# Talk:Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes

Why is there a lengthy section about supposedly similar situations in Scotland? I suppose those cases could be interesting, but if so, shouldn't they be in separate linked articles? I don't see what they have to do with this article, directly. Readers presumably came here to read about Wimbledon F.C., not Clyde. Unless we're going to have paragraphs about Danish or Malaysian clubs who underwent a similar experience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.58.83 (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 

I've heard some very vague mutterings about Charlton Athletic considering a move to Milton Keynes even before Wimbledon in the late 1970s, as early as the late 1960s. The name Albert Glickstein was mentioned. Was he a chairman who proposed a move there? Let me know if you know anything regarding this. Cheers,  – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I dug some stuff up.  – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The article relies heavily on the WISA submission.  This cannot but be partial, with significant conjecture and a starting point that it was all an ASDA plot.  So citing this as a source undermines the quality of the article.  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The only things cited to the WISA submission are:
Who made up the consortium, which I don't think is POV.
The fact that a stadium like Stadium:mk could not be built for a non-League team like MK City, again, I think, beyond reasonable doubt.
The QPR stuff, which is itself cited to a third-party source within the WISA submission (The Mail, if I recall correctly? I can change the source to the original if you'd prefer).
The registering of "MK Dons" web domains and the attempting by Winkelman to buy the name "MK City", again, I don't believe is POV.
The opinion of some Wimbledon fans that it was, indeed, as you put it, "an ASDA plot". It is made clear that it is only the OPINION of these people. I think that it is worth having this in the article to demonstrate the very large opposition to WFC's relocation and the reasoning behind it.
Just my opinion. Cheers,  – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Notjamesbond (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article was mainly there but needed some help to tidy up in order to achieve GA status.  Any issues that I came across I tried to rectify as they were generally only small.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
some sections that seemed to be partisan, tidied up to make more generic
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
I personally would like to see the intro referenced but i understand that this is an optional requirement.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
some really good referencing, some that couldn't be verified as in books and subscriptions needed but use of notes was good and I would find it unlikely that any of the sources were unreliabl
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
there were some sections that I was uncomfortable with but these were amended
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I just came across this piece that gives a great account of the relocation of Wimbledon FC, including quotes and notable anecdotes.  I think it could add interesting and relevant information to either this article or the AFC Wimbledon article.  I'm not sure whether it's best to pull info/quote and cite it, or just add it as an "external link" or "additional reading" link.  Either way, just thought I'd throw it out there and let someone more experienced make the decision.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/blog/_/name/espnfcunited/id/2016?cc=5901
Nor*cal skier (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLOGS for the policy on citing blogs. We don't. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless it's a WP:NEWSBLOG, which is fair game. Having read it, I'd be inclined to believe that it is a newsblog. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 12:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a 'Dons Derby' or something similar named article to be made. 
My argumentation for this is that it is although no big competitive rivalry (yet), it is a great historical one - when counting things not being matchday itself.
They have met once, but I dont think it justifies not creating an article.
Let me hear your opinion, before I work on it. Thanks.
--Sine Cera, Infobesity (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd call the article "AFC Wimbledon–Milton Keynes Dons F.C. rivalry", if we were to create one; "Dons Derby" is not a widely used term and calling the article that would border on original research. I see no reason why such a page would not work, but I don't think the need is urgent, so don't feel any need to rush things. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that it is a good idea. It would be very hard to keep such an article on the straight and narrow. It would just beg for POV opinion pieces, edit and flame wars. As an alternative, how about this: many fc pages have a short section on traditional rivalries, local derbies and the like. Putting a short section like that into each of the clubs' articles would achieve your aim and be easier to police. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This article has clearly been written from a AFC Wimbledon/Luton Town/Barnet point of view. The tone of the article is very negative towards Milton Keynes, and almost no note of the other side of the argument. I understand that some may not be happy with what happened (me included) but the article fails to criticise AFC Wimbledon in any way whatsoever, apart from a few quotes form Winkelman, which not really a good source. Editing is designed to make the MK Dons POV weak - continued uses of the words "some", "several", "might" etc. --16:38, 24 August 2014‎ user:Abcmaxx

I disagree: a great deal of work from both perspectives went into making the article as neutral as it could be. You need to provide more specific examples. The use of words like 'some' gets round the demand from both sides for their idea of the absolute truth. The further problem is that wp is not a forum for editor's opinions, so even if you think you could improb=be it from the MK perspective, you will be challenged to produce the external source. We can only report what notable sources say - and to be realistic almost all at the time were hostile to MK. It has seemed to me that we have come out of it as well as we could in the circumstances. Have a look at the history!--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I think if the MK Dons came out of it well at all, depending on how far you go, the club would still be called Wimbledon F.C., AFC wouldn't have existed, and Plough Lane would still be a stadium. People are still hostile to MKD, that may never change, but the point of view that AFC were undeniably good guys is completely wrong, otherwise they wouldn't have split away.This is not a AFC vs. MK split anyway - some WFC fans gave up on football, some follow both, or one fan I met switched his allegiance to Kingstonian FC as he was just disgusted by it all (don't blame him).
I haven't just brought this up "to stick it to those usurpers from AFC Kingston" (which would be a biased view for Wiki purposes), to show what I mean by the tone I have selected a few examples:

"Milton Keynes Dons initially claimed Wimbledon F.C.'s heritage and history as its own, but renounced this in 2007, soon after its new stadium opened." - It seems to suggest that new stadium was the reason the Dons gave back the trophies. Like stated later on correctly, that implication is not really true.
No such implication was intended. I have reworded to try to remove any possible confusion and/or offence. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"This was intended as a temporary arrangement while Wimbledon arranged the construction of their own new ground in a more local area, but the move was still unpopular among fans. Attendances fell in the years immediately following Wimbledon's departure from Plough Lane" - Maybe it was temporary at first, but soon after the stadium was demolished no-one can suitably suggest that Selhurst Park was a temporary venue, especially after Plough Lane deemed unfit to host a team of that calibre at the time.
Plough Lane wasn't demolished until 2002. Reserve games were played there for years after the first team left. Selhurst Park remained a temporary venue after Plough Lane was demolished in late 2002 because the team was already preparing to move to MK. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The omission of Livingston, Clyde, even Woolwich Arsenal or Newton Heath/ManUtd. I realise that no-one wants to read their story in full here, which is why it was deleted in the first place, but to claim the move was somehow one of a kind is just not true, especially after an article listing a whole range of clubs, some which were moved in even much more controversial circumstances (Relocation of professional sports teams). "Milton Keynes provided a clear staging ground for such an experiment." - really did it?
Well, according to the sources it did, and in English football an experiment it was. I have put the aforementioned passage on parallels in Scotland back in. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"Wimbledon F.C.'s resultant lower income contributed to the club entering administration in June 2003.A month later, the largest football team in Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes City, went out of business, unable to secure the investment it required to continue." - The importance of MK City is inflated. MK City was Mercedes-Benz FC and was a factory team, which very little to do with Milton Keynes itself, other than the fact some of the players may have lived in the area. What's more it was no-more than an amateur recreational team, or in blunt terms a pub team. To list every amateur side that maybe could've become professional is not really a point.
The timing is significant, however. Is it not worth mentioning that while MK businessmen were pumping money into saving Wimbledon F.C. with the intent of moving it to MK, the largest team already in MK went bust? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually MKCity just had a name that sounded good to outsiders, they weren't much higher in the pyramid than Newport Pagnell fc or Stony Stratford fc. Nobody outside Wolverton and maybe Merc took it seriusly. The problem for this article is that the chairman of mkcity did put on record the claim that 'his backers' were scared off by the [prospective?] arrival of WFC. (What backers??? But I can't say that as it is opinion). But it impressed the London-based medja.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"stark contrast to the approach of AFC" - i think it wasn't as stark as some people would like to think. Constant use of the word rebranding - renaming would be a more neutral word, rebranding has negative connotations. The MK Dons was a name coined by some AFC fans themselves in part to distinguish the Wimbledon F.C. at the National Hockey Stadium from AFC Wimbledon, in fact when Wimbledon F.C. played at the National Hockey Stadium blue and yellow scarves with the words "MK DONS" were sold/given out, many of which still can be seen around the stadium today. The Dons name and the red, white and black are not colours chosen at random either - they were Wimbledon's alternate colours for most of their history. Besides the name change was in fact due to the pressure mounted by everyone and supporters recognition, many ex-WFC fans in MK Dons feels that they were bullied into dropping the name. This may be their POV, but it shouldn't be ignored altogether.
'Stark' is definitely PoV and should be deleted in both instances.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The name "MK Dons" was registered in 2000, very early in the saga and before any WFC/AFC fans would have used it. What word would you suggest instead of "rebranding"? The club wasn't just renamed—its logo was changed entirely, so were the colours, etc. I have never heard it suggested that MK Dons' white, red and black colours were chosen because they were Wimbledon F.C.'s away colours—I would be genuinely interested to see a source for that. If I remember correctly the Wimbledon F.C. Supporters' Club (now the MK Dons Supporters' Club) unanimously voted to keep the word "Wimbledon" in the club name, so I can understand those who followed the team from MK to London may feel negatively about that. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Franchise FC is just as derogatory as AFC Kingston, and just as biased.
There is no reason not to have AFC Kingston in the article as well—in fact I liked the way the two negative nicknames were counterpointed against each other. But as I said to you before we need a source that the term was used at the time. Otherwise it must go in the article later. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The article actually says that WFC was called 'franchise' and has a citation for it. It doesn't say that about mkdfc (well, didn't - I need to recheck the article because a lot of POV seems to have crept in while I was busy elsewhere).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
WISA in my opinion are not a reliable source. They are no more credible than a self-published blog, and are heavilly biased and unfair. Much of the the reasons AFC split away were internal politics, WISA was right at the heart of it.
What the article cites to WISA is either information about its own activities, undisputed information—for example that QPR were also approached, or that Asda and IKEA supported Winkelman—or is clearly qualified as opinion: "According to Wimbledon fans opposed to the move...", "Wimbledon fans opposed to the move later surmised that...", "They said that this was why...". Whether or not they are biased or unfair is something for the reader to decide. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Mentions of former Wimbledon players supporting AFC. Not all of them support AFC - some support both MK and AFC, some neither, some one or the other. Lewington and David Martin were original Wimbledon players. In 2012 at the meeting of both sides MK Dons paraded lots of former Wimbledon players and people who shown some kind of support to MK Dons.
I think you are referring to the passage in the section discussing the "Drop the Dons" campaign. Have any former Wimbledon people come out against this campaign specifically? If so I am all for including that. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"Some MK Dons fans continue to relate their club's former identity as Wimbledon. At the first meeting between AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons in 2012, some MK fans wore scarves bearing the Wimbledon name, and Wimbledon F.C. shirts."  - This suggests that MKD fans went on ebay and bought lots of old Wimbledon shirts and scarfs just for the AFC game, which is just not true.
No offence, but how do you know they didn't? I don't say that to denigrate what you're saying, I'm just saying that what we can put in the article is what we get from the sources. The sources say that at this game specifically there were MK Dons supporters wearing old Wimbledon shirts and scarves saying Wimbledon on them. Nothing more. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who frequently attends matches will know that the vast majority who still remember Wimbledon, tended to support them if they go to MKD matches. Wimbledon scarfs and shirts are present, in a minority, but present nonetheless, at all the matches by at least a small handful. Those Wimbledon-MK scarfs seen in the media are owned by a vast number of regular Dons fans, what's more the chanting "Wimbledon!" or "we're the real Wimbledon" is very common at games, home or away and regardless of opposition. Now coming from me now is original research, but that still doesn't make it any less true, the use of the word "some" is just not a fair.
One of Wikipedia's core policies is "verifiability, not truth". What we need is proper sourcing for this stuff. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
From what I remember, the was quite a lot of criticism for Wimbledon F.C. to move to MK from people from Milton Keynes too. There were serious plans to merge the 4 tier 9-10 clubs into one and build it up from there, but I can't seem to find any mention of that plan, which definitely should be included, as it was a serious contender, only lost out to the fact the FA allowed the move. I remember the disappointment in the local newspapers when that didn't happen and Wimbledon was moved instead. The idea of Milton Keynes pouncing on a league club is not really a fair reflection.
