Jump to content

Talk:Watford F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pleatys dance (talk | contribs) at 12:50, 18 July 2019 (→Foundation date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleWatford F.C. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Alhassan Bangura

deported mid season 07/08 Quee1797 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No he wasn't. He got pretty close to deportation, and lost an appeal against deportation mid-season. However, with the help of the club staff, the local MP and the fans, he managed to get special dispensation to apply for, and received, a work permit while still in the UK. PaddyUniv (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luton Town

Reading through the article the only comment I have to make is that 'generally good-natured' is definitely NOT a term I would use to describe our rivalry with Luton Town - 2002 was mild in comparison with some of the problems I have known Watford fans to have experienced in the past, including rock-throwing by some Luton fans at a League tie in the 80s and vandalism to vehicles parked in Luton bearing any signs of a Watford-supporting owner. From participation in message boards in recent years I would suggest that rather than 'good-natured' the rivalry continues to be bitter and fairly vicious at times, particularly from the Luton fans.

Well maybe it's a bit subjective - never felt myself that it was vicious or bitter. Perhaps we can think of a more neutral wording here. Worldtraveller

It is with great neutrality that I declare that Luton suck :) Wikinista 06:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find references to the FourFourTwo magazine rivalry description on the internet. So I suggest we remove this reference and change the opening line to simply: "Watford fans maintain a strong rivalry with those of Luton Town." HornetEd 13:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sansom/Moralee

Whilst Kenny Samson is a former Watford player and is a famous player, I feel that that section should only include Watford players who are team "heroes," so to speak. After all, players like Kenny Jackett are hardly "famous," but are included. The "famous" definition applies to within the Watford fanbase, and thus Samsom shouldn't be there.

I've removed Moralee, as he isn't famous in either sense of the definition. (This was written by me before I was familiar with Wikipedia I've re-arranged it to the point chronologically where it should be, and to tidy up the talk page.) HornetMike 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anyone seen Kenny recently....who would know he played football, let alone was good !! (I almost said good enough for England but that doesn't mean much anymore) Wikinista (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being blind, or is Luthor Blisset not listed?! Surely he should be for several reasons? Swfblade (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luther has his own section in the current article, and six other references to him "Luther Blissett, 1976–1983, 1984–1988, 1991–1992 Making his debut in 1976, Blissett played for Watford throughout their ascent from Division Four to Division One. He was the first Watford player to be capped for England. He had three spells at Watford in total, and holds the club records for highest all-time goalscorer and most appearances. Blissett had a spell as coach at Watford from 1996–2001"

Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Fans

Whilst our one was sparse, a lot of club pages do have it. It doesn't exactly do any harm, does it?

I removed it because it's not verifiable information, and really not relevant to the club or of interest to the general reader, so inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. If other club pages have it, they shouldn't have. Worldtraveller 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Records etc.

Why on earth has someone edited out the records section? And all the catergories stuff and half the managers? I don't know how to get this back, I hope someone else does because I really don't want to have to write it all out again.

Re: other changes. I know the new squad list is now in the official football squad fromat, but it actually now displays less information! What's the point in changing it?

Regarding the Heroes/Famous players section. I agree that if you call them "heroes" you're going POV. But I do feel the way we've got it now ignores huge amounts of notable Watford players just because they're not particularly famous. Maybe if the "heroes" list was restored under a header of "notable Watford players" Bit ambigous though, thoughts?

No idea why the records section was removed, but don't worry - every previous revision of an article is stored and anything can be retrieved. To revert back to a previous version of an article, you just need to click on the 'history' tab, click on the version you want to restore, then edit it and save it.
As for the heroes/famous players/notables, I think maybe a list is not that useful anyway - what would be much more informative would be a list that includes a note explaining why each player was significant. I think 'Notable former players' or something similar would be a good title for the section. Worldtraveller 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Players Section

Whilst I understand that the squad has now been in an official Wiki template, I do feel the old chart (with a little bit of re-organisation) would be far better. Admittedly it's slightly larger, but it contains more information (birthdays - although I'm not researching them unless the consensus on here is good, date of arrival, previous club etc. The positions are slightly less generic as well.) Personally I think it looks better as well.

I thought this would be good:

No. Player Position D.O.B Year Signed Previous Club
1 England Alec Chamberlain GK 20.6.1964 1996 Sunderland
2 England James Chambers RB/LB 2004 West Bromwich Albion
3 England Jordan Stewart LB 2005 Leicester City
4 Scotland Malky Mackay CB 2005 West Ham United
5 England Clarke Carlisle CB 2005 Leeds United
6 United States Jay Demerit CB 2004 Northwood Town
7 England Chris Eagles RW 2006 On loan from Manchester United
8 England Gavin Mahon CM 2002 Brentford
9 Jamaica Marlon King CF 2006 Nottingham Forest
11 Spain Sietes LB 2005 Real Murcia
12 England Lloyd Doyley RB 2001 Academy
14 England Dominic Blizzard CM 2002 Academy
15 England Ashley Young RW/CF 2003 Academy
16 England Richard Lee GK 2001 Academy
17 England Jamie Hand CM 2002 Academy
18 France Hameur Bouazza CF 2003 Academy
19 England Anthony McNamee LW 2002 Academy
20 Sierra Leone Alhassan Bangura CM 2005 Academy
21 France Toumani Diagouraga CM 2004 Academy
22 England Junior Osbourne RB/CB 2005 Academy
23 England Adrian Mariappa CB 2005 Academy
25 England Matthew Spring CM 2005 Leeds United
26 England Ben Foster GK 2005 On loan from Manchester United
27 Jamaica Joel Grant CF N/A Academy Player
28 Jamaica Francino Francis CF N/A Academy Player
29 England Darius Henderson CF 2005 Gillingham FC
31 England Alex Campana CM N/A Academy Player
32 England Les Ferdinand CF 2005 Reading F.C.
34 England Ben Gill CM N/A Academy Player

Thoughts? The only problem I can see is that there's no way of showing Richard Lee's on loan without messing it up a bit. HornetMike 19:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been investigating the Wiki - template for football squads. There are some interesting arguments for both formats:

Conventional format's main points

  • Creates a standard template across the football league
  • Is small and concise

However the chart format (originally borrowed from now removed chat on Liverpool site) provides more information. This is more important with lower league teams, I feel. Whilst Premiership clubs can justifiably create articles for each of their players, containing information on join dates and so forth, it would be ridiculous for players such as Ben Gill to have their own article. Thus the information should be contained. The information in the above chart gives an indication of the average age of the Watford squad, as well as the general source of it's players (i.e. academy and signings from other clubs of our level) and how established the side is (i.e. Lewington's squad would had a series of joined dates quite far in the past. The Boothroyd squad chart shows it to be a recently assembeled squad.)

