Jump to content

Talk:Darlington F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDarlington F.C. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Johann Smith

[edit]

Who keeps deleting Johann Smith from the list of players? He is listed as No. 31 on Darlington's website. I realize that Bryan Hodge is as well, but Smith is listed as a squad member. Eminabe53 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname

[edit]

I removed the two pointless nicknames. Quakers is *the* nickname for Darlington. Darlo is just a shortening of the name, god only knows where 'Darloids' came from!

Darloids was an internet nickname, mostly from Hartlepool or opposition fans on message boards, presumably the combination of Darlo and Droids. Liddle 4 ever (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A note on British English

[edit]

British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979Talk to me 02:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Darlo.gif

[edit]

Image:Darlo.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awful article

[edit]

This article needs some drastic editing, its awful. Half of it seems to have been written by a Hartlepool fan! Why does two thirds of the article refer to the last 18 months of the club? Did they not exist before then? I'm going to start a serious restructuring of this page unless anyone objects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.110.235 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed awful - there must be a better way of listing signings that a succession of sentences all starting with 'Then...'! The last half of the article reads like some sort of standard season template was used, with just the names and dates changed. Quite the worst Wikipedia article I have read. And that is saying a lot. Paul from Maidstone - 7 May 2009 (PS - no mention of how they tried to stop Maidstone getting promoted to the 4th division, the year they went down to the Conference, either!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.154.65 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is the worst non-stub article I have read. If I, being a Nottingham Forest fan, was to write about any team in the English football system, which I would never do because I live in the U.S., I would be as neutral as I possibly could.TyrantSinner (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Under 'shirt sponsors' there is a link to Orange, which is a disambiguation page. What sponsor is intended? The only company named on the disambiguation page is Orange (bicycles), but I would not be surprised to learn that there are other organizations that use the name. Cnilep (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After spending several hours disambiguating links to Orange I have come to believe that the intended sponsor may have been Orange (telecommunications), but that is not clear. Cnilep (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was Orange (telecommunications) in the late 90's/early 00's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shildonian murtoner (talk • contribs) 14:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes and sections

[edit]

To the IP user who keeps reverting the changes against policy, please read the following policies, and at the very least give your side so we can come to some agreement.

  • WP:FOOTY and WT:FOOTY for guidelines on why not to use sponsored names of league, e.g. Coca-Cola League Two
  • WP:NOT for why not to use long lists of information which without any other explanation do not provide any information to the reader. Also the above Footy project pages about long lists of staff and famous fans which are not necessary.
  • WP:V and WP:RS on why and where to use references, and please do not incorrectly change the Darlington FC official website link
  • WP:DASH on where to use dashes and where to use hyphens

Please don't change dates on tags either. The date refers to how long information has not been updated or been incorrect, etc. 91.106.113.237 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about the MoS which I just found out: WP:REFPUNCT says that although refs after punctuation is usual, refs before punctuation is allowed, and if an article "evolved using predominantly one style of ref tag placement", it shouldn't be changed without consensus so to do. AFAICT from the history, the first style used was refs before punctuation, so perhaps it would be best if the ref placement were left as it was, however much of a mess it looks to me, until/unless a consensus to change is reached.
As to the other reversions, sponsored names, dashes, re-inserting errors, lists of non-notable staff, deletion of sourced material etc etc, perhaps we'd better get an admin to have a look. I didn't realise how long it had been going on till I was looking though the history. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

[edit]

Hello. This article's getting out of control, and we need to get it sorted.

The problems as I see them:

  • we're supposed to be writing for the general reader, who comes here to find out about Darlington F.C. as a whole. Currently, some sections go into far too much detail and others are completely missing
    • for instance, the History section goes into overwhelming detail on recent events; in the longer of the two current versions, more lines are devoted to Steve Foster's contract than to the first 100 years of the club's existence
    • the article would be more informative for the reader if it included sections as used on other peer-reviewed club pages, such as Colours and badge (or crest, whichever), which can include info on kit makers and sponsors, Supporters, which can include rivalries, Managers, etc
  • the article needs to be verifiable with reference to reliable sources: this doesn't mean on every line, but at the moment there are no references outside the history section, and none in it until May 2009.
  • as mentioned above, in its current form it breaches some of WP's guidelines, but that's easily fixed with a bit of cooperation.

Proposed solution(s):

  • I mean to have a go at rewriting the page, to give the reader a good chance of finding out basic stuff about Darlington F.C. when they come here and to bring it closer to WP standards for club articles. But I'm no expert on the club, so help from those of you who are would be much appreciated: I can do research, but don't have the specific knowledge to tell what's particularly important to Darlington and what isn't.
  • As to the recent history, I've set up the basics of a season article in my userspace, currently at User:Struway2/Darlington F.C. season 2009–10, and copied the "long version" of this season's details (from this revision of the article) over there. The match and player details should be right, apart from inevitable typos, as of 18 January 2010, and the transfer tables are getting there, slowly. I'll move it into mainspace at Darlington F.C. season 2009–10 when I've got time, possibly later today, though please feel free to update the version in my userspace until then. Those of you with an interest in the club's day-to-day doings can keep them up-to-date there, where such a level of detail would be appropriate and where readers who really want that much detail can still find it (there's a parameter in the club infobox to link to a season article).

