Jump to content

Talk:West Ham United F.C./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Nicknames

Nzd 16:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've edited this bit because, well, I clearly need to research this more. I would seriously like to expand on this at some point though. If anyone has pointers to information, for instance on when the nickname Hammers actually came into use (i.e. was it before 1900?), that'd be cool.. N (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

West Ham Utd have the nickname "the Hammers" due to the use of the Rivetting Hammers when the club was the Thames Iron Works team. It is NOT due to the location at West HAM. The club may not have been called the Hammers at first, but this was because the Hammers were not added to the strip till about the later on in there history. But when the hammers were added it was in recogintion of the teams historical roots. I will try and find a reference/dates for this in my mums enourmeous collection of west ham books. But in the mean time can we please delete the comment about the name being associated with the clubs location as I, and any other Irons fan, will tell you it is simply not true. There is ofcourse one nick name that doesn't need referencing and that is "The Cockney Boys". This should get a mention.

Removed the crap about the lasagne boys as it is not relevant!Statto74 16:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bubble Blowers

As a West Ham United fan of over 30 years, with alot of West Ham friends, I have NEVER heard us refer to ourselves as Bubble Blowers. I dispute the use of this nickname in the main article, which keeps being added by Koncorde.

With regard to the references:

1. An H2G2 page is not a reliable corroborating source. The pages (disavowed by BBC as not being responsible for thier content) are written by the public, The article cited has been written by a non-West Ham fan, and appears to use the term in a derogatory way. Just because one article calls us Bubble Blowers, does not a nickname make.

2. The self-referencing references (!?) are all related to someone who uses the username BubbleBlower on forums and chat rooms. Again, just because one person calls himself BubbleBlower does not mean that it is a nickname of the club.

The fans refer to themselves as 'The Irons' and 'The Cockney Boys', and the media as 'The Hammers', according to West Ham United and thier available historian[1], these are the only offical nicknames of the club.

WARNING: One of the reference links caused a pop-up to appear, that attempted to download a virus. Both of my virus scanning software failed to prevent this, and I lost several hours this morning, having to re-install my software. For this reason alone I am going to remove all of the reference links to the articles.

I invite anyone to comment on whether or not they have heard of the nickname. If a corroborating (reliable) West Ham related source can be found, then it can be added back. Otherwise for now, I am going to remove it.

Mat macwilliam 12:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As a West Ham fan of 26 years (well, 21 if you discount the five years of my life I didn't watch football) I have heard repeatedly the use of "bubble blowers". You also neglect to mention the "find article" section that references "The Independent On Sunday" use of the term.
Not entirely sure what 'official' nicknames have to do with anything. That's a lax argument. All these below sources, both by fans (both Hammer and otherwise) and news media utilise the term "Bubble Blowers".
http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hlid=466531&CPID=8&clid=49&lid=4162&title=Your+View+-+final+day+drama
http://www.astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=62380
http://sport.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1423&id=1481532006
http://www.seatwave.com/west-ham-united-fc-tickets/season
plus of course the links provided yesterday that you removed.
Fact is, if in 30 years you haven't heard ourselves referred to as Bubble Blowers, or refer to ourselves, then I'm not entirely sure how (given that at the FA Cup final last year there were a halfdozen flags with it on, along with the BBC announcers all repeating it throughout the afternoon).
In addition I have personally checked all of the web pages and none of them have any kind of virus, pop-up, download or otherwise so I'm not sure what you experienced but I'm pretty sure it wasn't related to either KUMB, H2HG or Findarticle.com. I would advocate you get yourself a Hosts File in order to protect your browser more fully and additionally prevent adverts and extraneous media browser downloads.--Koncorde 12:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It was the Independant on Sunday link. Mat macwilliam 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Only Official Nicknames are valid, wekipedia must have verifiable sources. I know alot of people that call Manchester United Scumchester United, or Wankchester United or Fucking Man Utd. These are not official nicknames. Just becuase other fans refer to us in a derogatory way, does not make it a nickname. If I added these to the wekipedia page for that club, they would be removed.
I have consulted the officail club historian, and am waiting for a reply.
Incidentally despite being a season ticket holder in the Bobby Moore for 10 years, I did not get a ticket to the FA Cup final, the allocation was below the number of season ticket holders we have, and I did not get through in time. They were sold out. I am still pi**ed about this.

Mat macwilliam 13:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlucky on the ticket front.
As for "official" nicknames. I'm not sure how far you can take that argument, but it's not at all accurate. Man Utd are "The mighty Reds" the "Red Devils" or even "The Reds", and/or are even referred to in the definitive as "United" etc which of those are "official"? How many others occur commonly? I know of no argument on Wikipedia that states the requirement of a historical document (especially when what is being defined is something of recent note used regularly in the media?) And what point is there of 'official' nicknames, when that kind of defeats the idea of them being 'nicknames', monikers etc?
And "Bubble Blowers" is hardly derogatory.
In a quick office survey, 50% of the people I work with (a split of Liverpool, Man Utd and Arse fans) have heard of the term Bubble Blowers - so I know at least it's not just me.
I will re-check the Independent Link when I get home, but I'd be extremely surprised if there is anything remotely attached to that web page that would spawn virus software downloads.--Koncorde 16:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, checked it at work and there does indeed appear to be something spawning that I'll look into more. Odd.--Koncorde 16:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Historian reply

 Hello Marcus,
   You mention the term 'Bubble Blowers'   I have never seen it said as being
 our nickname but from time to time I have seen it mentioned in newspaper
 reports, more so as a reference to our supporters.
 Regards John.
I would argue against the term as a nickname for the club, and John Northcutt appears to agree. It may be more a nickname for the fans. However the only times I have seen it used is in a degrogatory way. I would never describe myself using the term. Koos 12:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that:
A - the historian has heard of the term with regards to newspaper reports and more-so as a reference to the supporters (as I had originally stated/sourced etc).
B - that you would instead prefer to claim that "John Northcutt appears to agree" despite him patently saying "I have seen it mentioned in newspaper reports".
C - you've also seen it, despite claims to the contrary previously. The context within which you have seen it (derogatory or not) is neither here nor there.--Koncorde 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article changes