Furthermore, I don't really understand the need to have a smallish chart. This isn't much bigger and there are bits of the article that are larger anyway. What's the problem? As for keeping the same format across the league, I find this a faintly ridiculous argument. Each football article is entirely different, depending on the amount of work that has been invested in it by fans. Why insist on unifromity for one tiny section but not the rest?

Another interesting point made in favour of the Wiki-format is that "a lot of people invested time in it" So? Just because they invested time in it doesn't mean it's necessarily the right format to use in the circumstances.

I await correspondence from some people before I change it back, of course. HornetMike 18:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this table is brilliant. It is much more informative than the current one, and who cares about the size? This really should be the standard table, for Squads and Managers. As for Richard Lee, add a note at the bottom or something, maybe put it in the last column. As I say, I feel it is much better and more informative, and I support putting it in the article.Kingfisherswift 08:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Update

I've just started the first part of a new revamp - the Luton rivalry section. Over the next few months I plan to add sections on the club's colours and crests, boost the history section, revamp the notable players section and add more statistics. HornetMike 13:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the notable players section. I've made it as non-POV as possible, focusing on the players achievements with the club. If anyone knows anything about Dennis Uphill, Dennis Bond, Mo Johnston, Steve Terry or Keith Eddy could they please add sections. Also, I know Callaghan had two spells at Watford, and I think the official site lumps them all together as 1980-91. I've put this date in, but if anyone knows the two spells, could you please include them. I also can't find the debut year for Tom Walley.

I'm debating over which players to include from the play-off side. I think Richard Johnson, perhaps, but who else? Kennedy? Smart? Wright? Hyde? Rosenthal (from 97/98, obv)? Are Helguson and Robinson worthy of mention?

In terms of players who didn't make a huge contribution at Watford but did at other clubs, I've included David James and Pat Jennings, but omitted Kevin Phillips, as he only really had one good season with us.

Not sure about Gerry Armstrong - thoughts? HornetMike 03:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Managers

I've noticed that the managers table has half the months in and half out. Using soccerbase.com (Link at base of page) can somebody assist me in cleaning up the managers for good? Thanks.Kingfisherswift 19:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although Soccerbase looks like it has a few errors in that department. I double-check it against Trefor Jones when I get home.HornetMike 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a news service"

HornetMike - while I agree Wikipedia ain't a news service, it might have been productive to edit the changes to be more of a description of what went on in the first leg of the semi. It's unavoidably relevant what happened in it, after all!

Just a thought, as they say. Nmg20 21:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for not replying sooner, my IP's been blocked because some idiot at the University was vandalising. I removed the reference because I didn't want 2005/06 to revert back what it had previously been - lots of itty-bitty statements about favourite players/good matches all stuck together. I was going to add something after the completion of the tie, but obviously some people are ahead of me! Cheers, HornetMike 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I think it looks pretty good right now - but we'll review in ten days time, eh? :-) Nmg20 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O-ho-ho, certainly! HornetMike 23:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Grammar question?

"Watford Football Club are an English professional football club based in Watford, Hertfordshire." wouldn't "Watford FC is" be more grammatically correct?

I agree


I don't agree - Although common usage is in both the singular or plural, It is more common and accurate to use a discretionary plural when taking about clubs, particularly in British English. [1] As it is a British club, it is perhaps even more appropriate to use the plural. •CHILLDOUBT• 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Exchange

Is Watford F.C. a publically traded company and if so what is thier ticker symbol. Thank you. John R G 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watford's a PLC, yeah. No idea what the ticker symbol is, sorry. I don't know much about shares, unfortunately. One place to look is any portfolio of Michael Ashcroft, if they're available. HornetMike 20:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the ticker symbol and added it to the main page. John R G 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Ferdinand

Is he still a Watford player I thought he retired at the end of last (05-06) season. Kingjamie 15:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elton John bought for a pound??

I think I remember hearing that Elton John bought a football club for a pound. I know know that he was owner of Watford, but did he pay a pound for them as I remember??

Naa, you're probably thinking of Ken Bates and Chelsea. DJDannyP//Talk2Me 18:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Players of Note

Added Mo :-)

Length

This section is quit long and would perhaps be better suited to a separate article, with only the players' names listed here, alongside See main article... Fedgin | Talk 10:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it would. I'm currently working on that page, based on the same format as List of Arsenal F.C. players. Should be about at some point. HornetMike 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all who keep this excellent page up to date, very good work.

In the last week I've been attempting to add our own "External link" which is a 100% Watford FC related forum called WFCForums, (www.wfcforums.com). It's run for free and has no advertising of any type on the pages. It's 100% non profit making but run entirely for the benefit of the Watford supporting community, take a look if you need proof. Unfortunately this link keeps being removed by HornetMike with the reason being, "not a link farm".

The heading is "External Links", WFCForums is a 100% Watford FC related external link, so can someone please explain why it keeps being removed? As already explained, we're not making money but just providing a valuable service and information point for Watford supporters worldwide. The one link for an unofficial Watford FC page you do have is now unsupported and out of date.

