Jump to content

Talk:Newcastle United F.C./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

SBR's first game in charge was a 0-1 away defeat at Chelsea. The Sheffield Weds 8-0 was his first home game. (This is completely correct and I've updated the article as such IainP (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

Stanley is north Durham not south Durham

'Newcastle United is one of the biggest clubs in the world' is a completely erroneous statement, a statement based on the fact that attendances have been high for the last decade or so and much money (mainly in the form of heavy debt) has been spent. More importantly, they have not won an existing trophy since 1955, unlike West Brom, Oxford United, Middlesbrough, Swindon Town, Norwich City, Wimbledon, Burnley, Bolton, Wolves, Derby County, Queen's Park Rangers, Leicester City, Stoke City, Luton Town, Sheffield Wednesday and numerous others. Sadly, inaccurate bluff. Also, as recently as 1982, Newcastle attendances could be around the 9,000 mark.

Totally agree. Most of the 'toon' army are fair weather fans who don't care about football anyway - just getting boozed up before hand and the 'topless totty' in the Bigg Market. What's almost as bad is that it gives burks like Freddy Shepard a platform to swan around as some kind of big wig.

I'd disagree, but I'm a fan so that comes as no surprise. In recent years, fans have become somewhat disillusioned and given the bad publicity and poor results, who can blame them? The ground still manages 50,000+ for home games and an impressive attendance for even the lowliest of European fixtures. To the original point - what actually *is* a "big" club? Do you have to win anything to be "big"? And if attendances were low 20 years ago, does that still stop them being "big" now if you're working off attendance figures anyway? I'm not trying to argue or anything - just clarify a point as "big club" is a very vague term. Manchester City have claimed they're a "big club" over the last few seasons and they've not had any more success than Newcastle in the last 50 years. Middlesbrough never seems to be listed as a "big club" yet have finished above us recently and picked up a trophy. Personally, I'd say a team's a "big club" based on public perception - how many people have *heard* of them or care about what happens to/with them. On this basis, Newcastle are undeniably a "big club". Middlesbrough, even with their recent upturn in form, rarely feature in the news and have surprisingly poor attendences - and, hand on heart, this isn't a go at a local rival, just a comment! Mosh 07:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Newcastle have always had an average attendance of well over the national average, while the occasional game does attract smaller crowds, Newcastle's league average is well above most other teams any division and always has been even in the pre-Keegan era. On a whole attendances at all Premiership grounds are higher than they were during the 1980s. Please note Newcastle have not won a major trophy since 1969, not 1955 as stated above.

Make that 2006 now, as no matter what you say the Intertoto Cup has some of Europes top sides in it cos they come at least 12th in the top string.20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following was removed from this article as it appeared to be a copyright violation (see http://www.nufc.com/html/geninfo.html). I will write to the owners of this page to confirm whether they have given permission, unless someone lets me know they have already done so?

No need - it was included on 3rd of March by anon user 13.16.137.11. That big a chunk clearly comes from the NUFC site and should simply be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. -- Arwel 10:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Deleted AndrewMcQ 17:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nicknames

removed whose fans oftern call the NUFC "the Skunks" from intro.

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't particularly noteworthy, and smacks of POV. Neither is it that relevant to this article - if it's important enough to supporters of SAFC and Boro, it should go in those articles. And it certainly doesn't belong as prominent a position. Any thoughts? AndrewMcQ 18:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Would agree. I actually hear us more regularly referred to as "the Barcodes"! Mosh 07:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard both, and think this should be in the article somewhere, but not in the intro or infobox. Anyone (who knows more than I do) care to add these, and other, nicknames?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 07:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Intertoto

This left the Intertoto Cup as the team's only possible route into European competition in the 2005/06 season; however, their 14th place finish in the Premiership made even that impossible.
Under UEFA rules, a team in a 20-team league must finish no lower than 12th to be eligible for the Intertoto.

Not sure where this information comes from, but according to the official website NUFC enter the Intertoto 3rd Round on 2nd/3rd July playing either BB Ankaraspor (Tur), Vasas SC (HUN) or ZTS Dubnica (SVK) AndrewMcQ 08:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Needs big work...

There are a lot of places in this article that do not read right at all. Also NPOV is a major issue in places. i.e. 'They won their first match 5-0 against Elswick Leather Works 2nd XI. Just under a year later, in October 1882, they changed their name to East End FC to avoid confusion with the cricket club in the town of Stanley, Co.Durham.' ...huh? What do those facts have to do with each other?

'United then developed a side which became Edwardian England's master outfit, but not before the Tynesiders went through a worrying period due to lack of support at the turnstile and lack of money at the bank. But through the help of their directors the club was propped up and they survived to become a force in the game.'

Master outfit? NPOV...

I'd add:

Newcastle United are the eighth most successful team in English football according to a recent article published in The Times,

Recent? Citation? Link?
If I'd spent more time here, I'm sure I'd feel confident removing such sloppy writing. I hope someone who's more familiar with the site will fix this. JakartaDean 23:15, August 17 2006

Shepherd

The whole last paragraph is full of opinion and is over-emotional:

The first casualty needs to be Freddy Shepherd, a man who has almost single handedly ruined this club since Sir John Hall left. As we all know the way a club is run starts right at the top, and this club is blatantly not run correctly. His recent comments about Sir Bobby Robson (that Alan Shearer would not have stayed had Sir Bobby) were unnecessary and a disgrace to a true Geordie legend, a man who cared for the club more than Freddy "I claim I'm a Geordie and love everything to do with Newcastle every five minutes" Shepherd could ever imagine. This man must go to save a great club

Is this necessary at all? Gram 19:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree - the whole last section should be removed. Have done so. AndrewMcQ 29 June 2005 10:34 (UTC)

Magpie

What is a magpie?

A large black-and-white bird. -- Arwel 20:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Player Photos

I noticed that some of the players photos (e.g. Emre Belözoğlu) were marked for deltion as they were uploaded without any image copyright tags or source. We should get a head-shot squad photos for the players, provide the source URL and use the promophoto tag. Oh, and it would be preferable if they were in Newcastle shirts too. I've uploaded Kieron Dyer, Shay Given and Robbie Elliott photos in this manner, and replaced the Alan Shearer pic with the same photo, but icluded tag & source and replaced the Jermaine Jenas pic to a squad photo with tag & source. Gram 13:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Article length

This article is 77k long, according to a google search (wikipedia search is down ...). Wikipedia:Page_size suggests that anything over 32k should be considered for splitting. I propose we split off the history section into a separate article, as this takes up the majority of the article.

For an example of what I mean have a look at Manchester United. We could probably nick their posh squad table while we are at it. Agree? AndrewMcQ 19:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Main article still very long. Article is still very heavy on history, especially considering there a seperate article now dedicated to this. Plus how can any of famous fans section be proven?. Managers section is also over long and could be edited.Djln --Djln 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Record

Seeing as the worst ever English defeat is mentioned (1881-1939 section), do you think it's worth mentioning our biggest ever win? Namely:

Newcastle Utd 13:0 Newport County - 05 Oct 1946 (Division 2) Gram 13:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That would seem fair. Also how about our biggest Premiership win? Newcastle Utd 8:0 Sheffield Wednesday - 19 Sept 1999 (Premiership) Mosh 07:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the records in the records section Mark272 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I also think the 13-0 win should be notified in the actual article, considering that it is a joint highest league victory for all four divisions in England.

On loan... or not?

Is Laurent Robert definitely on loan? There seems to be some kind of difference of opinion on this, depending on whether you listen to Robert, the press or Fat Freddy! I'm honestly not sure if we sold him, sacked him, or loaned him out with a "never to come back" tag on him.

I assume the latter. Although I must admit I keep forgetting that he is merely just on loan. It seems there is no way back for him, but I would leave him as a loanee for now. Mark272 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I know Pompey fans are wishing they could throw him back to us... I just recall a comment from FF (I think I saw it on nufc.com) where he said something along the lines of "Robert seems to think he's on loan, but there is no way he will ever be welcome back at NUFC". Just the way it was quoted, it sounded very much as if he *wasn't* on loan. Mind you, since when did FF ever speak sense... :) IainP (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems soccerbase only state Nicky Butt and James Milner as loanee's from us, no mention of Laurent Robert or Hugo Viana. Although it must be said that the site is not renowned for accuracy in all departments . Mark272 22:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Amdy / Amady?

