Talk:Cathkin Park

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cathkin Park article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: Scotland Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge from Cathkin Park (1872–1903)

Clear consensus not to merge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There seems to be a considerable amount of overlap between the two articles Cathkin Park (1872–1903) and Cathkin Park, with both articles actually referring to the other with what I believe is called a hatnote. I am therefore proposing that since neither one is a substantial article these two articles be merged into one, and since it would make more sense for the merged article to be titled Cathkin Park, without reference to any specific date, I am proposing that we merge Cathkin Park (1872–1903) into this article, Cathkin Park. Cottonshirt τ 02:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, they were two different stadiums in two different locations. There is actually not much overlap between them - both articles refer to matches in the 1880s and 1890s, but that is because both grounds were in use and hosted different matches. Crowsus (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge There is no overlap. These were different stadiums in different locations (about a mile apart) with different histories. The second stadium (this article) was the original Hampden Park and was then renamed "New Cathkin Park" when Third Lanark relocated, but "New" was later dropped. Also disagree with the claim that "neither one is a substantial article". Number 5 7 08:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is probably a stronger argument the other way: while I am keen on the idea that the history of the existing Cathkin Park stretches not only back through the 20th century but back to the 1880s, you can read in the article that QP and 3L failed to come to a deal for the fittings and they were basically stripped out. It seems 3L inherited not much more than the land with a flat area and banked sides, and they also moved the pitch slightly. So it could be argued that [New] Cathkin Park is a distinct stadium from Hampden [II] on the same footprint, in the same vein as Wembley / San Mames / Spurs / probably others I've forgotten. Crowsus (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
some things to consider. 1.) New Cathkin Park is only around 500 yards from Cathkin Park, so yes they are different venues, but completely next door to each other, so they can quite legitimately be treated in one article, in the same way that Powderhall Stadium moved, if you want to be pedantic about it, but both venues are treated in a single continuous article. 2.) The article is supposed to be about the venue, and is not merely a history of the clubs that played there. The article currently starts with 3rd Lanark doing drill there but the land was owned by someone who gave them permission to do that, the name Cathkin Park comes from somewhere, it has history going back to the fifteenth century, but none of this is mentioned in the article which treats it purely as an adjunct to the history of the football clubs. for a more comprehensive treatment of a venue, as opposed to just a football pitch, see, for example, Carolina Port. if we merged these two into one article it could be done properly, in one very good article rather than two mediocre summaries. Cottonshirt τ 20:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are satisfactory and your proposal is fundamentally flawed. If you want to add the history of the Cathkin Park name to either article, please do so. Crowsus (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fundamentally flawed in what way? Cottonshirt τ 02:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that these are two separate stadiums with separate, overlapping histories. For a start, this Cathkin Park was previously known as Hampden Park and was in use at the same time as the original Cathkin Park – a merger simply would not make sense given you'd have to have two concurrent timelines built into a merged article. Number 5 7 03:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is not as complicated as you make it out to be. a Wikipedia article is divided into sections.

history - explain where the name comes from and why that particular piece of ground is called cathkin park.
3rd Lanark - the rifle volunteers did their drill at cathkin park, and in some year, inspired by watching Scotland vs England, decided to form their own football club and played on their drill field. they built a stadium, international matches, blah, blah, blah.
hampden park - in some year or other Queen's Park FC moved from Hampden Park I to a site 500 yards from Cathkin Park that they called Hampden Park. they played football against lots of other teams. there were international matches. athletics were held here. stuff happened. blah blah blah.
new cathkin park. in 19 oh something or other Queen's Park left Hampden Park, 3rd Lanark took over the ground and re-named it New Cathkin park. more stuff happened, blah blah, blah.

it is much simpler for the reader to grasp what is going on, and where each ground is in relation to the other, when you have it all in one article with maps, and a proper joined up history.

on 3 August Number 5 7 said that there was no overlap, and said this was a reason to not merge the articles. the very next day they said that there is overlap, and this is also a reason not to merge the articles. that doesn't come across as being a particularly rigorous argument.

Crowsus, meanwhile, maintains that the proposal is "ill defined" but has not clarified what is meant by this. I'm still convinced that merge is a much better approach than what we have at the moment. Cottonshirt τ 04:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are two different stadiums that existed at the same time. The articles are not going to be merged. Please go and do something else with your time. Crowsus (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't misrepresent my comments. These are two separate stadiums with different and concurrent histories. I was pointing out that in order to merge them, the article would have to do some very weird overlapping. I echo Crowsus' statement. Number 5 7 06:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge As Crowsus and Number57 have pointed out, the original Cathkin Park and the second Cathkin Park (previously known as Hampden Park) are not the same thing and should be treated separately. Their histories are unique and independent so a merger would not be appropriate in this circumstance. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Giant Snowman 12:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.