evidence when i have is disruptive. Basicly your only edits have been disruptive for the last 24 hours. Your a new editor who clearly has come on to wiki only to do one thing, that is pushing pov. Im not new edit many articles and am not essentialy a single purpose account which you are only editing to remove links to the Ramsdens Cup, you accused me without retraction of working for them i could say are you working for one of the previous sponsors because al your edits have been to remove it. I haven't because i know you very likely aren't just an editor pushing a single purpose, possibly edited wiki before.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW you are now becoming increasingly disruptive here there must be a way of stopping this high level of disruptive editing and swearing at edits other users have made. Once again please stop deliberately deleting contributions i make that you dislike. Sport and politics (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to say I'm disruptive because i use the big bad F word. Then try reporting the statement For fucks sake which isn't addressed at anyone and is a sign of frustration, you will find actually when you do however words like that are not considered as being uncivil or a personal attack in the context. You are the disruptive one. You ignored me starting a dissuasion, blindly reverted, accused me of stalking when i have all the pages you edit on my watchlist, removed my comments using the undo button accused me of removing yours when i could show it was an edit clash and i replaced immediately unlike you because i re added the. You don't provide evidence so how are you contributing anything here, the answer is by not providing evidence you are being disruptive. <font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW you are claiming the BBC and ESPN are unreliable sources. You are clutching at straws there. You are increasingly showing a high level of disruptive editing and illogical arguments. Sport and politics (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No I'm saying they are both stats sites or fixture lists. The BBC none fixture list, Hamilton Advertiser, the Scotsman, Falkirk Herald, Daily record Provide non stat sites or fixture lists.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh   Wanderer  18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW I think you need to cool down and calm down. Maybe leaving here and coming back when you have cooled off and have decided not to resort to unacceptably foul language. Sport and politics (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Using the F word is not Foul unacceptably foul language. Your accusations are without apology so if i use the F word in the content of For F sake it is not Unacceptable on wiki. I suggest you go and do some hard time maybe a year on wiki learn about use of unacceptable foul language, making attacks or not retracting accusations against me that are totally unfounded.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I will not have someone continually swear at me and be highly disruptive by deleting edits made on a continuous basis. You are an incredibly unsavoury character and your use of language is unacceptable. Sport and politics (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not have someone making accusations that they cannot back up nor apologise for or even retract. I am not using foul language and have certainly not sworn at you, the context of that statement you are continually making me repeat shows i never swore at you in any way. And by calling me an unsavoury character you are showing you have not learnt that you cannot make accusations against someone without evidence. Or not provide a single bit of evidence to prove your point whereas i have continually shown you evidence.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of a users contributions and swearing In my opinion that constitutes someone being an unsavoury character. Please stop using unsavoury language and go calm down and realise you are all alone in pushing your illogical point of view. Sport and politics (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your the one who deleted my detailed comments they only revert i did was your attempt to have three discussions saying the same opening statement on the same page. Have you actually lived a life and no anything about swear words or even context. If you want unsavoury characters go hang somewhere else. My view is backed up by sources how many time you haven't produced one shred of evidence instead you have made repeated extremely bad faith claims that you cannot back up.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your use of unsavoury language is unacceptable and resorting to it shows just how in-civil you really are and they you are trying to bully me in to going away. Please refrain from acting in such a manner.
 * it is not savoury or unacceptable in the context. Drop the stick because your accusations are wholly unfounded at every turn, I Don't stalk you, i don't work for the Ramsdens Cup or ever have, i have not sworn at you directly, You continue to fail to provide one shred of evidence you your claims against me or managed to provide evidence against the common name. Not only that how can Challenge cup be common when the cup has never actually been called that, its always had a sponsor.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Competiton names (3)
This is a discussion on generating a policy on the use of sponsored names in football competitions. Should this be the sponsored name or un-sponsored name. This would apply to ALL articles including individual players and individual season articles, and individual season articles for individual clubs. Sport and politics (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A General policy is not required because as everyone who is a member of this project knows sponsor name should only be used if they are they only name it is ever known as or it can be proven that the sponsored name is the WP:Commonname. In the case shown above reliable sources show that the common name is the sponsored name, mostly because the Competion has actually never been legally and formally known at the Challenge Cup, it has always had a sponsored name.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I favour "Challenge Cup" over "Ramsdens Cup". Whilst the present common name may be Ramsdens it may not continue to be called that and hasn't always been in the past. The competition will always be, one way or another, the Challenge Cup. I think the argument with the season article and the common name at the time may be confusing for people with no knowledge of the common name who are flicking through a club's seasons articles and see that one year they competed in the ALBA Cup then the next the Ramsdens Cup, possibly presuming they are different competitions.  