Talk:Airdrieonians F.C.

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:AirdrieUnitedProgramme.PNG

Image:AirdrieUnitedProgramme.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Airdriekit.PNG

Image:Airdriekit.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update and changes to Article

Recent changes made to the article:-

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.

The result of the proposal was moved to Airdrie United F.C.; Airdrie F.C. can remain where it is. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Airdrie F.C. (2002) → Airdrie F.C.
Airdrie F.C. → Airdrie F.C. (disambiguation) – Airdrie United F.C. have dropped the United from their title (I don't know when exactly) hence another user moved Airdrie United F.C. to Airdrie F.C. (2002). But clearly the current club is the primary topic rather then the disambiguation hence the request. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Airdrie United F.C.. There seems to have been a style change in their badge and some casual use of "Airdrie F.C." in their website, but they haven't told anybody of this change. The Scottish Football League (the league Airdrie (United) plays in) still uses "Airdrie United" [1] and reliable 3rd party sources still use Airdrie United BBC Sport. I suspect that the club "want" to change their name from Airdrie United but aren't allowed to for some reason connected to the liquidation of Airdrieonians. Until third parties start dropping the United from the name - even the club themselves are still using "Airdrie United" in some articles - then Wikipedia should follow that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did initially try to revert the other user to move it back to Airdrie United F.C. as it was never announced they had dropped the United, but couldn't due to the double move. But then looked further into it & couldn't find any evidence of Airdrie referring to themselves as Airdrie United FC. It certainly shouldn't be called Airdrie F.C. (2002). ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the articles on the news page of their website refers to "Airdrie United under-13s". History page is titled "history of Airdrie United". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The limited company is still titled "Airdrie United Football Club" [2] . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd they're trying to distance themselves from their own officially title. I'm happy with the move back to Airdrie United F.C ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Airdrie United F.C. per Jmorrison230582's rationale. Giant Snowman 07:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments re above:-

Firstly, the SFL have NOT been informed of any official name change - it is my understanding that this will happen in time for next season. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Airdrieonians or any legal/liquidation aspect regarding that.

Secondly, as noted the club has changed its badge, website and other merchandise - this is a progressive move to the "official" SFL change in time for next season.

Thirdly, do not place too much emphasis on third parties and how they name clubs - have a look at the same "reliable" BBC source and you will see they call Forfar just Forfar - not Forfar Athletic, or Dunfermline (not Dunfermline Athletic), or Albion (not Albion Rovers), or Ayr (not Ayr United) - infact if you look at any media (tv, print, digital) they will call teams by their full names, shortened names, or a mixture of both - there is no consistency and so 3rd party media sources are not reliable.

In respect of the points made above, until the name is officially changed by the SFL I propose that the article be moved back to Airdrie United FC. Centre Stand (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The only reason I mentioned Airdrieonians was because I recall a certain Daily Record journalist talking this summer about how the Airdrieonians company is still in liquidation (it hasn't been formally closed yet, over 10 years on). He had called the liquidator with a view to acquiring the club badge and other intangible properties, but the liquidator advised against this because of potential legal problems with the Airdrieonians creditors. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment about the Daily Record/Airdrieonians situation. There are mixed feelings at the club - some want a complete change back to Airdrieonians, others are happy enough with Airdrie FC. There is a majority of opinion that are NOT happy with the "United" part, and this is what has swayed the Board to make a first progressive step to dropping the "United" part and making a first stage move to Airdrie FC. Whether that progresses fully back to Airdrieonians remains to be seen. And I will correct myself because the badge hasn't changed at all - only the name below the crest/badge!

