Jump to content

Talk:Sunderland A.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 Maxim.il89 (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 1 November 2020 (Charity section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleSunderland A.F.C. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 21, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 17, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 3, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
January 12, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 28, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Famous supporters

I think under "supporters" it would make sense to mention a few famous ones, like it's often done with other clubs.

Some famous supporters of Sunderland include The Animals keyboardist Alan Price[1], actor Peter O'Toole[2][3], one half of the Eurythmics duo David A. Stewart[4][5], Kenickie leader and radio host Lauren Laverne[6], baritone Thomas Allen[7], journalist Kate Adie[8][9], veterinary surgeon/writer James Herriot[10][11], children's author Terry Deary[12][13], and lyricist Tim Rice[14][15]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talkcontribs) 23:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at the RfC. The answer was "no". Koncorde (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Charity section

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but obv a whole section shouldn't include just ONE line.

This sentence, "A charity, the Foundation of Light, is affiliated with the club and helps encourage educational development through football, and offers learning centres in addition to scholarships.[145]" - I'm pretty sure such a sentence is not enough for a WHOLE section.

So I've expanded it: "A charity, the Foundation of Light, is affiliated with the club and helps encourage educational development through football, and offers learning centres in addition to scholarships.[145]

The Foundation regularly undertakes various fund-raising activities. In 2011, its 'Carols of Light' event in collaboration with Durham Cathedral and produced by Tim Rice included such music performers as Thomas Allen, former Animals member Alan Price, and Sunderland based band The Futureheads;[146] it also had speakers such as SAFC Foundation Trustee and former player Niall Quinn, journalist Kate Adie, and presenter Steve Cram.[147][148]

In 2015, the Foundation was granted permission to open a free school for vulnerable children[149]; and in 2015, the Foundation created a new official home for itself called the Beacon of Light, with classrooms and learning spaces, and with indoor sports courts[150]."

For some reason, the person who has created the section keeps on reverting me.

Fair enough, he doesn't think famous people outside football should be included, but that's just his opinion. The consensus on WikiProject: Football, said famous peps could be included if they influenced the club somehow, and helping the club establish a charity is a pretty big qualifier here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talkcontribs) 11:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is no minimum size for a section. When that section is about something that isn't directly part of the main subject this is usually kept to the minimum information required. All extraneous information is kept to the main article of the subject. This is called content forking.
2. The content on the webpage should only be what is relevant to the subject of that subject. Unless the actions of the charity have had some significant bearing on the success or fortunes of the football club they are largely irrelevant. So for instance, if the charity successfully created a sporting academy through which X Sunderland youth footballers have been coached, that would be relevant. A concert held a decade ago so you can squeeze some celebrity names in - less so. I would accept the names to be included in that section would be the founder (chairman of Sunderland AFC) and representatives of the club itself who have taken part (such as Niall Quinn, and / or a reference to it being supported by the team / players at events). Everyone else is irrelevant to the Sunderland AFC article.
3. And no, the consensus does not say "if they influenced the club somehow". But even if it did, the creation of the charity in 1999 or whenever was the significant action. Charity events subsequently are ten a penny, and relevant to the charity itself not the club.
4. I have explained repeatedly why I am reverting your unnecessary content, which at the moment is just a smoke screen for your continued insistence on forcing "famous" people into the article regardless of how poorly it is written, and how unrelated it is to the main article. Koncorde (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nevertheless, such a short section looks bad.
2. And this is relevant to the subject because it gives a proper introduction to the chaity and what it does.
3. The charity is literally linked to the club.
4. And I've explained why you're wrong. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, and no, and no. You are using this to promote unrelated content. I have no idea why, but it seems a recurring pattern across wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, and yes. See? I can play that to.
That content helps understand what happened better. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't, it's puffery for the charity and another attempt to slip in the names of some famous fans (which you were told was inappropriate by at the main Football project talk page). Last year you tried this same POV push and it was rejected. You waited several months to try and slide it in under the radar. There remains no consensus for its addition.
You need to establish consensus for changes. This is particularly important when it comes to Featured Articles. Koncorde (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim.il89 I agree with Koncorde here, enough is enough. Please don't use the mainspace as your scratchpad. This has been called out many times now, the way ahead is to get some consensus that the material you're trying to add belongs in this very article. Right now, you don't have such a consensus. To continue to edit war in order to attempt to bully this material back in is highly disruptive and liable to result in you being blocked again. Get the consensus established please. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as mach as I find it funny Koncorde went to your page to canvass you, I'm not edit warring - in fact, Koncorde is the one reverting me, and he's closer to the 3rr than I am. I totally support using the talk page. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went to RM as he was directly involved in the discussions last year that you are ignoring. Koncorde (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Indeed, Maxim.il89, you'd be better off sticking to just the matter at hand for the moment rather than casting aspersions which will certainly not help your case and likely end in another block for you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't leave a two sentence section, fact. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Maxim.il89 for 48 hours from the article for violating the three revert rule on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense, because I haven't violated it. I had two reverts, technically - counting my first edit as a "revert" is ridiculous. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll repeat myself. You can't just leave one line for a while section. It's simple as that, a bit more background information is needed. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then find something relevant to the club. Inserting content relevant to the charity is irrelevant to the article. Koncorde (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's only your own opinion by which it's irrelevant. Again, you don't run Wikipedia. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I wanted to thank User:Ritchie333 for his edit. It makes sense as it makes the section look bigger and more clear. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium

The section on stadium is about the stadium, not about people's feelings or opinions of the stadium. That content should be on the main stadium article, not this one. This article is about Sunderland AFC, any content should be about Sunderland AFC. Forcing in sections about people's emotional attachment to stadiums or grounds in order to force in "famous" names is a weak and pointless exercise. Koncorde (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think fans' reactions are part of the team history? It's pretty important what was said during the move, it's not a real history if it's not mentioned, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talkcontribs) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true if there was a section on the main Sunderland history about the stadium move, or even the fan reactions section you created on Roker Park itself where it is about the stadium and the fans affiliation to that stadium. Even a statement by the club about the move and or their feelings, (chairman, manager etc) might be relevant but I would typically avoid such things on a club article and leave it for the stadium article. Koncorde (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's understood you can't go into many details in a club article, but still, some should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some what? Some famous fans opinions? Some feelings? Anything written should be done so encyclopedic ally. So for instance, if the chairman was to express sadness or hold a press conference etc then we might say "The stadium closure was marked with a ceremony attended by Sunderland players past and present." We might even talk about the last match, we may even mention any significant matches Roker Park hosted, or particularly famous people it hosted (i.e. royalty, senior politicians, foreign dignitaries) in the capacity of their official duties. However it should all be done neutrally. The main stadium article in comparison can go into more detail of the discussion of it being built, it's service, and it being designated for closure and responses to it. That all makes sense as it has context. Koncorde (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

proper term needs to places: "top pocket" should be "chest pocket" 2605:E000:9149:8300:2C24:FC74:83A5:F932 (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 23:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page need a list of celebrity fans?

Right, this article doesn't need a celebrity fans list, right? Like, that's only for the article about supporters?

Athletes

  • Paul Collingwood[1] - cricketer.
  • Steve Cram[2][3] - track and field athlete, silver medal at the 1984 Olympic Games.
  • Tony Jeffries[4] - professional boxer, bronze medal in the 2008 Summer Olympics.
  • John Lowe["Legends of Darts". Legendsofdarts.com. 20 June 2014. Archived from the original on 9 January 2016. Retrieved 31 May 2015.] - darts world champion.
  • Martin O'Neill[5] - Northern Irish football manager and player.

Business

Comedians

Film

Music

Politicians

Television personalities

Writers and journalists

Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]