Jump to content

Talk:AFC Wimbledon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:A.F.C. Wimbledon)
Former good article nomineeAFC Wimbledon was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 3, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 5, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
June 18, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Good article nomination

[edit]

See Talk:AFC Wimbledon/GA1

League admission

[edit]

As a neutral I'm curious as to why AFC Wimbledon joined the league in the Combined Counties League and not further up or down the football pyramid. Is there a particular reason why that league accepted them and was their any complaint from teams further down the pyramid? yorkshiresky (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the same question has already been asked upthread, however there was no reply to it.yorkshiresky (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the highest league that would allow us to join.Patelaji18 (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested about Bromley and its unsporting behaviour

[edit]

The following paragraph is being added, only to be deleted by Bromley supporters who clearly don't like it.

'Unsporting behaviour' controversy

On 13th April, 2009, Bromley played AFC Wimbledon in a game of huge importance to AFC Wimbledon since they were leading the Conference South by 3 points with only 3 games remaining. Towards the last few seconds of the game, with Wimbledon ahead 2-1, a Wimbledon player put the ball out of play due to an injury to a fellow player. When play resumed, the ball was kicked from the half way line towards the Wimbledon keeper but ended up sailing over the keeper and into the net. Although the referee consulted the Bromley management about allowing Wimbledon to 'walk-in' a goal, the Bromley management refused, resulting in a final score of 2-2. [2]

See the article Bromley FC. 86.157.162.223 (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season summaries

[edit]

I feel that a summary of where Wimbledon progressed in every competition they entered each season is not needed in the History section. This should just be prose, as I've seen in every Featured article for a domestic club side, and doesn't even need sub-headings for every single season. I'd propose one sub-heading for the history of the club's formation and one for their short playing history. The statistics should probably be in a separate article.Dancarney (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the article List of AFC Wimbledon seasons into which I'll be putting the info from these season summaries and then removing from the AFC Wimbledon article. Dancarney (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Kevin Cooper

[edit]

There are two Kevin Coopers. The one born in Derby played for Wimbledon FC in 2001 and has a wikipedia article about him Kevin Cooper (footballer). The other Kevin was born in Isleworth and played for AFC Wimbledon and his profile is on the AFC Wimbledon site http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/players.php?squad=37&Psection_id=3&Psub_section_id=3&player_id=23&position=Forward. This Kevin is younger than the other by 6 days. I went to a match where Kevin of Isleworth was awarded the player of the year award by the other Kevin and the crowd sang "There's only two Kevin Coopers". I've left an empty link for Kevin of Isleworth however I don't know quite what to name it so it is Kevin Cooper (semi-professional footballer) at the moment. PeterGrecian (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honours: As or By?

[edit]

Personally, I'd go for "as"; however, I believe the anon who changed it to "by" is technically correct as far as the club's official status goes… whichever we use, it surely has to be consistent. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 16:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt at clarifying this. "As" definitely isn't right; the two clubs are entirely different entities, "spirit" notwithstanding. Rather than implying anything, we should just link to the other article neutrally, which is what I've tried to do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you've done is the best solution to be quite honest… Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is / Are

[edit]

Considered as a unified entity, a club, it should take the 3rd person singular; as a team, a number of players, 3rd person plural is ok. "AFC Wimbledon ARE a club" sounds odd. Tsinfandel (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are Football clubs moves really "an action unprecedented in English football"??

[edit]

I disagree with this unsubstantiated statement in the opening paragraphs.

The "Arsenal" was a contraction of "Woolwhich Arsenal", who played in Woolwhich between 1891 and 1913 in South London. They then moved to a completely different part of London, and dropped the geographical reference from their name (incidentally, they were are also relegated around this time). That stikes me as a compelling forerunner to the MK Dons move (regardless of how you feel about it), and an outright contradiction of claiming the MK Dons move was "an action unprecedented in English football".

{Incidentally, before you write me off a heretic - I'm a signatory of the petition to remove the Asda Milton KenyesMK Dons stadium from the 2018 World cup bid roster.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.83 (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I am a very vocal opponent of our "friends" in the new "city", I have to say that I agree with you. Perhaps more weight should be put on the distance involved; I have changed the sentence referred to to read "The distance involved in this relocation was unprecedented in English football; by moving in such a way Wimbledon F.C. were cutting all ties with the area of Wimbledon." – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a bit 'I see no ships'. There were at least two such moves to new towns in Scotland (Livi and Clyde), which may have been what influenced the panel. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But both of these moves were in Scotland; what is more, neither of them were over such a great distance. I acknowledge your point that the panel may have been influenced by these moves, but don't see how it is relevant to this sentence. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dons Trust

[edit]

Should be merged here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of the info in that article seems to already be here, so it could probably just be straight redirected. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It doesn't warrant its own article. —Half Price 17:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made page into redirect. We're not gonna get any more discussion. —Half Price 11:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsmeadow

[edit]

The official attendance of the stadium is to rise to 5,194 - and will rise further next season with a new stand in the close season 12/13. This can be confirmed with the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.44.139 (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

League progress chart

[edit]

The league progress chart (File:AFC_Wimbledon.jpg) could do with a scale on the y axis - it's somewhat meaningless without one. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:AFC Wimbledon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 21:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one; I'll put together something substantive tomorrow... Meetthefeebles (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's get started. As always, reviewing using WP:WIAGA. I've looked through the history and there is a previous failed GA nom but it is old and is, with respect, hardly instructive, so doesn't really impact this review. Quickfail issues first:

  • Disambiguation: Using the Dablinks tool, two are showing up (Npower and NPower). These need fixing.
  • Images: The logo is tagged fair use which I think should be fine, the Gray pic is cc-by-att and is fine, the play-off final pic is the same, the football pitch line up image is fine (though the caption needs referencing to a reliable source confirming the line-up, the mascot image is okay (though could and perhaps should be moved to the Commons) and the Kingsmeadow image is good.
  • Dead links; there are a lot highlighted on the dead link tool. See here for a list of them. It would be helpful if new links could be found.
  • Quick Fail issues: There are problems here. There are three citation needed tags scattered through the article and these are consistent with a number of sections which lack inline references (per No.2 of the GA criteria). The citation needed tags are not new; one appears to have been present since 2011 and the others date from 2012. There are very real grounds that this nomination be quickfailed on these grounds. Additionally, I have had a peruse through the article history and there is some evidence of recent edit warring among the nominator and an IP user involving stats for the manager among other things. Again, the article must be stable in order for it to be considered a good article and this is contentious in this case.

In my view this article should be quickfailed for the above reasons. However, in order that the article can be improved, I'll make some comments/suggestions on the first few sections which should hopefully prepare the article for a future nomination:

Lead

  • Consider blue linking Association football
  • "which is the fourth tier of English football"; this is superfluous and can be removed
  • Remove the blue link from the second Kingston upon Thames per WP:Overlink which as a general rule provides that a work should only be bluelinked once.
  • "They play at Kingsmeadow, in Kingston upon Thames, London, a ground which is shared with Kingstonian": this is a fragmented sentence – suggest splitting after 'London' into two sentences starting a second sentence "They share this ground with Kingstonian F.C.." Additionally, what is the capacity of Kingsmeadow?
  • The next paragraph also contains some odd prose and should be reconsidered. Suggest "The club was founded in 2002 after the Football Association ratified the decision to move Wimbledon F.C to Milton Keynes. That club changed it's name to Milton Keynes Dons in 2004. Many fans of the original club were angry at the move and, concerned that the tradition and heritage of the original club were lost, formed a new club, AFC Wimbledon, in protest."
  • The affiliation details given are too much and should be removed per WP:Summary Style.
  • Again, some re-writing using modern, standard English would help the next paragraph. try to keep your prose simple and clean, rather than complex; start with "In it;s first full season after formation, AFC Wimbledon played in the Combined Counties League. This is the ninth tier of the English football league system."
  • Whilst I agree as a fellow football fan that AFC have indeed been "extremely successful" in their short history, we should try to avoid WP:PEACOCK terms and write in accordance with the neutrality policy. Simply writing "AFC were promoted five times in their first nine seasons of operation" (or similar) conveys the success but allows the reader to form their own opinion.
  • "...and going up from the ninth tier (Combined Counties Premier) to the fourth (League Two)": again, this is superfluous and can be removed without adversely affecting the article.
  • The sentence involving Rushden and Diamonds needs a reference to a reliable source.
  • Does the unbeaten record have a better, more up-to-date source. The source provided certainly shows that AFC set a record in 2004 but it doesn't show that the record still stands today (nine years later).
  • There are some things missing from the lead that I would expect to see. The promotions are mentioned but major honours should also be given (winning the conference play-offs at Wembley, for example). I'd expect to see the name of the current manager and perhaps the finishing position for the last league season. Any notable managers should perhaps be included; who is the most successful, for example? A note on club colours might be appropriate also. Is there any local rivalry of note?

