Talk:Airdrieonians F.C.

message: :Image:AirdrieUnitedProgramme.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AirdrieUnitedProgramme.PNG

message: :Image:Airdriekit.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Airdriekit.PNG

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: move Airdrieonians F.C. to Airdrieonians F.C. (1878), Airdrie United F.C. to Airdrieonians F.C.. That the previous naming scheme was inadequate was quite easily proven. The arguments for naming the current club without the disambiguation seemed quite strong, particularly alongside other club articles that have been named in similar fashions. I must add that the name Airdrieonians F.C. (1878–2002) seemed to, at least to me, make more sense than simply Airdrieonians F.C. (1878), but that was never even brought up here, so I obviously couldn't make that move. (P.S. I don't know enough about the topic to write the hatnotes for these articles, so I hope someone else can take care of those.) -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure, they played at a similar level to each other last few seasons but the original club was far more successful overall. I would find it hard to argue one way or another who was the primary at least to a level we would all be happy with. Personally feel both being as dates is the best solution.Blethering Scot 22:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but as pointed out, the original Bootle and Maidstone were also more successful than the current club, but the current one takes primacy. Page view stats also back up the fact that more people are looking for the modern club as opposed to the old one (120 views/day for the modern club compared to 87 for the old one). Number 57 08:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not games will be televised or how notable an opponent is should not come into this at all, only how notable this club is over the other one. Page stats aren't enough of a difference to show that one has outright primacy over the other either, imo needs to be much more of a difference. On top of that one is clearly more successful than the other. No one has shown a clear argument validating primacy nor against it could be said, one click isn't going to harm anyone and to me is by far the best solution. Don't see harm in either version but feel the two at dates is most accurate in this situation so will leave to the closing admin to decide.Blethering Scot 20:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: *A ridiculous suggestion, these are clearly two seperate clubs. GiantSnowman 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *It isn't actually that ridiculous, it's actually another valid idea IMO, the Clydebank article refers to two separate clubs albeit around a year of difference between the old club going bust to get replaced by Airdrie & the new club being formed, the 2 Airdrieonians clubs' difference was within the same year albeit the new club being called Airdrie United. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *It is. Clubs having the same name does not make them the same club. GiantSnowman 17:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well I originally said 2 separate clubs but the Clydebank article actually refers to many separate clubs under the same or a similar name, correct me if I'm wrong? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *The Clydebank article refers to many more than just 2 clubs. None of any major significance. It is a history of football in the town more than a club article, with some info on the current team in the Junior set-up. VanguardScot 17:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am more in favour of the previous suggestion by User:Number 57 but I feel it was extremely harsh to completely ridicule this suggestion when in fact some precedence was set by the Clydebank article whether it be correct to merge all the Clydebank teams or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbarnett-bl (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: *Sorry for forgetting to sign. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *It wasnt me that called it ridiculous, but it was IMO a very lazy suggestion for solving this 'Airdrieonians problem'. VanguardScot 17:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: * Totally opposed to this suggestion. The two incarnations of Airdrieonians are officially separate clubs. The current club was originally Clydebank F.C. until it was taken over, re-branded and moved to Airdrie (ala what MK Dons did to Wimbledon F.C.). The Rangers senario was totally different with a new company (The Rangers Football Club Ltd) performing an asset buy out (including Rangers F.C.) from the old company (The Rangers Football Club Plc). With six teams throughout the last 130 years called Clydebank, none of massive note, I believe that article is merited as a history of football in the town. VanguardScot 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think we've really reached as much agreement as we'll ever get on doing User:Number 57's suggestion, IMO now would be the time for admins to set the wheels in motion. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a poll. Just because there is one extra person on one side does not mean that side will prevail in a discussion. Both sides have given their reasons for why it should/shouldn't be Airdrieonians F.C. (2002) / Airdrieonians F.C. that the page is moved to. Ultimately an administrator will decide which to go with based on the points raised, not the number of people raising each point. VanguardScot 18:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well a decision could do with being made soon & who is this person who decides & why is he/she so slow in making a decision? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now would be a good time to read up on a bit of wikipedia policy i think. However read the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia:Requested moves for your answers.Blethering Scot 20:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: *I am also opposed to merging the articles. The first Airdrieonians and the current Airdrie United / Airdrieonians are clearly distinct clubs (as opposed to merely distinct companies, in the Rangers FC case), because Airdrie United / Airdrieonians was formed out of the league place and SFA membership held by Clydebank FC, while the old Airdrieonians vacated their place and membership. The reason Airdrie United / Airdrieonians has not adopted the insignia and so on of the old Airdrieonians is because they were unable to acquire that intellectual property until the old company was formally liquidated earlier this year. It didn't buy the "business and assets" of the club in the way that the new Rangers company did. I suspect the Clydebank FC article has information about various incarnations because Wikipedia (and the Clydebank FC article) was created after Clydebank was forced out of senior football. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: *I politely direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 10:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: * By all means stick to your guns. A merged article is not going to happen though, as it would mean a lot of the good information from the original airdrieonians article would be lost to the history section of the current airdrieonians. By all means request at WP:Football that all 6 Clydebank clubs should have separate articles, but most of them would just be tiny stubs, so I cant see many editors wanting to change it. The Clydebank article not ideal as it is, but it is better than the alternatives IMO. VanguardScot 10:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: *The club's own website talks about the old club operating from 1878 to 2002 (ie it doesn't claim it as one unbroken history in the way that Rangers do). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yep. What happened to Rangers is no different to that dozens of other clubs in Britain; one company goes bust, another takes over, the club continues. Are we any closer to making something happen here? The club has been called Airdrieonians for nearly a week now. Walls of Jericho (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Its been three days since the rename. Request moves usually take around 7 days or longer depending on consensus. See the documentation at WP:RM.Blethering Scot 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm aware of that. This isn't a common RM though; the current article name isn't what the club is called any more, but whatever. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Is it really about who is the primary topic? people aren't stupid, if the current club is on the Airdrieonians F.C. page with a hatnote to the old club, people will read that & understand, not to mention the current club probably are the primary topic, if someone says "Airdrieonians" to you in 2013, 9 times out of 10 they mean the current club no? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if Airdrieonians F.C. is becoming a disambiguation page, what is happening to the one at Airdrie F.C. or is this a simple move as well? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record with the realisation that there is the Airdrie F.C. page operating as well I'm in favour of the following:
*Airdrie United F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (with redirects from Airdrieonians F.C. (2002) & Airdrie United F.C. & hatnote to disambiguation page)
*Airdrieonians F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (1878)
*Airdrie F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (disambiguation), with redirect on Airdrie F.C. name (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is likely to search specifically for Airdrieonians F.C. (2002) if there is an Airdrieonians F.C. if thats the option we go down so would be a pointless redirect. The original idea is by far the best idea given that we cant prove primacy, and really that as Mentoz8 said should be esthablished down the line.  However moving Airdrie F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C.  as the disam page would be a good idea in the original scenario.Blethering Scot 16:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you presuming that everybody goes to the main page & puts what they're looking for into the search box because I certainly don't unless I can't find an article? I use the URL (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/name of page), in which case someone might put "Airdrieonians_FC_(2002)" in the URL & come back with no results. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: its both an unlikely search term and a type in for a redirect. Its assuming a knowledge of when the club was re-founded and as a type in i see it even less although we will only find out if and when the pages are active at their correct location. Primarily thats because we have redirects all over the place at the moment and whilst redirects are cheap its just a very unlikely search term and the less confusing redirects in this case the better. As ive said i consider the original option the better because assuming primacy based on it being the current club is flawed, there isn't enough evidence to prove primacy and it certainly shouldn't be assumed. Long term it could and thats the time to look at it. Blethering Scot 05:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Still nobody willing to do anything about this!? Do I need to perform another 'controversial move' for people to actually do something about this!? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Making threats whether you mean or do it is not entirly helpful. An administrator will close eithier way when they get around to it or they feel there is enough consensus to do so. No immediate harm is being done to the encyclopaedia in any way, In fact the real problems begin after the move. Although i would not after 11 days it is due for a close.Blethering Scot 21:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a threat it was a question, the team are Airdrieonians so continuing to referring to them as Airdrie United in the title is wrong, not to mention it looks strange to have an article named Airdrie United F.C. with Airdrieonians info on the right & an opening sentence of "Airdrieonians Football Club are a Scottish professional football team based in Airdrie, North Lanarkshire" explanation or no explanation, there has also been at least 1 more attempted move by a user since we last spoke & my prediction is that there will be continue to be attempted moves left, right & centre unless something is actually done, would you take over a week to make a decision in a place of work? A lot of the pages on here read really professionally so Wikipedia should be treated professionally! (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With over 1000 incoming links, the work created by a move would not be trivial. As for urgency, we're all volunteers here. When I start getting paid to be an admin, then I might treat it like my place of work, but until then my day job takes priority ;-) Oldelpaso (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Em Rangers situation is nothing like this at all and is a wholly weird view. All that is happening here is the club changing their name to mirror the club they were formed to replace, that is all they are not the same club by any stretch of the imagination. This is a name change request that is all. Blethering Scot 22:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The new Rangers are also a different club to the old club, the only difference being that Airdrie's new club operated as Airdrie United from 2002 having taken over from Clydebank. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely Rangers company was liquidated not the actual club which is widely proven and accepted by all without pov on the matter, however that has no basis here as its entirely different. Airdrie United make no claim to being the same club at all. They fully acknowledge the old club ceased and they had to purchase and kill Clydebank in order to create Airdrie United as a new club. In changing their name they also acknowledge their history whilst not being the same club. The difference between the situation is a gaping hole. This is a simple rename no more no less.Blethering Scot 22:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking that Airdrie F.C. the team mentioned at the Airdrie F.C. article as not having an article & playing in the Scottish Cup tournaments from 1868-1890 were a separate club from Excelsior F.C. who went on to become Airdrieonians, someone will probably clear this up though. (77.97.229.201 (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment was myself, forgot to sign in! (Liam_Barnett (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Officially Airdrie United (now called Airdrieonians) were founded in 1965, as they as just a rebranded, relocated Clydebank - official source. I know this makes things even more confusing but thought it needed posted. I am still in favour of 2002 and 1878 in the titles though. (The 1881 redirect should be deleted, an editor created it the other week when performing a controversial move of the page. There is no question the original club was formed in 1878. Manchester United were formed in 1878 as Newton Heath FC, no one knows MUFC's formation date as 1902. Because it isn't 1902, it is 1978 - source) VanguardScot 12:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  If things are so complicated with the years, why not just do the following as a compromise?
*Airdrie United F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (hatnote for old club)
*Airdrieonians F.C. → Airdrieonians F.C. (liquidated club)
*Airdrie F.C. staying the same (Liam_Barnett (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Worst suggestion yet IMO. Including '(liquidated club)' in he title is much more ambiguous and confusing than having 1878 and 2002. I also don't see what the need for rush is, the article explains the situation well as it is and it is better to get the title move right than make a botched job. VanguardScot 12:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  How on earth is that "confusing!?" plus there is no correct way of doing it, it is open to everyone's interpretation, the only way anything would be wrong is if the 'Airdrie United F.C.' title remained which we have all agreed cannot happen. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You also say "ambiguous" the definition of which is 'open to more than one interpretation' what are the interpretations because as far as I can see there is only one liquidated club called Airdrieonians? (Liam_Barnett (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Liquidated' is generally not a good word to include in the title IMO. As we seen in the last year with Rangers F.C. (And last few decades with other clubs across Europe) the operating company of a club can be liquidated, but if the clubs SFA membership is transferred to a new company in an asset buy out, the club can survive. As such I don't think Airdrieonians F.C. (liquidated club) is a suitable title, as the word liquidation is ambiguous in this sense. It is also unprecedented as far as I can tell on Wikipedia to use such a word in the title of a former football club. There is reasoned and well though out debate above on why using 1878 and 2002 is the best solution. I'm going to put my neck on the line (as a non-administrator) and say that Airdrieonians F.C. (liquidated club) is not going to happen, as it is a silly title and nowhere near as sensible as both the solutions above (1878 & 2002 , and 1878 & no date). VanguardScot 18:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to that work i am more than happy to actually fix those links myself no matter how much work it causes. The original Airdrieonians were founded as Excelsior in 1878 to 1881. There were lots of similar clubs with Airdrie in the title around that time. Airdire itself 1868-1890, Airdrie Bluebell 1879-1880, Airdriehill 1879-1896. I suspect that whats muddying the waters.Blethering Scot 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still no explanation as to how it is "confusing" & "ambiguous"? All you have said is that it isn't suitable. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read/re-read the first 2½ lines of my above post. Cheers, VanguardScot 19:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies, misread it the first time, fair point however liquidated club is not liquidated company! (Liam_Barnett (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks Blethering Scot, that is what I was referring to. If none of the others formed in 1878, then concerns that a title Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) might cause confusion are allayed. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems the several clubs with Airdrie in the name could of complicated things but should be ok. Yes none of the other clubs were founded in 1878, this is the best year for me because 1881 really isn't when they were founded only when they were renamed. Blethering Scot 21:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear is the agreement between you two referring to 1878 & no date or 1878 & 2002? I'm in favour of either if it means a bit of consensus & therefore action. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also some may have noticed a redirect & hatnote I've created namely Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) redirecting to Airdrieonians F.C. & a note on said page to clear up where to find the current Airdrieonians, this is temporary & as such there is no need for moaning from some folk, it's so folk who end up on the Airdrieonians F.C. page looking for Airdrie United don't need to read through most of the article to find what they are looking for, this will be sorted when there is some action on moves. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2

message: Not getting an answer at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Crest, I presume it is OK now to put the old Airdrieonians logo on this page about the new club now that the club has confirmed that it is the same logo being used? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yip, should be fine now! I might work out a license to have the away kit version somewhere in the article in the future as well if I'v got time. You might want to replace the Airdrie Advertiser article source with the official site source, it is much clearer! VanguardScot 16:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I have edited the logo, I will edit the source now. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text:  That's the source edited now. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Em they clearly are not identical to the original.This was pointed out to you that they were highly unlikely to be so, i have removed this one until the correct version of the crest[ ] is uploaded.Blethering Scot 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The normal logo IS clearly identical to the original logo while the alternative one is simply just a black version for red backgrounds. (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

text: No they are not identical it was a bad move and shouldn't of been done. They are totally different logos, yes parts of the old crest has been used but they are not identical by any means. Adding the one of a different club certainly would not meet the fair use rationale nor is it accurate, i have rectified this but please be more careful when it comes to the use of what are copyrighted logos.Blethering Scot 20:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I have now noticed very subtle differences but let me tell you you can see from this that I was given permission to do so & at least 1 other didn't notice the differences & could I ask when are these articles going to be sorted so Airdrieonians are named Airdrieonians & also is it within the person specification for each administrator to talk down to normal users? (Lbarnett-bl (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was pointed out by myself and GS that they were unlikely to be the same. Im not saying that its your fault just that it was a bad move and shouldn't of been done. It would of been picked up that it was on an article without a valid fair use rationale soon enough anyway, its rectified for now until a better version of the image is found anyway.Blethering Scot 20:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, I clearly didn't look very closely at the two crests before advising to add it back in. I will upload a version of the new crest later on tonight if it hasn't already been done. VanguardScot 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at this Club website all red it should be.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.61.137 (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been uploaded. Blethering Scot got there before me! Cheers BS. VanguardScot 11:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Crest change

message: Ive went through the article and sourced as much of it as i can but having difficulty sourcing the hall of fame and player of the year sections, can anyone help as feel will have to remove the section if cant source. The Mixed fortunes section first paragraph i feel needs a rewrite as will parts of the article once the name is decided. As for the Club statistics section would anyone object if this was removed and as much as possible placed in List of Airdrie United F.C. seasons and individual season articles.Blethering Scot 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing and tidy up 

message: Following the moves, does/do the related player category/categories require updating? eg :Category:Airdrieonians F.C. players? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most definitely. Both sets of players cant be in the same category as are two separate clubs.Blethering Scot 11:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 10 categories that need name updates listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Current nominations (Liam_Barnett (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Airdrie United F.C. managers also requires a move to Template:Airdrieonians F.C. managers which currently carries a redirect. (Liam_Barnett (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player category 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Airdrieonians 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  tag to http://scottishfootballarchive.co.uk/league-tables/2001-02-first-division
*Added  tag to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/airdrie-united/2002-2003/results
*Added  tag to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/airdrie-united/2003-2004/results
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111130135229/http://www.scottishgrounds.co.uk/airdrie_united.htm to http://www.scottishgrounds.co.uk/airdrie_united.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129214754/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/sfl/2010/09/15/airdrie-united-appoint-jimmy-boyle-as-manager-on-a-permanent-basis-86908-22562806/ to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/sfl/2010/09/15/airdrie-united-appoint-jimmy-boyle-as-manager-on-a-permanent-basis-86908-22562806/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130501165813/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/airdrie-united/history/modern to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/airdrie-united/history/modern
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) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified