Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Scotland task force/Archive 1

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

Article Assessment

As part of the setup of the task force articles that come under the scope of the project are being tagged with Scotland=yes. With that i am after opinions on what should be classed As low mid and high importance for the task force. Warburton1368 (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

High = international players and SPL teams, mid = SPL players and SFL teams, and low = other? GiantSnowman 16:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. So for instance the Scottish cup would be high would you then class the seasons the same or should they be low as other. Any one else got anything to add. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
How about High =SPL SFA, Scottish Cup, SPL Clubs and international players. Mid=SFl leagues and teams SPL Players and managers any other cup competitons. Low=other players who have played in scotland and miscellaneous articles. Unsure about season articles, Warburton1368 (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. When you say other players who have played in Scotland, do you mean at non-SPL/historical top tier level? The WP Football assessment page states season articles are low, so it would be logical to follow their lead on that. I think that the national youth teams should be low importance as well; if you agree you might want to change the rating for the U-16s, which is currently mid (the others are low). Another category is non-international Scottish players playing abroad, if they are playing (or have played) in a top-level league I would suggest mid, and others low. Deserter1 15:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense so season articles are low. I meant non SPL players but basically any player not appeared in the top flight. Players abroad i would go for low but if played in a top league like say the english premier then yeah mid would be appropriate. In terms of that national youth teams i would probably go for mid with the main national team high but i can see them being low as well would maybe need some more input but i could lean for either. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. I had a look at the European under-19 teams, and some (e.g. Italy) are ranked mid importance and others {e.g. Croatia) low. I don't see any guidance on this on WP:Football, and I don't feel strongly either way, so I'm happy if you want to go with mid. Deserter1 15:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
When you say international players should be classed as High do you mean Scottish internationals or all internationals players who play or have played in Scotland such as David Obua & Aiden McGeady. Personally I think Scottish internationals should be classed as high, but David Obua should fall into mid class along with other current SPL players, & former SPL players who now play abroad who are internationals or have played in the top leagues in Europe such as Aiden McGeady should classed as mid, however plays like Flávio Paixão should be classed as low. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 17:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC))
Scottish Internationals all other players would fall into the others depending on where they have played. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Another thought what about referee's. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I would class most Scottish referees as low however refs who have been officials at Major International competitions such World Cup & European Championship should be classed as mid. As for referees who have referred in Champions league or Europa lg I think they should also be low unless they officiated the final. The major of referee pages are just stubs needing expansion & large number of referees have no pages at all, I think referees need to be added to our to do list. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

Agree with the importance. I will add all this to main page when I get a chance. Agree the Refs articls in general arent great. Any you find that need improved add then to the main page also ones that need created will take time but will get there. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the SFA be classed as top rather then high & what importance should the Scotland national team be given? For example the english taskforce have classed the FA as top & England national team as high. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 22:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC))
Was going for high for the national team. To be honest i had completely forgotten about top. The Sfa should defiantly be that.Warburton1368 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there are several missing areas in the guidlines.
Scottish players who have never played in Scotland or been capped for the national team, e.g. Alex Pearce, Tom Cairney, Ikechi Anya
Players who used to play in Scotland, are Scottish but have never been capped for the national team Kevin McDonald, Leigh Griffiths, Scott Cuthbert
Players born in Scotland who play for another national team, James McCarthy, Aiden McGeady (High?) Adam4267 (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The importance guideline is only preliminary at this stage & will need expansion. McGeady & McCarthy fall into the same category as Gattuso -> Players who previously played in Scotland (Who have played at the highest level internationally/club). Also Leigh Griffiths, Scott Cuthbert & Kevin McDonald are already covered by Players who previously played in Scotland. I never said only foreign players. I will modify examples. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 00:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC))
The very valid point raised by Adam4267 that Scottish players who have never played in Scotland or been capped for the national team need to be added to Importance guideline however what rating should they recieve low or mid?
Was covered by me neat the top of discussion. Scottish players come under low if they have never played at an international or high level. If they have played at top flight in another country then mid. As for scottish player who play international for another county then im not sure. Warburton1368 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Scottish national team managers past & prsent high? yes or no' . Scottish managers who have manager in the premier league/la liga etc. high? yes or no As for stadiums we can't really include them in the importance guideline as thay range from high->low just use common sense when rating them. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC))

Think scotland managers should be high same as the players. Think mid would be more appropriate for managers at a top level and low for all others. What about Scotland under 21 and below and scotland b internationals treat the same as full internationals or maybe mid.Warburton1368 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about u21s, mid, I would agree.
Yeah I don't think u21s & Scotland B internationals should be treated with the same priority as full internationals, but they should be given a mid rating, so for example if player plays in the SFD they should receive a low rating but if their an under 21 international then their boosted to mid. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC))
That seems sensible to me. Deserter1 11:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Go for mid then. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the "top" importance is under-used at present. I think the national team and organising bodies (SFA / SPL / SFL) should be in there for certain. Possibly also an argument for Celtic and Rangers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested changes

I have made some changes to the assessment. In addition to what I said above, I think the low priority was under-used. You need some differentiation between different levels of player (ie Hall of Famers at high, normal internationals at mid and everyone else at low). I think to give every SPL player mid-importance is too high a base line, because you then only really have two levels available for players if top importance is only for general articles, major teams and competitions. The majority of SPL players (ie guys who make <25 appearances) really aren't that notable in a Scottish context. I think they need to do something more (representing their country is a good shorthand) to achieve a higher level of importance. I also fleshed out some gaps in the assessment, such as referees and stadiums. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Did You Know? Archive

