Talk:Rangers F.C.

Founded year 2012?

The Wikipedia article for Airdrieonians FC states they were founded in 2002. This is because Airdrieonians FC went out of business in 2002 and a phoenix club was formed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrieonians_F.C.

Should the article for Rangers FC not say "Founded: 2012" in the same way as the same thing occured to Rangers in 2012?

The Airdrieonians FC article already set the precedent on how the "Founded" date would be set on Wikipedia.

Airdrieonians FC's own website states they were founded in 1878 but Wikipedia has accepted the 2002 date for their article as the foundation date.

Therefore, the same rule should apply to the Rangers FC article.

https://www.airdriefc.com/club-history#:~:text=Airdrieonians%20FC%2C%20long%20known%20to,by%20the%20local%20cricket%20club. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:B937:BB51:29B0:8357 (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What happened in the circumstances of Airdrieonians, and the Airdrieonians_F.C. article is not necessarily applicable to Rangers and the Rangers article. I can see differences between the two, the original name of the Airdrie club being just a start. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It was very much the same thing. Company got liquidated and the current club claims formation date of the old club. This is blatant bias to appease a bigger support base. By this logic, you could say Rangers 2012 were originally Sevco Scotland. The 2 Rangers clubs coexisted at one point. The old club even voted in favour of letting the new club into the top division. The new club formed before the ild club even played their final match. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The Man Utd article clarifies a name change doesn't mean a clubs history is broken. So that isn't a relevant issue for Man United and therefore isn't for Airdrieonians (Airdrie United). So what makes Airdrieonians formation date 2002 is clearly their liquidation. Therefore, the same rule should apply to the Rangers article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Gretna

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_F.C._2008

Clydebank (5th version)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clydebank_F.C.

Both again given founding dates to reflect their phoenix clubs. Consistency on this should have Rangers at very least showing with 2 founding dates of 1872 then reformed 2012. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You cannot insist on consistency across entirely different circumstances. Airdrie United, a newly formed club, bought an entirely different club (Clydebank), then relocated it, then years later "inherited" the Airdrieonians' name. How this is reflected in the "Airdrieonians F.C." article is a matter for that article's talk page.

You are bringing nothing new to this article. All this has been discussed exhaustively before. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Rangers 1872 voted on allowing Rangers 2012 (a newly formed club) into the top flight. They can't be the sane club if they coexisted. You are clearly just appeasing the biggest fan base by allowing this lie to be part of the Rangers article. The current club were formed in 2012. They had to apply for a place in the Scottish football pyramid. They wouldn't have to do that if they were already part of it. 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:7D3F:15D3:DE39:FAAB (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The article reflects what is said in reliable sources. What the Airdrie article says about its history is irrelevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the article says what some want ot to say to appease a larger fan base. The proof of this is what similar articles on other clubs say. If Airdrieonians and Gretna were founded this century because companies were liquidated, then so were Rangers. It's very simple and the inconsistency is blatant. It needs changed to be consistent, otherwise, why have a system of recording factual information at all if we are just going to allow the system to be altered depending on how popular the team in the article are? 2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:C7C:CA85:9700:BC15:5E83:CC:B3F9 Again, if you have a problem with how things are in other articles, go address them there. There might now be an argument for merging the Airdrie articles. This article, very properly, only reflects what reliable sources and footballing authorities say. If you don't like what they say, go take it up with them. Complaining about things here isn't going to change anything elsewhere. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 06:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been covered extensively in the talk pages over the past 12 years. If you read the complete talk page archive you will find consensus was reached on this matter. Attempts to change the article to reflect personal opinion is fruitless. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus obviously doesn't seek consistency in comparison to other articles and is agreement to appease a bigger fan base. 80.195.219.40 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Flags on non-players

The flags on the tables of non-players is unwarranted icon decoration, drawing prominence to the nationality of these people when it has no relevance to their role on the article subject. It also does not conform to MOS:FLAG in that these people are not representing their country, and the country is represented by the flag alone.

Some of the people may have had prior careers as footballers, but this is not relevant to the job they are now doing. What relevance is there to the nationality of Chairman John Bennett? Is he likely to chair for Scotland any time soon? What is the reader to conclude from the fact that it is important that they know Chief commercial officer Karim Virani is English? (And apart from anything else, this is totally unsourced information).

It is ridiculous that the first, and only, thing we are told (unsourced and unverifiable) about the club doctor is that he is Scottish. It's not relevant to his job with the club, not relevant to his career and no indication of his qualifications or skills. If he was listed as employed in any other organisation on Wikipedia the flag would not be there, so what makes a football club different? (Indeed, by suggesting that it is significant, that his nationality is important in some way, it suggests that Rangers Football Club is employing a recruitment policy that is discriminatory.)

MOS:SPORTFLAG guidance does not apply. These are not sports persons, and the article is not about them. The error being made on other club's articles is not a justification for it being here.

I therefore suggest they should be removed. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We also don't need to know who the club's masseurs are. Seasider53 (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It just seems a bit, I don't know, earnest, to me. Is it really a topic worth getting worked up over, either way? For me the flags provide a bit of colour (no pun intended), an insight into the spread of nationalities employed at the club. It would be preferable if there was a uniform policy across all club pages to be followed but that's a forlorn hope. Anyway I vote for the status quo but if consensus proves to be against then so be it. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

One person's "bit of colour" is another's distraction. It also can present problems for screen-readers and the visually impaired. Any uniform policy across all club pages is unlikely to trump Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Flag waving gives prominence to nationality when often it is not a significant attribute, or of no more significance than any other personal attribute that could, but doesn't, have an icon to decorate it. (🩺, ♂️, 👴🏻, 💍) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

If no-one has an argument for keeping the flags, I'll proceed with removing them, on the bases they are unsourced and icon decoration giving undue prominence to an irrelevant attribute.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. I've left the flags on a few where it could conceivably be argued as being relevant and notable. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't even have those. It will be a gateway to someone filling in the rest with the pretty flags later. Seasider53 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2024

Date founded 2012 BigboyBillyBear (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2025

Change “Manager” to “Head coach”. 2A00:23C8:7106:E01:E4B5:B1DB:2825:F8E3 (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

They don't have either...? Seasider53 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

That will be the new title going forward. 2A00:23C8:7106:E01:5C59:DB78:D58E:2EE5 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done: According to multiple sources, Rangers fired their manager and not their head coach, so it would be their manager. Also, the earliest non-stub versions of this article uses the term manager.