Talk:Wanderers F.C.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wanderers F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll begin this review by looking over and making straightforward copyedits (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning), and will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

the Wanderers were among the most dominant teams of the early years of organised football - gah! " most dominant" sounds weird - I'd go for " most successful" or just "dominant"

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

who had left Harrow School in the same year - had he left (i.e. before matriculation), or graduated? if the latter then state so.

Harrow is a secondary school, so does not have matriculation/graduation. The source says something to the effect that he "finished his education" there, so I have changed it to that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The following year, the club played its first match under the name Wanderers Football Club - better not to use bold in body of article. Italics can be used for emphasis here.

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

that some of the club's members were opposed to this idea - why not just " that some of the club's members opposed this idea"

Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise looking pretty good. I know a bit about soccer and can't think of anything else contentwise. Funny how the team vanished without a trace really.Any other info on how it was run? board? monies? etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The club was run by an elected committee, I will see if I can find an appropriate place to squeeze that in. As an amateur club consisting of wealthy members of the upper classes playing largely for their own enjoyment, the club's own finances probably didn't extend much beyond petty cash, I don't think there's really anything to add about that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, even just explaining that - well, any material which is sourced is helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - actually, it's fine now. If you do get a little bit more to add on structure it's a bonus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'd place it in the Formation section. Not a great fit but it is the only place where there is any other info related to it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable claim

The article notes that "In 2009, over 120 years after the last known Wanderers match, a "reformed" Wanderers club was founded in London, reportedly with the endorsement of the founders of the original club."

I'd be interested to know how many of the founders of the original club were around to endorse the new club in 2009? Perhaps some candidates for the list of the verified oldest people? Or was this reported by a medium? ;) Number 57 14:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that last clause is a doozy. Ummm...time to review the original ref... I have reworded it myself ("descendants" was missing..ahaa). Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wanderers F.C.

Hi Wikipedia!

I am the Club Secretary of the reformed Wanderers FC. The Wikipedia page for Wanderers FC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanderers_FC) has a great deal of missing information and links to other Wikipedia articles that might be of interest. Is there a way for me to create an unbiased, objective page and submit it for peer / editor review before making wholesale changes to the page? I have saved the page source code for Manchester United (as a good example of a well written page) to use as a starting point.

Furthermore, we are the official continuation of the original Wanderers FC - we have the written endorsement of the Alcock family, who great-great-grandfathers, John Forster and Charles William Alcock were founder members of the club (when it was called Forest FC in 1859). No other person or body holds any rights to the name or history of the club and I have confirmed with the Alcock family that no other persons have approached them about any reformation in the past. I had added a section titled 'Reformation' and detailed the circumstances of our rebirth but the section has been removed in the past.

Is the best course of action to talk to each individual user on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wanderers_F.C.&action=history) to clarify the situation and avoid the need for any further deletions of that section of the page?

Many thanks, Mark Ukmarkwilson (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to create a page at User:Ukmarkwilson/Wanderers F.C. and put a note here when you feel it's done. Please note that all content must be referenced to reliable, independent sources. Out of interest, other than not featuring more coverage of the re-formed club (your addition was not removed as far as I can see, simply re-worded slightly), can I ask what you feel the article is lacking? Pretty much everything covered in Rob Cavallini's book on the original club is already included..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris - that's been done now. I basically used the core of the original article, reordered it based on the Manchester United page (as an example of a good article) and added a few updated or new details that I felt were missing. There were one or two sections that were lacking, specifically around the players, home ground, crest and kit, but, as you'd imagine, I did want to include a couple of points about the reformed club. If you could take a look and let me know what you think, that would be great.

There are 2 key points to bear in mind; a) the Harrow School crest is not aligned correctly and I don't know how to fix it. and b) the official squad list has not be released yet, and won't be until 2nd September, so the source will need to be amended to correctly reflect that.

Cheers, Mark Ukmarkwilson (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look when I've got a mo........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• I would very strongly advise against a "Current squad" section for a club at such a low level of the pyramid. These types of sections for non-League clubs are usually in a terrible state as players come and go at a much more frequent rate than in professional football, and are updated far less often.
• Make sure your references are outside the punctuation (the reference should be after the comma or full stop, not before it)
• Do not make the badge in the infobox a thumbnail. You can add a caption using the {{Infobox football club}} parameters
• The last sentence in the 2009-present section needs some grammar and 2011-12 should be 2011–12
• The use of the stadium infobox creates several lines of whitespace when viewing in IE. Remove the infobox and make sure the picture is directly beneath the kits (which should be moved up to just under the kits heading.