Even when the club was "Airdrieonians" most referred to it as Airdrie - even the (inconsistent) media! There are similarities here with dozens of clubs up and down the length of the UK - as already said some call a club the full, official title - many don't. I'm still of the opinion that, despite the club's progressive (unofficial) moves away from the "United", until the club is listed with the SFL as simply Airdrie FC then the article should be moved back to Airdrie United. Centre Stand (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Official Club Name Change

Due to todays announcement on STV News, I have moved the page from Airdrie United F.C. to Airdrieonians F.C. (2002). The article (and related articles) however will need quite a lot of updating so that it makes sense now that the name has changed. I will be able to work on updating the whole article, but wont be able to spend much time on it today, so if anyone fancies having a go at it by all means go ahead. Thanks, VanguardScot 12:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense for the original club to be disambiguated by year and the new club to be at Airdrieonians F.C., as people are more likely to be searching for the present club. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does make sense, yeah. VanguardScot 12:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the editor trying to put the original airdrieonians club badge on this page. That wont be happening, the current club have changed their name not their badge. Thanks, VanguardScot 13:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have also reverted back to the original Airdrieonians logo. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As it stands the only sources there are for this say nothing of a badge change. Until it is sourced it stays as it is. The page will be moved to either Airdrieonians F.C. or Airdrieonians F.C. (2002), pending conclusion of the discussion at WP:Football. Thanks, VanguardScot 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now put the logo back in as I have provided a reference within the article on the bit about the name change. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have reverted for now, pending the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Crest

