Talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C.

message: The text recently read that MK Dons 'took Wimbledon FC's place'. This is not correct. What actually happened, according to the rules of the FA and English law, that Wimbledon FC was renamed and continued on unchanged in all other respectssame manager, same players, same staff. The term 'took Wimbledon's place' is just a marginally less undiplomatice way of claiming that MK Dons 'stole' the place, which is POV.  
The fact that MK Dons has represented ('spun') the story that it is a new club, to keep everybody happy. It isn't really, but lets just pretend it is. MK Dons didn't apear from nowhere and steal the place: the club continued on from where it was in the League. Now I realise that most people would prefer to forget what happened, but we simply can't have a text that is clearly false.  MK Dons did not take the place, they continued on from it. The text should read 'Continued from Wimbledon's place'.  I won't revert twice but a CN and Dubious tag are certainly merited. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think potentially you're over-reading what is intended by this phrase - remember that different words imply different things to different people (a potentially vacuous statement I know, but a true one!). I certainly don't think a 'citation needed' tag is of any value on a verb. Most importantly, the paragraph above this sentence sets out quite clearly the situation. The easiest way to solve this is simply to reword the sentence so that it doesn't have to mention whether the place was taken, continued, stolen, bought, sold, or anything else! --Pretty Green (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: John is right. MK Dons is the same club as Wimbledon FC. The club changed its name in 2004, having moved to Milton Keynes nine months previously. This article is wrong. Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was correct until 2007, but MK Dons now say they consider their founding date as 2004, with no history before that and no links to Wimbledon FC. The company history of course cannot be changed, but the two sporting histories are now split. This should be made clear. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They can say what they want (and only did so in order to have a boycott lifted by AFCW supporters and the FSF), but MKD is the same club as WFC. And MKD is a primary source here. This is a rewriting of history. Mooretwin (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The stance currently taken by Wikipedia makes clear that the two clubs are legally the same, but also explains the consensus which came about in 2007 (which you are right was essentially forced upon MKD by the FSF, but some would say they deserved it). A rewriting of history would be to say MKD was founded in 2004, then giving no explanation of what happened beforehand. That's not what we're doing here. The lead explains briefly how the club was formed, gives a short explanation of the conflict with the FSF, and concludes that "despite remaining a legal continuation of the original Wimbledon club, MK Dons have maintained since 2007 that it is a new team, founded in 2004." The infobox gives a wikilink here beneath the word "2004", and the prose says "the first season for the club as MK Dons was the 2004–05 season." A rewriting of history would perhaps be to omit the words "as MK Dons", but again that's not what we've got here. I think the present solution we have is adequate and more neutral than any other alternative we could have. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Took Wimbledon FC's place' or 'Continued from Wimbledon FC's place' 

message: This page has been vandalised and not all of it reverted. For example the squad section and some of the links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.83.172 (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know. I have reverted out all of today's edits which appear to be vandalism (apart from the last which partially fixed the vandalism). Hopefully that will fix it for now. Keith D (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: For info, there is a discussion on the best title to give the stadium article, now that the stadium is no longer called stadium:mk. Please contribute at talk:stadium:mk#Need to change the name of the article now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to change the name of the stadium article 

message: A user changed the name from Brendan to Brendon. Soccerbase at http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=63197 uses the spelling 'Brendan'. Unless someone can produce very convincing evidence that it is wrong, it should syay as Brendan. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Brendan/Brendon Galloway

message: The current lede reads:
which to me reads as long-winded and weasel-worded. I propose this, which I think better summarises the content of the article:
I think this is better because (a) what part of  Milton Keynes it was that WFC ended up is just a detail, (b) 'from Crystal Palace' is another detail - both of these are early in the text. (c) It is critical that the lede doesn't weasel its way out of the fact that the business that operated WFC went into administration, was bought out, and renamed.  It's all in the text: the lede is supposed to summarise the text. 
Comments?  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good; all I can see that I don't like is the capitalisation of the "B" at the start of "board". —Cliftonian (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for tighter lede. 

