Talk:Sunderland A.F.C.

Hooliganism

This has nothing to do with SAFC and the section should be removed. If there is another separate page for 'Imbeciles' then I respectfully suggest moving the information there. Better still, let's not refer to them at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.137.152 (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So you're offended by it because you don't like to think Sunderland have hooligans? Unfortunately, we do. We can't pretend like they don't exist. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Max. Wikipedia is not censored. If hooligans (or hooligan behaviour) have been associated directly with the club in reliable sources (in this case there are books about the subject) then it is notable for the club article. The prominence and detail is generally lower if a full article for the hooligans is supported as it is here. Koncorde (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion "So you're offended by it because you don't like to think Sunderland have hooligans" is nonsense, as are most books about hooliganism which often border on fantasy ("reliable source" - hmm). The article makes it sound if there is a particular hooligan problem at Sunderland. There isn't. I'm not "offended", but thank you for telling me what I think. Every club has hooligans, but the fact that this is appended to a page on SAFC gives them a credence they don't merit. Perhaps they should have their own page, if people are interested. Some Sunderland supporters are plumbers. Why not have a section on them? They have equal relevance to football as hooligans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.225.171 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

They have their own page. Hooliganism is indelibly linked with the clubs and the history of the club, if only because of what needed to be done to tackle it. Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that there is a section called "Supporters, rivalries & hooliganism" is grossly unfair as it in itself suggests a particular problem. There is no such section on pages for clubs with far worse problems - historically, currently and "indelibly linked". Nowhere does the word "hooliganism" appear in the pages for Leeds United, Birmingham City, Newcastle United, Liverpool, Crystal Palace, Coventry City and, strangest of all, Chelsea and Millwall. Hooliganism might be mentioned on these clubs' pages, but on the Sunderland page it is for some reason a headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.170.222 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If hooligans (or hooligan behaviour) have been associated directly with the club in reliable sources (in this case there are books about the subject) then it is notable for the club article. The prominence and detail is generally lower if a full article for the hooligans is supported as it is here. Chelsea's page says: During the 1970s and 1980s in particular, Chelsea supporters were associated with football hooliganism. The club's "football firm", originally known as the Chelsea Shed Boys, and subsequently as the Chelsea Headhunters, were nationally notorious for football violence, alongside hooligan firms from other clubs such as West Ham United's Inter City Firm and Millwall Bushwackers, before, during and after matches.[97] The increase of hooligan incidents in the 1980s led chairman Ken Bates to propose erecting an electric fence to deter them from invading the pitch, a proposal that the Greater London Council rejected.[98] that it isn't in its own named section is an editorial choice by those on that page given the links to those associated pages. West Ham United F.C. in contrast does have such a section. Koncorde (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia might not be censored, but the the Sunderland AFC entry still has a "hooliganism" sub-heading. West Ham's page also has that sub-heading, but no one said that it didn't. That passage does indeed appear on the Chelsea page, yet still the page doesn't have the hooliganism sub-heading, whereas Sunderland's does. Unfair and misleading. Also, when looking for "reliable sources", books about football hooliganism, usually the work of semi-literate fantasists, are not ideal reading material; although they are often unwittingly amusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.5.20 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This 2009 WP:FA promotion has not been maintained to WP:WIAFA standard. Unless these issues can be addressed, the article should be submitted for a Featured article review:

• MOS:SANDWICH and poor image layout.
• Uncited text.
• Prose review needed, sample: The fans most enduring fanzines is A Love Supreme.
• Multiple short choppy sections and one-sentence paragraphs.
• Listiness in Popular culture section.
• Yikes, WP:CITATION OVERKILL and prose issue combined: Other nicknames used by the media and include the Mackems (believed to be related to the ship building industry and a name for inhabitants of Sunderland) or the Wearsiders, as a reference to the river that the city and broader region of Wearside sits alongside, and in contrast to their Tyneside rivals Newcastle United.[217][218][219][220]
• MOS:DTAB
• Citation cleanup needed including bare URLs.
• IMDB as a source.

This is only a sampling of issues. A top-to-bottom review is needed to maintain FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It would never have passed current FA standard originally to be fair. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

After taking a quick skim, I think the above concerns by SandyGeorgia are still valid, particularly the SANDWICH concerns at the beginning of the article and short, stubby sections. I also think the article needs a trim, as it is quite long and I think lots of information can be cut (like most of the "Club officials" section) or summarised more effectively. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article and bringing it back to FA standards? Z1720 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

change Methvan to Methven change Satori to Sartori Give their full names Charlie Methven and Juan Sartori as they are not previously mentioned in the article81.170.49.40 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 81.170.49.40 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 81.170.49.40 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi Protected edit request, the opening paragraph says "he club has won six top-flight (First Division, now the Premier League) titles (1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and 1936), a total only bettered by five other clubs", but since Manchester City's premiership win in 2021, this should now be changed to "six other clubs".

Honours list

On the Honours list is says "First division/Premier League" I think this is misleading as they have never won the premier League and how it is presented seems to insinuate that they won a mixture of both, I believe this should be updated to just be "first division" BBennett1994 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

BBennett1994 I agree and made some changes. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes, I agree it looks better now BBennett1994 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Remove second "titles" after parentheses 2600:1014:B10B:7387:0:4C:4D8E:AE01 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)