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move Airdrieonians F.C. to Airdrieonians F.C. (1878), Airdrie United F.C. to Airdrieonians F.C.. That the previous naming scheme was inadequate was quite easily proven. The arguments for naming the current club without the disambiguation seemed quite strong, particularly alongside other club articles that have been named in similar fashions. I must add that the name Airdrieonians F.C. (1878–2002) seemed to, at least to me, make more sense than simply Airdrieonians F.C. (1878), but that was never even brought up here, so I obviously couldn't make that move. (P.S. I don't know enough about the topic to write the hatnotes for these articles, so I hope someone else can take care of those.) -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– As a result of the club's official rename[3][4] we need to make a couple of page moves in order to disambiguate between this one and the clubs previously of this name. As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football [5] propose the above changes plus following the move Airdrieonians F.C. becoming a disambiguation page. Blethering Scot 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with all of the above. The Airdrieonians F.C. (1881) suggestion was silly, and I think both clubs should have dates (2002 and 1878) as the original club is still much more notable (in my eyes anyway) than the current club. VanguardScot 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support both moves, and turn Airdrieonians F.C. into a disambiguation page as I'm not sure either club has PRIMARY. Giant Snowman 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The original club clearly achieved more than the present one has, to date, so giving the latter primacy would be wrong. Walls of Jericho (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: at what point would the new(er) club achieve primary status? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original spent several years in the top flight, reached four Scottish Cup finals and played in Europe; the present one has not finished higher than mid-table in the second tier. I probably shouldn't have said it would be wrong since there are examples of present clubs having primacy over the original. If there is consensus for newer clubs to be primary then that's fine, I just don't remember seeing it. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the current club should have primacy as it is the one currently playing and not at a level dissimilar to the old club when it was wound up, and this is consistent with the Accrington Stanley, Bootle and Maidstone United situations (the original Bootle and Maidstone clubs were arguably more notable than the present ones, as they played in the Football League, but the articles are at Bootle F.C. (1879)/Bootle F.C. and Maidstone United F.C. (1897)/Maidstone United F.C.). As a result I would support this article being moved to just Airdrieonians F.C.. I fully support the proposed move of the article already at that location. Number 5 7 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure, they played at a similar level to each other last few seasons but the original club was far more successful overall. I would find it hard to argue one way or another who was the primary at least to a level we would all be happy with. Personally feel both being as dates is the best solution.Blethering Scot 22:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as pointed out, the original Bootle and Maidstone were also more successful than the current club, but the current one takes primacy. Page view stats also back up the fact that more people are looking for the modern club as opposed to the old one (120 views/day for the modern club compared to 87 for the old one). Number 5 7 08:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Number 57 suggestion of move Airdrie United to Airdrieonians FC. I think the new club will very quickly become the primary topic. For example (as things stand) Airdrie United / Airdrieonians will play Rangers FC next season in the Scottish Second Division and it is more than likely that one or more of their games will be televised. Anyone watching those games who wants information about "Airdrieonians" will want to know about the present club. See also the precedent with American clubs of siting the new MLS clubs (eg Portland Timbers) at the primary page, whereas arguably more notable NASL clubs have to be disambiguated. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not games will be televised or how notable an opponent is should not come into this at all, only how notable this club is over the other one. Page stats aren't enough of a difference to show that one has outright primacy over the other either, imo needs to be much more of a difference. On top of that one is clearly more successful than the other. No one has shown a clear argument validating primacy nor against it could be said, one click isn't going to harm anyone and to me is by far the best solution. Don't see harm in either version but feel the two at dates is most accurate in this situation so will leave to the closing admin to decide.Blethering Scot 20:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be wrong IMO to give primacy to the current club mainly due to the fact both clubs have been around so recently (I'm only 21 and have been to matches involving both teams), more so but as well as the fact the current club has had no where near the attendances, league position or cup success of the original club. The fact they will only have been known as Airdrieonians for a matter of months is another reason I believe both should have dates to avoid confusion. VanguardScot 11:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boring housekeeping comment - regardless of the outcome of this discussion, we need to move quickly to re-name all the relevant templates/categories etc. and ensure all links point to the correct club(s). Giant Snowman 11:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not just the old club with a date & the former Airdrie United club as 'Airdrieonians F.C.' & a 'hat note' on it saying something along the lines of "for the 1878 club see 'Airdrieonians F.C. (1878)?' (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- That is what User:Number 57 proposed above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think now that it has been revealed that both clubs will have the same badge as well as the same name it is even more important that both clubs are distinguished in the title with the year of formation, to avoid confusion. VanguardScot 16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any hatnote should see to confusion being avoided. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Note to administrators, Gazaufc has created a duplicate of this page at Airdrieonians F.C. (2002). Think we need to get the ball rolling on a decision here. VanguardScot 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Number 57's suggestion. Giving present clubs primacy seems to be the done thing and that's fine; Seattle Sounders FC being another. Time is short, as stated. I assume that an appropriate hatnote will be added to both pages. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and merge the two articles. We only have a single article on Clydebank F.C. and Rangers F.C.. If that doesn't happen treat the present club as primary. PatGallacher (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A ridiculous suggestion, these are clearly two seperate clubs. Giant Snowman 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't actually that ridiculous, it's actually another valid idea IMO, the Clydebank article refers to two separate clubs albeit around a year of difference between the old club going bust to get replaced by Airdrie & the new club being formed, the 2 Airdrieonians clubs' difference was within the same year albeit the new club being called Airdrie United. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It is. Clubs having the same name does not make them the same club. Giant Snowman 17:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I originally said 2 separate clubs but the Clydebank article actually refers to many separate clubs under the same or a similar name, correct me if I'm wrong? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The Clydebank article refers to many more than just 2 clubs. None of any major significance. It is a history of football in the town more than a club article, with some info on the current team in the Junior set-up. VanguardScot 17:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am more in favour of the previous suggestion by User:Number 57 but I feel it was extremely harsh to completely ridicule this suggestion when in fact some precedence was set by the Clydebank article whether it be correct to merge all the Clydebank teams or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbarnett-bl (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for forgetting to sign. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It wasnt me that called it ridiculous, but it was IMO a very lazy suggestion for solving this 'Airdrieonians problem'. VanguardScot 17:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally opposed to this suggestion. The two incarnations of Airdrieonians are officially separate clubs. The current club was originally Clydebank F.C. until it was taken over, re-branded and moved to Airdrie (ala what MK Dons did to Wimbledon F.C.). The Rangers senario was totally different with a new company (The Rangers Football Club Ltd) performing an asset buy out (including Rangers F.C.) from the old company (The Rangers Football Club Plc). With six teams throughout the last 130 years called Clydebank, none of massive note, I believe that article is merited as a history of football in the town. VanguardScot 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've really reached as much agreement as we'll ever get on doing User:Number 57's suggestion, IMO now would be the time for admins to set the wheels in motion. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a poll. Just because there is one extra person on one side does not mean that side will prevail in a discussion. Both sides have given their reasons for why it should/shouldn't be Airdrieonians F.C. (2002) / Airdrieonians F.C. that the page is moved to. Ultimately an administrator will decide which to go with based on the points raised, not the number of people raising each point. VanguardScot 18:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well a decision could do with being made soon & who is this person who decides & why is he/she so slow in making a decision? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Now would be a good time to read up on a bit of wikipedia policy i think. However read the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia:Requested moves for your answers.Blethering Scot 20:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also opposed to merging the articles. The first Airdrieonians and the current Airdrie United / Airdrieonians are clearly distinct clubs (as opposed to merely distinct companies, in the Rangers FC case), because Airdrie United / Airdrieonians was formed out of the league place and SFA membership held by Clydebank FC, while the old Airdrieonians vacated their place and membership. The reason Airdrie United / Airdrieonians has not adopted the insignia and so on of the old Airdrieonians is because they were unable to acquire that intellectual property until the old company was formally liquidated earlier this year. It didn't buy the "business and assets" of the club in the way that the new Rangers company did. I suspect the Clydebank FC article has information about various incarnations because Wikipedia (and the Clydebank FC article) was created after Clydebank was forced out of senior football. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm going to stick to my guns on this. I quote the article about the period immediately after the demise of first Airdrieonians: "Airdrie United then went on to complete a buy-out of the ailing Second Division side Clydebank and with SFL approval the club was relocated to Airdrie, the strips were transformed to resemble that of Airdrieonians, and the name was changed to Airdrie United. While this means that the club is therefore officially a continuation of Clydebank it is almost universally accepted as a reincarnation of Airdrieonians, with Clydebank having been reformed by supporters groups and entering into the West Region Junior League." Later they adopted a club crest resembling that of old Airdrieonians, they are nicknamed the Diamonds, their ground is unofficially known as new Broomfield. The degree of continuity here may not be quite as great as with the 2 incarnations of Rangers, but not much less, and may even be greater than with the various incarnations of Clydebank. There are other cases of single articles on a team with various incarnations e.g. Vale of Leven F.C.. PatGallacher (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I politely direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 10:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By all means stick to your guns. A merged article is not going to happen though, as it would mean a lot of the good information from the original airdrieonians article would be lost to the history section of the current airdrieonians. By all means request at WP:Football that all 6 Clydebank clubs should have separate articles, but most of them would just be tiny stubs, so I cant see many editors wanting to change it. The Clydebank article not ideal as it is, but it is better than the alternatives IMO. VanguardScot 10:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The club's own website talks about the old club operating from 1878 to 2002 (ie it doesn't claim it as one unbroken history in the way that Rangers do). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. What happened to Rangers is no different to that dozens of other clubs in Britain; one company goes bust, another takes over, the club continues. Are we any closer to making something happen here? The club has been called Airdrieonians for nearly a week now. Walls of Jericho (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its been three days since the rename. Request moves usually take around 7 days or longer depending on consensus. See the documentation at WP:RM.Blethering Scot 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. This isn't a common RM though; the current article name isn't what the club is called any more, but whatever. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support nominator's suggestion. We shouldn't assume that the current club is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, just because the other club is disbanded. Instead we could have a new move discussion in a year or two where we discuss whether the current club is primary topic, when we know better if the current club becomes primary topic. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really about who is the primary topic? people aren't stupid, if the current club is on the Airdrieonians F.C. page with a hatnote to the old club, people will read that & understand, not to mention the current club probably are the primary topic, if someone says "Airdrieonians" to you in 2013, 9 times out of 10 they mean the current club no? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Also if Airdrieonians F.C. is becoming a disambiguation page, what is happening to the one at Airdrie F.C. or is this a simple move as well? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Just for the record with the realisation that there is the Airdrie F.C. page operating as well I'm in favour of the following:

Airdrie United F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (with redirects from Airdrieonians F.C. (2002) & Airdrie United F.C. & hatnote to disambiguation page)
Airdrieonians F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (1878)
Airdrie F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (disambiguation), with redirect on Airdrie F.C. name (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nobody is likely to search specifically for Airdrieonians F.C. (2002) if there is an Airdrieonians F.C. if thats the option we go down so would be a pointless redirect. The original idea is by far the best idea given that we cant prove primacy, and really that as Mentoz8 said should be esthablished down the line. However moving Airdrie F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. as the disam page would be a good idea in the original scenario.Blethering Scot 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you presuming that everybody goes to the main page & puts what they're looking for into the search box because I certainly don't unless I can't find an article? I use the URL (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/name of page), in which case someone might put "Airdrieonians_FC_(2002)" in the URL & come back with no results. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

its both an unlikely search term and a type in for a redirect. Its assuming a knowledge of when the club was re-founded and as a type in i see it even less although we will only find out if and when the pages are active at their correct location. Primarily thats because we have redirects all over the place at the moment and whilst redirects are cheap its just a very unlikely search term and the less confusing redirects in this case the better. As ive said i consider the original option the better because assuming primacy based on it being the current club is flawed, there isn't enough evidence to prove primacy and it certainly shouldn't be assumed. Long term it could and thats the time to look at it. Blethering Scot 05:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still nothing been done, now over a week since the switch from Airdrie United to Airdrieonians! Surely the decision should've been made by now? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Still nobody willing to do anything about this!? Do I need to perform another 'controversial move' for people to actually do something about this!? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Making threats whether you mean or do it is not entirly helpful. An administrator will close eithier way when they get around to it or they feel there is enough consensus to do so. No immediate harm is being done to the encyclopaedia in any way, In fact the real problems begin after the move. Although i would not after 11 days it is due for a close.Blethering Scot 21:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a threat it was a question, the team are Airdrieonians so continuing to referring to them as Airdrie United in the title is wrong, not to mention it looks strange to have an article named Airdrie United F.C. with Airdrieonians info on the right & an opening sentence of "Airdrieonians Football Club are a Scottish professional football team based in Airdrie, North Lanarkshire" explanation or no explanation, there has also been at least 1 more attempted move by a user since we last spoke & my prediction is that there will be continue to be attempted moves left, right & centre unless something is actually done, would you take over a week to make a decision in a place of work? A lot of the pages on here read really professionally so Wikipedia should be treated professionally! (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