Cal Umbra (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cal you need to provide sources or you are as bad as Sport and politics who has not provided one reliable source to back up his claim. You aren't like him i know that so please do. AS Kappa showed above the cup has actually never been known as the Challenge Cup it has always had a sponsor. Stats sites or fixture lists refer to it as that but the majority of independent reliable sources do not.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also we wikilink so any reader can easily see a link to the main competition page that clearly shows the name of the competition.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have put it better my self. The current common name is just an opinion being dressed up as fact and the use of different name will confuse the uninitiated. Sport and politics (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact you cant because you don't know how to show anyone evidence its been demonstrated that it has never used only the name Challenge Cup. Also remember the context a season article only refers to the one season, so only uses the name that season, we aren't talking the main article.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"the context a season article only refers to the one season" is the most illogical statement so far. The season article are not exclusive from each other they will flow from one to the next so consistency from one to another is essential or users will get confused seeing the same competition with different names and believing it to be a wholly different competition. I also fail to fathom out a point which makes sense after that there appears to be a claim it has to be demonstrated that for the name to be constant it must have been permanently un-sponsored which is just rubbish.Sport and politics (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This debate is rather messy and hard to follow, but I think it's fairly clear that the articles need to be titled "Scottish Challenge Cup" rather than any sponsored name. As for the strange claims the non-sponsored name is never used, clearly no-one told Soccerway or the BBC. Number   5  7  19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Number 57 what is Soccerway its a stat site, what is the bbc link its you guessed it fixtures, above you will see sources i provided both google searches and Other bbc stories that refer to it as the Ramsdens Cup and never mention Challenge Cup. Its also been shown by Koppa probably unintentionally that it has never ever been called solely the Challenge Cup.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also remember we are taking about individual season articles, and only events that happened within it. If sources reliably show it was called that during that season that is what that season article should say it is. Stats do not count as proving anything about common name. Number 57 how can Challenge Cup be considered a common name when as pointed out it has never been solely called that in the entire history of the competition as shown above.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's simply not true. See here ("The Bairns become the first club to win the Challenge Cup for a fourth time"), here ("Falkirk have won the Challenge Cup four clubs below the Scottish Premier League on three occasions"). I'm sure it's fairly easy to find further examples, but I hope that's enough for you. Number   5  7  19:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope not enough because i have provided plenty of other sources. How do you account for the fact that according to links already provided at no point has it ever solely been called the Challenge Cup. It is therefore impossible to state a case that that is the common name. Season articles should show what reliable sources call it during that season. A season article should cover what happens during that season not give an over view of the cups history as long as we wikilink then there is no problem.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

EW are you dismissing the BC as a reliable source? Sport and politics (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No I've provided you links to show you, the Scotsman, The BBC in actual articles, The Herald, Daily record and other independent news organisations call it the Ramsdens Cup. Challenge cup cannot be a common name because it has never been only known as that as Kappa pretty clearly showed.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Scottish Football League official website refers to it as the Challenge Cup when announcing its new sponsors as Ramsdens here. I can accept that many might refer to the competition as the Ramsdens Cup because I do myself but in my head it is still the Challenge Cup which just happens to be sponsored by Ramsdens.  Cal Umbra (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Independent or reliable it isn't. How can you say Challenge Cup is a common or legal name when it has been proven that it has never solely been called that.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SFL, Ayr Advertiser, another ref to Ramsdens in Scotsman, Sun, Daily Record , SKy Plus all the sources above.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These were the ones above, Hamilton Advertiser, the Scotsman, Falkirk Herald, Daily record .<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I am being ignorant but I imagine the organisation that runs the competition is a reliable source on the naming of the competition. Also I am not saying Challenge Cup is a legal name, it is a contraction of "The Scottish Football League Challenge Cup".  Cal Umbra (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not an independent source, i have also shown another SFL source thats does not cite that. It was only ever named the The Scottish Football League Challenge Cup for one season that was long after its first name the B&Q Centenary Cup. If we are going by that standard then it is should be called the B&Q Centenary Cup, but that would be wholly stupid. We should use what the majority of independent and reliable sources say it is in that season. Were not debating that the main page should be changed just that if multiple independent and reliable sources can prove that during that season and to be honest ever its common name was not the Challenge Cup then we need to go with that. There is a big difference between a pure sponsor name such as the William Hill Scottish Cup which is a pure sponsor name because the common name is the Scottish Cup and a cup that from day one wasn't called the Challenge Cup. You cant say that that is the common name legal name or even the precidented name. Season articles by definition are a document of events in that season. Not a definition of the history of a cup, we wikilink so people can find that out if they wish not only is that not confusing but providing a service.