If this would be better discussed in private please drop me an e-mail: admin AT wfcforums.com

Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.78.6 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I'm the chap who's been removing the wfcforums link from the article. I know it looks a bit malicious and anal, sorry about that. I'm following the Wikipedia policy on external links, which can be found here: WP:EL The criteria there pretty much excludes wfcforums from being included there. Believe me, it's nothing personal - I've had to remove GloryHorns and various other blogs/forums from there in the past. Hope you understand, HornetMike 14:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL says"Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." As www.wfcforums.com is accessible and appropriate, im not sure what problems you can see HornetMike. The site as explained is watford fc forums, it is beneficial to most, and causes no harm to anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albangura9 (talk • contribs)

It's not appropriate though. I feel you mis-interpreted the policy from reading the nutshell piece. I refer you to:

  • "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" - This is an encylopedia entry, is a forum useful, informative and factual - frequently not. It's a discussion website, an entirely different to an encyclopedia and not appropriate for the neutral looking to do further reading.
  • "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material" - as forum discussion is frequently based on opinion, it is neither of these.
  • And, most significantly, under "Links normally to be avoided" - "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET."
Fairly conclusive, I feel. Cheers, HornetMike 19:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Who Made the Nazi's?" Mark E Smith Wikinista (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Smith - notability

Looking at the notable players section and seeing Marlon King and Ashley Young there, I am wondering if Tommy Smith should be added: 2 spells and over 150 appearances, that seems enough for me, but I'd like a general consensus. Cheers, к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 15:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bothered, to be honest. I'm very gradually creating a page similar to List of Arsenal F.C. players that will replace that section, so don't mind who's added under the fairly loose criteria at present. Go for it. HornetMike 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks very much. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт

Fair use rationale for Image:Watford2.gif

Image:Watford2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club history

For a club founded in 1881, it seems odd that the History section only starts in 1977. Did nothing of merit happen in the first 95 years? Daemonic Kangaroo 08:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Some would question since :-) Wikinista (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Watford crest.png

Image:Watford crest.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hertfordshire Rangers F.C.

I have created a stub article on Hertfordshire Rangers F.C. who appear to be one of the fore-runners of Watford F.C., but I am a bit confused about their history. Unfortunately the Watford F.C. article says little about the very early history. My searches on the web have come up with several very different versions.

Here it says "Formed around 1865, Rangers featured in the FA Cup between 1875 and 1881. In 1898 they merged with Watford St Peters to form the modern Watford FC.", which was the basis for my initial article.

Here, however, it says "In December 1870, the Watford Observer carried a report on Hertfordshire Rangers - the forerunners of Watford Rovers. Watford Rovers was formed by a group of lads in 1881 who had been given permission by the Earl of Essex to kick a football around in Cassiobury Park. In 1882, home games began in Vicarage Meadow and a year later, the club's name was changed to West Herts. In 1898, a rival club, Watford St Mary's, was absorbed by West Herts and the name 'Watford' was formally adopted."

Version 3 says "The club takes the year of its formation as 1881 when Watford Rovers was formed. This club amalgamated in 1890 with West Hertfordshire Rangers, believed to have been formed in 1865. In 1896, the club joined the Southern League Second Division, turning professional the following year. For a period the town boasted two professional clubs but it quickly became clear that this was not sustainable and in 1898, West Herts Rangers and Watford St Mary’s FC merged to form Watford FC."

Finally, we have "They were formed in 1881 as Watford Rovers. They later merged with Hertfordshire Rangers and Watford St Mary’s to become Watford FC."

Unfortunately, the history section of the club's own website is "under construction" so is of no help at all at present. Can someone clarify the position and perhaps include a brief summary of the early history in the Watford article, and correct any errors in the Herts Rangers page. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QPR second rivals?

There appears to be an edit war starting with regards to the survey that shows that Watford's second rivals are QPR. So I thought maybe we could canvas opinion of whether this nugget of information should be included. Perhaps giving away my opinion on the subject, I'd like to make three points:

  • Who ever heard of second and third rivals?
  • The reference cited is a fan site, and does not say how many "fans" were consulted in the original survey.
  • It must be considered total nonsense given such pieces of information as "Luton's third rival is Plymouth" and that "Plymouth's third rivals are Burnley".WW9066 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a very woolly concept. As you say, it's a fan site, thus unreliable content, and the amount of people in the poll is undefined. Invariably, after your main rivals, there will be some feeling with other local teams which you could supposedly term "second rivals". But it's not a term that's used, and isn't something that comes up at all often. As a Watford season ticket holder, I've never even heard of any rival stuff between us and QPR. Definetely not worthy of inclusion in my view. HornetMike (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the proponent of the QPR rivalry could be appeased slightly with a factual statement at the start of the rivalry section, something along the lines of "Despite Queens Park Rangers being the closest league ground to Watford, the club have had a longstanding rivalry with Luton Town FC." WW9066 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told by a mate (who happens to be a QPR fan), that quite a few Rangers fans consider us to be their rivals, though to be honest, I haven't ever really heard anything in the opposite direction. Due to this, while it has its merits, the Watford page may not be the best place for it (can be included in the QPR page if their fans have strong feelings on the matter, then perhaps consider inclusion for consistency). PaddyUniv (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I am an avid reader of this site, it's a blog/message board and contains no factual information, so should this be included in a Wikipedia page?WW9066 (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I missed it in my last tidy. It should be removed. HornetMike (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hessenthaler

I'm trying to get this article up to GA status (maybe even FA, but that's a heck of a long shot....), but currently there's only one sentence about his time at Vicarage Road, and I don't know what else might need adding. Surely there must be something else to say about a five year stint at a club one division below the top flight? Any thoughts.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Hess was part of my first team - started watching in 94-95 aged 7. Summoning memories of him - the hardworking stuff is a given. His transfer came just after Watford had been relegated at the end of the 95-96 season, so that with the apparent poor form (I can't recall that, but it's mentioned in this BSaD article) might be worth a mention. There's certainly a split perception of him amongst Watford fans to this day - as I recall some think he claimed he was going to a club in the First Divsion (as was), but then decided to switch to Gillingham (in the league we dropped into) for more money. Others refute this, saying it was near his home etc. Fairly unciteable unless you can find an interview with him where he discusses it. He was out of contract as I recall, rather than one of the many released. He was quite possibly our captain - it seems obvious that he would be, and looking at a few line-ups from that time I can't recall anyone else filling the role. Again, not sure of any citation for that. Otherwise - nothing I can summon that's particularly notable, he was a regular in a distinctly unremarkable side, neither relegation nor promotion candidates. Nearly got relegated in 93-94, actually. At a push - any games when he scored twice/sent off etc.? My Watford player book is at home, I'll have a gander but it was published in 1996 so probably doesn't a summary of his Watford career akin to those that had already left the club. Will look, though. HornetMike (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Mike, that's something to start with anyway....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watford F.C. managers

I've started drafting a list of Watford F.C. managers in my sandbox. It's very much in the early stages, but if anyone would like to lend a hand, that would be grand. Also, can anyone recommend any sources for this, either printed or online? Thanks. Seegoon (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

I'm working on a couple of side-articles at the moment (managers, current season, players of the year). I want to do players as well but I don't have a proper reference for them, so that might have to wait. Anyway, after I'm up to date on recent season articles it will be easier to brutally trim the history, so at that point I was planning on taking this article itself on, with the aim of making it a Featured Article.

