Jump to content

Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

crest/badge

References to the club "crest" are wrong as a crest refers to something on top of a helmet rather than the colloquial and wholly inaccurate use as an alternative for arms or coat of arms. This is common in a number of football club articles but generally I can just edit it myself unlike here. I suggest changing any mention of the club crest to club badge as it is more common in a football context than arms or coat of arms but, unlike crest, is not inaccurate. Cheers. Keresaspa (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC) this is why it most be badge and not crest it could fail FA--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

the rangers website itself refers to them as crests (http://www.rangers.co.uk/club/history/crest) as do many other club websites and third party sources. There are also many sources that refer to them just as badges and then there are many who refer to them as crests and badges. I think the terms are interchangeable when referring to football club badges/crests. I am however willing to leave it as badges if that is what others think is more suitable. --Iainturnerisgod (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
They can be both depending on how they are used in fact the ones on there are actually a collection of both.Blethering Scot 22:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I will change the article to use 'crest' in the section title and in the image captions but to use 'badge in the main text body. This gives a compromise and is also the way the Chelsea FC page is, which has featured article status. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the galleries fail WP:NFCC in both this article and the Chelsea one. The gallery was not in the Chelsea article when it passed FA and should not have been added. I will raise this at WT:NFC. Note that the article would (or should) fail GA or FA with that amount of overuse. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Its quite an important part of that section, its actually in a lot of articles i should point out for instance another featured Arsenal F.C.. Also in regard to the third badge, was that not just a new one and previous before that. They don't necessarily need be on that page, however lets take for instance an Arsenal badge created in 1927 no longer used be considered as copyrighted.Blethering Scot 14:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
soirry black kite you will have to take this up at the project jsut abotu every GA and FA article has one, go read the pere review and ga review both said there should be more images in teh entire article, if this is a issue a RFC will have ot be created as it not jsut this article that does it, this article is using other higher quasilty article to form it own higher quailty articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the gallery is needed to present the unique situation where RFC have two separate regularly used crests and how these crests have been developed. Many featured articles and good articles contain such galleries. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be surprised if any FA article has ever passed FA with a non-free image gallery in it. The Chelsea one was added after it passed. As for GA articles, either they were passed incorrectly or again, the galleries were added afterwards. Our NFCC policies are quite clear - we don't need an RFC to determine them. (Blethering Scot is right in that some of the older crests may no longer be copyrighted, though). Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(Edit): only two of the six crests in the Arsenal article are non-free. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I would doubt that the 1990 - 1994 scroll crest would be copyrighted, the same goes for the 1959-1969 club badge. I will look into it.
I would say this is significant in Rangers case, considering they have two crests: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Iainturnerisgod (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually extremly unhappy that you removing the gallery when there is a clear precedent and peer reviews have suggested it be included and on top of that it would be better to have waited and seen. I actually disagree completely that WP:NFCC is the correct place for any discussion re this and i agree with Andrew that an RFC should take place probably at Village Pump policy. Also a check on copyright should have taken place first as well.Blethering Scot 15:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying they should be removed permanently - only whilst discussion takes place - it's what the policy says. As for the Iain's comment above about NFCC8 - that would be fine if there was text in the article that discussed the iterations of the badges and explained why they were notable - as it is there's just "there was this badge, then this one..". I suspect that's why the Chelsea ones have remained in the article - have a look at the text of that article. In the past we've also had this issue on, say, TV company articles, where galleries of ident logos have been removed. And yes, a copyright check would have been useful, but again it should have taken place first. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
ive replied at NFCC its not the correct place for this discussion. I dont think thats why the Chelsea ones have remained is a valid reason eithier. Im going to add a list to see where they are included so far ive got Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C and Tottenham Hotspur F.C..Blethering Scot 15:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You can add Cardiff City F.C. to that list. Side issue: I moved the non-free Superleague Formula logo out of the gallery and as a thumbnail of the section itself. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 15:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Real Madrid's page contains an image that includes non-free badge progression. Dundee FC article includes two non-free club badges, although not in a gallery. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Dundee one is the current and the latter was created in 1893 and in use to 2008 not sure would violate anything.Blethering Scot 15:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The use of historical logos isn't the issue, numerous clubs (Newcastle, Sheff. Wed, Man. Utd, Man. City, Leicester, Southampton to name but a few) do and NFCC provides for it. The issue is usage of them within galleries. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Say we take them out of the gallery and add them in the history section adjacent to the relevant section of the club history with explanation of the badge change during that period.Blethering Scot 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Everton FC and Reading FC are two high profile clubs that can be added to the list of pages who use historic crests in galleries Iainturnerisgod (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

This edit introduces a large amount of non-free content, which moves this project away from its m:mission, the reuse of the same piece of non-free content in the one article is unprecedented and violates nfcc 3, and all of it stinks as decoration, and not complying with nfcc 8. There is no attempt at entering a valid FU rationale, instead, boiler plating copied from an image with an entirely different function. I would request that this edit be undone. 188.29.150.177 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

mmm the images are to provide imfornation of the different badges and is valid, also if you read the peer review it states that ther eneed for more images so i dnt see aproblem with it jsut needs the usage updated.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Chelsea F.C. is a featured article and it contains such a section.Blethering Scot 19:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is fine to use non-free content in this context. I will look out for a better quality RFC club badge Andrew and upload it soon, the one we have is very low resolution. --Iainturnerisgod (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
cheers if you can get any better images for any of them that will be great as the stars one aint great and dnt do the job right, rember update the license of where it comes from--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
there is a scroll badge witht teh stars above it that be great if you can get that :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason a low resolution images are used is so that it they can comply with nfcc 3b. The Chelsea article did not have the gallery when it was passed as an FA, and it wouldnt pass if resubmitted now. The issue of the addition to this article is better framed within WP:NFCC, rather than WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 188.28.77.156 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

there a different between low resolution and jsut a crappy image, secondly if your right it will be brought up in the peer review and thirdly it fail fa so we will seeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no longer any low resolution images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually images can be altered and frequently are. Im not convinced it wouldn't pass.Blethering Scot 22:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

