Talk:Ipswich Town F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ipswich Town F.C. article.
Article policies
Featured article star Ipswich Town F.C. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Ipswich Town F.C. is the main article in the "Ipswich Town F.C." series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
England Portal
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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Ipswich Town 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-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.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] ITFC Userbox

Just to let you know, I have created an ITFC userbox at Template:User ITFC for anyone that wishes to add {{User ITFC}} to their User Page. Hope it's of use. Essexmutant 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I've directed User:Neil m to the Sandbox but haven't warned Unicron as his edit seemed to be no more than a grammatical correction. Thus I gave him the benefit of the doubt suspecting that he doesn't know the club. - JVG 12:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular chants

Do we need the "Popular Chants" section? Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pride of Anglia

I've created a Pride of Anglia page, following an edit I made to the Norwich City page.

Far be it from me to amend the ITFC page, but I thought you may want to mirror the Official / Unofficial Honours sections I put at NCFC.

-- Dweller

[edit] Alex Bruce

Alex has at least one cap for the ROI U'21's, and he is listed on his wikipedia page as being Irish, but his flag in the squad list is of England. Maybe someone more wiki-savvy could change it - that is assuming it should be changed Packersh 00:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[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 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Fans

There seems to be quite a lot of 'X' supports team A and team B but also watches Ipswich occassionally. The links seem pretty tenuous to be honest unless anyone has any evidence of the people listed also saying they support ipswich, they should be removed.--Nuhouse 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove the section as cruft, and the trivia section should have relevant points merged into the article text. No trivia sections, please. Punkmorten 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous fans - rubbish, remove per Punkmorten.. The Rambling Man 11:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA drive

Hello all. Having successfully driven three articles over at Wikiproject:Cricket to featured status over the past couple of months, Dweller and I are turning our attentions to our home clubs, starting with Ipswich Town F.C. and then onto Norwich City F.C..

Naturally, we don't own the pages so we'd like to encourage as many people as possible who have a passing interest in pushing an article to WP:FA or in the clubs themselves to get involved. Typically, this process will start with me slapping a few dozen {{Fact}} tags on all uncited "facts". It will make the article appear unsightly in the interim, but it is a very useful way of picking off original research.

While I realise there is a Article Improvement Drive already in play in the Football Wikiproject, I'd still like to encourage others to join in on this mini-version.

Please feel free to contact me or Dweller if you'd like to contribute to the drive or, better still, just get in there. The Rambling Man 11:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

NB I'm a self-declared Norwich City fan (yeah, I know) but would be pleased to see both of East Anglia's biggest clubs as FAs. If you see me editing here, please don't assume vandalism, even if I appear to be blanking material - it usually means it'll reappear somewhere else; check the edit summaries. so, we're working on Peterborough and Southend. Joke. --Dweller 12:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

Did David Linighan really win a full England cap? --Dweller 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find it anyway so it's gone. The Rambling Man 14:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Away kit

Is it just me, or does the away kit player appear to have a spear impaling him through his waistline? --Dweller 16:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I now have spears running through shins. --Dweller 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be an IE issue. Firefox has no problems. --Dweller 15:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed hack of history section

Bearing in mind there's nothing there pre-1960, the History section is very over-detailed. I've therefore created a daughter article, History of Ipswich Town F.C. and dumped the current content there.

Assuming no-one tells me this is a terrible idea, I would like to precis the existing History copy (and of course add some pre 1960 History too).

I'll wait for at least some consensus before I begin hacking, because this may be a contentious thing to do. --Dweller 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that at all. Just like the Arsenal F.C. FA. The Rambling Man 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Just don't leave it in that completely unreferenced state! As a neutral, I;d say that the biggies for the history section are the Ramsey and Robson eras, and everything else should be built around them. Oldelpaso 18:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

  • Needs usable photos
    Done (and I've asked for more)... The Rambling Man 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Needs league position graph (requested)
    Done The Rambling Man 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Complete pre 1960 history
    Better now, hopefully enough to cover us The Rambling Man 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • History section needs thorough hack
  • Fill all citations needed
  • Complete all sections
  • Copyedit
  • Peer Review
  • FAC.