  • N (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC):
    • Changed position in infobox back to "Championship, 6th", to record the previous season as is standard.
    • Corrected relegation stat. Norwich City and Crystal Palace were relegated in 1994-95 with 43 and 45 points respectively.
    • Removed "West Ham in the Premiership" section. Deleted duplicated information and merged the rest.
    • Tidied the Chants section, + other minor bits
    • Added to Academy of Football felt that the new rising players should have a mention. Haven't finished but you can add to it


82.42.56.236 19:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)DC

    • Amended a couple of details for Glenn Roeders time in charge. He had a brain tumour, not a heart problem (that was Ray Harford, Stewart Houston, Graeme Souness and any number of other managers) and expanded a little with details of player, form, and a little less Gary Breen bashing (yes he may be cack, but the entire team was cack for most of that season).
    • Expanded entry for Glenn Roeders time, making it a little more neutral.
    • Extended the list of players included in the exodus.
    • noticed there isn't yet a Wiki on Seb Schemmel.
    • Tidying up the Harry Redknapp section. The list of our "failures" (Todorov?) is a bit harsh given they hardly had chance to show what they could do.--Koncorde 14:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • expanded early history section. Rejigged much of the wiki placing relevant records together where possible.--Koncorde 23:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Squad

I've been talking to User:Spyrides (IRL) about the format of the current squad. Firstly, thanks to User:Elzar for putting the time into doing that. I have to say I have reservations about the enforcement of this template too though. The problem is that useful information is contained in the table we already have. The date signed and previous club sections are useful, even though that info might be on the player pages. I certainly want to see that 'at a glance' when I'm viewing the squad. I notice that the Newcastle and Sunderland pages have similar tables. I agree that, where possible, we should have standard layouts, but functionality of the table concerns me more than appearance, and removing useful information for the sake of standardisation seems a bit pointless to me. What I'd really like to see is the addition of these fields into the template, so that we can all use the same layout without losing information. I have reverted the change, can I ask that people please post their thoughts on this here, rather than just reverting back. Thanks. - N (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually a West Ham supporter, I just felt that the Premiership articles needed neatening a bit. More or less every club page uses the official squad template, and i think the only reason that it hasn't been implemented on Newscastle and Sunderland is that it does take a while to create. --Elzar 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The template we have been using, with the whole gammut of researched information held within, clearly took time also. The debate is also happening at Template talk:Football squad player Spyrides 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (Spychats)

I must let you note that it takes a while to me to convert the current squad template to the official one (I usually make a semi-automatic approach, so it takes 10 minutes at most). Just give me a clear consensus, and I will replace this <POV>mess</POV> table with the official squad template. --Angelo 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Go on, I eagerly await the new template.John wesley 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I converted it. If you think it'd be better to discuss about its inclusion, feel free to revert my changes. --Angelo 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That was hardly "clear consensus". Spyrides 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You can revert it back if you want, I just thought it was no problem about replacing it. --Angelo 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Squad Changes

I notice the top of the Current Squad still says As of 28 August 2005. If there are no more changes to be made, can we edit this? - N (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Petr Mikolanda

Moved Petr Mikolanda to 'Players out on loan'. The old entry was:

27 Czech Republic Petr Mikolanda CF 2005 Viktoria Zizkov

Putting him back. Just learned [2] that he is back.

Removed entry was:

At League Two clubs

-N (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Carl Fletcher and Chris Cohen

Carl Fletcher is now back [3]. Removed entry was:

Chris Cohen has just gone out on loan to Yeovil Town, apparently with a view to a permanent move. [4] The removed bit:

14 England Chris Cohen B 2004 Academy

- N (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gavin Williams

Gavin Williams on loan to Ipswich [5], revised at 19:03 8 November 2005, by 193.195.0.101 (super quick, thanks!). Removed bit was:

16 Wales Gavin Williams M 2004 Yeovil Town

- N (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


COME ON YOU IRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRONS

;)


James Tomkins

Does exist, and MattyTheWhite should aquaint himself with google, or the official West Ham website. http://www.londonist.com/archives/2006/03/one_to_watch_ja.php --Koncorde 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Shevchenko Trial?

ok hello all

just to say... where is the squad list?? has the page been sabotaged?

also could i point out, i read in Nuts magazine a few months ago that west ham actually had shevchenko on loan for a season when he was 17 or something.

not that Nuts magazine is particularly reliable.

but, whatever... someone research it?

meanwhile i'm gonna try and find somewhere else on the internet that has Ephraim's first name...

cya laters, my claret and blue army.

Guy

Ephraim's first name is Hogan. Schevchenko came to West Ham on trial for a few days. Harry Redknapp was the manager at the time, and played him in a reserve game. I've not got a reference for it, which is a shame, but I'm very certain that afterwards, when questioned about the player, Redknapp remarked some thing along the lines of "We'll not be continuing our interest in Schevchenko, we played him for the reserves and he didn't pull up any trees". The part I remember most clearly is the "didn't pull up any trees" remark. <POV>Goes to show what a fantastic judge of a player Harry must be!<POV> 193.195.0.102 12:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've researched a bit, and can only find references to the quote on football message boards, so not really citation material. However, there appears to be a concensus from those sites that the match was in 1993 and was a reserve team game against Barnet FC. 193.195.0.102 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this? It may not have been a reserve game, it might have just been a friendly - http://www.skyone.co.uk/programme/pgefeature.aspx?pid=56&fid=278 193.195.0.102 12:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems that Harry might have been pulling a few people's legs about Shevchenko... According to this site - http://www.caughtoffside.com/shevchenko-i-never-had-a-trial-at-west-ham.html - They interviewed Shevchenko on Monday 15 Aug 2006, and asked him about Redknapp's revelation. His answer -
“No it is not true, I have never auditioned for any other club in England. I was at Kiev from a young age and then joined Milan.”Herts Hammer 09:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Songs?

