Talk:Blackburn Rovers F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBlackburn Rovers F.C. was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Copied from the mine and Pal's talk pages[edit]

Hi, thanks for editing the Blackburn Rovers article. I've reverted some your changes and I thought I should let you know why. As I tried to explain in the edit summary, the introduction is supposed to serve as a summary of the entire article -- for readers who just want quick information -- as recommended in the Wikipedia style guide. I'm sure it can be improved though... so feel free to edit again bearing in mind its function. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC) and expanded upon it in the "new millenium" section. And I assure you it's not just because I'm a Spurs fan! ;) - Pal 20:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honours box[edit]

I've just added Blackburn's 2000-01 promotion to the premiership to the honours box (since they won promotion by finishing as runners-up in the old First division) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.194.197 (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit from 195.8.163.194[edit]

I reverted the edits by this IP because Jonathan Douglas does have an entry on Wikipedia, which mentions his association with BR. Jonathon Douglas does not. I don't know if the wikipedia article is wrong, but it made me suspicious, and so I reverted all four edits by 195.8.163.194 -- which included a couple of removed players -- pending some more checks. - Motor (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous players[edit]

I think this section is a bit dubious at best... but I've just removed some players from the section. They didn't have wikipedia entries (or had ones for other people with the same name). If anyone wants to add them back, could they please provide a source for them. - Motor (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Fans[edit]

This section has been aded to quite a bit recently. There have been no sources quoted for the entries, and besides that I really don't see what it's supposed to add to the article. There's also the difficult issue of what constitutes "famous". So I'm removing it. - Motor (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

I edited the links section, however given my potential bias (I am an admin of brfcs.com and co-founder of BRISA) I figured it was better to be upfront about this and get some peer review.

I added BRISA. BRISA was formed after the club disbanded the official supporters associations and to my knoweldge is the only supporters association recognised by the club (other than a couple of indendant travel clubs and the Disabled Supporters Association with still operates under the club's "official" banner).

I added BRFCS.COM. For many years this has been the most used supporters web site. It is also referenced in the discussion section of this page.

I reworded the RoverTalk link. The "Fans Forum" is a recognised focus group run by the club, so I reworded it "fans chat forum" to avoid it being mistaken for the official group.

I removed the link to the official message boards (as they are simply part of the official website, which is already linked).

I'm fairly new to editing on wikipedia, so I won't be offended if my changes are removed.

SlamTilt 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What year?[edit]

Well, in the trivia section of this article, it is stated that Blackburn beat Man United 18-0 in a pre-season friendly. Does anyone know exactly in what year this occured. I feel that it is best to include the year in which this happened for greater accuracy. This is indeed a notable event as well! --Siva1979Talk to me 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've checked every section I can think of in the Mike Jackman Encyclopedia (probably the most authorative Rovers reference there is) and it makes no reference of this. However this may simply be because it wasn't a competitive game. SlamTilt 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socks[edit]

The socks are gray.I saw the Rovers play.But,when I edited it,somebody changed it.It's true! And don't change my editings!@$#@#%$%$^^^^^^^^&%567 it!I was wrong! They're White!

Kit =[edit]

I recently posted the kits underneath the sponsorship section, it was removed, although i'm not sure why, I had intended to develop that bit with the old kits, different colours and history of the kits.

Banana Man?![edit]

Anyone know what that is about... --Catz [T • C] 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article is under heavy attack by mindless vandals. Chensiyuan 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Rivals[edit]

You may have noticed that there's been a bit of a revert war over who are Rovers' main rivals.

For purposes of clarity Rovers' main rivals are in this order:

  1. Burnley
  2. Bolton
  3. possibly Man Utd, but also possibly Preston

Accrington Stanley aren't a rival due to them - until this season at least - being a non-league side...

