Talk:United Counties League

Football: English non-league 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 English non-league task force (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Superfluous articles

Do the separate articles under United Counties Football League Premier Division and United Counties Football League Division One need to exist on their own any longer? Sweetalkinguy 23:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:English_football_league_system Tompw 11:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the merge tags to the relevant articles. If not merged something needs doing about the current article page as it is pointless having duplicate content. Prehaps have a subheading entitled "Leagues" and just list the relvent leagues with links to those pages where they exist. Listing the teams in the leagues here is pointless. Brollachan 12:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection I've removed the merge tags and updated the content of those pages. I've now also redone the main part of this article to introduce a leagues header with the league names under subheaders. The premier division and division one articles have been shortened with links to the relevant articles, no point in duplicating team lists. Brollachan 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong way round

What you have done is illogical, and upside down. Nobody will wish to type in "United Counties Football League Premier Division" in preference to "United Counties Football League". Nor will they wish to flip between two separate pages for Premier and Division One when they can have them both on the same page. You implicitly accept that, else you would have created separate pages for Reserve One and Reserve Two as well. It makes much more sense to have one page per League at this level rather than one page per division.

It is a parallel position to having two separate articles about the structure and organisation of the game below Football League level. This needs to be sorted as a matter of urgency, especially when it is rumoured that the FA will be firming things up in the next season or two, and this will mean clubs effectively getting relegated by committee.

When I have time to sort out the cups for Division One and Reserve Divisions, I will put the main UCL article back the way I left it.

Sweetalkinguy 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my point of view is that there is no need for separate divisional articles, at this or any other level. The divisions only exist as part of a whole. However, I am a relative newcomer around here and a number of people have done a lot of work setting them up. - fchd 11:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general tendency on Wikipedia, to split off separate articles for entities that can be considered separate, even if, as in this case, they are only separate sections of one whole. I personally wouldn't mind if cases like this were merged though, although steps 1-4 certainly all ought to be kept separate. It's probably worth getting some more viewpoints at WikiProject Football too. — sjorford ++ 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Image

I have added the image of the official logo for this league to improve the quality of this article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that logo was of the league sponsors rather than the league itself Brollachan 11:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is my impression too. Guy 01:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the new league handbook and I can confirm it is the league sponsor, and an outdated image at that. I'm altering the wording to the picture. Brollachan 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've since obtained a copy of the league logo and have uploaded it to the article, scanned it from this years UCL handbook. Brollachan 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]