Talk:Rangers F.C./Archive 2

message: I have been trying to insert edits on 2 points that I believe are valid and provide appropriate context for information already published.
The first was in relation to Rangers achievement of reaching the last 16 of the Campions League this season.  The information was originally presented as such;
"Rangers are also the first side from Scotland to reach the last 16 of the UEFA Champions League"
This at its most literal level is accurate, but at the same time misleading.  The impression given to the reader is that no Scottish club side has ever achieved more in Europes premier club competition.  The fact that the competition changed format and was renamed from the European Cup to the Chamions League is imaterial.  As such, I then changed it to:
"While rivals Celtic have previously won the European Cup, Rangers are the first side from Scotland to reach the last 16 of the UEFA Champions League under the current format of Europe's premier club competition."
I feel this was a fair edit that informed the reader of the history of Scottish club achievement in the competition, while not detracting from the fact that Rangers achievement was indeed significant in the context of the new format, and in terms of previous Old Firm performances in the CL format.  I suspect the fact that Celtic were mentioned was the main reason that some people took offence to the edit - that it was Celtic, rather than any other Scottish club, should not matter.
As any reference to reaching the last 16 is currently removed, I will not make too big a deal of this, but my edits should certainly not be seen as an attempt to detract from Rangers, but to provide proper context.
However, the second edit that I have just reinstated is in relation to the stadium.  This is a minor point, but I think raises the same issues as the previous point.  The article origionally read;
"Ibrox has a capacity of 50,411, making it the third largest football stadium in Scotland."
The fact that the size of the stadium is mentioned in relative terms begs the question "What stadiums are bigger?".  Therefore, I edited it to:
"Ibrox has a capacity of 50,411, making it the third largest football stadium in Scotland behind Hampden Park (52,500) and Celtic Park (60,830)."
I do not see what the problem seems to be with this edit, but, again, suspect that offence has been taken from the reference to Celtic.  For the information to be presented in such a way is IMO perfectly valid and required.  This, again, is not an attempt to detract in any way from Rangers, it merely provides supplementary information in relation to a relative reference the original author invited.  However, if the information had merely been " Ibrox has a capacity of 50,411." then there would have been no need to provide any further context to the statement.
If there are perhaps other issues that I have not considered then please let me know, but I suspect I am right.  For such sensitivities to exist around minor points is quite worrying for the integrity of the information in the article.  Gourlg9a 23:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Guinnog 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Celtic do not constitute a detraction from Rangers status/achievement 

message: Why are people removing Paul Le Guen from the management section? Wikipedia is about knowledge. This section is about Rangers management. This is an important piece of information on the team's management and yet some people are removing this. Cdmstewart 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Le Guen in Managers Section 

message: Why has it been removed? 
GulDukat73 00:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah,. you do that, and while you're at it remember that Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. Plenty of time to think about it when you're next blocked - looked at your talk page recently? Paddyohale 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, you can read. As it happens, are you from Scotland? Or is it Birmingham these days? Stop trying to cause trouble or you will be blocked/banned again. Paddyohale 14:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous fans section 

message: Why on earth is the first thing apart from the introduction and a link, a page about sectarianism? Is that really what people want to read about first?  Crazy!
82.152.196.159 17:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, but with good reason, it is the first thing most football fans in the world think of when they hear of either of the old firm, if they have heard of them at all. I hope fervently that this will not always be the case. Maybe the current EUFA trouble will bring it to a head. Fans of both OF teams need to have a really good look at themselves; the world has moved on, and sectarianism is no longer wanted, in Scotland or elsewhere. Guinnog 17:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectarianism 

message: I changed José-Karl Pierre-Fanfan's nationality in the squad listing to Martinique as he has represented their national team. For those who don't know, Martinique is officially part of France (as opposed to a colony), and so they aren't a FIFA member, but they do have a legit national team which is a member of CONCACAF. Anyway, using either "Martinique" or "MTQ" in the template means it's still the French flag that is displayed, albeit captioned as Martinique. Now while I realise that is technically correct, I think it would be more useful to display the unofficial flag of Martinique, which you can get by entering "Mart" but leaves you with a rather cryptic caption:  Not immediately informative, therefore, for anyone looking at the squad and thinking, "What the heck is that flag next to Fanfan's name? I thought he was French." Any comments or solutions?? -- Jellyman 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanfan's nationality 

message: Should this section not have a separate page, or be moved to the History of Rangers page? Archibald99 12:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Idea.  How about condensing the section to provide a recap of his 5 year tenure, and copying the full section to the History of Rangers F.C. page in its enitrety? We are the people. 69.158.64.187 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I've made the first attempt.  The rest is up to you to add/subtract/fix/copyedit/whatever.  We are the people. 206.130.170.11 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Alex McLeish section

message: Currently, the articles on Celtic and Rangers both claim they won the League Cup in 1970, 1975, 1983 and 1998. What's the score? In the Scottish League Cup article, the years listed for the finals don't match the years listed by club below. I know some seasons' finals were played in the first half of the season, but surely there should be a consistent scheme. I can't think of anything better than listing seasons in full everywhere - ie 1998/99 etc. Hippo43 14:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  League Cup Years / Seasons 

message: Could someone upload a picture of the new away kit for the infobox? Or post instructions for how to do so? Archibald99 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Away Kit

message: We need a citation here - this is obviously difficult to prove. I see Linfield's article says the same thing about them.Hippo43 09:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most successful club 

message: There appears to be some confusion to whether Celtic Park is a UEFA 5-star stadium or not. Based on this article from UEFA , i added it was (also, the UEFA5Star template suggests likewise).This article from 2003 reports that Celtic were upgrading, as does this one  but i can find no confirmation that this has been completed and the rating awarded. Mind you, no less an authority than Sepp Blatter himself called it "five-star, definitely"  ;). Seriously, though, can anyone confirm there are now 3 5-star stadia in Glasgow? Rockpocket 01:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree this is more relevent to the Celtic article, but it is here that the fact is disputed. I tend to think it isn't 5-star yet either, but per WP:V, verifiability is the benchmark, not truth. Since UEFA itself calls it 5-star, i think it should stay until we can get official confirmation one way or the other. Rockpocket 17:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point about the timing of the Celtic reports. My google searches reveal other sources which suggest CP is 5-star also, though. Its obviously pretty unclear exactly what the situation is, and if it gets resolved it should probably be addressed in the UEFA5Star template also, for the sake of consistancy. Until we can get solid confirmation from UEFA or Celtic Park one way or the other, i would suggest that the sentence be reworded to remove reference to the other rated grounds in Glasgow (after all, that is only of secondary importance to Ibrox itself). However, i expect those that see this as an issue of oneupmanship will protest. Rockpocket 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Now we all are... ;) Rockpocket 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5-Star Stadia 

message: Maybe I've missed something, but why is there no longer any mention of the fact that Rangers have won more domestic league championships/trophies than any other team, in the introduction? It's only mentioned way down near the bottom of the article. I'm not a Rangers fan, and I'm aware of the controversy over whether this makes them the world's "most succesful team", but isn't it taking NPOV to a bit of an extreme not to mention this record in the introduction? Camillus (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Honours

message: I would have though we are skirting the very limits of notability in mentioning transfer speculation for a ManU reserve in the article? Just because a newspaper speculates, and thus can be cited, it doesn't mean that it is appropriate for an ancyclopaedia.
Rockpocket 18:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the article cited is from the Daily Retard, the Snotsman or the Scottish Scum?  Would that speculation still be the gospel?  Just because an online newssource states that a player is interested in joining Rangers or that PLG is "interested" in a particular player, it does not mean that a transfer is imminent:  it is still speculation and does not belong in an encyclopaedia.  Only when the player's registration has been transferred to the new club's FA does the transfer become "official".  Often difficult and protracted negotiations preceed any transfers which involve a fee to release the player from his current contract (to the player, selling team, previous team sell-ons and agents), but also agreeing personal terms (i.e. a new contract) with the player, and often as a safeguard, the player passing a medical.   Long story short:  the Rangers FC main page shouldn't be used to report transfer speculation, only completed transfers.  Speaking of which, if you look here, you'll see that Marvin Andrews is not contractually bound to the club is actually considered unattached.  We are the people.  206.130.170.11 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer Speculation 

message: The article fails good article criteria (see WP:GAC)
Specifically:
*There does not appear to be a single source or citation in the entire article. There are a few  in the article but also there are many other things that should be sourced. These include the Club Records, Greatest Team and Honours sections.
*There are several images that have tagging problems. Go through the images and make sure they have source information and if they are Fair Use, a FU Rationale. 
*The history section have a short summary of the club's history as well as the link to the main article. It fails 3a) "Broad in it's coverage" at the moment.
Alexj2002 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failed 

message: Please can sombody up-load a new crest as the last one was removed Kingjamie 11:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crest