Again, sourcing. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
"AFC Wimbledon started 4 leagues below WFC original league" - it was a new entity, formed before WFC actually ceased to exist, the way this is phrased it seems like WFC was demoted 4 leagues as opposed to the view that actually missed a few lower league by being put straight into the 9th tier. In fact after "the split", WFC/MKD suffered miserable results and successive relegations, from which they didn't recover until several years later.
AFC Wimbledon started higher than most new clubs, it is true, but it is also misleading to say they "missed a few lower leagues" by doing so. There is no set place where new non-League clubs start "at the bottom", as it were—it is up to whichever leagues the club in question applies to to accept or reject the application. AFC Wimbledon actually attempted to start in the Isthmian League (just below the Conference) but were not accepted; the Combined Counties League, lower down the pyramid, accepted them. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wimbledon F.C. was in administration, and about to go bust, just like Rushden & Diamonds or Chester did. The setting up of a phoenix club before WFC actually went bust is an odd decision, and one that many ex-WFC fans which went to matches at Selhurst in 2002-03 bear a grudge against.
Wimbledon F.C. didn't go into administration until after AFC Wimbledon was formed. The decision does not seem so odd when you keep in mind that one of the motivations behind AFC Wimbledon actually was to try to force Wimbledon F.C. out of business before it could move to MK. The way the AFC Wimbledon founders saw it, continuing to give their money to the owners of Wimbledon F.C. after the relocation had been sanctioned on 28 May 2002 just meant donating money to help the move actually happen. In short, AFC's founders considered the spirit of the Wimbledon club more important than the business around which it was based, and they preferred for WFC to go bust than for the business to survive by moving elsewhere.
Let's imagine a situation where for some reason stadium:mk has become unusable and MK Dons are groundsharing at Northampton. Attempts are made to move back to MK but for whatever reason fail; when the club is nearly bust it announces a move to (let's say) Chelmsford. How would you react? Would you still want to give that club your money to help the business survive, or would you feel that by doing that you were only helping the team move away? Would you feel any sympathy for a fans' club (based in Buckingham in the absence of a local ground), or would you consider them unwelcome meddlers? If the team did move, would you still consider the club playing in Chelmsford (either with new name, badge, colours etc or not) to be MK Dons? Of course this is all hypothetical (and totally implausible), but I thought it was still worth bringing this analogy up to try to illustrate how the AFC side feels about this. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't find a mention of Merton Council and their part in this, and how they sold the stadium and turned into something else. I may be wrong though.
This is summed up in the article. Look at the "Wimbledon leave Plough Lane" section. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I realise I haven't given any sources to these comments (haven't had time yet) but none of what I said is a revelation and I'm sure once I have a look around sources can be found for all of these points, it would require some heavy searching through all the AFC-bias media-frenzy (yes that may be a biased view in itself, but it's not an uncommon view either). BBC did do a fairly positive article MKD has done in its 10 years under its current form. 
On another note I think the "Dons Derby" should have a separate article. It's not really related to the relocation itself, it just a background story to the fixture and "rivalry".
Abcmaxx (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
My comments to your comments (User:John Maynard Friedman & User:Cliftonian) :
"No offence, but how do you know they didn't? I don't say that to denigrate what you're saying, I'm just saying that what we can put in the article is what we get from the sources. The sources say that at this game specifically there were MK Dons supporters wearing old Wimbledon shirts and scarves saying Wimbledon on them. Nothing more." - It said that there can be many Wimbledon shirt seen - there's no mention that the very fact that Dons fans wearing Wimbledon shirt is specific to that game. The Wimbledon-MK scarfs that were featured on the BBC news pages and I'm sure there must be plenty of pictures around the web (google images?) of MK fans in Wimbledon scarfs and shirts, it really is that common at every game, maybe if someone owns a new MK Dons shirt and an old Wimbledon shirt they'd choose the WFC one for an AFC game but to imply that they are specifically brought out for that particular fixture is just incorrect.
"one of Wikipedia's core policies is "verifiability, not truth". What we need is proper sourcing for this stuff" + "have never heard it suggested that MK Dons' white, red and black colours were chosen because they were Wimbledon F.C.'s away colours" - MK Dons are legally not allowed to claim that, after the AFC stole all of WFC's history. Whether those colours were chosen because they were linked to WFC may need a citation but they very fact that Red Black and White WERE ALL secondary colours of WFC is just a blunt fact and should be mentioned. Whether or not it was intentional can be left to the reader to decide. I'm sure youtube will have MKD fans singing Wimbledon tunes? The thing is MK Dons are very touchy with that stuff as AFC are very keen to sue over any of the use of Wimbledon in Milton Keynes (which shows what kind of club they really are). 
The WISA stuff should at least be countered by the MKDSA (formerly Wimbledon Supporters Club), there a whole relocation bit on the page.
"There were serious plans to merge the 4 tier 9-10 clubs into one and build it up from there". - this one is a must find for sources, I shall have a look when I have more time. Probably favours AFC's POV anyway.
"AFC Wimbledon started higher than most new clubs, it is true, but it is also misleading to say they "missed a few lower leagues" by doing so. There is no set place where new non-League clubs start "at the bottom", as it were—it is up to whichever leagues the club in question applies to to accept or reject the application. AFC Wimbledon actually attempted to start in the Isthmian League (just below the Conference) but were not accepted; the Combined Counties League, lower down the pyramid, accepted them." - all this is true and I'm not debating those facts, I just think it should be phrased that they started from the 9th and not "4 below".
