Jump to content

Talk:St Mirren F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:St. Mirren F.C.)

Buddies?

[edit]

Why are they called "The Buddies"? Could someone cover this in the History section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.146.66 (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddie = Body. Just the way that the word body in the past sounded in a scots accent. Should be something in the Paisley page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.198.1 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direction from St. Mirren F.C.

[edit]

Just wondering why, since the full-stop should be part of the contraction. - Dudesleeper 21:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article back to the original page after realising it was re-directed by an anonymous user with no reason given. - Dudesleeper 21:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Prices

[edit]

Almost half of the page is dedicated to ticket prices for the current season. I say it should be removed as it is advertising. Winterbottom 16:49, January 11th 2007 (UTC)

Ronaldinho

[edit]

Is the reasoning behind Ronaldinho's rejection correct. I've heard passport issues 82.9.197.121 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it at the time the problem was with red tape. When signing a player on load you need to get permission from the parent FA, in Ronaldinho's case this was the Brazilian FA, unfortunately for saints when they tried to contact the Brazilian FA to get clearance they were told it was a public holiday in Brazil and as such no-one was available, that was on the deadline day and so scuppered the deal. Thats from memory, ESPN Story cites another reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.215.66 (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pics

[edit]

Images from the recent game against Motherwell and others are available on flickr here, all of these have a free licence and can be uploaded to commons. Nanonic (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 January 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages be moved to enact consensus. Despite the large amount of text generated during this RM discussion, 9 editors supported the move proposal (including the proposer) and 2 editors opposed it. The principal basis for the consensus to move were per WP:COMMONAME (sources and links listed refer to St Mirren without the dots, including the team's own website), and as per English language convention (also found in MoS). Whilst one of the arguments maintained by opposition was that this may cause consistency issues in other articles in this topic, there is sufficient clarity here that assessments may be made on an individual case-by-case basis as one size does not necessarily fit all at all times. Note: this request only asked with the question asked about removing the dot from "St.", which is what participants have commented on, so the closure limits focus to that question without prejudice to any other proposals which may be made in a separate RM or RfC. (non-admin closure) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– to remove the dot from "St." per wikipedia naming convention and per the club's own website http://www.saintmirren.net/. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment leaning to don't moveHave a look at the club's logo on the website though as It clearly says St. Mirren Football Club, as does the logo we use on St. Mirren F.C.. Plus the club's official website actually uses Saint Mirren as well, so you could argue that rather than St Mirren. Plus can you link to the naming convention you are referring to.Blethering Scot 16:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. @Blethering Scot: As explained at WP:OFFICIAL, the policy at WP:COMMONNAME is that Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.
    Those sources overwhelmingly abbreviate the word "Saint", as does the club itself: http://www.stcuthbertwanderers.co.uk/ uses "St Mirren" in its site header and in every usage I found.
    Google News gives 183 hits for "Saint Mirren", but 360 hits for "St Mirren".
    I looked for "I looked for "St. C" on the first 7 search pages of result listings (70 hits), and found zero uses of "St." with a dot.
    The convention does not seem to be documented, but it is longstanding practice on.wp not to use the dot in "St.", as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed So your original post was certainly misleading then. Common name really doesnt apply to a . in my opinion. Your original post read like we had a naming convention stating Saint should be abbreviated to St rather than St. In this case I am definitly Opposed to move. As for other Scottish clubs St. Johnstone F.C. St. Mirren F.C. are the only SPFL clubs with Saint in their name and both use the . You've also requested a move to St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C.. Please tell me the precedent of Scottish clubs that done use St., as I'm failing to see it.Blethering Scot 19:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blethering Scot: Nothing misleading. It is an undocumented convention, demonstrable in usage. I used the word "convention" rather than "policy" or "guideline". I did not claim that it was a convention of some set of football clubs; it is a wider convention across all topics, including towns such as St Andrews and lots of Scottish schools.
What is your basis for claiming that St. Johnstone F.C. St. Mirren F.C. are the only SPFL clubs with Saint in their name and both use the .?. I have provided evidence from the club's own websites and -- crucially -- from reliable sources. You offer only assertion.
Without some evidence to support your claim, your oppose is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: First of all your opening statement mentioned nothing about commonname, so yes it was very misleading. You've also maid very incorrect statements such as as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs. Have a look at SPFL website. Only two clubs are names Saint. St. Johnstone F.C. in the Premiership and St. Mirren F.C. in the championship. Outside the SPFL in Junior football there is another four, St Anthony's F.C.‎, St Roch's F.C, St. Andrews United F.C. & St. Cuthbert Wanderers F.C. So out of six only 2 is named without the St. So please BrownHairedGirl show me where as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs is proven. As you've said to me show me your evidence to back up your lies. ‎ As for I dont like it thats just you trying to hide the fact you are being evasive. If you can prove common name applies to a ., then please go ahead. However done make false statements. The . is good English.Blethering Scot 20:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really a Scot? Using a dot is the American way. Same with Mr, Mrs, etc. — Film Fan 20:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Are you really called Flim Fan. Ridiculous.Blethering Scot 21:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blethering Scot: I have provided evidence of common usage, and of usage by the club itself. That is what matters in Wikipedia policy.
You have offered no evidence in support of any other names, and so as noted, your comments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
