Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Sheffield United task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Other possible SUFC articles

I followed the Mick Jones (of Shireoaks) link to the Leeds page, and see that they have (on a separate page) a 'top 100' list of players (Mick being number 10, which is pretty good); and also a 'best XI'. This seemed a nice idea. -- roundhouse 21:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Looking at it, it seems that the top 100 list was compiled by Leeds United A.F.C. themselves, but maybe if we could find a the blades players of the year, that could form the basis of a similar article. The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children. L.J.Skinner_WOT? 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been having a play on the Bramall Lane article, which I think is quite good now (with a few tweaks, possibly GA status? Mostly I was reformatting The Ground Today section (because I wanted to add the Kop to my userpage! :)) The only thing I think it may need is some extra detail on The Kop Corner, just so the formatting looks better and the Westfield Stand starts on the left-hand side of the page, and not butting up against the photo. The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children. L.J.Skinner_WOT? 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few more ideas. Sadly, I had to borrow these from The Pigs, but there is a template at template:Sheffield Wednesday F.C. which I think it pretty good. We have to admit, the main Sheffield United page is very big, and could certainly be improved by whittlnig it down and creating several small articles. I'll work on a records page & a template covering the club, Bramall Lane, Players and Managers] (shouild we create articles on the latter two?) Can anyone else help out? ^{The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children.} L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a few ideas guys!

Template:Sheffield United F.C.

Sheffield United F.C. managers

Sheffield United F.C. seasons (under construction)

How about Sheffield United F.C. international players - detailing players who have represented their countries whilst at the Lane? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1915 FA Cup Final I have added quite a bit to this article and put it forward for assessment. If anybody here has anything to add from any Sheffield United Historys it would be great as currently the only "secondary" source is a Chelsea one. I have created a number of stubs for the Sheffield team a number of them, in particular the goal scorers, Joseph Kitchen, James Simmons (footballer) and Stanley Fazackerley who were leading players of their day could do with some more detail, can anybody help? Looking forward to any additions Gmac101 (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I added them to the to do list the other day. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see them. Thanks Gmac101 (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the main article

I think we should split the main article into several smaller articles. This would be in lie with what many other football club's articles look like, and would help toward GA nomination (see Talk:Sheffield United F.C.). I'm working on some of these now, as well as a template, which will be moved in place soon.

Up the Blades! ^{The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children.} L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 17:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest there be a separate article for the 06/07 results, so the main article doesn't change all that much (once it's sorted). roundhouse 21:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is 06/07 really encyclopedic content? I dunno. What do people think of the work done so far? L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A 06/07 results page is most definetely not appropriate, and would be afded. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers, HornetMike 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there is already a 06/07 results section in the main article, which we are trying to shorten (so the information, discriminate or not, is already here). A solution might be to move this info to someone's user space. I agree that 06/07 results are not encyclopedic. In fact Premiership has up to date results (with reports) + the current squad so perhaps the section is redundant. roundhouse 13:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheffield United F.C. squad is being AfD's, I'm sure a 2006/07 results section would be. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sheffield United F.C.#History

Again, I feel this need to be slimmed down. It's currently almost half the whole article (which is now over 41kb). I've already moved the content to History of Sheffield United F.C., so I hope to proceed with a vicious hacking of the main article shortly. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The history section in the article will need to be more of a summary. I would recommend to remove the subheadings, and should be shortened from there. Take a look at some FA articles, such as Arsenal F.C. and Everton F.C. to get an idea as to how this could be done. -- Mattythewhite 17:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've had a good old hack, and shortened the section quite a bit, but some work still needs to be done. What does anyone think? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Refsworldlee (talk · contribs)

Thanks! :) You know, it actually pleases me to have a non-fan on the WP. Maybe you'll be able to be more brutal than some of the rest of us have been. For example, could you have a look at slimming down the Sheffield United F.C.#history section? It's far too long, and now relocated to History of Sheffield United F.C. anyway! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you for the invite. If I can cast a neutral (ex-referee) eye over proceedings, I will be only too delighted. I've already been in and updated the articles for creation and new articles sections in the project page (I take it I'm right in thinking only redlinks should be in the Articles for Creation, and New Articles should be listed chronologically bottom to top?). I've signed and timed the New Articles according to the earliest edit history of each new article.

