Jump to content

Talk:Blackpool F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mullen

[edit]

This is more a reminder to myself, but apparently Tom White was in charge for seven League games, not the one that I had it as. This means that Jimmy Mullen's stats need adjusted as well, on top of the graphs. All in due course. - Dudesleeper talk 21:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonga.com

[edit]

This information needs to be sourced per WP:RS, not just to a page on the sponsor's website. Flowanda | Talk 09:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackpool Calley.jpg and File:The Seasiders DVD.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

Files used in this article, File:Blackpool Calley.jpg and File:The Seasiders DVD.jpg, have been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --SkotyWATC 01:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ squad number

[edit]

Whoever keeps changing it to 23 please stop doing that as the blackpool official site has it down as 39 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasider91 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current squad

[edit]

as the numbers of david carney and matt phillips has yet to be confirmed on the offical site could you please not change it on here thanks, a match report isn't a good source. (Seasider91 (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

HG?

[edit]

About half the squad of Blackpool FC have (HG) after their names with no explanation I can see. I've looked at a few other squads and none of them feature this set of initials. What does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.50.112 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squad table format

[edit]

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

  • It features a sort function
  • Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
    • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
    • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
  • It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
  • It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
  • It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Blackpool F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, Edinburgh Wanderer 19:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

I've deleted the below.

"The club face big sanctions from the FA as Birmingham City FC are going to appeal agaisnt the match day officials for both legs of their semi-final. The ref that was furest away from Blackpool was bassed in Mersyside, and the official for the home leg came from Lancashire. It found guilty, Blackpool will ceast toe exist"

If someone really has a source for this they can rewrite and put it back in. For the record I have no interest in Blackpool or Birmingham City.Tigerman2005 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Curiosity, really, as the title is not incorrect but why Blackpool F.C. and not Blackpool Football Club? Is it compliance with a site standard? --Old Lanky (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming policy; the most relevant being WP:COMMONNAME. Most football team articles titles follow this pattern. Malpass93! (what I've been up to/drop me a ___) 19:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thank you. --Old Lanky (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article rating

[edit]

The article had been given a B-class rating but, with reference to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment this is wishful thinking. I have amended the rating to C-class on the basis of the B-class criteria quoted on the assessment page. Number 1 of these states: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary". The history section of the article is noticeably lacking in citations and so, given the criteria for C-class which include: "The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class", I think C-class must apply here until adequate citations are provided. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other five B-class criteria are moreorless fulfilled:
  • 2.The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  • 3.The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  • 4.The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
  • 5.The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  • 6.The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
But, having looked at some sports articles that have been classified as GA standard, it is a long way short of that standard at present. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blackpool F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackpool F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blackpool F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blackpool F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Blackpool F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackpool F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool FC's international footballers ;

[edit]

I have reviewed the section detailing the players who have represented their countries and have noticed a number of omissions and minor errors. There are 6 players not listed and the minor errors relate mainly to appearance numbers. I note the requirement for citation but must point out most corrections are the result of research and do not necessarily have a single source. Any objections to me proceeding? Sandgrown63 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as Blackpool at the top of the Infobox

[edit]

Just I'm getting warned for edit warring because @Seasider53 hates consistency and wants Blackpool to be special from every other club. Xirosaturn (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned for disruptive editing for removing information about a recent transfer. Please pay attention. Seasider53 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I reverted the edit, because I can't really use the source editor. But that was just because it looked a date error and not a new signing. Xirosaturn (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also stay ontopic. Xirosaturn (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackpool_F.C.&oldid=1206324656"