Talk:Swansea City A.F.C.

swansonline.co.uk

This site contains no original content and is simply a list of links to incorrectly-dated news stories hosted by newspapers and video clips with no copyright information. As it stands (29 May 2006), it is not a sufficiently unique resource to warrant inclusion as a link in this site.

This has been explained to the site owner, but other anon users with similar IP addresses have now appeared. Advice has been sought from other users at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Links_to_pages_containing_no_original_content so please desist from adding this site unless and until it contains original content. - Stevecov 11:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Stevecov seems to have a bug about this site. If you check some of the main Swans forums you will see that this site is often linked to. The site has lots of relevant info, including a season review, wallpapers and video relating to the club. matt_the_jack

Steve has no bug about this site, but the house rules require sites to be relevant and unique. There is nothing unique about this site and its owner has refused my explicit invitation to contribute his photography to the Swansea City Wikipage. - Stevecov 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the new content listed and given the flagrant breaches of copyright entailed by the video and audio section, I conclude that this site is extremely dubious. I shall delay deletion pending the views of other Wikipedians with substantial edit histories. - Stevecov 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can not comment on the site owners lack of response to your invitation, but can only comment on how useful I have found this site since I first saw it on Jackarmy.net. I have made numerous edits to this and other topics in the past, and I commend you on your decision not to delete it. However, I would like to point out that you are not the leading authority on Swansea City FC, and do not have any more rights than any other Wiki users to make edits. I am a long term fan and season ticket holder of SCFC and believe my opinion to be as valid as yours. How many games do you go to a season? - matt_the_jack

From a policy standpoint, this falls under Wikipedia:External links#Occasionally acceptable links, specifically:

3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

and

5. External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).

Currently there are 4 fan sites listed, which from a cursory glance look to provide similar info, so from what it says in #3 these need trimming. #5 is what is concerning Stevecov, due to the video section, and swansonline probably should not be linked to due to its (presumably unauthorised) hosting of video from Soccer AM et al. Oldelpaso 15:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

3. ..........marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)

So should we delete all the other fan sites as swansonline has a directory of fan sites on it? or as there is only a handfull of links there, just leave it as it is - matt_the_jack

Why is this so important to you, User:matt_the_jack? Are you connected to the site owner and, if so, does he give you a cut of his cash-for-clicks money? - Stevecov 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The links to all bar one of the fansites should probably be deleted, but swansonline should not be the one retained due to the copyright concerns. And can we please keep discussion civil? The site doesn't look to me to be a link referral farm to me. The links to news stories don't look as though they have a click-through ID. But there are copyright concerns over the video section. Oldelpaso 15:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no connection to this site or it's owner, nor do I get any cash from the site. However I have noticed this site being added and deleted (only by yourself I may add) in the history many times. I use swansonline often and have found it very useful (the thank you thread on JANET to the site owner my have given you an idea of how much the average jack appreciates it). I checked in on WIKI after the play offs with a view to amending the forthcoming vandalism from rival clubs, and found the site be vandalised from within. - matt_the_jack

I have just checked the site over once again, in the chance that I had been duped into backing a click farming site. All the sites it links to, link directly to the sites, and have no click id, so I cant see how the owner would get paid. Also even the video does not seem to be hosted on the same domain, chance are they are linking to the original video, which would not be a problem, as the video would not have been taken and hosted elsewhere. - matt_the_jack

IMO swansonline looks like a useful site, but if there are reasonable suspicions of copyright violation, it's best to avoid linking to it. It's also a good idea to reduce the number of links to fansites (probably leaving only Jackarmy). Conscious 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Good grief!

I've resisted joining this banal debate, but I can't sit on my hands any longer.

All this fuss over a simple link to a simple and humble fan site. I thought it would be a great idea to have a fan site which has a current and up-to-date list of all the great Swans related resources on the Internet.

Was this such a bad idea?

The feedback and clicks I receive suggest not, but for an unknown reason some Wiki user has taken it upon himself to rid the world of my evil and useless site.

Fine. Whatever.

Life is too short to argue about this and I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over it.

And for the record. My site is certainly NOT a farming link site (or whatever that is). All links are immediate and direct to their respective destinations. I spend a considerable amount of my time each week making sure that the links are still valid, whilst searching for new and exciting content at the same time.

When I have some spare time from my demanding career and family life, I even write the occasion article, as I have done this weekend with two pieces (Season review and History of Swansea Jacks).

Still convinced I'm a unscupulous money grabbing web guru?

Swans Online.co.uk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SharkyJack (talk • contribs) .