message: I've added a new section about the club's work in the community, since this has always been an important activity of the club (highlighted recently at the award of the honorary doctorate to Pete Winkelman).  I'm sure it could be improved and there's more that could be said. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community 

message: I replaced a questionably selected copy of material from the 'relocation' article with copied material that provides a fuller back-story and is more honest about what happened and who led it. I've used the 'copied' template to give attribution to the source. I've not used this before so I'm not convinced that I've understood how to derive 'diff' correctly. Would someone please check and correct if need be. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Creation' section : could someone please check that I've done the "copied" template correctly 

message: Should his nationality be Northern Irish even though he has never played for Northern Ireland? Someone who knows more than me help? TauntingElf (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Reeves Nationality 

message: Could someone who knows more about it than me (not hard!) write a section about the Academy. There's a nice sentence in the intro quoting the Mail praising the Academy coach. But really anything there should only summarise a section in the body. So we need one. The risk is that it'll get filled with hard luck stories common to every club when academy graduates don't get senior contracts. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academy 

message: Is there a lawyer in the house? For rather a long time, the article (well, the footnote to 'Founded' in the infobox) has reported that 'Legally speaking, MK Dons is a continuation of WFC'. However a recent edit asserts that Milton Keynes Dons Ltd bought the assets of WFC Ltd from the administrator, end of WFC. Is this actually correct (in fact as well as in law)? If so then every business that has been in and out of administration is a new business. That can't be right, surely! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fanciful. Administration isn't liquidation. I've restored the original footnote as the editor provided no source to support his claims. Any proposed change ought to be discussed here first. Mooretwin (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for not outright reversing the change previously. When it was made I tried to find a middle way between the two. However on reflection I must say the assertion that the club is different because the assets were transferred to a different company is somewhat dubious to me. Luton Town went into administration during the 2007–08 season, then came out just in time for the 2008–09 season (the one with the 30-point deduction) with the assets under a new company, Luton Town Football Club 2020 Ltd—but I don't imagine anyone would say this was the end of Luton Town and the start of a new one. This is just one example I used because I'm familiar with it; there are many, many others, such as Middlesbrough in the late 1980s and Rangers a couple years ago. Hope this helps —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a confusing area, and a particularly charged one in respect of MK Dons. Mooretwin (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal continuity question again 

message: I hate to spoil the party but I really think that the current para 3 of the lede ("MK Dons abandoned its claim to any history before 2004 ...") is wp:undue here [because the lede should summarise the most important elements of the body and in effect it just repeats para two]. It belongs and should be moved to the end of #Origins. It is only at this stage that it is clear what history it is that we are talking about. Then we can start to add more summary material. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - you're much more eloquent at this than me Abcmaxx (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The third paragraph of the lead summarises information already in the body under "Supporters' club recognition". It isn't necessary at the end of the Origins section. I'm fairly indifferent on this one frankly—we already say in the first paragraph that the club considers itself to be formed in 2004. Perhaps the third paragraph can be converted into a footnote and put in the first paragraph after "2004, when it adopted its present name, badge and home colours."? I'll just go ahead and do this now so you can both see exactly what I mean. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! That hits the spot! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Lekker —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Para 3

message: It'll be nice if someone could help out expand the "kit history" section, someone has been updating the strip each year in the infobox so it might be worth putting in the old ones in and some goalie kits too to expand the article.
Also any idea what is the Dons record league away attendance (i.e. record number of away Dons fans who travelled for an away league game)? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendance stats & Kit 

message: Under 'notable players' it says the goal counts are for 'league games only', but does that include the league play-offs?  I ask because Willy Gueret scored a goal in the home leg of the 2009 play-off semifinal penalty shoot out, so I was wondering whether that should appear in the table?  Daveofthenewcity (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Play-off games generally don't count in league statistics in my experience (they are usually counted in the "other" column). If this was in a penalty shoot-out it wouldn't count anyway. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's a shame. Would have been nice to have Willy's goal in there. Thanks. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willy Gueret's goal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Milton Keynes Dons F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141114225309/http://www.mkdsa.co.uk:80/index.php/mk-dons/notable-fans to http://www.mkdsa.co.uk/index.php/mk-dons/notable-fans
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the nickname in the info box supposed an "offical" nickname or how it is known by some in the football comunity?Dja1979 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay no-one has answered. But should we add The Franchise or Franchise FC to the nickname section as these names seem to be added by different people everyother month or so. So it seems MKDons are know by these names, but not normally by people associated with the club.Dja1979 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that nickname is only used pejoratively and/or to delegitimise the team. The people who add it every month or so are vandals. Their fans do sometimes ironically reclaim the term in chants ("you're getting beat by a franchise") but the club itself would never use it in an official capacity. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic we would have to add "AFC Kingston", "Chelski", "Pottyboro", "ManUre", "The Arse", "Man Shitty" etc. etc. which are just as widely used Abcmaxx (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nickname