My opinion is that we should list the hall of fame inductees in a table (Luther Blissett, John McClelland, Les Taylor, David James, Ian Bolton, Tommy Mooney and Tony Coton), with a sentence or so about each of them, and have the rest of them listed like they have done here, with criteria similar to the ones we currently have. I think that anything about the individuals which is so important that it must stay on this page could be incorporated into the history, otherwise it can go in their articles.

Just wondering if people had any other opinions about things that could be done to improve the article as a whole, or if anyone has any alternative ideas? WFCforLife (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I like the separate articles, now we can trim the main page, particularly the History section to about 3 paragraphs? The list of notable players could do with work, as you say some of them are better mentioned in the history page, and instead only include Hall of Fame inductees. HornetEd (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three paragraphs would be a bit difficult. The first two paragraphs seem perfect to me. Don't get me wrong, there's still far too much focus on recent history, but a lot has happened in recent decades which is very significant, compared to a 40 year period from 1920-1960 where very little of note happened. WFCforLife (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How long is a paragraph though! I mean to suggest the article would be best about half it's current length. HornetEd (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling fairly embarrassed that you've done more in a month than I've done in about 4 years. I've sort of given up on this article in the last year, partly due to being away, partly because I didn't get round to making significant improvements. I do have lots of reference books to cite this article, everything by Trefor Jones and Oliver Phillips other than the season by season book. I'm a little wary about a table for hall of fame players, I think the bulleted list you've shown in the Spurs article is just fine for them. Any other player criteria I think you'd have trouble getting through the FA process, and personally I don't like large lists of players, I think a player list article largely does that job. Anyway, good luck and I'm ready to assist where I can. PS: Re: Eddie Oshodi, you did exactly right. Regards, HornetMike (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the Who's Who by any chance? I was looking at ways to get older, free pictures in. If a picture is over 70 years old and you can demonstrate that you've taken reasonable steps to show that the photographer died over 70 years ago, or you can show that you have reason to believe the photographer is unknown, the copyright can be considered to have expired. I'm 99.9% sure that pictures of individuals on the club website are taken from the Who's Who (for instance the ones here and here), so there's a chance that the photos of pre-war players could be used if there's no photographer credited.
They'd make great additions seeing as the oldest picture at the moment is from 1999. I was also thinking of putting one of the club's older badges in, but I'm just wondering if they could be considered fair use? WFCforLife (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do have Who's Who, yeah. It looks like the photos on the club site are taken from it. However, they are pretty small, not sure how well they'd translate using a scanner. Not sure about old badges, best ask at the football project. HornetMike (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honours Section

I would state that the League Cup is a major honour, it's entered by the best teams at the time. The lower division titles are not major honours, because winning the Championship is coming 21st in the football league. HornetEd (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to start an edit war so I thought best to take it here first. I missed out an extremely important word in my edit summary: semis.
The reason I made the change was in line with clubs whose articles are featured; they have all tabulated the honours. There isn't really consensus on what is and isn't notable, so here's my rationale. A runners up spot in the top flight and FA Cup is unquestionably notable. Being champions of the lower tiers is notable (in particular the Southern League- most southern clubs didn't join the Football League until 1920-21, so in effect we were Champions of Southern England), and if we happen to have finished second in those leagues that may as well be mentioned. Personally I think semi-final appearances are borderline, as is the Third Division South Cup, but then again it's equivalent to the Football League trophy so that's debateable as well.
Do you disagree with the idea of putting the results into a table Ed, or was the revert solely because I've changed the content? WFCforLife (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the two sections. WFCforLife (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, agree table is better. Honours are all debatable, I thought of including the Southern League (after doing the List of Seasons) but other clubs don't include Southern League titles as honours. Our Match Day programme lists honours for all Football League divisions where we were champions, runners-up or promoted, and for FA Cup and League Cup as finalists or semis. Personally the FA Cup and League Cup have similar 'honour' status, because of the teams involved. We should use other clubs pages and featured articles as a reference, but also to Watford until we start winning trophies our semi-final places are significant ;) HornetEd (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cheap beer cup has only ever been significant to me because we get money from it, but I suppose we should reference our best finishes in it. In my defence I was consistent (by also leaving out the FA Cup semis) but I'm happy to leave it as it is. WFCforLife (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

The article's coming along quite nicely. My main concerns are with the sources:

  • Were the things that the Edmund Coan reference sources actually in the Hemel Hempstead Gazette? Edmund Coan's work would be considered a reliable source, as would the Hemel Hempstead Gazette, but the way the reference is worded at the moment makes it sound dodgy.
  • We need to source the manager records. It shouldn't be too hard for Boothroyd and Lewington, hopefully the others can be sourced from a book?
  • I'm not sure if we can use Hornethistory, because it doesn't give any information as to who has collated the information and why s/he can be considered reliable. The solutions would be to ask him/her to make this clear somewhere on the site, or to find alternative sources. It does no harm at the moment but that question would be asked at WP:FAC.
  • The Vicarage Road section needs expanding, briefly explaning the developments over the years. The best way to do this would probably be to use a published source.