That's all. --Dweller 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ooh, hark at you. Nice. Agreed, will do my best to attend to some photos, depends on my next visit to Portaloo Road (hopefully next couple of weeks, at least for external photos), will do my best hit the history section asap too... The Rambling Man 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable players

I think they need to have played a notable part in Ipswich's history, rather than "any old bloke who won a cap". Amir Karič, for example, has an article that says he made 3 sub appearances for ITFC. He's hardly a notable player in the context of ITFC, unless in an article about expensive mistakes. --Dweller 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in this context, notable really means internationals. The Rambling Man 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "As caretaker managers"

This, currently reference 14, seems to be a footnote, not a reference? --Dweller 14:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stats and stuff

Suggestions...

  1. in the managers' table, include a column for % wins, so there's a measure to compare them by. Maybe colour code it by percentile?
    % wins, yes, colour coded, probably not much point since they'll all be around the same I would think.  % first, colours maybe later... The Rambling Man 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Done, without colours. Interesting, actually, and shows Magilton's days are numbered! The Rambling Man 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. delete all but the most notable "notable players"
    Perhaps a sub-page for "List of Ipswich Town F.C. players" (like Arsenal), copy the lot over there and just refer to the list? The Rambling Man 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've created List of Ipswich Town F.C. players. The Rambling Man 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. where current players have full international caps, include that in the squad list
    Not sure about that. Does this happen on any other team page? The Rambling Man 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What do people think? --Dweller 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • 1. Useful info, but be careful not to overemphasise it - the fact that it doesn't distinguish between divisions distorts the data i.e. John Duncan looks good from those stats but the team performed unremarkably during his tenure. In short, don't use colours.
  • 2. The trouble with these lists is always NPOV. To retain it, some objective criteria must be used. On Manchester City F.C. I used the club's hall of fame.
  • 3. Don't bother - consider the 30something who won a single cap a decade ago. Oldelpaso 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I've made a table, you're right it overemphasises John Duncan's contribution, and probably Magilton too (given the way I feel about him right now!) but it's not unusual to see %win. The only thing I might do is take away the caretakers who managed for just a few games because their % are silly one way or another. I don't believe ITFC has a hall of fame, although if we do I'd agree that it's a good place to start for the list I've created as a subpage. The third point, I agree, don't bother. The Rambling Man 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] since when?

Problem is since when was Shumi a notable player. I thought to become a notable player you had to make more than 50 apperances for that club.

[edit] Portman Rd

The "ancient office of Portman" is ambiguous - is this a room or an honour? And if, as I suspect, it's the latter, some explanation (corrollary?) as to what the heck it is would be good! --Dweller 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, point taken... ! The Rambling Man 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Gone. The Rambling Man 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Anglian Derby

This article cites 134 matches since 1902. This was lifted from East Anglian Derby that notes that the match in 1902 was between two amateur clubs. Is this OK? I suggest we could footnote this point of clarification, as technically it could be argued that the two amateur clubs were not the same entities as the pro clubs that emerged from them... --Dweller 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean Ipswich emerged succesfully while Norwich fans just had posters of Jeremy Goss on their walls?! Yes, I suppose including amateur confrontations could be added.... The Rambling Man 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
footnote it, with the "caretaker manager" bit? Footnotes will be a good way of keeping article length appropriate. History needs some more chopping, but I'm sure you already knew that! --Dweller 17:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Added a reference/footnote, not sure if it's possible to differentiate between them to be honest, and Arsenal F.C. has at least one such footnote. I know the history is a shade long but I'm beginning to think that we should peer review it and see how it goes. I think all citation neededs have now been dealt with... what do you reckon? The Rambling Man 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
However, the slant on history looks like it's suffering from a dose of recentism. Fancy chopping it? I'd like to get the peer review up and running anyway... The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Happy to. Started it earlier today (now I'm highly affronted you hadn't noticed. Not.) and will carry on. Slightly hagiographical still - I got rid of some POV about Burley. --Dweller 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Notice? Of course I noticed. But that's why we're doing this, to tame each other's excitement. By the way, I left a note on the NCFC talk page, advance warning of things to come. The Rambling Man 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honours