en.wiki does not allow galleries of non-free images, period. There are extremely rare exceptions, but the use of a gallery just to show old logos is absolutely not allowed; the Chelesa FC is similiarly at fault. The reasoning is that usually these logos are presented without comment (here, basically saying that this was the logo used from YYYY to YYYY, which is not significant), and thus NFCC#8 is failed to be met, because the article is comprehensive for the reader without such logos. If there was sourced commentary on or more of the logos through the years, that may allow for those specific logos to be used. In this specific case, there is enough discussion that I would think that the current logo (infobox) of course should stay as well as the 5-star scroll crest, since it duplicates enough elements from the RFC intertwined letters. But the other three (The original RFC letters, the ones with the scroll banners, and the Lion Rampent club crest 59-69, are all excessive content. The 5-star RFC crest can be used outside a gallery (avoiding duplication of the current crest) to suppliment this. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The page has had numerous peer reviews suggesting that the gallery be added, now a lot of featured articles have this. Time for new discussion re use in this manner for the community and as for more text i believe that is the plan anyway.Blethering Scot 14:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the gallery is needed to present the unique situation where RFC have two separate regularly used crests and how these crests have been developed. Many featured articles and good articles contain such galleries. Arsenal FC and Chelsea FC being two examples. I do not see this as being a reason where the article will fail on GA or FA, there are many other areas of the article that need vast work to get them up to scratch though, and this is being worked on as we type. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, FAC that have galleries have had those galleries added after FAC. Ergo, their use there is not assured by consensus. There is no allowance for galleries of logos/crests/badges, etc. unless there is sourced discussion about the evolution of said elements, as there is in the Chelsea case, and that the logos are sufficiently different. This is NFC policy. Here, while I agree there are two sets of crests to consider, you only need two non-frees to show this due to lack of sourcing and commonalities between the logos. You don't need 5 non-frees to show this with what is given. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Well its going to end up at an RFC on the issue in my mind because if precedent exists and shows that there is in anyway consensus then that clearly needs reviewed. You didn't even bother to check copyright on the earlier badges either which is not the correct thing to do or even allow context to be added.Blethering Scot 15:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
NFC policy existed before this precedent. The claim there is a precedent is wrong, particularly as it seems limited to the FC articles. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Its not limited to feature articles at all. And yes your quite right the policy existed before which is why an RFC it totally relevant. Also thats another thing you didn't check.Blethering Scot 16:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

well it is simple time to update the outdated policy...... and if we removed it from a gllery it ok if you cant work out what wrng with that then i bow out....16:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You removed from a gallery ... and put them back in a gallery using a table. Right, I've removed the three images that obviously fail WP:NFCC (see my edit summary for details). I think the remaining three can probably be supported ... possibly. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, NFC is a Foundation policy, not a community one; you wouldn't be able to change it even with an RFC. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
im happy enough with that, it only really one that you have removed the other one is in the infoboxAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If the scroll crest originated in 1892, why are we asserting that it is still copyrighted? 188.28.133.111 (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

i copied it from another site so its not my work hence teh rtionale if you feel it PD then edit it to be PD--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have made an ascertion that something is copyright, the burden is on you to WP:PROVEIT 188.29.77.142 (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

factual accuracy of this sentence: "The early success of Celtic, a club with a distinct Irish and Catholic identity, was crucial in the subsequent adoption by Rangers of a Protestant, Unionist identity."

I raised this issue previously and stated i did not believe it to be accurate.

upon further inspecting the source cited a i believe that this sentence should be ammended. The source in question again is the book "fear and loathing in World football". You can read the book via google books here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CJxIbXQfE1IC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The sentence: ""The early success of Celtic, a club with a distinct Irish and Catholic identity, was crucial in the subsequent adoption by Rangers of a Protestant, Unionist identity."" states this as factual accuracy. However the cited sources merely explores conversing opinions on this matter. Although it does give this view, of Brian Wilson of the Laour Party and contributor to a Celtic History video, that Rangers protestant/union identity was indeed a 'reaction' to early Celtic succes, this chapter within the book immediatly gives us a converse view from Finn, which reads; "Finn (1991: 82; 1999) locates Rangers within a tradition of Scottish clubs, formed with distinct religious and political affiliations, and predating Irish-Scots clubs. For example, the 3rd Edinburgh Rifle Volunteers, Larkhall Royal Albert and clydebank had strong Unionist, anti-Catholic identities before Celtic's foundation. Similarly, prior to 1888, Rangers had begun to openly develop a distinctive ideology based on the involvement of Sir John Ure Primrose who left the Liberal Party in 1886 over the issue of Irish Home Rule. Primrose was associated with the most virulent anti-Catholic and anti-Irish sentiments, and was openly allied with the Orange Order (Finn, 1991: 86). He was elected club patron in 1888 and chairman in 1912; in 1890 he publicly gave support to Freemasonry, 'on his own behalf and that of the Rangers club, a bond which remains to this day' (Finn, 1991: 87). Other prominent club members were involved in Freemasonry and Unionist politics. Celtic's success helped to sharpen, rather than provoke or create, the Rangers identity."

given that we have 2 contrasting statements, within the same source, which takes precedent? Having studied socialism in scottish society i believe Finns account to bem ore accurate. Anti-Catholic and Anti-Irish sentiment was a prominent feature in Scottish society before Rangers inception in 1872, and therefore significantly before Celtics inception or success in the mid-to-late 1890's. Mass immigration from the famine in the mid 1800's seen the Irish-Catholic immigrants form their own communities with differing views on religion and subsequently politics. Desperate for jobs there had been alot of animosity between the communites as the Irish-Catholics worked for cheaper wages and broke picket lines, in the mining industries for example. 1 hot spot for such anti-catholic/irish discrimination was also in the Govan area and Shipyards.

We can see from Finns elaborate and detailed account that there is much evidence to suggest that a protestant and unionist identity had been deep rooted within the creation of Rangers. after evaluating the source i would suggest the sentence should be edited to remove the wording "subsequent adoption of Rangers of a Prodestant, Unionist identity". This should not be stated as fact by Wikipedias as it is contested even within it's own citation. I think there is enough evidence to suggest that, indeed, it was an identity that existed before any success of Celtic, and was "sharpened" in the words of Finn, rather than 'adopted'. Ricky072 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The cited source contains the passage "the view of Rangers as a response, as a sporting and social defence mechanism, to the rise of Celtic, permeates academic and journalistic accounts of the Old Firm's origins." Obviously the sentence is referring not to the club itself as a "response", as it predated Celtic, more to the perceived anti-catholic aspects of the club (which I was ultimately intending to explain when I added the sentence). Gefetane (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
But you cannot 'adopt' something which is already percieved to have existed. Do you not agree with finns account that; "Celtic's success helped to sharpen, rather than provoke or create, the Rangers identity."? Ricky072 (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
By all means have a shot at re-writing, but I think Rangers famous unwritten rule deserves some explanation - the consensus is that is was not there by design, but developed out of the prevailing circumstances of the time, namely the early success of the perceived 'catholic club' and a desire from the protestant community for a rival club to fly their particular flag. Gefetane (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reworded this sentence to (i think) better reflect the source, to the following; "Although it has been described that Rangers were formed with distinct Protestant and Unionist affiliations, it was the inception and early success of city-rivals Celtic, a club with a strong Irish Republican and Catholic identity, which was pivotal in shaping the Protestant, Unionist identity associated with Rangers and their support.". This soultion does not definatively state that it was soley the success of Celtic which provoked a 'protestant, unionist' identity in Rangers, but it reflects the cited source that it has been described that Rangers had such 'affiliations' since their inception, but goes on to reflect that it was the inception & early success of Celtic which 'shaped' that identity. Do you think thatsa more accurate account? Ricky072 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How about something like The early success of Celtic, a club associated with the Irish and Catholic community, has been described as sharpening Rangers' Protestant Unionist identity, contributing to the eventual absence of openly Catholic players from the team. Perhaps "exclusion" or "aversion" would be better words than "absence"? Gefetane (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the sentence in discussion needs to mention the 'aversion or 'abscence' of catholic players because the following setences go on to deal with that. I think all it needs is a brief description of the reason why the clubs (mainly Rangers) carved and established such an identities. I would perhaps slightly expand on your version of thse sentence a little more, (but remove the part abotu catholic players) to give a little more detail. I think the sentence should encapture Rangers existing protestant/unionist roots as described within the sources, mention the inception of Celtic, their success and establishment as Rangers City-Rivals, and how that 'sharpened' the Protestant, Unionist identity of Rangers. Ricky072 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Panorama image of inside Ibrox