As far as I can tell (all the official club web sites, BBC, etc), the correct spelling is "Amady". Should his page be moved to "Amady Faye" and the redirect placed at "Amdy Faye" to that one, giving the page the correct title? If there are no objections by Jan 1, I'll go ahead and do this. No links should be "broken" as there will still be a redirect in place. IainP (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious - he was definitely 'Amdy' last year, but seems to have gained an 'a' this season ... go ahead. AndrewMcQ 18:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, based on everything I've seen in the last few months, any official mentions have called him Amady (although if Shearer's pronunciation was correct, it still sounds like Amdy...). I tried to move the page to Amady Faye but this page already exists as a Re-direct to Amdy Faye. Looks like the Amady Faye Re-direct article may have to be deleted before a new page with this name can be created. Plus the Re-direct should be reversed so that Amdy re-directs to Amady. Do we require an Admin to do this? Gram 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it's just a matter of juggling the text around. As stated, if there are no objections I'll happily do this on Jan 1. Actually, if there are no objections I'll do it later today when I have a few minutes. IainP (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Done (just need to pull the discussion over as well - whoops) IainP (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Purely Belter

Have You seens this movie? It revolves around two teens trying to save money to get season tickets to watch NU -- Eddie 13:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, saw it when it came out. I have to admit to being slightly underwhelmed. Shearer also makes an appearence in a Neal Morriset film called The Match which is much funnier (although just as predictable!) IainP (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


Newcastle in the Premiership

Removed the following, as seems to be a rehash of the history section:

Newcastle became Premiership members in its second season (1993-94) and have remained there ever since. Some of their seasons have been good, others have not been so good.
Newcastle finished in the top six in each of their first four Premiership campaigns, including finishing runners-up in 1996 and 1997. At Christmas 1995, they had led the Premiership by 10 points over second-placed Manchester United, but a dip in form during the final three months of the season saw the Premiership trophy head to Old Trafford instead. Kevin Keegan shocked the club by handing in his notice a few months later, and his successor Kenny Dalglish sold many quality players and replaced them with a host of players who did not make nearly as much of an impact. Dalglish took the Toon Army to the 1998 F.A Cup final but they lost to Arsenal. He was sacked soon afterwards, and his successor Ruud Gullit endured another F.A Cup defeat - this time at the hands of Manchester United - before he, in turn, was sacked.
The veteran Bobby Robson (who was knighted in 2002) was manager of Newcastle from 1999 to 2004, and during his reign they qualified for the Champions League twice and the UEFA Cup once. Under his successor Graeme Souness, Newcastle's form has dipped slightly and they are currently hovering around the middle of the Premiership table.
But the recent acquisition of England striker Michael Owen could be about to change all of that. The player signed as an eventual replacement for the legendary Alan Shearer could be just the man to bring long-awaited trophy success to Tyneside.

Any part of this need reintroducing? AndrewMcQ 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Next manager

I'm dubious as to whether or not this section should be there. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oldelpaso 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

