Talk:Landskrona BoIS

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

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Which Danish team did BoIS play at the opening of IP

There is no Danish team with the name "B03" , it may br B93 or B1903. The latter club merged with KB in 1990 to found today's FC København while B93 still exists and is also from Copenhagen. Since the lack of source, no hint is given. Boeing720 (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

There are many examples in the prose where the text seems to be written by a supporter of the club. The article needs to remain neutral and factual in its statements. There are numerous examples, here a some of the minor ones:

"Return of "Kung Sune"" as a section title is POV. Even though that was his nickname we shouldn't use it in a section title.
"Financial disaster" is POV, it may have been a disaster for the club and its supporter, but certainly not for everyone else. I would put "Financial troubles" or "Financial difficulties" instead since it is more neutral and more factual instead of an opinion.
Small stuff like "The biggest star in BoIS at this point was", "this time they had their first real manager", "The transfer caused a little trouble", "A successful period", "In autumn of 1978, the club got into problems", "At this time, whithin Swedish football, a dissmissal of a manager in the middle of a season was a rare event.", "Landskrona BoIS was back at a "decent" tier", These are all opinions, and opinions don't belong in an encyclopaedic text. Statements like these should be as neutral as possible and factual. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is POV by using a nickname that is undisputed ? The headline may be discussed, but fail to see any lack of neutrality.

By "finacial disaster is ment that the club was extremely close to bankruptcy, if the club had not gotten economical help from the people and businessmen in Landskrona Town, also the municipality gave help, stating "Landskrona BoIS is the best P.R. we have in Landskrona". Further details isn't needed. The word "disaster" must be seen whithin the limits of this article. I remember when Sven-Göran Eriksson was appointed England manager , one of the tabloids (Daily Mail, Daily Mirror or The Sun had a picture of him at first side, and only one word - "DISASTER". Of course nobody (at the newspaper or any of its readers) thought that a new World War was comming up or something. Almost all printed words are used within a certain scope, known as context. I do not think that the economical situation whithin the scope or context of Landskrona BoIS during the time between autumn of 1994 and atleast 18 months later can be described by a better word. But this is a question of boldness rather than point of view. In the context of how a banker as chairman that destroyed the economy of membership owned club I do not see how the headline "Dubble relegations and finacial disaster" would be POV.

Further "At this time, whithin Swedish football, a dissmissal of a manager in the middle of a season was a rare event." is the truth. And as article states, "at this time" was 1979. A time when there still were no professional club at all in Sweden. At occations a player didn't play due to "holiday". You cannot compare Swedish club football with English. "In autumn of 1978, the club got into problems" - followed by the explination. Lennart "Liston" Söderberg had agreed to becomming manager (I suppose that it was a "gentlemen's agreement between the chairman Claes Munch af Rosenschöld and "Liston") , but he did change his mind with perhaps 2 or 3 remaining match days of the 1978 season. Sweden was not full of possible managers that the club could afford. Such matters were very different then, around 1980. One reason might be that the manager usually was the only full-payed ( = professional) in most of the clubs, as of then. And there were suddenly no one available. It was a problem for the club. "Biggest star" (not written by me) is also related to "whithin the club". I do not really think that anyone who reads it, will believe that the player in question could compete with Maradona. Nor have I written "the 30's and 40's - a successful period". This is actually not correct. Only the 30's could be reguarded as "successful". But a presume that You think that since BoIS never has won Allsvenskan, "successful" is wrong to be used at all ? Again I state - each article has its own context, and the 1930's and 1970's are the most successfull periods of this club. It doesn't state that the club have had even remotly close successes , if comparing with Malmö FF or H.I.F, only that certain periods have been better than others. I will make some changes however. But I fail to see your general complaints. Boeing720 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence about not seeing my general complaints worry me greatly. As I said, these are only a small part of the problems with the article, I can see many many more. I can address most of your points above with the statement from Wikipedia:POV, "Avoid stating opinions as facts." This has nothing to do with either Malmö FF or Helsingborgs IF. This article needs to be written from a neutral point of view like any other article. At the moment it reads like something taken of the club's own website (I am aware that this is not the case), but it sure could have fooled me. A couple of suggestions, instead of using POV terms like disaster and biggest star, use neutral word and explain it in detail so that is clear to the reader. For example "In Year X, Landskrona experienced financial difficulties and were close to bankruptcy, this was followed by......" and "During the 1970's and 1980's, one of Landskrona BoISs profile player was Player X who scored Y goals in Z apperances". Neutral, factual and straight to the point. As I said above, avoid everything that could be seen as an opinion. --Reckless182 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless. First simply Headlines are brief explination of the following contence. So it's easy to get them wrong, like You mean. But the contence has in general been well sourced and in line with its the headline. Whith the already mentioned exception - that also " 1930's and 1940's - A successful period". This was "no child of mine", but was simply not true for the 1940's. Hence I must ask You - Why the avoidance of putting up the POV-box at that time ? But in general, I don't see the point in "filter mosquitoes but swallow camels" !? Howcome You obviously not used the POV-box for that one ? But now, when the article is becomming more interesting (including contence that isn't available at Swedish Wikipedia, so far.) THEN You more or less put the POV -sign up more or less daily. At a logical level one could suspect You of not want any improvements of the article! But don't worry, I can see several legitime explinations aswell. Now please look here, Reckless. Further improvements will follow, I assure You. But I'm worring that You will be seaching for some small POV's with microscope, soon. :) But things are improving, and I have indeed listened to You. And alright, I prefer having "stange headlines" or "no headlines", in front of a silly POV allegation box. So could we possible make a gentlemen's agreement ? And if You're about to put the POV-sign up again, then just please reconcider and drop me at message at my own talk page (or simply remove the "POV-headline or whatever" and just make a comment at the talk page, or in the history file atleast. OK ? Boeing720 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are accusing me of? I would love for the article to get promoted to Wikipedia:FA. However, with your attitude against fellow editors, your heavily bisased writing and your poor language skills will make that very very hard. I'm sorry, but that is the bitter truth. I have written several featured pieces and helped other with theirs, but here I see a responsibility towards the reader to warn him or her against the POV prose. I would advise you to read Wikipedia:POV once again and try to understand my points, because it appears that you still don't. I have nothing against you or Landskrona BoIS as you seem to imply. What I don't like is seeing the quality of an article of a Swedish football club being clearly biased and written in poor English. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing arguments. And I've never attempted to get the article featured, but also in other (non feutured articles) is it allowed to "tell the story" rather than just stacking stacking data. Or putting everthing into table formate. You have absolutley no right to to label this article as POV. And You know it ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And plase stop editing, or in your case, destoy parts. For instance In the late 1970's, the club had problem 's with managers, as "Liston" first changed his mind, and Ulf Schramm supposedly was incompetente. So it wasn't one issue but several. And I do not see the problem with the word "problems". In a longer text You have to benefit from the huge amount of English synoymes. Issue, matter, subject - as an example. But what Landskrona had in both autumn of 1978 and again in spring of 1979, was problems (plural). There are far worse "stating options" in f.i. Helsingborg IF article, so why not begin there instead - and admit there is nothing about this article that is disturbing , except the length of the prehistory and history parts. Of coure I also see some formulations further down that will be changed. But You are disturbing my and others paece to get on with the article. Boeing720 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He had "no right" to label the article POV? Who do you think you are? Aside from the question of what "rights" other wikipedians have...this article reads clearly like the work of a Landskrona fan who wants to write a book for other supporters, not neutral prose in an encyclopedic tone. The POV label was perhaps not the right one to chose, but it certainly was not out of line.— Swedishpenguin | Talk 13:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I seem to be unable to explain POV to you, I have enlisted the help of others over at WP:FOOTBALL, see here. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps You should conciderate changing minds. User DIREKTOR has have a brief look at the article, but has other things to do. However he stated "So far as I can tell, though, there's no "POV".. but do refer to WP:NPOV if in doubt.. (at his talk page) We do need more experts to get a clear verdict though Boeing720 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just have a look at Helsingborg IF where they uses headlines as "Success", "Failed Year", "A successfull autumn", "Disappointing Year with glimps of hope". Why have not "POV-flagged" that article ? (clear "opinion statements").

