Jump to content

Talk:Stoke City F.C.

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

Foundation

[edit]

Is it true that Stoke are the second oldest professional club in the world? What about 1860 Munich, founded three years earlier than Stoke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.213.5.114 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and claims to have been formed in 1863 (disputed by some, who claim it to be 1868)". Can anyone specify this and give facts on this topic? I do not want to make a wrong statement on Chesterfield being the fourth-oldest club in English football history. Regards --Vince2004 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some links -
  • Stoke City's website [1] (I don't think you have to register for this page, but I'd need to unregister to check...)
  • The Oatcake, a very long-running and well-respected fanzine [2]
I'm sure there are plenty more, but these are the ones that I personally have read (I didn't write that bit of the article, btw).Didsbury ryder 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any verification of the 1863 foundation date other than the club website (which unfortunately doesn't offer any supporting evidence)? I put it to 1868 in line with this article http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Stoke-City-150-Meet-men-founded-Potters/story-19990031-detail/story.html but it was reverted to 1863.Dmt87uk (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article claims they are the oldest professional football team in the World and that is certainly not true, Notts County may have been relegated from the Football League but they are still a professional club Cricketjeff (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to show 1868 as the true foundation date, having found new evidence that 1868/69 was their first season. From the Birmingham Daily Post, 11 December 1868, page 3 - "...the Ramblers is a new club, only started this season". Hope this puts it to bed once and for all. Kivo (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is officially 1863 see here. Thanks.--Add92 (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Add92: The founding date is clearly disputed as we have multiple reliable sources that give both 1863 and 1868 as the founding date. The article should reflect the fact that the actual date is disputed, not just one version of this. Railfan23 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The EFL have rejected the 1863 date [3] -- Eckerslike (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see the later discussion below in the "Protected" section. Railfan23 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

squad template

[edit]

Could somebody who knows about the team make a squad template? Guidelines can be found here SenorKristobbal 09:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stoke.png

[edit]

Image:Stoke.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 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now improved the Fair Use Rationale for the image, specifically for use in this article (with link). --Jameboy 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potters

[edit]

Why did The Potters (a band, I do believe) redirect me here? Basketball110 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because The Potters is the common nickname for Stoke City.Regan123 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were you looking for Harry and the Potters? 129.67.127.65 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potteries derby

[edit]

If anyone is interested I would love to create a good Potteries derby article. We could have the Stoke City season-by-season graph, create a Port Vale one and put them together onto one graph. Write various stats, players who played for both sides, table of results etc.--EchetusXe (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created it, Potteries derby. Only trouble is, some nuisance is trying to delete it. Contribute here if you wish to keep the article.--EchetusXe (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, feel free to add to the article though!--EchetusXe (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pulis prem

[edit]

now that TONY PULIS has got us back in the premire leage after 23years this is one amasing achevmentand if we stay up it'll be even bigger! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.92.106 (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Club staff

[edit]

I removed a load of staff from this page, but this was undone without explanation. I contend that positions such as the Under 7's coach, Assistant Academy Administrator and the team chef are not sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


stoke signed peter crouch, he will score lots of headers for us from rory delap throws — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.187.194 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heights of players

[edit]

I checked the height of all the players. Most of the players' heights were metric first, but 5 of them ( Wilson Palacios Peter Odemwingie, Ryan Shawcross, Jonathan Walters and Geoff Cameron, are Imperial first, so I flipped the display so as not to disturb the status quo.