I started a DYK sub-page that will hopefully serve as a useful archive for any new Scottish football articles that successfully go through the DYK nomination process. This links to an infobox on the task force main page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Scotland task force/Did you know for details. It would be great if new Scottish football articles that are well-referenced, at least 1500 characters in length and that include an interesting fact are regularly proposed for DYK by following instructions at Template talk:Did you know. Deserter1 15:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thats something we should be able to do. Shall we add previous one when we come across them. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are my previous DYKs, all of which relate to Scottish football: Hibernian Park, Walter Galbraith, Willie McCartney, Kevin Thomas (footballer), Bobby Atherton, Willie Groves, John Brown (footballer born 1915), 2001–02 Hibernian F.C. season, Tom Smith (footballer born 1909), Motherwell v Hibernian (5 May 2010) and 1980 Scottish Cup Final. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a full record here, copy the Scottish ones across and job's a good one. GiantSnowman 18:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I have done that. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues

A discussion that will affect this task force is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Now at DRN

Notability of Jack McBean

I am interested in thoughts on whether the article on LA Galaxy's 16yr old Jack McBean - who has been approached on behalf of Craig Levein to change his FIFA nationality to Scotland - merits deletion. The article has been given a PROD for a second time. Although he has yet to play a MLS game, I argued on this related WP Football discussion that he has a case for passing WP:GNG due to extent of significant coverage in the BBC, LA Times, ESPN, Daily Mail and elsewhere. Do others feel the PROD should be contested, or should he be considered a non-notable youth player until he makes his league debut? Deserter1 11:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It already has been contested and would need to go to an AfD discussion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I personally beleive that if a player meets GNG then they should get an article, regardless of whether they have played or not. It appears as if he does meet GNG in which case I think his article should be kept. Adam4267 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the final line of WP:NFOOTY states: "Youth players are not notable unless.. they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". Thanks for your comments. I expect the article will soon be taken to AfD. Deserter1 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Now at AfD, comments welcome: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack McBean. Deserter1 14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New Articles

Do we need a new article section on our Project Page, for newly created Scottish football pages which are specific to our taskforce? I know we have new article section on WP:FOOTBALL but I think it would be a good idea to have our own one so we can see the impact of the taskforce in terms of creation. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 22:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

Sounds good to me. GiantSnowman 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
yeah sounds like a good Idea. Warburton1368 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Scope - players?

I notice the scope for this task force doesn't mention players directly. What sort of connection does a player need to Scotland to be covered by this task force? Would I be right to add the Scotland=yes parameter on the {{WikiProject Football}} template for players born in Scotland but with no footballing connection? Hack (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question, are you thinking of the likes of Stuart Holden, who was born in Aberdeen but has never played in Scotland and represents another country internationally? For me, it is fitting that any players born in Scotland should come under the scope of the task force (and I see someone has added a Scotland=yes parameter to Holden's talk page). Likewise those who play or have played in Scotland or players in other leagues that are eligible to represent Scotland internationally. Deserter1 08:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The player I had in mind was Robbie Dunn. It would appear that he and his family emigrated at some time between birth and playing youth football, later playing for Australia. In these sort of cases, apart from maybe being able to access birth or schooling records more readily, I don't really see much benefit from adding the parameter. Hack (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This was discussed somewhat above, Any player born in Scotland but has never played in Scotland or for Scotland but has played at the highest level be that club or internationally should be classed mid importance. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Nikola Vujadinović

A serbian-based IP has been continually making disruptive edits to the article on the above player. On the most recent occasions, the IP has continually increased the number of league appearances he made for Aberdeen last season from 18 to 25, which is incorrect, and has repeatedly removed references related to his time at the club. I have left messages on the talk pages of his various IPs, as have others, and on the article's talk page, but I'm not confident the IP speaks English and the edits have continued without any communication. The IP has been making such changes for over a year, removing references and disrupting the edits of several Scotland task force members in the process (I suspect he may be the player's agent and keen to present his client in the best possible light). Does anyone have any advice on how to resolve this? Deserter1 talk 10:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just reverted his last set of edits and requested page protection. Not sure if we will get the page protection but will wait and see. Have added the page to my watch list anyway. Warburton1368 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Good stuff, thank you. Deserter1 talk 12:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Scottish clubs

There have been several discussions on WP:Football recently regarding the WP:FOOTYN guidelines on which football clubs can be considered notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and there is wide agreement that it is not fit for purpose (some examples of discussions are here,here, here and here).

It has been suggested that this be replaced with a country-by-country guideline, and a draft has been started here. I'm not confident whether this draft will eventually be implemented, but do task force members think it worth adding Scotland to the list at this stage? If so, would "any club that has ever played in the Scottish Cup" be sufficient, or would that be problematic in excluding some notable clubs at non-league/junior level? Deserter1 talk 15:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To be honest not sure we have to big a problem in scotland. Im my opinion any team thats competed or eligible to enter any of the national cups. However there are 8 notable divisions including junior and highland league. Plus 3 leagues in woman's football. Not sure we can cut it down any further. Did i miss anything Warburton1368 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is limited to participation in the Scottish Cup, I think a number of non-SFL sides on Wiki would technically be non-notable, e.g. Junior teams have only been allowed to participate since the 2007–08 Scottish Cup, and then only a maximum of four per season (the league and cup winners). I only bring this up as several editors recently attempted to delete all Italian Serie D clubs that had never played at a higher level purely because of WP:FOOTYN, and on that basis a fair proportion of the List of football clubs in Scotland are vulnerable for PRODS/AfDs as well. Deserter1 talk 17:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No its a very good point. To be honest i dont think the Serie D clubs should have been deleted. Wouldn't work with that wording would have to be Something like all teams who have played or are eligible for the scottish cup or have played no lower than the Scottish Junior Football North Division Two. The problem between scotland and england is we have junior football rather than a full league system. Obviously open to change.Warburton1368 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What about: "Any team who has ever played in the Scottish Cup, a senior regional league (Highland, East of Scotland, South of Scotland), or a top tier Scottish Junior league (SJFA West, SJFA East, SJFA North)"? Like you say, Scotland has no pyramid system so we could add a footnote to clarify that, which might reduce the likelihood of any objections. Deserter1 talk 08:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rangers Sectarianism

