Talk:Chelsea F.C./Archive 2

Mikel's Name

I heard in the commentary of the Chelsea vs. Blackburn game today that his name is actually John Mikel Obi, and NOT Obi Mikel. Apparently a press release was issued to instruct on his correct name.

- His name is John Obi. The name "Mikel" comes from a mispronounciation of his middle name "Michael". So his name should be John "Mikel" Obi (compare Zlatan "Ibra" Ibrahimovic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.224.36 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

--- He said in an interview that he prefers Mikel John Obi - either way the name on his shirt is Mikel --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.225.76 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea's keeper name

Chelsea's keeper's name is listed as Petr Cech. Wikipedia always takes care in respecting the original spelling of foreign names, therefore, I suggest his name be changed to its correct Czech spelling: Petr Čech. Plus, I think it was already spelt like that before, I wonder why it was changed. wislabe.--81.184.64.175 (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I have corrected the spelling. - MTC (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pluralism of 'club'

I can understand saying things such as "they play at Stamford..." etc., but sentences like "The club were..." or "the club have" are wrong. 'Club' is singular, is it not? I understand that saying 'they play' is much better than saying 'it plays' which - although potentially correct - sounds ridiculous, but those mentioned previously need to be changed. Any thoughts? Even saying "Chelsea were founded" - shouldn't this be "Chelsea WAS founded"??? If there is a legitimate reason for referring to the club as a plural by all means put it forward. 124.182.101.102 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)rusty8.

In British English, collective nouns, such as "Chelsea", are treated as plurals. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to what Hildanknight has said, the Manual of Style recommends that the article should stick to the norms used in the subject's country. In British English the name of a football team is a discretionary plural. As such, it is perfectly acceptable to refer to a club as 'they are', 'we were' etc. Such usage is predominant in British publications. SteveO 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Americans really say "The Boston Red Sox 'is' the World Series winner?" 81.157.125.245 15:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, when it's a plural name in the US, Americans treat it as plural (ie Red Sox, Giants, Jets) and almost all teams have plural names anyway in America. Geoking66_talk 19:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-playing Staff

There is a distinct lack of information about the non-playing staff at Chelsea F.C. here. If anyone knows any information about the backroom structure at the club, please put it on the page PeeJay 19:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Such information is unnecessary, in my opinion. Positions such as kit manager, under 19s coach and the like are non-notable, and it makes the article look horribly listy. SteveO 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely such information is interesting and useful for people who require it. PeeJay 07:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends which non-playing staff you have in mind. Knowing who the masseur isn't particularly useful and doesn't tell you anything about the club. SteveO 13:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I was mainly talking about the coaching staff and the board. I had to dig very deep to find out that Bruce Buck was the actual chairman at Chelsea FC :( PeeJay 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well as club chairman Bruce Buck should be in the infobox anyway, but for some reason Peter Kenyon is there instead. SteveO 23:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbh, I only ask because I'm trying to make my Football Manager 2007 database as accurate as possible, and to know about all the board members and coaching staff, and even the scouting team, would be very useful PeeJay 14:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the management section on the official Chelsea FC website may be of some use. SteveO 19:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Main page request

I've made a request for this article to appear on the main page. see it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 15 February 2007

If I had read this comment a week ago, I would have suggested that it be featured on the main page on Chelsea's "birthday": 14 March (which is also pi day). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Veron

Why isn't veron listed as one of the players on loan?

• Because he is not on loan, he has permenately left the club after his contract expired in the summer of 2006.

Lampard

Someone add in that Lampard is vice-captain? Figure it's important, especially since Terry's missed a good amount of games this year.

it's in now Tasiger 17:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

should me make a section on this.

asince a lot of ppl say they "bought the title" and their percieved defensive style of football. 80.193.17.136 14:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Defensive style? I don´t think so! Watch Champions League. For example: Against Liverpool or Valencia they played very well without a defensive style! Dagadt

They played a defensive (and counter-attack) style in the past, especially with Mourinho. His preferred formation is a 4-3-3, where wingers some times receive long passes directly from the defense. I think this is a major characteristic of Mourinho, not of Chelsea. When Grant left the club, they were playing a different style. And now, with Scolari, they will play another style. And at last, Chelsea didn't bought the title, Chelsea (Abramovich) bought a team, that won the title! Nickolas.butti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.108.34.42 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Owerview of recent season!

