Wikipedia

Talk:Galway United F.C.

Latest comment: 1 year ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress
Learn more about this page

Demerger proposal edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Discussion here. Mooretwin (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply


RfC Demerger proposal: should this be one article or two? edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago39 comments5 people in discussion

The consensus is against a demerger. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the merger of Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and Galway United F.C. (originally Galway United F.C. (2013) be reverted to provide for a separate article on each? There is currently a dispute (I have now copied the discussion here), about whether the current Galway United club is a new club or a continuation of the original club. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Support- Sufficient, reliable sources both from the time the new club was formed and more recently have been produced making it clear that the there should be two separate pages for the two separate clubs. The merger should be reverted. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose as per the rationale in the section below. I can't see how the reader is served by having two articles on what is effectively the same topic. As long as the history is made clear, I don't see a problem with one article. Number 57 18:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Clubs website doesn't recognise existence of two clubs and has a history section going back to 1937. I believe it would unethical and completely inappropriate for Wikipedia to contradict clubs own website based on the unsubstantiated opinions of journalists, bloggers and the POV of Wiki editors. There is also no evidence the club ever went out of existence. Club continued to field team in LOI U19 division after it left Premier Division. Djln Djln (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose The current club considers its history to go to the beginning of the original club, it would not be encyclopedic to contradict that.--John, AF4JM (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Galway United: two clubs or one? edit