"the motivations behind AFC Wimbledon actually was to try to force Wimbledon F.C. out of business before it could move to MK." - your analogy would never happen. This is why - this starvation tactic was what was so wrong about AFC, splitting the fanbase, alienating those who tried to stick with it, then rather doing what for example Portsmouth FC or Rotherham United did. Imagine if Coventry fans set up AFC Coventry (imagine Northampton Town didn't exist), then forced the original Coventry to rename itself and drop all links to Coventry, as "they're not really Coventry anymore". Coventry have no choice but to give in to AFC Coventry mass-media frenzy they stirred up and are renamed Northampton Sky Blues - but they are dubbed Franchise Smurfs everything that is wrong with football etc. AFC Coventry are now the 'good guys'. Can you see Northampton Sky Blues returning to the Ricoh now? Don't think so. AFC Coventry play in Leamington Spa by the way, but that's a lot closer than Northampton, so that's ok, and Leamington F.C. didn't really need that stadium, and one day they promise move back to Coventry so all is good.
"Well, according to the sources it did, and in English football an experiment it was". I think you'll find Oswestry Town and South Shields F.C. (in fact the latter relocated twice!) beat the Dons to it by a considerable time margin. Could also mention Newton Heath/ManUtd, Woolwich Arsenal (the distance then had much more impact in those days), Grimsby Town, Rotherham relocated to the Don Valley Stadium, Sheffield for four seasons from 2008–09 to 2011–12. Badge and colour changes are not unusual at all, just off the top of my head I can think of Cheltenham changed their badge not too long ago. Not to mention recent Cardiff City (much more controversial and pointless in my opinion), Hull City Tigers, Coventry/Ricoh saga.
"Plough Lane wasn't demolished until 2002. Reserve games were played there for years after the first team left. Selhurst Park remained a temporary venue after Plough Lane was demolished in late 2002 because the team was already preparing to move to MK" - it was unsuitable ground for Division One side and they left in 1991 - that is a long long time ago before any this, even if you assume plans were hatched in 2000, that's 9 years, that is a long long period of time, that is not a reasonable assumption that they still realistically had plans to move back.
A lot of this article is about how it's phrased not just pure facts. You can bend the facts to suit ones needs, and therefore it's important on what facts are talked about in what proportions, with what emphasis etc.
Abcmaxx (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian recently linked to this rather detailed article about the proposed move to Ireland, which as well as adding a lot of background information also suggests that the move was considered a few years earlier than our article states. Since I'm not great at distilling the useful from the extraneous, would someone kindly take a look and add what is necessary? Thank you. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 22:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Great article, cheers. I added a bit from this to the section where Hammam sells the club. A nice little bit of AFC foreshadowing in there as well, really adds to the article narrative. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The below thread was originally at User talk:Abcmaxx and was moved here at its conclusion. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the new section you added, "Parallels in England", is a bit too long and in my view it gives undue weight to what happened at Enfield and Northwich Victoria, which would in my opinion merit perhaps only one or two sentences in this article about Wimbledon moving. Enfield's case is maybe tangentially relevant, though I doubt it—moved in 1999, Enfield Town split off in 2001—but I actually don't see how Northwich is worth including in this section at all. This is part of the "background" section to Wimbledon moving, but Northwich didn't move to Victoria Stadium (still in Northwich) until 2006, and the breakaway of 1874 Northwich occurred only two years ago. So in the interest of staying on topic I would cut out the stuff about Northwich and trim the part on Enfield down as well.
I think if we are going to have a section like this we should stick almost entirely to parallels in the Football League as these are much more relevant to Wimbledon's case (albeit more long ago). The most relevant parallel in my opinion would be Arsenal moving the ten miles from Woolwich to Highbury in 1913. This was a League club from south London, there was opposition to a move from both fans and local residents, there was an attempt to merge with another club (Fulham) that was blocked by the Football League, the move was motivated by financial problems, and the club's name was changed after the move (though less radically so). In my view this is much more relevant to Wimbledon's case than Enfield or Northwich. We could also mention Manchester United moving from Clayton, three miles east of Manchester city centre, to Old Trafford, two miles south-west, in 1909–10, and South Shields of the Third Division (North) moving eight miles to Gateshead in 1928. Cheers, hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I just thought there's a whole part on parallels in Scotland, and yes in England the clubs were lower down than Wimbledon but there's plenty of relocation stories, thankfully not all of them ending with a split in the fan-base, Gloucester, Worcester, Kettering and even Enfield 1893 F.C. and the two Northwiches still play away from their spiritual home. It's the biggest criticism among MK Dons-ex-WFC fans that AFC a) left before WFC was disbanded essetially allowing them to move b) the club played at Selhurst for far too long and c) AFC still don't play in neither Merton nor Wimbledon, and the argument that WFC was the only club to move away from their traditional home is not really true, and therefore showing other examples would give some balance I thought to the move, I just gave the best two examples I could think of.
Enfield was important as that was the first high-profile split of fans from the original club and also disgruntled Wimbledon fans were reported to visit Enfield Town and very much model themselves on what ETFC did when they were deciding to set up AFC before WFC was officially disbanded. Also Enfield is important in the fact that there are Enfield 1893 fans who stuck with the original Enfield FC and very much dislike Enfield Town fans for 'abandoning' the club (in their eyes), hence why Enfield 1893 was set up instead of a merger with ETFC, and judging by the Enfield 1893 and Enfield Town talk pages it's still a very sore issue. There doesn't seem to be much clearer parallel between that and the AFC-WFC and now MKD split among old WFC fans (however disproportional the split is is irrelevant).
