Talk:FC JAX Destroyers

	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.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.

Football: American & Canadian / Women's 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.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the women's football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Sources[edit]

Okay, this article is still trouble. This team is supposed to start play in 2 months, and they don't have a venue, coaching, staff, or roster that I can find anywhere. They've done no advertising locally and have not received any mentions in the local media. Their website hasn't been updated since January, and their official USL site contains no information about them beyond their prospective schedule. There are no reliable sources for them. It seems we're jumping the gun in having this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, just relax. Rosters usually don't get announced for ANY team in this league until 1-2 weeks before the season starts. USL will put out a press release when the coach is hired. There's no need to be so worried. JonBroxton (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on putting it up for deletion yet (though it's certainly a candidate), but it's exceptionally odd that a team would do zero advertising or make any announcements in their market with so little time to launch date. A notable team, anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The team is notable because of the league it plays (will play) in, just like every other team that has ever played in this league. That's not even an issue. Just be patient - the information will come out in due course, and will be added as soon as it becomes available. JonBroxton (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't know that teams in this league really are notable inherently. Most of our articles on them contain no third-party references, which are necessary to establish notability. In terms of this team, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I'm perfectly happy to wait and see if sources for this team do turn up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011[edit]

I've removed the tags, as the coverage in local papers may just pass the notability requirements and verify the material. Two things: the external sources always refer to the women's team and the men's team together as one unit with one name; we need to follow them in that. When new sources come out saying something different we can change them, but until then the sources are what they are. Also, I removed the links to the players - as I've said elsewhere there's no reason to assume there will ever be articles for all of these amateur soccer players, so they don't serve the article. Otherwise, well done.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is more important to follow what the reliable sources say than to arbitrarily force consistency with other articles that have few if any sources. In this case the third-party reliable sources always discuss the men's and women's team together, so we need to follow that. And there's no need for the oversectioning or including red links when there's no reason to think an article will be created.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other problems with the formatting in the previous version of the intro. It includes details that aren't in the article body, while the intro is supposed to be a summary of what the article discusses.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to have some discussion of these issues before just reverting, but I think we can work this out. The biggest problems are (1) that the external sources all refer to the men's and women's team together, while the previous intro only really discussed the men's team. When Wikipedia articles conflict with the sources, it's the article that needs to change. (2) The intro contained material not discussed in the article body, among a few other formatting errors. (3) The red links are problematic.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the lede. Every other team in the PDL, NASL and USL has a similar lede, which follows the agreed stylistic layout that was agreed years ago. To answer your concerns: (1) The external sources mention a women's team which doesn't exist yet, and which will get an article of its own as per the convention of splitting men's and women's teams (Long Island Rough Riders vs Long Island Rough Riders (W-League), Ottawa Fury vs Ottawa Fury Women). As soon as the JAX women's team is launches, it will get an article. THIS article is about the men's team only, and only requires a wikilink to its countepart. (2) The article is a work in progress and will be expanded to work out this issue if you'll just give it time and stop reverting things, and (3) I have explained why the redlinks are not a problem on the Bradenton Academics talk page, and as such I'm asking you to show the us minor-league soccer editors some WP:GOODFAITH and leave them in, as every other editor who works on these types for articles has done. In all the years I have been editing these articles, you are the only person who has failed to understand why they need to be there. JonBroxton (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue with the previous version of the lead, as I pointed out: it went into fairly substantial detail about things that were removed from the article body (the stadiums) Better to just lay out the basics in the lead and leave the details for the body.

There's no reason for this article to discuss only the men's team (though it will discuss mostly the men's team, since that's the only one that's played yet). The Florida Times-Union and Jacksonville Business Journal pieces (ie, the only non-primary sources in the article), and indeed the team itself, describe "FC JAX Destroyers" as one unit with both a men's and the women's team. Currently, the article sums up what the sources say fairly well. Restricting the article to just the men's may be more in line with how it's done in other articles on amateur soccer teams, but that would just be forcing consistency with articles that are, frankly, quite deficient in sources.

I've never heard anyone else give your justification for keeping permanent redlinks in articles, and I don't believe there's any consensus for it. Of course this is a project-wide issue that won't be solved at this one article.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know you hate it, I know you think it's wrong. But please, I'm not making stuff up or doing it for the hell of it. I'm asking you, as nicely as I can, PLEASE leave the redlinks in this page and on the Bradenton page. I know you don't get it and I know you don't understand what I'm saying but, believe me, removing the redlinks makes it more difficult for me and other editors to maintain accurate pages on lower-league US soccer articles. We've been doing this for years. Show me some WP:GOODFAITH and, for these two articles, WP:IGNOREALLRULES with regard to the redlinks. JonBroxton (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly willing not to mess with the redlinks again, at least until we get a more across-the-board solution to the problem. As I said, it's obviously not a problem that will be solved at this one article. The rest of it I'm restoring for the reasons I've stated (following the sources, standard article writing format, etc.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on FC JAX Destroyers. 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) 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]