Talk:West Midlands (Regional) League

Untitled

I feel that there should be a seperate article titled West Midlands Regional League Premier Division. This is to create more depth and information on the Premier Division. As there are a total of 3 divisions in this competition, the West Midlands Regional League article would be a better read. I actually created the West Midlands Regional League Premier Division article a few months back but this was merged into the West Midlands Regional League article. I would like to have some feedback for the recreation of this article. In the other leagues, there were different articles on the respective divisions and I see no reason why this article should be an exception. I do not wish to be involved in an edit war, thus I would like to see some feedback soon before proceeding on bringing back the Premier Division article. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That's cool with me. The only reason I merged them together was that I didn't think there was any info on the Premier Division page which wasn't duplicated on the main league page. But I certainly wouldn't have a problem with them being separated out again.... ChrisTheDude 13:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank You for your kind understanding! I am glad that this would not start an edit war! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Division One

I was going to add this league's Division One to the English football league system page but I don't know how many clubs it has - does anyone know? Also, is there relegation from that division to a lower league? If so, which one? ChrisTheDude 07:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LOGOWMRL.jpg

Image:LOGOWMRL.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:West Midlands (Regional) League/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Seeing other England-related articles, the date settings need to be fixed, (Ex: "May 31, 1889" ---> "31 May 1889"). I notice that the article has sentences that read "In 1938" or "By 1976", it would be best if a comma were added after that. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 1 cover all this ---> "In the late 1880s Birmingham and the surrounding region boasted many of the country's strongest football teams. Six of the region's leading clubs joined the first two national leagues set up in England, the Football League and the Football Alliance, but there were still many teams in the area keen to participate in league play. On May 31, 1889 a meeting took place at Birmingham's Grand Hotel with the view to forming a Birmingham & District League. A total of 17 clubs were invited but only 13 attended, of which 12 were selected to form the new league, to commence play in the 1889–90 season. The one club which sent a representative to the meeting but was not invited to take part in the league, for unknown reasons, was Worcester Rovers"? Does Reference 15 cover all this ---> "At the same time the catchment areas of the Regional League and the Midland Football Combination were increasingly converging, and by the early 1990s the standard of play and geographical coverage of the two competitions were considered to be almost identical. In 1994 a new competition was formed to cater for the best clubs previously split across the two leagues, and thus the Regional League lost ten of its member clubs to the new Midland Football Alliance, further reducing its own status"?

   Check and no I just needed to know whether or not the ref. covered the info. But, if trying to get to FA, it will be questioned. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the two references you query do cover the entirety of the text in question. If required, I am prepared to scan the pages of the book in question and send you the scans, let me know if this is necessary. The other points I have addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Apologies for not responding sooner, I've been away from my machine all weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, Chris, but I'd put most of the red links back in. They do point to articles for entities that are potentially notable (e.g. the Warley clubs, the Kidderminster League), and the link referred to above only indicates red links should be removed when they are for things that are never likely to merit an article of their own. - fchd (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair point, I've put the red links back in for clubs/leagues which potentially might merit their own article further down the line...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • .....and in fact I've already eliminated some of them :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you to CTD for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Champions 2017-18.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)