I'll give the History section a go when I can find time. I do a regular round of vandalism reverting along with the more creative stuff, and there are still a few pet projects I want to get cracking on.

Thanks once again, and I hope to be a very active member of your WikiProject. Cheers. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about lack of input lately (end of season is like that for me), but I will continue to patrol vandalism and spam on the main article. In very good faith. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Football task force

For anyone that's interested, there is now an England task force at Wikiproject:Football. You can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/England task force. Paulbrock 11:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

proposal to turn this possibly inactive project into a task force of WikiProject Football

This project (which is a sub-project of WP:FOOTBALL and others) seems to be currently inactive. I propose to change this from a sub-project into a task force of the football project and integrate it properly into the projects banner, removing {{Sheffield United}} from linked pages and adding SheffieldUnited=yes or sheffutd=yes into {{football}}.

Many other sub-projects have already been turned into task forces, this allows improved collaboration between the groups of editors that help to improve football related articles and the integration of talkpage banners prevents those pages from displaying three or four different football related project notices (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects for further reasoning).

I will not do this if there are any disagreements within the next week, if there are no responses by Monday January 14 then I will be bold and move this project's page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Sheffield United task force, edit it to reflect these changes and update the redirects. I will then add the necessary fields to the football template and remove this projects banner from the associated talk pages.

To clarify -

• changes will only be made if this message receives no replies or no dissenting replies
• if there are no replies -
  • this project will be integrated into WikiProject Football as a "Taskforce on Sheffield United" by moving and redirecting these pages
  • this projects banner functions will be integrated into {{football}} and the {{Sheffield United}} banner removed from articles

Please respond here if you do not think that this would be a welcome move. Nanonic (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because there's not been much added to the discussion pages here of late shouldn't imply that it's inactive as a project. The listed members still regularly update the relevant articles and keep the subject of Sheffield United neat and tidy. It's largely that there's probably less ongoing discussion necessary than with other subjects. And anyway - I was about to get around to suggesting a standardising of the career info for our players which would go on here...

Also - this is a sub-project of WP Sheffield so it isn't in the gift of WP Football to make decisions on it.

So no thanks! Bladeboy1889 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the project but I have been updating the 1915 FA Cup Final page with some details about the game I got from the Guardian archive and I was wondering if anybody else had information to add. So things still going on. Gmac101 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To further clarify - changing this to a Task Force isn't about how active or inactive this project is - it's about reducing the duplication of effort in terms of assessing articles, and standardising football articles across Wikipedia. I would be in favour of such a move... Paulbrock (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote - "This project (which is a sub-project of WP:FOOTBALL and others) seems to be currently inactive. I propose to change this from a sub-project into a task force...." so the initial proposal suggests it's beacuse of inactivity. I'm not interested in working on "football articles in general" on Wikipedia - only those relating to Sheffield United so I see no point or benefit to it. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I set up this project as a contributor to WP:Sheff, rather than WP:footy, and I'd rather remain under the Sheffield banner. Again, I still keep the relevant articles tidy, so suspected "inactivity" is merely due to little need for discussions. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lewis (LJS). In any case several of us are also in WP:FOOTY as well (I have just joined the England task force). I certainly watch the main SUFC and SWFC articles, + all the ones I have edited (mainly players). -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To Do List

Added to the project page - I've not put much in at the moment as I was working out how the template works. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

tabulation of the players article and inclusion criteria

A proposal was made on the Talk:List of Sheffield United F.C. former players about tabulating the table as Aston Villa have. What do people think of this? I reckon tabulation is definitely a good idea, and some inclusion criteria is a good idea to reduce article length and differentiate the article from Category:Sheffield United F.C. players. I created discussion areas below, and begun tabulation here. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

tabulation

A good idea I think - although a lot of work - which I take you're volunteering to do ;o)? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed, which is precisely why I think we should define some criteria for inclusion of players - I don't want to do all the work and then have half the name cut out as ineligible! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