My opinion

Personally, I find this debate silly, but here is what I think, according to WP:EL:

(NOTE:The following are my opinions on what should happen. However, my opinions are not necessarily what should happen. It is just what I see with the external links. It is by no means a concrete list of what should stay or what should go.)

Of the links in the section, listed below:

• Official club website Stays, per WP:EL#What should be linked to, number 1.
• Swans Online.co.uk Goes, possible copyright infringment of videos hosted on YouTube, per WP:EL#Occasionally acceptable links, number 5. If video section was removed, this site would be an excellent resource.
• Jackarmy Stays, per WP:EL#Occasionally acceptable links, number 3; unique perspective, with numerous message boards
• SCFC.co.uk Stays, per WP:EL#Occasionally acceptable links, number 3; many columnists give unique perspective.
• Swansea City AFC fan site Goes, per WP:EL#Links to normally avoid, number 5; questionable amount of advertising (right side)
• Swansea City Supporters' Trust Goes, per WP:EL#Links to normally avoid, number 4; site exists to inform members of meeting minutes and the like, but (in my opinion) only exists to obtain more members (i.e. selling a "service"), and doesn't provide any unique information, except maybe the opinion of the fans en masse.

Hope that helps! Once again, only my opinion — Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not going to be of huge use here. As a site, SwansOnline seems to be fine, apart from the YouTube video copyright. I have to say, I am slightly wary of persistent adding of an external link if it's been removed, generally the motive for re-adding is a bit suspect. Not sure if that's the case here, though. HornetMike 02:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A note on British English

British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why was the paragraph about Swansea Cities attendence figures dropping due to a degree of underperformance in the league this season removed as vandalism?? The page itself says how the Swans spent most of last season in the automatic promotion places, yet this season they are just about in the playoff zone. Is this not a degree of underperformance in the league??

here are Swansea Cities attendence figures for last season http://scfc.co.uk/results0506.html here are Swansea Cities attendence figures for this season http://www.scfc.co.uk/results.html

It is quite clear here that while attendence figures were often impressive last season, a degree of underperformance in the league this season has seen attendence figures drop somewhat. Is anyone willing to dispute this? These figures are taken from www.scfc.co.uk - a reputable site. I think this edit was removed from a Swansea fan who is unwilling to accept what the article said before it was edited for "Vandalism" Bluebird john 22:59, 9 December 2006 User:bluebird john 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably because a team which is in a comparable position to that in which it ended the previous season cannot be said to be underperforming. Now get back to improving your own club's page and stop wasting editors' time. - Stevecov 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous statement to make. Of course they can be seen as under performers. I think you would agree that if Man United finished in 20th two seasons running, they could be said to be underperforming. Just because YOU don't agree with a statement DOES NOT make it incorrect

History sections

These need some help as some of them are awful, full of typos and factual inaccuracies. It's been possible to break up the club's recent history into phases such as Rise and Fall. However, it seems that some of these sections are little more than lists of wins in cup competitions and insignificant league results.

These sections need some work; will anyone volunteer to take a section and try to bring it to the standard of the 1977-1986 paragraphs which are accurate, concise and chronologically faithful?

I will take 1986-1995 which is within my own memory span, although I will need to refer to sources for details. I suggest other contributors do likewise to ensure accuracy. - Stevecov 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism (again)

I seriously doubt that we had a manager during WW I called 'Rob is the sex' so I reverted back to the acknowledgd 'no manager' for that period Hackerjack 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Next time, you ought to warn the vandal instead of mentioning the edit on the talk page. Bencherlite^Talk 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Kit colours

Just noticed that the away kit is about 2 years out of date and the home kit probably needs attention too. Anyone care to address this?--Punkrockjack (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Players

I've grouped all of the notable players into Nationalities to make it look a bit tidier. Boddefan2009 (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do they wave the Union Flag?

I have a question. Why do they wave the Union Flag, like Rangers supporters?Everton FC (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because they're British. Like Rangers supporters. 163.156.240.17 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

there has been quite a bit of vandalsim made to the page over the last few months made by cardiff fans as it appears to be. cant we get one of those locks that only allows registered accounts to make edits to stop the problem. Swanseajack4life (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, the frequency of vandalism is probably not sufficient to justify semi-protection. From a brief look at the history I see three or four instances of vandalism in a month and a bit, which are outnumbered by good faith IP edits. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

we just had another one someone changed the name at the top from swansea city afc to hey dad o cai. ive changed it back but i still think stuff like this is going to happen and we should do more to stop it than just keep changing back when it does happen. if we do get anymore, i think we should look into requesting for protection.Swanseajack4life (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Club Managers

Harry Griffiths appears twice on the list with overlapping, nonsensical reigns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.200.175 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Swansea City FC?