There's probably a few more, but I've only had time for a quick look at it. Number 57 17:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've quickly fixed the issues with the pics and infobox. Number 57 17:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interested parties may wish to check out this discussion...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Wanderers.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Wanderers.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Claim has no veracity Thepingopango (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose new article for Wanderers F.C. (2009)

I have just come across this page and am very surprised that the 'reformed' club does not have its own page and merely a note about it on this page. Wanderers F.C. were an illustrious side that ceased to exist completely in 1887 and were completely dissolved. Having a newspaper quote from the great niece and/or great granddaughter of the original club's founder saying that she backs the new club concept is nowhere near a 'reformation'. For it to be a 'reformation' there would be a few core things (at least one for definite): same ground (no, it's 7 miles away from the Kennington Oval), same squad (of course not, formed 112 years later), same owner/s (no, they had no owners as such in the Victorian era). Basically it's roughly in the same place and they checked with descendents of the original club founder to see if they could use the name (presumably not take the full club history).

This club, formed 2009, does not have any direct link to the original Wanderers F.C. other than that they contacted descendants to ask if they could use the name. I honestly have nothing agisnt the new side but they do not have the right to claim 5 FA Cup wins based on contacting a relative of a folded club's founder (there were four other founders according to the article who apparently haven't had their descendants permission sought).

A split would be very easy, I am keen to hear other editors thoughts?

Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 10:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: I completely agree, the new club is not the same as the old one by any sane stretch of the imagination and I would support such implications being removed from the article. I would advise against creating an article for the new club, though, as it hasn't played at a level deemed notable by WP:FOOTY (top 10 levels of the English football league system) so would almost certainly get deleted..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: good point, I hadn't considered that notability of the new club properly. I think that amends to this page with a section noting that there is a new club bearing the same name would be suitable as well as removal of the new club info from the infobox. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 12:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Revival Club

Given that there were no objections to the above, and I agree with the sentiments, I've rewritten the article to make clear that Wanderers went out of business in 1887. The revived club is not sufficiently notable for a new article; but we do not need to scrub it from history, and it has its own place within this page. We have made similar decisions where clubs were inactive for much shorter periods of time - see Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891) and Accrington Stanley F.C., Chester City F.C. and Chester F.C., Gateshead A.F.C. and Gateshead F.C. etc. etc. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object. If the Football Association are happy for us to continue as a reformation of the original club, then I don't see how anyone else can question that as they are the governing body of the sport in England. --Ukmarkwilson (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Wanderers have been playing in Kennington since 2009, literally over the road from the Oval. We would gladly play there but a) Surrey CCC won't allow it, b) the league we have entered won't permit teams to play on Kennington Park as the surface is inadequate, and c) it's very expensive too. Arsenal used to play in Woolwich; now they're in Highbury & Islington should they be forced to rename or renounce their history? You could make the same point with Sheffield Wednesday, who changed their name in 1929; Port Vale, who folded until a completely different team changed their name to Port Vale in 1907; Leicester City, who folded as Leicester Fosse and reformed after World War 1; Portsmouth, Norwich City, Huddersfield Town, Newport County, Swansea City, and Wigan Athletic - all have folded and been reformed without any issues surrounding their sometimes spurious connections to the previous organisation, yet they all compete in the Football League and claim the oldest foundation date they can make a claim to.

I'd be more than happy to go to court, as AFC Wimbledon had to, to claim our rightful history but that seems excessive for a Wikipedia article. In my effort to reform the club, I contacted the FA and London FA to ask their permission and it was given, alongside that of Karen Gunnell, the great-grand-daughter of John Alcock, and her family. You cite examples like Accrington, Chester, etc, but could equally include Rangers, Middlesbrough, etc, who have folded or gone bankrupt and then been allowed to reform without question. So either the FA, London FA, or Alcock family are wrong and the club has to be named something totally different or Wikipedia editors are being overly critical. It is for them to define the criteria of a reformation as they have the experience of having done so before.

Lastly, the only evidence we have that the club ceased playing football in 1887 is a facsimile copy of a match report that is the most recent evidence of them contesting a match. The club may well have continued after that but without sufficient evidence to suggest that they were 'completely dissolved' it's hard to say. To use the word 'dissolved' might suggest that the club were registered as a business in some capacity and there is no evidence of that (yet).

Sorry if this comes across as a rant but I didn't think anyone was still questioning this nearly 10 years after we reformed. --Ukmarkwilson (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ukmarkwilson: I think the revived club should have its own article on this wiki so both clubs are different, the original being dissolved in 1887 and the new one founded in 2009. It is a similar case to Argentine club Alumni (folded in 1911), with a new club (Asociación Alumni) being established 40 years after by a group of students who asked descendants permission to create a new institution with the same name. Are you still interesed in the subject? - Fma12 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fma12: the revived club plays SIX divisions below the WP:FOOTY agreed cut-off point for club notability (level 10 of the English football league system. You would need to be able to point to some exceptional WP:GNG coverage to save such an article from being deleted/merged back into this one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the advise. I was aware of WFC's glory days had already gone, but your explanation gave me further precissions about their nowadays status. You're right, the reformed club is not notable enough to has an article here. Thank you. - Fma12 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What a joke. You revived nothing. --91.23.38.226 (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wanderers in 1912

Hello, I found an article in an Italian newspaper about an Italian tour of Wanderers in 1912. This tour is mentioned because the first attempt to build a unique team in Rome was meant to face the Wanderers during their Italian tour. I can give you the newspaper... i really don't know if is the same Wanderers team, a mistake of the journalist... regards, --Erpaolo9 (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not the same club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. --Erpaolo9 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Note on 'Wanderers F.C. 2009'

A quick public information post. There is a London club, formed in 2009, claiming the history and honours of Wanderers (1859-1887), their website is here: [1]. They are currently mentioned briefly in one sentence in this article, the section is currently titled 'Modern clubs' which I wrote today to give it a place having been removed from the lead by another editor.

I can find no non-primary evidence that a link to the previous iteration of Wanderers is verifiable, they claim FA/AFA/London FA and 'descendant' (i.e. the blessing of a descendant of the original club) permission but there is seemingly no actual link between the entities. The idea that a distant descendant 122 years after the club dissolution can 'grant permission' for a reformation of the club is laughable unless there was still some kind of formal club registration or assets to hand over. I also find it unlikely that the FA or London FA have explicitly stated that 'you can take on the identify of the original Wanderers F.C.', it seems highly out of character for them to grant such a thing - especially when the club was as illustrious as Wanderers - being the first FA Cup winners.

My opinion on this is that it is a PR exercise on behalf of the new club, they are trading on the 'reforming the Wanderers' narrative to get local press and attract interest in their club, this would morally be OK if they were not also claiming the honours of the former club: 5 FA Cups in their new club honours list and have placed five stars on their kit to represent that. Their social media and website boast heavily of the links also. Looking at it cynically from the balance book, I imagine that a club with 5 FA Cups will be worth a lot more than one with none if they can manage to move the club up the league system over the next few years.

For this article: there seems to be a consensus based on earlier discussions to:

• Keep the 'new club' out of the lead and infobox at present unless any hard evidence that the FA have acknowledged them as a successor to the original Wanderers F.C..
• Only create a new article for Wanderers F.C. (2009) if they reach level 10 of the English football league system.
• Keep a careful eye on edits being made here for PR/advertising purposes.

A final comment is on the veracity of sources. If the owner/secretary of this club (who has posted above), holds interviews or writes pieces where he tells the local press that he has FA/London FA permission (he has re-iterated this on Twitter today also) for the use of the Wanderers brand, then we could get well-meaning editors here adding these references when there seems to be no actual proof for those permissions. Mountaincirque^talk 13:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: I contacted the Amateur Football Alliance, who 'Wanderers F.C. 2009' have claimed support their claim to Wanderers F.C.'s honours, as noted here on Twitter this week [2], and here [3] - they claim that they have applied for membership of the AFA explicitly as the 'reformed Wanderers' and that as no issue was raised with this that they have been granted that status. I raised these points in an email.

The eloquent response of the AFA CEO (in full) was as follows:

5 April 2022

We don't particularly have an opinion on this.

Jason Kilby | Chief Executive Amateur Football Alliance

Unit 3, 7 Wenlock Road, London N1 7SL

T – +44 (0) 20 8733 2613| Jason.Kilby@amateur-fa.com | www.amateur-fa.com

I take this to indicate that Wanderers (2009) are stretching the truth somewhat in their claims, as the AFA have no stance on it. I'm also hoping to get responses from the London FA and FA who they have also listed as 'supporters of their claim' also.

Mountaincirque^talk 11:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If you would like me to forward you copies of communication from the Alcock family, please let me know how. 2A02:908:1B0:E1E0:551C:EED3:F664:2620 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

These emails may give "permission to use the name" but that is a very different thing from "you are the very continuation of the original club and you have the full backing of every authority legal and otherwise to assume the past glories, trophies and reputation of this illustrious club", because in the eyes of everyone except the Club Secretary @Ukmarkwilson that one can suddenly decide one day they are a long dead thing is absurd. An email from a distant relative of one of the founders does not meet the Wikipedia standard for an independent, verifiable, reliable source.

This 2009 entity is using history as a bit of fun PR to raise the profile of a well meaning charity football team; it's going to convince Wikipedians they are Jesus 92.40.192.131 (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of all this back-and-forth, the only thing that matters, per WP core policy, is whether reliable sources consider the new club to be an actual continuation of the old one. Have any reliable sources covered the topic at all? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian used the word reanimated to describe the side in 2012 when they played in a recreation of the first FA Cup final [4]. The BBC report of the same game (video report) stated "Wanderers folded in the 1880s, but were reformed in 2009" [5]. Ultimately they aren't a continuation in anything but name and a claim of 'permission from a descendant', they are a new club registered with the AFA, which itself didn't exist until 20 years after the Wanderers disappeared in the 1880s. Mountaincirque^talk 11:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Date?

In the article, it states "In 1868, the Forest club was revived". Surely this cannot be correct, as another part of the article mentions the club being active in this time. Can someone well versed in the topic of Wanderers please fix this typo. Also, surely the modern revival club also deserves a mention? WikiHmmmm... (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)