Talk:Leamington F.C.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Football: England / English non-league Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the English non-league task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Alex Rodman's player of the round award was defininitely for his goals against Woodford, 3rd Qualifying round, Tue 27 Sep 05. http://www.leamingtonfc.co.uk/history/2005-06/s-fa-cup.php http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2005/10/Marksmen_in_POTR_shootout.htm

204.90.182.14 13:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play, but the link originally pointed to Woodford Town, who are defunct. I didn't realise Woodford United also existed...... ChrisTheDude 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge stadium article

Not sure there's much point in having a separate article for the stadium just yet..can always be split off if/when there's enough verifiable info. Paulbrock 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I agree, I dont think there is much point in having seperate. 86.20.167.37 15:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Mr Pie[reply]

-- The thing is, the ground (nothing so grand as a stadium!) is not fully synonymous with the club -- it's also home to the Leamington Lions (ladies team), the various youth teams, as well as Whitnash petanque club. I do agree that in its current state, the New Windmill Ground article is too brief to justify its existence. Perhaps it should be marked as a stub, and expanded.Ukslim 15:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been extended a little with the inclusion of some photographs and as it is developed over the next 12 months more info will be added. At some point it would have to be split out from the main Leanington FC article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.160.254 (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some info has been removed

Just in case you are wondering where a lot of the interesting stuff has gone like the fans section and the Top 5 attendances (not documented anywhere else on the web) have gone, it's because a jobsworth admin called Number 57 has deleted it all (including some of the referenced stuff) Cls14 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:Interestingness. If the top five attendances aren't documented anywhere else, then they're WP:Original research aren't they? WP:NPA might also be relevant. Number 5 7 21:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to through every single thing you've ever written on Wikipedia and see if it's referenced. But I'm not that sad. I happen to be a non-league football fan and we use Wikipedia a lot to find out stuff about other teams. Technically you of course are correct, that's why I'm not fighting you. I just happen to abide by the spirit of Wikipedia rather than the law. You can go around deleting millions of words off Wikipedia if it makes you feel big and smart but you're just ruining it for 99% of readers. Cls14 (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a non-League fan too, which is why I contribute to non-league articles. I think you're being a bit melodramatic here, especially when you consider the 3x expansion of the history section and actually covering the club's most successful years. Number 5 7 21:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Number 57 has been messing with the page again. He's removed all references to Phillips 66, claiming that it's Wikipedia policy not to mention sponsors names for the stadium when virtually every single other football stadium page has references to it. He's removed our kitman name for some reason, presumably because kitmen aren't important enough for him. The arrogance of the guy is unbelievable, he thinks he owns the page. My advise, leave him to it, if he wants to ruin the page that's his look out. Cls14 (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Kosack noted in this edit summary, it is indeed a convention that we don't use sponsored stadium names (except where there is no common alternative). You're welcome to double check this at WT:FOOTY if you don't believe us. As for the kit man, he was added with an Italian nationality flag, which seems a little strange; as he isn't listed on the club website I thought it was likely to be a hoax/vandalism to be honest. You might also want to read WP:CIVIL. Number 5 7 10:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick check of quite a few different articles (Docklands Stadium, City of Manchester Stadium, Emirates Stadium, King Power Stadium, Ricoh Arena) and they are articles either mentioning or totally known by their sponsor names. Go and change them all then Cls14 (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are individual articles on stadiums; if we had one for this club's ground it would be mentioned too. But as this is not the same situation, I'm afraid it's a bit of a straw man argument. An accurate comparison would be a non-League club where there is no separate article for the ground and the ground has a known non-sponsored name. Number 5 7 12:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that this article isn't updated much anymore and is quite out of date. Well done Number 57, all your doing my friend