There probably are a few more, but those are the ones that spring to mind. WFCforLife (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that citing a lecture someone witnessed is a little dodgy. I imagine all the stuff Coan talked about is in the Phillips book. There's rough manager records in who's who as I recall, there's probably more detail in season-by-season, which I haven't got. Hornethistory is compiled by a guy on the Watford mailing list. I won't put his real name here for reasons for privacy, but if you were to sign up and ask, he'd probably reply. I imagine he gets it all from Phillips/Jones too. HornetMike (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

  • It features a sort function
  • Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
    • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
    • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
  • It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
  • It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
  • It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Watford F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, Edinburgh Wanderer 19:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to maybe help at GAN?

Mainly directed at WFC, but by all means to anyone else prepared to get stuck into getting the article to GA status (note, all are mere suggestions, some probably go beyond what a GA needs, but all are meant to be helpful!):

  • Our article on Football League calls it "The Football League".
  • Mildly dubious over the easter egg-ish link to the 22/23 football season, it's not directly relevant to Watford's ground move...
  • "saw the club scale " new para, normally repeat the subject matter on its first mention, so "saw Watford scale..."
  • "They finished..." you know this will come up if reviewed by USEng readers, but I thought the first para worked hard to refer to Watford in the singular, then you're into plurals... (Apply throughout if you agree....)
    • I think I've done this: the only remaining instances of "they" are a direct quote and a reference to two clubs collectively. —WFC— 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could update to say that as of the end of the 11/12 season they play in the Championship... we both know our fate by now...!
  • "of the club's holding company" ditto about reiterating "Watford". (Apply throughout if you agree.)
  • "Dyche's captain is central midfielder" Dyche's or Watford's? and think about linking midfielder for our non-footy readers?
  • Long shot, but consider a map of South England showing Watford (I think the only link to Watford is in the infobox by the way, think global!)
    • A map isn't practical (the only viable way of doing it would be to remove the only pre-2000 image in the article), but I've added a geographic reference in the prose. —WFC— 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for professionalism you could use? To some, it might be odd that football league players were amateur..
  • "Watford remained in the Third Division South" is repeated verbatim pretty quickly, would prefer some more "elegance"!
  • "Watford remained in the Third Division South until 1958; when the league was restructured into four national divisions for 1958–59, Watford were placed in the new Fourth Division. Watford ..." 1.1 sentences, Watford mentioned three times....
  • I think we now use en-dash for terms like "player–manager"!
    • I appreciate you pointing this out. However I think a hyphen is appropriate, so I'll acknowledge but leave this for the time being. Complying with MOS:DASH is only a requirement at FAC, and between now and any future FA attempt the guidelines might well have changed. —WFC— 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sold to Spurs for" Spurs is a little colloquial.
  • Have you linked £ anywhere for our non-UK readers?
  • "Watford started the 1982–83 season with wins over Everton and Southampton" not sure anyone not directly interested would see any significance in this.
  • Don't overlink Everton F.C.
  • "Taylor was lured away" overly emotive. Or "quote" that lure.
  • "and after a terrible start " perhaps so, but not sure I'd expect "terrible" in an encyclopaedic neutrally-toned article about a football club!
  • Is it " play-off final " or " play-off Final "?
    • Depends on the context. The proper name is "2006 Football League Championship play-off Final", but if the phrase starts at play-off I'm pretty sure it's "play-off final". —WFC— 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a club record fee " some hyphenation needed there I think.
    • According to my research, either appears to be acceptable. I tend to avoid optional hyphens, because if you use some optional ones, you should probably go out to ensure similar usage for similar phrases. —WFC— 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Current management team" the table is unreferenced.
  • I'm never really truly convinced that a semi-final loss in a cup competition should constitute an "honour".
    • I agree: it was a compromise with another user a few years ago. Removed as you are the first non-Watford fan to comment. —WFC— 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six external links, are they all truly relevant to this page in general or are some of them specific enough to graduate to "references"?
    • Valid question. I wouldn't go as far as to describe any of them as inappropriate though, and I'm mindful that removing any of the current external links would simply create whitespace, due to the portal and commons boxes. —WFC— 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I haven't responded to I fully agree with and have implemented. Thanks for this, the suggestions were brilliant, and implementing them helped me spot some other things. —WFC— 07:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Watford F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watford Football Club is an English professional football club based in Watford, Hertfordshire. - two "clubs" in the one sentence....can we change the second to "team"?
In most cases it's okay to treat the two words as synonyms. But in a sentence which is explicitly talking about the overall organisation, I'm not sure that team would work. —WFC— 16:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree is a tricky one, and accuracy trumps prose in this case it sounds like. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
alternate names and nicknames are usually in bold not italics in the lead (definitely italics in the body of the article though)
taking the team from the renamed Second Division to the Premier League in successive seasons - I'd specify somehow that this was up two tiers...
In the history section, "the town of Watford" is mentioned (and linked) twice in a few sentences. These should be streamlined into one mention. The second sentence of the para can be amalgamated with the grounds mention later. Incidentally this strikes me as a somewhat tangential reference source. I can help with rejigging the order if you like. better
First sentence of the history section could do with a ref.
I've attempted to address all of these points, through editing or a response as appropriate. Thanks for what you've done so far – I look forward to the rest of the review. —WFC— 16:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General supportive note - the History section flows nicely. I find using the term "tier" is good as we can talk about first/second/third etc. with some consistency across all the silly renames from 1992 onwards (aargh!!).
I appreciate that. The history was certainly the most challenging part. —WFC— 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With a record of 4 wins from his opening 23 league fixtures, Bassett was sacked in January 1988. - "record" often has a positive connotation - I'd rephrase as " After/with only 4 wins from the opening 23 league fixtures, Bassett was sacked in January 1988."
I've changed it to "With 4 wins". I'm wary of using "only" because it might come through as POV – if you compare Bassett's record with his predecessor you can probably guess his relative popularity among Watford fans. —WFC— 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The club's highest home attendance is 34,099, for an FA Cup match against Manchester United on 3 February 1969 - I'd add in the round it was.
Done. —WFC— 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
anything to add about the fans? Fan songs? Mascot? Any other rivalries - i.e. with Barnet if they're both from Hertfordshire...?
I've had a go. As for rivalries, there have been what I would describe as brief, non-violent tensions with other clubs (none of which were from Hertfordshire), but nothing that has lasted for particularly long, and certainly nothing that could be reliably sourced as a rivalry. I will keep an eye on the section though, because if Stevenage F.C. get promoted I think the media would start describing matches between the two clubs as a "derby" quite quickly. —WFC— 13:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I mean. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, looking pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - great, well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fantastic! Thanks for the time you've spent on the article, it's much appreciated. —WFC— 13:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full name