D-Notice 23:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too seem to have become embroiled in this.... it's clearly vandalism, but very subtle and well... odd. also had to remove some rubbish about a 'best fanzine seller'

Billcarr178 16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a survey which, I reluctantly say, indeed has 1. Burnley, 2. Bolton, 3. Man Utd. I personally disagree with this. Anyone who thinks MU are our rivals clearly hasn't moved on from the 90's. Historically, there is no doubt that PNE should occupy 3rd spot. I'm not sure what people would like to do. The survey was completed in 2003 and I suspect things may be different now, but it's the only source I can find so surely it has to be used. Here it is anyway: http://www.footballfanscensus.com/issueresults/Club_Rivalries_Uncovered_Results.pdf 80.189.230.94 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just silliness from young kids who don't know the historic rivalry that Rovers and Burnley have had down the years. I just wish Burnley were good again :-( Jimokay 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war needs to Stop. I'm impartial as I don't follow Blackburn and don't know who their main rivals are, and I suggest that all rivalries are only included in the article if they are accompanied by a reliable source confirming that they are. This is Wikipedia policy and will be a good way of stopping the edit war. If the rivalry is mentioned in another source that already exists in the article, it can be used to source the rivalry by using the ref name parameter. The football fans census above is a good start but more sources are needed. Bill (talk|contribs) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to stop this edit war and improve the article, I've started rewriting the rivals section to include more citations and a brief write up about the rivalry to provide a little extra information for the reader. The section is not complete and is as follows:

Main rivals[edit]

  • In an extensive census on FootballFanCensus.com, the fans placed Bolton Wanderers F.C. as Blackburn's second rival after Burnley.[1] The teams are located close to each other and the match is considered a local derby.
  • Blackburn has a long term rivalry with Burnley F.C. which dates back to the 19th century. The two clubs are 8 miles apart and on some occasions violence has broken out.[2] When Blackburn Rovers and Burnley play each other the match is called the East Lancashire Derby.[3]
  • Manchester City.[citation needed]

[1] The rivalry was fiercest in the mid nineties when Blackburn Rovers and Manchester United fought closely for the Premier League title.[4]

  • The local rivalry between Blackburn and Preston North End F.C. goes back over 100 years. In 1888 Preston refused to play a match against Blackburn due to their reception by the Blackburn fans.[5]

I'll include the reference section so editors can check my links

Well, if anyone wants to add it there is a poll conducted recently called the League of Love and Hate that showed Rovers' top five rivals as Burnley, Preston, Bolton, Manchester United and Oldham. I'm not editing anything as I'm a Bolton fan and wouldn't want to be accused of any bias.  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.18.172 (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "FootballFansCensus - Derbies" (PDF). footballfanscensus.com. December 2003. Retrieved 2008-02-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "The East Lancashire Derby". footballderbies.com. Retrieved 2008-02-11.
  3. ^ "Police combat April footy fools". Lancashire Evening Telegraph. Newsquest Media Group. 2000-12-21. Retrieved 2008-02-10.
  4. ^ "Premier League - Parker: Real rivalry". Eurosport. 2007-11-03. Retrieved 2008-02-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Russel, Dave (2004). Looking North: Northern England and the National Imagination (PDF). Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719051789. Retrieved 2008-02-12.


Like I said before, I don't follow Blackburn closely so it would be helpful if the fans could check any inaccuracies and help find good sources to verify the derbies. If there's no objections, I'll replace the existing section with this one. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it does need more than a list of rivals - but I'm not sure alphabetical order is the best way to write about it - more historical information is needed but I don't know much about it before the 1990s and I'm not sure if sources could be found. I wouldn't say Manchester City are one of the club's main rivals, but maybe some people think they are. There is a rivalry with Preston, but not as much as with Burnley, Bolton or Manchester United. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be alphabetical order because otherwise the order of the list gets changed due to disputes. The citations if presented clearly provide relevant information while the list can remain alphabetical. Brfc97 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brfc97 (talk • contribs)
Bill's edit provides more information than a simple list so provides some background as to the rivalries. However, if the consensus dictates it remain a list, Brfc97's suggestion that it remain alphabetical as to avoid further edit wars seems to me to be the most compelling solution, unless the numerical list from the fans' census be integrated. Theelf29 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for a Preston incident but ideally more information would be included to. I'm sure something like a match programme from a Blackburn - Preston match would mention the rivalry and that would be a useful source. This goes for any of the rivalries/derbies. As for the order, I think I'd prefer alphabetical order whether it be a list or the expanded version, unless a source is found with somebody high up in the club saying "This is our biggest rivalry". (A chairman or manager or something like that). Bill (talk|contribs) 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added this section to the article. I've not been able to find a source about the rivalry with Manchester City, but I've left it in with a {{Citation Needed}} tag. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Bill! I'd propose that the section on the article would be much more worthwhile with the expansion you've added. As for the Blackburn Rovers-Burnley rivalry, this[1] could be added as a reference. I think it's useful in gauging fans' perspectives. Also, Brfc97 added a couple of cites from the Lancashire Evening Telegraph (as it was then) from the mid-'90s to reference the Blackburn Rovers-Manchester United rivalry. Theelf29 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that article looks good and will be useful as a source. The Burnley rivalry seems to be the most talked about one on the web at least. My concern at the moment is that the edit war has broken out again and I urge editors to discuss things here. There's the Three Revert Rule to be worry about. Bill (talk|contribs) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created the main rivals article. The original order kept getting changed and when I changed it to alphabetical orders things seemed fine unless the further info was added. Personally I think the section now is just fine as it is. No further citations are neccessary as there are enough included already. Otherwise if it keeps getting changed I would vote for the whole section to be removed as I now regret creating it in the first place. A survey from 5 years ago is hardly a reliable source now and only included votes from a small percentage of Rovers fans.Brfc97 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brfc97 (talk • contribs)