Further to the Peer Review comments, I think the FA Youth Cup win is notable enough for the History section, but I'm not sure about it appearing in the Honours. Ditto, but much stronger, for the decidedly iffy Texaco Cup. However, I'd like some consensus before I march in and ditch the Tex. --Dweller 09:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, the presentation style used at the SWFC article is quite pleasing on the eye, see Sheffield_Wednesday_F.C.#Honours --Dweller 10:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd list the Texaco Cup win a long way ahead of the Youth Cup win - at least it was a competition for first team players. - fchd 10:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree... The Rambling Man 10:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Both retained. Any views on the "tablature option"? --Dweller 10:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say the Sheffield Wednesday table looks good. Nice work on this article all-round. - fchd 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the Reserve League Title?

Itfc+canes=me (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as i am aware you have never won the top league in football, both the graph and honours table might suggest you have —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.128.147 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

The lead currently contains no references; could someone involved in editing this article find some, or use some of the existing ones appropriately? I'm always concerned when potential feature articles don't cite any sources in the introductory section, which often states numerous important facts. QmunkE 10:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michaelas10's comments from the FAC page

The peer review pretty much covered it all. A few comments of my own;

  • remove all the fan sites from the external links section as only reliable sources need to be included per WP:EL.
    • Done. --Dweller 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Second reference lacks parameters.
    • Missing "s" inserted; fixed. --Dweller 12:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ...enjoyed brief success - Grammar.
    • Seems someone got there first. Gone. --Dweller 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ...just two years - POV.
    • Oh, that's a bit harsh. Two years from Champions to relegation - the "just" is self-evidently deserved, rather than POV. --Dweller 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that the word "just" may be a subject to arguing, regardless if the chances are slim to none, already symbolizes it doesn't meet the strict WP:NPOV criteria of WP:WIAFA. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • OK. I still sort of disagree, but am happy to amend anyway, in full knowledge that perhaps I'm too close to the article. --Dweller 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Image:Ipswich Town badge.gif and Image:Old ITFC Crest.gif lack a fair use rationale.
    • Hmmm... I'll draft in some help with this. --Dweller 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "In popular culture" sections have the lowest priority, thus needs to be added right before the "References" section.
    • We (almost exactly) copied the structure from the Arsenal F.C. FA. I'm not sure what to do. --Dweller 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't think there is a guideline on this, but common sense tell it should go last. I would say the same at the Arsenal F.C. FAC. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 14:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • On reflection, I'll defend this. As football is so central to life for so many in the UK, this is a very important section. Disproportionately. If all that was there was the film reference, I'd agree, but with the other content, I'm happy leaving it there. --Dweller 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sentence captions should all end with a period per WP:MOS.
    • Done. --Dweller 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The #64 reference is a note, please separate it using {{note}} to avoid confusion.
    • See as an example Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. Thanks for clarifying and fixing when I messed it up! --Dweller 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ...The Blues, Town or The Tractor Boys - Serial comma.
    • I'm comfortable with the existing punctuation. --Dweller 14:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What are the purple/yellow/light blue lines in Image:ITFC record.png? A color map should be made at the caption or at least the image description page.
    • I'll add one to the caption. --Dweller 13:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ...resigned in May 1987, after reaching the promotion play-offs - Unnecessary comma.
    • Nuked. --Dweller 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As of March 13, 2007 - Keep the date formatting constant.
    • Couldn't find this. I guess it's been fixed by someone. --Dweller 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • At the beginning of the "Players" section. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Done. Thanks. --Dweller 14:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ...but worse was to follow - The sentence isn't an opposition of the previous.
    • well, the phrase doesn't imply an opposite, but nonetheless I've fixed. --Dweller 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, just sounded weird on first read. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indirect Vandalism?