Not really familiar with the club but the full name "Watford Association Football Club" doesn't appear in the article. Given it doesn't seem to be used anywhere except legal records, is there some sort of history behind the name? Hack (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I've hardly been on Wikipedia in recent months. The Watford Association Football Club Ltd has been the name of the business entity of the club for at least a century (based on the mention in the articles of association of the Southern League and South Eastern League). I have seen nothing to suggest that the team itself has ever been referred to as Watford AFC, but it's plausible that it might have been at some point in time. —WFC— FL wishlist 13:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Watford F.C.. 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) 09:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Watford F.C.. 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) 01:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Petchey

Jack Petchey owned and ran the club from 1987 to 1994 and his name isn't mentioned on the article once. Talk about a major hole in the article, I think this needs to be addressed. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 December 2018

A date is incorrect. In "Early Years" second paragraph, 6th line. The date of the Watford Observer should change from - "28th May 1898 to 7th May 1898".The source is http://thestrawplaiters.com/rivalry-the/ Pleatys dance (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done SD0001 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Change 1898 to 1881


The club was founded in 1881 - not as stated in this line 'Founded in 1898 by the amalgamation of West Herts and Watford St. Mary's.'<ref><ref>http://www.watfordfcarchive.com/ Namorrodor (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. programmingGeek(contribs) { this.timestamp = 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Camilo Hernandez

The Watford FC page is missing Juan Camilo Hernandez (Cucho Hernandez) as a player out on loan. His own page is correct and states that he is indeed owned by Watford and out on loan at Huesca Davey79c (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey79c (talk • contribs) 11:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2019

The Watford FC page is missing Juan Camilo Hernandez (Cucho Hernandez) as a player out on loan. His own page is correct and states that he is indeed owned by Watford and out on loan at Huesca Davey79c (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 17:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation date

@BigBoi233 and Pleatys dance: please discuss the issue here rather than reverting each other's edits back & forth. GiantSnowman 08:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC) The 1881 date is incorrect. The Watford Observer of the 7th May 1898 clearly shows that two local clubs amalgamated to form a new club - “When three-parts of the season was gone, there were whispers of the advantages of amalgamation of the two clubs. That the principle was right few disputed, and the question narrowed itself down to a few minor difficulties. It was ascertained that the executive on both sides regarded the suggestion favourably, and joint meetings of the officials were arranged. The proposals took a definite shape, and very soon amalgamation was a thing accomplished. It was decided, however, that each club should finish off its fixtures. Next season the Watford club will play on the Cassio-Road ground, and one of the chief ideas of the amalgamation is to have a second team of sufficient strength to be an attraction while the first string is engaged elsewhere. The details of the amalgamation scheme we have already given in these columns. Generally speaking, then, the local football season which has just closed has been a most important one. It has witnessed two steps which have marked fresh epochs - the adoption of professionalism and the amalgamation of West Herts and Watford St. Mary’s.”[reply]

The full F.A. council met in May 1898 and as reported at the time “permission was given to Watford St. Mary’s and West Herts to take the name of Watford Football Club , the two clubs having amalgamated.” The F.A. would clearly have been asked to make this decision and would have wanted the requisite evidence and approval from both clubs officials before putting the matter before the full council.

So directly from May 1898 you have evidence that the two sets of officials met, negotiated and agreed amalgamation which the F.A. approved and the Watford Observer reported. Regrettably, the word "amalgamation" has been replaced by the word "absorption" by those close to the club. This gives the impression that West Herts absorbed Watford St. Mary's. They did not. This wrongful replacement of the word "amalgamation" was done with the intention of making West Herts history go back to 1891 and then back to 1881 when their predecessors, Watford Rovers, are said to be formed. The suggestion has also been made that Watford St. Mary's went bust. They did not. They folded because of the amalgamation with West Herts. Here it is important to note that West Herts full title was "West Herts Club and Ground" - it was a sports club which also had teams playing rugby, cricket, lacrosse and so on. West Herts therefore did not fold as Watford St. Mary's did. The insult to the memory of the men of Watford St. Mary's is therefore a great one - 5 of their players played for the new club of Watford F.C. including the first black player, John Cother. --Pleatys dance (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleatys dance (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watford Fc as we know them today started in 1898 yes but Watford true founding date is 1881 the club has stated this on its website and even have the 1881 foundation club it is annoying many true Watford supporters that someone is changing the date on Wikipedia please address this

Watford Fc 1881 BigBoi233 (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't dispute any of the facts I posted about 1898. You just make a plea to ignore the facts! What about Watford St. Mary's history? Are they to be swept aside in order to justify the 1881 date? Why not enlighten Watford supporters of the true history and celebrate Watford St. Mary's as well as West Herts, Watford Rovers and football generally in Watford. I can help you with some history on Watford St. Mary's if you want to create a wiki page for them and give them their rightful place in history. --Pleatys dance (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the change either, I also agree to 1881 as does the official books and clubs own website, the first part of the article Early history fails to have true prose chronological order, it's a bit of a mess, I don't know why this article is rated GA. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the official books are incorrect as per the facts I set out above - Watford St. Mary's amalgamated with West Herts in 1898 to form Watford F.C.. I agree the article needs improving as it must show the part Watford St. Mary's played and they should preferably have their own wiki page. --Pleatys dance (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've just destroyed the point of the whole lead, Watford was founded as Watford Rovers in 1881, that's how they were founded, you have effectively removed the consistency in the chronologic order. [2] You need to revert before you end up getting on the wrong side of wikipedia law. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to discuss 1898 and 1881 with BigBoi233. I have already set out the facts (above) but will do so again as you appear to have missed them. "The Watford Observer of the 7th May 1898 clearly shows that two local clubs amalgamated to form a new club - “When three-parts of the season was gone, there were whispers of the advantages of amalgamation of the two clubs. That the principle was right few disputed, and the question narrowed itself down to a few minor difficulties. It was ascertained that the executive on both sides regarded the suggestion favourably, and joint meetings of the officials were arranged. The proposals took a definite shape, and very soon amalgamation was a thing accomplished. It was decided, however, that each club should finish off its fixtures. Next season the Watford club will play on the Cassio-Road ground, and one of the chief ideas of the amalgamation is to have a second team of sufficient strength to be an attraction while the first string is engaged elsewhere. The details of the amalgamation scheme we have already given in these columns. Generally speaking, then, the local football season which has just closed has been a most important one. It has witnessed two steps which have marked fresh epochs - the adoption of professionalism and the amalgamation of West Herts and Watford St. Mary’s.”

The full F.A. council met in May 1898 and as reported at the time “permission was given to Watford St. Mary’s and West Herts to take the name of Watford Football Club , the two clubs having amalgamated.” The F.A. would clearly have been asked to make this decision and would have wanted the requisite evidence and approval from both clubs officials before putting the matter before the full council.

So directly from May 1898 you have evidence that the two sets of officials met, negotiated and agreed amalgamation which the F.A. approved and the Watford Observer reported. Regrettably, the word "amalgamation" has been replaced by the word "absorption" by those close to the club. This gives the impression that West Herts absorbed Watford St. Mary's. They did not. This wrongful replacement of the word "amalgamation" was done with the intention of making West Herts history go back to 1891 and then back to 1881 when their predecessors, Watford Rovers, are said to be formed. The suggestion has also been made that Watford St. Mary's went bust. They did not. They folded because of the amalgamation with West Herts. Here it is important to note that West Herts full title was "West Herts Club and Ground" - it was a sports club which also had teams playing rugby, cricket, lacrosse and so on. West Herts therefore did not fold as Watford St. Mary's did. The insult to the memory of the men of Watford St. Mary's is therefore a great one - 5 of their players played for the new club of Watford F.C. including the first black player, John Cother." Do you not think that Watford St. Mary's true history should be told? --Pleatys dance (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have effectively ran WP:OR which is against wikipedia policy. You shouldn't be doing that and you are disputing perfectly valid sources. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the Watford Observer of the 7th May 1898 is a valid source - I have added the citation (13) referring to the relevant copy of the paper on the British Newspaper Archive. I apologise if I have not added it correctly. It is a source that was clearly missed by the author of the book you refer to (which I have read). I thought myself and BigBoi233 were going to discuss this issue and come to an agreement. I am trying to help clarify how the club was formed. Books must be challenged as copy and paste, lazy journalism and incomplete research have always been around (that is not intended as an insult - I have a football history website so come across this alot). I am making that challenge and have had no arguments in return. What else should I do as I don't want to breach policy. --Pleatys dance (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very difficult question. I don't think you should copy information, when the mistake is very obvious. An example is Bill Julian. In recent books they are still ignoring the fact that there is no shred of evidence that he returned to the Netherlands after the war. The famous coach in the Netherlands is the son, not the father. It's not hard to find interviews in newspapers where the son talks about his father, the former Arsenal captain. Another recent issue, the date of foundation of Stoke City, was actually very well researched somewhere in the late 1980's by Wade Martin. He knew about the article in the Field magazine in 1868, checked the Charterhouse School register etc. and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of a Stoke City football club before 1868, it was published in the encyclopaedia of Stoke City 1868 to 1994 (...) by Tony Matthews (page 5). Have Stoke City changed the date of foundation? They didn't, there are some indications that football was played in the Stoke area before 1868, but that's all.

I don't think strange foundation dates are necessarily a result of bad research, I can't believe someone like Trefor Jones didn't know about the article in the Watford Observer. Until somewhere in the 1990's there are different versions of the early history of Watford. Formed after the amalgamation of West Herts and Watford St. Mary's in 1898, founded in 1891 (...used to be in Rothmans, copied year after year) as Watford Rovers. Trefor Jones used the word absorbed in his books published in the 1990's. Why he did this I don't know, the answer is not in the books. The answer could be hidden somewhere in the history after 1898. I don't have more recent books.

In 1991 SVV and Dordrecht' 90 merged to form a new club SVV/Dordrecht'90. Initially everybody regarded this as a new club, founded in 1991. SVV (Schiedam) played in the Eredivisie, they had a decent squad, an ambitious chairman willing to invest, but no stadium and not much support. Dordrecht '90 had a stadium, an ambitious chairman and they played in the Eerste Divisie. In the 1991/92 season SVV/Dordrecht played in the Eredivisie. A large part of the squad used to play for SVV, chairman was Cees den Braven (Dordrecht). The former SVV chairman couldn't get with Den Baven and left the new club after one year, and I doubt there where many former SVV supporters, who travelled to Dordrecht to see the new club. After a year SVV was no longer part of the name of the club, and Dordrecht became like the club they were before the merger, but they don't deny that the merger never happened. The current club FC Dordrecht was founded in 1883 as D.F.C. If you find the foundation date 1 July 1972, and you can. That was when the club first got its current name. Is this unfair to the history of the SVV club, maybe it is ,but SVV still has a rich history of its own. There are similar cases where the date of the foundation is the date of the merger, but there are plenty of cases were the date of foundation after the merger is the date of foundation of the earliest forerunner. Whatever you choose, there is always a similar precedent. It would be nice, if there had been universal rules dealing with these things, but they simply don't exist. (I was never a Dordrecht or SVV supporter.) Cattivi (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Watford Observer piece is a primary source written in May 1898 by the Sports Editor of the paper. Victorian Sports Editors were usually players or ex players who were heavily involved in sports in the town where they worked and some were on football club committees. The editor would have known all the major figures involved at the West Herts Club and Ground and Watford St. Mary’s. Books written in the 1990’s are secondary sources - they should have relied on primary sources written as close to the event as possible. There are numerous mentions of the amalgamation in the newspapers of April and May 1898 and indeed later in that year. I agree that the insertion of the word “absorption” to replace amalgamation is a mystery. It may have been used (incorrectly) at a later date as a quick explanation as to how the club was formed. West Herts appear to have seen themselves as the senior club so their supporters may have used “absorption” as a nod to their past. However, the primary May 1898 source from someone close to the events (and indeed the F.A. full committee approval of the amalgamation and the adoption of the name of the new club, Watford F.C.), trumps any secondary sources that comes later.