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

The season article is live in mainspace, so there's no need to have most of this season's detail here any more. The match and player details don't include last night's game, and the transfer tables haven't caught up with the recent activity yet, but it's getting there. I've added a couple of Durham Cup wins to the Honours section, and added refs, and expanded the first bit of the History. Please correct any mistakes I'm making. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your help and work, Struway. 91.106.115.72 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really would help if the editor(s) intent on reverting to a version which runs counter to both Manual of Style guidelines and agreed consensus re things like not using sponsored names for leagues, would stop ignoring repeated requests at their talk page(s) and come here and explain why. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I have protected this article to force discussion from the IP who is editing without responding to valid and reasonable talkpage requests. All pages need to adhere to the WP:MOS and adhere to the core policies of Wikipedia. Please discuss the changes needed here and then the page will be unprotected. Thanks. Woody (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To do once protection has been removed

[edit]

This is not a page I edit often (my edits are generally West Yorkshire based), however I do sometimes edit in County Durham). If I am not here when the page has been re-opened for editing, will someone please add File:Feethams Football Ground, Darlington - geograph.org.uk - 76612.jpg. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More bits

[edit]

to go in as and when. Refs for next few paras of history, player changes. Copyedits/improvements welcome. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested wording for Supporters section

[edit]

moved to article Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial revert

[edit]

I've left the refs before the punctuation because the MoS permits that style as it (probably) was the first style used in the article. Also the current sponsored name of the stadium in the infobox, as AFAIK the footy project consensus only precludes use of sponsored competition names.

I've reverted as follows:

  • Manual of Style:
    • endashes not hyphens in scorelines, WP:DASH;
    • cut Staff section down to notable persons and major jobs, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, additionally the reverted version is copyvio of this page at the Darlington F.C. website
    • restored redlinks for Dream Team players without articles, WP:REDLINK they now have articles
    • restored original dates in maintenance tags
  • Long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY:
    • use non-sponsored names for competitions;
  • Restored references removed from Out on loan section;
  • Removal of errors:
    • Durham Challenge Cup isn't called the Durham Challenge (Senior) Cup;
    • There's no such thing as the Second Division (North)
    • Score in record away win was 7–3, according to Darlo site cited and soccerbase, not 7–2
    • the old Halifax Town is Halifax Town A.F.C., not Halifax Town F.C., which redirects to the new club
    • Restored wikilinks for Brown and Macc Town in Player records section
    • Restored correct link to Darlington FC website
    • Reworded Best FA Cup performance to Last 16, then added specific round for each year (because in 1911, the last 16 was called the Third Round, not the Fifth as it would be today)
    • Remove wikilinks which link kit manufacturers to an athlete and a software company.

Comments invited. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there appears to be an ongoing discussion at WT:MOS#Contradiction regarding inline citations about references before and after punctuation. Until it comes to a decision, I'm not sure that reverting back and forth on reference placement is helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFPUNC says "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, it is placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes." therefore while I admit there is an ongoing discussion references not mid-sentence should be "placed immediately after the punctuation". 91.106.122.99 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the history of WP:REFPUNC. Up until the edit war debate started, and as recently as 2am UTC yesterday morning, it said either was permitted, and if an article had evolved using one style, it shouldn't be changed. However, the point is that the problems with this article lie deeper than the position of references in relation to punctuation. If we stick to reverting only on factual inaccuracy and unequivocal matters of style, we stand a greater chance (in my opinion, anyway :-) of getting it sorted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

[edit]

I don't quite know why the page has been allowed to be put back into the non-MOS compliant version despite its protected status. I'll try my best to put my argument across, but since the IP who made the initial change has never replied to any previous requests, I doubt he will again.

  • As per WP:REFPUNC, references should be put after punctuation.
  • The section on notable players is against WP:POV and at the moment is unreferenced. This was the reason the Dream Team section of the page was put in to prevent such an unreferenced, point of view list
  • The new WP:EL link to the website is incorrect and goes to an error page.
  • We do not include indiscriminate lists per WP:NOTDIR, such as many of those listed in the staff section. Do we really need to know the "food, beverages and events manager", etc. These are listed on the official website – not that the link works correctly any more.
  • Football scores and seasons should be a dash not a hyphen per WP:DASH
  • WP:FOOTY policy is to not include sponsored names in club competitions, etc, so it should be Football League Two not Coca-Cola League Two – which incidentally is now incorrect anyway as its now the nPower League Two.

