Talk:Cobh Ramblers F.C.

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Irish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:FAIEircomLOIsmall.png

Image:FAIEircomLOIsmall.png 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 07:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cobh Ramblers 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) 18:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV / ATTRIBUTEPOV / VER

In a recent edit summary an editor added/restored a large volume of unsupported editorial, uncited material, unattributed opinions and generally non-neutral content. The editor explained their action with an edit summary stating that: "I wrote a book on the club's official history in 2022 to mark its centenary year. I haven't updated its Wiki before but I know my facts". In terms of:

WP:BIT ("I know my facts"): As discussed in the WP:BIT essay, it is not sufficient that the adding editor "know their facts". Those facts need to be verifiable (by other editors and readers) against reliable and ideally independent sources. Declaring oneself an expert doesn't override or supersede the fundamental project pillar relating to verifiability and neutral POV.
WP:SELFPUB ("I wrote a book on the club's official history"): I'm not sure if this is the book/author in question, but - if it is to be used as a source to support these recent additions - I would suggest a quick review of the guidelines on self-published sources. And, perhaps, conflicts of interest.
WP:VER (existing references removed): In all honesty, among my concerns with the recent changes is that they removed some of the very few references that were in place. And didn't replace them. (One of only three sources, for example, in the "history" section was removed. Being this webpage. And it was not replaced with anything. This seemed like a retrograde step. Relative to the longstanding "lacks sufficient inline citations" tag at the top of the article.) If new text is being added, then new references should be added. Per WP:BURDEN. And, unless they are inaccurate or out-of-date, I would personally question why the few existing references should be removed.
WP:OR/WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ("it was felt", "it is unsurprising", etc): While the existing text certainly wasn't/isn't "perfect" relative to applicable guidelines, the number of editorial comments, unattributed opinions and apparent original research was increased in these recent edits. Which is less-than-ideal.
WP:TONE/WP:NPOV ("express their sporting prowess", "no longer with us", etc): Again, while there are examples of neutral/tonal issues in the existing text (some since addressed), the recent additions seemed to add to this. Rather than, as would ideally be the case, addressing it. (Wikipedia writing doesn't have to be dry/boring - but these editorial flourishes, especially when not supported by any references, can really only be read as OR.)

In short, it would be absolutely great if someone (with knowledge of the topic) could improve and expand this article. However, any such edits should be done in a way which aligns with Wikipedia norms. Not least those dealing with verifiability, sourcing, and editorial bias. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]