Jump to content

Talk:West Ham United F.C./Archive 3

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

2021/22 Away Kit

The Away Kit for the 2021/22 season has been announced and it does not look like the one displayed in the infobox. The new kit can be viewed on the West Ham Official Store and all of the team's social media.

Sources:

CybJubal (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

In the “popular culture” section, add that Harry Potter character Dean Thomas’ favorite football team is West Ham (source: Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone chapter 9) 2603:8081:6B01:60A6:84D6:3112:943C:1A95 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If this were notable it would be covered in secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Article should have a Controversies or similar section

Clearly, there has been much news coverage about the club recently in light of its light-handed disciplinary action against Kurt Zouma for his infamous animal abuse. This situation has led to reported internal turmoil in the club over inequitable salaries, and I imagine the saga is far from over.

Sorry about the improper links—Wikipedia seems to be mucking about today… 2601:3CA:204:F860:A81E:445C:96CE:1352 (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to have such Controversies sections, and this is a tiny footnote in history that may have some relevance on the main club history page in context of the season, or on the actual season page for the club, but not here. Koncorde (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

Westfield Shopping Centre is incorrectly linking to Westfield London in West London. It should be linking to Westfield Stratford City, this being the shopping centre in East London adjacent to the stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuimlinice (talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 Done--Egghead06 (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

Under sub section “Players” Change Areola on loan from Paris Saint-Germain to Areola as he has signed permanently 86.28.80.78 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

Want to edit Ben Johnson's squad number PJFu11er (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2022

As a life long West Ham fan I've never heard the team or the club described as the "Cockney Boys". It's just not used to describe West Ham by West Ham fans. So I'd like to propose dropping this from the Nickname section. Leopardstown (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC) I remember our most memorable defeat 6-0 to Arsenal and I dont want to play millwall because Im scared we'll get beat up

Question - is "footballchants.org." a reliable source - because that reference is used to support that nickname. However, it does appear to be directing us to a wrong page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
So does that mean it can be removed? No one would argue that Newham and the surrounding area is ‘Cockney’. But no one, like no one, calls West Ham the ‘Cockney boys’ Leopardstown (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Don’t be so sure. https://www.fanchants.com/football-songs/west_ham-chants/1-nil-cockney-boys/ --Egghead06 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I am 100% sure. I'm a West Ham season ticket holder. I grew up in the area and am a life-long fan. Everyone knows that when we're winning 3-0 we'll often sing "3-0 to the cockney boys". Yes that's correct. That's a long standing chant. But it's not a NICKNAME. The club and the team are regularly referred to as the Hammers, the Irons, the West Ham. But never ever the Cockney boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardstown (talk • contribs) 12:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
If you read this, then it obviously is. A "substitute for the proper name of a familiar person, place or thing". Thus Cockney Boys being used as a substitute for West Ham, ergo a nickname.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this discussion is getting a little bit bog-down in pedantry. I'm only trying to explain that while you'll hear West Ham fans say "how are the West Ham getting on", "did the Irons win", "nice one the Hammers". You will never hear West Ham fans talking about the Cockney Boys. It really is only ever used in one chant "1-0 to the Cockney Boys". The chant needs seven syllables such as "1-0 to the Arsenal" etc. The West Ham, the Irons, the Hammers will not fit. So this really is the only occasion it's used. It fits one chant, but it is not used as nickname. It just isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardstown (talk • contribs) 11:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Not just in a song, used in editorials too…. https://www.planetsport.com/soccer/news/kostic-desperate-join-west-ham-rather-take-smaller-wage-packet-juventus --Egghead06 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Scott Allen has nothing to do with West Ham. He's a sports writer. Sports writers like to use all sorts of names e.g. the Upton Park faithful, the Boleyn boys etc. But that doesn't make them recognised nicknames. The Cockney Boys is not a recognised nickname in the real world of West Ham. Anyway, it doesn't seem like any of the editors is interested. So this inaccurate nickname is likely to remain on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardstown (talk • contribs) 13:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
