Talk:Oxford United F.C.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oxford United F.C. 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

Oxford United F.C. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 12, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
October 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
November 26, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 15, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
July 21, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
March 8, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
May 12, 2012	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Football: England / English non-league Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the English non-league task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shortcut

Oxford United F.C.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Expand : All Oxford United related articles
Other : *Add free use images for biographical articles.
- Add infoboxes to all Oxford United related articles

Accrington Stanley

I have repeated my earlier edit (if not the exact wording), so that it now says:

One of the sides to be promoted to the League at that time will be Accrington Stanley, which was also one of the sides which were relegated from the League when Oxford was promoted to it in 1962.

An alternative version said something like Oxford had taken the place of Accrington Stanley, and that A.S. will now take the place of Oxford. Given that three clubs are promoted and three relegated, I am not aware of any basis for saying which of the clubs that go up takes the place of each club that goes down. Or can someone who disagrees with this please explain?

I also removed the word "ironically". I think it's ironic too, but that's arguably POV; the facts speak for themselves.

Arbitrary username 17:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded your edit as it talks about promotion and relegation; in 1962 there was no automatic promotion and relegation between the lower leagues and League Division 4 - clubs were elected to the League on an occasional basis. Accrington weren't relegated, they resigned from the league for financial reasons; Oxford weren't promoted from the Southern League, they were elected to fill the vacancy left by Accrington. In this case - one team in, one out - it's reasonable to state that Oxford "replaced" Accrington. The current situation is different, as two teams (not three, incidentally) are changing leagues. Some Oxford supporters have argued (half-heartedly and somewhat facetiously) that technically Accrington (top of the Conference) replace Rushden (bottom of the League), and that the team that "replaces" Oxford will be Hereford United (who won the Conference playoff), but it's an arguable distinction. Accrington and Hereford replace Oxford and Rushden, but no particular team replaces any specific other. I agree with the removal of "ironically" - it's not irony, it's coincidence. Dave.Dunford 06:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a similar change to the Accrington page. Dave.Dunford 14:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information; that's really helpful. Obviously I didn't quite realize the situation, but that's partly because nobody had explained it properly before you did. Arbitrary username 18:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other argument that could be aired is that the current Accrington Stanley is not the same club as the one that Oxford replaced. The original AS went bust in 1962, while the current club was established in 1968, with different directors and playing at a different ground. On the other hand, this might be deemed as clutching at straws. [[User talk:Brodders|Talk to me]] 13:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honours

This entry:

League Titles – Div. 2: Champions 1984–5, Runners Up 1995–6; Div. 3: Champions 1967–8, 1983–4; Div. 4: Promoted (4th) 1964–5

gives the rather misleading impression that Oxford have twice been promoted into the highest division in the League. The 1995–96 promotion, although the division at the time was called the Second Division, was actually from the third- to second-highest division in the overall league (as were the promotions in 1967–8 and 1983–4).

I'm not sure what the form is elsewhere (and personally I wish the marketing men had left the leagues alone) but it seems clearer to move it to the Div 3 honours:

League Titles – Div. 2: Champions 1984–5; Div. 3: Champions 1967–8, 1983–4, Runners Up 1995–6; Div. 4: Promoted (4th) 1964–5

Anyone agree or disagree? I'll make the change shortly if no-one disagrees. Dave.Dunford 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No feedback so change made as promised. Dave.Dunford 08:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honours have now been listed differently, pre- and post-Premiership. (I'm not sure it's any clearer, but it's more accurate.) Thus the above query is no longer relevant. Dave.Dunford 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 6, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written? Fail. Needs a very thorough copyedit to sort several issues

As per WP:HEAD, some section headings need tidied to remove inappropriate capitalization, as does the prose text (I see a "Quarter Final", for example).

Done Eddie6705 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The en dash is used for date ranges and scores, but inconsistently.

Done Eddie6705 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove the fourth paragraph in the lead; the club's hopes/expectations for the future aren't really suitable for the opening.

Done Eddie6705 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see more wikilinks; will every reader know what a "CVA" is, for example?