I propose removing the panorama of the inside of Ibrox Stadium from the stadium section and adding a panorama of the fans at the UEFA cup final in the supporters section (image shown here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2008_UEFA_Cup_Final_-_Piccadilly_Gardens_-_Rangers.jpg )

This would make the images more spaced out throughout the article as there are already a number of photos of ibrox stadium inside and out. There are currently no photos of the supporters in that section.

I suppose we could have both panoramas but I think it would be better just to have one in the supporters section.

I thought I would ask on here before changing. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Stadium panorama is in the stadium section.Blethering Scot 16:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah i know, i was just saying that as there are already loads of images in the stadium section we could remove the panorama, and add a different panorama to a different section. If no one agrees to remove the stadium panorama i will add the supporters panorama anyway. But i think articles look nicer and flow better with a maximum of one panorama image per article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainturnerisgod (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
To be honest i would rather delete the others in the gallery move the panorama up and then add the other. I think the panorama is the best picture of the stadium.Blethering Scot 17:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, I'll do it when I get a minute. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Article size

136K - far too big. For a start, could the racing team simply be mentioned via a wikilink rather than having its own section? Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the article needs trimmed. Alot of images have been added recently which seem irrelevant. There are 5 images of the stadium (inside and out) - i think this could be condensed down to 2 max. It also documents kits throughout history, 6 home kits, with 5 of them almost identical. I think there should be 3 kits max. Perhaps the original all-white kit, to the hoops, to the transition of the royal blue in use now. I also don;t think there is any need to show an image of the traning pitch. Further to thei mages, there is a fair amount of 'duplicate' information. The recent plight of administration/liquidation is documented in 3 different sections, not to mention has about 3 dedicated seperate articles. It could probably be removed or documented in much less detail within the opening paragraph, as it goes into more detail in the McCoist section, and ownership/finance section. Sectarianism is also information which duplicates itself on about 3 occasions: 'Rivalries', 'Sectarian chanting' & 'Sectariansim'. It would seem to me to be more appropriate to simply have 'Rivalries and Sectariansim' as 1 sub-section, and more condensed info. Ricky072 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
yes it size with wiki code is 136k but that not it size when wiki coe is strip i already asked on help desk for someone toe verify the size withut wiki code, yes i i think it shoudl be a see also link but since it been there for dnt know how logn i didnt want to remove it, ive already use translcusion to bring some stuff to the page with out size, the problem is it aint really possible to reduce this article withotu leaving out key improtant things, and the peer reviews in fact said it should be expanded more... with the exception of the hsitory section which i have now got reduced but it sitll huge.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
ricky the peer reviews said to add more images to get it to GA so the images must stay, but the iamges dnt add much size to the page it the wiki code and page dataAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need the U-19 and reserve squad, the notable players section and the motorsport team when they've all got their own articles. I'd say not. Also, could the sectarianism paragraph be merged up into the section about supporters (or vice versa) where it's already mentioned? Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
notable players and u19 are translcussion so dnt affect the page size also it what is done in other FA articles,secterainism it the comprise as some editors dnt want stuff related to the club activites to be part of the supporters and some dnt want suporters stuff to give undue weigh in teh secterianism section, it not really possible to reduce this aritcle size down without losing key information, to be honest the size doesnt really matter apart from wp:size the content and layout and provide the reader with reliable soruce article that gives the bes tinformation is, you do relaise about 50% of that size is down to using cite??? and about 10-15% is wiki code like infobox etc??? the data part is only about 60kb so it aint thatbigAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Argh, I hadn't realised they were transclusions - that makes it even worse, because the browser has to load all those transclusions as well as the 136K of text when you open or edit the page - no wonder it's taking so long!. These less important sections need to be just a link, I think. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the history section could be condensed and the superleague formula could be removed as rangers no longer compete in the event. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking through the article again, alot of the size seems to be references, is there any way to condense these? Iainturnerisgod (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ive already said that but black ktie doesnt seem to understand that but sayign that the articlke can be consedensed more iuf after that it still large then it will have ot be acceptedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ok i have condensed it as much as possible but it si still 123kb with no tranclusions now, it is goign to have to be accepted because most of it is the references unless you want me to make them bareurl or rmeoving them altogether so failing GA and FA :sAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
acutalyl mcleish and advocaat could be condensed into one with abotu 4 paragraphs but my english aint good enough for that, as well as the struth and symon yearsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
acutalyl so could the le guen and walter return, as well as nine in a row and ibrox disaterAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Even with just those changes the article now loads a lot more quickly (and is easier to read, which is more important). Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done my best to trim down the history - at least up to the Le Guen era. Prior to that, it's as concise as it could be without excluding the most notable details. The BIG problem with size is clearly references, which seems to take up over a third of the page, and specifically the habit of some editors of inserting large chunks of verbatim text in quotation marks within the citation. This unnecessary clutter, but difficult to remove anything other than manually?? Gefetane (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We cant really do much with the references because there required to back up the text, other than making sure there are no references duplicated. However we are going to have to add some more text to get this back to GA or FA. Mainly the managers section cannot have no text, looking at other articles of that level they don't have or have very few empty sections this has more than any other article. We don't need a list but we do need some explanatory text. As ive said the see also section should have all Rangers articles removed they are already in the navbox and only leave other non Rangers articles.Blethering Scot 00:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Kit Section too detailed?

