Talk:Sunderland A.F.C.

Vandalism

To all those people who constantly vandalise this page, please use uncyclopedia instead. That's what it's there for.

The front page currently has a line that says: "Sunderland's best friends and bum chums Newcastle United." I tried to edit it but as an unregistered user could not. Maybe someone will want to change this yeah?83.61.2.236 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC). UPDATE: It's been changed back - well done!83.61.2.236 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Squad List

Sunderland and Newcastle are the only two Premier League clubs who have not adopted to standardised squad list template Template:Fs_player and there is a drive from the people on WikiProject:Football to get this done. The only problem is that we would lose the "Date Joined Club" and "Previous Club" fields, and we would be stuck with GK, DF, MF, CF positions. What do people think. Should we adopt the standard, or keep it as it is? John the mackem 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time there were three clubs that used an alternatve template, including West Ham United F.C.. That was until recently. I was in favour of not standardising as the previous template provided more information, position descriptions were more accurate (what happens if someone plays RB and CM???) and I believed that a real football fan wants to see that kind of info at a quick glance, without having to go through every players' individual pages. But I felt like I was fighting a losing battle against those who felt standardisation mattered. However, I found a compromise I could be happy with by retaining the information in a 'current season' page, the current one being West Ham United F.C. 2005-2006. I have placed a link to this page just below the standard template on the West Ham main page. Let me know what you think. At the moment there is only statistical information on the page, but it could include more information, in keeping with other West Ham United F.C. by season pages, such as transfers, results and general 'events' that happen during the season. Spyrides 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Sunderland also have a 'current season' page; I created it a while ago and I have been trying to keep it up to date as often as possible: 2005-06_Season_for_Sunderland_A.F.C.. Not quite as detailed in terms of player stats as the West Ham one.
    John the mackem 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Has Riera joined?

I read that Arnau Riera, FC Barcelona B player has joined Sunderland. Heres a link: [1]

Past Players/Noteable Players

This section is very poorly constructed. Not being a Sunderland fan I couldn't really say who should and shouldn't be there, but it needs some kind of structuring. Perhaps listing by the order they left the club, and displaying the years during which they were at the club and the flag of their nationality? See other club's former players pages if you are unsure of how to do this. Djdannyp 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Roy Keane

There has yet to be an Official announncement from the club to say he is manager, so why is he up? It has tey to be confirmed.

It's been announced, but he has yet to sign a contract. Until then, I think his name should be removed from the infobox. NaLaochra 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

He's all over the official website and is listed as the manager.

Doing a Sunderland?

To the user that keeps adding this:

Doing a Sunderland

As a result of Sunderland's somewhat unusual footballing history, the phrase "Doing a Sunderland" has been independently coined in many areas, often with wildly different meanings.

It can include a surprisingly good cup run, a reference to Sunderland's 1973 FA Cup win against Leeds, which made Sunderland the first non top-flight club in 40 years to win.

The phrase is also used to describe gaining promotion after a spectacularly successful season in a lower grade, as when Sunderland won the First Division with a record 105 points in 1999, enabling them to move up to the Premiership.

Most recently, "Doing a Sunderland" refers to being relegated in a humiliating or spectacular fashion. During the 2002/2003 season, although Sunderland were outside the relegation area at Christmas with 18 points, poor performances (they only picked up one more point) and a series of 17 straight defeats (only better by Darwin in League histroy with 18 straight defeats) saw Sunderland relegated with a then-record low points total in the Premiership of 19 points. Sunderland would break this in 2005-2006.

This is a pointless chapter, please stop adding it. It's purely anecdotal, not sourced, most of the information is duplicated from other parts of the Sunderland article, it does not conform to the Football Clubs template, and even if none of that mattered... it is stupid to have this as an entire chapter on Sunderland's headline Wiki article! John the mackem 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I personally have never heard it used. NUFC rubbish I suspect.

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} 12:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A.F.C. versus AFC

I've been helping out with requested moves. I was moving Leeds United A.F.C. to Leeds United AFC, a move for which the requester had cited consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that all "A.F.C." articles be moved to "AFC" articles. In the course of the discussion, somebody mentioned this article as an example of a name using the fullstops. I looked into the history at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and sure enough, there was consensus indicated here, here and here. Note also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Nevertheless, my move of this page was reverted by User:Robwingfield with the summary: moved Sunderland AFC to Sunderland A.F.C.: no consensus reached on removal of dots, bring in line with all other articles. Well, it's not the case that "all other articles" use the full stops, and how are we to implement consensus if people are going to revert, claiming no consensus, when they haven't looked into the discussions that have happened repeatedly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be coordinated as part of a much wider move - all articles and categories and templates for all English teams (not just A.F.C. articles) need to be moved at the same time. It's not sufficient to just move the main article and let it be inconsistent with other articles for the same club and articles for other clubs. If you're willing to undertake the task for all English clubs I'll support you. If you just change one or two, I'll move the articles back. I think a better way to do this is to raise the issue at WP:RM, as an umbrella move for all English clubs. That way proper consensus can be reached. robwingfield ^(talk) 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that proper consensus had been reached, but if not, I'm willing to work on it, yeah. Right now there's some discussion restarting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and it looks a bit complicated. The consensus may vary from country to country, for example, but at the least it seems that all English football clubs could be consistent, all Norwegian clubs consistent, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it REALLY matter? SAFCjl 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not much. Consistency is nice, but if it's a lot of trouble to achieve it, then it's not worth it. Ultimately, writing articles about football teams on the internet doesn't REALLY matter at all, considering everything else that's going on in the world. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please block this page

This article has been repeatedly vandalised, over the past week by lots of diffrent accounts and IP's. I think we should block it, its getting ridiclous, and as I support Sunderland. I find it very offensive. Star of the north 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Management & Mick McCarthy

I like the new Management & Coaching Staff section, but i'm wondering if it would be better placed as a secondary header under a Management section as such:

1st Management
2nd   Managerial History
           ---
2nd   Current Management & Coaching Staff
           ---

What do people think?

Also, has there been a consensus reached regarding the nationality of Mick McCarthy? I originally added him to the Managerial History section as English, given that he was born in Barnsley and is clearly a Yorkshireman. But due to his Irish footballing pedigree he always seems to get reverted back to Irish. Again, what do people think? John the mackem 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)