You now seem to be trying to find flaws in my comments as if you were an advocate conducting a cross-examination, rather than a fellow en.wp editor trying to reach a consensus. Your latest statement, with its accusation of "lies" is a direct personal attack and assumption of bad faith, so I will not discuss any further with you. If you persist with such a personalised approach, I will consider seeking sanctions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: So you are threatening to block a user who oposes your view when involved. Sorry but you started this by attacking me. Secondly saying you lied is not a personal attack. You did lie. You said as reflected for example in the names of the other Scottish football clubs. It is not reflected in the names of other Scottish football clubs. You have yet to withdraw your claim or back it up.Blethering Scot 21:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "attack" you. You called me a "evasive" and a "liar", which is a personal attack and allegation of bad faith. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And i stand firmly by those words. You showed bad faith against me when saying i was showing signs of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because i failed to back up the evidence of my correct claims. You made a statement which was entirely false and have provided no evidence to back it up. Therefore yes you were evasive and you did lie. Even after you were called out on your lies you have failed to withdraw the claim against me. So sorry but its you who showed bad faith not me.Blethering Scot 22:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have no policy and no evidence, then there is nothing left but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's not an attack -- the basis of policy-based consensus forming is that editors offers arguments based in policy.
You have already been asked to stop the personal abuse and discuss substance, but instead you repeat the abuse. Enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing the common name argument at all. If this was Hurricane Bawbag versus storm Friedhelm, then you may have a point. However this is St. v StBlethering Scot 21:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well no. — Film Fan 21:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the reliable sources and external links listed call them St Mirren, including the team's own website. Therefore, this shows that St Mirren is the WP:COMMONNAME. As a result, I support the move per WP:COMMONNAME. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joseph2302 Does common name apply to a . Please provide the evidence it does. Also St. Mirren use the . in their logo, so i would argue thats what they officially call themselves.Blethering Scot 21:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use official names, we use what reliable sources call them. Reliable sources seem to call them "St Mirren" not "St. Mirren", so I believe we should too. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"St Mirren" is still the more commonly used, and the latter part of your first sentence is not true. — Film Fan 02:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that what I've said is untrue, but let's not delve into that as I do agree that the majority will just write 'St' so I understand why a move has been suggested but shouldn't we at least be consistent? The most widely used spelling will probably always be 'St Mirren' so by applying WP:COMMONNAME, we should be removing the 'F.C.' as well. I know you'll probably think I'm just being pedantic but anywhere that I've seen 'F.C.' used at the end of a football clubs name it's just 'FC' eg- http://www.uefa.com/. What I'm trying to say is that we should either consistently keep the full stops or remove them. I don't see much point in changing every football team with 'F.C.' so why should we change 'St. Mirren F.C.' to 'St Mirren F.C.' Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland: two points:
  1. The policy WP:COMMONNAME gives no special weight to "the people who use the clubs common name most". What matters is the overall balance of usage in reliable sources.
  2. For the policy on when to use full stops and when not, see WP:Manual of Style#Full_stops_and_spaces. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're saying in point 1. For point 2 all I'm saying, like WP:Manual of Style says, is that we be consistent and either keep the full stops or remove them all i.e. from 'F.C.' as well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland::
  1. did you read WP:Manual of Style#Full_stops_and_spaces? It is very clear: "in standard British and Australian usage no stop is used if the abbreviation ends in the last letter of the unabbreviated form " -- that applies to "Saint", so the abbreviated from "St" without a stop
  2. "F.C." is not an abbreviation. It is an initialism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did read WP:Manual of Style#Full_stops_and_spaces, both now and when I first started editing. I understand the difference between an abbreviation and an acronym/initialism but I don't think you've understood me properly. What I'm saying is that we be consistent, as per WP:Manual of Style. We should either use the full stop, and leave as is, or we remove all the full stops (as is the case with some other acronyms on wikipedia eg- NATO). I understand this would require moving the vast majority of football club articles and I can't see the point in that but we should be consistent. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stevie, why should very different things be treated in the same way? That's like saying that a cow should be cooked in the same way as a lettuce. The comparison with NATO is misplaced, because it is not just an initialism, it is an acronym. "F.C." is not an acronym.
If you want to argue the widespread use of "F.C." should be changed, then go and start the RFC. It might be a good idea.
In the meantime, your argument seems to be that this article's title should use "St." with a dot contrary to the MoS and to common usage because there is an unrelated issue whose fix you think would be pointless. That's all a bit silly. We can fix the "st." issue now, regardless of the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. A disambiguator is needed here, and "F.C." is the std disambiguator for articles such as this.
    A disambiguator is needed because St Mirren is the abbreviated form of Saint Mirren (aka St Mirin), to which it redirects. A sporting club should not displace the entity after which it is named, so a disambiguator is added. The std disambiguator for football clubs in Britain is "F.C.", and a change would affect hundreds of articles. If you wanted to make such as widespread change, it would require an RFC. So that's outside the scope of this discussion.