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The sheer fact this is under dispute undermines that it has one common name. This mean the sponsors name is not a common name above other names such as the SFA un-sponsored name for the competition.Sport and politics (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't hold wait, The names of the cup has never solely been called the Challenge Cup therefore it cannot be describer as either a common name nor is it the first and only name it is known by. If you want to go with the first name it was legally known as then it was the B&Q Centenury Cup. Season articles should show what reliable sourced say it was that season. No one is trying to change the name of the main cup page. But it can be clearly demonstrated that during season 2011-12 and 2012-13 reliable sources show Ramsdens, that is all that is needed to prove that reliable sources for that season use the common name Ramsdens Cup. For instance St. James Park it is now called the Sports direct arena but reliable sources and people still use St. James Park.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears obvious that there are several common names that apply to these same things. Since an article on Wikipedia can only have one true title, I suggest that you choose the title that has endured the longest and is also commonly used. This will prevent moves/renames down the road. As far as the other common names, these can easily be provided for via redirects. Is this reasonable and clear? -- Avanu (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that it has never had one name. It was never been called the Challenge Cup from day one its had challenge added to a few sponsor names over the years but mostly it hasn't. The first name was the B&Q centenary cup for instance. There already redirects provided from Ramsdens cup and others. Nobody is proposing a name change as that would be impossible. What is the issue is that there is no reason that it multiple reliable sources show that during season 2011-12 the common name was Ramsdens Cup that we should not use that for that season wikilinking it to the main article or as a redirect. A season article by definition is detailing events in that season, it is not detailing the history of the cup. A season article should use redirects or wikilinking to allow users to easily access that.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really considering EW is the only user claiming the un-sponsored name should not be used. If we do not change the names away from the chaning and confusing sponsored name it will confuse the uninitiated unfamiliar user. Wikipedia must be accessible to all and not just hose in the know the sponsored name is just for those in the know, the un-sponsored name is for all.Sport and politics (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So are you guys saying the name of this competition changes every year or something else? -- Avanu (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a sponsored name and an un-sponsored name. The un-sponsored name does not change the sponsored changes every few years. Sport and politics (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Every couple of years. Its never been called the Challenge Cup at any point on its own so its not actually an unsponsered name.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In your few days here you clearly haven't realised that Wikipedia uses Redirects and Wikiling in thousands of articles. That isn't confusing at all, we provide the links so that they can see but we don't pander. Your saying I'm wanting to use a sponsor name I've made it very clear and documented that the Challenge Cup has never been the common name at any point and more to the point its never been solely called that. Also you say I'm the only one but you don't provide any evidence to prove your opinion and that all it is, because i provide evidence. You also don't seem to have any notion of what a season article actually is.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets make it clear a season article is by pure definition a document of events in that season. That is what we are debating its use on. Its not indicating any events out with it. If a common name can be proved by using reliable sources, which it can. Then we should use that and provide either a redirect or a wikilink to show the history.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The line on walling off season articles is nonsense they flow into one and other are not detached from each other. Sport and politics (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The title says it is about that season the article is about that season. That is what we have to make accurate for that season. Wiki uses redirects and wikilinks where appropriate to show other info is available. That happens in all articles we are not confusing or lying to editors we do that if we don't show them the name that is clearly common for that season by the sources. It is the wikilink or redirect that shows an editor that it was known differently for other seasons. Challenge Cup isn't a unsponsered name because it was never called that on its on, since day one its had a sponsor the only year it did use challenge was the year it couldn't find a sponsor that where Challenge is from. Its first name was B&Q Cup challenge came way latter so cannot be shown as the unsponsered name not the common name overall or by season.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The name has changed according to sponsorship. With no sponsorship the cup has been referred to as "The Scottish Football League Challenge Cup" or for short, "Scottish Challenge Cup" or "Challenge Cup". The issue is that on articles about a football club's season e.g. 2010–11, it is being referred to as a sponsored name, then the next season it has a new name along with a new sponsor. It isn't consistent and confusing for people with no knowledge of the competition's sponsorship changes.  