History

  • This section is very large indeed; indeed it is far too large and in-depth to satisfy the 'summary style' requirement. I don't think that this level of depth should be wasted; you should seriously consider splitting and creating a new article entitled History of AFC Wimbledon or similar and effectively copy and pasting this section to the new article. There is a lot of precedent for this – look again at the articles I linked to earlier and you will see that MUFC, NUFC and SAFC have all done the same thing. Once you have split, you can then redraft this section as a summary of the history and provide a redirect to the main history article for anyone who wants more depth.

Colours and Crest

  • I'm not sure that the strip image adds much to the article. I would consider removing it or transferring it to a 'history' article as it doesn't really reflect the colours now.
  • The entire first paragraph is unreferenced and needs to be supported with inline citations to reliable sources.
  • "...associated with the rise of the original Wimbledon F.C. to the top of the Football League" Is this sentence strictly necessary? I'd suggest simply stating "associated with Wimbledon F.C.".
  • Almost all of the second paragraph, except the last sentence, needs referencing.
  • I'm fairly sure that 'three-third kits' isn't quite correct. Is it not 'three third-kits'?
  • Again there is an awful lot of detail here and I'm not sure that we need a description of every single kit, home, away and third, that has ever been produced. The summary style applies here; from as much as I can tell the home kit has been consistently yellow with blue detailing which is reversed for the away kit save an early white version. The third kits have been white until 2011 when it changed to maroon but in 2013 this reverted back to predominantly white. Much more detail than this as regard colour is superfluous.
  • It seems that the current third strip was selected after a public vote was tied and the manager picked the winner (see ref.65). This probably is notable and could be included; it is certainly more notable that the precise detail of the sock turnovers from 2006.
  • Football League has been linked several times previously.Per WP:Overlink these should be removed.
  • "To mark their first game in the Football League on 6 August 2011 against Bristol Rovers, the team wore a special one-off white and blue commemorative kit based on that worn by the original Wimbledon F.C. during 1977–78 in order to commemorate their own first season as a member of the Football League, in the old Fourth Division (now League Two)" There are some un-encyclopedic words here ('Special, one-off') and you have 'commemorate' and 'commemorative' in the same sentence. I'd consider a sentence rewrite – perhaps "To mark their first game in the Football League on 6 August 2011 against Bristol Rovers the team wore a commemorative white and blue kit. The colours mirrored those worn by the original Wimbledon F.C. during their first season as a member of the Football League in 1977-78."
  • What in Ref.66 confirms that the commemorative shirt was emblazoned with a modified crest?
  • Everything on the crest is unreferenced and must be supported by inline citations

Sponsorship

  • Link 67 is dead. A replacement would be useful.
  • Again there is too much detail here and some of the material borders on WP:ADVERT even though I'm sure it is not intended to be. Compare what is here with the same section at Manchester United.
  • The first sentence is longer than necessary; suggest splitting in half?
  • Try to avoid the 'SI' abbreviations.
  • "The sponsorship of AFC Wimbledon is not Sports Interactive's first support of lower-league football; they sponsored a "Save York City" charity football tournament in 2001." The prose here could be improved; suggest "AFC Wimbledon are not the first club sponsored financially by Sports Interactive; they sponsored a "Save York City" charity football tournament in 2001."
  • The Paul Strank's section is very close to WP:Advert and should be rewritten and supported by reference to reliable, secondary sources rather than a link to Strank's website. I'm sure a local newspaper will have picked up the renaming and drafting an article or two on it.
  • The last paragraph doesn't make a great deal of sense; is 'The Tempest End' the official name of a stand or a nickname of some sort? Is it still in place now or was it just for the 2005-06 season? You should be explicit here and include a reference to a reliable source.