And undone. There is no consensus to remove this. In a football chant where they sing "The Cockney Boys" this is a nickname. I’d be interested to hear what else this could be other than a nickname?Egghead06 (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
As the proposer has explained "The Cockney Boys" is not and never has been a recognised nickname for West Ham or their supporters. The source is a single chant with the phrase only being used to allow the chant to scan. Were this logic be extended then we could add "pride of the south" "rip roaring goal scoring irons" "the sailor men" "claret and blue army" and many others as these are also self-descriptive phrases used in single chants by West Ham supporters ColchesterSid (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The source is not just a single chant….--Egghead06 (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
If you think another source supports this, please add them to the article. If you don't do that then things will be a little more confusing. I think we need a bit more sources then just a use by one person who writes things. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I have already added it. Surely any article in any newspaper or journal is just a "use by one person who writes things"?--Egghead06 (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
BTW is the "Academy of football" a real West Ham nickname? Using the logic given above, nobody ever asks, "How did the Academy of football get on today."--Egghead06 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The reference for The Academy nickname directly says they're known for that. The planetsport article only refers to them as the cockney boys once. There is no indication that "Cockney Boys" is a known nickname. That planetsport article is the only one I can find that calls them that. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Cockney Boys definitely isn't a nickname. The source required would need to explicitly use the Cockney Boys in either a significant fashion, repeated, and not just a song.
The Academy of Football was sourced both to the club, and at the time of Ferdinand / Lampard / Cole / Carrick and so on was used by a couple of leading papers as a descriptor for the club. It fell out of fashion almost as soon as the first sales took place and has never really returned to the fore, but is still referenced as at least an historical artifact.
Hammers and The Irons are two least contentious. "Bubble Blowers" was more arguable. Usage was popular for several years, can't say I have seen it for a while. Koncorde (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
It's situations like this in which I really do despair with Wikipedia. There is something fundamentally wrong when editors are applying this pedantic approach to the use of 'sources' and 'references'. Common sense never seems to prevail. Out here in the real world, in east London, among real West Ham fans 'The Cockney Boys' just isn't used. It isn't. That's it. End of. Leopardstown (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
I think I should start drafting a WP:DR. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that. I'm going to the RS noticeboard. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Just floating by from the RS noticeboard, Planet Sport might or might not be RS. But that quote isn't enough to support the nickname, it would have to explicitly say "West Ham (nicknamed the Cockney boys)" or words to that effect to even be considered. Even then it would covered by WP:REDFLAG, as this is an extraordinary claim. If it were real there would be more evidence. In 40 years of following English football, I have heard (and used) many nouns after the word "Cockney" to describe West Ham, none of them were "boys".Boynamedsue (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
So if Cockneys Boys isn’t a nickname, just what is it when the fans sing "1-0 to the Cockney Boys"? It’s not the name of the club so just how would you describe "Cockney Boys" in this case if not as a nickname?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The source is a single chant with the phrase only being used to allow the chant to scan. Were this logic be extended then we could add "pride of the south" "rip roaring goal scoring irons" "the sailor men" "claret and blue army" and many others as these are also self-descriptive phrases used in single chants by West Ham supporters
— User:ColchesterSid

Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay I think some progress is perhaps being made. The point about the Academy of Football being used as a nickname is a good point. It is not a nickname, it's a reference to an approach to developing tactics in which players would meet in a cafe in the Barking Road to discuss training and match strategies. This section definitely needs improving e.g. the Cafe Cassettari in which meetings were held should be included. However, the page can't, at the moment, be edited.
But 'The Academy of Football' isn't included in the nickname list and nor should it be. The problem with names like the 'Cockney Boys' is that it ought to be included in a list of songs in the 'Supporters' section. No one's disputing that it's used as a chant when West Ham are winning, it's just not used as a nickname.
On the wider point about Wikipedia. These pages are read around the world. This club is in the hearts of so many people, it's their lives and their history. So the editors have a responsibility to get this right and avoid an academic style adherence to 'credible references' etc. Leopardstown (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a line in a song which alludes to the club or its supporters, as a Leeds fan I could give a similar example or two, Leeds fans sometimes refer to the club in songs as The Mighty Leeds, Yorkshire's Number 1, the YRA, the Lads, the Leeds Lads etc. But that doesn't mean it is their nickname, as the names are used only in a very specific context. Sometimes these names main gain greater currency, there is a much stronger case for "Mighty Leeds" being a nickname for Leeds than there is for "Cockney Boys" in the case of West Ham, fir example, but until sources explicitly state this nickname exists it can't be added to the wikipedia page. Boynamedsue (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
From Nickname - "A nickname (also moniker)[1] is a substitute for the proper name of a familiar person, place or thing" So like "Cockney Boys" being used as a substitute for West Ham United then!?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that it's only used in this one chant because it provides the five syllables need to fit with the original 'Go West' song. It is not used in any other context. Hence why I think there's a case to be made for creating a 'Songs and Chants' section and it can certainly go in there. Leopardstown (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
More than a chant. The club have added a mural to the exterior of the London Stadium recognising it. https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/west-ham-united-v-leicester-city-premier-league-football-london-stadium-london-uk-28-dec-2019-10508566d --Egghead06 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
The linked photo depicts "One nil to the cockney boys" so confirms exactly what several people here are arguing - that "Cockney Boys" is only used in the context of this chant (and yes, I know it has been pointed out that one article used the same phrase). Rather unscientifically I googled ""west ham" "cockney boys"" and ""west Ham" hammers". The ratio of results was around 500:1 and most of the cockney boys results refer back to the one chant ColchesterSid (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
More than a chant. More than a mural. Also embodied in a clothing range. https://www.amazon.co.uk/pro-Shirt-Westham-Inter-City-Cockney/dp/B07XGJ8CQV --Egghead06 (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
You've linked to a counterfeit hoodie on Amazon which is "currently unavailable". Not sure how that supports your argument? ColchesterSid (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
@Egghead06, you've been editing here for nigh on 12 years, and your user page displays a barnstar suggesting you are a "master editor". Surely you must realise that a knock-off hoodie is not a reliable source? Boynamedsue (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Brian Belton is a recognised author on things West Ham and has written numerous books on various aspects of the club. The club stock his books in their shops. Here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9TetDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT117&dq=cockney+boys+west+ham&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6u--3lLr7AhVAQkEAHfNfD284ChDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q=cockney%20boys%20west%20ham&f=false he refers to the 2006 FA Cup Final and upon retaking the lead states "The Cockney boys are back in front". No chants, no murals, no knockoff shirts, a recognised author on the subject West Ham United.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Not capitalised, and does not state "West Ham Utd are sometimes known as the Cockney Boys". What you are doing here is textbook WP:OR, you are finding examples in which a phrase is used and deducing from them that it is a nickname. I can find you dozens and dozens of similar comments that refer to "Mighty Leeds" or "mighty Leeds", but it is not a nickname in the conventional sense, and it is not supported by any sources which explicitly state it is Leeds' nickname. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think an easy solution here is to differentiate between what is a formal (or commonly used in popular media) nickname, and what are other names used in specific or limited situations. For instance we can agree The Irons, and The Hammers are pretty much nailed on. They are used by the club, used by the popular media, used by the fans and so on. Then we have the other names. It shouldn't be hard to write a paragraph on the more formal names, a paragraph on names attributed to the club off and on (Academy of Football) with the correct context, and then less common Cockney Boys / Bubble Blowers for instance([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) can be referenced as terms of self reference, or used in context of the clubs most famous anthem, about the collective identity / culture of the fans / club / locality. Koncorde (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made a start. Others may wish to add.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Just regarding the above links, Metro and the Mirror are not reliable sources, so probably want scrubbing. The ring tone is just referencing the song, so probably not relevant or RS.
A naming paragraph is almost certainly going to fall foul of WP:OR. So far there is nothing out there which specifically says that "Cockney Boys" is a nickname of West Ham, whereas there is loads out there which states that "the Irons" or "the Hammers" is. If we write a sentence saying "West Ham are sometimes called 'the Cockney Boys' in the press." That is our opinion, not the opinion of a reliable source. Being true isn't enough to get a sentence into wikipedia, we have to have a reliable source.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
The sources were provided as flavour - and given their use by the clubs official website are indicative of their use in general conversation. Their usage is not as a "nickname", but as a term of reference and requires the relevant context i.e. "People from the area around West Ham in East London are called cockneys. A notable chant is X. It is referenced in Y" and so forth.