Just to let people know there is a current discussion on the Rangers Talk page see here about the length of the sectarianism passages in the Rangers articles. Personally I don't have a strong opinion one way or another but I think it’s something which may need to be reviewed. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

Troubling User

This editor 85.57.34.239 although not a vandal, has been making a lot of unhelpful & incorrect edits with the majority relating to Scottish football so far myself, Adam & Swaddon have all had to revert the users edits what’s the best course of action to take as the user is still making a significant amount of edits. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 20:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC))

If it continues the only course will be to ask for a block. I am going to give him a non-templated warning because maybe he does not know hwat he is doing wrong. Adam4267 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The funny thing is he changed all the squad numbers on the Hearts page although i watched it a while to see what he or she was up to. In the end they put it back the way it was which was the source from the hearts website. Then i worked out the squad numbers he was using was from the SPL website. Is it all squad numbers or other problems. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just looked at the edits he made to the Kilmarnock page and they were fine. I think its maybe a different tact we need. Maybe suggesting he gets a username cites sources and leaves edit summaries so we can see where he is getting it from. If no one objects i will try that tact. We need more help not less worth a try as i dont think they are a true vandal. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Nobody called the user a vandal but it’s going to become time consuming checking & reverting their edits. The user is changing player’s positions in terms of his opinion rather then what sources say & removing players from season pages. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 21:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC))
My point was some are ok. Yes he shouldn't have changed the season page and some of it is totally wrong but other parts are good. Its assume good faith so a ban is inappropriate unless he dosent listen. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Changed my mind his edit on the Killie page was ok but needed re aligned which i did and he went back and put it back the way he had it.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Under 19 Cat Thoughts please

Just wondering what would be the opinion of creating a cat for Scotland under-19 international footballers we already have one for under 21. I agree going lower than that may be overkill but think under 19 may be ok. Edinburgh Wanderer 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think it’s a good idea there is a lot of players who represent their country at youth level but then drop off the radar so the category could be quiet informative. Although as far as I know no other national sides have an under-19 category, it might be best to seek opinions from a broader audience at WP:FOOTBALL on this particular topic. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 14:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC))
I would suggest a general 'youth international' category, for anyone and everyone who has played below u-21, rather than seperate U19, U17 etc. categories. GiantSnowman 14:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Kenny McLean GA

Hi guys, I'm looking to get McLean's article up to GA status. Any help/criticisms/suggestions would be appreciated. I know I still need to do more on his club career but I think apart from that it's pretty close. If anyone can find a picture of him that would be brilliant because I have't been able to find one so far. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Be careful with your use of POV - "brilliant season" etc. unless it's directly referenced. I'm busy tomorrow but will have a better look Sunday - good work so far by the way! GiantSnowman 21:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Scottish football transfers 2011–12

For some reason the transfer list has exceeded its template include size. Four templates are included but only one is displayed how can this be fixed. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 01:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Maybe start a new list at 1 September as per List of English football transfers winter 2011–12? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not sure what you are meaning. Is it not showing new entries. Edinburgh Wanderer 13:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
If I was to split the article it would be against consistency of format with previous Scottish transfer lists. Edinburgh it is showing new transfers but at the bottom of the page the templates aren't displayed properly they're just written like categories. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 14:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC))
Sorry wasn't scrolling that far down. This is the biggest transfer list by far and its already taking a whilst to load when editing. If I'm honest i would remove the templates it isn't showing. But i think we will need to break with the current format and split it but i wouldn't to that until the next transfer window.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The transfer list has been split into two seperate articles List of Scottish football transfers summer 2011 & List of Scottish football transfer winter 2011–12. Slight repetition issues between the summer article & last year’s article but this seemed the best solution. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 04:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Templates for discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 22#Template:Scottish Premier League seasons (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 13:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Progress Bar

Should we have a progress bar in assessment section like the one at WP:FOOTBALL other Task forces seem to have them. I think it only right after all the work Edinburgh did tagging & assessing articles. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

Only just noticed this 19 day later. Would be a good idea not sure how to do it. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ayr United Football Academy

Should this article be deleted or improved. It's currently in a bad state & yes I know the title needs moving. But I don't thinks it merits it's own subsidary article. Some academies are notable & articles are created in order to avoid clutter in the main article but I don't think there's anything to suggest this one is. I just thought I'd bring it here first because I have a feeling if I PROD'ed it wouldn't be contested as the Author is non longer active & I don't anyone else interested will notice. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to a section at Ayr United F.C.? GiantSnowman 21:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with giant snowman redirect is probably the best option. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well there doesn't seem to be anything on Ayr United's website referring to the Academy. If I was to add a section on Ayr United's article & redirect I'd have to source it from here [1] I don't know who creates the content & whether it would be considered a reliable source. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, doesn't seem to be any official link. I'd advise taking it to AfD in that case. GiantSnowman 22:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You would expect them to have something. The article states that is the academy's official website but you would of thought there would be a link from the main site like the hearts youth academy website does. Either prod it or AFD. its non controversial and certainly appears non notable.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Scottish League Cup Final

The Scottish League Cup Final article is currently a two-line stub & the final is only two days away. Could someone with some spare time please help improve it, I'm not going to be online for the remainder of the day, nor will I be tomorrow as it's St. Patrick's Day but I'll help once returning. I think as a task force we should start improving Scottish finals to a higher standard then they've been previously. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and add a bit to it before the final, but there's not too much you can add before the final itself. I definitely agree with what you're saying about the Scottish task force, with finals and other articles in general. I'll try and add the Route to final section tonight. Adam4267 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Pretty bad. All that can really be added is the Route to the Final as Adam says. I think if we want to do things like that it may have to be during close season although i agree should be done. I for one never have much time left between doing all the season articles and keeping everything up to date along the way.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
That would be great Adam if you could add the route to the final section, both clubs will be wearing their away kits, I don't see how Celtic's home kit clashes & their away kit doesn't they're pretty similar. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thats the SFL for you.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok I've added all the basic info I could get so far. It's not perfect so feel free to improve but hopefully we can turn it into a pretty decent article after the final. Adam4267 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Standardised 2012-13 season article?

Would this be a good thing to come up with so we can get all the Scottish articles looking alike. Adam4267 (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would love that in fact the ones I'm creating in my userspace will be virtually identical once the hidden sections are removed. But here is the slight problem of the 42 articles me and duck update 35 every week. My plan for these is to increase the number using football box collapsable to all of them from just the majority at he moment. This is because i very much find it easier to update and given the volume speed helps. Outwith the 35 Aberdeen uses it so will be fine, and 2011–12 Raith Rovers F.C. season won't be a problem nor i think will be 2011–12 Queen of the South F.C. season the ones that don't are 2011–12 Celtic F.C. season, 2011–12 Rangers F.C. season, 2011–12 Greenock Morton F.C. season and 2011–12 Motherwell F.C. season. In terms of stats and match statistics the majority also use the same ones. For div three and two we have used a template to display the league tables other than a colour coding these have proved to be good and i would hope we could maybe use them for other divisions although that may be controversial.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the benefit in having all of the Scottish seasons articles the same, other then the results format as its easier when updated as you can copy from the oppenants page rather then doing it twice. But Adam has already expressed his dislike for the collapsible footballbox format in the past & I don't think we should try to enforce it upon pages we don't update such as HIbernian,Aberdeen,Motherwell, Rangers & Greenock. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should force it either nor do i think it likely to happen. The only ones I'm going to do it on are the ones we update as for after that its up to individual users. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, change the First Divsion (apart from Greenock) to the footballbox format for THE upcoming season & the same with Dundee, Dunfermline, St Johnstone & St Mirren. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Shankly

I'd like to take this article into WP:GA but first I'd be obliged if some of you could look it over as a peer review. All constructive points welcome. Thank you. --Brian (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Rangers Discussions

Due to recent developments in regards to Rangers F.C. there is number of discussions regarding the club:★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Joint GA reviews

I think it would be a good idea if we, as a task force, reviewed relevant GA (or FA/L) articles together. I think there would be several benefits to this such as Scottish-related articles getting reviewed quicker and also with more people reviewing the reviews would be of a higher quality. Also I think it can be rather daunting for a single person to take on reviewing a large article so we would know that someone else will always help. I nominated Georgios Samaras four months ago and it's only getting reviewed now. Considering how little the reviewer has said actually needs to be done to the article that was very frustrating for me. The only current Scottish GA I see at the moment (apart from Samaras) is Bill Shankly so I think that would be a good one to start with considering it looks pretty likely to pass. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Season Articles