    So, the question for this discussion remains a choice between "St. Mirren F.C." and "St Mirren F.C." ... and the form without the full stop is supported by both the MoS and WP:COMMONNAME. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that any form of RFC is needed. I think you are just discounting without contrary evidence any evidence I provide. What entity would ST Mirren or Saint Mirren replace. They were named after Saint Mirin a totally separate page target. Clearly evidence provided would indicate that St Mirren or Saint Mirren is the only true WP:COMMONNAME. Therefore if you are discounting St Mirren or Saint Mirren, then the common name policy can be discounted as an argument. There is an overwhelming difference in page targets. I looked at page hits in previous stats so lets look at Google news as well. St. Mirren F.C. 116,000 results & again no difference if . removed to become St Mirren F.C., St Mirren has 171,000 results, Saint Mirren 195,000 results. Its pretty overwhelming evidence that if common name is being applied as a policy then the wrong name is being suggested. In addition the St. implies a shortened name, ST does not. ST is a shortened version of Saint.Blethering Scot 21:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BS, there is a clear naming convention to apply the "F.C." to articles on football clubs. If you want to change such a widespread convention, that needs a broad consensus through an RFC.
Saint Mirren redirects to the saint whose name is also spelt as Saint Mirin. For some reason St Mirren redirects to the football club, which it should not do. The club is named in honour of the saint, not the other way round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The policy and evidential issues in this case are identical, although the debate here became more heated.
This case has also been complicated by the late addition of a notion to change "F.C." to "FC". Discussion has stalled for 5 days, so may I suggest to the closer that this discussion could be closed on whatever the outcome of the initial proposal to remove the dot from "St.", without prejudice to any subsequent discussion on FC vs F.C.? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
I concur with the above and would also observe that the F.C. / FC discussion is in fact a completely different point since that is a discussion around around an abbreviation, whereas this is a discussion around a contraction, therefore any conclusions drawn from this and the other RMs noted above cannot inform any discussion on future F.C. / FC discussions. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again User:BrownHairedGirl, you seem to be deliberatly missing my point. I have not suggested "F.C." to "FC". So dont say I'm muddying the watters. What I am saying is that clearly per the evidence above that your common name argument is false. The common name per evidence provided is St Mirren, not St Mirren F.C.. I see no need for an RFC in any way. Wikipedia:Commonname clearly indicates we should use common name and no disambiguation is required in this case. We have no other article named St Mirren and the club is named after Saint Mirin, which is a different name. Frankly if a disambig was needed then I could see your point, however it is not in this case. Blethering Scot 22:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also can you explain why are you preempting the admins closure by creating redirectsBlethering Scot 22:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BS, it would be very helpful if you would try for once to follow wikipedia policy and assume good faith. You have been asked before and warned before; enough.
Two alternative proposals were presented above. One was to change "F.C." to "FC"; the other is to use neither.
Both changes would break the convention that associated football clubs in the UK are named "Foo F.C" (or in some cases "Foo A.F.C."). I have not checked whether that convention is documented as a formal guideline, but is easily demonstrable in practice, with only a tiny number of exceptions. This is not the place to change a convention which applies to so many hundreds articles (an RFC would be needed for that), and you offered no reason to treat St Mirren as an exception to the convention. Two reasons why that is the case:
  1. The Google searches which you offer above are flawed, because a) they are general searches, rather than of reliable sources such as news or books (see WP:AT for why). b) They do not take account of the cases where the "F.C." is unused because it is implicit in the context (such as a an article solely about that days football results) or because it has been used earlier in the article.
  2. Similar issues apply to many of the hundreds of other football clubs in the UK which use the "F.C" suffix. You have offered no evidence that St Mirren FC is more likely to be named without the FC than say Dundee United FC or Bolton Wanderers FC. Unless you can demonstrate that St Mirren F.C. is an exceptional case, then what you are seeing is a change to the convention -- and that needs an RFC.
In any case, the unqualified name "St Mirren" and "St. Mirren" are ambiguous: they are an abbreviation of "Saint Mirren", which is one of the spelling variants of the saint whose article is entitled Saint Mirren. To move these pages to an ambiguous title, you would need to demonstrate that the football club is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which you have not even tried to do.
But here's the clincher. The choice between "St" and "St." is unrelated to any choice between "FC", "F.C.", and no suffix. If you want to pursue that idea, then my proposal above is for this discussion to be closed with a decision between "St" and "St." ... and that you or any other should be free to open a new RM to choose between "FC", "F.C.", and no suffix.
That way each proposal can be discussed separately. If you are genuinely not trying to muddy the waters, then you will support the principle of separating the two decisions -- which has been supported above by Fenix down and by User:92.26.171.54. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrownHairedGirl. No action was taken against me and you were warned as well. Your behaviour has frankly been well before par of that expected of an admin. Once again I am not asking for the article to be changed to FC, you have muddied the water for yourself and frankly I want an apology. My argument is a clear one that in this case no disambiguation is required in anyway and common name clearly indicates that ST Mirren is the correct title. The article does not require FC or F.C.Blethering Scot 17:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered to actually read you will see that it was User:Stevie fae Scotland who said that if we were going by standard naming policy the dots should be removed from FC, not me. Frankly you should be ashamed at badgering on at me about muddying the waters and removing the dot. My proposal was clearly to move page to St Mirren.Blethering Scot 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BS, it wasn't me who accused you of muddying the waters -- that was the IP above. I agree with the IP, and also with Fenix down, who also notes that the issues are separate.
Please read what I wrote. My proposal above is that you or any other should be free to open a new RM to choose between "FC", "F.C.", and no suffix. That covers both the dots in "F.C." and your preference to remove any suffix. If you are genuinely not trying to muddy the waters, then why not separate the suffix from the removal of the dot from "St."? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly accused me of muddying the waters, both here and on my page and specifically over the F.C, or FC debacle. So please don't blame others. I have no interest in that whatsoever.Blethering Scot 18:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blethering Scot, it's v v v simple. If you don't want to muddy the waters, then separate the two issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The name change (my opinion)

[edit]

I have NEVER seen St. Mirren without the full stop in my life, except in cases of laziness. Perhaps ask Stewart Gilmour rather than the right-wing fascism that people on here display... P.S. I support their derby rivals Salty1984 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well given that the lengthy discussion included a number of observations confirming that the WP:COMMONNAME did not include the dot and that this aligns to standard UK abbreviation format I would suggest you haven't been looking that hard. I would also suggest you look at Right wing and Fascism as these are clearly terms you do not fully understand if you are applying them to a free and open discussion to which all could input such as the one above. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Record victory

[edit]

I have changed the club's record victory back to the long accepted 15-0 v Glasgow University, Scottish Cup, 1960 as listed by sources eg. Soccerbase. A couple of years back someone replaced this with a 16-0 win over Port Glasgow OBU in the Renfrewshire Cup. While this is correct, it was a youth team match played at the training ground in a minor local competition, and misleading to list as a first team record unless reliable sources decide to do so. Jellyman (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top 6?

[edit]

is history innit 92.40.193.138 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badge

[edit]

Been deleted for some reason. If someone could upload one ASAP that would be great. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded badge is incorrect - text font is different 2A05:87C5:3004:BA00:2C0B:A6FF:FEE1:9679 (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_Mirren_F.C.&oldid=1205417136"