Why does this article appear as a redirect from "Shit of Anglia"? Why is that phrase even in Wikipedia as a search term? AncientBrit 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism. I've slapped a speedy deletion notice on that page. It should be deleted soon . --Dweller 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few issues

Hi chaps, just did another check before supporting and a few things came up which I didn't notice at peer review stage. Hopefully they won't be much of a problem and I'll be able to whack a support on the nomination: Thanks for detailed comments. I'll go through them carefully. --Dweller 10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In the lead "and they last appeared in the FA Premier League in 2001–02." is fairly unnecessary.
    • Sorry to start by disagreeing! For people with a passing interest in football, Prem status is all-important. They'd want to know that the club has been in the Prem and just how recently, as a matter of top importance. --Dweller 08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm, possibly. I'd argue that whilst the casual fan might want to know that, someone who didn't know anything about English football at all would wonder why that was included and not, say, last appearance in League Two. Oh well, it's not a huge thing. HornetMike 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It's okay for you glory hornets! We look back (in anger?!) at our last time up there, so I think it should stay as is. Like you say, not a huge thing... The Rambling Man 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The club was founded as an amateur side in 1878, as Ipswich Association F.C. They won a number of local cup competitions, including the Suffolk Challenge Cup and the Suffolk Senior Cup.[2] They joined the Southern Amateur League in 1907 and, with results improving steadily, became champions in the 1921–22 season.[3]" Doesn't read too well. Two sentences starting with they, and feels a bit stilted. I suggest putting something like "In their early days" (except something far better than that!) in at the beginning of the second sentence.
    • Good spot. I'll amend. --Dweller 08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The club won the league three further times, in 1929–30, 1932–33 and 1933–34 before leaving at the end of the 1934–35 season to become founder members of the Eastern Counties Football League. A year later, the club turned professional. The club won the Southern League in its first season and finished third in the next." The thing about them being founder members of the Eastern Counties, then winning the Southern League in between sentences hasn't been cleared up yet
    • Not sure I understand. Please clarify... or fix it! --Dweller 08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd happily fix it if I knew more about the club. I'll try and be more clear: the first sentence establishes they won trophies, and became founder members of the Eastern Counties. The second sentence establishes they turned professional. At this point, as far as the reader is concerned, the club are a member of the Eastern Counties league. But then the third sentence establishes that the club won the Southern League. When did the move happen? HornetMike 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Tried a bit of a minor rejig, it all happened in quick succession, only a single season in the Eastern Counties league before going pro, hope the current prose makes that clearer. The Rambling Man 19:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In "The club was elected to The Football League on 30 May 1938" I suggest changing "The club" to "Ipswich". This avoids two successive sentences beginning with "the club". If you're going to do this I'd recommend doing a paragraph break seeing as you're going back to the proper noun, but that fits quite well as it happens on the move to the Football League.
    • Nice suggestions. I'll take a look at this. --Dweller 08:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "After Ramsey left to manage England, he was replaced at Ipswich by Jackie Milburn.[4]" - You've already said in the previous sentence he left to manage England, just say "Ramsay was replaced by Jackie Milburn". As that sentence's quite small, you might consider merging this: "Under Milburn, Ipswich's fortunes on the pitch plummeted" into it and starting a new sentence with "two years after winning the league title..."
    • Done. --Dweller 10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Ferguson resigned in May 1987 after reaching the promotion play-offs.[4]" Might want to point out that he lost in them.
    • Not sure. Isn't the lack of success implied? If Town had been promoted, it'd say!?? --Dweller 10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I guessed as such. But I'd read reaching to mean getting there, i.e. finishing 3rd to 6th in the league. One could read it as he resigned before the play-offs actually took place. If you clarified this, it would probably mean including that they lost in them. HornetMike 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In general the history section is a bit too focused on recent history. The best part of 3 paragraphs focuses on the 90s onwards, whilst 3 other paragraphs covers the rest. Whether chopping some of it down or expanding the older sections is the answer, I'm not sure.