I'm sure many of these points have already been listed above, but god loves a trier. 91.106.122.56 (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed some of the above errors in the previous section have also been re-introduced such as the incorrect names of competitions. 91.106.122.56 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any changes you need made, please leave them here or leave an oldid to revert to and I will do it. I apologise for having to put semi-protection on the article now, forcing you and other "good" IPs out, but pending changes reviewers were accepting without looking into the issues which isn't surprising as they don't know the background to all of this. Regards, Woody (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

[edit]

To explain why I removed the recentism tag on the history section.

In terms of sentences per decade or whatever, I'd agree there's more on the last few years, but we have to consider the events that need to be covered. For most of the club's history, it's gone along doing not much: remained stable, occasional promotion and relegation, very occasionally winning things, knocking Chelsea out of the Cup in 1958. In the last 12 years, the ownership of the club has changed hands four times, it's been in administration twice, had ten different "permanent" managers including five in a 12-month period, moved to a new ground for the first time in its history, reached a playoff final, dropped out of the Football League, won a national trophy, and become the only(?) team to get knocked out of the FA Cup in two consecutive rounds.

It could be trimmed, a little, but in terms of noteworthy content, I don't think it actually is all that unbalanced. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll kind of agree with that. The last few years have been noteworthy for various events and I understand that you can't just expect all periods to be similarly covered. However, that said, I do feel that more details could be added to earlier period of history or some details in recent years trimmed.
I do wonder if some of the reason for the details is the prevelance of modern day media. Brad78 (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Darlington F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will begin review and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs a succinct line somewhere stating they were a league club from 1921 until 1987, and then 1989-2010, or something along these lines (1921-2010 bar one season?)
and an active group of exiled supporters, known as DAFTS - ??? - I wanna know more... aaah. that explains it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you fill out as many fields in refs as possible - for instance, ref #4 has a date written - 07 Jul 2009. Work (i.e. parent website), publisher, author, location etc.

Otherwise nice job! The article spins a nice tale and is an easy and pleasant read. Usually I find a fair deal to copyedit and I am struggling here...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical, someone picks up the GA review the day I'm off on holiday. Sorry, but I won't be able to respond to any points raised in the GA for two weeks now. Fintan264 (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. It'll hold till you get back. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, and I think I've resolved the issues raised, although I struggled to find many referenced which could have much more than a publisher location added to the info. I'll let you rule your thumb over Fintan264 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darlington Grammar School redirects to Queen Elizabeth Sixth Form College - can we verify this? If so linking'd be good.
I couldn't tell you if it's the same place. the only information I can find is this which suggests there was only one grammar school in Darlington in the early 19th century. Fintan264 (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, not that important anyway. Okay then.....


1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

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

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

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crest

[edit]

Just to explain my recent edit: as per crest (heraldry) "cres"t refers to a charge on top of a helmet on top of a heraldic shield and not to the shield itself. The correct name would really be achievement but, although correct, that term would never be used in football so I changed "crest" to "badge", a term commonly used in football and one that is in no way incorrect. And yes I know this is a bit OCD really but crest is a misuse and changing it improves the accuracy of the article. Keresaspa (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice

[edit]

The article still has an edit notice relating to November 2011, obviously this should be removed. Valenciano (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darlington are still alive!

[edit]

Darlington FC has not been dissolved, they are still alive and continuing under the new name Darlington 1883. Its the same club just a change of name. This article is all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.253.167 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name change came about after DFC 1883 Limited bought the assets of the former club's holding company[1], hence Darlington 1883 are a new club, despite the fact they may have the same players, staff, kit...programme sellers etc. Technically you are right they are still alive, but as a new club, hence why DFC are now no more.Footballgy (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The name change came about after DFC 1883 Limited bought the assets of the former club's holding company and the new Darlington will start next season in Northern League Division One.

Liquidation

[edit]

We never went bust. We were formed in 1883.

Thanks for your understanding.

Please view your talkpage. Im affraid the new 1883 club is viewed as a seperate club, there are links and sources provided. Footballgy (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Darlington F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Darlington F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

[edit]

Back in April Darlington 1883 were granted permission to revert back to the name Darlington F.C. Could the 1883 entry be merged into this entry or this entry merged into 1883 entry, or just a re-direct...Somelne get back to me on this please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfcfozz (talk • contribs) 20:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief discussion at WT:FOOTY#Darlington F.C., where people agreed (and no-one disagreed) that it was time to merge. So I've had a go. Still needs a bit of a cleanup but it could be worse. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darlington F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

[edit]

Hi All,

I've noticed there was a number of erroneous statements on this page. I've since corrected a few whilst attempting to maintain the same style (although I'd like to think slightly improve the English).

Any issues or feedback please let me know. I understand that DFC'S modern history is not the easiest to keep track of, but I'll be happy to explain anything that you might doubt. If I need to provide references for the changes I've made, I will do.

Regards, Liddle 4 ever (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darlington_F.C.&oldid=1206881482"