With over 1000 incoming links, the work created by a move would not be trivial. As for urgency, we're all volunteers here. When I start getting paid to be an admin, then I might treat it like my place of work, but until then my day job takes priority ;-) Oldelpaso (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and merge Rangers suffered the grim finality of liquidation just as Airdrie did. But because they were viewed as "too big to fail" their fans have been allowed to pretend that their phoenix entity is the same club. This Hans Christian Andersen tale about club/company distinction only started last year with Sevco-Rangers. But now the precedent seems to have been set: we must reflect local sources, however stupid and corrupt it may seem to an outsider. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Em Rangers situation is nothing like this at all and is a wholly weird view. All that is happening here is the club changing their name to mirror the club they were formed to replace, that is all they are not the same club by any stretch of the imagination. This is a name change request that is all. Blethering Scot 22:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new Rangers are also a different club to the old club, the only difference being that Airdrie's new club operated as Airdrie United from 2002 having taken over from Clydebank. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Not entirely Rangers company was liquidated not the actual club which is widely proven and accepted by all without pov on the matter, however that has no basis here as its entirely different. Airdrie United make no claim to being the same club at all. They fully acknowledge the old club ceased and they had to purchase and kill Clydebank in order to create Airdrie United as a new club. In changing their name they also acknowledge their history whilst not being the same club. The difference between the situation is a gaping hole. This is a simple rename no more no less.Blethering Scot 22:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a few details I'd like to sort out before any move, particularly as over 1000 pages link to Airdrieonians F.C., and checking/changing the target of those would be a lot of work. Currently there is a redirect from Airdrieonians F.C. (1881) to Airdrieonians F.C.. From reading the relevant articles, it seems that is the date when the club changed name from Excelsior. But in searches I'm also getting results for a separate Airdrie or Airdrieonians club that played in the Scottish Cup before 1881, which confuses matters. Is 1878 the definite foundation date that sources use for the ex-league club? Oldelpaso (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that Airdrie F.C. the team mentioned at the Airdrie F.C. article as not having an article & playing in the Scottish Cup tournaments from 1868-1890 were a separate club from Excelsior F.C. who went on to become Airdrieonians, someone will probably clear this up though. (77.97.229.201 (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

That comment was myself, forgot to sign in! (Liam_Barnett (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Officially Airdrie United (now called Airdrieonians) were founded in 1965, as they as just a rebranded, relocated Clydebank - official source. I know this makes things even more confusing but thought it needed posted. I am still in favour of 2002 and 1878 in the titles though. (The 1881 redirect should be deleted, an editor created it the other week when performing a controversial move of the page. There is no question the original club was formed in 1878. Manchester United were formed in 1878 as Newton Heath FC, no one knows MUFC's formation date as 1902. Because it isn't 1902, it is 1978 - source) VanguardScot 12:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If things are so complicated with the years, why not just do the following as a compromise?

Airdrie United F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (hatnote for old club)
Airdrieonians F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (liquidated club)
Airdrie F.C. staying the same (Liam_Barnett (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Worst suggestion yet IMO. Including '(liquidated club)' in he title is much more ambiguous and confusing than having 1878 and 2002. I also don't see what the need for rush is, the article explains the situation well as it is and it is better to get the title move right than make a botched job. VanguardScot 12:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is that "confusing!?" plus there is no correct way of doing it, it is open to everyone's interpretation, the only way anything would be wrong is if the 'Airdrie United F.C.' title remained which we have all agreed cannot happen. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You also say "ambiguous" the definition of which is 'open to more than one interpretation' what are the interpretations because as far as I can see there is only one liquidated club called Airdrieonians? (Liam_Barnett (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

'Liquidated' is generally not a good word to include in the title IMO. As we seen in the last year with Rangers F.C. (And last few decades with other clubs across Europe) the operating company of a club can be liquidated, but if the clubs SFA membership is transferred to a new company in an asset buy out, the club can survive. As such I don't think Airdrieonians F.C. (liquidated club) is a suitable title, as the word liquidation is ambiguous in this sense. It is also unprecedented as far as I can tell on Wikipedia to use such a word in the title of a former football club. There is reasoned and well though out debate above on why using 1878 and 2002 is the best solution. I'm going to put my neck on the line (as a non-administrator) and say that Airdrieonians F.C. (liquidated club) is not going to happen, as it is a silly title and nowhere near as sensible as both the solutions above (1878 & 2002 , and 1878 & no date). VanguardScot 18:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to that work i am more than happy to actually fix those links myself no matter how much work it causes. The original Airdrieonians were founded as Excelsior in 1878 to 1881. There were lots of similar clubs with Airdrie in the title around that time. Airdire itself 1868-1890, Airdrie Bluebell 1879-1880, Airdriehill 1879-1896. I suspect that whats muddying the waters.Blethering Scot 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's still no explanation as to how it is "confusing" & "ambiguous"? All you have said is that it isn't suitable. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Read/re-read the first 2½ lines of my above post. Cheers, VanguardScot 19:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, misread it the first time, fair point however liquidated club is not liquidated company! (Liam_Barnett (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Blethering Scot, that is what I was referring to. If none of the others formed in 1878, then concerns that a title Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) might cause confusion are allayed. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems the several clubs with Airdrie in the name could of complicated things but should be ok. Yes none of the other clubs were founded in 1878, this is the best year for me because 1881 really isn't when they were founded only when they were renamed. Blethering Scot 21:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear is the agreement between you two referring to 1878 & no date or 1878 & 2002? I'm in favour of either if it means a bit of consensus & therefore action. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Also some may have noticed a redirect & hatnote I've created namely Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) redirecting to Airdrieonians F.C. & a note on said page to clear up where to find the current Airdrieonians, this is temporary & as such there is no need for moaning from some folk, it's so folk who end up on the Airdrieonians F.C. page looking for Airdrie United don't need to read through most of the article to find what they are looking for, this will be sorted when there is some action on moves. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crest change

Not getting an answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Crest, I presume it is OK now to put the old Airdrieonians logo on this page about the new club now that the club has confirmed that it is the same logo being used? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yip, should be fine now! I might work out a license to have the away kit version somewhere in the article in the future as well if I'v got time. You might want to replace the Airdrie Advertiser article source with the official site source, it is much clearer! VanguardScot 16:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have edited the logo, I will edit the source now. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

That's the source edited now. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Em they clearly are not identical to the original.This was pointed out to you that they were highly unlikely to be so, i have removed this one[6] until the correct version of the crest[[7] ] is uploaded.Blethering Scot 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The normal logo IS clearly identical to the original logo while the alternative one is simply just a black version for red backgrounds. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No they are not identical it was a bad move and shouldn't of been done. They are totally different logos, yes parts of the old crest has been used but they are not identical by any means. Adding the one of a different club certainly would not meet the fair use rationale nor is it accurate, i have rectified this but please be more careful when it comes to the use of what are copyrighted logos.Blethering Scot 20:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have now noticed very subtle differences but let me tell you you can see from this that I was given permission to do so & at least 1 other didn't notice the differences & could I ask when are these articles going to be sorted so Airdrieonians are named Airdrieonians & also is it within the person specification for each administrator to talk down to normal users? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It was pointed out by myself and GS that they were unlikely to be the same. Im not saying that its your fault just that it was a bad move and shouldn't of been done. It would of been picked up that it was on an article without a valid fair use rationale soon enough anyway, its rectified for now until a better version of the image is found anyway.Blethering Scot 20:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I clearly didn't look very closely at the two crests before advising to add it back in. I will upload a version of the new crest later on tonight if it hasn't already been done. VanguardScot 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this Club website all red it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.61.137 (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been uploaded. Blethering Scot got there before me! Cheers B S. VanguardScot 11:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and tidy up

Ive went through the article and sourced as much of it as i can but having difficulty sourcing the hall of fame and player of the year sections, can anyone help as feel will have to remove the section if cant source. The Mixed fortunes section first paragraph i feel needs a rewrite as will parts of the article once the name is decided. As for the Club statistics section would anyone object if this was removed and as much as possible placed in List of Airdrie United F.C. seasons and individual season articles.Blethering Scot 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Player category

Following the moves, does/do the related player category/categories require updating? eg Category:Airdrieonians F.C. players? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely. Both sets of players cant be in the same category as are two separate clubs.Blethering Scot 11:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 categories that need name updates listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations (Liam_Barnett (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Airdrie United F.C. managers also requires a move to Template:Airdrieonians F.C. managers which currently carries a redirect. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Old Airdrie United crest

If anyone still has the old Airdrie United crest file could someone please upload it to the "History" section please?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Airdrieonians 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) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling ref

I have located a dangling ref and hidden it, replacing it with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have a reference pointing to a source that is not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer (talk)