Boeing720 (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous examples of POV sentences in the article according to my opinion, lets wait for more opinions from the people over at WP:FOOTBALL, drop the Helsingborgs IF argument, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but do You really suggest that what is concidered POV at one page, isn't POV in a similar context and article ? But I do hope I've misinterpreted You in this perticulary matter. Boeing720 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I am suggesting. I'm telling you that it is a lousy argument. You're asking me why haven't flagged another article, I do agree that it seems like there are some examples of POV over there, but in the end how does that help us with the Landskrona BoIS article? Not one bit is the simple answer. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous supporters"

I do agree with Reckless123 at that point. Usually such people are not attending the home games anywaty. It just silly, in most cases. But - on the other hand - the same standard must apply to all articles that deals with clubs (of whatever sport) or "franchise teams" in US. Boeing720 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there are some list out there. But once again, comparing the issue at hand with what exists in other article is a lousy argument. In this specific case we have no inclusion criteria whatsoever. For example, are we to decide who is famous? are we to decide who is famous? Since the answer is no to both these question, I suggest we remove the section entirely. --Reckless182 (talk) 07:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the section in unusual for football articles in general, I fully agree. Boeing720 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines - summary of (sourced) text that describes following subsection text or POV "opinion stating" ?

To User Reckless123. Please just show me where (not just "WP:xxx" but under which section) it's stated that a headline describing the (sourced) text is POV. For instance BoIS participated during 18 of the 19 fist Allsvenskan seasons. Do You really think that is POV ? Or about the period 1994-96 "Financial disorder/disaster/problem led to dubble relegations" I see it as a summary of the text that follows. Not as "opinion stating". And if it were , then this must apply to all similar articles. Like Helsingborg IF aswell. You can't have it both ways Boeing720 (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well established could be debate, Established? Yes! But Well established? Could be debated. A better title would be a factual title, not a title based on opinion alone. An unstable period (corrected your spelling mistake), not sure how to explain this if you don't see it. Qualification problems could easily just be written as Qualification efforts, that would remove all hints of POV. Back in Allsvenskan is OK, you can re-add this if you want. Mostly a dull period, again, if you cant see this then you must not understand the meaning of POV. This is solely based on opinion, it is NOT fact that it was a dull period. Financial disorder led to double relegations (fixed your spelling once again), here you are making a simple analysis and saying that the financial trouble actually was the source behind the relegations, maybe it was, but a statement like that is POV and does not belong unless referenced in the text, and if so surely not in a section title. "Kung Sune" returns, as manager, I would put "Sonny Johansson managerial era" or something like that. The third millenium - a good start. Once again, a good start, that is your opinion, not based on facts. I hope I have made myself clear. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article...

...is a mess. Lacking in pith. Terribly written (grammar and style-wise). And Boeing720, if you are going to insist on undoing the work other people put in to try to make this article more concise more grammatically correct, and more encyclopedic in tone, then the final product isn't going to be very good. Sometimes I don't even think you're understanding the changes being made, for example your opposition to the blue/white collar term instead of working/middle class? "Why twist it" you ask? How is that twisting it? It's arguably more accurate as middle-class refers to income, while blue/white collar refers to the type of job, which is more what you're talking about in the context of the industrial history of Landskrona. So what's the problem?