After a very brief discussion here with only three participants, but no discussion on the talk pages of the respective pages, the articles about Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and Galway United F.C. (originally Galway United F.C. (2013) were merged. These are two separate clubs. The first was liquidated in 2011 and ceased to exist for two years, before a new club, originally known as Galway F.C. was formed in 2013, later changing its name to Galway United. This is rather a similar situation to Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) and Airdrieonians F.C., when one club ceases to exist, and a new one is formed, which later changes its name to that of the older club - yet they should still be treated as different clubs. I propose to separate the articles again. Mooretwin (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • I support keeping it as one article. It's completely different to the Airdirieonians situation as the current Airdrieonians are actually the old Clydebank rather than a new club. A better parallel would be Newport County A.F.C., which is a single article. Number 57 09:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment Article should be kept as it is. As I said in original discussion, if we start a new article every time a club temporarily drops out of a league or changes ownership it would get ridiculous. There is a big difference if a completely new club is formed decades or years later. Galway United's own website has a combined history and does not seem to recognize two separate clubs. The club just left the League of Ireland and after some restructuring returned a few seasons later. The club did not go out of existence and continued to field a team in the League of Ireland U–19 division. Both Derry City F.C. and Cork City F.C. underwent similar restructuring and they do not have separate articles. DjlnDjln (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • From extratime.ie: "Galway United FC were formed in the Autumn of 2013 as a merger between the various League of Ireland football interests in the city. Representatives of Salthill Devon, Mervue United the Galway United Supporters Trust (GUST) and the Galway FA combined to form the board of the new club with both Salthill and Mervue conceding their places in the LoI First Division".
  • From The42.ie: "The newly-formed club, which is made up of the Galway United Supporters Group (GUST), Mervue United, Salthill Devon and the Galway & District League, has applied for an Airtricity League licence for 2014 and is preparing to compete in the First Division."
  • From Galway Advertiser: "newly formed club"
Derry City and Cork City were formally recognised by the LOI as continuations of the same club. Galway hasn't been. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
it is still essentially the same club restructured. According to the clubs own website, the club does not regard itself as being founded in 2013. Its own history page lists dozens of trophies won before 2013, explain that. Its totally irrelevant what the above links say as the club website clearly does not agree. GUST played a major part before and after 2013 and is the common thread between both eras. Club uses same name, same colours, same ground and has same supporter's trust. How exactly does it qualify as a separate club. Djln Djln (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Of course the club itself will wish to claim continuity, but that is a primary source. The secondary sources say it's a new club, formed two years after the old one's demise. So, in actual fact, it's the other way round: the club's own web site is irrelevant as we go with the secondary sources on WP. Mooretwin (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you can just say "Here's a football team article, Galway United should be the same the same as this" because there are so many different ways on wiki that similar situations have been dealt with. It's different if you have a justification, that's more than just "It agrees with me", as to why you've chosen that article. For me when you look at an article like Rangers F.C., it hasn't been separated into the old and the new because the reliable sources used to verify the article say, or support the view, that it was founded in 1872. Mooretwin has shown above that there are reliable sources that say it is a new club and, from an encyclopedic point of view, if they different they should have different articles. Its the same with Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) and Airdrieonians F.C., although a more black and white scenario, it's still what the reliable sources say. Personally, I think the two separate articles is correct as, like the Airdrieonians F.C. case, they founded a new club which doesn't use the same license to compete in the league. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment So what your saying is, we ignore the official club website because they are clearly lying and are at the centre of some kind of conspiracy to misled us about their history. Instead we take the word of some dubious and/or outdated secondary sources that are just expressing a POV that happens to coincide with Mooretwins agenda. Also in 2010 Bray Wanderers changed their abbreviation from A.F.C. to F.C. . Are we going to start a new article for them ? Djln Djln (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Djln: Jumping to extremes and phrasing it like that doesn't help your argument. Neither does the, quite frankly petty, Bray Wanderers argument. I agree with you that the club website is a legitimate source but in cases like this where, from what I have seen (and I'm not going to pretend to have seen everything), the majority of sources point to it being a different club, we should follow the majority, just like when we reach consensus on a discussion like this. I'll again point to the Rangers F.C. example because it's the majority of sources that say it's the same club. You will find some that disagree but most say it's a continuation and that's why I think it should be two separate articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
How exactly did I jump to extremes ? Bray Wanderers point is more valid then nonsense about Rangers as they are in same league. So called majority of sources cited here are dubious and/or outdated secondary sources. As you admit you have not read everything on topic, I suggest you read some more on it and you will see it is not as complicated as Mooretwin is making out. The club underwent some restructuring, it never disbanded. Club uses same name, same colours, same ground and is managed by same supporter's trust. How exactly are they a separate club ? Djln Djln (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Saying things like "clearly lying", "some kind of conspiracy" and "Mooretwins agenda" are jumping to extremes. Teams change their names all the time (see Livingston F.C., Airdrieonians F.C. and Edinburgh City F.C.) so moving the article and creating a redirect is the only sensible option. It is silly to suggest that we create an entire new page for it so the "nonsense" about Rangers F.C. is a more valid point in this instance. From your point of view, you should be using Rangers as an example because they are considered the same club. They haven't played in the same league for four years because they had to be re-elected to the league. Just because it's run by the same people and plays in the same place doesn't make it the same club, as I've said above, it plays in the league under a different license which suggests that it is different entity. Another valid source, I'm sure you'll agree, is UEFA. On their website there are two separate pages for Galway clubs, the old club and the new club. As for the dubiety of the other sources Mooretwin has pointed out, they look reliable enough.
I'm sorry if I haven't come across the way I wanted to, it's difficult to convey tone through text. I was hoping we could have sensible discussion where you could put forward your point and I mine and, with the help of other editors, that we could reach some sort of consensus, whether it agrees with your view or mine. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Accusing me of "jumping to extremes" is a bit ridiculous and possibly a bit extreme itself. You need to read the Wikipedia:SARCASM guideline. You have a point about Rangers F.C. thou. There are similarities. In both cases the club dropped out of a league/division, started competing in a different league/division before eventually returning to the original league/division. Neither club was disbanded. They continued playing at the same ground, used the same name, played in the same colours and were supported by the same fan base and in Galway United's case, managed by the same supporters trust. Yet you are saying Galway United is two separate clubs, while Rangers F.C. is one. You are contradicting yourself. The two UEFA links are two pages about the same club, nothing more. Plus I didn't realise "look reliable enough" was now the Wiki standard for sources. Djln Djln (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
The reason it sounds like I'm contradicting myself is because I'm using what the sources say. That's why Rangers F.C. are classed as one club. I would happily have you argue that they are two clubs, given that the old company still hasn't been formally liquidated, but the sources are of a different consensus, so it is one club. If you look at the UEFA sources, they are clearly two different club pages. One has a European history, one doesn't, one (albeit miss named) has domestic fixtures and results, one doesn't and they both have different badges, all indicators that they are different clubs. Every situation like this is different and should be treated as such. Another reason that I think there should be two articles in this case is that the new club, in a similar scenario to Airdrieonians F.C., were re-named to take on the name of the old club as it was originally called Galway FC.
I don't see how you could argue that the sources posted here so far aren't reliable and they are saying that this incarnation of Galway United F.C. is a different one to it's predecessor. As a result I would support a move to reinstate the two separate pages. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Club was known as Galway F.C. for a single season. Cork City F.C. changed their badge at least twice. Numerous other clubs have redesigned their badge, doesn't make them new clubs. Cork City also changed their kit four times, does that mean there should be four different Cork Citys. This UEFA link [1] refers to Galway United as Galway, doesn't mean anything but it could be a third Galway team. Galway United were originally known as Galway Rovers so maybe there should be four articles for four clubs. Mooretwin would just love that. Djln Djln (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Can we be a bit more sensible about this please? The new article per name, badge, colour change argument is a non starter, it's just a silly suggestion. I pointed it out because they had to apply for a license and the old club held the Galway United license so the new club couldn't use it.
You have a point with the UEFA source you've pointed out but it's a common tactic of UEFA to use a shorter team name, I'll give you it's more effective on teams like Sporting Clube de Portugal and Club Atlético de Madrid but they've done it on that occasion as well. Click on the Galway link on the page and it takes you to the clubs profile page, the old Galway United page.
The only source you've pointed out so far to show that they aren't two different clubs is the clubs website. As much as I agree that it is a valid source, it's the only one that I've seen that contradict's UEFA, newspaper articles and sports website articles that I'm sure you'll agree are equally valid sources. I admit, it shows how complicated the situation is when there are contradictory sources but seems to be an obvious majority in favour of there being two different Galway clubs. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I am the one being sensible mate. You are proposing that we completely ignore the clubs own website and take the word of unreliable, dubious and outdated sites which are just reflecting the opinion of that particular blogger/writer. None of sites you have mentioned have any credibility. You cannot contradict the clubs own website just because it is the minority. I am positive the author of the clubs website knows more about their history then some office flunky in UEFA who has probably never even heard of Galway United Djln Djln (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Arguments like that are just unreasonable. You've been shown sources which contradict your view point and have done nothing but call into question their reliability. There is nothing unreliable or dubious about any of those sources. They are as legitimate as the clubs website. If you can present a better argument than that then I'll be happy to listen otherwise there will still be a reason to discuss this. At the moment, there is no consensus either way amongst editors on wikipedia. There was also no formal merger discussion on the talk:Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and talk:Galway United F.C. (2013) pages which contravenes WP:MERGE as this is clearly a controversial issue. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree yes your arguments are unreasonable. Clubs website takes precedent over blogs as far as I am concerned. We will have to agree to disagree on the validity of sources. Yes it was discussed. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 101#Galway United Merger. Clearly not at same length as here, but there were no objections. It is controversial only the minds of yourself and Mooretwin, nobody else. Several editors (@Koppapa: @Abcmaxx: @Gufcfan: ) have also edited the article since I merged it and nobody complained or questioned it. Djln Djln (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Djln, on Wikipedia secondary sources take precedence over primary sources like the club web site. The new Galway is recognised as a different club by the FAI (new licence), UEFA, and the local press per the sources available. We shouldn't rewrite history just because the club wants to present itself as a continuation. Mooretwin (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
You are just expressing your opinion Mooretwin, you have no authority to speak on behalf of Wikipedia. how can you ignore the team's own website over outdated, unreliable and dubious sources, none of which clearly support your case. DjlnDjln (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Eh? It's Wikipedia policy: 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.' Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
The article is well sourced and uses both primary and secondary sources. You have have made bold claims, saying FAI and UEFA don't recognise Club as same club, yet none of your sources claim this. The local press reports you quote are out of date. If you have sources that clearly state this then produce them. You are just expressing your opinion on topic and backing it up with dubious sources. If your sources were 100% reliable you would have a point, but they aren't. You seem to be obsessed with with merging/separating articles just for the sake of it. Djln Djln (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
The secondary sources say that the current club is a new club. You've offered a primary source (the club itself) to say that it's the same club. When primary and secondary sources don't agree, secondary sources are preferred. The claims about the FAI and UEFA were made by Stevie, and he provided links for UEFA, showing separate records for each club - here and here. You will agree, I'm sure, that the FAI required a new licence for Galway FC to join the League of Ireland - here's another source referring to the club as a brand new entity applying for a licence. I don't understand how local press reports can be out of date: they report the news at the time, and Galway FC at the time was formed as a new club. I'm not sure why they would report on this again several years later. I'm not just expressing my opinion, but producing sources to show that Galway FC was a new club. It is you who is expressing an opinion, backed up only by the club's own claim. Mooretwin (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
The applying for a new licence is a red herring. Every League of Ireland club must reapply to the FAI for a new licence annually. How do secondary sources outweigh the clubs own website ? Are you seriously saying the club don't know their own history better than some blogger. But since you are so fond of them, this secondary source states "2014 saw the return of Galway United to the League of Ireland" [2]. No mention of it being a new club. The press articles you refer to are from the era when the club was briefly known as Galway F.C.. During this time there was a dispute over who owned the rights to the name Galway United. That is why they are outdated and misleading. There was a similar situation at Cork City when the club briefly added FORAS to it's name. In the end all that happened was there was a bit of a squabble over naming rights and a restructuring of the club, nothing more. The supporters trust who managed the club before 2013 continued to manage club after. You are just making a mountain of a molehill. DjlnDjln (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
How do secondary sources outweigh the clubs own website ? Because that's what Wikipedia policy is. Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Are you seriously saying the club don't know their own history better than some blogger. The secondary sources aren't blogs and obviously the club for its own prestige wishes to portray itself and claim the history of its predecessor. Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
But since you are so fond of them, this secondary source states "2014 saw the return of Galway United to the League of Ireland" [2]. Yet other sources, including the local press, say otherwise.
The press articles you refer to are from the era when the club was briefly known as Galway F.C.. During this time there was a dispute over who owned the rights to the name Galway United. That is why they are outdated and misleading. The name of the club is irrelevant. The source clearly states it was a new club.
There was a similar situation at Cork City when the club briefly added FORAS to it's name. In the end all that happened was there was a bit of a squabble over naming rights and a restructuring of the club, nothing more. The supporters trust who managed the club before 2013 continued to manage club after. Quite a different situation, since there was no gap between the two clubs and the League of Ireland expressly recognised FORAS as a continuation. Mooretwin (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
There was no gap with Galway United either. Club continued to play in LoI U19 Division. Djln Djln (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Have you a source for this? Mooretwin (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I guess Mooretwin, we are never going to agree on this topic. You are just repeating the same arguments over and over again...and they still don't convince me the second and third time. I believe it would extremely inappropriate and misleading for Wiki to contradict what the club website says. I don't care how you twist Wiki policies to suit your argument. You are lauding secondary sources, yet when I point out one that contradicts you, you dismiss it. I remain completely against any demerging of the article. My only suggestion is to add a note to article stating something like "Some sources regard the Galway United that joined the League of Ireland in 2014 as a new club. However the official club website does not support this view" Djln Djln (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Please be civil. I'm not 'twisting' WP policy: you genuinely appear not to understand it. It's clear this RfC has failed to attract any more contributors so it looks like mediation is the way to go. Mooretwin (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Spare me the lecture on civility and don't be so patronising. I understand the guideline perfectly. I am trying to be compromising and you are been stubborn. Mediation is fine with me. DjlnDjln (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2016 (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.

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Galway United 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galway United 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Galway United 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Galway W.F.C. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galway_United_F.C.&oldid=1202200017"