Can someone put in a word or too about any songs that fans sing at their games and out? John wesley 21:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I just removed a ridiculously large and unformatted blob of chants from the article (look at the diff if you really want the gory detail). I think, however, if we are to scrape the useful information from this, a new article (List of West Ham fan chants, perhaps?) would be a good idea. PS: I love that the first chance I get to show off my new signature is on this particular talk page. :) --Sam Pointon United FC 04:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been season ticket holder for a fair few years and have added a few current songs and chants (though not to the extent of the last, ahem, supporter). Revert if you feel you need to, but I think this is just about enough. It is my first attempt at Wiki-ing, so it may need tidying up. Please feel free. I also thought that "Current Chants" would be a better title to avoid other users writing every single song sung since 1895.Sir Arthur 11:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Villa trash talk?

Warning! on 3/14/2006 a user editted the WHFC artcile to say good things about Villa. This poster has made many more contribs to Villa than WHFC. Should we remove the Villa glorification? John wesley 16:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following: The club adopted the claret and blue colours of Aston Villa in homage to the club due to their success in the early years of the game. as it looks suspicsuous. I apologize if the above text is indeed true history; whereupon the only problem I detect is the use of the word homage which seems awfully personal for teams to pay one another. John wesley 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of recent articles have suggested that although early West Ham used Villa's kit, the reason they did so was due to claret and blue being the house colours of Thames Ironworks. I'll add this in and put in a link and also flesh out a little about the new badge and kits. Sir Arthur 09:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

last time in the semis

when the draws are made on 22-3-2006 John wesley 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing Season Review

I felt that the latest update needed changing. The previous entry mentioned Pardew fielding a reserve side and Bryan Robson and Steve Bruce pleading to him not to. The team fielded against Portsmouth contained the first-choice back four of Scaloni, Konchesky, Gabbidon and Ferdinand. Etherington was injured and hence replaced, as was Mullins. A couple of players were rested, but it was hardly the reserves. They played like the reserves granted... The managers in question both went to the press on the following day saying they had no problems with Pardew's team selection. The previous entry also harped on about this deciding the relegation battle. A win nearly two months before the end of the season isn't going to decide anything. Knees of the jerkiest variety. Sir Arthur 16:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

WHUFC chants removed?

The chants should be included, unless there is separate article that has benn. John wesley 14:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted, albeit with a small change (sorry Skerrit and Joe C). What West Ham fans do is as relevant as what the team does to the overall subject of "West Ham United." And believe me, the current list definitely isn't every chant.Sir Arthur 18:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

perhaps by rival fans? John wesley 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Now, they've played around with the Emblem John wesley 14:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In future, you might want to just revert this stuff yourself - anything that is obviously bad or breaks the page (like those two anon edits) should be reverted on sight. --Sam Pointon United FC 15:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how. I can remove placed poop-words but I cannot reverse the emblem damage. John wesley 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:RV - it will serve you well in the battle against vandals and trolls. --Sam Pointon United FC 20:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They just jealous that they don't support a goood side. Chivista 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

someone look at our home kit.. More Vandalism?

The claret is gone. Chivista 14:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I raised this point several weeks ago. The kit shows up fine in Firefox, but IE for some reason (maybe not all IE, but some) don't show the correct colours.--Koncorde 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

the colours don't show on Firefox either, red and white, or all blue away strip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.131.201 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro

The intro to the article mentions: "The club has a training facility at Chadwell Heath, adjacent to the railway line from which the team may occasionally be viewed at practice during the week." Isn't this a bit too trivial and too specific for an intro? Shouldn't an intro contain just the basics of West Ham United, for those who are only looking for a quick glance at the subject? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 17:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Compared to West Broms? if they can have trivia like 'first team to play in Russia' then I think mentioning our training ground is just okily doki. Koncorde :D --82.42.56.236 19:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The symbol :D is neat, any otter ones beside the std :) ;) :( :O John wesley 20:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Is there an article about emoticons John wesley 20:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC) ?
I'm surprised you've never seen that one before! >8-) try http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/cingular_emoticon_patent/ as a starter John. Koncorde--82.42.56.236 01:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Emoticon -- Alias Flood 02:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Lee Bowyer and summer transfers

I mistakenly reverted a correct (if malformed) edit under the impression that Lee Bowyer's return was just speculation, but [6] confirms that it is not. Where do I put the information on recent confirmed transfers? Under a new "Transfers" heading? Or do they do into the main squad table, with NA as the number? --Sam Pointon 21:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this when I made the change. I thought just adding him to the current squad made sense. TBA works for me but feel free to change.. - Nzd (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

New Away Kit

The new kit is dark blue not black. Can someone change the graphic? Have a look at http://ssl.whufc.co.uk/index.html Sir Arthur 16:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

changed to Navy blue...

As per WP:EL we can include a number of external links to sites that can provide useful and relevant links. It appears that once again the list is becoming somewhat abused with links to each and every fan site out there.

I suggest we work to rationalise this list, featuring fan sites only where they are very popular, and where they provide accurate and relevant features and articles. As such I think the list of external sites linked should be,

Official

Unofficial

I can't think of any other sites that are really worthy of inclusion if we are to stay true to wikipedia's policy. Accept there are others currently in the article, but I think the reasons for their inclusions are pretty tenous. If it was up to me, I'd strip it out to the list above. Herts Hammer 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the link added by nevillenixon as it doesn't appear to be compatible with wp:el at all.

Except where noted, the below do not override the list of what should be linked to; for example, if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material.

  1. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
  2. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.

