Talk:2012–13 Rangers F.C. season

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

Format[edit]

Reflist isn't compatible with all mobile devices so shouldn't be in that format, all 41 other articles have standard league templates, league games not played should not be shown, there is a clear copyright disclaimer attached, Sections heading not used should be hidden or removed all together, There is no reason why the Rangers article should be any different to the others. Results formats are still consistent with previous Rangers seasons as are the tables used for transfers players and stats.E W 20:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Adam4267 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Players[edit]

Only players who are signed to the club should be included in the players section. Also there is no reason to list a player in the transfers section when you know for a fact that they have not signed a contract nor has their transfer been accepted by the SFA. It should also be noted that Rangers are in no position to actually sign a player until they have their SFA licence.B S 21:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No interest in an edit war so i'll probably just leave it as you wish, but 2012–13 Portsmouth F.C. season for example has several trialists listed in transfers. I mainly did it to get the ball rolling since contracts will probably be signed pending the SFA membership. Sparhelda 21:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it shouldn't only players who have officially signed and can be sourced should be included in the transfer section. The only exception would be players who have been fielded in an official match as a trialist. For instance a player in the SFL can play three games without actually signing but they haven't actually transferred to the club so they could be listed in the player section but not the transfer section. This isn't the case for Rangers nor Portsmouth as they haven't actually played any official games.B S 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B S 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers can also field two trialists in the first round of the Ramsdens Cup. According to Airdrie[1].Blethering Scot 22:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendlies[edit]

Rangers also played closed door friendlies against Airdrie [2] and Albion Rovers[3] if someone wants to add them.Blethering Scot 22:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do unofficial friendlies get included in Wikipedia generally? Sparhelda 12:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
By nature all friendlies are unofficial as such. And yes they are included in the other articles Scottish ones anyway which is the precedent and are listed as (Closed Door) however this is only if a source is available and they are. Also Rangers could only play Closed Door friendlies due to not having a licence, which would actually be a good thing to source to the article.Blethering Scot 12:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goian and Bocanegra[edit]

They were down as gone but they're in the line up for the Ramsdens Cup at Brechin today, clearly still part of the squad even if they'll end up leaving, so i've put them back. Sparhelda 13:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Training numbers[edit]

1
2 Dorin Goian
3 Carlos Bocanegra
4
5 Lee Wallace
6 Lee McCulloch
7
8 Ian Black
9
10 Lewis Macleod
11 David Templeton
12
13
14 Dean Shiels
15 Sebastien Faure
16 Emilson Cribari
17 Fran Sandaza
18 Anestis Argyriou
19 Andrew Little
20 Kyle Hutton
21 Kevin Kyle
22 Andrew Mitchell
23 Ross Perry
24 Francesco Stella
25 Neil Alexander
26 Scott Gallacher
27 Chris Hegarty
28 Robbie Crawford
29
30
31
32 Darren Cole
33
34
35 Kane Hemming
36 Kal Naismith
37
38 Robbie Crawford
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46 Kamil Wiktorski
47
48 Sergey Kundik
49 Gregor Fotheringham
50
51
52 Matty Clarke
53 Glody N’Tumba
54 Callum Gallagher
55 Barrie McKay
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63 Andy Murdoch
64 Fraser Aird
65
66
67 Luca Gasparotto
78 Tom Walsh
79 Ryan Sinnamon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwaq (talk • contribs) 19:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the club and not the company[edit]

To be clear, the Rangers FC article is about the club, so this article should be too. This article is not about the company that owns Rangers FC, or the directors who happen to run the company. It is about the club - or does anyone thing that this article 'should' be about the company that owns Rangers FC as well? If so, please explain why. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like all incorporated football clubs, Rangers FC is run by the directors of the company that owns it. The key office-holders who run the club is relevant information to this page. Gefetane (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial editing[edit]

A perfectly valid, accurate edit of this entry keeps being reverted without justification by biased editors. Whether one regards the current Rangers as the same club or not, the edit states that it is the first season of the club IN THIS FORM, which is unquestionably true.

The club which won SFL 3 did not exist last season. This is provably true, because there is no facility in the rules of Scottish football for any club to play in SFL 3 without either being relegated from SFL 2 or elevated from the non-league setup, neither of which were the case for "Rangers". It was admitted as a new club, with associate membership of the SFL. A club which had previously existed under SFL rules, including one relegated or demoted from the SPL, would have full voting membership.

The facts presented in the edit are in any event not disputed. Had the entry merely read "the first competitive season of Rangers", there would have been some grounds for debate. But "the first competitive season of THE CURRENT FORM OF Rangers" is unarguable, and backed by the required citations.

Calls for "consensus" are irrelevant and diversionary, aimed simply at deflecting the discussion into a forum populated mostly by Rangers supporters who do not have an impartial view. If the entry keeps being reverted a call for protection from an unbiased source will be made.

A possible compromise solution is to simply remove the line entirely. It is completely irrelevant to the results of the 2012-13 season whether it is the club's 1st, 132nd or 5000th season, and the line was clearly only there in the first place for "political" reasons, like several other aspects of the entry which have now been removed.

