Talk:Newtown Park, Bo'ness

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force.

"was previously" vs. "used to be"

First, I apologise for making the same edit twice without discussing it on the talk page. I've been meaning to get back to addressing this, and didn't notice that I had already edited this page.

"Used to be" is a "modal verb". It is a perfectly acceptable formation of the verb. It is not "colloquial", and is preferable to "was previously".

Here are some pages that illustrate the use of "used to be":

No part of speech has had to put up with so much adversity as the adverb. The grammatical equivalent of cheap cologne or trans fat, the adverb is supposed to be used sparingly, if at all, to modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. As Stephen King succinctly put it: 'The adverb is not your friend.' -- Jacob Gershman, "Why Adverbs, Maligned by Many, Flourish in the American Legal System", The Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2014

Correct: The boy ran really fast to catch the runaway ball. Incorrect: The boy sprinted to catch the runaway ball. Adverbs.... They’re okay once in a while, but in excess they’re an indicator of weak verb choices. In our example, the adverb “really fast” modifies the verb “ran.” But does “really fast” paint a more vivid word-picture for the reader? Use a juicier verb like “sprinted” instead. --Grammarly blog

It is a question of style, but I really don't know why we would use a clunky adverb when there is a perfectly good verb form hanging about that is designed for the purpose. Ground Zero | t 21:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not preferable to "was previously", and not just because of the style issue (I'm not going to get into a tedious debate, but I disagree entirely with the above). I have deliberately used "was previously" to add chronological order to the statement, as it shows that the previous club used the ground before the existing one and there was no overlap. On the other hand "used to be" does not give the same meaning to the sentence – I would have just used "was" or "was also" instead. Number 5 7 12:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Used to be" makes the chronological order perfectly clear. You present one condition (the home ground of Bo'ness United) in the present tense, and one condition (the home ground of Bo'ness FC) in a past tense. The chronology is unamibiguously clear without adding in the unnecessary and awkward adverb. Wikipedia can be better written. This seems to stem from your incorrect belief that "used to be" is "colloquial", and it isn't. Ground Zero | t 23:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it does make it clear; the ground could have been in use simultaneously by the two clubs. There is nothing "awkward" about "was previously". This is better writing than "used to be". Number 5 7 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Club fire

Clearly there has been a fire at the club this week. There are photos of it if you look. I have asked the club directly what damage has been done. Cls14 (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there has been a fire. However, given that no buildings of the club were affected "The buildings for the BU are at the opposite end from this and survived", I don't really see that this is worth including – see WP:NOTNEWS ("News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.")

On a separate note, as an editor of 13 years, surely you must know how to add references in a better format than this? Number 5 7 11:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do know how to do it better. You seem to be one of those sad jumped up bureaucrats who pick fault in an honest and interesting edit and delete it, then criticise someone as they don't have all day to edit. You stopped me from editing another page a couple of years ago (my own team) due to your pedantry and desire to see yourself as better than everyone else. Your user page claims "The main reason I edit Wikipedia is a strong belief that every person on the planet has the right to access the accumulated knowledge of humanity" which is a complete lie as all you seek to achieve is the opposite. Cls14 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it shouldn't be on the club's page. I've edited this ground page recently, but was waiting until the upgrades (new artificial pitch and lights) were complete in the coming months. I would suggest that the fire is mentioned only to either say it did or it didn't affect the upgrade schedule for the new season, and once we know the full outcome of the damage. Boothy m (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]