We should write something about the recent season! I believe it would be very interesting at least for fans like me if we´d explain the opportunities for FC Chelsea and who cán´t play because of injury! Dagadt

The history section on this page is only meant to provide a general overview. Specific details about individual seasons, injuries etc, can be added to the History of Chelsea F.C. article. SteveO 15:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about history; I think this season might end up being one of those best forgotten. Bloody Liverpool. Bobbyfletch85 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

HAHA excuses excuses, united won the league without a defense, without saha etc.--Slogankid 17:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mourinho

Yesterday is saw Liverpool FC vs. FC Chealsea (Champions League) on DSF. The commentator said that if Morinho won´t win the Champions League, the club will look for another coach...But this is a rumore he said!!!! Dagadt

Mourinho has been sacked according to Sky Sports News TV. Chelsea manager status should now temporarily be vacant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.93.184 (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another goalkeeper

Chelsea has purchased Jan Sebek from the Czech club Tachov. See http://www.radio.cz/en/issue/91084. He should be added to the roster at the proper time.

A 16 year old keeper will not make the first team, so he will be added to the reserve or youth roster on a different article

Last old/first new Wembley FA Cup winners

Within the article I've placed these two events on a par. I notice outside it that the latter has been placed on the event list for 19 May but the former hasn't for 20 May. I would have thought neither or both. What do other people feel? --Peter cohen 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I see now that it has been removed froem 19 May. Neither it is, then. --Peter cohen 15:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Zola's shirt number

Someone recently added a "retired shirt numbers" section to the squad list, implying that Gianfranco Zola's number 25 shirt has been officially retired by Chelsea. Does the author (or anyone else) have a definitive source for this? No one has worn number 25 since, but I'm not convinced it being retired isn't just a often-told apocryphal story. I've searched the archives of Sky, the BBC and the official CFC website, and other than articles which mention it in passing, haven't found any original news report stating that "Chelsea have decided to retire Zola's shirt number...". Until this is confirmed, I think this should be left out of the article for the time being. SteveO 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no tradition of retiring numbers in the Premier League (it hasn't been around long enough to have traditions - until recently shirt numbers referred to the position on the field rather than the person)81.157.125.245 15:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New Away Kit

As per the Chelsea site, I added information on the new away kit earlier today, it was deleted as being speculative, but I just want a consensus as to whether we include it now or on 14 June when it is fully revealed. I don't think that this design is going to be a hoax, as Chelsea did the same thing last year with the new home kit. mpbx 21:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The new away kit is not a hoax, the chelsea website have official unvield the new kit. Could someone please change the colors for the away kit in the infobox. --Aussieblokz

I've done it. Alexcavell

Actually, I wouldn't change the colours yet, as the shorts and socks are yet to be revealed. We only know the shirt details, so we can't make kit changes yet. Here is an apparent example of the shirt, not confirmed, but likely authentic. http://www.footballshirtculture.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=351&Itemid=26mpbx 07:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex and the First Team Squad

I notice Alex has been added to the player list. Is he definitely going to be a Chelsea player next season? There are no references, so he should be removed until there is a definite source of him moving to Chelsea. I know that there is intent to bring him to Chelsea, but have the work permit issues been taken care of?mpbx 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should prune the first team listing a bit. The current criterion for getting a mention now, is having made a first team appearance. I would limit the first team to the players who are actually fighting for first team places every day. I would trim Smith, Woods, Sinclair, Sawyer, Hutchinson and perhaps Makalambay. Do we really need the fourth-choice keeper as a member of the first team. These players are considered by the club to be youth team and reserves. I'll wait for consensus on Sahar, because it seems he would be most likely to move to the first team. mpbx 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I'd go with the official club website, which places the likes of Woods, Smith and Makalambay in the Reserves. Ben Sahar is in the Academy at the moment. SteveO 14:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, Sahar did manage to find his way into first team 7 times, with 4 international caps. That is the most of the reserve/youth players, but it may just be an anomaly due to the injury situation last season. http://www.chelseafc.com/page/NewsHomePage/0,,10268~1033709,00.htmlmpbx 17:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Squad Numbers

The squad numbers for Pizarro and Sidwell keep changing from null to their previous first-team numbers and vice versa. Has the 2007/2008 squad numbering been released on TOCFCWS? -TheOneKEA (20070613 10:06)

Sidwell was given #9 today July 10.