It only, ultimately, falls foul of OR if we don't look for reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to look for reliable sources, but the sources have to explicitly say that it is a nickname, or say something about the way the phrase is used, or else it is OR. There is not way round that. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
At the moment the article states that West Ham United are referred to as………. Sources are there to verify such referrals.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but at the moment there aren't any sources that say that, which is why I've removed it. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
We appear to be at cross purposes as a result of Egghead taking the initiative already - and not in the format I would have chose. We can cite and source to reliable sources (or published books such as Jack Fawberts, whichever) that there is a usage as a result of the clubs locale (which is more the route I would take to avoid OR). Further there is at least a paper referencing its usage (along with discussions of other teams self referential terms[9][10] Just for fun and frolics, West Hams continued use of the term in their own published media continues[11] and can only approve of the stadium hoardings. Koncorde (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the club make reference to the song, but that's not enough to avoid OR. The language in the BA thesis would be fine, if it were a reliable source. Unfortunately WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear that even Masters' theses have to be widely cited to be useful. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
We’ve moved on from nicknames now. There are two established nicknames. There are other names by which the club is referred to. We have references for those and more are available. The decision is which references best cover why these names are used because there is no doubt they are used. It’s pretty obvious Cockney Boys as they are a Cockney club and bubble blowers from the song but sources need to be provided to verify those origins.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, whatever. I've OR tagged it until a source is found. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, whatever. I’ve removed it as it isn’t OR. They can only be referring to West Ham United when using these sobriquets.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
It's OR, please read WP:OR. None of those sources say "West Ham is sometimes referred to as..." they are uses of those phrases. It is like using a picture of a blue sky to source the statement "The sky is blue.". Boynamedsue (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
What patent nonsense. If I want to verify Bert Smith scored five goals in a game, I don’t need a reference saying Bert Smith scored five goals in a game. A reference of Soccerbase or Soccerway would suffice. That how it works.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm struggling to see why you have problems with this, yes the example you give is completely fine. But that is because that source explicitly states the information. In the citations you have given, this doesn't happen. From WP:Verifiabilty "A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research."Boynamedsue (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Egghead06Please could you either revert to the tagged version, or revert to a version without the sobriquets section and the unsourced text regarding the minor nicknames. You have edit-warred this text into the article despite there being no consensus for it appearing in the text. I will be forced to take this to the Administrators' noticeboard if you don't do this. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It is sourced and there is a consensus in this discussion of two to one to add it, not remove it. Seeing how you’ve now reported me, we’re best to leave this to that discussion.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Egghead06: Surely you must know that voting is not consensus? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Surely you are not saying that a majority counts for nothing.--Egghead06 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion is still ongoing and there is no consensus yet, not to mention that it's actually two to one against you. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
How do you count to one when one editor provides the sources and I add them? That’s two editors! If only the discussion was on going and one editor hadn’t decided to unilaterally end it!--Egghead06 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
No, the sources you added to the article were only provided by Koncorde "for flavour" and you still haven't added the actual reliable sources fron Koncorde yet! Plus, edit warring is a crime, and in this case unilateral on your behalf! You made the bold edit, Sue correctly reverted it and discussed, and then you reverted it, and then Sue tried to settle on a compromise, and then you reverted it Aaron Liu (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
His compromise was to ignore the fact that these sobriquets are used and mark them as original research. I don’t make these sobriquets up now do I? I don’t write the press cover which uses "Cockney Boys" or write the books which say "bubble blowers". They are not nicknames. They are used. There are sources which support this. How do account for that? It certainly wasn’t mentioned in Sue’s "attempted compromise" or does he just not like it?--Egghead06 (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright let’s just calm down here a bit, shouldn’t we? I apologize for my exclamation marks. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We should all remain calm and when you have time maybe you could answer my last question?--Egghead06 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure. While I agree that the addition of failed verification tags were a bit(very?) excessive, I think the original research tag should stay until Koncorde's 00:16 suggestion is applied. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, again, before getting heated - we should first realise the correct way to attribute these names or naming conventions (as previously mentioned) may not have anything to do with asserting a nickname (or sobriquet) in the nickname section, but instead in a fan culture or similar broader topic (i.e. we should probably look at the Supporters section as a whole and the West Ham United F.C. supporters fork). Koncorde (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone else agree with this method?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Support Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Per my own suggestion at the WP:ANEW discussion which led me to block Egghead from editing the article for a week so discussion here can take precedence and hopefully reach consensus, I have commented out the "sobriquets" section for the time being. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear any suggestions which reflect Reliable Sources, direct quotations of the books which have been cited may be useful here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Biggest Wins

