Talk:Blackpool F.C.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
The article on Blackpool F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the England task force. |
Contents |
[edit] A note on British English
British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Club history link
[edit] Capacity
There are variances around the 'net, which is to be expected. The one in this article (and, in turn, that of Bloomfield Road) is sourced from here. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I should point out though that I was at the recent game which was a sell out against Carlisle United on 26th December 2006, and the attendance was both announced as a sell out of 9,491, before the game, and at the game, but was also stated as such in numerous articles. For instance, this article which confirms both the current capacity of 9,491 and that the match was heading for a sell out of 9,491 - Blackpool Gazette 20th December 2006. There are other articles since then confirming this. There are variances on sites giving capacities, but an online article not only giving the capacity as 9,491 but also confirming that the club had sold out with 9,491 is a more definitive answer. Tangerines 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tangerine-Planet
It's a poor fan site, in my opinion, hence my removal of it. More typos than I can be bothered to count (Grayson once Blackpool to create a bigger gap is currently on the front page), and it's more or less a football blog. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Date of formation discrepancy
The history section at Blackpool's official website (see here) seems to be the reason why the club's year of formation was listed as 1877 in the article for so long. Further into that paragraph the formation of "Blackpool Football Club" is given as July 26, 1887, and I think this is what we should go with, especially since that's what Roy Calley's book lists it as. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External links
There is clearly a difference of opinion between User:Dudesleeper and myself about whether fan sites should be included. If I again reverted the recent edit, which was a revert or my revert (if that makes sense of course!) then it would merely be an edit war, something I have no desire to indulge in. So in response to the comments in the last edit summary -
"We can do without them." - Why? Your removal of these two sites is not consistent with your previous edits with regard to the fan sites. The Blackpool Vital site has been listed in the External links since at least as far back as December 2006 which is as far back in the article history that I can get. Yet on 5th April you removed a link, added 10 minutes earlier by an anonymous user, to the Tangerine Planet fan site. Yet Blackpool Vital, you left in, and have left it in throughout all this time. And if I recall correctly from before December 2006, the same site, Tangerine Planet had been added (no idea when in 2006 though) at which time you had also removed it stating it to be a poor site, yet you had also then left the Blackpool Vital link in place. So if Blackpool Vital was ok to be left in back in April and back in 2006, then what is the difference between then and now?
And I disagree totally, that "we can do without them" as that is your opinion. It is my opinion that the two sites that have been removed (Blackpool Vital and Blackpool Rivals) do absolutely no harm by being listed on here. They are the two most used BFC fan sites. They are both recognised by the club and used by the club secretary, Matt Williams, to post news as he is a member of both sites. Both sites, Blackpool Rivals (otherwise known as AVFTT) and Blackpool Vital have their own Players of the Year Awards, awarded annually at the clubs official Presentation Night held at the club - evidence of which is on the official club site.
"Besides, when does it become too many fan sites?" - Two fan sites is not too many. In addition there are probably in total less than 5 BFC fan sites on the Internet. The removal of the Tangerine Planet website I agreed with at the time, because of the poor standard of English on it at the time, but not the other two.
"It's fine for the Man U article, but WP shouldn't be a reference for itself" - not what I either said nor implied. I gave Manchester United as an example, one example (which is what I said in the edit summary_ of many, many football club articles that quite happily sit there with fan sites.
As I said, I will not revert your recent edit. However, I do think that these two fan sites are perfectly relevant to this article, and would ask that you at least discuss this further. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- My reason for deleting them, and stating that "we can do without them", is because we have the club's official website. The others, if we break it down, are basically blogs or messageboards, which are included in Wikipedia's links normally to be avoided. - Dudesleeper · Talk 22:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just adding one here for future reference: http://ds.dial.pipex.com/bob.dunning/blackpoo.htm - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Current Squad
If the official web site is not correct what is your verifiable source for the information presented as fact? Pbradbury 12:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Soccerbase, which I've just referenced. It hasn't listed D'Agostino yet, who was added per a source referenced in his article. Also, Soccerbase seems to only add players' squad numbers when they've played a game for the club. - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Great, I am still going to change the nationality of Paul Rachubka since both soccerbase and the web site list him as American (even though I believe he has dual nationality) Pbradbury 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Paul Rachubka played for England at three levels, Under 16, Under 18 and Under 20, he should therefore be listed as English. With regard to Michael D'Agostino, his article states he has signed for Blackpool, (I cleaned up the article amending the sources etc). However, even though the Blackpool Gazette are also reporting him as having signed (in both the paper version yesterday and on their website) at the moment he has not been included in the official club squad, nor have the club themsleves confirmed him as having signed. And until that happens he can't be included in the current squad. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blackpool Football Club Logo.gif
Image:Blackpool Football Club Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kyle Clancy Squad Number
Is Kyle Clancy's squad number for the 2007/08 season official? Also Mitchley was added to the squad list in the programme last week with the squad number 35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangerinetom (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Date formats
At this point, I think month, day has prevalence over day, month, mostly because I keep forgetting that the UK generally uses the latter (though I never have, despite living there for the first 22 years of my life). Unless someone's willing to change them all to day, month, I'll likely change the remaining minority to day, month. If you're dead against it, speak now or forever hold your peace. - Dudesleeper / Talk 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Managers
I can understand there being no manager in the early years, Bill Norman being the first full-timer, but none for a month between Bob Stokoe's late-November 1972 departure and Harry Potts' January 1, 1973 appointment and again between February and March 1978? Potts must have taken over earlier than stated in the first instance, and ditto for Jimmy Meadows as caretaker, replacing Allan Brown in the second instance. It's highly unlikely that the team were left without someone at the helm each time, but for now I suppose we'll have to go with what Soccerbase states, for wont of a better source. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removing link
I've got to ask why the external link for www.bfcblog.co.uk has been removed, the site is well established, it ranks number 4 in a Google search for 'blackpool fc' one place behind the wikipedia page, so it's surley a very relevant site? Bfcblog1 · Talk 21:40, 19 May 2008
- Presumably because of this WP:LINKSTOAVOID, number 11 which states, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." I would imagine that is why it was removed. However, I can't see in the edit history when it was added or when it was removed and your message above appears to be your only edit on wikipedia so it is not possible to be certain what actually happened.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I removed it yesterday, I think, not long after it was added. Apologies for not adding an edit summary, but I get bogged down in a wave of vandalism (not that this was vandalism) so I occasionally overlook the edit-summary box. As Tangerines explained, however, links to blogs are avoided on Wikipedia. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