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/sp/getty/bb/fullj.getty-fbl-us-chelsea_fc_4_01_27_pm.jpg suggests that Sinclair and Ben Haim will be 17 and 22, respectively. -TheOneKEA (20070711 08:19)

Why isn't Sidwell listed on the Chelsea squad? His transfer hasn't been announced yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.19.221 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yves Makabu-Makalambay and Michael Woods AfD

Michael Woods and Yves Makabu-Makalambay are up for deletion. Register your comments on the AfD page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yves_Makabu-Makalambay. --Vivenot 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Malouda

I've added Malouda to the squad list, deal announced on official site. http://www.chelseafc.com/xxchelsea180706/index.html#/page/NewsHomePage/list_2209129_0 It's subject to a Medical and personal terms, but I think it can safely be added now. mpbx 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Malouda is an official player and has been granted the number 15, yet he is not in the first-team list! If Malouda has number 15, then Pizzaro clearly can't have it and will get something else. Given the mini edit scuffle going on in that list, will someone form a consensus and get the list fixed? -TheOneKEA (20070712 16:25)

FC or F.C.

You know every time I see CL matches it's written like Chelsea FC, not F.C. Which one is correct or more used? Squash Racket 14:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say FC, but every British club article uses F.C. and they'd all have to be moved together for the sake of consistency. It has been discussed several times, such as here, with no real conclusion. SteveO 15:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And I would personally argue, F. C. with a space, because football and club are two different words. That would make the most sense to me. Jared (t)  16:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisim

A user nicked "Loustar99" had deleted the whole of the first team and haved replaced it with the words "are crap". i have restored the first team section for now. but what should be done of Loustar99? --King2k 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Rofl.

Numbers

Alex won't get number 25, the number retired after The Great Zola left Chelsea.

Electric Lemon

Can someone add something under the new kit stating that it has a nickname of electric lemon so I can say I started that nickname. Kinda like grapthite and tangerine.

-- It doesn't, so no you tool.

Alex

Alex should definitely be part of the first team squad. He is a Chelsea player, the only difference is his lack of a work permit but he is part of the first team.

According to various sources (TOCFCWS, Sky, BBC, etc), Alex now has a work permit and merely has to complete a few formalities. -TheOneKEA (20070802 19:38)

Any update on this? I am sure he was actually in the squad last week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SOXman (talk • contribs) 12:46, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Incorrect capacity

The capacity of 24,975 as stated in the box on the side is off by a considerable margin. Whoever included it with the source misread the article which said that 24,975 was the lowest attendance under Jose. The actual capacity is 42, 055 according to http://www.chelseafc.com/xxchelsea180706/index.html#/page/StadiumLayout. I don't seem to be able to edit the page so could someone correct this 86.146.193.68 10:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable Managers

John Hollins won a Full Members Cup in 1986 and Bobby Campbell won a Full Members Cup in 1990. Can someone please include that? Also, Claudio Ranieri won the FA Premier League Asia Cup in 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Bridge (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Buck

Is Bruce Buck the new chairman? The official page doesn't say anything. --Kharchamon'y 20:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Buck has been chairman since Bates' departure in 2004. See here SteveO (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

el:Τσέλσι

Add the greek article for the club el:Τσέλσι. A Greek friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.19.230 (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. SteveO 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fans of Chelsea F.C. Template

I have created a templated for those who are fans of Chelsea F.C. If you want to add this to your profile or other places on the site you are free to do so.

Link to template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Chelsea_F.C.

Gaara42 (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Franco di Santo

Can somebody add Franco di Santo to the first team squad since the transfer has already been confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkatsche (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that just because the video on the CFC site shiw him with kit with no 27, that does not mean that he will necessarilly get that squad numbers. Chelsea kit numbers have historically been different from the squad numbers.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge Back to the Shed campaign into this article

Hi. It has been suggested that the article Back to the Shed campaign is not notable enough as a standalone article, and the article's main page has been tagged as such. Please leave your views on this below. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support The topic can't be regarded as notable in its own right, but a paragraph in the Chelsea F.C. main article would be reasonable. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree, merger must be done. (Piyush90 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Zola - #25

I feel that there should be a mention, probably under the current squad, that the No. 25 shirt that Zola used to wear at Chelsea has been retired in honour of him. Please let me know if you disagee though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit introduction?

The introduction needs a little maintenance; in particular, the sentences at the end of the first paragraph that read: "If you support Chelsea it symbolizes that you have given up on life. Also in this category are supporting Derby County, Portsmouth FC and playing Runescape."