Repeated reverts by Boeing720

I can't edit this page anymore. Everything I do is just undone by Boeing720, and now he's resorting to edit warring. I've requested admin assistance on the matter; hopefully someone will be able to convince Boeing720 that he doesn't have some sort of special ownership over this article, because this article needs a lot of clean-up. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 14:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AIK home 2003

I fail to see why the comment, that the match vs AIK in 2003 was held at Olympia in Helsingborg, due to a municipality worker's strike, has been removed below the attendances table. The 51 Allsvenskan games 2002-2005 at IP had an average attendance of between 6400 and 6500. A rather well figure for Swedish conditions, in a town that just in later years has got more than 30.000 inhabitants (43.000 for the municipality). Just look at Trelleborg FF before and Falkenberg FF today Boeing720 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need two lists of managers. Sonny compared to Cronqvist

I didn't notice there was two separate lists of managers. Whats "notable" ? Ulf Schramm surelly was notable, as he didn't accept that he was fired in 1979. And then brought it all the way to court, were chairman and advocate Claes Munch af Rosenschöld fought for BoIS' side. Landskrona Town Council also agreed with BoIS, "Ulf Schramm was indeed incompetent !", in 1980 he even got that on paper ! Isn't that notable. Further and far worse while Claes Cronqvist is among the "notable" ones, Sonny Johansson isn't. Claes Cronqvist began in 1983, and in 1984 the club was relegated. Amazingly enough he was alowed to continue, and actually brough the club back - to the same league as from his scratch. While Sonny immidiately got BoIS promoted (also from 3rd to 2nd tier) in his first yeas as (only) main manager. And in 1998 BoIS qualified for Allsvenskan. During his third and final year, BoIS was semi-promoted to Superettan, as half the old "division 1 södra" was relegated in 1999, but BoIS wasn't. The match when BoIS became clear for Superettan in 2000 was besides one of the most memorable I've watched at IP. BoIS played much better than Kristianstad, but the opponants scored at three counterattacks. But before half-time Issa Manglind gave us hope 1-3. Then second half began well 2-3, but soon Kristianstad scored again 2-4. In the 88-89 minute, this was still noted at the score board. However as the referee blew his pipe BoIS had scored 3 goals ! 5-4 to BoIS. If Claes Cronqvist is memorable as manager, then so is Sonny ! Boeing720 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC) For that matter also Finn-Willy Sørensen was notable, in september 1977 BoIS faced Ipswich in the UEFA-cup, but also (and in this sence more importaint) Malmö FF - Landskrona BoIS in september aswell, between number one and two in the league, and more than 27.000 attended the match at Malmö Stadion. In the summer of 1978 Roy Hodgson's Halmstad had beaten BoIS at Örjans Vall, 4-1, the week after the (league) return was played at IP. Roy Hodgson had stated "now it's time for Halmstad to take our first win away" - but BoIS won 5-0. I watched Roy Hodgson slowly walk out after the match, and he was pale as a stiff in the middle of the summer. I think Finn-Willy Sørensen did well, but it wasn't easy to replace Tommy "Gyxa" Gustavsson, Bosse Augustson, Lars-Erik Sjöberg and others. It was also during Finn-Willy's time as manager that Mats Aronsson won the top scoring competition. Boeing720 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superettan 2000 was a promotion from Division 1 South

Prior of 2000, second tier compriced two leagues - Division 1 South and North. Superettan was introduced as a new tier, higher than Division 1 South and North, which both still today exists. Hence teams coming from Division 1 were promoted, and about half the Division 1 teams remained in their league. It's not like a promotion from Superettan to Allsvenskan, but still. If anyone is of other opinion, please answer this. Do not revert edits about this without explaining why, of cource everything can be challanged. But it must be done through the talk-pages and argumentation, not by warring. Boeing720 (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General review — Reckless182

I've written this review to support and guide the current work to improve the overall quality of this article. The review is divided into the different sections of the article.

Infobox

Nicknames needs references.
The official website can be added with "|website =".

Lead

The lead section should be a summary of all the sections of the article. Thus there should be a sentence or two summarizing every section of the article.
All claims needs to be referenced by reliable sources such as the club's official website, The Swedish Football Association or others. At this moment there are only two refs for the whole section.

History

I'll expand on this section later when I have the time.
The history section is way too long. We could create a History of Landskrona BoIS article and then write a shorter summary in the club article.

Crest and colours

The history of the club kit needs to be expanded a bit and properly referenced. Currently the only reference is regarding the pink away shirts.
The "Kits" subsection is unreferenced and in my opinion the list is not encyclopaedic enough for inclusion in the article. It would be better to explain the revolution of the kit in plain text and just mention the current shirt sponsor instead of a list.

Stadiums

More references are needed to support the prose. Remember to limit this section to what is essential and interesting regarding the stadiums relation to Landskrona BoIS, not superfluous information regarding the stadiums history and relation to the city in itself, that kind of information belongs in the stadium specific articles. An example of this is the superfluous image and image caption regarding the cycle race.
Other than that the section needs to be expanded a bit, there are huge time lapses between 1924 -> 1959 -> 2013. The reader would benefit to know what happened in between these periods of time.
The "Attendances" section should not be included at all in this article, that sort of lists belong to the Landskrona IP article.

Supporters

Like every other section in this article, this section needs a lot more references to support it's claims. However for example I think it will be very difficult to find a reliable source that can support the claims of where exactly Landskrona have it's supporters. These kinds of claims are very difficult to support and should perhaps not be included. It's much easier to support claims that for example "Club X have official support clubs in City X, Y and Z".
I would want to remove the "Famous supporters" section. How is this interesting for the casual reader? The biggest problem however is the definition of "famous". I would strongly recommend to remove the section entirely.