Done Eddie6705 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy the references. I'd personally prefer them after punctuation with no spaces, but you need to pick one, grammatically correct style (See Help:Footnotes). Convert the FOUL link to an inline citation while you're doing it.

Done by User:DeLarge

Joe Ross links to a dab page. Best to check all your wikilinks.

Done Eddie6705 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate? Fail. There's several of the more contentious statements which, while I don't dispute that they're true, really need to be referenced so we can cover ourselves: Lawrenson's sacking, Mark Wright's racist remark ~ WP is now very strict on maing such claims without attribution. See WP:ATT and WP:VERIFY

Done Eddie6705 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage? Pass.

4. Neutral point of view? Pass.

5. Article stability? Pass.

6. Images? Pass, but the aticle would be impoved if there were images, and surely they should be very easy to obtain?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — DeLarge 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's much improved. There's some wee things I overlooked or did not mention because I was concerned with the overall article standard. Now you're closer to GA status, failworthy items remaining are more visible:

The mention of Jefferson Louis' antics really require attribution along with the others listed previously.
Find a better reference source for the Heysel stadium disaster, as per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
I'd prune the External links as per WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINKS. None of the sites used for inline citations need linking for starters. I'd put the official site first, then the third party stats sites (and there's no need to duplicate excessively ; pick the best one or two). And I'd lose all the supporters' clubs/fanzines/wallpapers entirely. That kind of "fanboy" stuff is what Google or the Open Directory Project is for.

Now the tricky bit. While it's easy to run through ticking boxes, there's a certain qualitative standard expected as well. I know you're not (yet) going for FA status, but there's a couple of things I'd like you to consider. Note that these aren't demands, just suggestions. You don't necessarily have to agree to them, but if you can indulge me, I'd like you to justify why they wouldn't improve the article:

There's a lot of section headings, most of them for single paragraphs, and I think rationalising them a little might work, especially in the History section (which looks a bit over-nested; see 1.4.1).
Also, while I understand the chronological approach, I think it might flow better if you included all the "performance" sections together, and handled the off-the-field financial stuff separately. You could probably cover both in about two sections.
In the Current squad section, I think "current" when referring to management in the sub-section is redundant. How about two sub-headings, Players, and Management or Backroom staff?
I'm not sure I'd have quite so much bold text in the Records section.
While the article starts well, it kind of falls into bullet pointing too easily. I'd prefer to see a lot more prose. What I'd suggest here is

lose the shirt sponsors section entirely ~ what's verifiable isnt necessarily notable, and none of the featured football club articles I looked at seemed to include it.
concentrate only on the notable managers who achieved success at Oxford, unless the success they "achieved elsewhere" was highly significant and/or they retained a demonstrable attachment to Oxford United after they left. Also, as per the featured articles I looked at, you could tabulate the list, and include their statistics/achievements. Selectively expand, if you know what I mean.

I hope all this helps. Regards, --DeLarge 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

Rather than slapping a(nother) GA-related template on this page, I'll simply pass it. The nominee maintained the standards of the originally submitted version, while improving those areas which needed work. I particularly like the new tables for notable players and managers, and I think the history section flows a little better.

There's little bits still to tweak if the editors want to try for Featured status (the opening of the Life in the second tier section is a bit of a run-on sentence, for example). Also, to be truly comprehensive, I think some research might be required to trace the origins and early history of the club as Headington Utd. Nevertheless, I think standards are higher than when other club articles reached FA-class in the past, and I think it stands up very well against similar pages at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Sport and recreation. Well done. --DeLarge 18:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1994–1999

At some point many edits ago much of the history of the 90s (including the 1996 promotion, and Malcolm Shotton's appointment as manager) was removed, probably accidentally. It needs to be reincorporated, but I don't have time right now. The current section talks about Denis Smith as manager then abruptly continues with Shotton's resignation. I also think the "Financial crisis" section should be amalgamated into the general chronologically ordered account - it's a bit out of place where it is currently. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happened to the 90's information, but the financial crisis is where it is after a suggestion in the GA nomination. See above. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kassam infobox

