# Talk:Kingstonian F.C.

The current squad list should have a note above it stating the last time the list was updated, because in Non-League football players switch clubs frequently.
For example see the page on Hampton & Richmond Borough. (Beaver Patrol 09:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC))
Thanks Beaver Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


### Disambiguation
Three of current squad, Dave Francis, Tommy Williams and Rob Sheridan, have namesakes on Wikipedia. Their entries on our page automatically link to these namesakes. There is a need to create new pages for them, so that Wiki creates a disambiguation thingy...Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Utterly stupid suggestion. I am sure Wikipedia is crying out for pages created for a couple of non-league footballers who when they finish playing football will probably stack shelves in Asda or work for KVA. Just de-link their names that is the solution. Hoppytroffy (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince Philip of Greece has asked me to provide an impartial judgment on the recent edit wars over the Molesey controversy. After evaluating the edits in question, the source, and how the Manual of Style and related guides apply to the edits, this is my stance:

The added content must be verifiable. Per WP:Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true."
As far as I can tell, this information is not verifiable. The reliable source guideline states that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Kingstonian website is not a reliable source.
The only semi-reliable information that I could find regarding the game was here, provided by the Wimbledon Guardian. However, this report of the game does not include the incident in question.
If, and only if, a reliable source is found:
-The Molesey incident deserves mention in the article, in a new subsection under History. That being said, a more concise version of the information is needed. The full quote from the Kingstonian website is particularly excessive. Select quotes should be taken, and the article should be properly cited and perhaps included in a further reading section.
-The information added about the incident does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, a mandatory core content policy. When the new subsection is created, it must be neutral.
-Avoid peacock and weasel terms. Reword sentences as necessary. Terms like "most Kingstonian fans" and "have rightly condemned" should be reworded to be neutral and verifiable. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Thus, unless a reliable source is introduced, the content about this incident is unverifiable and cannot be included.
I hope this helps. Feel free to contact me on my talk page with any concerns. JSpung (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragrpah about the Hayes 'altercation' is opinion. NPOV violation surely. If it hasnt been removed/changed in 24 hours I'm going to do it myself. I know that some wikipedians don't particularly like IPs changing articles so thats why I'll leave it for a bit. If anyone has any definite sources for the "several fans", "violently attacked" and the "unpleasant reputation" to name but 3, please feel free to share them. Regards, 88.106.58.193 (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above editor. This paragraph (which spurred an edit war that broke the three-revert rule) is in blatant violation of the Neutral Point of View policy as the above editor suggested. In addition, the information is not verifiable. Remember what I said above? If not, here it is again:
The added content must be verifiable. Per WP:Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true."
As far as I can tell, this information is not verifiable. The reliable source guideline states that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Kingstonian website is not a reliable source. 
By that standard, a thread in a forum for supporters of the opposing team is anything but reliable/verifiable/neutral. To be frank, I'm surprised and unhappy that this has happened again. I spent a good deal of time looking up the exact wording of policies and I laid it all out very clearly. Both editors involved in the edit war have been warned, and editors who continue to introduce material that does not conform to the policies of Wikipedia will be dealt with accordingly. JSpung (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, do you feel powerful. Dealt with accordingly indeed. We only have a different perspective on something that happened at the club. You really need to come down a peg or three and speak instead of trying to come over as a badass Hoppytroffy (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not powerful as much as annoyed. It is not a matter of perspective at all. It is a matter of following the rules of Wikipedia. If you recall, I already have "spoken" about this. I was ignored, hence the stronger wording. JSpung (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note the proposed deletion of the Richmond Road ground article and the related discussion on that article's talk page which may be of interest to contributors of this article. --KenBailey (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have merged and expanded the related content into the Stadiums section of this article and redirected the Richmond Road ground article here instead. --KenBailey (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingstonian 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140513103851/http://www.kingstonian.com/s/match-centre-72292/1-534063 to http://www.kingstonian.com/s/match-centre-72292/1-534063
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) 00:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not quite true they left 7years before their playing arrangement expired ,taking a 200000 pounds bribe to forego the last 7years of their playing arrangement. Their deal was set in stone and ratified legally with the FA,Chelsea would have to tolerate Ks for 7 more seasons,the Ks directors made it clear they would rather have the money. 185.161.187.65 (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Not quite true Chelsea were never asked,Kingstonian directors,Anderson Winwright and Fenwick decided too take a six figure sum (150,000) and leave the ground 7 years early and render the mighty KS as nomads,AFC offered to speak to Chelsea regarding the balance of our playing arrangement but the directors declined in favour of the money. 2A02:C7C:64D1:BE00:34F5:D783:EE02:F5ED (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)