Personally i think the section on Rangers Kit's to be far too detailed. Thre are several sentences on the socks alone. Personally i think the entire sub-section for kits only really needs about 2 or 3 sentences maximum. What are otehr editors opinion on this? Ricky072 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

i think it needs to be longer than two or three sentences to pass Ga or FA. I would leave as is and get the article copyedited and another peer review. Remember the GA or FA process will offer concerns and allow them to be fixed. Its a far better situation to have too much info and be told to trim than be told the article isnt detailed enough.Blethering Scot 00:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Photo of Bill Struth portrait.png

I have nominated this file for deletion, as it appears to be a copy of 2D artwork, which is currently subject to copyright 188.28.133.111 (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

both say the original copy right holder give permission ot ue it ie they have been taln by other people using a cameraAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Please quote the exact line in which the permission is given below 188.28.133.111 (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Source Own work, im not saying its right to me it looks like a image grab of the internet btu the uploader is claiming it ther ework which suggest it be taken witha camera where ever the picture is, which would make it PD--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The description of what was uploaded is "Photo of Bill Struth portrait", and I am content that the act of photography is PD, however there is no reference given to the Bill Struth portrait from which this image is a derivitive, and there is no suggestion that the two are the subject of the same licence188.29.77.142 (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Its a photograph I took while visiting the Ibrox Trophy Room a while back, if it is not explained or uploaded correctly it can be deleted and I will re-upload it correctly once I have time. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, what we need to know is, do you own the copyright of the original image, that this photograph is derived from? If not have you got written permission from the copyright holder to create an appropriately licensed derived version of this image? 188.29.216.225 (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

if you take a picture you ownt eh copyright plain and simple, doesnt matter where the picture you take is of copyright material, you only the rights to the image not the acutally presented material so as such you cna put it into PDAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Have I uploaded it correctly to the Wikipedia commons Andrew? If not do you know what needs to be changed so it can stay? because it is currently requested for deletion Iainturnerisgod (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Andrew your statement is untrue, this is clearly a Derivative_work, do you believe photocopying a book gives you the right to own the copyright of the content, do you believe copying a DVD makes you the legal owner the copyrighted content, which you can sell on in competition to the original owner? 188.29.216.225 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
well it clear you are like the copyright holder and dnt acutalyl understand the copyright laws, and secondly i never said copyinga dvd makes you the legal owner, it maeks you the legal owner of the dvd you have burned but not the content inside, i suggest you go havea read at copyright laws and not take what copyright holder who are only interested in money say, but i cant be bothered with your disputes, frankly i rather wait until peer review and it get borught upAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
i suggest you have a look at copyright laws dnt worry your among 95% or more peopel that dnt udnerstnd them so it nothing personal agianst youAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:IUP will explain why we cannot use this image. --John (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Feist v. Rural may provide some useful reading 188.29.79.134 (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

lets make this clear i am not arguing to keep it in n fact i think it suits better out, however my point stands, ok lets takea example bbc takes a picture of the forth road crossing and then taks a picture of ibrox, who owns the copyright? is it the bbc, is it the ones who own the picture that was taken? ie ibrox and forth road bridge? and let says they combine the pictures to make the forth road bridge look like its in teh background of ibrox who owns that? both of the picture taken owners ie ibrox and the forth road bridge?? now your feist vs rural kinda gives oyu the answer, here i a bit of research for personal information for yourself, if you rip a dvd or cd to format x who owns the copyrght ;) now the answer to this one is acutally quite interesting but i doubt you will get it right. again i am not saying this to keep the image more that yoru worng about the copyright of hte imageAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

if you disagree Andrew ask at the talk page you'll get a clear answer, but bear in mind it's a photo of an artwork not a building or structure. I'm fairly certain in wiki policy John is right but it's not my area. Blethering Scot 20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Andrew, those examples in addition to being 3D are also covered by Freedom of panorama], I would encourage you to read the link John gave you 188.29.75.178 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
i did and it is vague it doesnt givea defintion aanswer one way or another, but i think you missed hte point i dnt care if it says or not only that oyu have the wrong idea on copyright. the simple fact remains if you takea a picture oyu own teh copyright of the picture, but it does nto give you the copyright of the picture content but you are free to sahre tha tpicture all you wantAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Rather than a general discussion on copyright (which is governed by different laws in different parts of the world), it is more productive to focus on Wikipedia's policies, which are more restrictive than the laws of most countries. As a free project, we can generally only use material which is donated copyright free. In this case, the artist would need to waive their copyright over the image for us to use it. --John (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
which in this case is the person who took the picture which according to the person who uplaod it, it was them that tookt he picture so they own teh copyright......Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
In the case of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp it was determined the simple act of taking an image of a 2D artwork, regardless of the complexity of the task, does not constitute enough creativity to create a new copyright 188.29.84.233 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I mean the original artist who made the painting. --John (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

sorry john but you are wrong you dnt have to get the original artist permission to takea photo, if a place does nto wanting you to take a photo ie they dnt want you to talke a copy of there copyrighted stuff they make sure no photography stuff can get into to take it they jsut about strip search you, but this doesnt really matter i dnt think the picture shoulkd be in the article so this is pointless topic, one created by me so i am ending itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew this is wikipedia not a court of law. Wikipedia has policies and if you disagree with those policies you take it up there. And unless your an expert in american law specifically Florida i believe then its a wholly different subject anyway, honestly what do people not get, you follow Wikimedia policies and if you disagree with them then you take it up there. No argument in law has any barring in this discussion only policy.Blethering Scot 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Flag images

In the players sections, nationalities are shown using flags rather than words, this is contrary to MOS:FLAG, which states "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as virtually no readers are familiar with every flag". The use of the Irish and the English flags are virtually impossible to tell apart at the size used in this article 188.29.77.142 (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

i suggest you take this up witht he project as it is template that doing it not users: can you not raises all these points when the peer review is done?? Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Its one of the approved templates. The alternative is the one used on the Hearts page which is deemed the more compliant but a lot of people don't like it.Blethering Scot 13:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Current template is much more common and better looking than the one on the hearts page. It is not something to worry about for GA or FA status. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What are "approved templates" ? 188.29.216.225 (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
screw the hearts one that is just horriable and akes the page unreadableAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
ip instead of bring this issue here it is a template authorisied by the project wikiproject football if oyu havea problem witht eht template take it there it not a problem for thios page as just about ever football article uses itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, can you wikilink the authorisation process? I suspect the projects response to having a template non-compliant with the manual of style was to create a Compliant one 188.29.216.225 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