In all season articles for Scottish football, we currently wikilink the Challenge Cup to either the Ramsdens Cup or the Alba cup. The main reason for this is that the WP:commonname of the competition is not the Challenge Cup. There is nothing wrong with piping the name and as this is the case in virtually all season articles I'm bringing this here to discuss. This is because an editor changed them on mass tonight and i have reverted pending a discussion, after me prompting him to discuss he carried on regardless. Would anyone else care to comment.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently i work for the Ramsdens or Alba cup. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I would say Ramsdens Cup and Challenge Cup are both equally represented, looking at the BBC Sport website for example. So I would say it would be fair to use either. Although this only seems to be the case with this competition because I can't find anywhere near as much reference to the Scottish Cup as "The William Hill Scottish Cup". Although, I might argue if we are ignoring the sponsorship names of the Scottish Communities League Cup and The William Hill Scottish Cup in the season articles, should we do the same with the Ramsdens Cup/ALBA Cup? Cal Umbra (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A search will show you reliable sources use Ramsdens Cup[2]. When searching Scottish Challenge Cup it mainly shows Stats sites[3]. Its wholly different from the Scottish Cup example because in no way is the William Hill Scottish Cup a common name the Scottish Cup is same with league cup, they also include the name of the actual cup where as Ramsdens cup does not. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The other point is these are season articles, therefore should link to the common name of the competition during that season. Although they are a different scenario if Sport and politics wants consistency then we can change the Scottish Cup to a name that is in no way common and put William Hill Scottish Cup however that will push to use an advertising name that is in no way the common name. If i refer to the Scottish Cup thats what i use if i refer to the Ramsdens Cup i don't use Challenge Cup.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is to use Challenge Cup although I see both as acceptable. If others agree that Ramsdens Cup/Alba Cup etc. should be used instead I don't see a problem just as long as there is consistency. Cal Umbra (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough if both are acceptable then we should really go with the status quo but we will see what other users say. When you look at the search results its clear though that reliable sources mainly use Ramsdens, we cant use stats sites to prove a common name. Did you compare the searches.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, most of the websites of the clubs competing in the tournament refer to it as Ramsdens Cup. The only problem I see that is if the sponsor changes year after year it might cause confusion. If others think we should stop using the sponsor name in the season articles I would suggest expanding the sponsorship section of the Scottish Challenge Cup article. Cal Umbra (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the same sensible conclusion that I came to.The use of the sponsors name only serves to advertise the sponsor and is inconsistent with other articles which I pointed out but was dismissed by the user as not the done thing and that it was in to many articles. Both strands of argument which lack credible logic and only say its been done before and I'm too lazy to change, though they were pretty over zealous in going around stalking my edits and putting it back to the advertising version.Sport and politics (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Im very close to reporting you. Your accusations are laughable, stalking working for Ramsdens, you were being deliberately disruptive last night and you know it. First of all i happen to have every single article you edited on my watchlist so i did not even have to look at your disruptive edit warring. You reverted twice and ignored me starting a discussion with you.Edinburgh Wanderer 14:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be coming across very aggressively and mildly obsessively with regards to this issue. As has been said there needs to be consistency the lack of logic in the arguments put forwards for the sponsored name is showing the unsuitability of using the sponsored name. For there to be consistency using the logic put forward for sponsored names, would mean every Sottish Competition needs to be in the sponsored name e.g. William Hill Scottish Cup, Scottish Communities League Cup and Clydesdale Bank Premier League. This would be inconsistent with other countries when talking about association football such as in England. In England the Football League Trophy is known on Wikipedia as just that and not the Johnstone's Paint trophy, when arguably the sponsored name is more "common". If these are not all in the sponsored name as well there will be inconsistency. A logic and consistent way to go about this is to use the un-sponsored legal name as the competition sponsors will change over time and as has been show this competition has at least two other names in use meaning there is an impression that the ALBA cup and the Ramsdens Cup are two completely different competitions. Lets try and get logical and sensible here.Sport and politics (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


You aren't being logical or sensible and as i said above common name over rules in a situation like this if you want consistency then i will add William Hill Scottish Cup to every article, however that is adding a sponsor that isn't a common name but if you want consistency go ahead. As long as you make accusations of me being employed or stalking you then you will get that. Along as you discuss as all editors including you should then you will get a civil response, but i won't put up with the unfounded accusations coming from you.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WP policy is to use unsponsored names where possible. All of the Scottish competitions have had various sponsor names, Bells Cup, Skol Cup, Coca-Cola Cup, Tennents Scottish Cup, Fine Fare League, etc. Stick with Challenge Cup and just mention in the article that it was sponsored by XYZ. The only exception would be if you were talking about a new stadium or competition that was incepted with that name (eg Emirates Stadium, Dryborough Cup). James Morrison (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You will find that is not a policy. WP:Commonname is a policy, William Hill Scottish Cup is a sponsor name. Ramsdens cup whilst a sponsor is a Common name. Check the links above Scottish Challenge Cup comes up with stats sites, Ramsdens Cup comes up with reliable sources. Can you cite an actual policy that overrules common name.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly a good logical and sensible reasoned way of doing things. If desperate just mention the sponsored name in the main article pages.Sport and politics (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Desperate am i, Work for the Ramsdens cup, aggressive and edit warring from you. Your a laugh you are.

Please re-read the last comments I have not called you desperate.Sport and politics (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a missing of the point that the sponsored name is not the long term common name for the competition. It is simply the short term name for the competition. The sponsored name will change over time so the name of the sponsor will change. The common name of the competition which will not change is the un-sponsored legal name so that is the long term common name. Sport and politics (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

These are season articles so the name is only relevant to that season. Common name can change but the name of the cup that season won't. The challenge cup is not a long term common name it won't go back to that it may change name in the future but you cannot argue that Challenge cup all go back to being a common name that is CrystallBallEdinburgh Wanderer 15:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
These are what you have said about me Work for the Ramsdens cup, aggressive and staking you, you clearly meant desperate as a go at me. you have no right to attack other users without being able to prove your accusations. You are you cannot cite a policy i can. Last nite you ignored every attempt at discussion and carried on, i reverted you and without good reason you edit warred further and started attacking me.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete comments which I have made and the selectively re-add the point which you dislike. also please can you show where I have called you desperate. re-reading those comments will show i have not called you desperate. The point here is being lost. It is illogical to use the sponsored name for this competition and only this competition when it is not the long term common name and is inconsistent with other articles such as the Football League Trophy. As fir these being season articles there needs to be consistency across seasons and changing the name of the competition when the sponsored name changes implies its a completely different competition. Thus creating confusion and reducing accuracy.Sport and politics (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You will find i re added[4] your comment which was removed[5] in an edit clash. Therefore we will add that as another unfounded accusation on your part. Every bloody scottish season article for 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2010-11 where created used Ramsdens Cup or Alba Cup.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You only partially re-added so effectively did delete a comment that I made [6] see the top comment I had to manually re-add that you failed to re-add. Please be sure you can accurately back you you claims before making wild accusations as you did in your last edit. It is showing you are not being thorough in your editing and correction of sloppy errors. I will also happily undertake the editing myself. The paper fallacy argument "its too much work" is not a logical reason. Sport and politics (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

