Talk:Sunderland A.F.C./Archive 1

Archive 1

ERROR IN ARTICLE

My name is Paul Days and I wrote the Official History of Sunderland AFC.

New evidence has come to light to confirm that Sunderland AFC was not formed in October 1879 but September 1880. It has been chronicled here:

http://ryehillfootball.co.uk/stories/happy-birthday-sunderland-afc-136-years-old/

There is no evidence to support a foundation date of October 1879 and this should now be changed to either 25 or 27 September 1880. The first date is when the original meeting was held to form the club in Rectory Park School, Sunderland and the second date is when it was announced to the world in the Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette.

The October 1879 date has now been debunked here - http://ryehillfootball.co.uk/stories/the-myth-surrounding-october-1879/

Furthermore the football club changed its name from the Original Sunderland and District Teachers FC to Sunderland AFC on 16 October 1880 not 1881/82 or any other date. This too has been chronicled in the above newspaper and a copy of the PDF can be supplied on demand if Wikipedia requests this information.

SAFC1880 (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Paul / @SAFC1880:, having read the details, I would support the decision to change the foundation date in this article and the separate History article to 1880. I'll be honest, it never really made sense to me that the club was apparently founded in 1879 but didn't play its first game until November 1880. I recognise that the information is controversial as the 1879 date is ingrained into popular opinion. I would imagine the change would likely trigger an edit war. It's also worth noting that both the club and the club historian Rob Mason still stand by the 1879 date. Can you confirm if you've attempted to change the date in the article yourself and has it been reverted?

Do any other Wikipedians have strong feelings against this change? Digital Elysium (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ERROR IN ARTICLE

Thgere is an error in the article. It says that Sunderland held the record for the longest run in the First Division, staying there for 68 years until they lost the record to Arsenal in 1958. At that point Arsenal had only been in the First Division for just over 10 years. The record was not lost until Arsenal overtook Sunderland in the 1960's or early 1970's.

Please see below in the section entitled "Record run in the first division". I am onto it. Cheers. p.s. the audio version needs to be updated too. Gusssss (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dick Malone?

Currently on the notable players list, never heard of him. Does he really exist?

Will remove and then if someone proves otherwise they can add it again

--Rboxer 09:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dick Malone most certainly did exist. Full back 1973 cup final. SAFCjl 21:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Yet again more vandalism, doesnt anyone have anything better to do, i changed what i could see im sure there is more. Sigh...

Yep, I changed it yet again. Even after a 5-1 pantsing of us, they have to do it, if nothing else the derby result proved once and for all who is obsessed with whom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagan Lad (talk • contribs) 05:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Entrance music

Can anyone tell me the titles of the music that Sunderland come on to the pitch with? thanks --Screen42 16:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dance of the Knights by Prokofiev followed by Elevation by U2. Elysium 73 17:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Screen42 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to add this to the main article - It is part of the article for Dance of the Knights, but is not mentioned in the Sunderland AFC article. Could someone possibly add a section on this?

23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ready To Go

Veinor - why do you keep removing the link to Ready To Go from the external links? its probably the most popular Sunderland AFC website and its run by fans so hardly a "spam" link

Vandalism

To all those people who constantly vandalise this page, please use uncyclopedia instead. That's what it's there for.

The front page currently has a line that says: "Sunderland's best friends and bum chums Newcastle United." I tried to edit it but as an unregistered user could not. Maybe someone will want to change this yeah?83.61.2.236 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC). UPDATE: It's been changed back - well done!83.61.2.236 16:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Something I've just removed from the page

*Raikonnen is a bit of a bellend, and as such, supports a woefully poor football team: Sunderland.

Hilarious. Not.--Rboxer 11:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Squad List

Sunderland and Newcastle are the only two Premier League clubs who have not adopted to standardised squad list template Template:Fs_player and there is a drive from the people on WikiProject:Football to get this done. The only problem is that we would lose the "Date Joined Club" and "Previous Club" fields, and we would be stuck with GK, DF, MF, CF positions. What do people think. Should we adopt the standard, or keep it as it is? John the mackem 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time there were three clubs that used an alternatve template, including West Ham United F.C.. That was until recently. I was in favour of not standardising as the previous template provided more information, position descriptions were more accurate (what happens if someone plays RB and CM???) and I believed that a real football fan wants to see that kind of info at a quick glance, without having to go through every players' individual pages. But I felt like I was fighting a losing battle against those who felt standardisation mattered. However, I found a compromise I could be happy with by retaining the information in a 'current season' page, the current one being West Ham United F.C. 2005-2006. I have placed a link to this page just below the standard template on the West Ham main page. Let me know what you think. At the moment there is only statistical information on the page, but it could include more information, in keeping with other West Ham United F.C. by season pages, such as transfers, results and general 'events' that happen during the season. Spyrides 17:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Sunderland also have a 'current season' page; I created it a while ago and I have been trying to keep it up to date as often as possible: 2005-06_Season_for_Sunderland_A.F.C.. Not quite as detailed in terms of player stats as the West Ham one.
    John the mackem 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Has Riera joined?

I read that Arnau Riera, FC Barcelona B player has joined Sunderland. Heres a link: [1]

Past Players/Noteable Players

This section is very poorly constructed. Not being a Sunderland fan I couldn't really say who should and shouldn't be there, but it needs some kind of structuring. Perhaps listing by the order they left the club, and displaying the years during which they were at the club and the flag of their nationality? See other club's former players pages if you are unsure of how to do this. Djdannyp 12:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Roy Keane

There has yet to be an Official announncement from the club to say he is manager, so why is he up? It has tey to be confirmed.

It's been announced, but he has yet to sign a contract. Until then, I think his name should be removed from the infobox. NaLaochra 19:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

He's all over the official website and is listed as the manager.

Doing an Kyle Weber?

To the user that keeps adding this:

Doing a Sunderland

As a result of Sunderland's somewhat unusual footballing history, the phrase "Doing a Sunderland" has been independently coined in many areas, often with wildly different meanings.

It can include a surprisingly good cup run, a reference to Sunderland's 1973 FA Cup win against Leeds, which made Sunderland the first non top-flight club in 40 years to win.

The phrase is also used to describe gaining promotion after a spectacularly successful season in a lower grade, as when Sunderland won the First Division with a record 105 points in 1999, enabling them to move up to the Premiership.

Most recently, "Doing a Sunderland" refers to being relegated in a humiliating or spectacular fashion. During the 2002/2003 season, although Sunderland were outside the relegation area at Christmas with 18 points, poor performances (they only picked up one more point) and a series of 17 straight defeats (only better by Darwin in League histroy with 18 straight defeats) saw Sunderland relegated with a then-record low points total in the Premiership of 19 points. Sunderland would break this in 2005-2006.

This is a pointless chapter, please stop adding it. It's purely anecdotal, not sourced, most of the information is duplicated from other parts of the Sunderland article, it does not conform to the Football Clubs template, and even if none of that mattered... it is stupid to have this as an entire chapter on Sunderland's headline Wiki article! John the mackem 16:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I personally have never heard it used. NUFC rubbish I suspect.

It's back again. Judging by the IP address it's the same moron as before (with an obvious void in his life). Whenever it pops up, just delete it. Elysium 73 18:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A note on British English

British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A.F.C. versus AFC

I've been helping out with requested moves. I was moving Leeds United A.F.C. to Leeds United AFC, a move for which the requester had cited consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that all "A.F.C." articles be moved to "AFC" articles. In the course of the discussion, somebody mentioned this article as an example of a name using the fullstops. I looked into the history at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and sure enough, there was consensus indicated here, here and here. Note also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. Nevertheless, my move of this page was reverted by User:Robwingfield with the summary: moved Sunderland AFC to Sunderland A.F.C.: no consensus reached on removal of dots, bring in line with all other articles. Well, it's not the case that "all other articles" use the full stops, and how are we to implement consensus if people are going to revert, claiming no consensus, when they haven't looked into the discussions that have happened repeatedly? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be coordinated as part of a much wider move - all articles and categories and templates for all English teams (not just A.F.C. articles) need to be moved at the same time. It's not sufficient to just move the main article and let it be inconsistent with other articles for the same club and articles for other clubs. If you're willing to undertake the task for all English clubs I'll support you. If you just change one or two, I'll move the articles back. I think a better way to do this is to raise the issue at WP:RM, as an umbrella move for all English clubs. That way proper consensus can be reached. robwingfield ^(talk) 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that proper consensus had been reached, but if not, I'm willing to work on it, yeah. Right now there's some discussion restarting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, and it looks a bit complicated. The consensus may vary from country to country, for example, but at the least it seems that all English football clubs could be consistent, all Norwegian clubs consistent, etc. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it REALLY matter? SAFCjl 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not much. Consistency is nice, but if it's a lot of trouble to achieve it, then it's not worth it. Ultimately, writing articles about football teams on the internet doesn't REALLY matter at all, considering everything else that's going on in the world. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please block this page

This article has been repeatedly vandalised, over the past week by lots of diffrent accounts and IP's. I think we should block it, its getting ridiclous, and as I support Sunderland. I find it very offensive. Star of the north 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Management & Mick McCarthy

I like the new Management & Coaching Staff section, but i'm wondering if it would be better placed as a secondary header under a Management section as such:

1st Management
2nd   Managerial History
           ---
2nd   Current Management & Coaching Staff
           ---

What do people think?

Also, has there been a consensus reached regarding the nationality of Mick McCarthy? I originally added him to the Managerial History section as English, given that he was born in Barnsley and is clearly a Yorkshireman. But due to his Irish footballing pedigree he always seems to get reverted back to Irish. Again, what do people think? John the mackem 20:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please edit the current squad list, as Jon Stead and Chris Brown have departed. (No. 9 and No. 20). Thanks

Vandalism

Some Newcastle fans are obviously targeting this page for abuse. Get rid of it: In the history section there is an offensive sentence which needs to be removed.

Other Rivalries

I've added Middlesbrough back to the other rivalries sentance. If Leeds is there then surely Middlesbrough have to be too. SAFCjl 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional vandalism has been added to the rivalries section past the Middlesborough bit. I can't click on this page without there being some sort of vandalism any more--Rboxer 11:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Now removed

Vandalism of Squad

Someone keeps adding players to the squad which should not be there, namely John H Deacon. It seems to have gone unnoticed for a while, so it might be worth checking that section more often.

A player has been added to the squad called Aaron Phillips. I'm not aware of this person and I think he is fictious. Could this page be reverted please? --20.133.0.14 07:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

SAFC

Do Sunderland have some kind of exclusive right to the abbreviation SAFC? I ask because on two occasions the disambig page I created has been changed back to a redirect to Sunderland A.F.C.. Surely Stirling Albion F.C. also abbreviates to SAFC (see here), albeit that they are a less notable club? --Jameboy 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) The club and fans of Sterling Albion don't seem to use the abbreviation that often that I can see, as opposed to Sunderland who use it frequently (i.e. www.safc.com). There is also a gulf in notability as well. I suggest reverting it back and leaving SAFC as a redirect to Sunderland. Elysium 73 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Discussion at WikiProject Football regarding this. --Jameboy 13:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean up needed

article is very long, messy and disjointed and contains waffle and fan based POV. I think maybe Sunderland fans are considering this page their own and only they are qualified to contribute. I've cleaned up some sections but work still needed. Speed Air Man 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Update needed

Could you please notice that the players Johnny Evans and Danny Simpson have left the football club and returned to Manchester United. 81.151.83.107 10:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Some one has replaced the main image with a pooper scooper picture

Raimond van der Gouw

Do we know if he has been allocated a squad number or not? The official website initially said he had but it was removed later. Yesterday's programme said he was registered and number 17 too.

Nyron Nosworthy on squad list

Is Nyron Nosworthy Jamaican or English. --Sunderland06 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The page on him here says he was born in England but has been in the Jamaican international squad. I'd say Jamaican.--Josquius 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity fans

Irregardless of if other teams also have it (the same applies to them): is this section really nessesary? It doesn't seem very fitting of an encyclopdia to me--Josquius 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be removed. This information should be moved to the "celebrities" articles. Mattythewhite 21:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick failing Good article

I'm quick failing this because:

• Most important reason: many sections lack inline citations. Compare this to the comprehensive referencing in an article such as Liverpool F.C..
• Trivia section needs exterminating. Any important factoids should be accommodated in a different section, and the rest obliterated.
• As above, the celebrity fans is a little trivial. It's also uncited.
• Some references are not formatted correctly.
• 'Under 18's' has no apostrophe (plural = more than one under 18)
• A lot of very fragmented paragraphs, esp. in 'Top flight'
• 'Fanzines' should be developed.

Good luck with it. As I say, the most important point is that it needs far more references; therefore, the article did not receive a full review and subsequent reviewers might highlight further issues. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Safc badge.png

Image:Safc badge.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 (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Martyn Waghorn

I have set up an article on Martyn Waghorn as he is now "notable" after making his first professional appearance for his club against Manchester United. Spinnerdisk7 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1989

Can someone check the dates in the history section? It says we joined the league in 1989 ereplacing Stoke... that doesn't sound right to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.243.206 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sunder.gif

Image:Sunder.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sunder.gif

Image:Sunder.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The carribean 8

Source for these alleged players we have scouted. 81.132.214.251 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah found the list [2]. 81.132.214.251 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

These players aren't Sunderland players, they spent only a week training at the academy, therefore I've removed the list of redlink players. -Toon⁰⁵ 13:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

List of kit suppliers

We have one for shirt sponsers, should we do one for kit suppliers? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

From google images;

??-97 Avec

97-01 Asics

01-04 Nike

05-07 Lonsdale

07-?? Umbro

Gazh (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Squad

whats going on with the squad? It's pretty dam big! Shouldn't you split it up into another article, reserves and academy? Govvy (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, but how would you define players as being in the reserves or academy, seeing as they are listed as being in the first team? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, tuff to call considering their website has bunged them all together! [3] :/ Maybe someone could email the site and ask them to split it up a bit!! heh. Besides, surely some of those kids are on loan somewhere? Govvy (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The table of players' names is in a completely different format to all the other pages of the teams in the EPL. Anyone mind if I reformat it to match the others? Max sang (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Jordan Cook

He is listed on safc.com as number 127 so dont change his squad number unless this changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoooo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Stokes - out on loan

He has gone out to Sheffield Utd for a season long loan. This needs to be added to the squad section. http://www.safc.com/news/?page_id=15924 Nelftm (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated, but the source says it's a three month loan. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sunderland A.F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial Comments: This article passes the quick-fail criteria...the use of the included illustrations & pics seems to check out...the article is fairly well referenced. After glancing at the previous peer reviews and the first GAN review, it's clear a lot of good work has been put into article. My goal for this review is to be as thorough as possible, but please note it's my personal policy not to make any edits on the article I'm currently reviewing, so the list of changes is up to other editors to carry out. Here's my full review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My requirements for GA passage:

1. The 4th sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the "History" section partially reads, "The Football Association started an investigation into the payment, they said that the money given...." Insert the word "and" after the comma in that sentence. Done - Added.
2. Remove the comma in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph under the "History" section. Done - Removed.
3. The 6th sentence of the 4th paragraph under the "History" section partially reads, "This, along with Sunderland spending the likes of record breaking transfer fees...." Remove the words "the likes" from the sentence, as the sentence would be more concise & coherent with their removal. Done - Removed.
4. The 1st sentence of the 5th paragraph in the "History" section reads, "In 1957, the club were implicated in a major financial scandal for the second in their history...." I believe the word "time" needs to be inserterd before the phrase "...in their history...." Then, delete the rest of the sentence so that it will now read, "In 1957, the club were implicated in a major financial scandal for the second time in their history." *note:also see my thoughts on the verb tense of this sentence under the "suggestions & comments" section below. Done
5. In the 3rd sentence of the 5th paragraph of the "History" section, a quick explanation of the term "top-flight" would be beneficial. In essence, how would you explain what "top-flight" means to Wiki readers like me who are very unfamilar with football? Comment - Wouldn't it be more appropriate to link to wiktionary, as this is also a widely used word in football articles, it simply means "Of the highest rank, or peak of excellence" (from wiktionary), so in this case the top-flight is the Premier League.

That seems like a fine idea. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you would like to make any sort of change or keep the article the way it is.Monowi (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - Linked to wiktionary.

1. In the 2nd sentence of the 5th paragraph in the "history" section, a comma after the phrase, "They were accused of breaking the wage cap" would be warranted. Done - Added commma.
2. In the 5th sentence of the 5th paragraph of the "History section, the commas around the phrase "by some" can be removed. Done - Removed.
3. Please revise the 2nd sentence of the 7th paragraph in the "History" section so that it no longer begins with the numerical value of the year 1987. Instead, consider starting the setence with something like, "In the year 1987...." The point being that beggining a setence with a number, even a year, isn't good form (and typing out "1987" into words would be distracting for readers). Done - Reworded.
4. The 3rd sentence of the 10th paragraph in the "History" seems to have some odd wording, as the first part reads, " Quinn had been in charge for the first few games of the season in a poor start,...." I suggest something more straightforward like, "Quinn oversaw a poor start to the first few games of the season, ...." Done
5. The last sentence of the "History" section stands by itself as a paragraph, however I consider a paragraph to be three setences or more. Integrate this sentence into the previous paragraph. Then if possible, try to be more concise with the information presented in this revised paragraph. Done - Merged and trimmed.
6. The "Colours and Crest" section begins with the phrase, "Sunderland began playing in an all blue kit...." I understand from the context of the sentence that "kit" equates to the word "uniform," but adding that explicit extra context into the text would make the article easier to read for readers like myself who have never seen or heard of the word "kit" used in that context. Done - Wikilinked and changed to strip.
7. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph under the "Colours and Crest" section partially reads, "Their badge was included the upper part of the Sunderland coat of arms...." I think the word "was" needs to be removed from that phrase. Done - Removed.
8. The 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph under the "Colours" section partially reads, "In 1972 the badge was changed, but still including the ship...." Looks like another typo; try changing the word "including" to "included." Done - Changed.
9. The 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph under the "Colours" section begins, "In 1997 with the new stadium...." How about changing the wording to something that flows better. My suggestion is, "In conjuction with the move to Stadium of Light...." In this same sentence, also put parenthesis around "but the ship was left out." Done - Reworded.
10. The last sentence of the "Colours and Crest" seems very out of place, and in fact it might even be vandalism. Please remove the sentence entirely, or move it to an appropriate place in the article. Done - Eep thats vandalism, cheers.
11. Run-on sentence: the 3rd sentence under the "Stadiums" section Done - Inserted commas.
12. The 4th sentence of the "Stadiums" says, "...the club had played there for again just the single season before moving...." Try something more concise and clear, like, "the club played a single season there before moving." Done - Changed.
13. The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the "Stadiums" section needs the word "and" inserted after the comma. Done
14. Run-on sentence: the 4th sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Stadiums" section. Comment - Is this "Nearing the turn of the century, Sunderland moved to Roker Park, returning to Roker." the sentence you're talking about?

In retrospect, it seems I was referring to the sentence after that. No matter; just clean up the wording of the sentence at your leisure before you put the article up for peer review or FAN next. Monowi (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - Split into two, and added commmas accordingly.

1. The 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph in the "Stadiums" section begins, "In 1997, Sunderland moved to present stadium...." Insert the word "its" before the word "present." Done
2. Another missing transition in the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the "Stadiums" section; insert the word "and" before the comma. Comment - If you mean this sentence "The stadium bears the same name as S.L. Benfica's ground Estádio da Luz, albeit in a different language.", I don't think "and" would go properly with that sentence. Maybe "though" would.

That's fine, it's totally up to you as to what specific wording would make the sentence sound better.Monowi (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done - Added "though".

1. The wording of the 1st sentence of the "Statistics" section is strange, reading, "...having made 537 first team appearances 1961 and 1976." Shouldn't it say, "having made 537 first team appearances between 1961 and 1976."? Done - Changed.
2. Add more explanation to the caption that accompanies the graph in the "Statistics and Records" section. I suggest clearly indicating that the blue line is the division between the first & 2nd division, and likewise that the green line is the division between the 2nd & 3rd divisions (as a American not extremely familiar with how the Premier League is structured, the league division thing took me a little bit of time to figure out with the current description). Done
3. In the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the "Statistics" section, rewrite the sentence to, "Sunderland joined the top division in England, The Football League, in the 1890–91 season and did not experience relegation until 1957–58 (a span of 67 seasons seasons)." Done
4. Wikilink to a relevant article for the term "battery gun" in the "Nicknames" section. Done - Linked.

Suggestions for future improvement & Additional Comments:

• Perform another copyedit to the article. I tried to point out everything, but I'm sure a fresh eye could find more improvements. Comment - I'll make sure to ask someone right away.
• Text in the "Stadiums" section slightly overlaps the "Stadium of Light" picture on my computer screen, mostly likely the result of the Sunderland badge & accompanying caption protruding down vertically into the "Stadiums" section. It would be cool to try and ensure the text doesn't overlap for any users, if that is at all possible.
• If you eventually plan on elevating this article to Featured Article status, the organization of the references will probably need to be adjusted into a "Notes" section accompanied by a "References" section that only lists the books (see the Featured Article Derry City F.C. for an example of what I mean). Specifically, I would suggest using a feature of the Template:Cite book whereby you can automatically link from a listing in the "notes" section down to the References section where all the books are listed using the "ref" parameter. Done - Modelled on Derry City's style.
• Be mindful that the picture of the Bob Stokoe might be called into question by a user of Wikipedia Commons. I had a similar-type picture for the Ozzie Smith article, but I had to re-take, re-size and re-issue the picture from a GNU license because a user on Wikipedia Commons claimed there was no "freedom of panorama" in the United States. I have no idea if that law applies in the UK, but I did want to give you a heads up in case you ever run into a problem like that. Comment - Actually not long ago I ran this over with User:Geni, who confirmed that I needed to contact the person who took the picture. I messaged the author on flickr and asked if he could adjust the licensing. He did accordingly and Geni said it was fine as she is really good with image licensing, I'll trust her.
• I have to admit I'm puzzled by phrases like "...Sunderland were admitted..." and "...the club were implicated...." I've noticed that other football articles, like the FA Class article I mentioned above, have the same verb usage when referring to an individual team, so I gather this is an accepted practice for football-related articles. I normally think of sports organizations as single entities unto themselves, but I understand that by using Sunderland in the plural, it refers to the collection of team members. That said, the plural usage itself doesn't remain consistent. For example, the 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph in the "History" section reads, "It was the closest the club has ever come to The Double." If the singular verb usage is present with the object of that sentence, "club", than why not also have the 2nd sentence of the third paragraph under the "History" section use the same singular verb tense? Even using one of the team's nicknames, such as in a phrase like, "The Black Cats were admitted..." would make more sense to me. Regardless, my puzzlement on this issue will not affect the passage of this article.

Review Result:

GAN review ON HOLD

In short, this article is fine overall, and just needs some copyediting for GA status.

I will place the article on hold for seven days, during which time all requirements need to be met in order for me to consider passing it. When/if all the requirements are met, please notify me on my talk page, & I will review the changes. For anyone else reading this review, please consider reviewing an article yourself at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with the article in the future! Monowi (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GAN review passed

Congratulations; after reviewing the requested changes, I believe this article now meets the requirements of a Good Article. It was interesting and enjoyable to learn about Sunderland A.F.C. during the review process. Best of luck as you work towards making this a Featured Article. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Academy of Light

I've noticed that there is no links to the Academy of Light on the page, anyone care to incorporate this into the article somehow? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

Per a request on my talk page, I'm assessing the images for a potential nomination at FAC.

• Sunderland A.F.C. - please complete an {{information}} template for this image. Done
• File:SAFC1972-97crest.svg - same for this one. Done
• And File:Safcattendances.JPG as well. For both this file and File:Sunderland AFC League positions.jpg please include the source used for data culled for both graphs in the summary info. Done
• In general, the image placement and appearance is haphazard. Please consider making images a uniform size no larger than 300 pixels. Per WP:MOSIMAGES, the placement of the image to the left under the heading in Stadiums is not allowed. Done
• Please let me know if you have questions. Best of luck! --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The path to the second FAC

A few issues I noted when running through the history section:

• Sunderland won the game 5–3 and were crowned "champions of the world" - "crowned" is potentially misleading and a little informal in this context. To the literal-minded reader it conjures mental images of a coronation.
  • I've changed the two mentionings to "announced" and "named".
• The club escaped relegation from the First Division by one point in the 1927–28 season despite 35 goals from Dave Halliday. The point was won after a match against Middlesbrough, and they finished in fifteenth place - while the intended meaning is obvious, it makes it sound as though that point was the only one that mattered, when a total of 39 was required.
  • How about a "one point margin" or would that sound too clunky?
• The refs to a West Brom fansite should be replaced by something more reliable. It is also a deadlink.
  • I've gone ahead and replaced these with a few different sources.
• After the close call, the club was promoted to Division One in 1964 after finishing in second place. Sunderland overcame Charlton Athletic in the final stages of the game, won and went on to clinch promotion - the wording in the second sentence is muddled. When did this game take place? Was it a promotion decider? We cannot tell from the information provided. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this came about through copyediting, I've cleared it up now. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Frazier Campbell

There has been no mention of his squad number on the SAFC website, so i have removed the number 9 until it is verified 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.61.199 (talk)

Kit supplier / sponsers

Period	Kit manufacturer
1989-1993	Hummel
1993-1997		Avec
1997–2001	Asics
2001-2004		Nike
2004-2007	Lonsdale
2007-		Umbro

Help appreciated, i'm crap with these tables. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Record run in the first division

"remained in the top league for 68 successive seasons, losing the record to Arsenal when they were relegated in 1958"

Firstly, although it was 68 YEARS after joining the Football League in 1890 that SAFC were first relegated in 1958, because of the gap for the war years 1914/18 and 1939/46, it was only 57 PLAYING seasons. I feel this should be corrected as it is misleading as it stands. Also, they did not "lose the record to Arsenal when they were relegated", in fact Arsenal did not play their 58th consecutive season in the first division until 1983.

If Arsenal are to be noted, then Everton will play their 58th consecutive season in the top flight (unbroken by war years too) next season if they avoid relegation this time round, thus also beating SAFC's achievement.

Gusssss (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please detail hooliganism

I was disappointed that this got to FAC status without going into related hooligans, which belong in a comprehensive article. I just added a little paragraph of my own to get the ball rolling, but I know next to nothing about it. But even Americans know that association football teams have firms associated with them that do far more interesting (and intolerable) things to one another. Wnt (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The article did previously mention hooliganism, but it was brought up in the first FAC that it played a very minor part of Sunderland's history. Mentioning it just because other teams, like West Ham and Milwall have histories of hooliganism seems pointless. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, a reference I found would seem to contradict this. It's possible that the team effectively cracked down on hooligans, but that seems worth mentioning.

I added this bit because I don't approve of the whitewashing of articles, nor of "recentism"; a featured article should comprehensively cover all facets of the subject. I see that the original FAC did have a line about the hooliganism being overstressed, but it shouldn't have been removed entirely, especially if Sunderland represents a successful example of cracking down on hooligans. Wnt (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference 95, at the end of the sentence "Like many teams, Sunderland is followed by football hooligans, notably the Vauxies and the Seaburn Casuals, moreso the latter in more recent years", is broken. It also looks a bit of a strange reference to be using to support that sentence and this raises my suspicions about whether this is original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I could have done better with that. I was hoping some people here knew more about this and could be goaded into expanding this. The article football hooliganism mentions these two names and one more I didn't see mentioned in some less-than-reliable sources. I think the sentence could stand (it's using a primary source about itself) if I had put in the Vauxies' web site also, but I didn't see one on a list of such sites I found. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Friendship Trophy

I just created an article about this quirky honour, have wikilinked it from the main NCFC article and have added it to the NCFC template. I invite your contributions to the article and for you to find appropriate places to wikilink it in the main Sunderland article. Good luck for the rest of the season - I'd like you lot to stay up, so long as it's not at our expense! --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Translation of "Stadium of Light" to Portuguese

The stadium bears the same name as the Portuguese club Benfica's ground Estádio da Luz, albeit in a different language.

This is not correct because "Estádio da Luz" translates to "Stadium of the Light" not "Stadium of Light" which means "Estádio de Luz".

de = of

da = de + a = of the

This is a common mistake when translating from English to Portuguese language. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Players' Heights

I have observed that the presentation of players' heights is inconsistent. 19 are metric first and 7 are imperial first. This is despite both Sunderland AFC and Premier League giving the height of players in metric measures.

To make the presentation consistent with Sunderland AFC and Premier League this would need:

• A general agreement here that this was appropriate.

Do people here agree that this change is appropriate for this team? Michael Glass (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael, given the general support at WT:FOOTY for actually following WP:MOSNUM for a change, why do you think it appropriate to go through all the Premier League teams and try and move them away from the MOSNUM standard?

If we did try to make the club teams "consistent" in good faith, all we achieve is to make the international teams "inconsistent". As you well know, there is nothing particularly special about the usage by individual pages on either the Premier League website or the Sunderland website according to Wikipedia policy. Kahastok talk 09:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As I read it, the discussion at WT:FOOTY was about a proposal to divide usage on the ground of nationality. It was not about MOSNUM per se. I regard that proposal as a joke from Monty Python. Better to have the present inconsistent mixture than one divided on national grounds. Michael Glass (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The wide community consensus on the matter determines this and other style points precisely on the basis of the country the article is related to. This is not just for units - it applies to dates and spelling as well. Your argument against it amounts to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

There is no basis in policy, in the MOS or elsewhere, for an article on an British player playing for an English club not to be considered UK-related for style purposes. Whether we do it by club or by player is the only real question - either only the British players are UK-related or all of them are. Your proposal is not consistent with either position.

But in any case, this is not an appropriate place on which to reach consensus on what units should be used on articles other than this one. If you want consistency across footballers, the appropriate venue is WT:FOOTY. Kahastok talk 12:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Kahastok, my proposal is about the Sunderland players. It was not a general proposal, such as the one you outlined above. You have accepted that a general diktat to use imperial measures on the British teams is unattainable. You now have restricted your proposal to British players. I think treating team members differently on the basis of nationality is also a non-starter because the division in usage is between UK teams and organisations and many UK player profiles are metric first. However, this is not relevant to my proposal here.

Now that both of us have stated our cases I think it would be good for both of us to wait and see if anyone else wishes to comment. Michael Glass (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever why your rhetoric about "diktat" should be a reason not to follow WP:MOSNUM. We can choose within reason how to interpret MOSNUM's reference to "non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom" - whether that means players for UK teams, or players with British nationality, but we cannot choose to disregard MOSNUM completely without the sort of good reason that has been conspicuous by its absence in your arguments both here and elsewhere.

You are well aware that individual instances of measurements on websites of clubs and teams are not an authoritative determination of usage, and that there is nothing in MOSNUM or any other policy that requires us to follow them. On the contrary, it makes a very clear distinction between "most articles, including all scientific articles", "non-scientific articles relating to the United States" and "non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom". If you think there is any rational reason to suggest that an English player playing for the England team and for an English club might not be related to the United Kingdom, then you are welcome to present it. But in all the time you've been trying to metricate British football you have never yet done so. Kahastok talk 10:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Khastok, Let's just agree to differ and let others comment, if they want to. Of course we have sharply different ideas about metrication and whether MOSNUM is a guideline or should be followed strictly, but please, let's just cool it so that others have a chance to comment. Michael Glass (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody says that MOSNUM has to be followed like a strait-jacket, except you when it suits you to caricature others. But nor is it an irrelevance or something to be ignored for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you so repetitiously demand. If there is a good reason to ignore this or any other rule it should be ignored. But you have entirely failed to demonstrate any such good reason in any discussion here.

But in any case - as I said before - this is not the page for this discussion. Even if a consensus for your proposal was reached here, it would not apply on any other article, and this one doesn't have any relevant measures on it. Kahastok talk 12:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Khastok, What I have asked for is whether people think that making the display of units in the info boxes of Sunderland players consistently metric first is a good idea. The reasons for asking this are as follows:

• Consistency is preferable to inconsistency.
• Most player profiles are metric first now.
• Both Sunderland and Premier League web pages present the height information in metric measures only.

Your argument against my proposal is that this would be inconsistent with MOSNUM. You further state that even if people came to a consensus here, MOSNUM would override it. I hope that this states both our cases without rancour or rhetoric, and that we can both step back and give room for others to comment, if they want. Michael Glass (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Please don't put words into my mouth, because every time you do it you misrepresent me. I have told you this on many occasions in the past.

The usage of individual pages of the Sunderland and Premier League websites is totally irrelevant as you well know - this is an argument that has been rejected on every one of the scores of times you have proposed it at WT:MOSNUM with very good reason; your attempts to impose it regardless violate WP:GAME (Attempting to... impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community). Your argument based on other player profiles here is precisely the behaviour described at WP:FAITACCOMPLI, given that you metricated them en masse against policy and are now claiming that as justification for going further against policy.

But it doesn't matter. The reality is that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss this article. Not other related articles. You can't expect people editing one article to respect or listen to a consensus reached at a talk page for a totally different article. There are no heights or weights of players anywhere on this article. So there is no measurement to be changed by your proposal. Kahastok talk 19:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I can see my plea to discuss without rancour has fallen on deaf ears. Regardless of all your invective, my edits have largely stood for three years or more. As you do not accept that any discussion here is relevant, there is no point in discussing it further. Michael Glass (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sunderland A.F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100915053426/http://www.givemefootball.com:80/pfa/pfa-history/the-jimmy-hill-years-pfa-chairman-1957-1961 to http://www.givemefootball.com/pfa/pfa-history/the-jimmy-hill-years-pfa-chairman-1957-1961
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130625103549/http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/62109/durham-miners-association-our-issues-with-di-canio-now-resolved to http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/62109/durham-miners-association-our-issues-with-di-canio-now-resolved
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080603122644/http://www.roker-roar.com:80/pauldays/navbar/redandwhite.html to http://www.roker-roar.com/pauldays/navbar/redandwhite.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunderland A.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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208114958/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/clubs/profile.stadium.html/sunderland to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/clubs/profile.stadium.html/sunderland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225213503/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfootball.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfootball.htm

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) 09:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunderland A.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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150725171039/http://www.worldofstadiums.com/europe/united-kingdom/stadium-of-light/ to http://www.worldofstadiums.com/europe/united-kingdom/stadium-of-light/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023204315/http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1992.htm to http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1992.htm

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) 19:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2017

Rgraysafc (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Caretaker Manager: Kevin Ball

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2017

Unknowen livesinindia (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017

Current Squad: The link to Marc Wilson should be changed to Marc Wilson (Irish footballer) as the current one links to the disambiguation page. 86.132.114.9 (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Samsara 10:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunderland A.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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090101160956/http://www.heartsfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HeartsHistory/0%2C%2C10289~985232%2C00.html to http://www.heartsfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HeartsHistory/0%2C%2C10289~985232%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509075844/http://www.premierleague.com/page/sunderland to http://www.premierleague.com/page/sunderland
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.southyorks.police.uk/sites/default/files/foi/significantpublicinterest/hillsborough%20stadium%20disaster%20final%20report.zip

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) 21:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunderland A.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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002105118/http://uefaclubs.com/showlogos.php?club=Sunderland%20AFC&logo=5 to http://uefaclubs.com/showlogos.php?club=Sunderland%20AFC&logo=5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002105127/http://uefaclubs.com/showlogos.php?club=Sunderland%20AFC&logo=2 to http://uefaclubs.com/showlogos.php?club=Sunderland%20AFC&logo=2

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) 19:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2017

Sunderland Association Football Club (/ˈsʌndərlənd/ ^ⓘ, locally /ˈsʊndlən/) is an English professional football club based in the city of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear. Sunderland currently plays in the EFL Championship, the second tier of English football. Since its formation in September 1880, the club has won six top-flight (First Division, now the Premier League) titles (1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913 and 1936), a total only bettered by five other clubs, and has finished runners-up five times. The club has also won the FA Cup twice (1937 and 1973) and been runners-up twice (1913 and 1992), as well as winning the FA Community Shield in 1936 and being finalists the following year. Sunderland have also been Football League Cup finalists in 1985 and 2014.

I have changed the date of formation to September 1880 and quoted the source. I wrote the Official history of Sunderland AFC and am therefore one of the pre eminent historians of the club. New information has come to light that proves the September 1880 founding date and confirms that no evidence can be found to prove the previously given October 1879 founding date. Evidence to support the September 1880 date can be provided to wikipedia through PDF's gained through an examination of the records of the local newspaper The Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette as researched through the online British Newspaper Archive.

the October 1879 date is debunked here - http://ryehillfootball.co.uk/stories/the-myth-surrounding-october-1879/ SAFC1880 (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 20:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

Please revise the Sunderland AFC crest as it is the incorrect crest. Please amend to be the correct crest which can be found here: https://www.safc.com/

Under Coaching Staff, please remove Scott Pearce as Sports Scientist as he is no longer with the club. Please add in Englishman, Adrian Lamb as Head of Performance. See the SAFC website for reference: https://www.safc.com/players/backroom-staff Jshannon224 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Partly done: Changed backroom staff but not crest. Crest on the website appears identical to the current image. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

Please change the Sunderland A.F.C. crest/logo. It is incorrect as it is the wrong font. See below sites for safc.com and SAFC Twitter for sources to correct crest. Thank you.

https://d2vytzi9340kna.cloudfront.net/-/media/images/crests/sunderland.jpg?h=1181&w=1417&la=en&hash=4F52B04944C897C9F41F95C60FC9DCA02C18A324

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sunderland+afc&safe=strict&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CWDmwKjSoVtcIjjLt7l2jEoD6sr4YL-x8Vqcbkrx3trfM8yC96shOrB-CyuPSk23DluY_1_1DAQNLSLr4e675L3rAJjCoSCcu3uXaMSgPqEVkH6VxKhimSKhIJyvhgv7HxWpwRimOtohv0yCYqEgluSvHe2t8zzBHkFzgMLOOaYioSCYL3qyE6sH4LERVXuAcopBBFKhIJK49KTbcOW5gRyhEs8NMcgqsqEgn_18MBA0tIuvhFKirIcgTJK1ioSCR7rvkvesAmMEVT8K1ubRnOD&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQnN-i4t7YAhXK7xQKHZIVAiEQ9C8IHw&biw=1166&bih=830&dpr=1#imgrc=YObAqNKhW1wosM: Jshannon224 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Vague requests to add, update, modify, or improve an image are generally not honored unless you can point to a specific image already uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons that you would like included on this article. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

You have Didier Ndong incorrectly spelt in the squad list as N'Dong, this is a common mistake and requires rectification. Simonv74 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done – DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

Jerome Sinclair has returned to Watford, you should remove him from the squad list. Simonv74 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

Please delete no. 36 Andrew Nelson from the listing of players because he has been transferred to Dundee FC permanently now. GBvike55 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done - someone else has removed him from the list. Iggy (Swan) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

Hi, I noticed that we are missing a player in our current squad. We are missing Jimmy Dunne, a CB on loan from Burnley for the rest of the season. Please add him when you get a chance. Thank you. 96.53.79.30 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Source now includes his name on there in the defenders section and now has a number. Iggy (Swan) 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Famous supporters

I think under "supporters" it would make sense to mention a few famous ones, like it's often done with other clubs.

Some famous supporters of Sunderland include The Animals keyboardist Alan Price, actor Peter O'Toole, one half of the Eurythmics duo David A. Stewart, Kenickie leader and radio host Lauren Laverne, baritone Thomas Allen, journalist Kate Adie, veterinary surgeon/writer James Herriot, children's author Terry Deary, and lyricist Tim Rice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussed at the RfC. The answer was "no". Koncorde (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Stadium

The section on stadium is about the stadium, not about people's feelings or opinions of the stadium. That content should be on the main stadium article, not this one. This article is about Sunderland AFC, any content should be about Sunderland AFC. Forcing in sections about people's emotional attachment to stadiums or grounds in order to force in "famous" names is a weak and pointless exercise. Koncorde (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't you think fans' reactions are part of the team history? It's pretty important what was said during the move, it's not a real history if it's not mentioned, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That might be true if there was a section on the main Sunderland history about the stadium move, or even the fan reactions section you created on Roker Park itself where it is about the stadium and the fans affiliation to that stadium. Even a statement by the club about the move and or their feelings, (chairman, manager etc) might be relevant but I would typically avoid such things on a club article and leave it for the stadium article. Koncorde (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's understood you can't go into many details in a club article, but still, some should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Some what? Some famous fans opinions? Some feelings? Anything written should be done so encyclopedic ally. So for instance, if the chairman was to express sadness or hold a press conference etc then we might say "The stadium closure was marked with a ceremony attended by Sunderland players past and present." We might even talk about the last match, we may even mention any significant matches Roker Park hosted, or particularly famous people it hosted (i.e. royalty, senior politicians, foreign dignitaries) in the capacity of their official duties. However it should all be done neutrally. The main stadium article in comparison can go into more detail of the discussion of it being built, it's service, and it being designated for closure and responses to it. That all makes sense as it has context. Koncorde (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2019

proper term needs to places: "top pocket" should be "chest pocket" 2605:E000:9149:8300:2C24:FC74:83A5:F932 (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 23:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

2A02:AA16:1101:6880:A81A:EAA7:8578:9857 (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

new owner: Kyril Louis-Dreyfus

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021 (2)

owner: Kyril Louis-Dreyfus 8.28.108.186 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Have a source for that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Gaioa (T C L) 18:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Charity section

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but obv a whole section shouldn't include just ONE line.

This sentence, "A charity, the Foundation of Light, is affiliated with the club and helps encourage educational development through football, and offers learning centres in addition to scholarships.[145]" - I'm pretty sure such a sentence is not enough for a WHOLE section.

So I've expanded it: "A charity, the Foundation of Light, is affiliated with the club and helps encourage educational development through football, and offers learning centres in addition to scholarships.[145]

The Foundation regularly undertakes various fund-raising activities. In 2011, its 'Carols of Light' event in collaboration with Durham Cathedral and produced by Tim Rice included such music performers as Thomas Allen, former Animals member Alan Price, and Sunderland based band The Futureheads;[146] it also had speakers such as SAFC Foundation Trustee and former player Niall Quinn, journalist Kate Adie, and presenter Steve Cram.[147][148]

In 2015, the Foundation was granted permission to open a free school for vulnerable children[149]; and in 2015, the Foundation created a new official home for itself called the Beacon of Light, with classrooms and learning spaces, and with indoor sports courts[150]."

For some reason, the person who has created the section keeps on reverting me.

Fair enough, he doesn't think famous people outside football should be included, but that's just his opinion. The consensus on WikiProject: Football, said famous peps could be included if they influenced the club somehow, and helping the club establish a charity is a pretty big qualifier here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

1. There is no minimum size for a section. When that section is about something that isn't directly part of the main subject this is usually kept to the minimum information required. All extraneous information is kept to the main article of the subject. This is called content forking.

2. The content on the webpage should only be what is relevant to the subject of that subject. Unless the actions of the charity have had some significant bearing on the success or fortunes of the football club they are largely irrelevant. So for instance, if the charity successfully created a sporting academy through which X Sunderland youth footballers have been coached, that would be relevant. A concert held a decade ago so you can squeeze some celebrity names in - less so. I would accept the names to be included in that section would be the founder (chairman of Sunderland AFC) and representatives of the club itself who have taken part (such as Niall Quinn, and / or a reference to it being supported by the team / players at events). Everyone else is irrelevant to the Sunderland AFC article.

3. And no, the consensus does not say "if they influenced the club somehow". But even if it did, the creation of the charity in 1999 or whenever was the significant action. Charity events subsequently are ten a penny, and relevant to the charity itself not the club.

4. I have explained repeatedly why I am reverting your unnecessary content, which at the moment is just a smoke screen for your continued insistence on forcing "famous" people into the article regardless of how poorly it is written, and how unrelated it is to the main article. Koncorde (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Nevertheless, such a short section looks bad.

2. And this is relevant to the subject because it gives a proper introduction to the chaity and what it does.

3. The charity is literally linked to the club.

4. And I've explained why you're wrong. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No, and no, and no. You are using this to promote unrelated content. I have no idea why, but it seems a recurring pattern across wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and yes. See? I can play that to.

That content helps understand what happened better. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It really doesn't, it's puffery for the charity and another attempt to slip in the names of some famous fans (which you were told was inappropriate by at the main Football project talk page). Last year you tried this same POV push and it was rejected. You waited several months to try and slide it in under the radar. There remains no consensus for its addition.

You need to establish consensus for changes. This is particularly important when it comes to Featured Articles. Koncorde (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maxim.il89 I agree with Koncorde here, enough is enough. Please don't use the mainspace as your scratchpad. This has been called out many times now, the way ahead is to get some consensus that the material you're trying to add belongs in this very article. Right now, you don't have such a consensus. To continue to edit war in order to attempt to bully this material back in is highly disruptive and liable to result in you being blocked again. Get the consensus established please. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, as mach as I find it funny Koncorde went to your page to canvass you, I'm not edit warring - in fact, Koncorde is the one reverting me, and he's closer to the 3rr than I am. I totally support using the talk page. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I went to RM as he was directly involved in the discussions last year that you are ignoring. Koncorde (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Quite. Indeed, Maxim.il89, you'd be better off sticking to just the matter at hand for the moment rather than casting aspersions which will certainly not help your case and likely end in another block for you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You can't leave a two sentence section, fact. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please link the policy or guideline that substantiates your "fact"? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Maxim.il89 for 48 hours from the article for violating the three revert rule on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense, because I haven't violated it. I had two reverts, technically - counting my first edit as a "revert" is ridiculous. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'll repeat myself. You can't just leave one line for a while section. It's simple as that, a bit more background information is needed. Maxim.il89 (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Then find something relevant to the club. Inserting content relevant to the charity is irrelevant to the article. Koncorde (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's only your own opinion by which it's irrelevant. Again, you don't run Wikipedia. A real editor has just improved the section and made it presentable, which is all that was needed to begin with. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You could have made it presentable yourself at any point.

Quote, item 2 at the top of the page I would accept the names to be included in that section would be the founder (chairman of Sunderland AFC) and representatives of the club itself who have taken part (such as Niall Quinn, and / or a reference to it being supported by the team / players at events).

Quote, my words to Richie on his talk page If you want to recommend the compromise of what element you believe is relevant (Murray, and Stadium development) you won't find opposition from me, but when I have suggested any level of moderation in the past he has taken it as an attack and ended up at several forums shopping a ban for me.

To sum up: I have said, since 15th of September 2019 what content is appropriate. In fact I created the Charitable Association section in order to enable you to better compose such a section. In fact Sunderland are associated with about a half-dozen charities and charitable affairs which at any point you could reference to expand the section; but you haven't.[4][5][6] Koncorde (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I wanted to thank User:Ritchie333 for his edit. It makes sense as it makes the section look bigger and more clear. I hope a few here will learn from this edit how it's not normal to leave a whole section just one sentence long. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Maxim.il89 thanks for your advice. Some of us have been here long enough to see baiting in action so I'll just let this slide and hope your attitude and editing patterns don't deteriorate once again to the point where you are blocked. Again. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's the problem, some of you have been here "long enough" to lose grasp of reality and start thinking that because you've been here longer gives you some arbitrary powers over what should be included, and what shouldn't, mostly a power trip (forgetting that Wikipedia exists to share knowledge, not to give you the illusion of power). I think user [[User:Ritchie333|Ritchie333 has been here for a while as well, and yet he doesn't get a kick from "flaunting" his Wikipedia "tenure" in front of newer editors. He makes edits that actually improve Wikipedia. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

An editor being here for a while doesn't mean they own Wikipedia. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Does this page need a list of celebrity fans?

Right, this article doesn't need a celebrity fans list, right? Like, that's only for the article about supporters?

Athletes

• Paul Collingwood[7] - cricketer.
• Steve Cram[8][9] - track and field athlete, silver medal at the 1984 Olympic Games.
• Tony Jeffries[10] - professional boxer, bronze medal in the 2008 Summer Olympics.
• John Lowe["Legends of Darts". Legendsofdarts.com. 20 June 2014. Archived from the original on 9 January 2016. Retrieved 31 May 2015.] - darts world champion.
• Martin O'Neill[11] - Northern Irish football manager and player.

Business

• Peter Vardy[12] [13] - businessman, automotive retail business.
• Tom Cowie[14] - businessman, Arriva Group.

Comedians

• Alfie Joey[15] - comedian, radio presenter.
• Bobby Knoxall[16] - comedian.

Film

• Melanie Hill[17] [18] - actress, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet, Coronation Street.
• Peter O'Toole[19][20] - stage and film actor, T. E. Lawrence in Lawrence of Arabia, record for the most Academy Award nominations for acting without a win.
• David Parfitt[21] - Oscar-winning producer.
• Richard Short[22] - stage and film actor.
• Gabe Turner[23] [24] [25] - One of the founders of Fulwell 73.

Music

• Don Airey[26] - keyboardist, Deep Purple.
• Thomas Allen[27] - operatic baritone.
• Tasmin Archer[Freeman, Sarah (20 September 2006). "High expectations for singer Tasmin's return". Yorkshire Post. Retrieved 23 August 2012. I needed to do something creative which had an end result. If you have writer's block, obsessing about it is the worst thing you can do and I knew that whatever else happened I had to get on with things. My partner John is a massive Sunderland fan; I went with him to a game and, that was it, I was hooked. Turning to football didn't cure the writer's block, but it helped. In the end there was no Eureka moment, it just gradually lifted. Suddenly I was able to finish all those half-written songs.] - pop singer.
• Peter Brewis[28] - Musician, Field Music.
• Alex Kapranos[29] - Scottish musician, Franz Ferdinand.
• Lauren Laverne[30] - singer, Kenickie.
• Alan Price[31] - keyboardist, The Animals.
• Tim Rice[32][33] - lyricist and author.
• David A. Stewart[34][35] - musician, Eurythmics.
• Frankie Stubbs[36][37] - punk musician, Leatherface.

Politicians

• Ian Lucas[38] - Labour MP for Wrexham, Wales.
• Сhris Mullin[39] - Labour MP for Sunderland South, journalist, author.
• Jonathan Reynolds[40] - Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde.

Television personalities

• George Clarke[41] - architect, television presenter, lecturer and writer.
• Glenn Hugill[Safc mad celebs Archived April 22, 2012, at the Wayback Machine] - television presenter and producer.
• David Jones[42] - sports presenter for Sky Sports.
• Denise Robertson[43] - writer and television broadcaster.

Writers and journalists

• Kate Adie[44][45] - journalist, Chief News Correspondent for BBC News.
• James Herriot[46][47] - veterinary surgeon and writer.
• Terry Deary[48][49] - children's author, Horrible Histories series.
• Kevin Maguire[50] [51][52] - political journalist, associate editor at the Daily Mirror, reporter for The Guardian.
• Jonathan Wilson [53][54] [55] – Author, editor of The Blizzard and sports journalist for The Guardian.

Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hooliganism

This has nothing to do with SAFC and the section should be removed. If there is another separate page for 'Imbeciles' then I respectfully suggest moving the information there. Better still, let's not refer to them at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.137.152 (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So you're offended by it because you don't like to think Sunderland have hooligans? Unfortunately, we do. We can't pretend like they don't exist. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Max. Wikipedia is not censored. If hooligans (or hooligan behaviour) have been associated directly with the club in reliable sources (in this case there are books about the subject) then it is notable for the club article. The prominence and detail is generally lower if a full article for the hooligans is supported as it is here. Koncorde (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion "So you're offended by it because you don't like to think Sunderland have hooligans" is nonsense, as are most books about hooliganism which often border on fantasy ("reliable source" - hmm). The article makes it sound if there is a particular hooligan problem at Sunderland. There isn't. I'm not "offended", but thank you for telling me what I think. Every club has hooligans, but the fact that this is appended to a page on SAFC gives them a credence they don't merit. Perhaps they should have their own page, if people are interested. Some Sunderland supporters are plumbers. Why not have a section on them? They have equal relevance to football as hooligans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.225.171 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

They have their own page. Hooliganism is indelibly linked with the clubs and the history of the club, if only because of what needed to be done to tackle it. Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that there is a section called "Supporters, rivalries & hooliganism" is grossly unfair as it in itself suggests a particular problem. There is no such section on pages for clubs with far worse problems - historically, currently and "indelibly linked". Nowhere does the word "hooliganism" appear in the pages for Leeds United, Birmingham City, Newcastle United, Liverpool, Crystal Palace, Coventry City and, strangest of all, Chelsea and Millwall. Hooliganism might be mentioned on these clubs' pages, but on the Sunderland page it is for some reason a headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.170.222 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If hooligans (or hooligan behaviour) have been associated directly with the club in reliable sources (in this case there are books about the subject) then it is notable for the club article. The prominence and detail is generally lower if a full article for the hooligans is supported as it is here. Chelsea's page says: During the 1970s and 1980s in particular, Chelsea supporters were associated with football hooliganism. The club's "football firm", originally known as the Chelsea Shed Boys, and subsequently as the Chelsea Headhunters, were nationally notorious for football violence, alongside hooligan firms from other clubs such as West Ham United's Inter City Firm and Millwall Bushwackers, before, during and after matches.[97] The increase of hooligan incidents in the 1980s led chairman Ken Bates to propose erecting an electric fence to deter them from invading the pitch, a proposal that the Greater London Council rejected.[98] that it isn't in its own named section is an editorial choice by those on that page given the links to those associated pages. West Ham United F.C. in contrast does have such a section. Koncorde (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia might not be censored, but the the Sunderland AFC entry still has a "hooliganism" sub-heading. West Ham's page also has that sub-heading, but no one said that it didn't. That passage does indeed appear on the Chelsea page, yet still the page doesn't have the hooliganism sub-heading, whereas Sunderland's does. Unfair and misleading. Also, when looking for "reliable sources", books about football hooliganism, usually the work of semi-literate fantasists, are not ideal reading material; although they are often unwittingly amusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.5.20 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

change Methvan to Methven change Satori to Sartori Give their full names Charlie Methven and Juan Sartori as they are not previously mentioned in the article81.170.49.40 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 81.170.49.40 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 81.170.49.40 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi Protected edit request, the opening paragraph says "he club has won six top-flight (First Division, now the Premier League) titles (1892, 1893, 1895, 1902, 1913, and 1936), a total only bettered by five other clubs", but since Manchester City's premiership win in 2021, this should now be changed to "six other clubs".

Featured article review needed

This 2009 WP:FA promotion has not been maintained to WP:WIAFA standard. Unless these issues can be addressed, the article should be submitted for a Featured article review:

• MOS:SANDWICH and poor image layout.
• Uncited text.
• Prose review needed, sample: The fans most enduring fanzines is A Love Supreme.
• Multiple short choppy sections and one-sentence paragraphs.
• Listiness in Popular culture section.
• Yikes, WP:CITATION OVERKILL and prose issue combined: Other nicknames used by the media and include the Mackems (believed to be related to the ship building industry and a name for inhabitants of Sunderland) or the Wearsiders, as a reference to the river that the city and broader region of Wearside sits alongside, and in contrast to their Tyneside rivals Newcastle United.[217][218][219][220]
• MOS:DTAB
• Citation cleanup needed including bare URLs.
• IMDB as a source.

This is only a sampling of issues. A top-to-bottom review is needed to maintain FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It would never have passed current FA standard originally to be fair. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

After taking a quick skim, I think the above concerns by SandyGeorgia are still valid, particularly the SANDWICH concerns at the beginning of the article and short, stubby sections. I also think the article needs a trim, as it is quite long and I think lots of information can be cut (like most of the "Club officials" section) or summarised more effectively. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article and bringing it back to FA standards? Z1720 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Honours list

On the Honours list is says "First division/Premier League" I think this is misleading as they have never won the premier League and how it is presented seems to insinuate that they won a mixture of both, I believe this should be updated to just be "first division" BBennett1994 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

BBennett1994 I agree and made some changes. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes, I agree it looks better now BBennett1994 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Remove second "titles" after parentheses 2600:1014:B10B:7387:0:4C:4D8E:AE01 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)