Players

Everything is fine except for the "Notable players" subsection. A list of notable players needs clear criteria, see here for an example. Of course the criteria needs to be adjusted for the level of the club, but generally a certain number of matches and some sort of "hall of fame" inclusion are good criteria. Also remember that for a player to be included in such lists he needs to be notable for a Wikipedia article in the first place, thus fulfilling the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria.
I would recommend a higher number of appearances in the criteria to limit the number of players on the list, 200 or 300 is a better number. The national team criteria is probably good enough.
I would also recommend that we use a proper wikitable to list the players. This makes for a better layout and a better user experience.
I don't believe we should use nicknames in brackets in a players name, this applies to the history section as well where this is commonly done. Nicknames belong to the player specific articles. Also nicknames are almost always very exclusive to the fans of the club. A common reader who has never heard of Landskrona BoIS and reads this article for the first time has no benefit of this, I believe it's only a confusing factor.

Club officials

I would rename this section to "Management" and merge it with the "Managerial history" section.
The tables should be redone into ordinary wikitables.
If at all possible, the section could benefit with a a picture or two of the staff.

Statistics

This section displays a lot of statistics and trivia that belongs in separate articles.
I would remove the "Last ten seasons" section since we now have a separate list of all season at List of Landskrona BoIS seasons.
I'm in doubt regarding the "Player and goal of the year" section. If it is notable at all (I'm not sure about this since the awards are presented by a supporter club and not the club itself) then it belongs in an article called List of Landskrona BoIS records and statistics or something like it. It does not belong in the club article.
The "Top scorer by season" can be merged with and included in the List of Landskrona BoIS seasons.
Regarding the "European record". I don't think the club's European record is enough to create a separate article called "Landskrona BoIS in European football". I would probably move it to List of Landskrona BoIS records and statistics when that list is created.

Managerial history

See above regarding merging.
I would create List of Landskrona BoIS managers with a complete list of all the clubs managers, of course complete with references. When this is done we can remove the "List of recent managers".
The "Notable managers" section needs to be referenced and we should probably work on defining the criteria a bit more.
The sentence "The managers are listed according to their first season as manager for Landskrona BoIS:" is confusing, rewrite to reduce confusion.

Achievements

I would merge this with the "Statistics" section in the current position of the "Achievements" section. "Achievements" would then become a subsection of the "Statistics" section.
I would rewrite the bullet points into plain text and expand into a bigger paragraph of text. This also needs proper references.
Generally on football and other sport articles, achievements only include won titles, many articles (such as Malmö FF also includes runners-up. The general praxis however is not to include anything less than that. Thus I would recommend removing third and fourth place finishes in the league.

References

Generally the refwork needs to be improved to a whole new level to be acceptable. I would recommend using the "ProveIt" tool which can be accessible in the user settings menu to help in the reference work.
This is a good example of how a web-based single reference should look like: <ref>{{cite web | url=http://svenskfotboll.se/allsvenskan/arkiv/svensk-fotboll/2010/12/det-hanger-pa-de-unga-/ | title=Det hänger på de unga | publisher=The Swedish Football Association | work=svenskfotboll.se | date=6 December 2010 | accessdate=22 August 2012 | language=Swedish | trans_title=It relies on the youngsters}}</ref> This reference include all the necessary parameters for a reference: url, title, publisher, work, date, access date, language and a translation of the title when the reference is in Swedish or another language.
Full or partial texts from the reference source should not be included in the reference. I see a lot of examples where this is the case at the moment. This should be removed and redone into the reference format above.
Try to find written sources as well, newspapers and books to support the history section and etc.
Generally try to find as many different sources as possible so that the article isn't weighed on just a couple of individual sources.

General comments

The article is lacking in flow due to language, spelling and grammar errors that needs to be corrected. I would recommend turning to an English speaking user who has never heard of the club before to help improve the overall language in the article. In this way we make sure that a common user can understand the article without having to be a fan of the club.
The article is very much written from a fan perspective. We need to improve neutrality and objectivity to reduce the risk of WP:POV issues. Also the "football fan language" needs to rewritten into a more "encyclopaedic tone". A common reader of the article should be able to understand the article without knowing too much about football.
I miss a "Ownership and finances" section in the article. This section can explain the membership owned structure of the club. The section could also summarize the clubs financial situation and the current sponsors etc.
If possible I would also want to include a "Media coverage" section to summarize the instances when Landskrona BoIS have been heavily featured in the media. Examples of this are feature films, documentary films, TV shows and etc. It's also possible that the section can discuss other instances when the club has been featured heavily in the press such as the recent player bribes scandals, although I'm not entirely sure if this is the correct section for that.

Good luck! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this detailed input, Reckless. I agree in general and in most parts.

(About ownership, there were a few years when stocks, with a value of 1000 SEK was used, however it was a part of a complicated structure that was abondoned after the 1994 or/and 1995 relegation(s). But even at that time the club as such was still a membership club, I think the players (or some of them,atleast) was owned by the share holders.)

Agree fully in "European records" - "European participations" is better.

I've watched BoIS for more than 40 years by now, but have never heared about the mentioned gentlemens club, which is supposed to award "player of the year" and "goal of the year". I will ask the board about that one.

The list of average attendance ought to be expanded as far back as possible, and listed at another page, but top ten attendances at home would perhaps be higher encyclopedical value. There are plenty attendances of 15000+ through BoIS history.

Regarding notable players, I think there has to be space also for players that has done exceptional achievements during a few or even a single season. I.o.w. Leif Carlsén - who had to leave the club after the 1970 promotion, in which he had contibuted in highest degree, due to SvFF rules. Further a hundred Allsvenskan matches are of higher value than hundred matches in lower divisions. I think the list should contain around 25 players or so. Player that have reprecented the club since 2006 and is worth mentioning is few, atleast in my mind.