I am familiar with the Stoke City arguments. The view also exists that Stoke City were formed in 1908. The original club - Stoke Ramblers/ Stoke went bankrupt in 1908, withdrew from the Football League, all the players left and the committee disbanded. The newspapers of the time clearly state that a completely new organisation was formed later in the Summer. That new club started off in the Birmingham League. Yet today, Stoke City have 1863 on their badge. 1863 was the year that the first newspaper report of football being played in Stoke was published - played on Shrove Tuesday, not a recognised football match and no club is mentioned or known to have existed. Their wiki page has 1863 and 1868 as their date of formation - 1908 is ignored by most. I know from their forum that Stoke fans today do not accept 1863 yet it is firmly embedded in the club’s fabric and shows no sign of shifting.

Returning to the point, I think it is important is to recognise the men of Watford St. Mary’s who have largely been ignored. Why just follow West Herts/Watford Rovers back to 1881 and ignore Watford St. Mary’s? They should have their own wiki page (which I have already volunteered to help with) and their full story told. For instance, John Cother, Watford F.C.’s first black player, played for Watford St. Mary’s yet this is largely ignored. The club also reached the final of the Herts County Cup in 1895 and still attracted significant crowds in the 1897/98 season so they deserve recognition. Similar to Stoke City, there are Watford fans who stand firmly behind 1898 and ignore 1881 entirely. --Pleatys dance (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem whatsoever with a seperate Watford St. Mary's page, and pages for the Cother brothers (Jack and Eddie), who both played for Watford Rangers/West Herts, Watford St. Mary's and Watford. Trefor Jones didn't ignore this in his who's who published in 1996 (page 60). Black refers to "of (partly) Indian decent" in this case. Cattivi (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Tom Brodrick has side stepped this discussion and amended the foundation date in the article to include 1881 because the club recognises that date. I invite Tom to join in this discussion. His comments actually help seal the argument for 1898. Tom makes two points. The first is the recognition by the club of the 1881 date. The club can only make a decision based on what it is told by its historian. In that respect, Tom refers to the “Watford Archives” ((WA) and kindly provides a link (citation 13) to the relevant page. The WA, a secondary source, states when talking about West Herts -

“There was talk of an amalgamation with local rivals Watford St Mary’s, but nothing came of it. St Mary’s became defunct in 1898, and their registered players immediately became free agents. Five of them were signed by Watford FC as players. Neither those players, nor the officials under which they had played for St Mary’s, had any administrative function in the affairs of Watford FC.”

This is incorrect - the WA has completely missed the primary source of the Watford Observer report of the 7th May 1898 (citation 15) and the approval of the amalgamation of the two clubs on the 15th April 1898 by the full council of the F.A. on the 27th May 1898 - the full details of the amalgamation have already been set out by me elsewhere in this discussion and remain in the main article. If the modern club were not told of the 1898 amalgamation then it is not surprising that it chose to accept the 1881 date.

The second point is in respect of Watford St. Mary’s, where Tom Brodrick states -

“the degree to which the latter remained an extant organisation capable of being involved in a formal amalgamation is disputed by football historians.”

This statement appears to be based on the WA chronology (a secondary source) for 1898, which states -

“When rival club Watford St. Mary’s folds West Herts’ name is changed, for the last time, to Watford.”

As I have already stated in this discussion, West Herts Club and Ground were a sports club. Besides Association Football, the club also played other sports including cricket, rugby and lacrosse. When the amalgamation came in 1898, the West Herts Club and Ground continued to exist to support the other sports. Watford St. Mary’s however, were solely a football club. Therefore, when the amalgamation came with West Herts in 1898, Watford St. Mary’s had to be wound up. As the WA missed the amalgamation entirely, it is little surprise that the winding up of Watford St. Mary’s has been misinterpreted.

The persistent unfounded attack on the Watford St. Mary’s club is puzzling as is the reliance on secondary sources and an apparent unwillingness to accept primary sources or to properly research the subject. I will therefore set out the remainder of the relevant points which should be made widely known.

The amalgamation agreement in April 1898 had to be approved by the Annual General Meeting of the West Herts Club and Ground. I will quote the Club Secretary’s address to that meeting, taken from page 7 of the Herts Advertiser of the 13th August 1898 -

“Now as to the future. You will doubtless all agree that a very judicious step was taken in arranging an amalgamation with the Watford St. Mary’s Club. It was felt that Watford was not large enough to support two professional teams, and the St. Mary’s committee were of the opinion that the West Herts ground should be the centre of Watford football, and a very fair and amicable arrangement was made. When it is considered that even when a good gate was obtained on the West Herts ground there were 400 or 500 spectators on the Watford St. Mary’s ground, it is apparent to what extent we may look for an increased gate. In addition to this, we are glad to say that the St. Mary’s players have loyally come to our assistance and we shall be able to form two teams of almost equal strength, and having arranged strong home fixtures for every Saturday during the season, we shall be able to command a good gate when our League team is away.”

What stands out of this report is that - “the St. Mary’s committee were of the opinion that the West Herts ground should be the centre of Watford football”. It was the Watford St. Mary’s committee who saw the reality that the town could not support two professional clubs and had the foresight to put Watford football first. Their players did not become free agents as claimed by the WA - they “loyally” rallied to the cause of football in Watford. The club did not fold for financial reasons and were not absorbed by West Herts.

A great debt is owed to Watford St. Mary’s. Rather than attempting to airbrush them from history, belittle them and portray them as insignificant bankrupts, the opposite approach should be taken. Watford St. Mary’s need to be given their rightful place alongside West Herts, their history fully explored, given their own Wiki page and the football supporting public told the true story. The present club also need to be told the true story. 1881 can still be celebrated, but celebrated by everyone knowing the true story.

Subject to any fully supported arguments against, may I respectfully suggest that the main article be altered to reflect what I have set out today. In addition, if someone will create a “Watford St. Mary’s Football Club” wiki page, I will begin to populate it - I will need support please. --Pleatys dance (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watford_F.C.&oldid=906816445"