Talk:Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C./Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am pleased to see this article has been expanded so dramatically - but I cant help thinking that from the lack of wiki markup and the details given pertaining to other clubs, most of this material could be in violation of copyright. I've googled some text though and found nothing - it's a nice expansion of the article - but what are your sources?

-- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Contents

Dingles

Can somebody please tell me what is wrong with this statement: 'Local rivals refer to the club and its fans as "The Dingles" after a fictional character on the daily ITV rural-affairs soap opera Emmerdale.'?

There is some very biased editing going on if Wikipedia can not report the nickname by which most fans know the club.

(comment above left by anonymous user, 19:15, 12 Feb 2006 (UTC))

I don't know when this nickname appeared (I never heard it when I lived in Wolverhampton, although that was a few years ago). A quick Google search revealed that it appears only to be used to refer to Wolves by West Brom fans, so I can't say I believe that "most fans know the club" by this name. It is certainly not a nickname that has the magnitude (or the history: the Dingles only appeared in Emmerdale during the 1990s) that "Wolves" has, so if it appears anywhere in the article it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph.
It also appears to be a name used by fans of several other clubs (Blackburn, Preston, West Ham, Swansea, etc. etc.) to refer to their local rivals, so it's not something that WBA fans can claim for themselves either. --RFBailey 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of West Bromwich Albion. I am a fan of Walsall. The statement which keeps being edited out does not say "most dans know the club" by teh nickname; it says "Local rivals refer to the club..." And that is true. The majority of fans of West Midlands Football Clubs refer to Wolves' fans as "The Dingles".

I know that one northern club is also referred to as The Dingles - the sentence does not make an exclusivity claim.

I'm sorry that the Dingles only appeared in Emerdale during the 1990s. I thought Wikipedia was a modern-day reference source; not a history project.

It is a factual statement; it is not meant to be derogatory; and is constantly being edited out by somebody.

I have lived in Dudley and the surrounding areaa for almost 30 years and been a Wolves fan, supporter and season ticket holder for most of those years and have yet to hear someone refer to the Wolverhampton Wanderers team or thier fans/supporters as "Dingles" or "The Dingles". Bear in mind that the majority of my family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances etc are not Wolves fans but are West Bromwich Albion, Aston Villa or Birmingham fans mostly due to those being premiership teams while Wolves are a championship team and therefore if this has been deleted from the main page then I believe this is the correct course of action.--Malibu Stacey 03:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


===>

Stacey, you should get out more - check out any Saddlers, Baggies, Blues or any other local football teams message boards. They will all refer to the team in Wolverhampton as "The Dingles".

All of my Walsall supporting friends call Wolves 'The Dingles' and a lot of Albion fans do also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpyvmat (talk • contribs) 12:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Hoddle's Contract.

Quote: "Coach Stuart Gray was put in temporary charge of the first team for a month after Jones's dismissal, before Glenn Hoddle was appointed on a permanent contract."

Glenn Hoddle was given a 6 month contract during last season (2004/2005) which was then extended at the start of this season (2005/2006). I am not 100% sure how long a contract he signed but as a best guess it was a 1 year rolling deal as seems to be the standard for managers in the Premiership & Championship these days.

--Malibu Stacey 03:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Player profiles

Just added a pile of profiles for players for . Will complete when I get time, unless someone else gets there first! --Steve-Ho 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Victory over Man United

I don't think they were the first Midlands team besides Aston Villa or Coventry to win a competitive match against Man United in 25 years - Derby beat them 3-2 at Old Trafford in 1997, for starters (We haven't had much to celebrate in the past ten years, we cling to what we get...). I've corrected the statement to say West Midlands, which, I assume, is what was intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.99.157 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC).