--Ev a sketch (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

for some reason I can't edit the article, but the following sentence is grammatically incorrect (club is, not are). "Despite their name, the club are based just outside the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westrim (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See the above discussion. SteveO (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Level of Detail

Someone has excitedly put Chelsea's loss to Man U in more detail than the rest of the History section. Where it was played, the exact date and the penalty shoot-out score is too much information considering the rest of the section. Please edit. 210.193.237.146 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbeaten Home Matches

I seem to be in a minority here but surely Chelsea lost at home to Charlton Athletic in the Carling Cup on 26 October 2005? It may have been decided on penalties but there are three possible outcomes to this game - Chelsea win, draw, Charlton win. As Chelsea did not progress to the next round it was not a Chelsea win. If the game had been drawn then another game would have been played so it was not a win. Logic dictates that Charlton must have won this game which means that Chelsea lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonerak (talk • contribs) 11:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The unbeaten home run is only in league matches, so the Charlton result is immaterial in that context. In any case, games which end level and are decided on penalties are always officially recorded as draws. In the stats section of Rick Glanvill's Chelsea FC The Official Biography matches which went to penalties are recorded as draws with an asterisk to indicate who who the shoot-out. SteveO (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea's last home defeat in any first team competition was 22 February 2006 to Barcelona.

• 2005/6 after the Barca game there were six more league and one FA Cup matches at the Bridge
• 2006/7 there were 19 league games, 2 league cup, 4 FA cup and 6 ECL = 31
• 2007/8 season there were 19 league games, 3 league cup, 2 FA cup and 6 ECL matches at the bridge = 30

So, a total of 68. When will it be worth keeping track? This home record certainly gets mentioned by the ITV commentators on European nights.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm looking at [1], the target seems to be 85 for an English Club record. So, it can't become a national record until January or so. But there is still the question of whether the number is large enough to be mentioned.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Although that covers matches in all competitions. Chelsea have not lost a home league match since 21st February 2004 when they lost to Arsenal, which is 82 matches and an English record. SteveO (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The New Home Kit 08/09

Although this kit may look the same, it is suprisingly different, the collar has a gold linene, and the side says: Chelsea FC, Also the stripes are shorter, whilst the gold linen being on the shirt ends aswell, in the back seam it has a branded strip saying: Chelsea FC 1905, This is one of the best kits i have seen as with the goalie shirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaffron108 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Topping European rankings

I think it is worth mentioning that Chelsea will be top club in the new UEFA club rankings.[2] Looking at the archive, they will be only the third English club to do so after Leeds (3 seasons from 1970) and Liverpool (2 from 84) and the first since English clubs were excluded from Europe. Does anyone know whether Bert Kassies's site linked above has been designated acceptable as a reference in football articles?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it seems worth a mention, probably in the record section. That site looks fairly reliable, it's the major source for Wikipedia's UEFA coefficient article. SteveO (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Now added. I'm in the process of updating a couple of other related pages too.--Peter cohen (talk)

Grant - notable?

Should Avram Grant be listed as being notable? I know he didn't really have a clue but he got the club to its first Champions League final...which is quite notable IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OOOOO (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be viewed in two ways. Without doubt, he is a notable manager because he got Chelsea to the Champions League final which no other manager has done in the history of the club. On the other hand however, all the managers listed in the section have won trophies so its up for debate I think. Londonfella (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

When this article passed as an FA it was suggested that the list of managers be turned into a summary section based on objective criteria, which is why only trophy-winning managers are there. SteveO (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New Away Kit

Can the template for the new all black with white piping and three stripes Chelsea kit replace the electric yellow kit? The kit has officially been unveiled. [3] --Freddieandthedreamers (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

new third kit

the new kit should be put in the info box next to the current home and away kit i dont see why it shouldnt be in there as most other football teams have all their kits in there and the white kit of last year is still listed in the colours part and the description needs changing could put the third kit in there however it would make a lot more sense and be more relevant to put it with the other 2 kits as chelsea will wear the third kit on a regular basis as always. (XTomScottx (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC))—Preceding unsigned comment added by XTomScottx (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggest for the third kit

We use this one in it.wiki, but it's not very detailed. It is better if someone creates the images Kit body shoulder stripes blue stripes, Kit left arm shoulder stripes blue stripes half.png, Kit right arm shoulder stripes blue stripes half.png, Kit shorts blue stripes.png and Kit socks 3 stripes blue.png. Who is helpful?--Andrea 93 (msg) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It.wiki

That looks fine to me. I'm not bothered about including minute details in kits, so long as gives the reader a general idea of what the kit is like. SteveO (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing the third kit, perfectly made, in one edition of the article a few weeks ago... Why someone took it down, I don't know. Thecomaboy (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge in of Chelsea FC Squad

• Support - this looks like a content fork and I see no need for a separate page when the few additional names can be simply added to the main page. TerriersFan (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea City FC