Cal Umbra (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is wiklinking or redirecting confusing to an editor. A season article is not about the history of the cup. Also the cup has never in its history just used Challenge Cup. The cup only used The Scottish Football League Challenge Cup for one season and that was years after the cup was actually created. That is clearly not an unsponsered name its a hangover from the one season it did just like Alba for instance. Common sense would dictate that if a season is about what happened in that year and reliable independent sources which no one gets says it was that season then we clearly should use it. Cal you have never had an issue before in the years you have seen them edited, also you know that wiki uses redirects and wikilinks all over wiki to show that there is content of the history that is not needed in that context available somewhere else. People who read wiki are already well aware of that. Avanu already suggested probably before he realised the context that redirects could be used. There is no difference when talking solely in the context of season articles.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edinburgh, In 2007–08 the competition had no sponsor and was referred to as the "Challenge Cup" by the BBC here. Also when the company MG ALBA announced they would continue to sponsor the comp. in 2010 they said "...it is to continue its sponsorship of the Scottish Football League Challenge Cup" here. I'll be perfectly honest, I've never had a problem before because I have never been willing to change the sheer number of articles that would need to be changed but now someone is willing to. I'm also only sharing my opinion on the matter in order to reach a consensus, otherwise this will all just be a pointless discussion with no conclusion.  Cal Umbra (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * yes it was seventeen seasons after it was created as the B&Q Centenary Cup and for one season only. Nobody is suggesting a name change to the article because that is impossible. What is being suggested is common sense, backed up by policy per WP:Commonname, You know that we should use independent reliable sources showing what a name is. You know that a season article is about that season and that redirects and wikilinks are used all over wiki. If it was never called Challenge Cup at the start its difficult to argue that that was an unsponsered name.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you guys looked at the Wikipedia Manual of Style for guidance on this? They usually have debated all this stuff before. It sounds like all of you have good points and are going to have to reach an agreement or compromise at some point. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There actually isn't one on season articles. I was going to create one last year for input but never got around to it. The solution is clearly what we used all along. Use redirects and wikilinks to show other history is available. As the Challenge Cup has never solely been known as that or can it be used as a wholly unsponsered name. The only thing we can do to be relevant to a season article is use the name independent reliable not stats cites show it is used during that one season using redirects or wikilinks as i Believe Avanu you may have thought a good idea before. There isn't a unsponsored name commonly used so it doesn't go against using unsponsored names nor can Challenge cup be solely shown to be common name when it was only that for one season long after the comp began.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No that's what's under dispute and is your solution and you are the only one pushing it. Sport and politics (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mate eithier cite sources like i have showing both common name status and that it was never called the Challenge Cup alone, i saw you deleting your comment about there was a unsponsered name by the way after i proved there had never been. Avanu did suggest redirects above it is also common practive around the whole of wikipedia. Do you wish to challenge its use on all pages.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not your "mate" and i am not a "boy" so stop referring to me in that derogatory "chummy" manner. Your solution is pushed only by you others have provided sources you have dismissed as unreliable, including the BBC and ESPN. you are also in a minority of one with your solution every other user is saying use the un-sponsored name but you. There needs to be consistency the use of over=linking in these articles is horrible and the use of a sponsors name is confusing stop pushing your unsustainable position supported only by you. Stop disrupting Wikipedia and stop rubbishing long standing Reliable sources such as the SFA the BBC and ESPN. you are out on your own limb and its time you abandoned it. Sport and politics (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This debate is fucking hilarious. A strong contender for WP:LAME, IMO. – PeeJay 20:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh its is but don't use the f word he's sensitive to that. Ive had this discussion in three places for over 24 hours. He won't provide sources just says I'm wrong. Its a season article and if there never was a pure unsponsered name and i can source to prove that and prove a common name over years what do i do.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not a useful contribution to the discussion, please either contribute to the discussion or leave your personal comment on the discussion to yourself. Sport and politics (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"::You created your account on the 8th and started this all on the 13th in that time you are bound to have seen wikilinks and or redirects used in all articles. What is clear was you never read any of the policy links given to you and decided to make unfounded accusation at every turn against me. I have demonstrated very clearly that Challenge Cup cannot be seen as a common name or is it an unsponsered name due to it not being used since day one. You need to provide evidence to the contrary to my evidence. The only solution unless you can prove that my evidence is wrong is to use standard practice redirects and wikilink. Reliable sources are needed for every articles and that defines the content of the article. If someone can provide reliable sources to prove that it was not known as that at all or during the context the article is about they should use that name and provide a wikilink or redirect for the user to see the bigger history. If you can provide sources then maybe there is a discussion but i provide them and you say I'm biased and thats my opinion but never counter the sources with independent reliable cites. Number 57 should there is a hangover of challenge but i provided more sources to show that its wider known name. Kappa should that by name it was never called the Challenge Cup always had a sponsored name from day one. What more do you want everyone to provide. A season article is about that season whether you like it or not.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the names from the main article:
 * B&Q Centenary Cup (1990–91), sponsored by B&Q
 * B&Q Cup (1991–95), sponsored by B&Q
 * The Scottish Football League Challenge Cup (1995–98), no sponsor
 * No competition due to lack of sponsorship (1998–99)
 * Bell's Challenge Cup (1999–2002), sponsored by Bell's whisky
 * Bell's Cup (2002–06), sponsored by Bell's whisky
 * The Scottish Football League Challenge Cup (2006–08), no sponsor
 * ALBA Challenge Cup (2008–11), sponsored by MG Alba
 * Ramsdens Cup (2011 –), sponsored by Ramsdens

Please note the two periods where the competition had no sponsored name. Sport and politics (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And your point is. This was already linked to above. And that demonstrates that from beginning it was not the Challenge Cup. This is getting ridiculous no one wants the article name changed and wiki links are standard and the sources are there. Unless you can show with sources a common name or why season articles that use relabel sources should not do so then I have up repeat pJ statement this is Fucking lame. <font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think the competition should be consistently referred to throughout the encyclopaedia by its unsponsored name. Oh, and you should both be ashamed of yourselves. – PeeJay 21:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what PeeJay said - on both counts. GiantSnowman 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So what the fuck do you suggest because clearly above The Scottish Challenge Cup is not the unsponsored name. And neither of you bother do mention the fact the had made false accusations against me never once retracted or has never provided one bloody source in the last 24 hours over 3 make that 4 locations.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, remain calm. Secondly, please provide diffs of him making false accusations - It's a case of TL;DR for most of the (three!) threads open on this page, and the one at the Scotish taskforce, plus your talk pages no doubt. Thirdly, you keep on citing COMMONNAME - well the COMMONNAME is Scottish Challenge Cup, as that's where the article is located. GiantSnowman 21:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The main strand of EWs argument has been its always had a sponsored name and never been called by its un-sponsored name, the table destroys that assertion requiring the use of the sponsored name when it hasn't always had a sponsored name. Using the sponsored name under the dressed up opinion as fact is out of the question as your central argument is ridiculous now its proved that the claim that its always been sponsored is a myth. The table proves the need for the use of the un-sponsored as using the ever changing sponsors names over multiple different season articles and calling the same competition one thing in 1990 another thing in 1995 another thing in 2000 and other thing in 2006 is confusing and a farce. Sport and politics (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your the only thing that is a farce at no point tonight have provided any reliable sources. It does not destroy it all, it clearly shows that it was not known as the Challenge cup from the beginning, it shows you the name at the beginning, the word challenge wasn't in it, the only time it did was when the had to have another name because you guessed it they couldn't find a sponsor. Where is the common name or your reliable sources and by the way let me educate you no wiki isn't one.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh  Wanderer  21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the biggest lamest discussion ever because you wont provide sources you just go on and on and on and on and on and on. This isn't going anywhere unless you actually provide sources and choose to discuss. You attack me, you won't provide sources, you are a glowing example of single purpose account. You have a view that policies such as WP:Commonname is wrong. Were now had three disussions a round of you reverting at will and we are 24 hours later. What do you want a full week of this. Because until you actually prove with sources that a the Challenge Cup is the common name and show that with evidence that despite it being called the B&Q Centenary Cup at the very beginning it was the challenge cup.  If somebody was wanting to change the name of the main article they would provide sources like i have to prove a policy. You haven't done anything.<font color="Maroon">Edinburgh   Wanderer  21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what the competition was called at the very beginning; what matters is what its name was when without a sponsor, which is clear to see. And you might want to read Article 1 of the Scottish Football League Challenge Cup Competition Rules. – PeeJay 21:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The COMMONNAME is Scottish Challenge Cup, as that's where the article is located; we also have long-standing consensus (echoed here by multiple editors) that we do not use sponsored names. Both of you need to stop arguing here, there & everywere and stop edit warring at once - it's becoming disruptive and annoying and I'd be more than happy to block one or both of you if it continues. GiantSnowman 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No i can prove that is not the common name you have not in any way proven that is not. My account is closed and that is the way it will remain. I will edit as an ip and as I've said I will challenge this all the way. Your consensus isn't written as policy and if it was then it can be shown from naming discussions that it was always when common name cannot be shown and i can show that. Ive already told you to block me.2.121.30.172 (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the post two above yours pretty categorically ends this discussion. Just leave this now, you're wrong, accept it. Big  Dom  21:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Competiton names (4)
Has anyone actually read the Article titles that you keep linking to? First, 'Commonname' is not a rule. Or rather, it's a deliberately ambiguous rule: "The most common name for a subject...is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural...Editors should also ask the questions outlined above." So the common name should generally be used but not if it falls foul of the five criteria for naming a page: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. These are the five bases on which we need to judge a name.

So, two things. First, we often used sponsored names. Texaco Cup, Emirates Stadium anyone? These sponsored names all satisfy the five naming criteria over any other option. Second, we often use names which aren't the 'common' ones. Perhaps Association football is the most pertinent here?

Ok, now can we move on from this false debate and consider the two names under the actual categories we should be judging them on? Pretty Green (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Texaco Cup was the only name - it later became the Anglo-Scottish Cup - which doesn't apply to the Scottish Challenge Cup which has had multiple sponsor names over the years; the Emirates is there purely because that was the name it began life with. When a new sponsor turns up, I'm sure we'll move it to Ashburton Grove. GiantSnowman 08:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree that they're different cases. I'm just pointing out that the claim 'we never use sponsored names' is disingenuous. FWIW, I think it should be Scottish Challenge Cup because it's more recognizable (I'd never heard of the Ramsdens Cup till today), consistent (over time) and precise. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not consistent over time its first name was B&Q Centenary Cup. Not the Challenge Cup it was only later on its history that it became that. You make the point snowy that the emirates cup was the name it started with by that line of argument then it should be the B&Q Cup or without sponsor the Centenary Cup. Green had you heard of the Scottish Challenge Cup or more likely the Challenge Cup, there are many other challenge Cups. Not hearing about something isn't a valid reason to say that its not known as. Remember I'm talking about use in club season articles not the history of the cup itself. By using the name of the cup as it was known that year using reliable independent sources to show common name and for that matter Recognizability. This is done to be accurate in the context of that season, we use wikilinks throughout that allow users to see the actually history of the cup if they wish. In the main pages we use Challenge Cup known as Ramsdens Cup. Snowy had suggested we do that on the club season pages but i don't see how that is relevant to the club season, however if we have to then thats a better option that not using but i cannot see in any way when volume of reliable not stat or fixture sources show Ramsdens and not the main name that wiki should not. I provide sources and have found large volumes of others and can keep, probably enough to try a rename of the page, but that pointless when common sense would show no problem using that name in season articles. I am not proposing using The William Hill Scottish Cup as that was originally just Scottish Cup, and the common name is Scottish Cup. The Ramsdens Cup is unique in that it never began life as that or is it commonly refereed to as such.  2.121.30.172 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As this is just becoming disruptive, I've blocked the IP (which I assume is . Number   5  7  20:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are far too WP:INVOLVED to make that decision. Leaky  Caldron  20:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Someone needed to stop this nonsense, and sadly it's quite clear that Edinburgh Wanderer cannot accept consensus. Number   5  7  20:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Whatever" does not excuse WP:ADMINABUSE. Will you unblock the IP and ask an uninvolved Admin to look at whether a block is justified? Leaky  Caldron  20:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's welcome to appeal his block (even though he requested one). You're also welcome to report me to ANI if you so feel. Number   5  7  20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about him, it's about your inappropriate Admin action in a dispute in which you are primarily involved. I ask you again to reconsider your Admin action. Leaky  Caldron  20:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I feel it was appropriate to block the IP, hence the reason I did it - if it hadn't been me, then it would have been another admin doing it - I just didn't see the point in wasting time in requesting someone else to do it. Number   5  7  21:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. You are clearly WP:INVOLVED and should not be blocking any user with whom you are in dispute. Wasting another Admin's time isn't a relevant concern for you. Will you unblock the IP please? Leaky  Caldron  21:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Number   5  7  21:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't been involved in this discussion at all. But Number 57 it's quite clear you are too WP:INVOLVED to be blocking EW or his IP. I'm not entirely sure how you think your rationale is acceptable, but it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. Considering it wasn't blatant vandalism and you are clearly involved, I don't see why you think you are exempt. Adam4267 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahhaa, this debate is really funny. 124.207.53.130 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain Olympic football team
The Great Britain Olympic football team played a training match against Mexico in Marbella on 15 July. (see this report) Does this count as an "appearance" for infobox purposes? (IMHO the answer is No in view of its status as a "training match").

I also see that the goal scored in this match by Marco Fabián has been added into his international goal tally on his article. Should that be reverted? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an official match, so shouldn't be included in official statistics. GiantSnowman 12:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should it be in the team's fixture list at all? I've removed it from the list and placed it in prose description in the 'pre-tournament preparations' section. IMO it's no different from any training match and so shouldn't be mentioned - but I'm willing to hear otherwise if people have done different things before? Pretty Green (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the match from the Mexico national under-23 football team and Marco Fabián articles - again I await a trans-Atlantic flaming. --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this the same fixture Marvin Sordell has one app in his infobox for? --Jimbo[online] 20:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Les Davies
I understand that he was nominated for UEFA Player of the Year but does he really pass WP:GNG. He 100% does not pass WP:NFOOTY but does GNG save him. I rather not mistakenly nominate for deletion. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, not notable - a case of WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E. GiantSnowman 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEEVENT possibly as well. Adam4267 (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. The only time I would relax the rule, personally, was if he actually won the award. Of course that wont happen. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the AfD. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jay-Z plays for Glenavon F.C.
An IP vandalised the Glenavon F.C. page a couple of weeks ago, adding two apparently fake entries in the team listing (I found out via the WSC Facebook page). Would someone be able to check that they were the only incorrect additions? Hack (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Existing and proposed Korean club deletions
I have been doing a little interesting research today on South Korean (and one North Korean) clubs with reference to AfD of Chohung Bank FC and have reached the conclusion that we reached unsound conclusions for AfD of Korea First Bank FC and AfD of ROK Air Force FC. I blame myself for lack of research in these two last named cases. Is there an easy way that AfD decisions can be reversed? League Octopus (League Octopus 10:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC))
 * Take it to Deletion Review if you think that criterion 3 applies ("Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.") otherwise create the articles from scratch with sources you've found. Big  Dom  11:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OAre we sure that the Korea Semi-Professional Football League was the top division at that time? RSSSF has another league at that time Amateur Adult Football Conference. -Koppapa (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the sources are enough to show that the club(s) meet the WP:GNG it doesn't matter one jot whether that was the top division. If those sources aren't enough then the article shouldn't exist, easy as that. Big  Dom  13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Amateur Adult Football Conference was the Korean National Football Championship which appears to be a championship tournament linked to the Korean FA Cup which began in 1996. The two competitions over-lapped for 4 years from 1996 to 2000.