    • This came up at the Peer Review and was alleviated. I think that now the recentism isn't too bad. The Arsenal F.C. FA, which we used as a template, has 7 parags of History with 3 post-dating 1986. Currently, this article has 8 parags and 4 post-date 1982, including the 2 shortest parags in the section. I'm comfortable with it. --Dweller 10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed, it's not a huge thing. HornetMike 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I reckon the paragraph beginning with "One of Ipswich Town's nicknames is The Blues, stemming from their traditional kit" should come frst in that section. When you start it with "The shirts worn by players of Ipswich Town" I automatically think "What colour are those shirts?". That also means you get a nice progression where you have an overview of the shirt then it goes into more detail with the crest. Might want to change the header to "Colours and crest" if you do this.
    • Agreed. Good suggestion. I left the modern kit donation at the end, otherwise it jumped too much historically. --Dweller 10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The club was amongst the first exponents of goal nets, in 1890,[45] but the ground remained undeveloped until, in 1901, a tobacco processing plant was built along the south edge of the ground." The relation between goal nets and ground development seems a bit of an odd one. Although, if you were to split these sentences, the goalnets one would be tiny. Hmm...
    • Yeeeessss... I think this came from changes made during the PReview. Happy to sort that oddity out! --Dweller 10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I reckon you should stick this: "Up until 2000 when the stand was completely rebuilt, it was commonly referred to as "Churchmans" after the brothers who owned the plant" in a note after this "as "Churchmans" after the brothers who owned the plant", adding southern before Churchmans in the article sentence. My reasoning is that it's odd for you to hear about the ground being re-developed in 1901, then hear about a stand being re-developed in 2000, then back to 1905. Indeed, it's not clear there was a Churchmans stand built from the current phrasing, so when you talk about it being redeveloped it 2000 the reader has no previous clue it existed.
    • Not sure I entirely followed that. Feel free to fix it! :-) --Dweller 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, because I wasn't entirely clear I'll just do it and hopefully you'll see what I mean! HornetMike 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how much the Pride of Anglia stuff has to do with "Ipswich in popular culture". If it were to be moved into the perhaps more relevant supporters section (after all, rivalry is generated by fans - and presently that section is a bit focused on recent attendances/nicknames) then you'd probably have to lose the Escape to Victory stuff. A shame, as it's a fun nugget of information, but not terrible.
    • Moving Pride of Anglia and relegating importance of popular culture section, though I see no need to delete it. --Dweller 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't need that youth team players section. None of the players listed in it pass WP:BIO. Indeed, I've afd'd the ones that have articles.
    • Removed. --Dweller 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry this has come so late. I dunno if you want to point out on the FA page that there will probably be a number of things changed. Although this is a long list, most of it is grammar stuff, and isn't that big. Probably not worth bringing up, but I'll leave it to you. Right, bed. Cheers, HornetMike 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no problem. Article has improved thanks to your comments. --Dweller 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That's all of the above resolved, thanks chaps. Just two more things (I know, I know, sorry!). Do we know when the club changed their name from Ipswich Association to plain old Ipswich? Also, this is my preference I dunno what you think, but I don't like the panorama centered and seperate. I do Sheffield Wednesday does it, but I think it looks far better intergrated with the text. Up to you, though. HornetMike 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed and fixed, hopefully to your liking... The Rambling Man 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed! I've supported, thanks for the attentive approach you've taken to my nitpicking! Cheers, HornetMike 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure, it's good to have so many positive constructive comments from you. We now turn our attentions to Norwich City F.C. by the way, so stand by! The Rambling Man 13:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern League

"A year later, the club turned professional and joined the Southern League, which they won in its first season and finished third in the next". The wikilink to Southern League goes to a disambig. What league was it that Ipswich won?-- Zleitzen(talk) 09:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, bad me. Disambiguation fixed, thanks for pointing it out! The Rambling Man 12:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony1