  • If the survey from 5 years ago is not a reliable source how is a one-off event in 2000 added without sources valid to support the claimed Manchester City rivalry? --Snigbrook (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the alphabetically order, and the section is in alphabetical order in order of team names, but it doesn't need to say this in the heading title. The commented out part is there to encourage editors to keep it in the neutral alphabetical order. Citations are always needed for all content that can be challenged. I'm not sure why you want to limit the number of citations in use. I tried to find a source for the Manchester City pitch invasion and I couldn't find anything that wasn't subscription only. The article also mentioned that it was both fans that invaded the pitch, so this is exactly the sort of thing that definitely needs a reliable source confirming the details. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the alphabetical order (or whatever order it is in) but the citations need to stay in. As for validity of the 2003 survey, it should stay in unless it is contradicted by a reliable source (e.g. another survey) that is more recent. Also what does the phrase "From a town standpoint"[2] mean? --Snigbrook (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "(Alphabetical order)" from the heading - is this really necessary? Theelf29 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Manchester City, I recall reading a certain chant used by City fans at the 2000(??) game at Ewood Park of "you're just a small town in Burnley". I don't have a cite to hand and I'm not sure as to how this suggests a "rivalry" between the clubs, but I can certainly understand Brfc94's point about this. Apologies for the lack of a citation - I have a friend who, for his sins, supports the Sky Blues, so, if it's of use, I'll ask him about this. Theelf29 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to state for the record my preference for the Main rivals section at this diff (16:15, 13 February 2008). In my opinion, this version is more informative, written in a more encyclopedic tone, and more comprehensively referenced. I also feel (though it appears I'm in a minority of one on this issue) an alphabetical list isn't necessarily the best way of rendering this info. I feel a prose section that progresses logically from most heated rivalry to lesser rivalries and from an historical to a present day perspective would be a better format. --Muchness (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, though I feel that an alphabetical list is the way to go to avoid further edit warring. Theelf29 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases such as "2nd rivals after" is NOT alphebetical order. Anything referring to any order other than alphebetical should be deleted. The survey should also be deleted as it is from 5 years ago and not alphebetical eiether.Brfc97 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current order on the page goes Bolton, Burnley, Man City, Man Utd, Preston. This is alphabetical order. I'm not sure what you mean by alphabetical order, but what I think you're concerned about is the wording. Those phrases are based on the source, and there's no real reason to ignore such a comprehensive survey from a reliable source. Perhaps the date of it needs to be noted in the article, but there's no reason to remove it. I also think you should reconsider your editing style as you went ahead and reverted again after your block, when many people have asked you to discuss first before going against the consensus that has been reached. Bill (talk|contribs) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrases and survey is likely to cause disputes. If I don't remove it someone else would I assure you. It's best that it isn't included as there is still enough information included. The source is not reliable as it is from an independant site and only a very small percentage of fans probably voted. My editing was only done in the belief that the list was supposed to remian alphebetical only and that wasn't the case. Any other order causes too many disputes. How about leaving the section as it is for a few days and seeing whether that resolves the situation? Brfc97 (talk|contribs) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That survey is from a website which has the backing of The football league and all 72 league clubs, the Chief Executive of the PFA, the Cheif Executive of the League Managers Association and Ivor Caplin MP, so I'd say it's fairly reliable. It's important to note that the section doesn't say outright that Bolton are the 2nd rivals, it simply reports what the survey has found. So it doesn't actually make any official claims to the order of rivalry. There was a consensus for this version reached on the talk page so how about you leave the section and see what happens? Bill (talk|contribs) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I leave the section someone else would edit it anyway as there are too many disputes. If people want to look for suggested