With regards to Northwich - the club moved, fans got angry, set up their own club. It's a parallel, maybe not exact but certainly is one. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
a) Once WFC had received permission to move to MK, the perception of AFC Wimbledon's founders that they had two choices: either continue to support WFC financially and morally, or split off and form a new club (AFCW). Their perception was that continuing to support and fund WFC would merely help the business entity to limp on until it could move to MK (or Dublin, or wherever), something they opposed so strongly that they preferred to kill the club and start again. Indeed the new team was supposed to play a role in this by taking financial and moral support away from WFC, which it did quite successfully, though WFC ultimately kept going long enough to move anyway.
b) That's not AFCW's fault. Indeed they agree with you on this point.
c) AFCW may not play in Merton or Wimbledon at the moment, but it has always been their declared goal to do so as soon as possible. When they started they had to find a ground at very short notice and Kingston was the closest they could get (the stadium is about 5 miles from Plough Lane, slightly closer than Selhurst Park was). They have been around for 12 years now, it is true, but for nine of those they were non-League and they didn't have the resources to pursue the new ground. Even now it is going to be very hard for them. It is much harder to find a stadium site and build in London—indeed this was part of why WFC didn't in the first place—and AFCW have never had the same business backing MKD did with stadium:mk. Therefore I don't think it is really fair to castigate them for playing in Kingston while they try to find a home in Merton.
d) With respect, playing a few miles away because of unfortunate circumstances is not in my opinion the same thing as moving lock, stock and barrel, permanently, to another part of the country. WFC are not the only club in English football to have relocated to a new stadium, but they are the only professional club to have relocated to a totally different conurbation, dozens of miles away. This never happened in the English professional ranks before WFC did it. The "parallels in Scotland" we discuss are relevant because they were professional teams in the Scottish Football League that moved to other towns in the years running up to 2002, and may have influenced the May 2002 decision regarding WFC's move.
The stuff regarding Enfield and Northwich is not without value but most of it simply does not belong in this article about Wimbledon. It goes off topic and gives undue weight. I even think the Scottish stuff is perhaps too long for the same reason. Perhaps it can be moved to a more general article on sports relocations or something.
I hope this is helpful. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't discussing the move of WFC or what AFC did, because we can debate that till the cows come home. But setting up AFC before the WFC disbanded made the permanent move all the easier, a grudge held by many ex-WFC fans, similarly many don't really believe AFC will ever move back because they now bought out Kingstonian's ground, just like the plans never really got past the talking stage when WFC was at Selhurst. Giving stadium:mk significance is undue weight, because that stadium wasn't built till well after several years at the National Hockey Stadium (which was a great ground and everyone misses). But I certainly think that however far a club relocates, it's still a valid point. Enfield Town did influence the outcome, because AFC did meet with Enfield Town before they set up AFC. That is a fact and to omit it from the article is wrong, and the relationship between Enfield 1893 and Enfield Town is similar to the one between AFC and MKD.
Plus at what point do you say a relocation is too far? 6 miles? 10 miles? 30 miles? 40.2 miles? Each person would say differently. I certainly think that Worcester for example playing in Kidderminster is a significant distance (13 miles), never mind Coventry when they played in Northampton (no AFC Coventry set up in Leamington though). Just because it favours MK Dons fans point of view doesn't mean it's undue weight, just because it ruins AFC's self-perpetuated image that they are a blameless victim, and the lie that the move was in some way 100% unprecedented and never done before Abcmaxx (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight to give stadium:mk significance?! But the new stadium in Milton Keynes was the centre of Winkelman's proposals to WFC (and other clubs), the only reason WFC's owners decided to move to MK, and the only reason the independent commission decided, 2:1, to approve the thing. The whole point was that WFC couldn't find a new stadium locally and were about to go bust, so were granted permission, in what the commission called an exceptional case, to move to this MK site where the team would have a brand-new ground built with the council's support. The National Hockey Stadium was never part of the proposal; it was a temporary measure while the new ground was built. Koppel would never have wanted to move WFC to MK had the National Hockey Stadium been the stated final destination; nor would the independent commission have approved it. The new stadium was always the crux of the thing. The fact that it took a few years to build is neither here nor there.
Re: Enfield; I never said Enfield is not relevant. I said that the information we have in the article at the moment is not directly relevant. A bit further down in the article, in the proper chronological place, with sources, about AFCW's founders meeting Enfield Town's would be great. Ditto regarding the relationship between the two sets of Enfield fans, if we can find a source saying specifically that the relationship is similar to that between MKD and AFCW fans.
Re: AFCW; they own Kingsmeadow—a mile from Merton and two-thirds of a mile from one of WFC's earlier grounds—because of a deal they agreed with Kingstonian's owners, the Khosla family, in 2003 to bring Kingstonian out of administration (they had been in administration since late 2001). They showed no sign of getting out so the Khoslas sold the ground to AFCW in 2003, lending them the money to do so, on the condition that Kingstonian could stay there rent free (see this article by the chairman of the Ks Trust). AFCW's ownership of Kingsmeadow gives them a Plan B for if moving to Merton proves impossible, and, if they built a new ground, will help them to raise the money. If they intend to stay at Kingsmeadow permanently I'm not sure why they're wasting their time with a planning application to redevelop the dogs stadium at Plough Lane. See [1] [[2] [3].
Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Again it's all talk with the AFC, and their blind love affair with the media means they get plenty of amiable coverage but the truth is it's all hypothetical as always, the main criticism is that they're all talk and no actual action other than lots of interviews and camera-talk. It's 6 miles from Kingstonians ground to Plough Lane, and I'm sure Kingstonian fans can't be too happy about losing their ground and what I imagine a fair share of their fanbase to a homeless team that has never even played in the area they are meant to represent. That's beside the point, the point is this: Plans does not equal any actual fact. I can come up with a mad plan tomorrow but never act upon it. Since 1991 WFC has been homeless and to be honest the effort to return to Merton were very poor, and the main blame lies with Merton and not Milton Keynes, otherwise WFC would have never got to that stage in the first place, and I think the article should reflect that as opposed to the easy route of MK-bashing which the AFC are so keen on.