Herts Hammer 14:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've previously also 'cleaned' up the links as it seemed any forum with 3 members was putting itself into the list. I also seperated it into Official and Unofficial as I felt that meant it was easier to keep tabs. The two additional "Official" (BBC and Premierleague) links are standard across a few other Premier club wiki's and offer other information such as a full league table and player stats without having to register with the official club site which I why I retained them.
Agree with you on the unofficial ones. Some of the links are purely advertisement rather than having any valid reason for inclusion.--Koncorde 20:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree in principal with the cleansing and monitoring of all and sundry sights adding their link to wikipedia with the odd member, and I also agree with Koncorde especially when it comes to FREE forum sites running adword campaigns. There are at least 3 more sites that qualify to be on that list who have built up a strong presents on the internet in their own right and are not just FREE forums with adwords.Breezemc 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the WestHamForum.co.uk, despite proclaiming to be "more than just a chat board" - is exactly just that. If it was a substantiated website such as KUMB, or a niche website (such as the Polish site) or providing a repository of information (such as the full list of every West Ham player on Lalamy Demons website) or an organisation (WHUST) then its place in the links wouldn't be questioned. However its inclusion purely on the background that it's a forum, with Hammer fans on it, is a bit weak - even if it is purely dedicated to them. As such it really only qualifies as advertisement.
  1. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.
Hence my last comment when editing out the forum - make it a website with more information on it to quantify its inclusion. Merely editing it in will likely result in it simply being edited back out.--Koncorde 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Koncorde, the website in question is currently in the process of being populated as you mention and will in turn deliver the kind of content you highlighted, the link is currently directed to the forum section whilst work is under development. Yes, I understand to a certain extent regarding advertising, but it is advertising the fact this is a dedicated West Ham forum with members from around the world and not for ADWORD finances, the website is the off shoot from the official forum, two thirds of the members are from the original forum that was taken down upon the redesign of whuf.com. I do feel it has a place on wiki if directed to the forum section for now. Breezemc 12:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


How about this West Ham blog for Australia? It started in June 2005 and is now well established. I'll leave it for someone in the know to decide if it should be added. It's a source of opinions from down under and a notice board for WHU events around Australia. Cheers, Lads. --202.47.52.209 11:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, regarding the inclusion or othewise of links to external unofficial sites, I bow to the expertise of the people here, who have been working hard to make everything accurate and fair. The forum being discussed above (which I am a member of, so there is no misunderstanding of my motives for this post)is admittedly, at the moment mostly just a forum. It has grown to nearly 700 members in less than a year, and while it is mainly a forum, there are regular home and away match reports from Season Ticket holders, and a well supported free predictions contest with a prize, now in its 7th season. We have plans to add a front end, which will include more detailed articles written by our members about West Ham issues, as well as regular match reports, and a more detailed club stats section. We carry NO advertising of any sort, being privately funded. We do not allow links to streaming websites or any other such types, and there are strict bad language censors. We are also a link to hundreds of overseas hammers, who come to us for help about applying for tickets, and getting to the ground etc. While I don't think that this will make much difference to the people who make decisions regarding such links, I thought I should make the attempt to put our case forward.

I would also like to ask, that if westhamforum, is not included strictly because of the points above, can someone please explain under which part of the above guidelines are other forums that are on the list, which have a handful of active members, carry tons of advertising, mostly gambling, and almost NO West Ham content,deemed worthy of inclusion?

I know you are still unlikely to add us, but I think then, you should remove the others. You can see for yourselves, just by clicking on them, which ones I am referring to. Thank you for your time.

Purged links once again. 18 Unofficial links to sites with sweet FA on them is a little silly. Have reduced it once again to the core (full list below). The criteria was simple - no blogs, in English, updated this season, actively providing more than merely a "regional" representation, providing some useful info of other variety and/or serving as a reference (i.e. Hammers Mad provides full tables lists through history, statistics, match day pub information etc). As much as the dedication of the below sites is respected, it's bloody untidy to look at.--Koncorde 13:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Swedish Players

I noted the ongoing edit war regarding the spelling of Alexandersson's first name and a thought occured to me...

Why is this section even there? Alexandersson made 8 appearances for the hammers, none of which produced anything of note. I'd forgotten he even played for us, and I attended every single game he played for the hammers. Shaaban never even made it on to the pitch during his spell at the Boleyn. I cannot see that this section is anyway deserved, and it should be removed from the article completely. If it really is important, then there should be a section for every single country that has had a player representing them at West Ham. That would make for a very messy entry indeed. Thoughts? Herts Hammer 12:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are quite a few players in the "Players of note" section who shouldn't be there also because they made few appearances (along with the two Swedes above).--Koncorde 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Kit

I tried to modify the kit to be more like the real thing:

  • On the home kit I modified the left arm to be half light blue and half claret
  • On the away kit I took off the white sides and created a new template for the white armpits

It's not perfect--to make it look just right will require body and arm templates that fit together. But I think it's an improvement, and I hope people like it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Might just be me (IE browser) but the half/half arm looks grey, not blue.--Koncorde 05:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hrm. When I viewed it in IE the blue was blue, but there was a weird black line across the away uniform. I'll have to see what's going on. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's happening for all the articles' away uniforms. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's grey in IE for me, but the right blue in Firefox (just tested it, didn't have chance this morning). Odd. But it might not just be me, will have to see if someone else pipes up.--Koncorde 18:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I created yet further new templates for the home shirt, and changed the colour as well. While claret is the colour of the team's logo, it's really not the colour of their shirts. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now the claret shirt is grey - but the blue is fine :D - weird!--Koncorde 17:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Bugger! The blue is part of an actual image file, while the claret is "fill" I could make it all an image file. Do you have problems on any other football club pages? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the rest of the Premiership and Wigans quartered sleeves are also 'grey' up top rather than white with IE (fine with Firefox). I can't think why it'd do it, I've never noticed a problem before.--Koncorde 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I just check - is it just for me and IE that the kit is bollocksed? :D--Koncorde 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

tevez, mascherano

i couldn't find anything about them in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinzing (talk • contribs)

Information about them is in the second last paragraph of the 'Alan Pardew era: Rising back to the top' section. It needs a bit of updating, as there has been ongoing speculation about whether them joining West Ham was connected to the possible takeover that is supposed to be happening soon. Chris Larkin 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be Wikipedia redirects from "Westham"

I think it would be a good idea if someone created redirects from Westham FC and another variations with the incorrect spelling Westham. Not all people know that West Ham is two words. I'm really sure how to do this myself.Spylab 18:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

POV check

Article is clearly biased and written by a fan. 213.232.82.120 21:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

removed this line.

'They are most famous for being the only club side to have won the World Cup in 1966, providing not only England's hat trick hero Geoff Hurst & other goalscorer Martin Peters, but also the Captain & player of the tournament Bobby Moore'

as it is clearly incorrect and misleading. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.21.164 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Takeover

In light of todays announcement, I added the takeover section. It is brief and utilises a section previously used regarding Tevez/Mascherano. I realise that it is not in an ideal place (the history section) so if anyone feels like it should be moved/expanded on, be my guest! Pennywisepeter 12:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

someone wrote west ham are crap over our badge. pricks.

Rivalries

Hi. Can anyone please tell me when The Millwall Ironworks and Shipbuilding Company was based south of the river please? Many thanks, Lion King 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the company ever was (though as a northerner my knowledge of London isn't too sharp). I believe whoever wrote the final rivalries section clearly lumped the company in with the fact Millall FC moved south of the river at the turn of the century(ish). I'm none the wiser, so if you know better go ahead and amend :) --Koncorde 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm none the wiser either really, but I was under the impression (told to be precise) it had something to do with Dock strikes, or the Millwall Ironworks were given a big contract much to the cost of the workers at Thames Ironworks, but I certainly don't know enough about it to be able to amend the article, ie, none of this is verifiable, it's only anacdotal (to the best of my knowledge) Thanks very much for the reply Koncorde. All the best, Lion King 01:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the few texts I have read (and based on one website) http://www.footballderbies.com/faq/index.php?id=24
"Eventually Thames Ironworks outgrew their home and moved to where they now play and in order to attract more widespread support adopted the name of West Ham United. Whilst Millwall's star dipped West Ham's couldn't stop rising, with a famous FA Cup Final and a place in Division One the reward. Happening around this time was the depression which greatly affected the Docks and in short-terms there was a dispute over pay etc and the entire docks went on strike. Millwall by then had only just moved across the water to New Cross but many islanders and therefore dockers saw them as 'their' team. When the Millwall ship yard (with mostly Millwall fans as employees) broke the strike there was outrage from the other yards (Mostly West Ham fans). This did cause a lot of tension, but how much we can't tell and a lot can be put down to fuzzy rose tinted glasses etc...."
Again anecdotal for the most part. It seems to refer to a dock strike in 1919. Chances are the only place you'll find quantifiable evidence is in a book by either an Iron or Millwall fan.--Koncorde 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Now that is Very interesting! It answers a lot for me as a Millwall fan, because again, we have the dock strikes coming into the equation. It also explains the "drop off" in fans coming to New Cross from the Isle of Dogs. Any Millwall fans coming to The Den after breaking a strike, would certainly not have been welcomed by the Dockers from the Surrey Docks I've read most books about the history of MFC, but not one of them even touches on the orgins of the rivalry. I think we need an Iron on this one. It may not be quantifiable evidence, but I think you've nailed it! Thanks for all your time. Be lucky, Lion King 14:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