If someone removed the five disp=flips, all the info boxes would be consistent. I propose making the displays consistent. Any comments? Michael Glass (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why the players' employer should determine the format their height is displayed in. At Jack Butland, which is also imperial first, you not only flipped the display, you changed the height without changing the reference to match the changed height (don't worry, I fixed it). What would be consistent, is if all their heights followed the MoS on the matter, i.e. imperial for British/US subjects and metric for others. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be an improvement to have the displays determined by nationality. That would mean inconsistency within teams. I think there are several ways to go: all metric first, all imperial first, follow the usage of Premier League, follow the usage of the team or follow the existing choice of unit. If agreement can't be reached, the last choice is probably the one we would have to settle on. Michael Glass (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They wouldn't be determined by nationality per se, they'd be determined by Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which thinks that's how we should do it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should ask the manual of style to change all the articles by itself. Michael Glass (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stoke City 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Stoke City 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stoke City 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 00:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stoke City 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stoke City 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stoke City 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours so everyone can stop reverting each other (particularly over whether the 1863 formation date is factual or disputed) and have a conversation here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants @Railfan23:, @Add92: Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then here is my take on this. 1863 Is the official formation date used by the club, it is on the crest, the shirt and the club celebrated its 100th centenary in 1963 and its 150th in 2013.--Add92 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The club also, however, acknowledge that there is doubt over the date, so it must be mentioned in the article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chris has put his finger on it. Even though 1863 is given as the foundation date by a number of sources, there are equally good sources that give 1868 as the founding year. Importantly the two contemporary sources give 1868. So I think it would be misleading for the article to unambiguously claim that 1863 is the founding date. This was why @Kivo:, I and others came up with the compromise of saying - in the infobox, lede and history section - that both dates have evidence for them and the actual date remains disputed. This was the version I added to the article, with appropriate sources. Railfan23 (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The club cannot rewrite history. There is ample contemporary evidence confirming 1868. If Man Utd put 1700 on their badge and claimed it as a foundation date it would be rightly laughed off.
I'd love someone to dig out evidence for Stoke in 1863, it would be a valuable addition to the early history of the game and would help launch extra research avenues, but right now there is only the club randomly claiming 1863 without giving any clues as to why then. I suspect it is simply to one-up Forest. In Vitrio (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did add a quote from that page but it got removed. Here is a recent BBC article quote. "Who are the next oldest football league club? Who will claim Notts County's mantle is one for debate. Stoke City's record books say they were founded in 1863, but even they admit "many details remain sketchy". The next oldest after them are Notts' cross-river rivals Nottingham Forest, formed in 1865." This debate if you were wondering has come about due to Notts County's relegation from the League- The recent Forest claim and Stoke's refusal, Stoke City become oldest club in Football League following Notts County relegation.--Add92 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you added it as a quote in a reference, while leaving the article saying that 1863 was the founding date. I think the only honest way to address this dispute is to put it directly into the article. We can't resolve the dispute here - that would be original research. I think there is enough doubt about which founding date is accurate that we can't simply claim that 1863 is the founding date. Likewise we can't say that 1868 is the founding date. The right way is to represent the dispute, and not in a footnote, but directly in the article text. Railfan23 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the English Football League are now backing the claim that Nottingham Forest are the oldest club in the league, and that Stoke's claim of 1863 is not valid. See this article. In the light of that, I don't think that the article should claim that stoke was "officially" founded in 1863 as it now does. @Add92: what is your thought on that? Railfan23 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been investigating foundation year claims for football clubs for a long time and so many have sham claims. The authorities almost always let the clubs claim what they want, which is infuriating for historians. For the EFL to actually back Nottingham Forst's claim is unprecedented. This is further evidence that the club was not founded in 1863 (my preference would be 1878, when two existing clubs merged to become one - picking the oldest claim from one of two clubs is ridiculous!). There is literally no evidence for 1863. Any 'source' that states 1863 does not back it up with evidence - it's just been passed down through the ages and become accepted. The article should state the foundation date is disputed, and show why. Sadly, we're wasting our time on the topic because it will continue to be reverted to 1863. Kivo (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree we're wasting our time. This is a productive debate and the article is stabilizing around putting both dates in (1863 and 1868). The question now is how to represent that. With the EFL now officially backing the Nottingham Forest claim, it seems to me we should reverse the wording in the infobox to "1868 or 1863 (disputed)". @Add92: I would still like to hear your thoughts before changing the article further. Railfan23 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct to to 1863 as the official date because that's what it is (at this moment anyway!) It will be interesting to see if that Nottingham Post article prompts an official response from either Stoke or Forest.--Add92 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that position. The EFL surely is a more authoritative body here - and they are saying the 1863 date for Stoke is not correct. There is another news source reporting this now. Wikipedia should report what reliable sources say. At the least, given the EFL ruling, the "officially" should be removed from the infobox. Railfan23 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a club 'officially' claim their formation date as 1863 doesn't mean it is so. I could set up a football club and 'officially' claim it was founded in 1704 - doesn't mean it's correct. There has to be evidence, preferably contemporary. There is absolutely zero contemporary evidence that Stoke Ramblers were formed before 1868 - in fact a newspaper article in 1868 states quite explicitly that the club was formed that year. I don't know how much more evidence is needed to debunk 1863 forever. I suppose once it's been pushed by the club itself and mentioned in numerous books etc.., the cat is out of the bag and will never go back in again. This page will keep being reverted to show 1863 whether we like it or not. Kivo (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't believe that this type of editing dispute between the years when the club was formed is still happening after when *full* protection expired. The clue as to when clubs are formed should be on their logos as what I've noticed on the club's logo. Add92 certainly knows the club based on the contributions the user did over the era. It should also be noted that Stoke City are / will now be the oldest club in the EFL after the relegation of Notts County when 1 July 2019 comes.[1] Therefore, the year should be before the one of the Nottingham Forest F.C. article. Iggy (Swan) 20:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Oldest Football Clubs". Retrieved 9 June 2019.
@Iggy the Swan: with respect, have you read the sources listed above, which report the EFL have officially recognised Nottingham Forest as the oldest league club? So, no, your assertion that Stoke City are the oldest isn't well-founded, and at the least the page should reflect both 1863 and 1868, as it now does. The fact that Stoke City have "1863" on their logo is not the definitive proof you claim it to be - the EFL is a more impartial and authoritative source than Stoke City on this matter. Railfan23 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that Stoke Sentinel piece sure is bitter and snidey! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yes it is, though they at least included the factual reporting in with the commentary. Railfan23 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Railfan23 - no I haven't but I've seen the BBC link and says the word 'sketchy'. This discussion shows the explanation as to which version should be correct. Iggy (Swan) 20:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please go back and read the whole discussion, and the links. Especially the reporting about the EFL's decision. If even Stoke City admit that their claim of a founding date of 1863 is "sketchy", and the EFL have officially stated that Nottingham Forest were founded before Stoke City, then surely the article should not categorically state that Stoke was founded in 1863? This discussion (not an editing dispute as you incorrectly claimed) has come to that consensus. Which is why it's useful to read the whole discussion before jumping in, IMHO. Railfan23 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke city fc