With regards to Enfield there's a source in the bit I added about the refusal of the merger of the two Enfield's. I'm sure the reason is pretty obvious - they to put it mildly, don't like one another and have gone too far in their separate ways. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Does the source specifically compare it to MKD–AFCW, though? If not, saying so in the article is original research. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
That's just ridiculous, in fact so ridiculous I'm lost for words. It doesn't have specifically state that word for word, and it won't be original research if it's referenced. I realise that anything criticising anything AFC does is considered blasphemous, but I don't see how being able to draw parallels (no case is identical is it?) immediately equal original research. Very simply, the facts of Enfield case are similar, whether or not the reader completely agrees with it or not it's up to them. I'm tired of everyone pedalling AFC's POV and lies everywhere. My POV is Enfield Town were wrong to abandon Enfield FC and I think AFC fans were wrong to do the same with WFC, and I'm sure as hell I'm not the only person to think that Abcmaxx (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Then provide a reference from a reliable source specifically comparing them by name and saying what you have just told me, so the claim can satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and stay in the article. I'm not arguing with you that Enfield is irrelevant, on the contrary I am trying to help you find a way to keep the comparison in the article within Wikipedia guidelines. Neither my point of view nor yours is of any relevance, see WP:RGW. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The Telegraph: Enfield loyalties divided by Wimbledon-style rift  - the title is pretty self explanatory. Here's a less reliable very biased report by some published columnist calling Enfield Town heroes and talking about how great AFC are Source butthe parallel is made. I guess Northwich happened afterwards, and I know forums aren't a reliable source but I did find this Barrow AFC- 1874 Northwich discussion which does kind of show that I'm not alone in my attitude towards the AFC, and that AFC are not an unprecedented story or in any way ground-breaking like they frequently claim to be Abcmaxx (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, there we go. Use the Telegraph source and that's all we need to make the comparison stick within the Wikipedia guidelines. So far as I see the Boyle article doesn't actually compare the relationship between Enfield 1893 and Enfield Town to that between AFCW and MKD—he just mentions Enfield Town as the first fan-run club ("the unsung heroes of this whole movement"). The Boyle article was published in an AFC Wimbledon fanzine, Yellow and Blue, so as far as I know it is reliable for our use, though I would be sure to qualify references to it clearly in the text as somebody's opinion ("According to Dave Boyle in the AFC Wimbledon fanzine Yellow and Blue ..." or similar). I'm glad we're making some progress. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


### A comment from the sideline
If I may throw my hat into this sparring ring, I think there are a few separate issues here that are in danger of getting merged and should be dealt with separately:

The promise of at least a Championship-status stadium was definitely critical to the directors of WFC. They needed to see a way out of their financial predicament. They knew that WFC Ltd could never survive on the non-league levels of supporter attendance it had been getting for years: a new start was the only hope. [This before anything was known publicly about a move being considered. BTW, there was/is a lot of cynicism about the johnny-come-lately AFCW supporters who got all 'upset' at the prospect of 'their' club leaving London. It was manufactured grief - most of then had never been through the WFC turnstiles in their lives. They couldn't be arsed but nobody else could have it either.  If as many had turned up regularly beforehand, the question of a move would never have arisen. ]
The Scottish precedents (failing clubs moving out to new towns without toys being thrown out of the pram) are absolutely critical to the story. It needs at least a good paragraph.
It is instructive to cover other cases, even non-league, where the fan-base has split over  the club board's decision on what is for the best interests of the club.  Apart from the Glazers, I don't know of any directors who are really in it because they expect to turn a profit. [Q: How do you become as millionaire as football club owner? A: Start off as a billionaire!]. I don't see how it matters when the split happened - before or after.
Everything above is WP:SYN and WP:OR unless a reliable source can be found which says it first.  Cliftonian is correct to insist on that.
--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this John. I agree with all of this. I did not say above that we should not include information about the non-League cases where the fan-base was split—I said we should not stray from the topic of the article and that, where such a split happened later, it should be covered in a more logical place in the article chronologically rather than in the "background" section at the beginning. As I said above I see Enfield as tangentially relevant but Northwich not so much. Cheers again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so how shall we go about putting all the agreed above into a neat section, including the Woolwich-Highbury move, "mention Manchester United moving from Clayton, three miles east of Manchester city centre, to Old Trafford, two miles south-west, in 1909–10, and South Shields of the Third Division (North) moving eight miles to Gateshead in 1928". On balance I'd say to mention Northwich briefly/in passing and delete the rest (I think that'll satisfy everyone) at the end. The thing about the chronological order is that it wouldn't make sense to put all this after the "parallels in scotland" or to have Woolwich-Arsenal in the beginning and Enfield at the end, if that makes sense Abcmaxx (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Could you propose some specific text? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
How about:
(to go in the "Accession to The Football League, and the concept of club relocation in English football" section:
In English football, the relocation of teams away from their traditional districts is unusual because of the nature of the relationship between clubs and their fans: the local football club is regarded by most English football supporters as part of the local identity and social fabric rather than as a business that can be transplanted by its owners at will. As a result, any relocation plan would be strongly opposed by fans in the club's original area, and unlikely to succeed in most new locations due to the existence of established teams in most towns and cities that would already have secured the loyalty of native supporters. Manchester United and Woolwich Arsenal, two clubs in the English professional ranks, did leave their traditional locales during the 1910s, moving within their original conurbations about 5 mi (8.0 km) and 10 mi (16 km) respectively. South Shields of the Third Division North relocated 8 mi (13 km) east to Gateshead in 1930 and renamed themselves after that town. No League club moved in such a way thereafter, however; John Bale, summarising a study published in 1974, writes that, in the view of most fans, "Chelsea would simply not be Chelsea" were that club to move a few miles within the same borough to Wormwood Scrubs.
The geographic redistribution of the 92 Football League teams was considered a possible eventuality by some around that time ...
(then we merge the two "parallels" section to make one piece of prose, perhaps something like this, perhaps a section called "Precursors in Scotland and England" or similar)
New towns such as Glenrothes and Cumbernauld were founded in Scotland, in much the same manner as in England, during the immediate post-war period. Since promotion and relegation in and out of the Scottish Professional Football League was not introduced until the league system's reorganisation in 2014—until then it was nearly impossible for a side outside the League to join[42]—these new towns lacked League teams of their own, while many League member clubs remained concentrated in well-established cities. During the 1990s, two of these clubs had left their metropolitan districts for new towns. Third-flight club Clyde moved from Shawfield Stadium (close to Rutherglen in the south-east of Glasgow) to Cumbernauld, about 16 miles (26 km) to the north-east, in 1994,[43] and a year later Meadowbank Thistle, a struggling Edinburgh club in the fourth tier, relocated amid fans' protests about 20 miles (32 km) west to the new town of Livingston. On doing so, it changed its name to Livingston Football Club.[44]
In English non-League football, events surrounding Enfield F.C. have been latterly described as mirroring what was to occur at Wimbledon. Enfield's owner sold the club's ground at Southbury Road in 1999 and arranged several short-term groundshares before resettling Enfield 10 mi (16 km) west in Borehamwood—temporarily, he said, while he looked for a new stadium in Enfield. Two years later, after no site had been identified and a dispute had developed regarding an escrow account, the Enfield Supporters Trust resolved that the chairman lacked sufficient will to bring the club back to Enfield and so founded a new team, Enfield Town, in June 2001.
(then, if we need to put Northwich in at all, we can put it lower down in the article in a more logical place chronologically. It makes no sense in my view to mention something that happened 10 years after the fact in a section detailing the background to WFC's move).
I hope this meets everyone's satisfaction. If so I will make the changes myself, including new references where necessary and so on. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is a scholarly source specifically comparing the Wimbledon and Enfield cases, albeit briefly (on p. 128), which I intend to put in the article: [4]. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm ok with all of the above. I would suggest maybe just add one single sentence at the very end, it wont do any damage chronologically and won't really fit in anywhere else. Something along the lines of:
Since Wimbledon FC's relocation there has been another example of a relocation which has resulted in a fan-owned split from the original club, 1874 Northwich FC. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have made the changes to the article, mentioning Northwich as well. Thank you both for the discussion and the constructive solution. I think this is a big improvement to the article as a whole, and I'm really glad we were able to find something we are all happy with. On another topic, do you both think the POV tag at the top of the article is still warranted, or do you think it could come down now? It has been up three months and nobody else has commented so far as I can see. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The only real issue I have is with the "AFC Wimbledon and Milton Keynes Dons identities contrasted" it's very strongly implying that MK Dons do not trace back their roots back to WFC, which is not really true, MKDSA fans association (formerly Wimbledon Supporters Association) clearly have a whole bit about their link to WFC on thier page and the fans still clearly consider themselves a successor to WFC as shown in the games between MKD and AFC. 
I'm happy with the edits otherwise Abcmaxx (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reading that section back again I'm not sure what part of it is biased against MK or not true:
We say the new name was MK Dons and that this is "a name made up of the team's new location and "Dons", a common nickname of Wimbledon-based sports teams, often associated particularly with Wimbledon Football Club". Indisputable and, if anything, supporting your viewpoint.
We say "Winkelman's consortium explained that the name was intended to "represent the past, present and future and place the club at the heart of its new community" as well as to retain a connection with the club's former identity." Quotation from WFC/MKD statement. Again I don't see how this is anti-MK.
We say "The blue and yellow colours that Wimbledon F.C. players had worn were concurrently replaced by an all-white strip, while the club badge became a rendering of the letters "MK", with the "K" positioned below the "M", rotated 90° anti-clockwise and defaced with the year "MMIV" (2004).". This last bit ("2004") seems to imply that MKD are not tracing their roots back beyond that, it is true, but this is not our article saying that, this is the club itself. We are just describing the logo MKD themselves adopted.
Finally we say AFCW wear blue and yellow like WFC did, have a similar badge based on the municipal arms, and call themselves "Dons" and "Wombles". Merely descriptive and so far as I see not really relevant to MK.
This section isn't about the fans, it's just about the club colours, badges, nicknames etc. We talk about the fans lower down under "Legacy of Wimbledon F.C.", and mention the link some MK Dons still feel with WFC in the "2006 agreement" section.
Regarding the MKDSA, it says on its website it was formed in 2003 at the National Hockey Stadium, after the team was already in MK (albeit while it was still called Wimbledon and playing in blue and white). What name was it formed under, was it originally called the Wimbledon Supporters Association? I can't find any reference to a body of that name through Google (all the results I could find were about the Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association (WISA), which as I'm sure you know is a very different kettle of fish). I'm glad we have reached an accommodation otherwise and I hope we can settle this too. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Ugh they changed their website! Now I can't find anything either, the old one was a lot more detailed. How about compromising and removing the word "contrasted"? I just still think it sends a message of "look AFC tried to replicate WFC but MKD didn't even have a decent go at it". Would it be worth mentioning the repeated use of blue and yellow for third and goalie strips too? The blue third kit was very popular when it was released, and so is the yellow one, I'm sure a blue-yellow one is only avoided to avoid more controversy. Anyway how does this sound:

The new name of the relocated club was "Milton Keynes Dons Football Club" (commonly shortened to MK Dons),[4] a name made up of the team's new location and "Dons", a common nickname of Wimbledon-based sports teams, often associated particularly with Wimbledon Football Club. Winkelman's consortium explained that the name was intended to "represent the past, present and future and place the club at the heart of its new community" as well as to retain a connection with the club's former identity.[4] The blue and yellow colours that Wimbledon F.C. players had worn were concurrently replaced by an all-white strip and a red away strip (coincidentally Wimbledon FC's historical away colours), while the club badge became a rendering of the letters "MK", with the "K" positioned below the "M", rotated 90° anti-clockwise and defaced with the year "MMIV" (2004).[103]
AFC Wimbledon regards itself as the spiritual continuation of Wimbledon F.C., thus it attempts to emulate the original's appearance in almost every way: it wears the same blue and yellow home colours,[104][105] and, like Wimbledon F.C., uses a badge based on the local municipal coat of arms.[104] AFC Wimbledon continue to use the "Dons" nickname, despite its synchronous use in Milton Keynes. They also retain the "Wombles" label formerly applied to Wimbledon Football Club.[104]

The only thing is that making the connection between the white and red adopted by MK and the Wimbledon away colours is original research—even if we say it's a coincidence, that's original research too (how do we know it wasn't deliberate?). Indeed I can't actually find a source online saying the historical away kit colours included white and red (I found this, but it's not a reliable source and in any case it shows away kit colours also included green and yellow). I would be genuinely interested to know if the old away colours were a factor in the choice of white, black and red for MK Dons, but I can't find anything about it so unless you can I think we will have to leave that out. Apart from that I think your proposed entry is the same as what we have now.
I have substituted the word "compared" for "contrasted", as I agree on reflection that saying "contrasted" in the title does imply that the two things mentioned are polar opposites of each other. I have tweaked the description of the kit to "white shirts, shorts and socks with black, red and gold as accent colours" to be more precise (the original kit as MK Dons was this one). I hope this is okay. Thanks, I think we are really making progress with the article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been in possession of a white away Wimbledon FC kit from the 90's, a 1996 Wimbledon fully red away shirt and a white Wimbledon scarf from 1988. If I upload photos would a visual source count? I don't think saying that it's coincidental is original research, it's merely stating a fact surely, Wimbledon's away/third kits were white and/or red, because otherwise it throws the question why wasn't it green, or purple or pink for example?
I would just scrap the word compared/contrasted altogether, just have "AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons identities" and then the comparing can left to the reader, but comparing I guess is fine by me too. 
The thing is because of the legal battles no-one will now want to stir up trouble or re-dig the old animosities/memories, one of the ex-WFC MKD fans recently was threatened with legal action over putting a Wimbledon badge on a scarf, imagine the fuss if any new light was shone from the official club, sources are going to be fewer in the future as sites will be shut down and this will move further down in history as both AFC and MKD create new notable facts Abcmaxx (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Even leaving all the problems about sourcing aside, I think it just isn't a good idea to get into this. In the ambiguity, we just can't win with the wording. If we say it was a coincidence, that's original research as we don't know that it actually was a coincidence (the colours may have been chosen on purpose); if we say it was deliberate, that's original research too, because we don't know. If we say neither—that is, say MK Dons picked white, red, black and gold and that red and black had used by WFC for away colours—readers will assume, with good reason, that there is a connection, something we should not lead them to think unless we actually know.
Uploading photos won't really change anything as we can already see the shirts in the other link I gave (this), and that's no good either. I've never heard of a case of us citing a shirt or a scarf before. Having a look through the various templates I think the closest would be Template:Cite sign, which is usually used for placards at museums and the like (?). Even then it seems to me a bit dodgy as the shirts would be primary sources in the extreme. After all, one could easily just cite the green and yellow away shirts too and confuse the issue further (you can look here if you like to see where I'm coming from).
As an aside, being threatened with legal action over the use of a badge on merchandise isn't exclusive to MK Dons by any means; see Arsenal Football Club vs. Matthew Reed for just one example (case also discussed here). As you may know, the objection to using the old Wimbledon badge actually goes all the way back to 2002 when, in light of the impending move, the College of Arms told Wimbledon they could not legally use the badge anymore. That's way Wimbledon used that eagle's head badge during the 2003–04 season in MK. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes of course, my point was though that sourcing this article is and probably always will be quite difficult, quite likely increasingly so, and it's unlikely for anyone to shine any more light on what happened. However it does say "The blue and yellow colours that Wimbledon F.C. players had worn" but that's not original research and the away kits for both MKD and WFC was red (those last few years and MKD years to this day) so why not say "The fully red away colours that Wimbledon FC had worn remained unchanged" - there's no suggestion of anything coincidence, non-coincidence, etc. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have put "The blue and yellow home colours that Wimbledon F.C. players had worn were concurrently replaced by white shirts, shorts and socks with black, red and gold as accent colours; the away outfit of red shirts, shorts and socks was similar to the last Wimbledon F.C. away kit." Is that okay? —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the POV template, all is fine. If I stumble upon any more sources relating to the move I shall inform you Abcmaxx (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad we were able to resolve this. One last thing: do you mind if I move this discussion to Talk:Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes so it can be easily found in future? —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all! And sorry if I my opinions came a bit too strong - as I'm sure you probably have witnessed on many occasions football fans are run by emotion and rarely rational especially when it comes to their own team. I think this has become a cracking article now though Abcmaxx (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Great. Me too. I think the article has improved a lot and I'm really happy we have a result we are both happy with. Cheers! :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


### Another comment from the sideline
I just wanted to compliment both of you on your latest edits to this article - maintaining npov and working to improve the article. Applause! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you John. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cafc.co.uk/page/history/0%2C%2C10267~2180943%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529205257/http://www.fchd.info/LUTONT.HTM to http://www.fchd.info/LUTONT.HTM
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skysports.com/skysports/storytemplate/storytoppic/0%2C%2C5500-1014439%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skysports.com/skysports/storytemplate/storytoppic/0%2C%2C6130-1015241%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wisa.org.uk/cgi/l/articles/index.cgi?action=show&id=264
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mkdons.com/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10420~371730%2C00.html
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6WPC1pioZ?url=http://www.espnfc.com/story/304402/dons-out-of-administration to http://www.espnfc.com/story/304402/dons-out-of-administration
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220102010/http://www.wisa.org.uk/cgi/l/articles/index.cgi?action=show&id=558 to http://www.wisa.org.uk/cgi/l/articles/index.cgi?action=show&id=558
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) 06:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. 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/20110605011512/http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer%2F08%2F06%2F04%2FSOCCER_Gretna_Smith.html to http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer%2F08%2F06%2F04%2FSOCCER_Gretna_Smith.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204120018/http://www.isthmian.co.uk/club-info.php?id=10012&team_id=117752&Submit=Select to http://www.isthmian.co.uk/club-info.php?id=10012&team_id=117752&Submit=Select
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022185840/http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/index.php?Psection_id=1 to http://www.afcwimbledon.co.uk/index.php?Psection_id=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721004225/http://www.wisa.org.uk/cgi/l/articles/index.cgi?action=show&id=343 to http://www.wisa.org.uk/cgi/l/articles/index.cgi?action=show&id=343
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224152428/http://www.wisa.org.uk/wopa/news1.html to http://www.wisa.org.uk/wopa/news1.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mastersfootball.com/Events/Archive/MastersCup/MastersCup2006/LondonMasters.asp
Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110926155130/http%3A//www.merton.gov.uk/my_merton_issue_28_final_proof.pdf to http://www.merton.gov.uk/my_merton_issue_28_final_proof.pdf
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) 03:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Womble Till I Die! Plough Lane gates.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The outcome of that decision was keep. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)