One last time either cite a policy that over rules common name or Provide a full reason why season articles that only cover that season should not use the name of the competition that season. Ramsdens Cup is not only common name but it is the name of the comp relative to that season. You keep mentioning the football leauge trophy but don't go around removing mentions of the Johnstone paint trophy for english season articles. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem is the policy you have cited has been shown to be interpreted in a way to support your argument and mine, also other editors agree with my arguments as sensible and logical. Claiming mine make no sense is a ludicrous claim. Its your arguments which are looking unfounded and illogical. Can you also cite a policy stating that in this case we must use the sponsored name over the un-sponsored name where no other competition in uses the sponsored name?Sport and politics (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Other editors also said they would be happy with either but you ignored that. You also have not apologised for making totally unfounded accusations against me. No i cant because a policy stating we shouldn't use sponsored name does not exist so equally a policy stating we should does not. What does exist is the fact that Ramsdens is the common name from that policy. Other sponsored name such as William Hill Scottish Cup is not. You cannot and apparently will not reply why a season article only relevant to that season should not use the name of the competition as it is commonly known in that season, If we were arguing on something other than season articles that might make sense but we aren't.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What exists is your opinion that Ramsdens is the common name not a fact that it is. You are also being very short sighted and trying to wall off each season from the next ignoring the fact the competition runs season after season. What you are confusing is your opinion with fact. Your Opinion is Rasmdens is the common name. This is not a fact it is purely your opinion. Other users have all stated it is not the common name. and that the name either is not the common name or the sponsored and un-sponsored are interchangeable. You have believed your opinion to be fact which undermines your argument.Sport and politics (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

it is not unfounded or illogical when backed up by the common name policy and search hits can show that reliable sources use that name and mostly stats sites not proof of a common name use Challenge Cup. Also using the name of a cup in that season is not illogical.

You are missing the point of confusion and inconsistency between seasons if you change the name from season to season it will be viewed as a wholly different competition. It is also not illogical when the sponsored names are not used for the other competitions your use of the sponsored name is illogical.Sport and politics (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And you are still not making any reply about all of your unfounded accusations today. They aren't used because they aren't the common name however i have made it very clear if you want consistency then we can change all links to the sponsored name in that season. However William Hill Scottish Cup isn't the common name the Scottish Cup is, the same with the league Cup but the Ramsdens cup is. Using the name of the cup in that season when it is the common name is not confusion it is showing you the common name only relevant to that season, also because we wikilink it is highly unlikely that a average editor would view as a different competition.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The better consistency and the far more logical is to not have the sponsored name at all so the name of the competition is consistent across all season articles. Each individual Season article cannot be walled off from the next. When the sponsor invariably changes again and as it has done in the past this competition will be seen as multiple different competitions and not the same competition. Your argument relies on an implausible illogical assumption based on your opinion of the common name being the sponsored name, that football is not fluid and that you can wall the season article's off from each other.Sport and politics (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't know why I'm still replying here because really i shouldn't bother speaking to some one who has made attacks against me, won't retract them or apologise for them even when shown links they were wrong. It won't be seen as different competitions we wikilink them for crying out loud. A season article is only relevant to that season not anything else. You don't get it we only were using the sponsored name because it was the common name otherwise we wouldn't off, nobody refers to the William hill Scottish cup as that they refer to the Scottish Cup but the Ramsdens Cup is not because it doesn't use any of the original name, this can be backed up by reliable sources that show the name whereas the challenge cup is backed up mainly by stats sites.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments are flawed on two levels one they are Myopic saying its the common name for that season excluding the common name over many seasons, and two it claims its the way its always be done so it must be right. The flaws fatally damage the arguments and show that there is no basis in retaining the sponsored name. I believe this needs to go wider and get more opinions as your will just continually revert the sensible forward moving editing I will undertake to remove this outdated and unnecessary over use of a sponsors name which confuses users and ignores the way other competitions are represented. Opinions do not constitute fact and that is what has been used as the starting point for arguing it is a common name. Sport and politics (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

if you do that without consenus you will be reported for edit warring. There is other editors contributing here let that happen. I have never said that because its the way it is always done it is alway right. You have no policy to cite, and you cannot show that is not the common name, you also cannot show why a season article only relevant to that season should include anything but the way that competition was commonly known that season per WP:Commonname. You are being extremely disruptive by making extremely bad faith accusations that you refuse to retract or apologise for. You refer to the Johnstones paint trophy but do not look at removing all links to that in english season articles. You are only going after Ramsdens Cup and accusing me of having a conflict of interest and work for Ramsdens, accusing me of stalking you when i have all those season articles on my watch list plus many more, accuse me of being the aggressive one when I'm not being and its you who is making the accusations here.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You clearly cannot see sensible reasoning and as such a wider range of opinions has been requested here Sport and politics (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You cant see any reasoning because you have a massive pov on this issue and won't allow anything other than your way or the highway. I started to discuss with you and then you made accusations against me, then ignored that discussion carried on and then reverted me without valid reason. And doing that only brings wider discussion about your unfounded accusations against me.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are only seeing what you want and are unable to see the sensible reasoning put forward by every other user except yourself. You are looking very isolated all by yourself pushing this. User after user does not agree with your take on this. That doesn't mean the all agree with me all agree with me but none of them have said EW you have it right lets impose the sponsors name on these articles and never use the un-sponsored name.Sport and politics (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets get this straight i have never said we should use the sponsors name on all articles only when it is the WP:Commonname. I've given you evidence to prove it is, you show me yours. Ive caught you removing my comments and yours after i reply to them on the main page.User after user have said we should not use sponsors names including me, unless as i have shown that when it is the common name we do. Thats policy i have shown you evidence. How old are you, if you are above a certain age you should know that you cannot make unfounded accs and that you should apologise when proven wrong. You will also know that you need to provide evidence I've shown you in no uncertain terms that sourced use Ramsdens Cup, so where is your evidence.Edinburgh Wanderer 17:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are still failing to grasp it is your opinion of what the "common name" is. Do you not see who wrong that is to be dressed up as fact? Sport and politics (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

