Jump to content

Talk:Charlton Athletic F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCharlton Athletic F.C. was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 31, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

"Disappointing Players for Charlton"

[edit]

I see no benefit in this little section. It is pure opinion and has no place on this page surely.

Transfers

[edit]

I have removed the transfers section, as Wikipedia is not a news service. Oldelpaso 11:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalized

[edit]

Someone vandalized the Top paragraph

[edit]

http://www.cafc.co.uk/CharltonOverseas.ink Has details on the MyPa and NZ Knights links.

Neutrality

[edit]

The paragraphs about the fan director strike me as biased in the extreme. I don't personally know enough about the gentleman in question to be able to rewrite it, though. Js farrar 11:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates & dashes

[edit]

En dashes should be used in scorelines and only full dates and dates with a day and month should be wikilinked, including in the footnotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Epbr123 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review comments

[edit]

I've put it on hold it as WP:GA for the following reasons:

  • Poor grammar throughout, "it's" instead of "its" for example, no spaces after commas.
  • Mixture of proper citations and in-line references.
  • Failure to use en-dash for season separators.
Done --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The club's first Football League match was against Exeter City in August 1921, which was won 1–0" - by whom?! Just an example, there are many more.
  • 1923/24 vs 1985-86 - consistency required, plus en-dash, as already stated.
Done --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History section could do with being made into four or five longer paragraphs, instead of the current thirteen.
Done --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now demolished yet impressive Siemens Telegraph Works" - why impressive? This sentence doesn't seem to flow for me.
Removed --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation required on the final claims in the Stadia section.
Done --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlton are rare among football clubs..." - prove it.
  • Transfers in and out not really needed - if you really want to keep them then make them two columns and make the references into proper citations so they appear in the References section.
Removed --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per most club articles, what makes this list of players notable? Highly subjective. To cure this, normally a sub-page is created with a set of specific criteria applied (e.g. more than 100 games, 100 goals, etc etc).
Doing this at the moment --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other information needs to be moved into the main body, not after the Honours section - see the Manual of Style for clubs at WP:FOOTBALL.
Removed that section as I couldn't really see how to integrate it into the main body --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim external links per WP:EL.

If someone wishes to attend to these and let me know so I can review the article again for GA, that'd be cool. The Rambling Man 07:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand most of this, but could you please elaborate on your fourth point? --Mas 18 dl 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that example, there's no clear indication who won 1-0, it could have been either of the teams. It'd be better with something like "...in August 1921 with Charlton winning 1–0...". The Rambling Man 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok that makes sense --Mas 18 dl 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on it will be reviewed by Chaza1000 shortly Chaza1000 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I think it's well written and cites its references. It isn't that stable but I'll pass it. Chaza1000 19:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you promote an article to "GA status" all by yourself? - fchd 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can, if it fits the status, i review Sports articles for GA Chaza93 09:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks --Mas 18 dl 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different numbers of capacity

[edit]

I see that in the infobox, the capacity is stated as 27114, but somewhere in the article stated as 27111. What is the actual number of seats? (Addaick 10:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sure it's 27111 which is widely reported as a capacity attendence. I'll change the infobox number--Mas 18 dl 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody with a complete stats record?

[edit]

I'm looking for info on how many goals Hasse Jeppson also known as Hans Jeppson scored for Charlton when he was at the club. He played twelve games for them during 1951, does anybody have a book detailing CA stats? - Soprani 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He scored 9, but the book I got it from says he only played 11 times for us. It may be that your total includes cup games, but I can't be sure.--Mas 18 dl 18:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it up, if the book says 11 games I'll go with that. - Soprani 17:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reserves

[edit]

I have created a Charlton Athletic F.C. Reserves page, just incase you are interested in taking a look. Dirk Valentine 13:27, 18 May 2008 (GMT)

Kits

[edit]

Thanks for looking at this if you were going to replace the kits. I'd just like to know why wanted to replace the kits, because they had to much detail, surely the more detail there is the better. Also the kits you chose look nothing, except colour-wise, like the new kits and i think it is nice to have our actual clubs kits on the page.

These were created in the same vein as the England national football team kits and Crystal Palace F.C. kits --Dirk Valentine (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rationale - from Template:Football kit/doc:

To create a new pattern template follow the examples below. When you have created a new pattern please add it to the list below. Do not create patterns for minor details on a kit, the template is for showing basic team colours. It is not supposed to be an accurate drawing of the kit.

