Talk:Guiseley A.F.C. Vixens

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

Deletion infomation[edit]

Leeds City vixens are ahead of Sheffield Wednesday Ladies in the league http://www.ncfl.co.uk/tableoverall.htm, making them a notable football team if Sheffield are. Sheffield Ladies have their own full page about them. Leeds City Vixens was also founded in 1993, and has therefore been around for 13 years. Vixens are a more well known team around younger generations in Leeds than Leeds United Ladies are.

Leeds City Vixens recently made it to the 4th round of the FA cup http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2006/01/04/sport_vixens_fa_cup_20050108_feature.shtml . Shown there on the BBC.co.uk/leeds website, the same website that was used as a reference on the Leeds United LFC page.

Leeds City Vixens finished 2nd last year in the Norther Combination and are currently second, two years getting so close to promotion is surely noteworthy.


Leeds City Vixens takes in girls younger than 10 which therefore shows that they work hard to improve the community around Leeds.

Leeds City vixens L.F.C[edit]

I think leeds city vixens are definitely a notable team, i've lived in london all my life and recently moved to Leeds where they are quite reknown. Wikipedia is a website to offer as much information as it can, so there is absolutely no need to remove pages of such information.

Sponsorship - confused text[edit]

I've tidied up a few typos in the article, but I couldn't work out what was being said about Sponsorship - who are Frownies, I can't find them on the club web site? and what was being said about Mears and the cheque? Could you edit this section if you know about it. PamD 19:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

frowies are a cosmetic compay i think they are on the shirts Roosterrulez 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

I have made some edit that may seem pointless but by making spaces between the = and the word inside it but I find it easier to edit a page mattypc 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Noone has been botherd to say why they want it changed I am the only person who gives cares about it. Eve the wikipedian who wants it changed is so lazy they want to merge it but cant be botherd to say why none of them will be merged if this stays on uncontested for 5 days it will go back to the way it was before. As it should.mattypc 15:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge, as a third division ladies team is unlikely enough to be notable enough to support sub-articles. Until several third party sources can be added (i.e. not just referencing loads of information from the team's website), it should stay as one article. The way to go, I feel, would be to merge the content into one page and clean it up thoroughly. Much of what is currently there is not particularly useful information. --Jameboy 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done the merge yet as it should go through a discussion, this is why I added the tags, not down to laziness. I support the merger as the team is not notable enough to require multiple articles, especially when some articles are very short and the history article is a copy of the history on the main page. The subject however is notable enough to require the main article, with all the content in one place. Chappy God's Own Country TC 20:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History page should ot be mergred but the seasons shouldmattypc

No one has cobjected so people obviously agree with me so I shall get rid of the merge tagmattypc 20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deciding this on your own Roosterulez, from the above so far for the merger are myself and Jameboy, and against is yourself. It would be better to get more concensus on this, however at the moment the proposal has more support than against. I have requested some input on the matter from WP:Football members. ChappyTC 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd back a merge as well for Jameboy's reasons laid out above. I took a look at this article last month and it still needs a lot of further improvement - from removing non-notable players' names, the quality of the prose is poor and it does not use many independent references. I have accordingly downgraded the article's importance and quality ratings as these seem to have been added by the article's principal author[1] and not an independent party, and will also add in further cleanup notices where possible. To User:Roosterrulez, I would suggest you stop assuming the role of page owner and to consider others' criticism. Qwghlm 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I may have been a bit genourous to the rating but I have improved the history page and I find it should not be deleted now. Most say it should be deleted and altough I still feel it should be kept but as im out voted im proberly wrong so as I am the only one who bothers updating it noone can be botherd to place a deletion tag on the page. It only seems that I am assuming the role of page owner beause noone gives a shit about the page people want to delete its history but can't be botherd to delete it. Many said the seasons page should be deleted but everyone is too lazy to do the work that took me just seconds. People are obviously voting to delete it and I have been on holiday for a bit and noone has changed the page at all since I left.mattypc 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Users have not attempted the merger & deletion nomination of the history page yet as they have been awaiting the outcome of this merge discussion. On the subject of Page Owner, as far as I can tell you have misunderstood the definition. This is not just becoming the main editor, but becoming overly protective of a page you have made many edits to and dis-regarding, or being negative towards, others edits in preference to your own. This was the point Qwghlm was trying to make. ChappyTC 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out a fact! I see that wikipedians can act like good wikipedians and try to get this paged maerged but are just too lazy to edit the actual page and are leaving it to me. I have just put two results on the history page and edited the league postition and beacuse of this wikipedia is no longer giving out wrong infomation.mattypc (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to make a criteria for "History of xx F.C." articles before a decision is made here. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other teams connected with Leeds City Vixens[edit]

Could someone explain whats wrong with that part. A tag has been added and when a tag is added unless its obvious and described in the tag then your ment to say why on it talk page and noone has.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosterrulez (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I didn't add the tag I would suspect that it's due to the fact that the youth sides aren't notable. Even teams such as the top four male clubs in the country don't have sections detailing every one of their youth teams, they have articles with information about the reserves and academy combined, however these have been under discussion by WP:Football members in the past as to whether they should have articles. Myself I wouldn't think the youth teams should be detailed individually, maybe if you try and summarise better and just provide information on the academy in general rather than each team. Qwghlm added this tag so it would be better for you to ask him on his talk page. ChappyTC 12:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

taggs[edit]

If people add tags to the page can you atleast try to fix it. Your trying to be a good wikipedian but your not!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosterrulez (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any need for accusations of people not being "good wikipedians" here. It's totally unnecessary. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see you just did it I pointed out a problem and insted of trying to fix it you point out a bad fact insted of trying to fix them problem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosterrulez (talk • contribs) 20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but why exactly do I have to fix any problem here? Can I not just give advice to a fellow Wikipedia editor without them telling me what to do? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if your too lazy to do it then don't. You can do to me exactly what you don't want me to do to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosterrulez (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 November 2007

I am sorry, but is there any particular reason I have to do anything here? What exactly is the problem anyway? Maybe if I knew I could help. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think all wikipedians are in two groups the ones who want to help out every page and the ones who just came on to vandalize it. You clearly don't want to help this page for you said "any particular reason I have to do anything here? " well this is exactly what I am talking about have clearly pointed out you know what to do other wise you woudn't be able to talk about theese thing that means you know what you doing but the fact is have you tried to do anything to improve this page. All you have done is spot out a mistake and have not even attempted to improve it. This is why some other wikipedians think that I am acting like the 'Page Owner' as I am the one who wants to improve it. Its alright adding taggs but that to me is just being lazy you can be botherd to add the taggs but I really don't understand why you can't be botherd to try and fix it. If you can spot the mistakes you must be able to relize that all you need to do is change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosterrulez (talk • contribs) 21:43, 28 November 2007

I apologise for my negative attitude, and can understand your frustration. However, I'm uncomfortable with being told what to do and, like I asked, what exactly is the problem? Please explain and I'll see if I can help. And I never added any tags to this article, so please don't make false accusations. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never said you did add the taggs I just commented on a point and you decided to start talking about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roosterrulez (talk • contribs) 15:50, 29 November 2007

I've left a comment on the merge issue. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Guiseley A.F.C. Vixens/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Photographs required.

Roosterrulez 17:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Guiseley A.F.C. Vixens. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guiseley A.F.C. Vixens. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guiseley_A.F.C._Vixens&oldid=1207480563"