Jump to content

Talk:Clydebank F.C.

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

VfD listing

[edit]

This article was listed on VfD; the debate can be found at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clydebank F.C.. --Slowking Man 08:52, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Article expansion

[edit]

I'm currently doing a fairly major expansion of this article to cover the history of the current club's antecedents and the various Clydebank F.C.'s there have been. Although some of the previous senior clubs aren't direct predecessors of the current side and could therefore be considered a bit off-topic, I've taken the decision to include them here as it helps to explain the story of Clydebank football and the way they interconnect. Potentially, some of these sections could branch off to become separate articles in the future (I'm thinking of the two former Scottish League clubs), but at the moment I think the amount of information I have on them is sufficient to keep them as part of an all-encompassing CFC article. Let me know if you disagree with my approach, of course. --Jellyman 07:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The "Decline and Fall" section is laughably POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.212.48 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

away colours

purple shirts

white shorts and socks

Article split proposal

[edit]

Having talked vaguely about this further up the page (just the ten years ago!), I'm quite surprised nobody has ever bothered to split this article into ones for the separate clubs concerned. So I'm proposing to do so myself, and possibly keep this article — perhaps retitled "History of football in Clydebank" — as an overview summary of the timeline. Any objections? Jellyman (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Clydebank F.C. (1914) club seems clearly deserving of a separate article however, personally, I feel the other club(s) would be better served by the continuum style of the current page, tidied and expanded. Happy to see what transpires though.
Sgt Elvan (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, taking this into account I have split the 1914 club into a new article, while leaving the rest of the proposal open for now. Jellyman (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change made as described above, no new proposals in over a year, so am now removing split template from article. Ubcule (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open to debate

[edit]

There are arguments for keeping it together, and for splitting it up. If splitting was chosen, it could be a bit of a pain to re-link half of the Clydebank FC references (depending on whether the existing article would be adjusted to point to the 1965-2003 entity or the current Junior club) but maybe there's a quick techy way to do that which I'm not aware of.

Similar to Rangers, it's debatable whether it is a new club or the same one (or in this case, several!). Nobody else has 'claimed' Clydebank's identity so there is no problem with 2 clubs claiming to be them, as has happened in other countries, but as you have stated in the article, in a business sense they are different entities and play in different league systems so there's a clear break in the link of continuity.Crowsus (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having had another think about this, it would probably make more sense to split the current Junior club into a different article from the previous SFL one, after all they play at different grounds and in a different system altogether. Obviously there should be reference made to the new club on the old club article and vice versa. The difference is, as I stated above, that a large number of articles will point to Clydebank F.C. and half of these would need to be repointed (but there might be a simple way to do so?). In my opinion the existing article should become the record of the SFL club and a new one created for the Junior one (new start, new article haha).Crowsus (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clydebank 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) 21:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clydebank 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) 13:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

[edit]
@Jellyman: (in particular, since you seem to be the only one sufficiently interested, although if yuu like I can seek opinions at FOOTY): I believe each era of Clydebank teams has enough notability to merit its own article, and there is no real continuation between them other than a desire for the owners of each to keep the name and prestige of representing the town, so it may be better to split them up and perhaps have a very short article (or simply a Disambiguation if appropriate) called Football in Clydebank or something, listing all of the different clubs with a hatnote on each referring to that list rather then a complicated list hatnote. It looks like there's enough detail in the current article to separate them into the relevant eras, although I would have a look for sources to beef each up as well. I think the SFL team links to the most other articles so I would retain it in this space although rename it with date parentheses and then name the current Junior entity article as simply Clydebank F.C. since it is alive and has no other name. Of course I realise you have suggested all this in the past so I don't want to tread on your toes, if it's something you would like to do (or, would prefer that nobody did!) please let me know. Crowsus (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I pretty much agree with your ideas here, I may even take the plunge and start to do it soon – I have been considering it for a few years now, mind! --Jellyman (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've just created History of football in Clydebank, and think that there's scope to split off Clydebank Juniors F.C. and Clydebank F.C. (1965). Whether the new team article should actually be Clydebank F.C. (2002) and Clydebank F.C. be a disambig page is probably worth considering. Cripesohblimey (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving Clydebank (1914), though don't think there needs to be a disambig page. But are the three eras dating back to 1899 not considered the same club? Because the club lists all the honours from Clydebank Juniors 1899-1965, Clydebank SFL 1965-2002, and Clydebank FC 2002-2020 (junior), 2020-present (senior) together on the same page of their website: https://www.clydebankfc.com/honours/ Boothy m (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the 2003 iterations should be at Clydebank F.C., the others should have the year of formation (1914 and 1965) as the disambiguation (or Juniors in the case of the junior club). That's the way we've disambiguated the two Airdrieonians so I think it would work here. I fully agree with the split proposals though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the 1899, 1965 and 2002/3 iterations different clubs though? Boothy m (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I've got this right, the 1899 club is the junior club which was unaffiliated with the original Clydebank F.C. formed in 1888 and reformed in 1899 but didn't last past 1902. Then there is the 1914 club, again unaffiliated with the junior club, which was a member of the Scottish Football League until 1931. In 1964, the junior club merged with East Stirlingshire and effectively ceased to exist before the 1965 club was formed. In 2002, the 1965 club essentially became Airdrie United and supporters, a bit like what happened with Wimbledon, formed a new club. So that would make five separate clubs, although the line from the 1899 club can be followed through the 1965 and 2003 clubs. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my understanding of the situation, but the history does seem to get a bit murky in places. Cripesohblimey (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see a new 1965-2002 club article has been created - no problem with that. But a player category should also be created, and for that I would strongly suggest that the existing cat be re-named, as almost all of those who have it currently will be of that incarnation. We can go through and amend the few post-2002 players to a new cat (with the existing name, for the current Junior/WOS team) after that, will be much easier than the other way round. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now put in a proposal to this effect: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Crowsus (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clydebank_F.C.&oldid=1198674412"