A note on British English

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 13:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Article needs a re-write

This article needs a rewrite - it's overlong - the history section is too long to sit inside a general article on the team - it may be better to have a sub-article and a precise of the information. Clubs songs needs editing and limiting to the most notable; Hooligans section is badly written and unreferenced. The team section includes this summer's transfers - while this is notable in the transfer close-season, most wikipedia articles omit these when the season gets underway - wikipedia isn't meant to be a fansite/ news-site etc. List of former notable players - again should be alist and not have the additional comments. Generally, it the entry just needs a rewrite and a prune! Views from people? Steve-Ho 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eight months later and the page still needs a rewrite along these lines, I think. The new notable player list change is excellent, but some of the other sections could do with some heavy editing. The hooligans section can be deleted, in my view, along with lots of details from 2005 onwards, and the stuff on the fanzine is unencyclopedic. Shortly after the start of the new season is the perfect time to do the editing, as things settle down. Views? Paul haynes 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike Stowell request for expansion

Hi, I've just created the Mike Stowell article. I don't have much information. However, since he played for Wolves for ages, watchers of this page might be able to add a little info. Thanks! Guinness 19:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Added infobox and expanded article Sinfony81 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chairman

Didn't Graeme Souness become chairman after buying the club?

No, as he has not bought the club. Fingerpuppet 18:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Chants

Is it just me or has the chants section become a total mess full of any old rubbish. Personally I can't see what it adds to the article but if it is kept it should be trimmed to one or two key chants (Stevie Bull tatter, Wandering Star etc) - X201 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

would agree - I would lose the lot really - it isn't encyclopedic or even that noteworthy Steve-Ho 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Former Players

What's the generally held opinion of what constitutes a notable former player? Is it a player who has made a notable contribution, or a famous player who has played for the club? Cases in point - Vio Ganea, Joachim Bjorklund. -- Andymarczak 13:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello I'm from Republic of Moldova

(sorry for my bad english) Hello my name is Lefter Victor I'm 19 years old i i'm a big fanat os FC Wolves can you send tu mai email some news aboute Fc Wolves.

I've removed your email address because you'll get a load of spam if you leave it on here. - X201 10:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision 23 April 2007

I've done a deep revision back to the 16 April because bits of vandalism that were missed by other reverts are now being reverted as part of reverts of other vandalism (if you follow me) so I've gone back to the 16th because that version looked like the last good copy and was before the period of vandalism started - X201 10:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a reply to a message placed on my talk page, I am copying it here for the benifit of anyone else who didn't understand my revision.
I monitor the Wolves article whilst at work, in order to fend of the ridiculous number of Albion fans, Blues fans and just general morons who think their idea to vandalise the Wolves page is original. I made the revert because, as the article history shows, the preceding day (22 April) had had a higher than normal level of vandal activity. In the middle of various people fixing the article and removing the vandalism some vandal material had become part of the article and was being reverted back into the article when other vandalism was removed, therefore I did a revision back to a much earlier date, to the last edit by an editor with a user name, all of the vandal edits had been from IP users so I took the safest way out and reverted to a known user with a trustworthy edit history. The reason the edits were not replaced were two fold, as I mentioned I was at work and I don't think the boss would be too happy to see me editing it and secondly if the information was added by a genuine IP user, they would notice the information was missing and replace it. - X201 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Arrests

I've removed the sentence about Wolves having "very few arrests" because the Home Office arrest figures make it impossible to stand up. Wolves arrest record is better than most but a long way away from "very few". Here is a link to the latest stats. (PDF) [1] - X201 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous fans

I've removed the listing of famous fans altogether. Most of it isn't really information relevant to the club, it's heavily unsourced, and having it is likely to encourage rather dubious additions to it. That somebody is a Wolves fan may be notable enough for inclusion in the article about that individual, but usually not the club. (This has been discussed here, where it was revealed that Bill Clinton is allegedly a supporter of Oxford United.....) --RFBailey 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. I'd much rather see the fans section used to report on real fans. I'm trying to piece together some info on the "Air Wolf" period when Wolves fans chartered planes to Newcastle but I'm not going to add it until I can find sources for it, far too much of this article is unsourced. - X201 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Former Players

I removed vio ganea and bjorklund...What did THEY ever do?

I'll see your Ganea and Bjorklund and raise you Steve Corica - X201 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

They might aswell have added darren anderton.

I'm going to remove a few players who are in no way notable! Windy

I recommend you establish some notability criteria, otherwise it just comes down to one person's opinion against another as to who is notable. --Jameboy 16:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I would suggest actually being signed to the club as opposed to being on loan should be one, also should there be a minimun number of games played or goals scored for the club? Windy 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of that, something along the lines of 100 appearances or 100 goals should be the qualifying mark. I'm not in favour of having players there just for the fact that they once played for us and are now famous elsewhere (or more, likely given Wolves in the 90's - were famous and then played for us)
On that basis I just removed that Saudi player someone re-added. I've never heard of half the other people on the list so if anyone fancies removing the ones which aren't notable feel free. Windy 20:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think if there was something like an official hall of fame, or dream team, this would solve the problem. such a list or even the shortlist could substitute for a notable players list. Anyone with good club contacts could make the suggestion that the fans parliament or the supporters club sort one out. Its long overdue anyway. What did THEY ever do? (part 2) Mixu Paatelainen (22 games) Ade Akinbiyi (37 games) are included BUT Dennis Westcott (220 games 215 Goals) etc, etc not worthy. Maybe a top ten goal scorers, top ten appearences and top ten international caps instead of a notable players section might add some objectivity and make "what did they ever do" questions redundant. What do people think on this point? Paul.

I have removed a load of players from the list, never heard of the people who don't have their own article, should they be removed as well? Think 100 apps should be the minimum to be on the list. Windy 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

100 apps would disqualify someone like Robbie Keane though. It's not always length of service that makes someone notable, look at Tevez at West Ham (once he's sold), he only played 25 games or so but he'll be forever remembered there. The 100 apps criteria includes players like Steve Corica over Keane or Irwin! Also I saw John de Wolf's been removed, bit harsh, any Wolves fan through the 90s will consider him a bit of a legend in his own way. It's a tricky issue but setting strict boundaries like apps only throws up some perverse results that simply do not reflect the category purpose. Sinfony81 11:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As well as the 100apps / 100goals criteria, you could also add everyone included in the book Legends of Wolves as these have already been called 'notable' by someone else. Foxhill 12:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sinfony81 - the 100 limit is "problematic" (John de Wolf's is also famous outside football in Holland). As for Legends of Wolves book, it includes 100 players, about twice as many as listed - is this too many for an encyclopaedia? Informally (and, yes, pretty vague), a criterion might be do they answer the question “what did they ever do for Wolves?” with something tangible. Includes John de Wolf, Steve Daley and Robbie Keane, but excludes Sami Al-Jaber and Steve Corica. The “I haven’t heard of them” criterion could be backed up with “and credible literature such as Legends of Wolves don’t mention them” does this make sense? Paul haynes 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As with any section on the wiki, if it grows too long you can create a page List of Wolverhampton Wanderers players and move the info over. This is how List of Arsenal F.C. players (which is a featured list so would be a good guideline to follow), List of Swindon Town F.C. players and most of the others in Category:Lists of footballers by club were created. Once in their own article it's easier to ascribe an inclusion rule in the lead section and the list can grow as long as needed without making the main article unstable. Foxhill 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with the "what did they do for Wolves" criteria, and would suggest players be added and the page created if the list becomes a similar length to the Arsenal/Swindon lists. Could a separate list be made for the players from the book, much like there is for the Football Hall of Fame players? I have no objection for John de Wolf, Steve Daley, Robbie Keane etc. being added if it is felt they are judged to be notable (I think Keane is but have no real opinion of the other two either way)Windy 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw the Arsenal/Swindon lists and sounds a good idea. Paul haynes 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm for the new list being created immediately, with the list on the club page being pretty much set in stone with indisputables like Wright, Bull etc with more contentious inclusions going on the List of Wolverhampton Wanderers players list. - X201 11:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made the page with list from the Wolves page, no idea how to create a table like the Arsenal and Swindon ones. Windy 07:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. Seasons

I have added a new list to Wikipedia Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. Seasons. It lists Wolves League stats for each season (Won, Draw, Lost, F, A, Pts) it also list Cup wins ans final appearances. It has space for each seasons top goal scorer (I haven't got this info so if someone could add that would be great). If someone could just double check the info to make sure it's correct and I haven't dropped any typos. Thanks. - X201 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Surely Wayne Hennessey shouldn't be listed here as one of the players either "born in Ireland or of significant Irish descent"? He's Welsh!