Oppose - 1a. The prose needs cleaning up throughout. Here are random examples:

  • "The club was founded in 1878 but they did not play as a professional club until 1936" - Remove "they".
    • Will do. --Dweller 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The club won the league three further times, in 1929–30, 1932–33 and 1933–34" - "three further times" is clumsy; why not remove it altogether?
    • Well, without it, it implies they won it three times. They won it four times. --Dweller 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The club was immediately relegated the following season" - Relegated to what?
    • I'll take a look at that, thanks --Dweller 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Major success came with Ipswich Town's only FA Cup trophy in 1978, beating Arsenal in the final at Wembley Stadium" - what, the trophy beat Arsenal?
    • heh heh, I'll clarify (not that anyone would reasonably think that way!) the dodgy grammar --Dweller 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • En dashes are used throughout, so why not for scores, such as "6–0"?
    • I think that's been fixed already. --Dweller 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Audit use of commas, for example "A poor start to the season, culminating in a 2-0 defeat at Grimsby Town meant that Burley was ..." - Where's the second comma enclosing the nested phrase?
    • I'll look at all the commas. Might miss some - if I do, feel free to fix. --Dweller 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't just fix these examples. Tony 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As per my comments at your talk page, that's not the easiest of instructions to follow. --Dweller 09:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article today; see the link at the top. Hassocks5489 17:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Good stuff. The Rambling Man 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

The FA Cup win of 1978 needs to be moved up in the para, otherwise there is an implication that that the win was a result of the "flair" fo Muhren & Thijssen - which wasn't the case. Muhren joined the summer following the cup win and Thijssen post xmas that season.

i'd also suggest a list of club players of the year might be of value.

Oleg mcnoleg (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

See List of Ipswich Town F.C. Players of the Year. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
oops! still think the 70's/80's para needs a re-jig to be chronologically consistent. Robin Turner can also be added to the list of players who featured in the Escape To Victory trivia (Osman, Wark & O'Callaghan actually had lines). Oleg mcnoleg (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honours - Charity Shield Error

Ipswich have never won the Charity Shield - certainly not in 1935 when they were in the middle of the Eastern Counties League. 1935 winners were Sheff Wed 1-0 v Arsenal. The wiki Charity Shield page is also in error. (source thefa.com amongst many) Ipswich performance in the shield has been less than sparkling losing 0-6 & 0-5 respectively. Oleg mcnoleg (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good spot, have corrected both articles. FA.com says 1-5 & 0-5 incidentally. --Jameboy (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thanks - i only looked up the 1935 game - the rest came from my (slightly feeble) memory - rubbish either way! Oleg mcnoleg (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honours - Anglo-Italian Cup Error

We can't have won this in 1996 as it didn't exist then, in fact we have never won it according to the wikipedia article about it. 82.69.6.197 (talk)

It did exist in 1996, it was the last edition. Genoa beat Port Vale in the final at Wembley. - fchd (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok even if it did exist we weren't semi-finalists we were quarter-finalists (English semifinalists)[1] in a competition for Division 1 English teams. Also I notice the official Ipswich town website does not list it as one of there honours and I personally feel it should be removed as if you start listing everytime someone got to quater-finals, bigger clubs lists would be huge and I think there should be some consistency. - Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 stars

an explaination as to what the three stars over the crest mean.

obviously not european or world cups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.36.2 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One each for the First Division, FA Cup and UEFA Cup wins. - JVG (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Do they appear on match shirts or just replica shirts? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
On match shirts, but rarely on replicas. Think it's only the first 5000 replicas (hence not on mine :( ) It's on the club website as well, in the banners background at the top. - JVG (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool. The explanation could be added into the article on the assumption we can find a reliable source to explain what they mean (although I know it's common knowledge, that in itself isn't sufficient for inclusion)... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite aware, am looking at the sec for a news article or something given the stars were added only 2, poss 3 seasons ago. They're on the shirt but not officially part of the crest btw, if you look at the banner on the front page of the ITFC site (the left logo has no stars, the logo on the shirt background has the 3 stars) - JVG (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Got it! http://www.itfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10272~793709,00.html :D - JVG (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Womens team deserves to be mentioned

