Talk:Blackpool F.C./Archive 1

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. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kaspars Gorkss appearances for Latvia

Soccerbase only lists 8 international games since he signed for Blackpool on 1st January 2007 - which is clearly wrong when checked on the Latvian Football Federation website which lists him having ten international appearances in 2007 2007 matches. For 2008 I can find confirmation that he played in three matches by clicking on the match links on here 2008 matches , but for the friendly against Andorra on 26th March there is no team line-up and I've tried on google and can't find anything.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of Tangerine, The information previously input re Gorkks appearances is correct. The source is the Latvian Football Federation website which details results and line ups going back over many years. Although these details are in Latvian names and scorers are easily identifiable. They have recently credited Latvia's first goal against Lithuania to Pereplotkins not Gorkks. I'm new to this game, but seeing as you've taken the information out maybe you'd like to source it and put it back in.Seasider 40 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you review the squads announced for the previous and subsequent games it confirms Gorkks must have played, when the squad for the Andorra game was announced he had made 14 appearances, when the Baltic Cup squad was announced he had made 15. The RSSSF confirms Latvia won the game 3-0. Seasider 40 (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider 40 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that I haven't "taken the information out" as you state above? Check the articles edit historty, I undid my edit. All I said above was that I could find confirmation using the LFF website and RSSSF that Gorkss (and it is Gorkss not Gorkks or to be really precise Gorkšs) had played 13 times for Latvia during his time at the 'Pool, just that I couldn't find any team line-ups about the Andorra match, which would make it 14. (I have also removed the title as you were replying to my message above.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Presentation of info already available at the links provided

Greetings all,

I have a contributor to this page (Dudesleeper) telling me that info available at embedded links provided should be removed since the info can be sourced by clicking the embedded link. I personally agree with Tangerines in that the wording of the article as it is now is better. However who am I to say? Can you advise please folks? I've left the article as was prior to the change I made. Can you advise please folks on the correct presentation should be? I am more than happy to go with whatever the agreed format is.

Best regards all, Socheid (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to throw a spanner in your works by saying that I agree with the edit you made. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dudesleeper,

Thanks for replying to the request I left for you asking you to contribute to this discussion. I must confess I'm not sure what the value is add from saying 'throw a spanner in your works' but thanks for replying all the same.

Anyone have a view please?

Regards,

Socheid (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi all,

Please pardon my typo. This above should have said:-

"Anyone else have a view please?"

Best regards as always,

Socheid (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course some of the content in articles can be found by clicking on wikilinks, however, there is no need in my opinion to be removing the information from this article. It is useful content for the reader, whether or not it is also in another article.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This all stems from this edit of mine, which removed superfluous details about where Dumfries is located in Scotland and on which street their ground is located, both of which seemed irrelevant enough to me to warrant removal. Having now thought more about it, Socheid's removal of information from the Blackpool article doesn't equate to the same thing. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Blackpool Football Club Logo.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Blackpool Football Club Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

The image does not comply with item 10C here.--Rockfang (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably makes sense to wait until the logo is deleted, at which point a bot will remove it from each season article. Then I'll upload it again and add it to the club article. - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

comment

You are still the greatest team i know.Remember the great late Sir Stanley Matthews.We still can deliver and go to the top.All my blessings from Dayalan Veerasamy (Johannesburg South Africa).I am Blackpool supporter for life.I am a pensioner receiving R1160.00 per month.We actually named our football club Blackpool in 1959.My e-mail address is jveerasamy@edcon.co.za.Wishing you everything of the best in the future.