One contributer refuses to acknowledge the step from Division 1 to Superettan even as a "semi-promotion". But if BoIS hadn't been promoted at all, they had remained in Division 1. It's troblesome that this contibuter doesn't use the talk-page

To All - before reverting edits, please use the talk-page Boeing720 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing: In 1999 Landskrona BoIS played in Division 1, the second tier of Swedish football at the time. In 2000 the played in Superettan, the new second tier of Swedish football. I see what you mean, but there is NO logical way to argue that as a "promotion". Second tier -> Second tier is not a promotion, Landskrona remained in the same level in the football league system. The term "semi-promotion" that you use is even more confusing and should not be used. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing: Why are continuing editing when we are not finished with the discussion? You yourself has stated that we need to discuss this on the talk pages. Could you perhaps pause your editing until we have reached a conclusion? "Exceptional other achievements for the club" as a list criteria for notable players is a bad idea, I'm sorry but can't you see how hard that is to verify? A criteria like that is different from every person's point of view and cannot be verified by a user that has no previous knowledge of Landskrona BoIS. I've been trying to say it before and now I'm saying it again: This article is an encyclopaedic article, not a fanzine or a novel. It's supposed to be written from a neutral point of view and fact based only. Right know it reads like your own personal nostalgic storytelling of the club and its history, Wikipedia should and will not be the place for that. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion and which article do You refer to ? Landskrona BoIS , I presume. But I have not edited anything that any other contributer has brought up here, until You did now. And only in the listings. A bit strange, I find it. The "notable players" is all I've made recently. And I'm intending to wright about the "red ones". Do You suggest I cannot make any contributions in other articles ? The criteria of notable players has not been mentioned at the talk-page. The word "notable" implies not that a certain amount of this or that must be fullfilled, but rather that the player has been notable in any context. It was mainly done due to the Leif Carlsen article. He was an indeed very notable player, that SvFF rules banned from participating in Allsvenskan. If it had been a more recent event, no one would argue over this. But some contibuters doesn't hasn't read the History of BoIS. However he has contributed to the history of BoIS in a way that exceeds many of the other listed players. In my mind he cannot be disregarded from any list of "notable players". To this sentence I fully agree This article is an encyclopaedic article, not a fanzine or a novel. Hence historical players must not be forgotten in favor of more recent ones. And regarding Leif Carlsen, not to speak of Sigvard "Kallinge" Pettersson, was even before my time. What have I written that's "nostalgic storytelling" ? What isn't written from NPOV ? I do though think there has to be a kind of limit for lists related to "after 2000". And a balance between the past and the present. Don't You agree ? The status of Sonny Johansson as a legend isn't my baby, by the way. However the legend is true locally, perhaps due to the lack of goal scorers after his long era. Only Daniel Nannskog came up to that standard within BoIS, but his time in the club was brief.

No one has made any complaint about that areticle , since I asked if an other contributor possibly could find out how many goal he scored in Allsvenskan. They were less than half (but more than 100, I think). That user seems to have got my encouraging possible task all wrong. I asked him partly due to I thought that he possibly had "SvFF Årsböcker" - and that many of his articles has been removed. And finally - the step between Division 1 and Superettan was a semi-promotion. SvFF declared that the status of Division 1 would remain, and Superettan was to be "inbetween" rather than a substitute for Division 1. Further Superettan is a national league, which Division 1 wasn't (and still isn't). From a MFF perspective in 1999 of cource it was a relegation. From Division 1 , it was differently. Not a full promotion, I've never stated that. But a semi-promotion. Being one of 28 second tier teams is after all very different from being one of 16. Infact it was very nervous, if this for the club importaint semi-promotion was to be achieved or not. If Kristianstad had won the match at IP, and difficult away matches awaited, things might had become differently in 1999. (But BoIS scored 3 goal in the 3-4 last minutes, and won 5-4). Do You concider the step up from the regional Division 1 to the national Superettan as not of any kind of achievement ? I have to ask. And by the way there is in my mind no encyclopedical value of the list of "players and goals of the Year", like I've already stated at Your page, the reference made it even more hesitant. Like I've also written at Your page, the following are allowed to enter the "VIP-bar" at IP 1.Sponsors 2. Members. 3. Black&White members 4. Ticket season holders. No other group is mentioned. So this "herrklubb" seems totally unrelated to the club, from all aspects. I don't know if some kind of medal (or similar) is given to the "awarded" players ? And even if so, for instance Black & White gave Sonny Johansson a bottle of Whisky in 2000. But was this of encyclopedical value ? No ! 83.249.170.163 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)Sorry I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in Boeing720 (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding Rasmus Lindgren - by which requirement is he mentioned among "notable players" ? It seems like he never has represented BoIS, correct me if I'm wrong. And if possible compare with Leif Carlsen. Boeing720 (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Reckless. Boeing, please understand that there's no such thing as semi-promotion. If the club is on the same level as before, it's not regarded as promotion. Regarding the List of Landskrona BoIS seasons it will be a hell of a job for me to fix the list after all the incorrect numbers you've managed to put in there. Why not do it right from the beginning? I also strongly suggest that you should learn how to make wikitables because right now it calls for major efforts to "clean up" after you all the time. I also find it extremely strange that you haven't heard of Sabola in your "40 years as a supporter". Since you seem to be "blocked forever" on the Swedish wikipedia (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Användardiskussion:JPEriksson) because you "stubbornly stand by inaccuracies and aggressively defend your uploads" you really should try to be more humble here on the English counterpart so that we can improve articles regarding Landskrona BoIS together, and not delete parts just because of your personal opinion. Gryf (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing: You are making yourself very hard to discuss with at the moment. Could we please stick to the topic at hand instead of flowing away to a other topics? I was suggesting changes to the article above, all crucial changes that needs to happen if the quality of the article should be improved. Instead you are continuing to discuss other player articles and continuing editing the main Landskrona BoIS article without any concern of the discussion on here. You say that: "The criteria of notable players has not been mentioned at the talk-page.", didn't you read my review? I wasn't telling you to stop editing other articles, I was telling you to pause your edits on Landskrona BoIS (the main article) until the discussion is finished. You wanted to have the discussion yourself, therefore you need to listen to our opinions before continuing. There is NO such thing as a "semi-promotion" in football, only the names of the divisions changed. Landskrona played in the second level of Swedish football in 1999, and remained in the second level for the 2000 season, end of story. --Reckless182 (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless. I have already agreed to most of Your suggestions. I agree also that edits to this article should be stopped during discussion. However until some 22 hrs ago only I had made any comments here. I didn't regard Your general suggestions as a such discussion, given the general view. And all I've done is sorting "notable players" in chronological order. And written articles about Leif Carlsen and Sigvard "Kallinge" Pettersson. My opinion of the step between Division 1 and Superettan do remain though. Boeing720 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides another user had already removed all players that wasn't "in blue".Boeing720 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gryf. Please take Your criticism to Swedish Wikipedia. I've been at this and Danish Wikipedia a long time now. Infact Swedish spokesman at Swedish Wikipedia , Lennart "Hannibal" Guldbrandsson has critizised the "Kungsträdgårdsligan" heavily. I was a victim of them. I've taken all figures from either this Wikipedia or Swedish, 1985 league table can be found in "Ett fotbollslags historia del 2". Please do not use profanity words. Which year(s) is/are incorrect ? Boeing720 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the List of Landskrona BoIS seasons you made a lot of mistakes which had to be corrected. For an example, in 1982, they didn't finish on 6th place, they finished on 5th. 1986 was also wrong. It continues likes this with most of your edits. Please check with sources before you edit something, because it's tiresome to have to clean up after you all the time. Gryf (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gryf - Whats Your definition of "a lot" ? As explained, I had no access to the 1985 season. Apart from that, there were apparently very few wrong digits. So was that contribution of Yours really that exhausting ? And have You checked Your own contributions ? I'm not entirelly sure if we should use Swedish or English as labels for geographical divisions, but it has certainly to be one of them. Götaland has an article, but I think English cardinal directions is better. Now I had to clean up after You. If You revert to Swedish, please remember to do so for all such seasons. More importaintly - why have You never used the talk-page until recently ? You really cannot make accusations about other contributers being stubborn, as long as You refuse to use the talk-pages. Boeing720 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The digits for 1927-28, 1929-30, 1939-40, 1945-46, 1946-47, 1948-49, 1982 and 1986 were all incorrect. Is this what you consider "very few wrong digits"? Gryf (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The digits" - ALL of them ? I happend obviously to repeat the two winning seasons during the 1940's. Hence 1945-46 became all wrong yes. All other are related to the syntax (why repeat the year/season twice ?) and a few single digits in few seasons. But You did worse, every season You made got wrong in English. And I hade to translate for You ! Cannot understand that You combined Swedish with English. It really has to be one of them, and since this is English Wikipedia, of cource English is preferred ! Boeing720 (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed all player nicknames from the main article as it goes against WP policy as can be seen here. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that You did this without discussion, however the link You provided clearly states "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their "real" name" Hence it would be "Gyxa Gustavsson", "H.P. Persson" etc. And how to differ Partrik "Bjärred" Andersson from Patrik "Trelleborg" Andersson", just as an example. It doesn't need to be footballers, but all with a common Christian name and a common surename, through history aswell. Although it's a formal policy, it mainly deals with English names, I think. (And what about Chinese names ?) Boeing720 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion wasn't needed as it is a formal policy. Yes we should use the name that person is most generally known and referred to, and I don't think I'm stretching my neck here when saying that no one outside of Sweden knows Patrik Andersson as anything else than as "Patrick Andersson", not as "Bjärred". This is the English Wikipedia. I therefore do not think that anyone outside of Landskrona would refer to all these players by their nicknames, they would use their full names without the nicknames. Also, this is taken from the same policy: "...avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original first name(s) in quotes between first and last name. For example: Bill Clinton, not William "Bill" Clinton." I think that makes it very clear. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Partik Anderssons was only ment as an example. It's OK, but the text You refer to takes no concideration of the fact that half of us Swedish citizens have a surename ending with -son or -sson. If adding a very common name to that, there (from historical point of view rather than my opinion) has been a public tendence to add a knickname, mainly to not mix persons together, I recon. It's no big deal. However some nicknames are given as kids, like "Gyxa". To my knowledge no one refers to him as "Tommy". Boeing720 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabola - an answer from BoIS

I asked Fredrik Lind, member of the board, about Sabola. This is his reply

File:SABOLA email that answeres a talk-page question.JPG

For talk-page of article

My oppinion of this, is that the list isn't of encyclopedical value, since there is no formal relation between the Club and Sabola. Boeing720 (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Notable players

I've discovered several names (with up to 12 caps for Sweden) that has not been suggested so far. Please see http://hd.se/landskrona/2007/02/05/bois-stjaernor-som-inte-fick-plats/. The number of games could be higher, as suggested. But special efforts must be reckognized somehow. This is not only about Leif Carlsen, but also Joakim Nilsson. He cannot even played a 100 games, he got injured during the middle of the 1993 season, and had difficulties to recover. But he still belongs on the list, I think. If there is no protests, I will though remove Rasmus Lindgren soon. Please respond if someone disagrees. Actually I cannot think of any notable BoIS-player in later years. I'm also very uncertain of Albin Dahl, he never represented BoIS in Allsvenskan or Division 2. Boeing720 (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Boeing720 (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus Lindgren is a Landskrona BoIS product who've represented the national team. He has also played competitive games for Landskrona BoIS, though never in Allsvenskan. He is notable in my opinion. --Gryf (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he hasn't played any match at senior level. BoIS has over the years produced many players that infact has represented the club at senior level. Please note, I'm not talking about erasing the article, just remove his name from the list of notable players in this article. Besides he left in "bad standing", without BoIS being able to get any money for his education. If You compare his achievements for BoIS with all others at the list, he hasn't contributed with anything essential, has he ? Also remember we deal with a list of players within a historical scope of soon 100 years. I say there is no space for him here. Boeing720 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lindgren should definitly not be included as he hasn't appeared professionally for Landskrona BoIS. Furthermore as I've stated in my review, we need to come up with a few criteria for notable players and then stick to it. At the moment it feels like you are making up criteria as we go along Boeing? For criteria I would suggest something of the following: Players who have made 100 league appearances, perhaps even 200 appearances to limit the number of players on the list. Then other players who have made apperances for a senior national team while playing for Landskrona BoIS. Are there any players who have won an award like Guldbollen or another official award while playing for BoIS? I would say that would be worth including if there is. I suggest you look at featured articles of football clubs to get an idea of what kind of criteria there would be for a section like this. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A hint is that most featured football club articles have chosen not to include a section of "notable players" as it is very difficult to come to a common understanding of what exactly makes a player "notable". Malmö FF is one of the exceptions. Other articles have sections with "Hall of fame" lists of players, official awards given by the clubs themselves. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that one of the criteria should be players who've made appearances for a national team while playing for BoIS. But regarding league appearances, it's pretty hard to define who's notable and who isn't. Lindgren, for an example, has only appeared professionally for Landskrona in Svenska Cupen, which isn't much. If we agree to the list criteria being 100 appearances, he shouldn't be included. But that also crosses out a player like Jonas Olsson, who surely is notable. More notable than many of the players who've made over 100 appearances. It's problematic, so I understand why many have chosen not to include a "notable players" section. --Gryf (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless. If You take a look at my added "article players", they all fit extremely well within the limits - except Leif Carlsen. This is the only exception, and given his efforts during the 1970 season and the fact that SvFF rules prohibited him to continue in Allsvenskan I think he indeed is worth mentioning as "notable" and impossible to improve. He after all scored the single goal that later would separate HIF from BoIS for two divisions (following year) and for 10 seasons. I do not change the rules as we go. I have though noticed a couple of yet not mentioned players from the 30's that well meet current criteria and has up to 13 caps for Sweden (and possible World Cup participations 1938 ?). And I feel we have to be fair to historical players aswell. Those who my grandfather watched. I can agree with Gryf that a specific number of matches have disadvantages. On the other side, 100 games isn't a lot. Especially not since all senior matches counts, 5 minutes in a friendly pre-season game for instance. How many has Nannskog and Milovanovic played, by the way ? If especially Nannskog falls under a higher limit, he could stay due to "exceptional achievements" aswell, Milovanovic i more doubtful, aswell as Jonas Olsson (depending on number of games) But first to go is Rasmus Lindgren. Please Gryf we are dealing with 100 year of history, and we somehow has to limit the list. Of the old ones, Albin Dahl's career in BoIS was short, and pre-Allsvenskan aswell. Here is an (incomplete) suggestion

Harry Dahl - scored most goals
Knut Hansson - huge in the late 30's , Word Cup 1938, Little Silver and Bronze
Sigvard Pettersson - almost 300 goals (highest average score ?)
Hasse Persson - no need to explain
Kjell Lindstrand - record holder of qualifying matches, several hundred matches 1959-1971
Claes Cronqvist - no problem ?
Sonny Johansson - no need to explain
Tommy Gustafsson - 8 seasons in Allsvenskan etc
Leif Carlsen - explained
Göran Pettersson - 500+ matches , also 8 seasons in Allsvenskan
Mats Aronsson - won scoring competition (together with Reine Almqvist) in 1977
Joakim Nilsson (?)Didn't play much
Håkan Söderstjerna - the one armed bandit, exceptional
Pontus Farnerud - started in BoIS
Alexander Farnerud - likewise + Allsvenskan 2002
Afo Doodo - perhaps the best defender ever
Danijel Milovanović (?)
Daniel Nannskog - exceptional forward

Further addings to this suggestion is a few players from the late 30's and Per-Åke Theander

who played several hundred matches, including 4 (or 5 ?) Allsvenskan seasons. Bo Augustsson was a great dribbler, but played a rather short while. So did Jan-Erik Sjöberg. But we have the goal keeper from the 50's and 60's Leif Nilsson (?), who is the oldest player that ever has played in Allsvenskan. 47 years old, away against IFK Sundsvall. (Although Örebro had an even older as possible substitute player, but he never played) Yungest player ever (I believe) is Örgryte's Peter Dahlqvist - by the way Boeing720 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However if our players must be compared to MFF's, then the list would be much shorter. But the context is limited to this article, isn't it ? And for matter , at English Wikipedia, what would MFF players be in compared to the ones of f.i. Man Utd or R.Madrid ? I don't think we shall take that part of this discussion too far. Boeing720 (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About references in the lead

Please read this Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section before adding unnecessary references to the lead. Please add Your contributions outside the lead first, including references. Then add a brief overview to the lead, if the matter is essential. Boeing720 (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraphs

Ulf Schramm as such isn't of encyclopedical value, however that BoIS was the first Swedish club to fire a manager during the season is of greater interest than club affiliation. And that part isn't covered further down either. As of now that statement is an error. Further Öresundsvarvet as such neither is of interest for this article, however the manifestation at Nya Ullevi, is one of the most discussed subjects in the club's history. Boeing720 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One list of recent managers - and another list of (recent) "notable" managers

Gryf. Please explain why You feel both is needed, rather than extending the List of recent managers back in time. What good will the readers get from this mess, that clearly is out of bonds, from encyclopedical aspects. I have for the third time now written constructive suggestions of how to solve these matters, at Your talk-page. Please respond, none of us is even allowed to become a guard of this or other articles Boeing720 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structural proposals

In order to improve this article, step by step, to become more like the articles of more famous clubs, I suggest we can begin with following tasks -

.