The womens team has won some silverware and i think it deserves a mention on the article. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If the womens team is notable enough it should have its own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well its not quite and should deserve a mention on this. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It depends whether they are administered as part of Ipswich Town F.C. (using Admin staff etc. at Portman Road or the training ground) - the article is about the club - not the first team only. If they are completely seperate (i.e. like Fulham Ladies), then they don't deserve a mention here but need as you say a new article about them if they can demonstrate sufficient notability. - fchd (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point..... I don't have the skills to do this but could someone do the new article.

Itfc+canes=me We are wolves of the sea 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attendances

I have the full details for attendances here.... someone put it into a table for this page.

Attendances by Season

   HOME

Season Total Average Highest Lowest 1936-37 201034 8741 18229 4200 1937-38 160430 8913 23890 3163 1938-39 313386 12535 28194 2858 1939-40 19676 9838 10792 8884 1945-46 203747 10187 15171 3589 1946-47 300158 13050 20267 9168 1947-48 280424 13354 24361 7897 1948-49 294305 13378 24569 7841 1949-50 304732 13249 26161 9160 1950-51 301692 13117 24239 9081 1951-52 297009 11423 19275 4015 1952-53 236523 9461 21033 3116 1953-54 441336 16346 25961 10028 1954-55 339093 15413 20625 4937 1955-56 356249 15489 22984 12168 1956-57 366239 14650 22199 9272 1957-58 383979 18285 22615 13469 1958-59 340435 14802 26700 10455 1959-60 315129 14324 26000 10865 1960-61 328192 14918 23321 9803 1961-62 554385 22175 30649 11010 1962-63 470279 19595 25468 14063 1963-64 381899 15912 28113 8568 1964-65 281979 13428 25863 9118 1965-66 295729 12322 22690 8470 1966-67 407433 16976 30155 11166 1967-68 408159 18553 28000 12724 1968-69 518530 23570 30837 17780 1969-70 502792 20950 29755 16146 1970-71 528278 21131 30229 15993 1971-72 477543 21707 31362 15528 1972-73 556088 21388 34636 11777 1973-74 644981 22241 33292 12228 1974-75 721696 25775 38010 16337 1975-76 643953 25758 35077 19301 1976-77 634333 26431 35109 16027 1977-78 660243 23580 33663 15276 1978-79 620831 22173 31322 16095 1979-80 525866 21035 30120 13217 1980-81 814835 24692 32274 14780 1981-82 554313 21320 28767 13694 1982-83 471623 19651 29596 15924 1983-84 415155 17298 26185 11478 1984-85 508157 17523 27737 10809 1985-86 376143 14467 25384 7664 1986-87 303221 11662 18670 5742 1987-88 338474 11672 23012 5308 1988-89 349801 12493 22950 8115 1989-90 328278 12158 24365 5087 1990-91 302052 11617 20290 7306 1991-92 398212 14222 26803 5750 1992-93 474508 17574 22093 7305 1993-94 407915 16317 22559 8645 1994-95 362840 16493 22559 7787 1995-96 380025 12668 21236 5831 1996-97 356260 12285 23397 6163 1997-98 453523 15117 22173 8031 1998-99 428892 16496 22162 7952 1999-00 481412 17830 21908 9689 2000-01 482371 21926 25004 13008 2001-02 553309 24057 28433 21197 2002-03 682199 23524 29503 13266 2003-04 641073 23743 30152 11118 2004-05 650261 25010 30010 10190 2005-06 584705 23388 29184 11299 2006-07 544598 21784 28355 11732 2007-08 527943 21998 29656 17938

all data i got.

Itfc+canes=me (talk) We are wolves of the sea 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)