An opinion is something that is pov and not backed up with evidence. I have backed this up with evidence you have not therefore it is your opinion not fact.

No you haven't you have just said its been done like this and a few stats pages use it so it must be the common name another user said when they searched the split was fairly even. That shows your are just dressing up your opinion as a fact. Please stop as you are being increasingly disruptive and deliberately pushing your own point of view to the detriment of a decent discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Listen boy I've shown evidence you have failed at every attempt because you have not. The split was not even because in the link i provided the sources for Challenge cup are stat and fixture sites not Reliable independent sources that show common name. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Kent Bergersen and Raith Rovers in 1996-97

I've recently expanded the article about Kent Bergersen and nominated it for DYK. While expanding this, I found that he claims in an interview with a fan-site of Vålerenga Fotball in 1999, (interview in Norwegian: [7]) that he was named man of the match in four of the six matches he played for Raith Rovers in November and December 1996. That would make a very interesting DYK-hook, but I would need a confirmation that it is correct, and I would need another source, because the fan-site is not a reliable source. Any Scottish experts that could help out? Mentoz86 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he definitely played six league games for Raith [8]. James Morrison (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This report in the Independent quotes the Raith manager as saying Bergersen and another Norwegian player were on loan [9] and that they got better results while they were there (Raith finished last and were relegated from the Premier Division that season). James Morrison (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
A report in the Daily Record [10] uses the tabloid phrase "outstanding". James Morrison (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I doubt whether you would find a reliable source saying he was man of the match in four matches. The "man of the match" award is very splintered in Scottish football. Typically the public address at the stadium will announce a man of the match, which is almost always from the home team, even if they are being hammered! Most of the newspapers will have their own player ratings and man of the match, but there is no official league award, even today. The only games in Scottish domestic football where you would have an "official" man of the match would be in cup finals. James Morrison (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess it could be correct if four of those six matches were home-matches then! Thank you for the reply, I guess I'll have to find another hook, and I'll try to use the two sources you have provided, in the article. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with womens football

I have created Women's football in Scotland so any help would be appreciated.Dwanyewest (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jack Harper

I created Jack Harper today, this would probably be right up your (collective) alleys...? Kennedy (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And it's been nom'd for deletion. Would anyone care to take a look and see if it can be saved? Kennedy (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:CANVASSING. GiantSnowman 16:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

The SFL are currently doing a survey to improve their website improvements maybe helpful for us Wikipedians. So you can take the survey here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles to be created

I have trying to work my way through this list, and have a few proposed changes which I would like to gauge opinion on here before implementing:

  • Rather than organising by bullet point, they should be numbered so we can see how many there at any one point.
  • I don't feel a need to differentiate between current and former players - the description of notability should do that.
  • Players should be listed by date order, as opposed to alphabetically - this way we can see which is the oldest. That's not to say that we won't create stuff added recently (for example, I've already created Hughie Hay, which was only added today) but it means that if something has been at the top for a while, we will at least know.

Thoughts? GiantSnowman 14:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly can see the point in ordering them by number & having the oldest at the top. But I'd still split the current & former players. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to change the format to one you suggested, with them numbered & the oldest at the top as nobody objected. But I'm leaving the former/current split in place, it mayn't seem much different at first as I added a lot at the same time. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

First Division becoming more semi-professional

Per this story in the Daily Record.

Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't help at the moment, but I believe if the new reconstruction plans go through then the 1st division will get an extra £1m per year. Meaning the majority of clubs (if not all) would be full-time. Adam4267 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Scottish Junior Football Association clubs

Following a discussion at the main FOOTY page, I've started List of Scottish Junior Football Association clubs - we can redirect any Junior clubs of minimal notability to here. Before I/we expand, I think it could be an idea to disuss whether the layout is acceptable i.e. any more columns etc.? GiantSnowman 16:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As it stands, a column for Region (ie: West, East or North), which are fairly distinct divisions in the Junior game would be a good idea I feel. Perhaps a column for home ground if we're pushing the boat out. Sgt Elvan (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, feel free to implement! GiantSnowman 09:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

St Patrick's Former Pupils F.C.