[edit]

My name is Wahab Abdul Karim I stay at stoke on Trent am a footballer but I don't have a team. So please I want to play stoke city fc. Am a defender . Thank you Abdul Karim Wahab (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the 1868 foundation

[edit]

Should the article say that the Stoke club was founded in 1863 or 1868? In Vitrio (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke Ramblers in the Alcock football annual, 1869
Note of the third season of the Stoke football club, 1870


The evidence from the time suggests the original Stoke club was founded in 1868. I've put up an article and book extract from the time which prove it. The comments on this talk page show that there is no evidence for an 1863 foundation. Yet one user keeps reverting to an incorrect (and frankly incoherent) version of the page, including deleting the evidence contradicting their contentions, based on an unproved and unevidenced assertion by the club itself.

This is especially concerning given the article was protected temporarily to stop such editing, yet it has been allowed to continue.

I am proposing referring this onwards to stop the edit warring until there is some contemporary evidence suggesting 1863 rather than 1868. If there is evidence, I am willing to stand corrected. Especially as I've looked quite extensively and found nothing so would be intrigued by a new research direction. The contemporary evidence is shown here to stop it being edited off the main page. In Vitrio (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know when the first reference is to it being founded in 1863. Nigej (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can find is the Staffordshire Sentinel from 1963, claiming a centenary for the club, but relating to a kickabout on Shrove Tuesday in 1863 rather than a club formation (i.e. a century of football in Stoke rather than a century of football IN Stoke).
A full academic-standard paper is at https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/618862/3/Myths%20truths%20and%20pioneers%20The%20early%20development%20of%20association%20football%20in%20The%20Potteries.pdf and there is some discussion at https://www.playingpasts.co.uk/articles/archival-research/myths-and-truths-in-the-history-of-sport-exploring-the-origins-of-stoke-city-football-club/ .
The important thing is the 1868 foundation is by Old Carthusians, and Charterhouse school was in at the start of the Association laws, so it makes sense that they would set up a club under the Association code. Had it been something from within Stoke in 1863, as the legend has it, surely they would have followed Sheffield rules, as Association would not even have been known? In Vitrio (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Stoke F.C. Centenary 1863-1963". The Staffordshire Weekly Sentinel. Stoke-upon-Trent. 26 April 1963. pp. 13–18. Retrieved 28 October 2024 – via British Newspaper Archive.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stoke_City_F.C.&oldid=1253982388"