why should iu find it for you, go to the porject and ask themAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You the one asserting that this is "a template authorisied by the project wikiproject football", I have never heard of such a process on wikipedia, and as you are the one who added this to the discussion, you are the one expected to justify your statement 188.29.84.233 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
and you are the one that assest it conveys mos, as such since it used in loads of articles it aiussue for the project take the discussion there, its nto revelent for here and borders on trollingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Honestly why the drama. There are two templates in wide use the one on this page and the one on display here at Heart of Midlothian F.C., there were discussions at WP:Footy about changing to the latter but this constantly ended in no consensus. The latter is more compliant with mos and accessibility however is not widely used and most attempts to change to it have failed, its not totally mos compliant either. This is a wider issue and not one that will be sorted on this talk page. This wont fail an FA or GA because the template used here is the one others have passed on and is in wide use. Andrew is correct in that the issue for change is one at WP:Footy not here as there is no editorial consensus here then its up to the main project to agree to a wide scale change. There are people for and against it but this isnt a fail case. A list of templates used are on display at WP:Footy and this is an issue for consensus there not for one article when it seems no one wishes to change. I personally after some time like the new template but there are downsides such as blank space and inability to split, this was the one that was created with a view to replacement but generally isnt very widely used as is evident just by taking a sample of articles, you should go to WP:Footy if you wish for a discussion because this really simply comes down to editorial consensus and isnt an issue just on this article.Blethering Scot 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
GA is notoriously lax on WP:IUP, however with a rationale no better than WP:ILIKEIT, it will struggle in FA 188.29.79.134 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Without looking at all FA I'm aware that the two out of two I've looked at use the template included in the article. The template on the Hearts one I prefer now because it can be colour adapted and the white space leaves space for photos of the squad, that's only if you can find free ones though. I would happily change it after growing to like that template which is far more compliant however I think I'm in a minority. Blethering Scot 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

i have created a topic at the porject this is wher eit should be Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Flag_images

Sectarianism

this needs a better solution.

firstly, there is 2 sections, 1 for the supporters, 1 for the club. It would seem logical to me to find a soltuion to house everything within the same section.

secondly, the following just doesn't seem to make any sense "From the early 20th century onwards, it has been described that Catholics were not knowingly signed by the club" which is almost immediatly followed by; "Johnston was the highest-profile Catholic to sign for the club since the World War I era, though other Catholics had signed for Rangers before.". This i'd imagine is confusing to most readers as almost a direct contradiction. I think these 2 sentences should be merged & expanded to give more clarity. Ricky072 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I took out the "it has been described" which you had added. It wasn't adding anything and I'm not sure why you added it. I am also not sure splitting the sectarianism section into two was a good idea. Why was that done? --John (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Adding that went some way to solving the problem i've mentioned above. The following sentence states Catholics have played for Rangers throughout their history and seems to cite solid sources. So it seems innaccurate to me that we should state, as fact, the club did not sign catholics, after all, the only evidence that exists really is a quotes from ex-players describing what was an 'unwritten rule'. It seems to me a subject which perhaps varies in how it is reported - even looking at the history of this article, at times it has stated that there was an actual 'policy' in place, where as other opinions could simply state that the club merely had a 'reluctance', perhaps in fear of upsetting there fans. Even within the cited material i have read through, some books seem to give conflicting accounts for comparison. Ricky072 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution: "Sectarianism and Old Firm Rivalry". This to me seems like a logical solution. Readers will want to be informed about certain aspects of the Old Firm rivalry and the sectarian element that goes with it. With this solution we can combine 3 sections (sectarian chanting, rivalries & sectarianism). The subsection should document Rangers protestant, unionist roots, the inception of Celtic, their success and establishment as city rival, their support drawn from the catholic community and republican identity, and how the sectarian element grew from there. Then document Rangers criticism for their percieved reluctance to sign a catholic until Mo Johnstone. Then in the next paragraph we can mention the sectarian chanting by fans & UEFA punishments.Ricky072 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

and what do you propose to do with aberdene rival part? and where do you plan to put this new sectecion will it be a levle 2 heading or level 3 heading under supporterAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise here that there are two sections on "sectarianism". There isn't. There is one on sectarianism, and one on supporters, which mentions sectarian chanting. I don't see there is a problem needing addressing here as, unlike before, neither subject area is receiving undue prominence. Gefetane (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

agreedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs a ref

"In domestic football Rangers have won more league titles and trebles than any other club in the world" in the lead isn't referenced and isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. --John (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

it is meantioned in teh other parts of the article but i think you are jsut ingoreing them, have a look atht e records sectyiont eh referneces are there, i moved them out of the lead to the rectiosn section as the lead shouldnt contian unless it something not meation in the body of the articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The league titles record was sourced - in fact I was the one who sourced it. Presumably it was deleted while everyone was arguing over whether the club was defunct or still going. *sigh* Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 18:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it's my mistake. I didn't see it because of the awkward way it is formatted into three columns. The whole records section is a mess now. --John (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
agreed its on my to do list now i have sourced them i plan to trim it down and split to two coloums and merge the otehr into the main article i am hopign to do it sometime this week or next Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Shirt names

Is there any reason why Rangers players do not have their names on the back of their shirts this season? Division 3 rules or another reason maybe? Clay More47 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

They don't have fixed squad numbers at all, they are allocated on a game by game basis 1-16. And therefore don't have names on shirts. Its the SFL rules.Blethering Scot 16:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Righto. Thanks for the reply. Clay More47 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

New Player Pages

Two Rangers F.C. first team players, Lewis MacLeod and Chris Hegarty, have featured regularly for the first team this season. It would make sense if they had their own pages. If folk on here agree that they should have their own pages then could someone please start them off and I can help update and maintain them?

Pages could initially be based on: http://www.rangers.co.uk/teams/first-team/item/419-lewis-macleod and: http://www.rangers.co.uk/teams/first-team/item/396-chris-hegarty

Cheers Iainturnerisgod (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

nope they fail notablilty and that why lewis one was deleted a few weeks ago, there not notable yet but the ocverage rangers is getting and the first team outing i am sure they will be soon neoughAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Surely more noteworthy ,or at least as noteworthy, as Andrew Mitchell, considering MacLeod at least has played more 1st team games than him? Iainturnerisgod (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
makes no difference read teh notabilty policie and you will see he has to have reliable 3rd party coverage which he getting but not enough to prove he notable, whats the rush? not like he goign to die because he has no wikipedia page....Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Football manager

Im really not happy using this as a source in the records section. Its a video game, not a reliable source.Blethering Scot 23:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