Agreed. and he wasn't the only one, so I've removed the whole paragraph. Andymarczak 13:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Truly great names

The second sentence of this article makes a ridiculous and unsupported claim that Wolverhampton Wanderers is "one of the truly great names in the world of football". The only citation given is a "puff piece" on a local news website. I do not believe such "weasel words" are warranted in wikipedia. And if the sentence does warrant inclusion it doesn't warrant it so close to the top of the article. Not being somebody with a NPOV with regards Wolves I merely flagged this up as a Weasel Word section rather than delete it. I note that Sinfony81 changed the wording of the section (to better wording) and yet described my actions as vandalism. Get a grip. A different perspective than yours isn't vandalism. I didn't edit the section I flagged it up for an edit. I still think it needs an edit to delete this wording - or at the very least to move it further down the article. I don't propose to do it myself because I do not have a NPOV - but would appreciate some discussion and consensus about the sentence. I simply do not believe that a sentence from a puff-piece on a local website - BBC or not - constitutes the most important thing about Wolverhampton Wanderers FC and therefore should not be so high up on the article. 87.127.44.154 07:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the sentence issue for a moment, Sinfony81 described your edit as vandlism as did I in my subsequent fixes of changes made in your edit. Your edit [2] deleted the colour of the shorts in the kit section and deleted 23 dates from the article resulting in deleted titles broken links and broken citations. That edit looks like a classic case of vandalism. It might have been accidental, but I'm scratching my head as to how seeing as only some dates were affected
The sentence - I hate it, especially where it sits in the article I could tolerate it further down the article, but you must concede that Wolves' history does place them as an important club in the history of British football. Yeah the sentence is a puff piece and a better one needs to be found, but also Wolves' standing in football needs to be recorded as well. - X201 08:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that the colour of shorts and dates had been changed in my edit - certainly I had no intention of doing so. I can be fairly described as a novice when it comes to Wikipedia but with my knowledge of computers and the way I pick things up fast I am at a loss to understand how anything else could have been changed when I added the weasel words tag. If they were I can understand how the impression was gained that the alteration was vandalism but that was not my intention - I was unaware that anything else had been changed. I merely intended to flag the sentence up for discussion and apologise for other inconvenience. Thanks for moving this section to the foot of discussion I wasn't aware that new topics are added at the foot - surely it would make sense for old discussions to be further down, in a sort of archive, and for fresh discussions to be up front at the top. But I guess that is a Wikipedia format not just on this page. I won't add anything else to discussion on the phrase, I've said it (but to point out that the article itself should point to Wolves' status in history - it shouldn't need separately mentioning), I merely wanted to explain that this wasn't an attempt at vandalism. 87.127.44.154 08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I described your edit as vandalism purely because of the alterations it caused (and your IP based name made me suspicious this was wanton vandalism, sadly this page suffers its fair share) and I tried to solve the weasel claim with my edit. Nonetheless, I agree with X201 that the quote itself is pretty lame, but I feel such an angle is relevant to stress the club have an important history within English football. The article as a whole eventually needs a big rewrite anyway, we need to address the space devoted to each era, the 1990s is fairly well done imo as a decade, yet the Hoddle era (not even 2 full seasons) has almost as much detail Sinfony81 01:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that the editing has resolved this, though for future reference, the following website shows that Wolves are 4th (after Manu, Liverpool, Arsenal) in all time points-gained league, evidence for such claims: http://www.statto.com/database/alltimetable.php?cn=eng

Paul haynes 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Such a table is meaningless when you take into account "games in hand" that other teams may have!!! 87.127.44.154 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
there are no "games in hand" and that is the point - in the history of professional football in England only ManU, Liverpool, Arsenal have accumulated more points than Wolves. Fact. None of the other 3 is a founding member of the league. Greatness=history+winning league matches+silverware Paul haynes 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
With regards to User:87.127.44.154, I have guessed that he might have some kind of internet filter installed. If you look through his recent contributions, you will see edits such as this, and, of course, this one. It appears that any number that is at least six digits long is being removed, possibly in a crude attempt of an internet filter to prevent the user (or their children, and he is forgetting to turn the filter off) from posting telephone numbers on the internet. --Dreaded Walrus t c 09:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the Dreaded Walrus, I have tracked down the source of the problem being the JahJah add-on for Firefox - which affected the way numbers displayed on websites (it is supposed to allow "free" internet phone calls over normal lines). I have now disabled this addon and apologise once again for any inconvenience caused. The vandalism to this page was not intentional. 87.127.44.154 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.