The Korea Semi-Professional Football League from 1964 until 1982 was the First Tier league in the South Korean football league system.

It is clear in my mind that we have done South Korean football and the clubs that competed in the Korea Semi-Professional Football League and Korean National Football Championship an injustice with our 10 deletions to date:


 * Korea First Bank FC
 * ROK Air Force FC
 * ROK Army FC
 * ROK Navy FC
 * ROK Marine Corps FC
 * Keumseong Textile Company FC
 * Korea Coal Corporation FC
 * Korea Automobile Insurance Company FC
 * Korea Exchange Bank FC
 * Seoul Trust Bank FC / Korean Trust Bank FC
 * Commercial Bank of Korea FC

I make the case that we should now acknowledge our mistake and restore the deleted clubs. I am willing to improve them but I think it is unfair to expect me to start the articles afresh. League Octopus (League Octopus 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for bringing this up. I was wondering why were deleting these articles. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With reference to Template:Korean FA Cup seasons and List of Korean FA Cup winners, are the All Korea Football Tournament and Korean National Football Championship national cup competitions that we recognise as predecessors to the current Korean FA Cup? League Octopus (League Octopus 21:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC))


 * I have now revamped the Chohung Bank FC and Cheil Industries FC articles which are subject to the current AfD. League Octopus (League Octopus 09:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC))

List of European football clubs that have never been relegated
Aside from the fact its completely unsourced, should it be AfD'd. Adam4267 (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most definitely - WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT spring to mind. GiantSnowman 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's factually inaccurate; Fulham have been relegated from the top flight and are included. Poorly put together WP:OR that doesn't look notable anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought all football began in 1992? At least that's what Sky told me. I've prodded it. Number   5  7  18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am just wondering what the author was doing when including Fulham. In the history section it clearly says in one title "1949–1969: First Division Cottagers" and then the very next section says "1970–1994: Mixed fortunes outside the top flight". I mean how do you not get that Fulham were relegated, did he read the history of Fulham... did he even read the history of other clubs, who knows, there may be even more he got wrong or wrongly excluded. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wigan Athletic should be on that list, they haven't been relegated from the top flight. If this was based since Sky invented football, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Villa and Everton could have a shout. Fulham were in the Third Division a decade or so ago – just ask Steve Finnan, so the table is already put into disrepute. Should be deleted. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a matter of interest could any English clubs actually be on that list. Adam4267 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AFC Wimbledon? --Jameboy (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As it talks about top flight i guess only Wigan Athletic F.C.. It's too random criteria "at least 10 years in top league" -Koppapa (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we were talking about top-flight than we could count AFC Wimbledon as being a club never to be relegated from the top-flight of Non-League football. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wigan shouldn't be on the list, because of the fairly random/arbitrary requirement that a club has to have spent 10 seasons in the top flight. Wigan have only been in the Premier League for 7 years.  Regardless, it's a terrible idea for an article and should be deleted.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets just thank everyone that this list does not include the world. Imagine all 19 Major League Soccer teams on this list, never to be removed. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:YEAR
Having edited Bradley Gray's article myself and Bretonbanquet have been discussing the WP:YEAR policy in footballers infoboxes. It's common place in footballer's articles to use full years, however, WP:YEAR states that the closing year should be two digits. Is there a WP:FOOTY consensus or MOS on this? Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 21:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would use WP:CONSISTENCY on this one. The consistant one is, for example, 2011–2012 or 2003–2012 or 2003–present. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSISTENCY applies to different varieties of written English, not deciding whether or not to go against a MOS guideline. I just wondered what the rationale is for ignoring the MOS here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, full dates are used when crossing a century boundary (e.g. 1999–2000 - see The Football League seasons). If only these years were formatted as such in infoboxes, whilst other date ranges were shortened, it would make that column look a little odd. Number   5  7  21:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, when crossing a century the full year is always used. That doesn't apply to most players though - seems odd to break the MOS across the whole range of articles just to make a minority conform to a certain aesthetic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I'm reading at WP:YEAR, it also seems to imply that we should actually be using slashes for seasons instead of endashes, i.e. 2012/13, not 2012–13, as 2012–13 implies a two-year range, while 2012/13 indicates a period of 12 months or fewer. – PeeJay 21:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... looks like UEFA and the Football League use the slash . The Premier League seem to use different methods at different times, . I'm not sure many sports on Wikipedia use the slash for seasons. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters whether UEFA, the Football League or the Premier League use slashes or dashes, but according to WP:YEAR, we should be using the slash. – PeeJay 22:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's always good to follow what our reliable sources do, if there's any doubt. That said, using the slash for seasons would mean moving a huge number of articles as well as changing formats within article bodies. If people want to do that, fair enough. Changing the method of listing years in infoboxes wouldn't be as huge an issue, as (if it were desirable) it would be a more straightforward prospect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I get your point about following reliable sources, but this is a style issue rather than a content issue, whereby we should really be following Wikipedia's MOS (which includes WP:YEAR). Obviously I understand it would be a big task, but we could always get a bot to do it by asking nicely at WP:BOTREQ. – PeeJay 22:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fair enough. I didn't think of a bot, not being very bot-savvy myself - maybe it wouldn't be so hard to do if people were OK with the idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I always thought a slash should be used before I joined wiki. But never really wondered why we used a dash. Adam4267 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure WP:YEAR used to say something different, the current wording must be a recent amendment. – PeeJay 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But a dash, I feel, at least in our football season articles, isn't as ambiguous as a slash. Without wanting to go against style, one could argue that "2012/13 season" could refer to one or two different seasons. "Does that mean 2012 or the 2013 season?" Is that 2011–(20)12 or 2013–(20)14 even? Project members will of course know what is being referred to, but others? Bretonbanquet also states that this format is used in other sports; it isn't just football articles. In fluent text it may even look better. However, before putting in a bot request, this really needs a thorough discussion. I thought about this the last time it came up on this talk page, and back then I was also sure that there is a good reason for using the dash, I just wish I could remember it now! Jared Preston (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against using slashes for seasons since that's what most sources seem to do, but abbreviating the years in the infobox is a fucking terrible idea. Big  Dom  06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Using slashes is equally as fucking terrible. GiantSnowman 08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I personally agree but it is something that's done in many sources. Big  Dom  09:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For seasons, there is a split in sources between 2005/06, 2005-06 and 2005–06, and unless there is a compelling case to do something else I would stick with the current convention because (in my opinion) it looks neater. But I think infobox ranges should stay as they are. 2005/2012, 2005/12 and 2005–12 all look wrong to me. —WFC— 15:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bingo. 2005–2006 it should happily remain. GiantSnowman 15:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you wouldn't use 2005/12, because (as stated before) a slash indicates a year or less, whereas dashes are longer periods of time. --Jimbo[online] 16:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That as well - plus '1925/1926' (to me at least) implies 1925 or 1926, whereas '1925–1926' implies 1925 to 1926. GiantSnowman 16:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's show some common sense people, don't forget that MOS is only a guideline. Although I agree that 2011–12 could mean two years and perhaps 2011/12 would be best, but what if there is a two-year period of a player at a club (for example 2009 to 2011)? Would his infobox write "2009–11 Foo, 2011/12 Bar"? Please. – Kosm  1  fent  17:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dashes for infoboxes, but for two-year (or longer periods), do we used 2009–11 or 2009–2011? Slashes should be kept to a set period of time such as a financial year, academic year or a football season - and kept out of infoboxes. --Jimbo[online] 17:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We should use xxxx–xxxx and not xxxx–xx. GiantSnowman 17:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was after, and what I'm not seeing, is a reason not to follow the MOS. "It's a fucking terrible idea" and "we should use" are a waste of space as arguments. Specifically, I don't see that if someone has used the xxxx–xx format in an infobox, anyone has any grounds to change it. Incidentally, nobody ever suggested using slashes in infoboxes, because the infobox detail does not refer to fixed seasons but calendar years. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The MOS is there to try and make things consistent, but there's no need to blindly follow it like a robot. We consistently use xxxx–xxxx in infoboxes across Wikipedia, not just here at Footy. It doesn't need changing, there would be no benefit to anyone. Big  Dom  18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of reasons above. GiantSnowman 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I never actually advocated changing all the articles. If someone is following the MOS with respect to a style issue, it doesn't matter what other articles use a different method, there are no grounds for trying to impose a format which doesn't follow the MOS, not least per WP:DATERET. And someone might have to elaborate on those "plenty of reasons". Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really can't understand what your point is. The MOS contradicts itself anyway; WP:BORN clearly shows use of unabbreviated year ranges and WP:OTHERDATE says that other date ranges should follow the same patterns as those. And by the way, WP:YEAR clearly says that years are "normally written" with two digits, not "always written" or "must be written". So are we disobeying the MOS? Not as far as I can see. Big  Dom  18:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point above is pretty clear. I can't see where the MOS shows use of unabbreviated year ranges for dates of birth/death, I might be missing that. In any case, no, WP:YEAR doesn't forbid xxxx–xxxx, which is probably why nobody here is really asking to change all the dates across all the articles. But it is pretty clear and says by implication that xxxx–xxxx is 'not normal' - no, it's not a violation, but xxxx–xx is the normal way of doing it, therefore it's shaky ground to change xxxx–xx to xxxx–xxxx in cases where xxxx–xx is what an article has always used. That was the action which prompted this thread. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For more guidelines on articles about people, WP:BORN directs us to Manual of Style/Biographies, where the second example at #Opening paragraph (Petrarch) has unabbreviated year ranges for vital dates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. That does appear to concern only opening paragraphs and birth/death dates, although I'll agree that these two MOS do seem to contradict each other a little. My above point still stands though. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)