Wikipedia

Talk:List of feeder teams in football

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

This list doesn't even say which is the feeder club and which is the parent, which would be OK if both the feeders and parents didn't have entries. If no one seems super-interested in fixing it, I probably will eventually. Recury 18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, that's done. Recury 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Doubt accuracy

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm sceptical of many of the claimed arrangements in this article. Manchester City certainly don't have an agreement with Bury, what with feeder clubs being against the rules in England. References are needed, and as Recury says, it needs to say which is the feeder club. Oldelpaso 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Article scope

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should we include teams that are owned by the same people? I know Oldelpaso removed the Slavia/Tottenham entry because they aren't technically a feeder, but obviously they have some kind of relationship. Sheffield United and Chengdu is a similar situation. Maybe the article would be more useful if it were List of football partnerships or something, and these sorts of things were noted in the article somehow (either moved to a different section or with a note added next to the entry). Recury 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ajax Amsterdam

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think Ajax have GB Antwerpen (GBA) and Haarlem FC as their feeder clubs. In 2001-2002 season, 4-5 Ajax players were loaned to Haarlem. Aaron Mokoena were on loan to GBA for 2 seasons as well as other players. Ario ManUtd 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Removing outdated entries

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Many of the entries in this article are out of date. For instance Shanghai United F.C., listed as a feeder of Charlton Athletic F.C., folded in 2007. Of the four Charlton linkups listed the most recent activity I've found is a player loan to Mimosas is the 09/10 season [1]. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lack of recent activity does not mean that a relationship is no longer in existence. GiantSnowman 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Overhaul

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

I intend to overhaul this page in the coming weeks, namely converting to a table format as well as adding whether the relationship is active/defunct, and dates of start and end etc. If there is any opposition, please voice it here otherwise I will be BOLD and do it. GiantSnowman 12:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The big problem we have with verifiability is that news articles frequently appear when a relationship is formed, but only very rarely when it expires. In many cases, perhaps even the majority, we have no way of knowing if the information is up to date. "Feeder club" is also a strong term for many of these relationships. Take the example of the Manchester City-Djurgarden link-up listed. The source is the not exactly rock-solid tribalfootball.com. The extent of the relationship appears to be that Djurgarden officials toured Manchester City's facilities, two unnamed young Djurgarden players temporarily trained with Manchester City, and Godsway Donyoh (a young player who is currently ineligible for a work permit in England) was loaned from Manchester City to Djurgarden. As Manchester City loaned out players to 18 different clubs in the 2012–13 season, that is hardly a special relationship. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Realised on reading back that I never actually addressed your original comment. I'm in favour, it is a sensible and much needed task. What I am essentially saying in my previous comment is that we ought to be more strict about what we include. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Of course, the 'overhaul' would include pruning - removing unreliable sources or tenuously linked clubs. GiantSnowman 16:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'd go so far as to say that defunct links shouldn't be mentioned at all, they should just be deleted, but that's just me. Falastur2 Talk 15:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I disagree, we are an encyclopedia, we need to track history. GiantSnowman 08:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well fine, go ahead, but in 5 years' time it's going to be hard picking out the existing links from the sea of defunct ones. Chances are half the links on this page are defunct in actuality at this moment in time. Falastur2 Talk 22:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Picking this back up - what's the issue with retaining historical links? This is an encyclopedia, we need to track the history of a topic, not just recent developments. GiantSnowman 17:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The issue is that it's irrelevant. Just because this is an encyclopedia does not mean that every single bit of information must be retained. What actual use is knowing about a defunct feeder club? It's not as if the article even details when it was active; eventually we are going to have a record of deals which expired decades ago. Other articles back me up - when a club goes defunct it is removed from the "List of football clubs in XXX" articles, and yet the existence of football clubs is far more relevant than an expired partnership agreement. Falastur2 Talk 20:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
What makes it irrelevant? Just because the current scope of the article doesn't do something doesn't mean that it can't. Why not convert it into a table format, with year that relation started, year it ended, and brief details about the relationship? That's significantly more useful than the current listings. GiantSnowman 20:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Because the year the relationship ended is in most cases completely unknown. It is virtually impossible to put a date on. Clubs never announce that partnerships have ended - they frequently don't even bother mentioning that they have started, which makes me question whether these agreements are even valid encyclopedic information under WP:NOTABLE. The only way you can define if an agreement is defunct is by using logic and common sense, which makes tabulating it pointless. Falastur2 Talk 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
So if there's no reliable source confirming that the relationship has ended, why are you making the changes? GiantSnowman 17:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Because it's absolutely obvious to the observer (that is, to the type of observer who follows all aspects of a team's business, as opposed to the casual observer) that they have. You seem to misunderstand what the point of Wikipedia is. The purpose of this website is not to be a huge second-hand data dump, where absolutely anything is permitted providing it can be sourced. It's to be a major provider of knowledge, with citations used when facts are likely to be disputed or are needed to provide a level of authenticity - see WP:WHYCITE. Citations are not needed in order to make every little change, nor should data be purged or at least reverted if a source does not accompany every single addition. It would be nonsense to insist that we enforce that these agreements can't be declared defunct unless a citation says so because a lack of information would mean we were wilfully enforcing out of date material. This is basically what happens when people take well-meaning rules and insist on interpreting them to their extremes and it makes no sense whatsoever. Falastur2 Talk 17:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
But we don't cater for fanatical fans - we cater for everyone. GiantSnowman 17:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
You're missing the point. The fanatical fans are the ones with the knowledge to be able to make changes without the need for citations. If we only ever entered content on Wikipedia that the average fan was able or willing to research, this would website be little better than a series of school projects. Falastur2 Talk 20:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, you're missing the point. "Fanatical fans" should not be editing in the absence of reliable sources. GiantSnowman 08:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well if you're going to insist that absolutely everything in this article is sourced, I'm drawing closer and closer to taking this article to WikiProject Football for arbitration over whether it even counts as notable or whether the article should be deletable wholesale. There are things on this website that absolutely should be cited for sources. This stuff is virtually uncitable after the initial announcement. How are we ever supposed to find any sources to keep this article up to date? Are you genuinely arguing that 20 years in the future we should still adamantly insist that all of these feeder relationships be considered active purely because no-one ever made public that they ended? Do you really not see that eventually we will be enforcing the publication of out of date, misleading information just because no-one can find a news source to bring it up to date? I just can't understand how this makes any sense whatsoever? Falastur2 Talk 17:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
"If I don't get my way I'm going to have a strop and try and get the article deleted" - very mature, well done. GiantSnowman 20:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Chelsea-Vitesse

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The current source is this, from well known and respected magazine When Saturday Comes. It easily passes WP:RS. Ocee (talk · contribs) has replaced it (twice, so far!) with this, which looks to be a fansite, albeit a very snazzy one. Would that pass WP:RS? Maybe not. Should we be replacing RS with non-RS? Definitely not. If Ocee can make a case for their site to be included, then both sources should be used - I don't see why we only have to have one. GiantSnowman 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of feeder teams in football. 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) 11:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of feeder teams in football. 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) 10:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of feeder teams in football. 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) 06:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_feeder_teams_in_football&oldid=1202646346"