Talk:Hallam F.C.

message: Low-importance on what grounds?  If Man City is high, why should the second oldest football club (of ANY code) in the world, and still playing on the world's oldest ground be low?  Per the criteria  --  Article is extremely notable - yes but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent - yes!  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, I did the rating of low, and I confess I missed the 2nd oldest club claim.  However, as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive8#Importance_levels and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Importance%20rates, it's generally felt for clubs that importance=high is for the likes of Real Madrid, Manchester United, Liverpool, etc. I've generally put (English) non-league clubs as importance=low, especially if I hadn't heard of them, which is the case for Hallam. Importance=mid, which I generally take to mean nationally known, didn't seem appropriate.  Still, this is all about a building a consensus, go for importance=mid? (And Man City should be mid too! ;) )Paulbrock 10:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance - low? 

message: I just altered the statement about them being second oldest, to clarify that this only includes clubs still playing. The Wanderers for example were formed in 1859, before Hallam, but no longer play.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.49.109 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it as it is redundent. Oldest implies that the club is still in existance. You don't say "John Smith is the oldest man in the world that is still alive". josh (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Cray Wanderers are older.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change - 2nd oldest 

message: I've added a logo, but it's quite small. Does anyone have access to a better version? Grunners (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: The last two paragraphs of the "Club History" section seem to be a personal attack rather than factual and encyclopaedic Jules (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I still think that this list is not notable, although I see a list for Sheffield United in that article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote the club but to give neutral reliable referenced information. However I will let it lie. What do others think? You might think it odd that I edited this article if you see I live in Australia. As a boy I lived close to the Hallam ground on Dransfield Road, which ends at the back fence of the ground, from 1944 to the 1960s. --Bduke (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the current players as they are not notable. This club has an article because of the long age of the club and the ground. Bduke (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I received the following response:- "Please stop deleting the 'currrent squad' from the Hallam FC page. This is the second time that you have deleted it and cited a non-sensical reason for doing so. The reason given (that they are not notable) is completely irrelevant. The current squad is the current squad, whether they are notable or not. There is a separate list for former notable players. The first time that you deleted it, I undid your revision and stated this clearly. From User:MattMozz|MattMozz at 20:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: List of the current squad