History

History section is a tad long, isn't it? I suggest that it either be shortened or move to its own article. There's too many subheadings for it as of now. Kelvinator 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really no. Some of the recent events and such need compacting quite heavily though. I keep meaning to go through and do the Pardew era but haven't had chance. Based on the size of Millwall's, Prestons and other clubs West Hams is not out of the norm. The idea of shortening it (point being?) or moving it to its own wiki (creating a disembodied article lacking the depth it currently has) seems a bit odd, pointless, and unnecessary.--Koncorde 19:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason I bring it up is because this article already exceeds the 6,000-10,000 word limit suggested by Wikipedia and is currently sitting at 11159 words. I can only assume this will get longer in the progressing season. So what's the point of a shorter article? You can see the rationale here. In short, it is easier on the readability of the article and makes finding things easier. For the casual reader not interested in the little tidbits about West Ham's history, it is very inconvenient to go through the massive blocks of historical text. If you want to see a good example of how it's done, see Los Angeles Lakers. I know, different country, different sport, but the idea is there. Kelvinator 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
West Ham have a much longer and far more interesting history. Lion King 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
All the more reason to move it to a different article. Kelvinator 18:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read the 6 - 10,000 "rule" section again. It is a guideline. Going over the "limit" is justified by the topic rather than the topic being defined by the limit (otherwise the Adolf Hitler page would be considerably over the mark). Rather than shearing off the topic into sub-wiki's, it's stylistically better to instead trim and adjust the existing sections and repeating information. Pardew's section for instance is far too longwinded for the relative small amount of information it contains considering it covers only 3 1/2 seasons. Further sections repeat information (such as the trivia). The actual readable history section is only 6723 words and is subdivided already to allow quick and ready access to era's and segments of note. A good 2/3rds of Pardews 1722 word history can be culled as instead of it being relative to the article and club history it is in fact more like recent news. The remaining 4000 words are made up primarily of:
  • Footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", footnotes, bibliography, etc)
  • Diagrams and images
  • Tables and lists
  • Wikilinks and external URLs
  • Formatting and mark-up.
which are not included under the "readable prose" and the previously mentioned Trivia section which needs sorting out.
Whilst I agree the topic needs formatting, splitting it into sub topics would be heavy handed.--Koncorde 22:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What you are proposing is essentially the same thing I suggested, which is to shorten the history section. And I think you are misinterpreting what I am suggesting. I am not saying to divide the article up into a number of sub-wiki's; rather, I am suggesting that we move the history, and only the history section, into a separate article. I am not asking for a separate article for each season. Rather, I am looking for a way to clear up the main article and focus on concise summaries about West Ham in general. Furthermore, since you brought up the Adolf Hitler article, I suggest you revisit the article and see how it is organised. Many of the sections in the article lead to sub-wiki's. The sections themselves serve as summaries. I don't see why that can't be done here. As is, the history section takes up the primary bulk of the article. This article is not about the history of West Ham. It is about the club. I am standing firm on my opinion that the history either needs to be moved or drastically cut down. Kelvinator 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
No, what I propose is the trimming of extraneous recentism (as someone in the peer review put it) and amendment of trivia sections. For instance the entire Curbishley section is pure Charlton info. Actions that would place it well under the 6000 word mark however you wish to count it.--Koncorde 01:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we cannot come into an agreement, a third opinion might be needed. My gripe with the history section not only rests in the size, but the manner in which it is written. It reads almost like a novel, which violates the No Original Research policy. Furthermore, it is filled with multiple weasel words. Examples:
  • The Syd King and Charlie Paynter partnership was dissolved acrimoniously
  • Up front were the prolific striker Johnny Byrne and the slightly less prolific Brian Dear.
  • ...the ignominious exit in the League Cup to Aston Villa...
  • ...a number of failed loan transfers (Christian Bassila and Kaba Diawara) and unimpressive signings...
  • The team's fortunes improved imperceptibly but survival was ensured thanks to the poor performances of lower sides
These are only a few of the multiple opinionated and unreferenced statements that litter the history section. The section is a clear example of dramatization, and is in no way encyclopedic in form. Take out these opinions and include only facts and perhaps the article will be of sufficient length. Kelvinator 06:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
If you include "prolific" as a weasel word then you're barking up the wrong tree. Similarly "acriminoniously", just how you describe a manager being sacked, for being drunk and disorderly, theft and embezzlement after a hurried secret meeting of the board of directors, subsequently followed by Syd's descent into paranoia, depression, alcohol, failed lawsuit, and suicide? Was just a little acrimonious, not much of a weasel word or particularly POV. If someone was trying to argue "some people think West Ham are the best team in the world" I'd accept the weasel word argument. I could cite and reference every term (as each was taken from published articles or books as listed at the bottom of the page) if that would cheer you up, but it wont be done before Christmas as I can't be arsed right now.--Koncorde 13:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do consider prolific to be opinion. Prolific in what sense? Prolific to the rest of the squad? To the league? To what? If Johnny Byrne was the leading scorer for the team, then state it. There is no need to use words like "prolific" to describe it. As for the word "acrimoniously", the article makes no mention of anything you said. And even if you did, it is still opinion and still needs to go. Kelvinator 16:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute. You said "Weasel Word", not "opinion". Weasel Word by wiki's own definition is:
"A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue. Weasel words can be readily identified in a large amount of corporate correspondence, and are frequently used by politicians. A weasel word can be compared with, but is distinct from, a euphemism."
Which neither remotely approach. As for it being "opinion", that's the weakest argument I have yet seen. I could include a full list of goals and stats, but the point would be null - that's for his personal wiki to fulfil. The use of the term "prolific" to describe someone (as in Cassells Soccer Companion Pg54; Byrne, Johnny) is not distorting. He was prolific for Crystal Palace, for West Ham, and for England (11 goals in 8 internationals, 42 domestic in 1964 alone) until his later career. But West Hams history isn't the segment for his career stats and it would severely damage the flow of the text. Perhaps it should be cited - but that's what the sizeable chunk of notes, links and references at the bottom are for. The actual books the "opinions" are from are actually included in the References, but without repeatedly citing individual pages and texts for the sake of a term because an individual is claiming "NPOV" or something is just labour intensive and needlessly pedantic. Whilst your concern is appreciated, your time used to help attach citations would be more suited rather than picking at said article in a fashion verging on pettifoggery.--Koncorde 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Come now, you are approaching borderline name-calling. No need to resort to that. I may have wrongly used the term "weasel word", but your justification is not valid. The inability to include references is not an excuse for inserting biased opinions. Either remove the non-neutral POV from the article, or state who offers these opinions. Furthermore, you are ignorning my other points; pointing out prolificacy as a valid description (which I don't claim it is) does not invalidate my other examples. If you need me to cite further examples where the NPOV is not followed, I will be glad to do so. As for now, I am not going continue this discussion with you when it's clear that we will not reach an agreement. I'd like to hear what neutral editors have to say on this issue. If others agree with you, that the article is fine as is, I will no longer press for changes. Kelvinator 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

why the history so short its miised out finishing third and other importnat pieces of information it makes us sound rubbish

Quashie

Quashie's nationality keeps getting changed on the squad list to Scottish. Am I right in saying he's English? I thought he was born in London.Morrad 18:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He is whilst he breathes a Scot Chivista 18:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Should he not be under 'worst signing of the season' ????? Koos 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Relegated?

there is still three games to go and west ham a clear chance to stay at the premier ship. Then why they are indicated as relegated?Tarif from Bangladesh 18:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find the "**" are next to Watford, not West Ham.--Koncorde 21:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Any recent news section

They just escaped points deduction Chivista 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hammers Timeline

I think in the article the timeline is a bit of an eyesore as it squashes all the article content up to one side, but it is informative so I suggest it be placed on its own article and linked within this article.

