Talk:Guiseley A.F.C. Vixens

message: I've tidied up a few typos in the article, but I couldn't work out what was being said about Sponsorship - who are Frownies, I can't find them on the club web site? and what was being said about Mears and the cheque?  Could you edit this section if you know about it.  PamD 19:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sponsorship - confused text 

message: I have made some edit that may seem pointless but by making spaces between the = and the word inside it but I find it easier to edit a page mattypc 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Noone has been botherd to say why they want it changed I am the only person who gives cares about it. Eve the wikipedian who wants it changed is so lazy they want to merge it but cant be botherd to say why none of them will be merged if this stays on uncontested for 5 days it will go back to the way it was before. As it should.mattypc 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a merge, as a third division ladies team is unlikely enough to be notable enough to support sub-articles. Until several third party sources can be added (i.e. not just referencing loads of information from the team's website), it should stay as one article. The way to go, I feel, would be to merge the content into one page and clean it up thoroughly. Much of what is currently there is not particularly useful information. --Jameboy 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't done the merge yet as it should go through a discussion, this is why I added the tags, not down to laziness. I support the merger as the team is not notable enough to require multiple articles, especially when some articles are very short and the history article is a copy of the history on the main page. The subject however is notable enough to require the main article, with all the content in one place. Chappy  TC 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please stop deciding this on your own Roosterulez, from the above so far for the merger are myself and Jameboy, and against is yourself.  It would be better to get more concensus on this, however at the moment the proposal has more support than against. I have requested some input on the matter from WP:Football members. ChappyTC 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd back a merge as well for Jameboy's reasons laid out above. I took a look at this article last month and it still needs a lot of further improvement - from removing non-notable players' names, the quality of the prose is poor and it does not use many independent references. I have accordingly downgraded the article's importance and quality ratings as these seem to have been added by the article's principal author and not an independent party, and will also add in further cleanup notices where possible. To User:Roosterrulez, I would suggest you stop assuming the role of page owner and to consider others' criticism. Qwghlm 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Other Users have not attempted the merger & deletion nomination of the history page yet as they have been awaiting the outcome of this merge discussion. On the subject of Page Owner, as far as I can tell you have misunderstood the definition. This is not just becoming the main editor, but becoming overly protective of a page you have made many edits to and dis-regarding, or being negative towards, others edits in preference to your own.  This was the point Qwghlm was trying to make. ChappyTC 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Could someone explain whats wrong with that part. A tag has been added and when a tag is added unless its obvious and described in the tag then your ment to say why on it talk page and noone has.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosterrulez (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I didn't add the tag I would suspect that it's due to the fact that the youth sides aren't notable.  Even teams such as the top four male clubs in the country don't have sections detailing every one of their youth teams, they have articles with information about the reserves and academy combined, however these have been under discussion by WP:Football members in the past as to whether they should have articles.  Myself I wouldn't think the youth teams should be detailed individually, maybe if you try and summarise better and just provide information on the academy in general rather than each team. Qwghlm added this tag so it would be better for you to ask him on his talk page.  ChappyTC 12:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other teams connected with Leeds City Vixens

message: If people add tags to the page can you atleast try to fix it. Your trying to be a good wikipedian but your not!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosterrulez (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any need for accusations of people not being "good wikipedians" here. It's totally unnecessary. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but why exactly do I have to fix any problem here? Can I not just give advice to a fellow Wikipedia editor without them telling me what to do? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, but is there any particular reason I have to do anything here? What exactly is the problem anyway? Maybe if I knew I could help. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologise for my negative attitude, and can understand your frustration. However, I'm uncomfortable with being told what to do and, like I asked, what exactly is the problem? Please explain and I'll see if I can help. And I never added any tags to this article, so please don't make false accusations. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've left a comment on the merge issue. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: taggs

message: Substituted at 21:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Guiseley A.F.C. Vixens. 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/20070228045825/http://www.ncel.org.uk/clubinfo.php?team=42&page=1 to http://www.ncel.org.uk/clubinfo.php?team=42&page=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907153658/http://www.wrcfa.com/DEVELOPMENT/CHARTER/VIXENS1.htm to http://www.wrcfa.com/DEVELOPMENT/CHARTER/VIXENS1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907153658/http://www.wrcfa.com/DEVELOPMENT/CHARTER/VIXENS1.htm to http://www.wrcfa.com/DEVELOPMENT/CHARTER/VIXENS1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928142111/http://www.femalesoccer.net/cgi-bin/league.pl?site=&league=northern_combination_league_2004_5 to http://www.femalesoccer.net/cgi-bin/league.pl?site=&league=northern_combination_league_2004_5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Guiseley A.F.C. Vixens. 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/20070521073853/http://leedscityvixens.com/ to http://www.leedscityvixens.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified