Talk:Grays Athletic F.C.

Fair use rationale for Image:Grays AFC2.jpg

Image:Grays AFC2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

File:Graysafc.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Graysafc.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Squad template

I appreciate you seem to want to use your own wikitable creation, but the claim that the squad template is "meant for teams higher up the pyramid" is a bit silly; it's used on virtually every article for clubs at this level (and below) that have squad sections. Number 57 20:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

And virtually everyone is incorrect, poorly sourced or not sourced at all. All of the nationalities look to be guesses, I've seen reports claim Adeyinka Cole is Nigerian, but nothing concrete. I don't have time to look at virtually every other article for clubs at this level but they're riddled with flaws. --Jimbo^[online] 21:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If sourcing is the problem, why were you adding unsourced appearance and goals figures to the table? The nationality query can be dealt with by not displaying the flag icon. Also, meatpuppetry really isn't cool. Number 57 21:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, people tend to use the English flag as default. At least this one is well maintained and shows all the relevant information. Plus squad numbers aren't used at this level making that column redundant and making it look gaudy with big gaps everywhere. The custon table works far better at this level. RTB. ReallyThinBread (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I can easily add sources to the apps. You shouldn't be throwing round accusations either, that's not really cool. --Jimbo^[online] 21:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Come on, I'm not blind, it's pretty clear what was going on. Anyway, if you still insist that you want the Wikitable format, then I'm happy to seek outside opinions from WP:FOOTY. Number 57 21:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Seek any advice you like. There's a reason most clubs at this level don't have templates and this is a good negotiation on displaying a squad. --Jimbo^[online] 21:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you not speak to other editors outside of talk pages? RTB. ReallyThinBread (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with User:Number 57 that the standard template should be used. It is used from teams at this level currently Harlow Town FC and Bury Town FC right up to teams like Manchester United. If you want to get the template changed I think a further conversation should be taken to WP:FOOTY but in the meantime the standard template used. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The standard template should be used - but I've removed it as it was entirely unsourced. GiantSnowman 07:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Unfortunately it's been reinserted yet again in the wikitable format... Number 57 07:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added it back in with references now, keeping the FS template. NZ Footballs Conscience (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Have to agree with the Bread-man's recent clearing of the section and comments on your userpage. You're completely botched it, from unsourced nationalities to not adding literally half of the only four players to have confirmed signing on for 2017–18. If it's not going to be kept up to date properly, there's no point having the section at all. --Jimbo^[online] 22:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

All information is sourced and direct from Grays website, welcome to update it with new references. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 00:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Well it wasnt because you still missed 3 of the only 4 players to have been signed/retained. RTB. 188.29.165.161 (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Then you are implying that the official Grays website is incorrect in the players listed, as the only players added are from their website. Other website listed is just referenced for players flag icons. So unless you have referenced information that Grays only has four players on their books, the official website is correct. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 07:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Even if youre using footballdatabase as a reference for flags, youve still managed to bollocks that up. Sarpong has his own wikipage and your still claiming hes portuguese. And where did you get the nationalities for Stansbury, Osei, O'Donnell, Dunn, Mukanya or Watkins? None of them are even on that websire. Your guessing them all. Which brings back the original problem of this outdated template. RTB. 188.29.165.161 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I see where I went wrong with Sarpong and Dunn, that was user error when copying code. Have corrected now and added more references for other players. It is better to fix information than just remove it. Thanks NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 09:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your still making up nationalities! Show me where on Stansbury's (very iffy reliable) website it states his nationality? You might as well clear the section because you wont keep it up to date. Ill clear it at the start of the season again. RTB. 188.29.165.161 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

IP now CU blocked. Meters (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Football squad template2

Why can't a template that's already in use elsewhere be used? I believe the original problem was that a custom template didn't conform? --Jimbo^[online] 20:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Why can't the fs squad continue to be used? Number 57 20:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not have one that suits the nature of the article more? Is this consensus over all non-League teams? --Jimbo^[online] 20:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How does fs2 suit the nature of the article more? I don't think it does. Number 57 20:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The lack of referenced nationalities leaves gaps. Why not use a more suitable template that doesn't all this? Strikes me as you just don't like it. --Jimbo^[online] 20:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Then why not try and fill it in rather than omit the nationality information? I'm also not sure that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is the way you want to be going here. Number 57 20:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Because the information at step 7 just isn't there. And half the time it is, it's from unreliable sources. --Jimbo^[online] 20:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So why not just be happy with what is available? Is this not a case of you not liking the gaps? Number 57 20:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Template2 is available. Why can't you be happy with that? Can I use template2 with the nationalities? --Jimbo^[online] 20:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Because I don't think it's as easy to read as the original squad list. Number 57 20:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's in table format with clearer headers, what part of that do you struggle reading? --Jimbo^[online] 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Using full words for positions and the table lines IMO. But why do you want to readd it? In your last edit you claimed it was being removed as it wouldn't be updated correctly? It seems to me like that you'd rather have no squad list at all if you can't have your preferred version. That's a pretty poor way to go about things. Number 57 20:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't you prefer not to have squad templates in non-League articles anyway as per User talk:Number 57/Archive 11#Why did you remove the Current squad for Heybridge Swifts?. --Jimbo^[online] 20:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's ludicrous, you prefer to read abbreviations? Why, to save time? People who visit the page with no prior knowledge of football won't understand the difference, don't you think this in unencyclopedic? --Jimbo^[online] 20:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind squad lists in non-League articles if they're regularly updated, like at Glossop North End and Chelmsford. The issue is that almost all of them aren't. Given that you're a regular and long-term editor, I assume it'll be fine here. And yes, I think the abbreviations make the original fs much easier to read. Given that the links are there for people who don't know what they stand for, I think they're fine and not unencylopedic – otherwise we wouldn't have things like GDP, PPP, TLD, HDI etc are listed in country infoboxes. Would you mind answering my question about why you removed it? Number 57 22:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So will you be nominating football squad template2 for deletion, or changing the parameters as it's that you clearly don't like? --Jimbo^[online] 22:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's in my long-term to-do list (requesting a merge back into the original template at WP:TfD), but it's not an immediate priority. Number 57 22:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So until then, it's deemed WP:MOS compliant and should therefore be allowed to stand on such an article until a consensus against it is reached? --Jimbo^[online] 22:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus was reached in the discussion above to use the original fs. Of course, consensus can change, but you'd need to demonstrate that. Number 57 22:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, consensus above was reached that a custom template was used. Not a variation of the squad template, deemed MOS-compliant elsewhere. --Jimbo^[online] 22:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)