There should be some photographs from the Hammers history in its place in the article. - The Daddy 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you could wait until others are allowed to give their two pence worth on the matter before removing (suggest and then doing it isn't the same as 'suggesting'), and also maybe like leaving a link to the "moved" timeline which has now gone awol? Whilst appreciate the idea, how you've gone about it siimply looks like you've blanked out a chunk of information. There are other ways of reducing the size of the timeline or other avenues of approach.
How 'squashed' up the screen text will be is evidently based on the size of your screen and its resolution and your text resolution.
In addition simply stating "there should be some photographs" doesn't really contribute much in the way of actually inserting photographs.--Koncorde 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above - how would photographs 'less' break into the articles text. Now they would be an eyesore compared to a simple table. Try reformatting inserted table to make it suit your needs.

If you looked, the timetable is in the West Ham United box at the bottom where all the other related links are. In this thing...

The pictures don't squash the text up so much that each line only fits four words for several paragraphs of writing, see Newcastle United F.C. for an example. - The Daddy 00:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way I removed the table from the talk to because, like the article it squashed everything up to one side and I don't see why you even put it on here? - The Daddy 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
For you/anyone to attempt to reformat to suitable dimensions for re-insertion rather than simply blanking it as I'm sure I mentioned? I'm wondering what your screen resolution/text size is if you only had 4 words per line on in any paragraph involving the timeline (even the club infobox would force all text to one side in that case given it's only 20 pixels wider) and I'm not even getting into the haphazard use of pictures in articles. If that isn't an eyesore then I don't know what is.
As for the link to the table - within the body of the historical text I meant (similar to how current article has in-text link to main historical article).--Koncorde 01:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
A) It hasn't been blanked, look at the box above in this very article... it has just been moved to its own article as it is too big and takes up too much of this one merely giving the same info as the actual article. B) the images aren't "haphazard".. they're placed next to the areas of text which pertain to them, such as the first ever squad shot, etc.. which is far more expected of the readed than some bulky chart.
Bobby Moore, wearing a West Ham shirt lifting the FA Cup is an "eyesore" in an article on the club?... you do know who Bobby Moore is right? - The Daddy 11:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
A; it was removed in entireity which (to me, and presumably whoever else re-put it in) looks like a blanking. The fact a link remained to a removed chunk of of information down at the very bottom of the article does not correct the fact no link remained in its original place to explain its absence. As it is you did not even attempt to resize the table or amend it to a suitable dimension. Seemingly someone agreed with me yesterday whenit was replaced.
B the images are haphazard and are merely images for images sake. The full club history History of West Ham United F.C. is the place for such images and should be used in some vaguely organised and uniform fashion. Please note though that I haven't just gone ahead and blanked them despite the fact I suggest they be removed (which is how 'suggest' vs 'doing it without input from other editors' is supposed to work).
PS. Who's Bobby Moore?--Koncorde 14:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Tévez

Carlos Tévez didn't he score by putting the ball through Van de sars legs in there 1 nil win against man united ?--McNoddy 15:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes he did, and what a superb £30m a year goal it was. Shame we probably won't be able to keep hold of him. Koos 13:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tevez photo

I noticed this recently changed from a good picture showing the player, to a long range picture.

Can we find a better picture of the player, that actually shows the player in question?

Koos 13:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 2006-07 (The Great Escape)

I think it's time to get rid of this as a seperate section, firstly because "The Great Escape" is pretty subjective, and secondly because it's time to file this season as part of the club's history while trimming it down and getting rid of the bias. Trevormwood 11:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The club are even calling the season dvd "the great escape". We were dead and buried with only 10 games to go in the season, and by some great play, and alot of luck, we survived. The season will go down in west ham legend as the great escape, and I think we should leave it alone for now.
Koos 10:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Think it'll be forgotten within the year, just as last years 'title' of the season was quickly forgotten also.--Koncorde 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave it there for now (at least until the beginning of the new season at least), but will tidy it up soon including removing:
a) The thing about Reo-Coker "tastelessly" cupping his ears to the fans, which is unnecessary.
b) "Red Devils" which doesn't link to Manchester United anyway
c) The lengthy description of the Tottenham game, which I much enjoyed, but don't think a description belongs in an encyclopedia article article about team.
d) All of the individual goal despriptions (eg "...Mark Noble for a magnificent volleyed goal."). Trevormwood 10:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Made the changes above and reinserted some stuff removed at some point over the last month. Basically I think we need a seperate Wiki page related to the Tevez/Mascherano affair maybe and/or it might even be worth starting to put together yearly West Ham "History" pages perhaps as extensions of these Category:West Ham United F.C. seasons[[7]] e.g. West Ham United F.C. 2007-2008--Koncorde 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I like the new version. I made a couple of small changes, including changing "...and lost an end-to-end thriller at home to Spurs" to "An end-to-end thriller at home to Spurs ended with West Ham losing 4-3 in the last seconds of the game, but the bright performance signified a change in form", which I don't think is too much considering that the last version had a goal-by-goal account.Trevormwood 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hooligans/Green Street/Green Street Hooligans

Some of the reasons why it shouldn't be included or amended.
A - because the extra information isn't relative to the article. If the reader wishes to learn more about Hooligans, or Green Street then they should click on the link (rather than be spoon fed).
B - because the additional information extends the sentence and breaks the flow of the article. Either it needs placing as a 'reference' (allowing people to see it with a click) at the bottom of the page much as other referenced articles are, or it requires positioning such as to not detract and dominate an otherwise short sentence.
C - combined with the above is simply it's a readability issue. The alternative titles have a place on Wikipedia, it isn't in the body of the text of another wiki page.
D - which title takes precedence? (And if one sufficiently takes precedence it should be used). For instance if quoting from The Bible then it would be accurate to list the exact edition of The Bible used, or the revision/edition of the book or source. In this case the information given can be found in any of the films (as they are all identical) therefore there's no need to differentiate between them.
E - why not include the French and alternative language titles?


