Template talk:Defunct Scottish football clubs

Scotland Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Football: Scotland Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the Scottish football task force.

Id like some ideas regarding the name and role of the template. My initial use of the template was to list defunct 19th century scottish senior clubs, but ive noticed it has evolved somewhat and ends up being used inconsistently on club pages (some clubs are still in existance as a junior club, or have reformed in another senior league). Personally id like to make the template comprehensive in listing senior clubs, but im not sure how to keep it relevant when used on club pages. Your thoughts? MacarismTalk 09:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is better, although there does seem to be two things going on here - a) some clubs have bitten the dust, and b) some clubs, such as ?Gretna are still in existence, but have had to leave the league. At least I think so.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have (temporarily) gone for "Defunct and Former Senior Scottish football clubs", though it doesnt roll off the tongue very well... MacarismTalk 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to have them together like this, it's useful. Great work, anyway.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criteria for inclusion is still unclear; the repeated use of the word "former", to me, suggests it would cover clubs that have dropped out of the leagues as well as those that have become defunct, for example as Template:Former Football League members does. This led to my recent addition of East Stirlingshire being reverted by User:Jmorrison230582, who obviously has a different interpretation, that of defunct clubs only.

(Of course, my interpretation relied on widening the definition of "former SFL members" to include the current SPFL, as technically all the current league clubs are ex-SFL...)

If people agree it should be for defunct clubs only, we need to make the title as displayed on the template clearer. Also, there are other former league clubs that continue to exist or have been reformed at lower levels (e.g. Clydebank, Peebles Rovers, Vale of Leven, Arthurlie etc.) whose inclusion here would come into question as to whether they are "defunct". In many of these cases, the claim that they are the same club is dubious, although we generally cover them in the same article at present. Perhaps we need to split more articles, along the lines of the recent Edinburgh City split? This is a bit of a minefield... Jellyman (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me the template is for clubs that are no longer extant, hence "defunct", or have had to be reformed as new entities, hence "former". East Stirlingshire clearly don't belong under either category. They've just been relegated out of the main league structure, in the way that happens every year in England. The "former SFL members" bit refers to defunct or former clubs that were members of the SFL. As you say, East Stirlingshire and 41/42 of the SPFL members (exception being present-day Edinburgh City) were also members of the SFL. I realise Rangers are the elephant in the room here, but Edinburgh City's example is much more clear-cut. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I think limiting it to defunct clubs makes it more manageable in any case. I've changed the title displayed on the template to make it less ambiguous. Jellyman (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]