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Milton Keynes Dons 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.espnfc.com/story/304402/dons-out-of-administration
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Milton Keynes Dons 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.espnfc.com/story/304402/dons-out-of-administration
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229053844/http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk:80/ to http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/
*Added  tag to http://www.mkdons.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10420~604606,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, although he did not make 100 appearances and rightly not in the first section, he should be in the "other notable players" due to fame now at Tottenham and England. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapour27 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dele Alli under Other notable players 

message: The table was displaying some random date for the 21 Jan match.  should display 21 January 2017, instead it is displaying 1 September 2017! Even more weird, all the other uses of Start Date are displaying correctly. When I changed it to  it displays the correct date, when actually it should throw up an error (invalid month).  The wrong format works here too: ! Before I go to template talk, can anyone see what I'm missing? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the date goes YYYY/MM/DD. So for 21 January you'd want 2017|01|21. Does that work? —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date funny on 21 Jan game v Northampton 

message: Milton Keynes Dons F.C. → Milton Keynes Wanderers F.C.
* Rationale: Dons makes no sense at all for a football team, unless it somehow is a nickname derives from the place name itself, like Aberdeen F.C. and A.F.C. Wimbledon; on the other hand, there are many football teams with Wanderers in it, such as Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C., Bolton Wanderers F.C., etc... Plus, from a historical perspective, it makes sense for the team in Milton Keynes to be called Wanderers, as they wandered from Plough Lane to Selhurst Park before finally coming to Milton Keynes, and Pete Winkelman really wants to preserve Milton Keynes' history. Kerl126 (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask Mr Winkelman then—changing the name of the team is nothing to do with us, sorry. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Milton Keynes Dons 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/20140410091713/http://mkdsa.co.uk/index.php/dons-history-2/the-story-of-the-dons-2000-2010 to http://www.mkdsa.co.uk/index.php/dons-history-2/the-story-of-the-dons-2000-2010
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) 16:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Milton Keynes Dons 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/20070218081255/http://www.football-league.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10794~673609,00.html to http://www.football-league.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10794~673609,00.html
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) 22:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Apparently controversial so - at the request of other editors - I am posting the full material from the Milton Keynes Citizen article that is cited to allow judgment to be made without viewing the link:
A stadium in Milton Keynes had initially been planned at the National Bowl. Winkelman was part of a plan to build a sports facility at the concert venue back in 1997 but plans were scuppered, and Denbigh North was chosen instead.
“I was very lucky, because the city had been looking for a stadium since 1973,” said the Dons chairman.
“When I got involved in 1997 when the Bowl came on the market, I got together with a bunch of property designers to see what could be done there.
“The concept was simple - concerts in the summer, football in the winter.
“But that was much harder to deliver because the Bowl is sat in a large residential area, and while people there much accept three concerts a year, they wouldn’t accept 30-odd football matches a year.
“So after another test, we chose Denbigh North.” Clonewormblademr (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This quotation does not support the change you made to the article. It says clearly that 1997 is about putting a stadium on the National Bowl site. It is not remarkable, there have been indicative plans for a 25000+ stadium in MK since the early 70s, this was just another iteration. Thus the original date of 2000 for Denbigh was correct and I am now reinstating the original version. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1997 - Winkelman first proposes stadium 

message: Because this article has its own category the article itself does not need to be in the county category. Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Milton Keynes Dons F.C. 

message: As a keen editor of both this article and associated Milton Keynes Dons' player articles, the club's records and achievements article and one or two others, I propose a signficant edit to this article - the removal of several sub-sections and also shortening several sub-sections, namely:
Removal of the following sub-sections:
*Notable supporters - most of this is unsourced and speculative and not a feature of more prominent club's main pages
*Player of the year, club captains and top scorers (table) - this was a table I created a while back, it is entirely unsourced and not necessarily 100% accurate.
*Notable coaches - not a common feature of more prominent club's main pages and includes several unsourced mentions
Shorten the following sub-sections:
*Rivalries - shortened to a more concise paragraph detailing the main local rivals. I intend to create a detailed AFC Wimbledon - MK Dons rivalry page which I will link to as a further reading page at a later date. This sub-section includes head to head win/loss/draw stats for each rival - I created this originally myself several years ago but it is too excessive and not a common feature of more prominent club's wiki pages.
*Club records and achievements - Include the further reading page link to the List of Milton Keynes Dons F.C. records and statistics page, replace the remainder with a paragraph detailing sourced, select records and achievements (in line with many other club's equivalent sections).
*Youth academy - Shorten to a more concise, sourced single paragraph.
The overall aim of these suggested changes is to de-clutter and make the overall article a clearer and more concise read in line with other club pages.
If there are no objections, I will go ahead with these changes. A few of these sections as mentioned above were actually created by myself in the first place.FilthyDon (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for significant improvements to this article  

message: Sorry it's well-worn territory, but this needs a slightly longer explanation in the intro, which seems to contradict itself. ("founded"/"adopted", etc)
The key information is only in the footnotes or in the fairly nondescript sections down the page. I'm sure it can be summed up very briefly.
As Cliftonian quoted here in 2012, this was the version then:
"despite remaining a legal continuation of the original Wimbledon club, MK Dons have maintained since 2007 that it is a new team, founded in 2004."
The last remnant of Cliftonian's quote was deleted with no reason given in December 2017.
As discussed above, the word "legal" is disputed, so is best omitted.  
Would suggest adding a modified version:
"despite replacing the original Wimbledon club in the Football League, MK Dons made an agreement in 2007 that it was a new club, founded in 2004."
The title could also be clearer in the 5th section – "Supporters' club recognition" – as it is mainly about one situation with the FSF, not about its general relationships with any other supporter groups. "Supporters' club" is also a little different from its official name. I would use the title MK Dons Supporters Association dispute, or Football Supporters' Federation dispute.
Thanks,
- Demokra (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: MK Dons' founding & FSF dispute

message: I have come across an edit on the player listing which has #36 Lewis Johnson listed, Johnson is not on Professional terms and as I had seen stated on the players list only professionals should be listed and not academy players.
I feel insulted this listing has been allowed - and my edits were scrubbed out weeks prior due to the names not being listed as professionals. It makes no sense, like making up listing rules as you go, especially as I had previously listed Johnson's squad number and name on the first team list. MK10 DON (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player Listing in MK Dons FC page 

message: Please can you update the club logo - thanks 86.177.148.178 (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021 

message: As I understand it, the legal name of the club is as this article has always been: Milton Keynes Dons Football Club, abbreviated to MK Dons F.C. Today,  changed the full name to the abbreviated name without leaving an edit summary or indeed any explanation for such a major change. So I reverted. But I decided to have a look for evidence either way. 
* Companies House reports MILTON KEYNES DONS LIMITED  Company number 04787003. 
* Neither the FA website nor nor the Berks & Bucks FA website gives a list of members.
* The club badge and logo says "MK Dons"
So I'm none the wiser. Citation needed! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal name of the club 

message: Please can you update our MK Dons Club Crest on the wiki logo section to our Official Crest 
thumb|Official MK Dons Club Crest MK Dons Marketing (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the source of the image, for purposes of attributing the upload? (Found the new logo at https://www.mkdons.com/; the change in colour is verified. Just waiting to double-check the new license terms.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, where can we verify that the club is releasing the new crest into the public domain, where it can be commercially reused without attribution or other licensing? —C.Fred (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @MK Dons Marketing: to be clear "commercially reused" means modified, adapted, even used to brand clothing that competes with your merchandising. At least if it is uploaded to en.Wikipedia at low resolution, you can make it impractical. But first we would need a formal waiver of rights clearly given on behalf of the club. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  Note: Request is on hold, to determine whether the new crest needs moved to en.wiki as non-free content or is truly in the public domain. The new version is at :commons:MK_DONS_OFFICIAL_CREST.png; I do have the file on my local machine for the purpose of downscaling and uploading it if it, as I suspect, is not a free image. —C.Fred (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would appear, unsurprisingly, that you were correct. Tollens (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: I have marked this request as answered, as the requester has not recently responded & the request appears to have reached a conclusion. Should it need to re-open, please change the "answered" parameter to 'yes' Irltoad (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024