Talk:Glasgow Hutchesons Aloysians RFC

August 2010 Assessment

Probably worthy of a 'C', but without any inline cites, and the fact that two sections fail to complete their sentences, I'll leave as a 'Start'. There is also a player flag at lock, but no player. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. 21:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I propose that the Clarkston RFC and Glasgow Southern RFC articles be merged into this page. The GHA article already outlines the history of the various clubs that have merged to create the present club, so duplicates much of the other, short, articles. In any case, there is no need for two articles on Clarkston / Southern, which was just the same club with a change of name, so at the vey least those two articles should be merged together. Jellyman (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Clarkston - then later Southern - were distinct proud clubs in the own right. They both contributed players in their own right to Glasgow District and Scotland international teams.

GHA isn't just the Southern team renamed; it was formed by a merger with another club.

Since for the majority of its existence the Giffnock club was known as Clarkston; and that Southern - as its last incarnation before merger - may be familiar despite its short timespan, I feel it is appropriate that both Clarkston and Southern articles should be retained, as just to call the club by either name would be inappropriate.

Aedis1 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

As GHA is a result of a merger, I don't agree with merging the pages, however, I'd recommend Clarkston and Glasgow Southern were the same club, that they should be merged. We don't have separate pages for Dumfries/Dumfries Saints, Aboyne/Deeside, etc. Tastyniall (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet we do have separate pages for Glasgow District/Glasgow Warriors? It comes back to the point about the amateur/professional era being historically interesting - and Southern's timespan falls right into that. Southern benefited from professionalism and a number of its players went on to play professionally. Both Clarkston and Southern, in my view, should be retained.Aedis1 (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The SRU may have used the existing district structure as a basis for forming the professional teams, but there's obviously a difference between an occasional representative amateur select and a professional side with a regular squad. So I don't think the fact there are two Glasgow articles is particularly relevant to a discussion about clubs. Jellyman (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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.