OK people, I think we need to have some ideas for inclusion criteria on List of Sheffield United F.C. former players, as the list will become unwieldy otherwise. Also, I've offered to tabulated it, and I want a few data sets as possible! Here are a few ideas: Currently, we mark 200 appearances with Bold text, and 150 goals with Italic text, so setting these limits would seem reasonable, but I propose dropping the limits a bit, maybe by half, so as not to include (to me at least) obvious players, such as Tony Agana (this would also allow us space to create a key to which players and bold/italicise within the page again). I also think that we need a some way of finding other notable players that may slip through this net. This could involve also players to play in a promotion/trophy winning season (particularly top-scorers or goalkeepers) and the top scorer in any given seasons ought to be there anyway if they do not qualify by other criteria. Finally, I think there may be one of two for whom debates need to be had, but this should catch most players worthy of being in the list. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the numbers are a bit high - 150 goals for the Blades? That'd be a short list!! Aside from apps and goals I suppose other things of note would be Cup winning teams (or beaten finalists?), top goal scorer in a season, player of the season, promotion winning squads and record transfer fees? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the present list is quite useful (and easy to maintain) - eg it highlights the fact that neither Hoyland (father and son) has an article; and that the suggested list is much better but harder to create and also maintain; and the inclusion criteria are bound to be difficult. Why not take the Villa criteria as a guide? (Do these lists get deleted? It would be irritating to spend ages creating one only for it to be deleted. This happened with some lists - was it lists of current SUFC and SWFC players?) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Bladeboy. I said myself I'd propose halving the the appearance/goals to 100 appearances or 75 goals for inclusion. this should ween out the "less notable" players, but still keep in the fan's favourite who maybe didn't reach the 150 goal target. Do not forget that many defenders and even midfielders could easily have played 190 games and only scored a handful of goals. Strikers win matches but defenders win tophies as they say... On top of this, player who played early on in the club's lifetime should maybe have less stringent targets, as fewer matches were played in a season in those days. Harry Hammond would be one example of a player who played six seasons for the Blades, but only managing 108 matches - six seasons now could net you 300 matches! harry also scored 58 goals in that time, so was prolific.

In addition, I agree that players who met a certain landmark with the club ought to get a place on the list. Promotion winners/cup winners etc are good examples of this.

Another area for debate is the current playing squad. James Beattie has only made 24 appearances for United, but as a current member of the first-team squad, and this seasons leading goalscorer, should he be in the list? What about if he leaves in the summer for a premiership club? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Beattie would make it on record transfer fee but it's a valid point - there's bound to be some debate about inclusion and there will be players that most people feel should be included just because they should. There's probably also players who meet the criteria that generally people would feel aren't worth highlighting like Michael Tonge based on current performances;o) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mel Rees would be an example of a player who most blades fans would suggest is worth having on the list for example. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh absolutely! Mel needs to be on the list.

What I'll do if no-opne objects, is to begin the list using just eh players in bold/italics (ie 200 appearances or 150 goals) and see how it looks (basically it's just easier this way!). Then I'll add the first-team squad, and then come back here to find less stringent inclusion criteria (100 appearances/75 goals maybe?), all the while working on the season's top scorers (easily gettable from Sheffield united F.C. seasons), promotion winners, transfer fees and "because they should" players. If people want to keep checking the progress at User:Lewisskinner/Sandbox/List of Sheffield United F.C. former players and argue any of the players in/out, that'd be great. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A number of featured lists use the criterion of 100 first team appearances. A key thing is ensuring that it differentiates itself from Category:Sheffield United F.C. players. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Due to the ongoing rants on WP Football here and the response that this project does not want to be subsumed, deleted or taskforced by people outside it can we agree that that is the standard view of the members here? I get the feeling that there'll another proposal to change and if no one happens to be around to respond at that time they'll just go ahead and change things.

If people are of the view that we should be allowed to maintain a distinct identity then I suggest a comment to that effect is placed on the project and talk page. Memebers only please discuss. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. WP:SUFC (and WP:SWFC for that matter) are entitled to remain as full projects if that is the will of the members. I regularly edit in-depth on Blades articles, and to some extent on major Wednesday, Hallam, Club and Steels articles, but rarely if ever on football outside Sheffield. I feel more a part of WP:Sheff than WP:FOOTY, but feel that this project works very well outside of both of these. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 19:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent - I'll draft some words and if no one strongly objects I'll sort it out later in the week. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Perhaps a bit aggressive? But it states a position:

Statement of intent

The members of WP:Sheffield United are organised as and wish to remain as a wikiproject. The project exists as a distinct entity in it's own right in partnership with, but external to, both WP:Sheffield and WP:Football. The members of WP Sheffield United reject any proposals to change the status of this project either by deletion or by annexation as a taskforce. This rejection does not require further discussion or consensus within these project pages or elsewhere. This position remains intact until such a time that the members of WP Sheffield United agree otherwise. Any attempts to alter the status of this project or related articles will be reverted and be considered aggressive and provocative vandalism.

Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Morris

I am trying to gather material for an article on Hugh Morris, a Welsh international who played for Sheffield United between 1893 and 1895. The information I have so far is at User:Oldelpaso/Hugh Morris. Any further information would be gratefully received. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look in my various reference books later this week and see what info I have. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tidying up project pages

I was thinking that we should tidy up the project pages a bit, perhaps split off some separate pages etc. I've made a start by building a project nav box which you should be able to see on this very page... Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Other Blades owned clubs?

Just had a thought - should the scope of this project include the articles on Chengdu Blades, White Star and now Ferenchvaros as the Blades own them? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for late response - busy with a new job.

Yes, I think we should include them. I'll add them to the standard SUFC box as well.

Also news filtering through that Mick Hill has died. Very sad - RIP. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've edited the template - see what you think. Shall I place it on the articles of the relevant clubs? Myself, I've not to sure about the superscript 'o's and 'p's - there must be a better way to explain the difference? in any case, it's not quite true, since United only own 90% of Chengdu, all of Fradi and I think 55% of White Star. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this info really needed on Template:Sheffield United F.C.? Surely it would be better to place it under a "Sister clubs" heading on the article Sheffield United F.C.?

As things stand the Sister clubs section of the template appears on every article that is in some way connected to the Blades, such as Steel City derby, and on such pages it isn't immediately clear what the heading "Sister clubs" refers to as it looks as though it is separate from the Sheffield United Football Club part.

Besides that the blue on red looks awful in my opinion, so even if we are going to keep it wouldn't it be better to include it as part of the main template rather than giving it a separate heading, i.e. something like:

Sister Clubs: Chengdu Blades^o  · White Star^o  · Ferencváros^o etc.

My vote would be to lose it completely on the template though. — Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the template, and Included an 'Affiliated clubs' section inside the main template. Feel free to modify or remove the changes. Oh yeah, I've just joined this wikiproject by the way.I feel I can contribute to the topic as a season ticket holder for 5 years.--SUFC Boy 21:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Curtis Woodhouse at PR

You probably already know, but Curtis Woodhouse is up for peer review. Thought I'd mention it in case any of you wish to contribute. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs in danger of being deleted

There are currently several discussions on deleting Unreferenced BLPs. There is a list of such articles related to Sheffield United at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by club/Sheffield United. Rettetast (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please update the new away kit?

Black with thin red stripes. Cheers 13:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Achievements

I noticed that this WikiProject has been going for more than two years now. Just curious to see if you have any tangible achievements to report? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you have your answer Jameboy. —WFC— TFL notices 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Task force?

Hello members of the Sheffield United WikiProject. I am following up on a discussion that has taken place at WT:FOOTY regarding the status of your WikiProject, amongst others. The general consensus among our group is that we recommend you consider converting your WikiProject into a task force of WikiProject Football. The actual changes that would occur would be negligible in a functional sense, as you could continue to assess the importance of your articles separately from football articles in general, via the {{WikiProject Football}} talk page banner, and you could continue to use this page as your 'base of operations'. The benefits of this change to you, however, would be great: increased relations with WikiProject Football would attract a greater number of editors willing to help your cause and improve your articles. Your articles would therefore benefit from the wealth of total experience possessed by WikiProject Football members. If you have any comments or questions about this proposition, I invite you to add them to this thread where we have centralised the discussion. If we do not hear back from one of your participants within 72 hours (i.e. by 19:00 BST, 6 August 2011), we will assume that your silence implies consensus and we will begin the conversion process. – PeeJay 18:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

New nav box

Most clubs seem to be switching to a new style of standard nav box and I suggest we follow suit - I've mocked it up (below). Any objections to switching to that? If not I'll do the update in a few days. (BTW - the title will centre properly when live - it's just I removed the 'edit' link to prevent accidental changes to the existing one while I played about and the resulting error message knocks the formatting of the top row out. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive

As were thriving at the moment I thought I'd set up an archive for the talk page here - if no one objects? Might be worth doing it for the Sheffield United talk page as well? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added a mizabot archive to move any threads more than a year old. (Leaving a minimum of five threads)Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)