This is why I changed the template used. The two examples you quote look pretty bad, and need to be reworked. If this kind of minor detail was added to every club's kit it would lead to a different template for every single one, making the Football Kit template virtually pointless. Dancarney (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but can't you just leave it. I mean it isn't like it is hurting anyone --Dirk Valentine (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, if these 3 are left then every other football club/team article will end up having these over-fussy images which are less clear and informative than the more simple versions. Dancarney (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dancarney. The kits should not include sponsor or club logos. – PeeJay 13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly do something that looks relatively like the kits then, rather than just a normal generic kit for any team that plays in red, or are you to ignorant for that? --Dirk Valentine (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to be rude and accuse people of ignorance, please at least try to use correct English. What you should have written was "too ignorant". You clearly are able to make football kit templates, so all that is required is for you to make a simpler version, i.e. without any club, manufacturer or sponsor logo. Good examples may be found at Middlesbrough F.C., for instance. Dancarney (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be pointed out that in the case of Crystal Palace, it was Dirk Valentine who made that kit so fussy in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the home shirt has been kept, despite being probably the most detailed kit i made. However i will be changing the kits in the near future, and i apologise for my very poor English. --Dirk Valentine (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left the body section of the home shirt as there wasn't a suitable template for the red & blue sash and I was anticipating that, since the issue had been raised at the Football Wikiproject talkpage, this would be quickly rectified. I felt that temporarily leaving the very fussy design was an acceptable temporary compromise. The changes that Dirk Valentine has now made to both the Charlton kits are exactly what's needed, and look very nice. Good work! Dancarney (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks for understanding, Dirk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Zabeel Investments

[edit]

Someone needs to add something about Zabeel Investments and the attempted takeover Kennywest (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should include ownership history.

[edit]

Can the following be explained as to why points deduction didn't occur? Thanks.

"Charlton Athletic are currently owned by a company called Baton 2010 Ltd, which is controlled by club chairman Richard Murray. A life-long fan of the south-east London side, Murray was forced to restructure Charlton Athletic this summer when Charlton Athletic plc was effectively wound up with debts of more than £30m. Charlton Athletic Football Company, which owns the players, and Charlton Athletic Holdings, which owns the Addicks' stadium The Valley and the training ground, were transferred to Murray's new company in July." Imagine Reason (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the progaganda, the majority of the debt was owed to the club's ertswhile directors. In the summer, they effectively wrote off their stake in the club and the monies they were owed and handed control over to Murray, under the guise of making the club easier to sell to other investors. Mas 18 dl (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Founded 9 June 1905

[edit]

Didn't that club go broke in 1984? In which case, *this* club were founded in 1984, not 1905? Heywoodg talk 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan protests

[edit]

As a neutral outsider, the section on "Fan protests" smacks of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE, and probably WP:SOAPBOX, however much sympathy I have with the fans. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It probably could be more neutral, and should perhaps be in the Supporters section, rather than history (though some small note might need to be in there?) Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK football sexual abuse scandal

[edit]

A short section was added, deleted, reinserted, and deleted again. I have re-added it. My justification is that, while over 200 clubs are affected by the scandal, Charlton is one of the few associated with a named alleged abuser. Articles about Crewe Alexandra, Peterborough United and Chelsea are other club articles mentioning their implication in the scandal due to associations with named abusers. Paul W (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Charlton Athletic 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) 18:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Fenton

[edit]

Hi all, I'm doing some work on the Benny Fenton article and am having trouble finding a source for something. I had previously cited this from an obituary on the 11v11 website, but it's disappeared and I can't find a replacement reference (just the bit in bold):
"In January 1977, he rejoined Charlton as secretary. He became assistant manager of the Addicks in March 1980 and progressed to the position of general manager in June 1981. He stayed in that post until June 1982."
If anyone can help with this, that'd be great. Thanks, Nzd (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Charlton Athletic 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) 09:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charlton Athletic 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) 20:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badge

[edit]

I think a badge should be uploaded and the appropriate permissions made for the infobox. Seems wrong for them to be the only league club with no image. Sadly I'm not very good at the image uploading so if someone could look into it it would be appreciated. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Overview"

[edit]

An IP editor has added an 'Overview' section (see this dif). This content should be absorbed into the lead. It is not within the recommended practice outlined in the Manual of Style for Wikipedia football club articles - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs - and is devoid of inline citations. Paul W (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the change (reinstating the original lead section and deleting the 'Overview') - WP:BOLD. Paul W (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charlton_Athletic_F.C.&oldid=1206627383"