Talk:Rakt

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

FC Rakt Table[edit]

I have added back the table which I do think is notable. Lucian Sunday (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The results of a non notable football club do not belong in this article. Don't see the scores of Manchester United or Liverpool in the articles about the 2 cities. BigDunc^Talk 16:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United or Liverpool don't wear skirts. Lucian Sunday (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC de Rakt and their skirts are pretty much the only thing this place is known for, therefore the detail is appropriate. ðarkun coll 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your probably right but we don't need to insert results of this club into the article about the village. BigDunc^Talk 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to delete them? Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is an article about the village not about the football club. BigDunc^Talk 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned, the football club is a notable aspect of the village. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point this is an article about the village and all it has is one sentence about the village. The article is now about the football club which was deleted twice. BigDunc^Talk 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The football club is by far the most notable and famous thing in the village. ðarkun coll 18:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this is the only notable thing about the village then how does it meet notability guidelines because the footbal team dont. BigDunc^Talk 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the football club is the only thing worth talking about regarding the village, the only relevant info to include is the press regarding the skirt thing. Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. This isn't relevant to the article. Most articles on cities will mention the city's football team, but you won't put the whole team list and results for the current season there. Why not? Because it is simply irrelevant to the article. Please can someone give any decent reason why the info should be included. At the moment the impression I get (from the article and comments here) is that this article is essentially trying to be the deleted FC de Rakt article, just with a little bit about the village so that it passes muster, as villages are deemed inherently notable. Quantpole (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why cities with football teams don't have such info is because those cities are notable for reasons other than their team. This village is different - the only notable thing about it is its team. ðarkun coll 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid getting further into reverting cycles, I'm asking for outside input. Brief history - FC de Rakt, a football team which received some press coverage because the women's team wore skirts, has been deleted after an AfD. The creator of that article created this article part way through the AfD, as pretty much a copy of the FC de Rakt page, but with a small bit regarding the village. Whilst acknowledging that this article can mention the skirt issue (reliable and verifiable, even if not notable enough for its own article), providing results for the team, and at one point player lists, is completely irrelevant to this article. I honestly don't understand why this is being insisted on by a couple of editors, as it seems such a no-brainer to me. The only thing I can think is so that the article is in effect the old FC de Rakt page, but can sneak under the radar. Quantpole (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the table. I declared merge at the AFD. That option had not been available to some of the earlier voters as this article had not yet then been created. To my mind the relevance is that a team so bad, (they really are apallingly bad- but you only know that if you can see the table) claim to have adopted skirts for footballing reasons. Unfortunately there are no references at present to dispell their claims. The provision of information, ie the table, allows the reader to make up there own mind.

Taking New York as an example there are several sets of statistics in that article including a Sports Table.
This is wikipedia, if editors dont like the balance of the current article they should add something to it. I myself have found information about a cultivar linked to the area. If anyone wishes to help develop that, great. But,if you dont want to improve this article, please dont hang around, go and edit a different article. Lucian Sunday (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you said at the AfD the consensus was to delete not to merge this is an attempt to circumvent the AfD process. One sentence about the village and the rest about a non notable twice deleted football club. Remove the table at the very least. BigDunc^Talk 07:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Assume good faith. Just because you don't find this info interesting or useful, doesn't mean that others don't. ðarkun coll 07:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table is not relevant to Rakt in any possible way. Re-adding it is a blatant attempt to circumvent the AFD process. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC has been set up. Do not circumvent the system by removing that which is to be commented on before the RFC is closedLucian Sunday (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The norm is to establish a consensus for including content, especially when there has been a consensus to remove an article containing that content. The content is available in the article history if someone really wants to check it. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The norm is WP:consensus not templating another editor about edit warring prior to starting an edit war yourself. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was just editing to say the same thing. This was a pretty brazen attempt to circumvent the AfD decision. Those involved are on notice not to try this sort of stunt again. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS ARTICLE RFC NOT AN EDITOR RFC. Dougweller if you want to comment on editors set up a specific RFC where you can disappear up your own self important arse. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The table is not relevant to Rakt in any possible way." Apart, that is, from the fact that it's a table of Rakt's very own world-famous football team. ðarkun coll 11:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of articles on any football team which include their entire results for 2008/9. The articles on Manchester United do not. Certainly the table in this case is entirely inappropriate (regardless of any other factors, and even if it was an article on the football club, whose only notability is skirt-related). Occuli (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Manchester United's entire results for 2008/9 are found on Wikipedia here Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And since the decision on the football club article was not to keep or merge, but to delete, I repeat that an end run (real football terminology!) around the decision should not be allowed. A mention of the club in the village article is fine, the rest is not. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus that FC de Rakt is not considered world-famous. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Lucian Sunday the results for Man Utd are NOT in the article about the city so you have made the point that I raised earlier. BigDunc^Talk 14:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything about FC de Rakt (except perhaps a passing mention) doesn't belong here per WP:UNDUE. The article about New York City doesn't contain in-depth analysis of all of its minor sports teams, nor does any other city article. This should be removed as its clearly promotional and is clearly a way to bypass the consensus of the AfD. Them From Space 03:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional? Are you saying that I'm connected with the club in some way? Because I assure you I'm not. Please see WP:Assume good faith. ðarkun coll 07:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with Themfromspace a passing mention of the non notable football club is all that should be in this article. BigDunc^Talk 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size of the village, I think the coverage of the football team is appropriate. It presently dominates the article and provides undue weight, but I think the other sections should be expanded rather than shrinking this one. I think some details of the football tourney hosted there would be appropriate, and the village must be known for something else. I would oppose further expansion of the football team here however. Disclaimer: I !voted to keep the football article. I do think being a part of this article makes more sense. Hobit (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh[edit]

what, if anything, was the protecting admin's rationale? We lock down articles as a last resort in the case of multi-party full scale edit wars, not because there is a "dispute".

As for the content of the dispute, this is a classic case of {{coatrack}}. It is WP:UNDUE to make an article on a village about that village's football club. Come on, please, that's a no-brainer. If there is nothing else to report no this village, make it a redirect to Uden, which I note isn't exactly brimful of information. Do a "Rakt" h2 section if there is any material on Rakt. Only recreate this article once a full WP:SS sub-article to Uden becomes arguable.

This is a very simple case, and any admin should be able to just take care of it with a shrug. --dab (𒁳) 20:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make its presence on this list rather pointless then - List_of_cities,_towns_and_villages_in_North_Brabant,_L-R. In any case, Rakt isn't in Uden - a glance at the map will tell you that - it's in the municipality of Uden, which isn't the same thing at all. ðarkun coll 21:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]