1 I think we need a list of chaimen, from 1915 until today. They are available in "Ett fotbollslags historia" , del 1 & del 2. I used to have these in my library, but the 1915-1975 was borrowed by a friend some 15-20 years ago, and I cannot find part 2 either. I can however find them at the library, I suppose. There are very few chairmen. Bror Nilsson 1915 into the 40's with exception for one year in the 1930's, when his brother held this possition. Then followed Harry Wibratt, Claes Munch (af Rosenschöld). During the 80's and 90's there were a few. (Stefan Nilsson and Björn Lindh are two of them, I think) Then came Kenneth Håkansson from 1997 or 1998 until this year's annual meeting. And now Gabriel Munch has taken over.

.

2 Further, I propose a merge of the two lists of managers into one, where space (a column) might be given for good achievements (and possible also for relegations etc). And we have also, in my opinion, to select more historical events from the history part up to the lead. Already sourcered, preferably, in my opinion.

.

3 This list ought to be tracked back in history. Here "trainer" / "coaches" would possibly be marked as such. The main difference towards "manager" , in my opinion, is whether the highest responsible person for selecting the players has been employed (and payed) or not. I'm not quite aware of when employment first became allowed, or when it reached BoIS. (The fisrt national manager was employed in the early 60's, but the team-responsible at World Cup -58 was an Englishman, I believe. And I do not think he didn't worked for free.)

Of cource anyone can disagree with me, but please don't get personal in comments. And do comment if You disagree, preferably including reasons. All other suggestions are by default very welcomme. Boeing720 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which Danish club ?

Article states "The first ever match at this venue was played between Landskrona BoIS and B 03 from Denmark, which the Danish club won with 3–2.". Any sources for this ? Also I cannot find any Danish club with that name. Though "Boldklubben 1903", Gentofte (which in -92 merged with KB to form FC København) and "Boldklubben af 1903", Korsør both have exsisted. The latter existed until 2008 under the name "Korsør BK". I presume we are talking about B 1903, Gentofte, northern Copenhagen. But am not certain that we can rule out B 93 from Copenhagen (Østerbro). I think we must find this one out - or change to "a Danish side" or something. Boeing720 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Landskrona BoIS

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Landskrona BoIS's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Squad":

From IF Limhamn Bunkeflo: "Current squad". lb07.se. Retrieved 2011-12-14.
From IK Oddevold: "Oddevold.se Truppen". Retrieved 20 January 2013.
From Malmö FF: "A-truppen". mff.se (in Swedish). Malmö FF. Retrieved 10 January 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Landskrona BoIS. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913150016/http://www.landskronabois.com:80/viewpage.php?get=7mkt9395cu1tv3c6c79uz9mml9hf2s71 to http://www.landskronabois.com/viewpage.php?get=7mkt9395cu1tv3c6c79uz9mml9hf2s71

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Landskrona BoIS. 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) 09:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leif Carlsen - a notable player

If the rules don't let Leif Carlsen to be a notable BoIS player, must the rules be changed (a bit).

By 1968 HIF was relegated from Allsvenskan (first time ever ?), leader of the All-Time-table at that time, at least. They won Division 2 in 1969, but failed to qualify (only two of the three rounds were needed, as Örgryte and Hammarby both had 4 pts, HIF and Sandåkern 0 pts)- keep that in mind.
At 28.August.1970 did Leif Carlsen score the only goal home vs HIF, in the greatest BoIS-HIF settlement ever! Then BoIS won Div 2 S.Götaland at 30 pts, but HIF ended just one point short !!!
He also scored the 2-2 equalizer in the final qualification for Allsvenskan match (vs Skövde), which gave BoIS promotion to Allsvenskan.
Due to Swedish law (nothing else), was he not entitled to continue to play for BoIS in Allsvenskan - BUT
By 1972 did BoIS win the Cup - while HIF (relegated to Division III in 1971) failed any kind of promotion in that year - and even, spectacular at the time, lost against Gunnarstorp ! (but what had happened if Leif Carlsson hadn't scored vs HIF ???
For the club in history, must Leif Carlsen be remembered as "notable" - and far more so than some other players in the "notable list". His goals vs HIF (in front of the largest second tier IP-crowd ever, by the way) and vs Skövde in the last qualification match, eventually made HIF totally inferior of BoIS - for a whole decade. Especially in the 1971-73 period. Anyone remember those T-shirts with people laughing - and the punch line was "Sa du HIF ?" (Did you say HIF - ha ha ha ha). Sonny was naturally in a class of his own, but Leif Carlsen was - and forever will be a notable player ! Youngsters please accept this (have a look in Åke Jönsson's foliantic brickstone "Ett fotbollslags historia 1915-2015", ISBN 978-91-639-1503-0 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, pages 263-272 (esp. the picture at p. 266) , p.482-488 and p.514 Boeing720 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologise for this Leif Carlsen matter. I thought someone had removed him, but I now see that's not the case, and he exists together with a Danish flag. I'm very sorry for this - and I will fix it back to how it was. (Leif Carlsen doesn't need to be named twice) Boeing720 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future

First - this article is already one of the better sport-club related articles, at least in a Swedish context. But also when compared to several huge clubs in Europa and America, especially when compared to clubs which resides outside English speaking countries. So, how do we go on from here ? Åke Jönsson's "Ett fotbollslags historia 1915-2015" is indeed a majestic work, and together with Torbjörn Andersson's excellent thesis do we now have two from each other independent sources. Independent as well as reliable according our common standards WP:reliable. And I'm thinking that it now could be time for a "History of Landskrona BoIS" article. And perhaps also, if possible, by improving the English and the style a bit, aim for a "good reading" status. (I'm not certain articles about sport clubs can be given a such status though). And there might be other issues as well. I'm not saying we should commit our entire life on this task or tasks, but we could begin somewhere... All thoughts appreciated. And "Heja BoIS !" Boeing720 (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Landskrona BoIS. 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) 02:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Landskrona BoIS. 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) 18:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]