There needs to be a section added for the UEFA Europa Conference League’ Biggest win: H: 4-0 v Larnaca - 2nd Round (16th March 2023) A: 3-0 v FCSB - Group B (3rd November 2022) 81.96.247.35 (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it be better to combine the European competition's biggest wins/defeats rather than each separately? We've played relatively few (76) games in Europe which have been split across four different competitions and the highest scores for (5-1) and against (1-4) are relatively low ColchesterSid (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

In the Glory years section, please change "West Ham also won the European Cup Winners' Cup" to "The following year, West Ham won the European Cup Winners' Cup." They won the FA Cup one year and the Cup Winners' Cup the next. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:A1F7:3CD8:C187:D664 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The context for the use of "also" is Greenwood's managment, underwhich both were won. small jars tc 12:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

In the "In popular culture" section, please include that West Ham is the only mentioned sports club in the Harry Potter book series (apart from in the Danish translation, where it's replaced by Liverpool), namely in the books Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. This is due to one of Harry's friends, Dean Thomas, growing up in a non-magical setting (as in the real world) and therefore being a football supporter.

He had a poster of the West Ham team over his bed, and Harry's best friend Ron Weasley once tried to make the players in the poster move, as magical photos do in-universe. Considering this was in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which takes place in 1991/92 (being mentioned specifically in the early autumn of 1991), it is probably a poster of the West Ham team from that season or the previous one (1990/91). Rowling has said the reason West Ham is mentioned is due to it being the favourite club of one of her friends called Troy, although the source for that statement is from JK's old website and hard to find.

Since Harry Potter is the best selling book series ever and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone specifically is the third most sold recreational book, combined with that West Ham is literally the only club mentioned in the books and movies, I think it's therefore appropriate to include this, as I believe it should be seen as "Popular culture"

For more info, see:

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/West_Ham_United_Football_Club

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Football

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Dating_conventions

https://www.hp-lexicon.org/thing/west-ham-united/

I'd be happy to answer any and all questions as well.

Thank you in advance. Vignotum (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This might be significant for Harry Potter as a character, or West Ham United F.C. supporters but less relevant here. The sources would also have to indicate the significance of the support: frankly there are a lot of characters in media that support various football clubs but we don't mention them all because this is considered WP:CRUFT. Koncorde (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
There is mention of the Harry Potter connection here at West Ham United F.C. supporters#In modern culture so you could provide additional explanation in that section. Agreed with @Koncorde - it doesn't justify being added to the main page West Ham United page ColchesterSid (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't know the rules for what counts as "significant" enough for it to be included here. I come from the perspective of a Harry Potter fan, so obviously I'm going to be biased, but it is literally the only club mentioned in the best-selling book series of all time; I think it's disingenuous to call that connection "any character in media supporting any club". The reason I thought it would qualify is because of the comparison with other mentions, such as a single football question being about West Ham in a Monty Python sketch. But that is just my opinion on the matter, and I'll gladly take yours as a correct answer.
I'm probably just wrong on this, so are there any specific rules to what counts as "significant" or "relevant" enough to warrant it being included, or is a matter of personal opinion? Does it need significantly progress the plot forward? Is the "popular" work's popularity taken into account? Are there any other factors in it? Vignotum (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Apologies Vignotum, I didn't realise someone had added the "In Popular Culture" to the article because it has been appended to the bottom of the page. There is a policy on such mentions, you can read about it here at WP:POPCULTURE but it shouldn't be read without also considering WP:CRUFT which is how insertions are more generally viewed. I'll review the current "In Popular Culture" section as it needs to be of some significance (i.e. West Ham are a significant feature of the media such as being the Football Club at the centre of the story in Green Street) but then we are better writing about that within the section on Supporters or Hooliganism which is where it has the appropriate context. Koncorde (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I read through the linked pages, and according to those rules I'm pretty sure a passing mention such as "West Ham is the only football club referenced in JK Rowling's Harry Potter series.", which is in the supporter's page, falls short of the four questions at the end of the section titled "Good and bad popular culture references" in WP:POPCULTURE, for this specific article.
I can see someone, I'm guessing you, has removed most of the entries in the "In popular culture" section, which, although it's not what I initially wanted, does remove the ambiguity of whether passing references are allowed or not, which is the reason why I thought adding this reference was appropriate in the first place. So this discussion can be "closed" or whatever it's referred to in Wikipedia term. Thank you for helping me. Vignotum (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Although come to think of it, maybe it's appropriate for the section to have a link to the other references that are in the page on West Ham supporters, but not important enough for the main page? Vignotum (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Or else mention those articles in the section "See also"? Vignotum (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Pop Culture in the supporters article: as that is an article about supporters mentioning even fictional ones would be considered relevant to the subject of the article. In contrast the article about the club should be about the club and what is significant to the club itself. So for instance we have a section on Supporters and such but we don't try to capture every named fan, or indicate any instance where supporters are mentioned in media. Instead we link to the West Ham United F.C. supporters article at the top of the section and that gives more freedom to discuss such a broader topic where the inclusion criteria can be much more flexible. Really the section on the Supporters page should be called "In Film" and "In Books" or "In popular media" or similar.
If we wanted to we could create a page called "West Ham In popular media" and there we could list all the times the club/supporters/ground has been mentioned or featured and so on - but that would then take us to whether there are sufficient reliable sources to support such an article talking independently of those items. Koncorde (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

West Ham is the only "muggle sport team" mentioned in "Harry Potter." Can we put it in the section "In popular culture"?

HARRY POTTER WIKI says:- "Dean Thomas, a half-blood wizard raised in an all-Muggle household, was a fan of the club, and hung a poster of them in his dormitory at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Ron Weasley, however, couldn't understand what was exciting about a sport with only one ball where nobody flies." 159.192.178.176 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Ham_United_F.C./Archive_3&oldid=1247045761"