Ultimately it's a distraction from what is in the article. At no point should throwing extra titles that add no further information other than the titles themselves take precedence over clarity, conciseness and suitable amounts of extraneous information.--Koncorde 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


A. As a point of reference I was not the one who originally changed Green St to show additional titles buts thats as maybe....
B. One edit, by someone else, resulted in Green St being changed to Hooligans. To presume that this site is only read by English people is bizarre. The film is known by other titles and has even been known by other titles in the UK. If you change it to read Green St before long it will be back to read Hooligans!!
C.Your reference to spoon-feeding is rather condescending. Not everyone is dyed claret and blue and if it helps someone works out if Green St/Hooligans and Green St Hooligans are the same film then why not? We don't all have huge IQs.
D. If the idea of Wikipedia is to build an informative encyclopedia then more information should be included for those not so close to the subject matter.
E. I find the breaking the flow arguement somewhat weak. The inclusion of 2 extra titles hardly distracts as they are in parenthesis.
F. This all comes down to personal preference. There is no right or wrong, just different.--Egghead06 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Never said you were the original, but you are the current drive behind it.
B - In that case surely you should list all International titles and the translation into Sanskrit? I don't care which title remains so long as it's only 1 with the other as references or plain gone. Currently it's bogging down text for no good reason, and a lot of weak ones.
C - not a matter of being condescending, it's a matter of people finding things out for themselves without having every minutae included in every wiki. Honestly, if people wonder which film it is then they can click the link and be told it's the same one.
D - But giving the additional titles is hardly rocket science is it now? Again, if they want the titles then they look at the link. You're of course overestimating peoples interest in a tardy film as a minor subnote in West Hams history.
E - Considering you just pulled the "We don't all have huge IQs" line, you've just shot a hole in your argument. What is obvious is that they're taking up more text than is required for a throwaway mention for the sake of covering media coverage in recent years.
F - Well there is a right. It involves using "references" which will insert a small digit in the line, rather than the current US, UK gibberish.--Koncorde 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.
Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point
Seems not all the advice is there to be followed???--Egghead06 06:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that including a list of alternative titles in the main text is strictly necessary, and is also clunky, but suggest using the title "Green Street Hooligans" which should avoid the chance of confusing people who know the film as "Hooligans" and those who know it as "Green Street". This along with a footnote explaining the alternative titles and a link to the article for the film should do the trick? Trevormwood 10:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally this film is shit, and an increadable embarassment to West Ham. I hate the film, the club hates the filem, all the fans hate the film. I would sooner have nothing to do with the film, and disassociate it from the club entirely. I vote we remove all references to it from the page. Koos 11:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about the quality of the film, and as a West Ham fan, I'd personally rather gloss over all of the stuff about hooliganism, but if we're going to have a lengthy section about the fans and rivalries, then I think there should be a short section about hooliganism. I also then think that the recent successful film about this hooliganism does warrant a mention in this section whether we like it or not. Trevormwood 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the club, especially its new owners, would rather not be associated with football hooliganism. But like it or not it is. As one who watched West Ham in the 1960's and 70's it was never far from any game especially when we travelled away (NO I was not in the ICF!). People still do link West Ham with violence and from an encyclopedic perspective think reference should be made to the hooliganism and any media reinforces that link. Agree the film and that Hobbit bloke are god-awful though. Maybe one day Cass Pennant/Bill Gardner will make a better film on the subject?--Egghead06 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Coming year

Will we want to move the past year's summary to the history of WHUFC article once the season starts or will we wait a few eeks or matches to establish a current year history? ;) Radio Guy 14:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It was suggested in section 38 here that we include season summaries (including the Great Escape one) in the season pages here [[8]], which I think is a good idea. Would be good to get some more season summaries in there, although it'll take someone with a better memory that me to go back further than a couple of years.
I think that right after the first game of the season is the time to move the last season's one, and start a new season one, perhaps starting with a couple of sentances about the close season.Trevormwood 11:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Until the pending case put forward by Sheff Utd is dealt with I don't think we should remove the section. After that we can safely underline the whole season and start putting together a fleshed out seasonal record with an established format.--Koncorde 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Jack Collison

Not listed on official website giving squad numbers and profiles for all registed players. Never even heard of him. Removed from current squad. Koos 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Listed in Saturday's programme v Man City. Don't know why it's not on the website but it was in the programme --Egghead06 15:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The programme is produced by a publishing firm, and ususaly contains many errors. We need a verifiable source for the player and his number. He would not be assigned a squad number unless he is established in the first team, or make it on to the bench. As neither of these has happened, and West Ham do not list him on their site, he should not be added to the current squad. Koos 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done a search on Google, and cannot find ANY reference to this player. I suspect it is the son of the editor of the programme, who stuck it on for a laugh. Koos 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know who this player is. How he is associated with the club. Is he an official player with a squad number, he is not listed on the website. But apparently he made it in to last weeks programme. Koos 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


It's Jack!!! http://www.whufc.com/team/?page_id=1219&player_id=120. He was listed as 39 in Saturdays' programme. I have no interest in making up names and numbers but he was there!--Egghead06 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:3RR. Mattythewhite 15:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Found him, listed as a youth player. There is no way he has a registered squad number.

Koos 15:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So the programme is making it up????????--Egghead06 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

When you follow this link he is listed as number 7. So he has replaced Freddie has he??????? Koos 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate, please see WP:3RR. Both of you have already violated it. Mattythewhite 16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Added request for moderator decision. Koos 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if its for me to "moderate" the decision, but I would pesonally not include him. But we need to assume good faith with Egghead06's adding of Collison, and maybe a reference could be added for the match programme. Mattythewhite 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If another website reference can be found, which lists the players and thier numbers, then we can add them. The official website does not list either Jack Collison or Tony Stokes, with official squad numbers. Therefore they should not be added. Koos 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Stokes was announced in the squad here, but whether they still stand, I don't know. Mattythewhite 16:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
For those who think Collison is a made up person - http://www.mkdons.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10420~1079034,00.html--Egghead06 17:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
So what exectly is the function of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ham_United_F.C._2007-2008
as it does not reflect the official website?--Egghead06 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Ham_United_F.C./Archive_1&oldid=1233489429"