According to the official website there is no Association in Swansea's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4267 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Swansea City A.F.C -> Swansea City F.C.

According to the official website the clubs name is Swansea City FC [[1]]. Every other website also calls the club Swansea City FC [[2]][[3]][[4]]. Why has wikipedia got Association tagged on. Adam4267 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment According to that same club website, the club's badge reads Swansea City A.F.C. At the top of the page on the club's history it says "Swansea City AFC A brief history" and elsewhere on the same page "Welcome to the official site of Swansea City AFC". [5] Not very consistent. It's a bit like Leeds United, who are an "A.F.C." but have "L.U.F.C." on their badge. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The club is registered with the FAW as "Swansea City AFC Limited", which suggests we are right to have the article at AFC. What causes the confusion is that, per [6], Swansea City AFC Limited is a "wholly owned subsidiary of Swansea City Football Club Limited". Oldelpaso (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment So should the page maybe be at Swansea City AFC Ltd or just kept at the current page?
  • The article is about the football club, not the company that owns it, so I would reckon that the Ltd shouldn't be in there. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Swansea City AFC Limited is a member of the Football League and the Football Association of Wales and is an affiliate member of the West Wales Football Association.

It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Swansea City Football Club Limited. Adam4267 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. However, I think the common name definitely doesn't include the Ltd bit, and including would set an unpleasant precedent. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree however, it seems as if the clubs name contains AFC not Association Football Club so I beleive the full stops should be removed from the clubs full name. The first line should be changed to Swansea City AFC limited/Ltd while the page should be moved to Swansea City AFC Adam4267 (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing that would make it inconsistent with the hundreds of other British football club articles, all of which use F.C. / A.F.C. not FC / AFC. This is purely a matter of house style, some sources use full stops, some don't. There's no need to move the article. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nominator has already stated that he believes the article should remain at Swansea City AFC with only the full stops removed. I don't believe we should remove the full stops, as one of the principle criterion set out at WP:AT is consistency and it seems that every English football club has full stops in "F.C." or "A.F.C.". Jenks24 (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SwanseaCardiffLeaguePositions.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SwanseaCardiffLeaguePositions.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Manager

I've just reverted a number of edits in the last few minutes that gave speculative information about Brendan Rogers, presumably following media rumours that he's off to Liverpool. According to The Guardian as of 17:01 on Wednesday he's only 'likely' to move. Until such time as a move is confirmed, he's still the manager of Swansea. I'll see if we can get some protection on the page just until things are decided. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike, you must have been the last one to know 31.53.206.189 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A de-cluttering request!

Can we start thinking about simplifying or de-cluttering this page please? Don't get me wrong (being a Swansea fan myself) I think it's great that a large amount of information has been added here over the years - but I think we've come to a point where we need to prioritize what is displayed and what should probably be moved to Swansea City sub-pages.

Taking Arsenal's & Man Utd's pages as good examples of club pages, I think we could create a dedicated club history page (for example History of Arsenal F.C. (1886-1966), and simplify what's here to only highlighting the good times/key moments in Swansea City's history.

As for the rest of the page I'd only want to keep what is 'current', that is: the current squad, current management, and honours. Any information about club & player records could be shifted to a dedicated sub-page for the stat fans. (Again for example: List of Arsenal F.C. records and statistics and/or List of Manchester United F.C. players)

I know it's easier said than done... but it's something I feel needs to happen at some point. I hope you agree! Roguesoul (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I gave it 4 months and no reply... :( So, I've gone ahead and started to overhaul Swansea's main page. I created a 'List of Swansea City A.F.C. records and statistics' page and moved almost all of the stats over to there. I believe it has helped to de-clutter the page somewhat. Hopefully it looks like an improvement to everyone?!

I'm also thinking about adding a 'colours and badge' section - to include the 'Kit manufacturers and sponsors' table, a revised 'Supporters' section - to include 'Rivalries', and finally a 'Ownership' section (if I can get my head around it) to cover the fairly unique way in which the club is partially owned by its supporters. As for the 'History' section, I believe its a little too bloated and top heavy for the page but I shall leave for last. As for now, I won't make any more 'major' changes in case someone has a different opinion on how things should look. Cheers.Roguesoul (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The double

The section on the rivalry v Cardiff mentions neither team has done the double and refered to an article discussing winning the league title and FA Cup. I am sure from context that is not what is mean't by the double here, and rather it means 1 team beating the other twice in 1 season. Is that correct?. Op47 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. 'Double' in this context means 'beating the other team twice over the two league fixtures (home and away) in the same season'. Any other matches (Friendlies, FA Cup, League Cup, Welsh Cup etc) are not included in this 'double'. Roguesoul (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)