they indepently research the information for there games so i cnt see how it fails reliable source. also it backed up with books as wellAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Im not convinced unfortunately. I think using a video game in which we have no real proof over validity of the claim is not a good idea. Remember its backing a claim thats in doubt against a source we do know is reliable. Up to you but id be surprised if this doesn't get picked up on and no in Sandy Archibald's case the book disagrees. Im not going to have much more time to deal with things on this page, however i would take a good think about not using a video game.Blethering Scot 16:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
there alos the books i have put in reference and spefics they also quote sandy archiblad as the mostAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
They dont cite it as the most the references ive provided two books one published just last month disagrees. Ive pointed out to you that its highly likely the figure is not league only and the only source you have backing the claim in that article is football manager. Ive you want this to pass then you need to listen to John. Football manager is not a reliable source and its highly unlikely they do much research it wouldnt even surprise me if they use wiki.Blethering Scot 17:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
im fine wiht change it but i think a note with reference to the book Rangers teh Complete collection sayign ther enaother figure would be appiorate, ill be hones ti dnt think it right myself i thinki someone has screwed up somewhere and include mroe than jsut league apperances, its on there website they say they use there own indepent research to find out information by talkign to clubs themself etc, tehre isa shit loads of information they have ont eh game that not on wiki nor can you find anywhere else but i am hapyp to remove it just saying i dnt see hwo football manger is unreliableAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
what defines a reliable source becaus ei think as a lover of polciies you forgoten what makes it reliableAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
See WP:RS and WP:RSN. The latter is a noticeboard; you could raise it there or search the archives. --John (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
My point is the skysports yearbooks previous rothmans are very reliable, actually far more reliable because they dont use the press association to compile. They state someone else as the top league player. I'll maybe fire of an email to them but I really don't see it being wrong, I think it's far more likely that the others include all appearances. Also football manager I just don't see as relible it's highly unlikely they did any in depth research at all. Blethering Scot 18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ive moved that stat to the stats page so its a problem for the future as it not really important enough for the club suince it about league apperances, the club recrods are more important that player onesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

records section

in the records section we have two tables about player records, sine this is the club page it good to have a few important player records but the table isnt appiorate here does anyone have objection removing it and adding it to records page with he references--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No objections, clutters up the bottom of the page if anything. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This needs a good pruning. --John (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Crest vs Badge

Right I don't see what the problem is with using the word 'crest' instead of 'badge' for the club crests. It has repeatedly been changed to badge with the editors (AndrewCrawford and Keresaspa) opinion that there is no such thng as a 'crest' in footballing terms as the word 'crest' is a heraldic term. I totally refute this.

The official rangers website (yes I know, primary source), for a start, refers to it as the 'club crest' http://www.rangers.co.uk/club/history/crest

Secondly I have numerous third party websites that refer to it as the clubs 'crest'. While researching the web for information on historic crests of the club one of the very few that use the term 'badge' is the one that is currently cited in the article. Whereas there are many many more sources out there that refer to it as a crest. A snapshot of this range of third party sources are as follows:

Another primary source that refers to it as a 'crest' is the official SFL website. http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/

Another point that has crept up is that if we use the word 'crest' then the article will fail on FA or GA status. This is untrue. In footballing terms this is most commonly referred to as a crest not a badge. Please see the Chelsea FC (featured article), referring to it as a 'crest' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_F.C., and the Arsenal FC article (also featured article) doing similar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F.C.

Now I would accept a compromise like the section of the article was previously, where the title and gallery captions use the word 'crest' and the body of text uses the word 'badge'. Since we have numerous sources using 'crest' and one source using 'badge'. But I personally believe calling it a badge is not the correct term at all for a football teams crest.

Cheers Iainturnerisgod (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

this is issue for the wikiproject i suggest taking upa discussion there, if aconsensus is to use crest i will go with it, but mos says it should be badge because of the defintion of the words (note i dnt refute i all it a crest and badge personal) but wha ti think is irrevelent it what suits for the enclopedia, this issue affect all football article so take it wikiproject footballAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not really the mos is an essay not a policy. Arsenal F.C. uses crests, its a matter of consensus and what the sources say. Crests and badges are not necessarily always the same thing.Blethering Scot 21:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
ill post alink to the stuff tomorrow, its in the company talk page archive 4, sicne tha tpage got alter when it was still being made as a club articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Arsenal F.C., Ipswich Town F.C., Chelsea F.C., FC Barcelona, Derry City F.C., Gillingham F.C., Manchester United F.C., Norwich City F.C., York City F.C., Sunderland A.F.C., Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C., Leek Town F.C., IFK Göteborg, Dover Athletic F.C.. FA's using Crest. FA's no section Seattle Sounders FC, Luton Town F.C., Blackburn Olympic F.C.. Fa Badge Manchester City F.C., Liverpool F.C., Central Coast Mariners FC, Aston Villa F.C. That is 14 Crest, 3 neithier and 4 Badge.Its a matter of consensus, my point is the mos is not the main consideration.Blethering Scot 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, Rangers is one of the few clubs to have both a crest and a badge. The badge, i would consider to be the blue football with red lion in the center. The 'crest' i would consider to be the overlapping RFC worn on the shirt. Ricky072 (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
My opinion would be that the word 'badge' doesn't make sense unless in the contest of being worn on something e.g. a jersey. That's why I think the word "crest", or "emblem" should be used in generic reference to the two Rangers symbols, as in the article. I'd call the section Club emblems, use the term "crest" unless in the context of what appears on the jersey when its appropriate to say "badge". Gefetane (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

this is more a projet issue i have started a discussion there Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Crest_or_badge_.28edit_conflict.29

Edit request on 24 August 2012

under section Ally McCoist, change word SEEN to SAW for grammar purposes. AlanSD2003 (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Done A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I've just added alot of this information so there may be 1 or 2 slight grammar or spelling erros that have crept in. Ricky072 (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC history stopped in 2012, a new Rangers or 'The Rangers' history starts from season 2012/13 no if's, no but's, it's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.237.141 (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC) This article shows that Rangers FC (1872/2012) are to be liquidated and that 'The Rangers FC' are a new club playing Div 3 football - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18441178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.237.141 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Johngreig.jpg

It is not clear if this photograph of a 3D artwork is in the PD, can someone expand the description to give the location, and the means by which the general public can access it, (if in the UK) 188.28.133.111 (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

both say the original copy right holder give permission ot ue it ie they have been taln by other people using a cameraAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Please quote the exact line in which the permission is given below 188.28.133.111 (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Permission

(Reusing this file) PD-AUTHOR; Released into the public domain (by the author)., again this suggest the author took the picture with there camera which would make it PD, this one i believe mroe than the one above that a user has took the picture themself, but to say no its not would go against wp:agf whoever i think if the one above has been taken from the itnernet the uploader should add the rationale for it if it is to remain otherwise delete--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 07:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You have stated that the copyright holder of the 3D artwork gave permission, can you please identify the text in the image description 188.29.77.142 (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

i have i wonder if you are worse with dsylexica than me it quite clear to me wher eit sauys it either you are jsut blantet ingoring it or you have worse reading skills than me, no that ainta personal attack merely the fact i have said where it is said above but you still insist i say it againAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

188.29.77.142 is not explaining themselves very well. The problem is not the copyright of the photograph of the statue (which the uploader released into the public domain), it is the copyright of the statute itself. For this image to be legally public domain (in UK law) it needs to conform to the "Freedom of panorama" requirements described here. So what 188.29.77.142 is asking is; does this statue meet these requirements? If it doesn't then the derivative photo cannot be public domain. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
its a fine line, because the statue itself its not in teh grounds of ibrox, its in open public area ie area not owned by anyone but the council but i am not bothered if it stays or not my rpoblem was the reason for deleteion but thanks for clarifiy what the ip user meant :)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In that case it's fine. The statue is in a public place where all can see it, therefore the copyright of the sculpture cannot extend to photographs of it. The photo is public domain, so free to be used on Wikipedia. Only complication would be if someone wanted to argue that US law applied because of where Wikipedia is "published". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
For Commons the image must be free in both the country of origin and where the servers are located (Florida), however WP, only requires one of the two, although the former makes the image available to all projects and not just the English language wp. 188.28.164.6 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Company Voluntary Arrangement and other corporate jargon within lead section

I am not downplaying the importance of outlining the circumstances of Rangers transition to newco, but specific reference to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), in the context of what is the lead section of a FOOTBALL article, seems inappropriate and unnecessary. Many editors to this page may be familiar with the corporate jargon that has surrounded this saga, but why should we assume everyday wikipedia users will be familiar with this piece of insolvency terminology?

We already have 'insolvency', 'administration' and may soon have 'liquidation', let alone the CVA stuff. Is any of this corporate terminology really appropriate for this specific location, when an outline of the circumstances can be described in simpler terms?

Remember - there is an Administration and liquidation of The Rangers Football Club Plc article that provides the detail if required. Should we, at least in the context of the lead section, be looking to default to this page and other relevant sections and lay off the corporate terminology? Would welcome thoughts...Gefetane (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there is information in the second section of the intro that is out of place for a football club. The finances section should also be trimmed down with the administration detail. Thats why we have the separate article. Monkeymanman (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It is fine to mention this important information in the lead. If we are to mention it, it is appropriate to use the correct terms. The wikilinks allow people to check the meaning if they are unsure. --John (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
As per my edits, I've left terms "administration" and "insolvent" as they are more generic and essential to the matter, where as "company voluntary agreement" I would consider a piece of corporate sub-detail that is better re-phrased in clear English: "failing to settle outstanding debts with creditors". Gefetane (talk) 08:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree - i think it should be downplayed in the lead section. There is more information & words on the insolvency event than there is on, what RFC is (a club), where they play, honours won & rivalry with Celtic COMBINED. There is no reason why it should be any longer than a single sentence. Is it really more important than fundamental information such as 'playing in glasgow at irbox' or 'have a rivalry with celtic'? Ofcourse not. I;d remove this section: "Rangers became insolvent and entered administration in 2012. After failing to settle outstanding debts with creditors,". So that this section reads.... "Founded in 1872, the club was one of the ten founder members of the Scottish Football League, remaining in the top division until the end of the 2011–12 season. As a result of a tax dispute with HMRC, the club became insolvent and was transferred to a new company structure, to which Scottish Football Association membership was subsequently transferred. Although transfer of their Scottish Premier League membership was rejected, Rangers began the 2012-13 season in the Third Division." Ricky072 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

articles that could be affected by teh dispute rangers dead or alive

if you finda article that links to rangers in some way add this caterogy to the bottom [[Category:Rangers F.C. dispute articles]] this will allow tracking of all articles, files, images, template anything.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers dead or alive? Please don't tell me that old dispute is being dragged up again?! Gefetane (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
its still not been resolved, the primary problem still exists im finding mroe and mroe articles that affected and i having to change, even though we have archived a consensus that doesnt mean the dispute endsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The dispute regarding whether this article should refer to Rangers 2012-13 has been resolved. It does! It has been updated as such for 2 or 3 weeks now, all editors have contributed on that basis. Are you really saying everything could switch back to the old SuperHoops nonsense of "Rangers were a football club that used to be...."? Can you explain what are you needing to change on other articles and how that's relevant? Gefetane (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

indeed, the dispute is resolved, the evidence is overwhelming now. The official bodies such as the SFL list Rangers on their website with their history intact but also displays contemporary fixtures. As does the BBC, despite the BBC's reporting of "new club", they list Rangers under the same page, again with concurrent fixtures but also recognises past results & honours. The newco also hodl the same SFA membership. Not to mention we have precedents such as Leeds & Luton. There is simply no evidence to support 'new club' anymore, although i conceed it was a valid arguement at the time due to the confusion within the sources. Ricky072 (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Things are just beginning to settle down, the thought of the old wounds opening up again in the same old battle ground makes me groan. You're right Ricky, at one stage evidence was not clear. For me it was the TRANSFER of an existing club membership for Rangers FC, from oldco to newco, that sealed the deal. After all, a company with players and staff only becomes a "Club" when it is licensed with some kind of affiliation that allows participation in a football competition of some kind. Gefetane (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

the underlying issue hasnt been resolved, just becaue you's feel it all fien now doesnt mean everyone does, the reason for no edit warring is becaus eit been took to formal medation. as such if that fails then it moves to arbcom and they will nee dot know how vastly this dispute affect this caterogy can help find outAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're aware of a whole bunch of editors, who want two different Rangers club pages, all of whom are currently in hiding at the moment, then I'll take your word for it. Certainly no evidence of them on this talk page. Let's hope their side have better sources to combat the SFL, SPL, SFA, STV, HMRC, Record/Sun etc.. than "this journalist's piece describes them as a new club". Save everyone a lot of time. Gefetane (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Put it simply it appears to have mostly stopped and even then the few ones that are ongoing are generally ips who don't have the consensus for the change in the first place. Wouldn't worry about it.Blethering Scot 16:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I thought this whole ordeal was over? I'm not particularly keen on revisiting this without due cause. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 22:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

it never truly be resolved as some editors still wont accept it, but as consensus was reached it bit harder for them to argue, however i have still found article where rangers has been changed to newco rangers the underlying issue remains so any article being affected should be taggedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

im also not saying revisait it, but if the dispute boils over again then we will haev ceterogy that tracking all article that can be affected so we can update and fix quickerAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18441178 HMRC have taken steps to liquidate the 140 year old club, the oldco/old club. This is why C. Green formed a newco/new club. Rangers FC (1872/2012) can not add to their history as it stopped in 2012, but 'The Rangers FC' or NEWCO/NEW CLUB starts its very own history from season 2012/13. http://www.scotzine.com/2012/06/rangers-football-club-consigned-to-history-the-titles-will-not-transfer-over/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.237.141 (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This old argument...

