Talk:Wimbledon F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Wimbledon F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the England task force.

Contents

[edit] Colours

This article should have images of the team's home and away colours, at least for the last season they existed. The Gnome 09:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous players

  • The famous players section was rubbish 'til I did the edits! Where were the best players? Hardly can say s***e Hartson was one of our most famous, other than be a complete failure.
(post was by 82.44.20.121 (talk) )

[edit] Amateur beginnings

  • Why does someone ( 195.93.21.38 (talk) ) keep renaming the Amateur beginnings section as "- Dons MK 1"? It doesn't even make any sense!
--Matt derry 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'now defunct club'

Is that right? The club isn't defunct, it moved and changed names. Proto::► 10:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Legally, it is not correct. The legal position is as you state. It probably hinges on the meaning of the word "defunct": there is club still in existence that calls itself "Wimbldon F.C.". --Concrete Cowboy 14:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thinking about it, the article can't start with a statement that we know to be false. The club has never been disolved (wound up) so it is not defunct. It is only the name that is defunct. "Former name" seems better. --Concrete Cowboy 17:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there are two different articles, MK Dons and this one I think it's been recognized that they aren't quite the same thing. There is no club that goes by the name Wimbledon F.C. anymore and that is why the club is defunct. If a football club moves location and changes its name, regardless of whether the staff stays the same -- it isn't the same club. Yonatanh 08:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You can argue that "spirtually" it isn't the same, but legally nothing has changed apart from the ownership. Legally, it has never ceased to exist so it can't be defunct. --Concrete Cowboy 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "only football club to win both the FA Cup and FA Amateur Cup"

Old Carthusians did that too in 1881 and 1894/1897 respectively. Only club to do it in the 20th Century? Only professional club to do it? One of only two clubs to ever do it? Some clarification required. Open to suggestions before I make an edit. Trikeabout 13:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial status of club just before and then after the Norwegians took over

An anon editor has added some opinion about the motivation of the owners when they started casting about for a new ground (this started before the Norwegians took over). I don't want to get into an edit war, but such a claim absolutely must be supported by citation. We have to do better than "it is well known". --John Maynard Friedman 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)