agree - i say remove AndrewMcQ 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Disagree - nobody is predicting anything in that section, purely reporting current events based on news reports. "Crystal Ball" would say "Roeder will be the new manager" or "Ranieri will sign by the end of the season". The people listed have been approached, referred to, or done things relating to the vacant managerial post. It's relevant and not predictive. IainP (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
If it is based upon news reports then those reports should be referenced (lack of references is a problem throughout the article). But even if they were referenced, I don't think discussion about who the next manager may or may not be is particularly necessary in an article encompassing the entire 125 year history of Newcastle United and their predecessors. The current season takes up almost as much of the history section as the entire century prior to Keegan's management. Oldelpaso 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The next manager section isn't that big (compared - as you've correctly stated - to the repeated history), but could be trimmed slightly. Hypothesising is one thing and should be avoided. However, mentioning what's been going on is, I feel, relevant. IainP (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think the article needs a cleanup tag due to the reasons I stated under "next manager" and the NPOV issues mentioned further above. History of Newcastle United F.C. exists, but is almost identical to the main article. Consequently the history section needs lots of trimming. Look at Arsenal F.C. of IFK Gothenburg for examples of the structure of a featured quality football article. Oldelpaso 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That one I definitely agree with IainP (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
also agree - I suggested this a while back, and started the separate history article, but never got round to trimming down the history section of the main article. Anyone who has a lot of time on their hands - please go ahead :-)
We need ensure that the history section doesn't degenerate into a running commentary of what happened game-by-game in any particular season, and concentrates on notable events. Cheers AndrewMcQ 14:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Main article still very long. Article is still very heavy on history, especially considering there a seperate article now dedicated to this. Plus how can any of famous fans section be proven?. Managers section is also over long and could be edited.Djln --Djln 00:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Famous fans

A list of famous Newcastle supporters was recently readded to the article. I don't regard it as particularly encyclopedic, and I doubt many of those listed actively follow the club or go to matches. If someone's support for Newcastle is notable I think it should go in their article, not this one. Discussions elsewhere about similar lists have favoured removal - [1], [2]. Oldelpaso 19:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I decided to Be bold and removed it. Oldelpaso 13:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the main club sponsor from 1982 - 2000 was Newcastle Breweries, this is incorrect, Newcastle United were sponsored by Greenalls Brewery for a couple of seasons in the late 80s. I think from 87/88 onwards (I know Gazza wore a Greenalls sponsored shirt), but I can't recall the exact dates, and certainly by the time Keegan took over as manager Newcastle Breweries had taken over again. Gary99129 12:07, 15th May 2006 (BST)

Greenalls is part of Newcastle Breweries

Tees derby?

I hope this doesn't cause as much upset as it has on Boro's talk page (I was accused of trying to wind Boro supporters up. But I would like to draw your attention to the local derbies page. Originally, on this page, it did not list a specific derby in the north east. Rather, it grouped Carlisle, Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and York (and maybe Darlington and Hartlepool) as derbies. This, of course, is ridiculous and made me rather angry! I therefore added the Tyne-Wear derby and a Tees derby (Boro and Hartlepool). I would like to ask any Newcastle fans out there if they consider a Tees-Tyne (or Tyne-Tees!) as a derby. Before you answer, may I first point out that although there is not a strict definition of a derby it is usually said to be between teams from the same city or county (or at least rough area). For me, A Tyne Tees game is a LOCAL game, and a great rivalry but they are too far apart to count as derbies. It has already been decided, on the same page, that Manchester United/City V. Liverpool/Everton cannot be considered a derby, only a local game, as the two cities are too far apart. Middlesbrough and Newcastle are even further apart from one another (I think). Therefore, how can you include Middlesbrough V Newcastle and not Manchester V Liverpool (or even a Machester team V. Blackburn/Wigan? As someone who lives in the far west of Gateshead (Crawcrook) I know fine well how fierce the rivalry is, but it is not as fierce as a "proper" derby Tyne-Wear. It was suggested on the Boro page that as the ITV region is "Tyne Tees" then a Tyne-Tees derby should count. But that, like I said, merely describes a region. Speaking to Sunderland fans from Durham university I know they don't feel that Teeside is close enough to count. To them Teeside is Yorkshire (which I guess it used to be). At least those are my thoughts as a neutral and resident of Gateshead, Northumberland and Durham for all of my 21 years. Anyone have any thoughts? hedpeguyuk 12:38, 27th May 2006 (UTC)

Supporters

In the article it claims that most of the club's supporters are from the area, with only a small number abroad (when compared to Man U, Liverpool..) This is true although I think it would be useful if a bit was added about where exactly these "foreign fans" are. Obviously you get a fair number from Australia, particularly from Newcastle NSW (where many Northumbrian miners left to go to in the past - hence its name). However, what about closer to home. I know that they have a reasonably good support base in Scandanavia as seen in their trip to play Valerenga a while back (and the ferry ties with Norway). Does anyone else have something to add? hedpeguyuk 14:20, 14th June 2006 (UTC)

First team lineup

I knocked together this using the image label template to show the typical first team lineup, would there be any place for it in the article (maybe waiting for the start of the new season so any new transfers can be added)?

--Daduzi talk 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes for Support

If you're a fan of Newcastle United, please add: 

{{User Newcastle United}}

to your user page so that we can build a huge category of people supporting Newcastle here on Wikipedia. Thanks --Temers 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I like how as soon as the page protect is removed, the article gets vandalised. Mark272 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicky Butt Number

Nicky Butt has been given number 22 on the Newcastle United squad list. I would like to know where this information has come from as I can not find it anywhere. Has someone just guessed at his number. His old number was 4 before he went on loan to Birmingham and Solano rejoined and took number 4 so are you just adding 2+2 to get four or is this his actual number for next season if he stays. ---- Unsigned

In recent (June 29 2006) training pictures found at getty images, he wore a training top sporting number 22. Everyone elses shirts had their correct numbers on them at the time when they were with him. Mark272 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Now confirmed. Mark272 10:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam Notice

I've been issued with a spam warning from Oldelpaso for adding a link to a site called nufcmismanagement.info, it's neither commercial nor my site. What gives a Man City fan the right to decide what links are added to this page and what is relevant for Newcastle supporters? Surely the official site and most of the other links actually do contain adverts, does that make them commercial? Should the club site be removed considering it's one of the most commercial sites on the internet?

I would have thought that a site about the directors of the club is very relevant and some of the stories mentioned on here are actually on that site. All are relevant to the club, would you rather that all were added to this page? It would probably win an award for the largest page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.137.23 (talk • contribs)

I think you'd probably be better off raising it with the person in question on their talk page rather than on here. --Daduzi talk 21:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the guidelines on external links and spam. One point particularly worth highlighting is the following: Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? With regards to the other point, nobody has any more or any less right to edit a page than anyone else, as nobody owns them. Oldelpaso 10:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree, it's a whitewash, why does somebody with no interest in the club have a right to say what links are and are not relevant to Newcastle United FC?. I also agree that the club site should not be linked to as it is a commercail site, either that or change the guidelines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Fan sites

People keep adding fan sites to the links section. I suggest before anyone does so they look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, in particular the sentence "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate". I initially put in a link to www.nufc.com since as far as I'm aware that is the pre-eminent fan site for Newcastle United on the web, but now we keep getting links to other sites (most recently www.toon-army.co.uk and www.toontastic.net). If people object to having nufc.com as the main fansite then that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if we could discuss reasons why here first. Please avoid just adding any old fan site, however; there's so many Newcastle United fansites out there that if we added them all we'd end up with more links than content. I've put all the fan sites added so far (Newcastle-online, Toontastic, toon-army.co.uk and nufc.com) in a blocked out (ie surrounded by <!-- -->) section of the article until we can decide on one site to add to the list. --Daduzi talk 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I think that links should only be added if they are offering something unique, something that isn't already covered and is specific in some way. I think a link should be added to the Hitzfeld campaign as it's relevant as the fans tried to get a manager appointed and probably did more than any other set of fans before them, they included a massive dossier, it's relevant and I think would make a good link which will interest people. I've seen a site which contains a massive amount of data about past results, that would be a good addition, I've also seen one which gives the teams that Newcastle put out for games played years ago. I don't have a link to them but I could probably find them, they are specific and offer something which is highly topical and a resource. I also think nufcmismanagement is topical and should be included, again, I think it’s a resource which people will find of interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.22.137.23 (talk • contribs) .

I moved the BBC site, true faith and the clubs picture website to the other section for the above reasons. In my opinion the best way to do it would be to split that section, official and unofficial and leave it up to the fans to decide which sites they go to. Most fans know the best Newcastle sites but may forget the address so this then becomes a good link to find them quickly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.23.235.166 (talk • contribs) .

Not sure why but I noticed the BBC site appeared back on, it's gone again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.228.53.187 (talk • contribs) .

Can I suggest that nufc.com be considered for uncommenting? Yes, it's a fansite, but does offer a good deal of current and archive information, is reasonably NPOV (as in "they offer both praise and blame where they see fit", unlike - naturally - the official site), is not a single-issue site and does not require registration (unlike the run of official sites hosted by premiumtv.co.uk, including nufc.co.uk). I also seem to recall nufc.com being somewhat notable in its own right as Newcastle United accused the operators of nufc.com of Cybersquatting and demanded the .com domain name for themselves; the claim being denied by Those In Authority (which is why the official site only has a presence in .co.uk). I can't remember any details though.
I'd go ahead and add nufc.com as an unofficial site (I like that, 217.23.235.166, and would cite the external links section on the Manchester United article as precedent), but I don't want to start a revert war and would rather look for consensus. Standard declaration of disinterest: I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with nufc.com Tonywalton  | Talk 11:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I decided to spilt it up into official and unofficial and I think BBC is official because they are official radio and TV highlights broadcaster in the UK [to the Premier League] and put the fan sites and picture to unofficial despite the picture stie being official[3] Kingjamie 14:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've cleared all the fansites - they numbered about a dozen, well in excess of the most generous possible reading the external links guideline. I've replaced them with a link to a directory of Newcastle United sites. Oldelpaso 18:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The new number 9?

Who is Håvard Værland? I can't find anything about him on the net. 58.168.59.213 07:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it was just an anonymous user playing silly games. There's no confirmation as to who the next number 9 will be yet, and Håvard Værland, whoever he is, is not a Newcastle player (and the same goes for Jake Ineson).--Daduzi talk 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The first few players in the Number 9 section surely cannot be accurate. Shirt numbers were used for the first time in English football in 1928, and were not used on a regular basis until several years later. Oldelpaso 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think the section should be there. Yes, perhaps the number 9 shirt is important to Newcastle but the list in the main article is unnecessary, and, if what other people are saying is true, inaccurate. Mark272 22:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The list is issued in the book, 'shirt of legends' and is accurate, as it is drawn up by the official club historian, this should be re-instated as it is probably the most important thing in relation to the club.

It's not as important as club honours, regardless of how long ago most of them are. Any non-Newcastle fans who read this article won't care about who our number 9 was in a particular year. They'll be more interested in the history of the club, past players, achievements and so on. You could always make a new article listing our number 9's throughout the years and link it to this one if you wanted to... but I don't think putting another list in this article itself is necessary. Mark272 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


How about put it in List of Newcastle United F.C. players? And a list of team captain? Matt86hk talk 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Newcastle Number 9 is one of the most reconizable shirts in English football and to Newcastle fans is one of the most important features of their club history. It must be on this page. 67.185.241.40 17:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok well i've started a page dedicated to the Newcastle Number Nine shirt, please will all you peeps who care so much help me fluff it out, so far its just a copy and paste of the information that was preciously on the Newcastle United page Crabman123 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul Huntington

Does Paul Huntington still have the squad number 54? Kingjamie 14:17 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It would appear so, the only changes so far announced are Luque to 7, Milner to 11 and Butt goes to 22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.137.23 (talk • contribs)

Duff is now 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.137.23 (talk • contribs)

Ben Letby

Who the hell is Ben Letby I've never heard of him. Is someone winding us up. This can't be a real player

This answers a few questions: User_talk:Benletby. Some guy obivously fancies himself as a Newcastle player and so created this: Ben_Letby false profile. The nickname "jam" when looked at with the name of the guy who made this edit and created the Ben Letby article (Nufcjam) seems all a little too easy to piece together really. Not to mention the fact that "Ben Letby" returns 90 google searches, and any such "hot property" would get thousands (700,000 for Theo Walcott, 70,000 for Tom Taiwo, etc). I've removed all the erroneous edits and nominated the Ben Letby article for deletion. Left a warning on the guy's talk page too. Djdannyp 08:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lee Clark

I've removed Lee Clark (number 21) from the squad as he is no longer a registered player —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

He is still registered as a player-coach in case of an emergency. He's retiring from playing the end of this season. www.nufc.co.uk still lists him as part of the team, as does www.soccerbase.com and www.premierleague.com. Mark272 17:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sibierski position

he is listed as an attacker, but i believe he is primarily a midfielder

Yes, he's a midfielder who can also play as a deep-lying forward. Oldelpaso 17:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Squad changes

My recent edit changing the list of squad changes to a link to the transfers section of 2006-07 in English football was reverted, so I will state my reasoning here before making further changes. Wikipedia is not a news service. This article should be an overview of the club through its 100-odd year history, not a recap of recent events. In line with similar decisions at Arsenal F.C. and Liverpool F.C. to name but two, lists of recent transfers should not be included. Things like transfer news do, however, fall under the remit of Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, if anyone wants to do a writeup there. Oldelpaso 10:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough but is it being removed from all clubs? FC Barcelona for example? 81.154.40.42 10:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be, and in time probably will be, but obviously there's an awful lot of articles to check. Oldelpaso 11:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Just looked at Barcelona, it is currently protected, so only admins can make changes at the moment (I am not an admin). Oldelpaso 11:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Vice - Captain

Craig Moore was incorrectly listed as vice-captain, Ive changed that to Shay Given which is correct (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/5180090.stm) --Vulk 20:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


European Update

I'd like to update the European section to include the latest 2-1 win against Levadia Tallinn securing Newcastle's place in the UEFA cup group stage --Forcystus 23:14 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Profiles

I see trivia has been added to many of the players such as Kris Gate and Antoine Sibierski, are these real or just crap? 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like nonsense to me. In any case, potentially dubious or controversial unsourced assertions about living people can be reverted on sight (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Oldelpaso 18:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Toon Army?

I see the infobox includes the nickname "The Toon Army" for NUFC. Surely this is inaccurate - the supporters are the Toon Army (as the article itself states); the team is "The Toon". Has anyone any objection to me deleting "Army" from the entry in the infobox? Tonywalton  | Talk 11:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No objections, apparently. I'm deleting "Army" from the infobox. Tonywalton  | Talk 09:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


probable vandalsim reverted

I reverted a change by this user - 86.128.13.165 - about a song sung on the stands. maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but the song was offensive and unsourced, and a look at that user's other edits convinced me the chances of it being a well-meant edit were low. anyone that disagrees, just letting you know so you can judge for yourself. raining girl 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well-meant or not,it's unsourced (so hard or impossible to verify) and even if true it seems less than notable anyway; after all, away fans will always sing songs at the home fans along the lines of "In our considered opinion you are persons of very low intelligence, dubious morals and poor personal hygiene, and you support the wrong team". Tonywalton  | Talk 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chairman?

it said that the current chairman was Alex Leonard so ive changed it back to Freddy Shepherd

Minor corrections

Some minor grammatical corrections. It is incorrect so say "quite unique" since something is either unique or not. Furthermore, I fixed the poor quality of the writing saying that Roeder wanted Crouch in January.


correction needed

This section pasted by Tonywalton following reversion of blanking by anon vandal. This section was added after the blanking ===Early League and FA Cup Champions=== HAHA YA FUCKIN RECKON

is the expletive really needed.

Jim BC Canada Cfsah 01:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Commented on user's talkpage Tonywalton  | Talk 10:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Intertoto Major trophy

If there is a god someone will remove that bit where it say "major" trophy, no one cares for it, it's not respected. We only won it because we lasted the longest. It's a trophy UEFA gave for a laugh.

Zulte-Waregem match date - BBC gets it wrong (shock horror)?

The BBC website here has the Zulte-Waregem/NUFC match on the 14th Feb. The ITV Teletext page 515 fixtures list confirms this. However NUFC, nufc.com, Zulte-Waregem and KAA Gent (at whose ground the match is to be played) have the match date as Thursday 15th February. Just goes to show that sometimes reliable sources aren't! Tonywalton  | Talk 10:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Time for an archive?

This talkpage is getting as big as LA Galaxy's wage bill will be from July. Has anyone any objection to me archiving it? Tonywalton  | Talk 10:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No probs ... AndrewMcQ 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newcastle_United_F.C./Archive_1&oldid=1137044639"