"Rangers no longer exist as a football club" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9399104/Rangers-in-crisis-Scottish-Football-Leagues-clubs-deserve-credit-but-SFA-and-SPL-may-deliver-twist.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCorrecto (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus Rangers, winners of more domestic league titles than any other club in world football, will kick off the new season on 28 July in the Ramsdens Cup, against Brechin City." http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jul/14/sfl-rangers-optimism. Go through Rangers FC talk page archives and see how consensus was gained there are many many sources used. Yes I know some sources back in July stated the club had ceased to exist however those same papers now say different. BadSynergy (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been gained that Rangers are the same club, operated by a new company, backed up by numerous sources. Your edit is vastly inaccurate User:CaptainCorrecto, firstly you use the name 'The Rangers Football Club' which not even any of your (8 month old) sources use. This is also not the official name of the club as deemed by UEFA, the SFA and the SFL. Secondly most of the information added to the introduction of the article has no place there, it is talked about in depth further on in the article. Thirdly you seem not to be able to grasp the difference between a business and a company, something which both the SFA and SFL have made clear. I'v not got time to sit and discuss this in depth today, but by all means take it to the Rangers FC talk page and see where that gets you. VanguardScot 11:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a vastly impartial place to have the discussion. Please indicate and demonstrate which parts of my edit are "vastly inaccurate" rather than just asserting it. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, secondly sources today describe Rangers FC as the same club as do the SFA/SPL/SFL what do you suggest we do? BadSynergy (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has a couple of sources stating it is seen as the same club however maybe more sources need to be added in order to stop this sort of situation happening again. BadSynergy (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'v already demonstrated to you the main discrepancy in your edit. Although the club has been unofficially known by some as The Rangers Football Club or Glasgow Rangers Football Club since its inception, it has always officially been (and still is) just Rangers Football Club. See SFL, SFA, SPL Commission, UEFA and Rangers own websites. Neither of your sources backed up your effort to edit it to that. The company's that have operated the football club have been called numerous names (4 different ones off the top of my head), The club is (and has always been) just Rangers Football Club (Not 'The RFC' or 'Glasgow RFC', both are commonplace but both are unofficial). VanguardScot 12:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this edit on this page back in July by yourself Captain. Back then you seemed sure there was going to be a Sevco Scotland Ltd playing in SFLD3 (without any sources). Now you return with outdated ones which the majority of today's sources go against. I'm just curious as to why you think sources from July outweigh the many sources from say late July to today. BadSynergy (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Squad information and Squad statistics sections[edit]

These sections need to be sourced and the a WP:RS provide for the flags or they fail WP:BLP and must be removed. LGA talkedits 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless these can be sourced to a WP:RS I will be removing as failing one or more of WP:V / WP:OR / WP:BLP :
  • Squad information
  • Squad statistics
  • Top scorers
  • Disciplinary record
to say that they are sourced to the individual match reports is saying that one or more WP editors have collated and tabulated data in a way not envisaged by those match reports. LGA talkedits 21:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will be reverting your edit if you attempt to remove these tables. I suggest you take your grievances to WP:FOOTY as these are standard template tables created there. Personally I would remove the top scorers table as it is duplicate information from the previous table, but the other tables are fine and are referenced to the relevant match reports. If you wished to be helpful you could even incorporate these references if they are more suited to WP:OR and WP:RS - [4], [5], [6]. Cheers, VanguardScot 21:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the problem has been removed anyway, the remain issue with the OR question relating to the Squad statistics table has been fixed by a source (not one that looks all that reliable but a source that will do). I still have an issue with Disciplinary record if that has been compiled by a group of WP editors going through and tabulating card totals from 47 match reports, that is OR and given the negative BLP implications that need to be sourced or removed. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to keep stuff here. LGA talkedits 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot remove as unreferenced this would be a lie and you are fully aware of that fact. You cannot remove as WP:BLP as its sourced and verifiable whether its to one match report or over 100 that are included in article within match report section and whether WP editors have collated and tabulated data in a way not envisaged by those match reports is irelevant to its verifiability. Using match reports does not fail WP:V, and even if it fails WP:OR when it is clearly referenced its not grounds for removal merely tagging. The only section that fails verifiability and BLP was the squad list and i have removed it. Its clear that you don't understand the term verifiability. Blethering Scot 21:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of references that could be used the point is we don't need to. You could add one source next to each players stats from soccerway or Soccerbase which would cover or one from Sky Sports Football Yearbook 2013-2014 which covers stats for last season. The point is its already sourced to the match reports so its absolute bullshit to claim it isn't sourced or verifiable and im not going out my way to fix a problem that isnt there.Blethering Scot 22:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kits[edit]

The 2012-13 season saw Rangers wear a fourth strip, which was one of the clubs training strips, in their first league match of the season against Peterhead. Both strips Rangers brought to the match were deemed to clash with the home teams top.[1]

Home
Away
Third
Fourth

References

  1. ^ "Third Division Peterhead 2 Rangers 2". Daily Record. Retrieved 23 January 2013.

references[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012–13 Rangers F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club v company[edit]

The club and the company are intertwined by law. They are the same entity, thus the club can only be a old as the company. 80.7.59.9 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012–13_Rangers_F.C._season&oldid=1196631283"