What a stupid thing to do. It was probably vandalisim, but it killed all the links and is incorrect. I have fixed some of it, but the second half of the page and the kits need to be changed.Chelseafcthebest (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Photos on Flickr

Just an inform: I went on tour to Stamford Bridge this summer and my photos are here on Flickr. If someone like one of them, he can upload it on Commons whit the respective Flickr license. Just let me know, please.--Andrea 93 (msg) 11:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FA Premier League Asia Cup

How come the FA Premier League Asia Cup Chelsea won in 2003 is not mentioned in the Honours section? I recommend creating a new sub-section for Pre-Season Tournaments. The importance or significance of a trophy should be irrelevant. After all, the FA Premier League Asia Cup, or Barclays Asia Trophy as it is now known, is still an honour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.209.41 (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a meaningless pre-season friendly tournament. No goals or appearances in the tournament are counted in official records, and it isn't included on Chelsea's official website. It doesn't need to be mentioned, imo. SteveO (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be respected. I'm just saying it should be mentioned. The Full Members Cup, for example, is listed in the Honours section even though it isn't included on Chelsea's official website. Please consider adding a sub-section devoted entirely to Pre-Season Tournaments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.209.41 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the Premier League Asia Cup is a pre-season friendly tournament. The Full Members Cup was never really highly regarded, but it was an official competition held during the season. Appearances and goals in it do count in official records, which is not the case for the PLAC. Chelsea have competed in scores of such friendlies over the years (the Makita Tournament, the Umbro Cup etc.) and I really don't think mentioning them would be worthwhile. SteveO (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Image overuse tag

It isn't obvious to me what the issue is here. Could the person who placed the tag please explain?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that. The same goes for the recentism tag in the History section. Adding these tags without an explantion or suggested improvements isn't very helpful. SteveO (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're up against an anti-image crusader who doesn't understand that the use of historical logos is legitimate under both NFCC and Wikipedia's logo guideline. You can follow a related bit of nonsense over at the Calgary Flames page and at myriad other places. As a bonus he's incredibly uncommunicative. His conduct and narrow interpretation of policy has been a source of frequent complaint and the occasional ANI. Just stand your ground and make sure you have your image FUR's in place. Wiggy! (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can give, say, a week from now for the editor to explain the tags. If they don't, then we can say that their is no consensus for their inclusion.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The image overuse tag definitely isn't warranted....the same one has been placed on Real Madrid's page (by the same person I think). However the recentism tag is somewhat warranted. The second half of the opening section covers around 15 years whilst the first half covers 90. It's definitely not as bad as most clubs, but I guess that as Chelsea are a World Class football team, they deserve a World Class opening section, which has to try to cover all historical events equally, not having the recent ones in more detail (although it is human nature to do so) DJDannyP//Talk2Me 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This was sparked by the creation of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chelsea F.C. On the fair-use images, its a subject about which I've disagreed with Fasach Nua before, but in this case I think he might have a point, as it is difficult to argue that using six images constitutes minimal use. However, the copyright status of some of them is worth investigating. If the first one was created in 1905, it may well have fallen into the public domain through age. A large number of clubs have replaced crests in the last decade due to inability to trademark the old ones. In some cases (such as Arsenal) this has also drawn the copyright into question. It'd be worth checking the news stories from when the "Millwall lion" crest was replaced to see if that might be the case here. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside -It actually arose here, I think the FAR is premature Fasach Nua (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The use of non-free images must be justified per WP:NFCC, specifically regarding increasing the reader's understanding of the topic (specifically criteria 8). Oldelpaso makes a point regarding whether these images are copyrighted or not, certainly the first one, I suspect should properly be tagged {{PD-US}}, {{Trademark}} , and used freely anywhere on Wikipedia. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure (although I haven't been able to find a source) that the new badge was adopted in the 80s partly because of the unclear copyright status of the previous one. Of the images currently on display, I wouldn't object to removing the two variants of the current crest or the 52-53 initials, since the latter was only a stop gap and the former is already displayed in the infobox. I do think the other three main ones ought to stay though. SteveO (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got five widely varying logos and an interesting backstory to go with them that neatly sums up the evolution/application of the crest. That's a pretty good piece of work. The only one that seems to be any kind of duplicate is the current one as its already in the infobox. The centenary logo can be regarded as significant as it marked a milestone by introducing the new image. Wiggy! (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Some idiot removed my text and made this page un edit able. Please put this back. "The unbeaten at home record is now the longest ever in any British league at any level of football. Checks with unbeaten at home records in other countries have not yet revealed any longer run and it now appears this is the longest unbeaten at home record in any division anywhere in the world and any level of football." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.65.33 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)