Supporters

  • Again, there are no references at all in this section
  • As mentioned earlier, npower is a disambiguation link and should be redirected.
  • "ran away with the prize money" is not encyclopedic. Simply "AFC Wimbledown fans generated over 100,000 noise counts which was sufficient to win the prize"
  • For all the above, there is an argument that the entire 'noise prize' thing is WP:TRIVIA. for a club built and owned by supporters this section seems rather flippant. I'd much rather read about seasonal attendance figures, record attendances, numbers taken to Wembley for the play-off final etc. I also seem to remember that the original Wimbledon was noted for some poor attendances; it might be worth seeing how AFC attendances compare?

References

  • Ref. 3 is dead. Can you find a replacement?
  • What makes Ref.66 a reliable source? It looks like a self-published fansite so far as I can tell.

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Lots of repetition and the prose is okay but weak in places.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Mostly okay but some weasel-words and peacock terms
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Several sections completely lack sources. Citation needed tags evidenced prior to the review
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Way too much depth. Suggestions to split and to consider summary style made.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Reasonable but weasel words and one or two sections which are close to WP:ADVERT
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Some recent history of disputes which seem to have settled of late
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Lots of good images provided. Captions are broadly okay
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Closing comments
Unfortunately this article still has some way to go before it meets the criteria and I genuinely do not feel that the recommended week period for improvement will be enough to make the necessary changes, so I am failing the nomination. Once my own suggestions above are considered I strongly recommend that the article is listed for peer review prior to a future nomination to give this the best possible chance of future success. Please do not be discouraged – the obvious passion for the subject from the author(s) is evident here, there has obviously been a lot of effort gone into the work and there are the makings of a 'Good Article'. The first one is usually the hardest (as I found myself at my first GAN).

If you disagree with this review, feel free to ask for a reassessment. If you have any further questions, please feelfree to message me on my talk page and I'll help as best I can. Good luck with improving the article further. Meetthefeebles (talk)

League progress table.

[edit]

I'm trying to figure out who uploaded this, unusually the image is not a link like most wikipedia images, so one can't be taken to the image information. The reason I am trying to find the person who uploaded it is because I am propsing that the table only show 10 years (2002-2012) and a new table be uploaded beneath the existing one for 2012-present. In order to prevent the current image from getting too long. I have created these two images, but don't know whether the image is copyrighted and therefore if I can upload these new images.

Pawac (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made this. It's not an image but a table made with wikicode (this is why it cannot be clicked on like a normal image). It is not copyrighted. It is located at Template:League memberships AFC Wimbledon. Try to edit it and I think you will see it's quite easy to see how it works and can be updated. To split the table up would mean making a new template like this and altering all the parameters accordingly, but the overall format can be kept. I think this a good idea in the long term but for the next few years we can carry on using this one until it gets too wide. Probably another two or three seasons and we should think about doing this, in my opinion, as it seems a whole second table just for a single season would not be the best solution for the moment. Hope all this helps, keep well —Cliftonian (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information, that's great. You make very good points and I agree that the table is fine for another two or three seasons.
Thanks again Pawac (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem —Cliftonian (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox kits for current season.

[edit]

Does anybody with experience doing the kits for the infobox have time to update this seasons kit? I have a look at the templates and pages related to it, but it is all very confusing for somebody who has never seen it before, so would take me forever to figure out how to update the kits, especially with one of the current kits being a Wimbledon specific kit, what with the badge on one side of the shirt.

Thanks to anybody who can do this. Pawac (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in AFC Wimbledon

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of AFC Wimbledon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "fchd":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AFC Wimbledon. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on AFC Wimbledon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in AFC Wimbledon

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of AFC Wimbledon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "HFK":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on AFC Wimbledon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AFC Wimbledon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hank and John

[edit]

I'm sure this has been hashed out at length, but does this article really not merit a mention of Dear Hank and John and its weekly coverage of the club? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The club has since been promoted six times in 13 seasons"

[edit]

Hello,

"The club has since been promoted six times in 13 seasons, going from the ninth tier (Combined Counties Premier) to the third (League One)."

Should this be updated to reflect the fact the club are currently in League Two?

Suggesting the following: "The club has since been promoted six times in 13 seasons, going from the ninth tier (Combined Counties Premier) and peaking in the third (League One)." SRCollier (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

[edit]

Removing the line: Wimbledon F.C. moved in 2003 and formally changed the name of the club to Milton Keynes Dons in 2004.[3][5] Ryanmcginty (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Britmax (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ananth S.Nathan - The International President of AFC Wimbledon

[edit]

Hello, we're Ananth S.Nathan Marketing and PR team. He was announced as the International President of AFC Wimbledon in 2022.


Ananth has kindly requested to add a short sentence about him under the Ownership and Legal Status section:


"Ananth S. Nathan is a Malaysian businessman who became the International President of AFC Wimbledon after undertaking a leading investment in the club, making him the second largest share-holder."


We would like to cite the sentence above with three reliable online news articles that can be placed under the reference section:


New Straits Time: https://www.nst.com.my/business/2022/11/849166/esports-pioneer-ananth-s-nathans-bold-investment-afc-wimbledon

Yahoo! Finance: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/malaysian-businessman-esports-pioneer-ananth-071700118.html

Stadium Astro: https://english.stadiumastro.com/football/malaysian-businessman-becomes-secondlargest-individual-shareholder-afc-wimbledon-223929


It'd be great if anyone can take a moment to review our request. Much appreciated and thank you. Afcwasia (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we're the Ananth S.Nathan Marketing and PR team. Ananth, the International President of AFC Wimbledon as of 2022, has requested to add in a short sentence about him under the Onwership and Legal Status section:
"Ananth S. Nathan is a Malaysian businessman who became the International President of AFC Wimbledon after undertaking a leading investment in the club, making him the second largest share-holder."
We would cite the sentence above with relevant and reliable news sources that can be placed under the reference section, thank you!
New Straits Time: https://www.nst.com.my/business/2022/11/849166/esports-pioneer-ananth-s-nathans-bold-investment-afc-wimbledon
Yahoo! Finance: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/malaysian-businessman-esports-pioneer-ananth-071700118.html
Stadium Astro: https://english.stadiumastro.com/football/malaysian-businessman-becomes-secondlargest-individual-shareholder-afc-wimbledon-223929
Thank you and please take the time to respond, have a good day. Afcwasia (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awards section

[edit]

Do we need to include awards such as: Isthmian League Programme of the Year in this article? We don't include it on other pages and it doesn't seem very notable to me. I would suggest removing them/moving them to the season articles instead. What are people's thoughts before I do anything? Michaeldble (talk) Michaeldble (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error - Need to fix "First"...

[edit]

In the management section, under restart coach and substitution coach. The word "first" is missing in regards to Wimbledon being the "first" team to use a substitution coach. Reference 1 certainly says they are, and the sentence reads like "first" should be in there, but it's missing. 119.224.73.229 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2023

[edit]

Add a line like

fullname = AFC Wimbledon

to the Infobox football club so the infobox follows the same format as all other football clubs in the english football league QWER9875 (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Radagast (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update kits

[edit]

could the infobox kits be updated to the 2023/24 season's ones? A RandomAussie0 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think A.F.C. Wimbledon's kits could be updated to the 2024/25 season ones. 2A02:C7C:B46D:8F00:40BD:F99B:1A5D:5338 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AFC_Wimbledon&oldid=1246552690"