St Patrick's Former Pupils F.C. has been PRODed. Am not very au fait with notability criteria for fitba, particularly amateur sides, but if the content of the article is correct, especially their league and cup successes, would this not satisfy WP:N? If so, can someone sort it out, add some refs etc.? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Netherdale

Hello, I have started a discussion here about Netherdale, the home stadium of Gala Fairydean, if anyone is able to assist me. Thanks, Cal Umbra 20:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Youngest player in scottish football record broken

Jordan Allan has broken the record held by Ronnie Simpson so I have updated Simpsons page but was wondering if wiki has a records page in case people want to know. I don't think the boy warrants his own page on this alone. BadSynergy (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles you are looking for are Football records in Scotland and Jordan Allan. GiantSnowman 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Joining the task force

I've signed up to wikipedia with the intention of updating a lot of the information relating to Dundee United. Recently the website http://www.arabarchive.co.uk/ was launched which details every match and player involved with Dundee United. As such it shows a lot of the information on wikipedia to be incorrect, for example there are mistakes in the career statistics of players as notable as David Narey. Whilst my focus will mainly be on Dundee United I'll also try and hep out in any other areas of Scottish football where I can. Username of a generic kind (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! I also suggest you join and get involved with the main project as well. If you need any help or advice please ask. GiantSnowman 11:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

SFL1 / Scottish Championship

The age old debate - fully-pro or not? Input welcome here. GiantSnowman 18:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability of John S Harrison

A new unreferenced article for an apparent pre-war footballer John S Harrison has just been created. Just wanted to get some opinion on whether he is notable. Hack (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite openly says he was semi-professional. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have tagged both this article and related Andrew Meikleham for PROD. GiantSnowman 15:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Now at AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John S Harrison‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Meikleham. GiantSnowman 19:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We do have a lot of article's on war time players so purely for my inquiring mind were most footballers back then even for the big clubs not semi pro.Blethering Scot 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The leagues weren't fully-pro, and certainly not the lower divisions that these two were playing in. And that's all before we get into GNG... GiantSnowman 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Given the volume of player articles we currently have from around that period even in the decades after where they weren't fully pro has there not been some kind of agreement there, because there is no way they could meet GNG given the period we are taking about. Should be noted some of these articles were created by users who are highly experienced at WP:Footy. Im not trying to say we should save these articles at all just that we have to be consistent re this and we aren't.Blethering Scot 20:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As with all articles, the subject should meet GNG. What articles are you talking about? I know that for some clubs (Southampton in England, as an example) there are plenty of books that give players enough coverage to meet GNG. The same cannot be said for lower division Scottish clubs, as far as I am aware. GiantSnowman 10:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Rangers FC founded as Argyle?

Just saw this edit and was not sure whether to revert or not. I'm not familiar with the site used as a ref nor have I ever heard of what it claims. BadSynergy (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Its not a reliable source so it needs discussed further so i have reverted. Ive looked at the Scottish football historical archive and there are two clubs named Argyle, one however listed as a junior team was founded in Govan in 1876 but in 1877 became Carradale. In the notes it does say club was connected to Rangers F.C. but as Rangers were founded in 1872 they certainly weren't the same club. There are other Argyll's not Argyle from Glasgow founded in 1873, 1880 and 1882 but none match.Blethering Scot 22:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Jim Cant and Jimmy Cant

I've just created articles for Jim Cant and Jimmy Cant. Could someone confirm that I've got the details right? There seems to be some confusion between the two in some sources. Hack (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

JOESPICE

Hello I got a message to invite me to this taskforce to help improve information on Scottish football. I will continue to update manager statistics for current bosses in the SPFL assisted mostly with stats from soccerbase. I also made an effort to put missing information on Old Firm bosses and to my surprise I found stats for Willie Maley and Bill Struth. I also added player/managerial honours were appropriate. Not all information so there is gaps. Feel free to add/correct information as sometimes it can be inaccurate.

Scottish Women's Cup

Too bad 4 editions are missing at RSSSF. Maybe one could find those in a scottish newspaper archive. And i guess Scottish Women's Football League Second Division North, East and West could be combined into one article. -Koppapa (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

the merging of the articles would be a good idea. we need to get the correct info and a bit of history for them first. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
So, looking back it wasn't nearly complete. There are 17 editions missing. But there also were a lot of finals and results added with sources. I guess it isn't the same trophy anymore? Maybe all champs are engraved into it. -Koppapa (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dundee F.C.

I feel there is a lot of work needed on the Dundee page. I have done what I can since they won the Championship, but it is being messed about with by trollers on the odd occasion and I have set it right where I have noticed it. The History section needs worked on, shortened and summarized better as well as a bit of research on club facts it's also highlighted as not being neutral i've tried to set that right where I have noticed too. I added a Player of the Year section recently and don't know if it's 100% accurate so far, a lot of it is from memory as the Dundee website was updated recently and in the process I lost a place to cite older content from.Djburns93 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Try the wayback archive if there are old pages of the Dundee FC website that have been "lost". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There's some real issues with the history section, it's suffering from recentism. Almost all of the information about the 2013-14 and 2014-15 season needs to be replaced with a line or two. Detail like that should be reserved for season articles. Username of a generic kind (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

List of St Johnstone F.C. seasons

Have submitted this to Peer Review ahead of trying for FL. Any feedback welcome. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Club Crests

I was hoping to add club crests for Scottish clubs but not sure if this is copyright violation.

I have seen that East Fife has a crest on their page and when clicking on it there's a mention of (WP:NFCC#4). Don't know what this means or if there's a process I need to adhere to.

I think it would be great to get a crest visual on pages but don't know where to start. Any advice would be great. Thanks GlasgowBraveheart (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Hamilton Academical F.C. seasons

Can anybody help expand this please? Cheers. GiantSnowman 09:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, we have over 44,000 stubs! A good opportunity to improve stubs for your area!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Professional status of Scottish Championship

Contributions are welcome at the ongoing discussion at WT:FPL. GiantSnowman 10:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Further input/sources are please needed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Scottish Championship. GiantSnowman 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Scotland_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1189836443"