Should the stadium section have an infobox in it? I've never seen it done before and it looks wrong. --Jameboy (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Cup images

There are four images on geograph that you could use - http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1243773 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1243750 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1243744 and http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1243734 Nanonic (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Morris and 'The Soccer Tribe'

I am surprised that there is no mention of Desmond Morris having been a director of Oxford United (despite him being born near Swindon), as it is notable for his having used it as the basis of his book 'The Soccer Tribe'. On his own website he lists the year of his becoming a director of OUFC as 1977, being elected Vice Chairman the following year. 'The Soccer Tribe' was published in 1981 and contains some of the chants recorded (not always accurately) by him of fans in the London Road End of the Manor. He was also interviewed (date needed) by Michael Parkinson on the latter's show where he said he chose Oxford United because he 'heard that they were hard'. Parky's other guest incidentally was Lorraine Chase; when Parky asked her if she supported a team, she said 'I support Millwall' to which he replied 'that's not a football club, that's a fight'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacht Dance (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U's and singular vs plural

As I seem to be close to an edit war with Stephen_MUFC I thought I ought to clarify my reasoning for reverting his revert.

1) U's vs Us: My revert was mainly because of the singular/plural issue (see below), but I'd also defend U's. Yes, there's no logical defence for the apostrophe in constructions such as CD's and the 1960's and normally I'd bin it. But without the apostrophe Us looks rather too much like the word us. Authorities differ, but there is a case for the (illogical) apostrophe in phrases like U's where single letters are pluralised and ambiguity arises. Personally I'd propose 'U's as the best solution.

U's is incorrect there is no case for it at all and since it is incorrect, it doesn't matter that it looks another word. Stephen MUFC (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not as clear-cut as that; for example: "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it's correct to use an apostrophe to indicate plurals of alphanumeric characters, e.g. "There are four S's in Mississipi"."[1]. But by and large I actually agree with you. Come on you us. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Oxford United is... vs Oxford United are... (and similar). I believe that Wikistyle is to treat sports teams as singular: thus Oxford is... rather than Oxford are.... I suspect this is commoner in American English than British, but at least it's consistent (though there are still some plural cases that should probably be changed). Stephen_MUFC's original change introduced two mistypings of their so if the change stands those should be corrected. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an English football club and clubs and teams are far more often referred to as if they were plural in British press so there should be no problem with this. As far as consistency is concerned on this matter music bands, for example, are referred to as if they were plural if the band is British and referred to as if they were singular if they are American so there is no reason should be applied here. Stephen MUFC (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I have also corrected my typos of thier. Stephen MUFC (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I actually agree with you, but I was only trying to follow the rules. This was discussed before (possibly on a different club's page). But hey, glad you were prepared to consider a compromise :-( Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium with three stands, unique?

We state in the article that Oxford's stadium is unique among Conference stadia as it only has three stands. Is this uniqueness still the case now that Oxford are in League Two? I seem to remember reading once that there are two or three other teams in the League which also have three stands. Can anyone confirm this? Dantilley (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I edited it to mention the three stands but doesn't say anything about them being unique in OUFC's current division.Dantilley (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to honours list - Conference Playoff winners?

Should we add the 2010 Conference Playoff victory to the honours list do you think? Dantilley (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Oxford United F.C.. 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) 07:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Oxford United F.C.. 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) 13:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oxford United F.C.. 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) 23:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point?

You've got no fans, you've got no stand behind the goal (and you've technically got no ground) and a pathetic 'record' attendance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.150.62.4 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lock due to a recent vandalism crisis in the article

Should we lock the article temporaially? OUFC's article has been suffering from a vandalism crisis this week, so it cculd be reasonable to restrict edit privileges here for now. GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "a decision which has attracted much criticism." from the last paragraph of the Stadium section, or provide citation. This is an editorialisation, not a statement of fact - the decision has also attracted a lot of support! Jonnybiscuits (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Callme mirela 🍁 20:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Swindon fans burned SFTC not STFC in error which caused them much ridicule from the Oxford United fans saying they couldn't even get their initials correct. 86.9.194.220 (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. House Blaster^talk 05:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]