Why do we have this page displaying mistruths? The "owner" of a club is not a company, it's a person...the owner of Rangers right now is the liquidators; the owner of "Newco Rangers" (i.e. "The Rangers Football Club Ltd") is Charles Green. These are indisputable facts. This Rangers exists as a shell of itself, there was another company rebranded as "Rangers" that started in the 3rd Div...why is this even an issue anymore; especially now that UEFA only recognises Rangers in the form of "Rangers Women" (UEFA link) --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming this page is about the company (RFC2012 plc), and not about the football team itself. The fact is, as a user of the encyclopedia, I come to this page to find out about Rangers as a team, its history as a team, and so on. I don't care who owns the team, in my mind, its the same team. The Rangers FC that is currently playing in the Scottish Third Division is owned by Charles Green. Rangers' SFA membership was transferred from RFC2012 to Newco, so in the eyes of the SFA, there is one Rangers team, which happens to be under new ownership.MrStoneman (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a very interesting link and you are correct that only the Rangers Women team is listed. Thanks Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for raining on the parade, but I'm afraid this is yet another "new club" contribution let down by flawed arguments and a lack of research. Those particular UEFA pages only show top-flight clubs - that's why Wolves, Bolton, Blackburn aren't there, where as West Brom/West Ham/Southampton are. Rangers are not currently in the top flight, so they're not shown, nothing at all to do with the "new club" debate. Sorry. Gefetane (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Good explanation. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Charles Green isn't the owner of The Rangers Football Club Ltd, he is the CEO. No one individual owns more than something like 15% of the company. Iainturnerisgod (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting "get out clause" you've got there; but if you take a look at the Rangers page on the UEFA website (something that the likes of Wolves etc do have) then you'll notice that the list of games comes to a bit of an abrupt halt...no games played this season...no games scheduled...There is no getting around the fact that the "owner" of a club is a person and NOT a company; the club itself IS the company. Rangers fans were more than happy to call SDM and Whyte the "owners" when they seemed to be working for them, but now it's convenient for their story to call Green the "CEO" as if that means he's not the owner. This "holding club" fairy tale that's being battered around all of a sudden is all wrong, and is a desperate attempt to hide an inconvenient truth. Put it this way; imagine if, for example, St. Mirren decided to put down £6M for the assets of the Old Ragners, just as Green put down his ~£5M, then rebranded St. Mirren as "Rangers"; would that be accepted as the same Rangers?...of course not! but what Green has done is the exact same as that. Green has created a new company (previously Sevco Scotland) and rebranded it as Rangers (The REAL Rangers Football Club). The owner is Green NOT his company. If this Rangers were seen as the same Rangers that played in the SPL last year "in the eyes of the SFA", then why don't the have a licence to play in the SPL anymore? surely the licence would still be with the club if they were the same? and furthermore, if club and company are supposed to be different, then why do they issue the footballing licence to a company and not the football team?...because the company IS the club, that's why. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Connelly, it wasn't a "get out clause". You made a mistake and I pointed it out before anyone else did. A few more points...
  • The "abrupt halt" in Rangers list of results is explained simply by their absence from the top division, you will see similar abrupt halts in the results for Wolves, Blackburn etc. Your fumbling references to the UEFA website are only harming your credibility, i'd leave it alone if I was you.
  • Green isn't the owner because he doesn't have a majority share holding. He is the most high profile member of the consortium, and Chief Exec, but not the "owner" as far as anyone can tell.
  • Back in 1873 or whenever it was, the SFA issued membership of their organisation, to a bunch of lads from Glasgow, for a team to play as "Rangers Football Club". Now its not the same bunch of lads, indeed it's not the same registered company that was incorporated in 1899, but it's still the SAME "Rangers Football Club" membership. Without a membership licence to join an association of football clubs, a company is just a company - give it one and it becomes a club, take it away and it becomes just a company again. The RFC plc (incorporated 1899) is now just a company, The RFC Ltd (incorporated 2012) is now a club. Which one? "Rangers Football Club" - the same club membership as the old company.
  • The reason Rangers aren't in the SPL is because, just as the TRANSFER of membership was approved by the SFA, the equivalent transfer of SPL membership was not approved by the SPL. If the SFA had said no, Rangers FC licensed in 1873 would be no more. So take any frustration you have out on them, not us through posts based on mis-abuse of sources! :-) Gefetane (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation rejected

Now that mediation has been rejected, along with the fact the articles have proved to be fairly stable (they have not been locked for weeks and no major issues have arisen), i do not see the need for a request for comment. It would be better to just use this approach that is being taken and improve all 3 articles that now exist on this matter. There is no point starting a full RFC and asking people to give time to state an opinion, if only one or two are against the consensus for treating the articles the way they do. Perhaps we should all just move on? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, i think the reason the 'new club' camp have faded into silence is because they know they are wrong. The evidence, SFA rulings and previous precedents is beyond overwhelming.Ricky072 (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC where liquidated,Sevco(as they STILL currently are because BDO havent granted permission for the new football club to use the name)are in div 3 because their a new football club, you can lie and pretend it didnt happen but thats the gods honest truth and in your heart and head you know this to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.106.27 (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

there is two reliable sources today that are still refering to it as new club and one that the old club was liquidated so this underlying problem has not been dealt with but as long no one starts making opbjection we dnt need the request for comment but if the issue comes back up we will have to do the request for comment and if that fails then it would be arbcom is the only solution left.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that the SFA transferred Rangers FC's membership, from oldco to newco, as opposed to issuing a new club membership. Whatever your 'reliable sources' are, unless they are disputing that Rangers FC's SFA Club membership was successfully transitioned between the two corporate identities, which I doubt, they are just more examples of a particular hack's choice of wording, to be tossed on the pile amongst the litany of other conflicting, inconsistent, media interpretations, most of which found there way onto this talk page at some point! Why do you think the other side have disappeared? Because the facts proved them wrong, and they sensibly know when to stop digging. Gefetane (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
wikipedia is not about facts its about relible 3rd party sources if they sayt it dead wikipedia does to, but with this its a problem if it doesnt get brought up fine but if it does request for comment will be doneAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Crest

On the page under the club crest heading the center crest has stars. This crest is no longer in use. THe stars have been removed this season. the caption should read 'The modified scroll crest worn 2003 - 2012' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.190.109 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't used on the home shirt but it is on the away and third shirts. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 13:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


The stars arent on the home strip crest because the kit is supposed to replicate the kit worn in 1972 as closely as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Could an admin please re-apply the full protection to the article. Its heading for chaos if you dont. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree I thought the page was already on semi-protection at the very least. BadSynergy (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
its not required just now ther enot much vandelism more good faith edits which are inappiorate, and it better if portection isnt required for FAAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Not having this page protected from vandalism is very unwise. I've just reverted 3 bits from this evening. Please restore the protection. Gefetane (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Tidied up a bit

I have just tidied up the article a bit as i feel the information about administration etc shouldn't be at the top where it is telling you about the club. I think is should be mentioned in the clubs history section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I feel at the top of the page where it says about the administration etc makes it look a bit too "clogged uP". I feel that information should have it own section in the history of the club — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbierangers (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

sorry robbie it wont happen, its important part of the article, teh lead the bit right at the begin should be a summary of the main article and administration is part of th mian article, and it does have a part in the hsitroy section the part relating ot football, the part relating to company stuff has it own article and sectionAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rangers_F.C./Archive_30&oldid=1143715441"