orders other than alphebetical there are other places to find out. I think we should see what happens and if nobody changes anything just keep things the same. Neither an alphebetical list on it's own as it originally was or any other order info is the way to go. I believe the current version is the correct balance so I think it should be left as it is for now. Give it a few days at least. Brfc97 (talk|contribs) 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version you're suggesting we leave there is disputed as it has been changed by a handful of editors. The new section however has been quicky reverted by yourself and has had no chance to see if it is disputed by many people. So far there has been a few editors to say that they like the new version on the talk page. Let's see how the new version stands before saying "there will be disputes". I have reverted the article to the new version once more and I strongly suggest you leave it for a while to see if it really is disputed. Bill (talk|contribs) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted again because clearly you aren't even bothering to take my views into consideration. The survey is not relevant and will not be included on this page. Put it on another page if neccessary but not this one. You can block my account again if you wish but I strongly doubt that would make a difference. Somebody else would edit the section again in my opinion. The current version is fine and I suggest you experiment with my version. Alphebetical order was what was agreed nothing else. You wanted further info and I had no issues with that but I'm not going to cater to every demand when it is not in the best interests of the section. Everybody should be allowed a say in this and I'm going to have mine. There is the right balance now and an explanation so I can't see what's wrong with the current version. Brfc97 (talk|contribs) 01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot dictate what the content of the page is to be against consensus. That is "ownership". You've now removed all citations apart from one for no apparent reason. You've removed sourced content. All of this against consensus. How do you justify that? It's a genuine question because I want to know exactly what your concerns are. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each rival has at least one citation which is more than enough. There are quotes in the 96-97 section referencing the Man United rivalry. Bolton and Burnley are local sides and that is a citation itself. Preston is also local. I request that the currrent section remain as it is. The survey can be posted elsewhere. I think that there is a case for the whole section being removed. I have tried to be reasonable and the current version is the right balance in my view. If people want more info and order surveys they can visit club messageboards and other sites. Wikipedia presents facts not surveys and opinions. Just leave the section alone for 24=48 hours and see if it remains the same. I have been asked to debate this issue yet you keep changing it anyway so further debate would be almost pointless. Brfc97 (talk|contribs) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not convinced that there are "too many disputes"[3]. The "main rivals" section was created in 2006 containing only Manchester United[4] [5]. On more than one occasion when this was changed, the creator of the section reverted it. The same IP deleted content from the East Lancashire derby article around the same time, and as a result was warned about vandalism[6] [7] [8] [9]. Now Brfc97 claims to have created the section [10]. It looks like the recent "edit war" is a repetition of one that occurred a year ago, only this time we have decided to assume good faith. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall that long ago so I don't know whether I was involved in past "edit wars." As far as I recall I created the main rivals section but can't recall several months back. That's my point though that if there is any dispute over the order it keeps getting changed. Some people don't want Manchester United on the list and some don't want Burnley on the list. Therefore it's best it's in alphebetical order rather than including links such as surveys. I feel the current version means everyone has had a fair say in what the section should include. Brfc97 (talk|contribs) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is important is verifiability not the opinions of those users, if they have evidence to back up their disputes it can be provided as references in the article, and if still disputed then discussed on the talk page to gain consensus. Otherwise their edits will be challenged and reverted. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

The following is a breakdown of the citations in this section:

  • "In an extensive census on FootballFanCensus.com in December 2003, some fans placed Bolton Wanderers F.C. as Blackburn's second rival after Burnley." is sourced by the football fans survey(pdf)
This link confirms that Bolton is seen as a rival by some fans. I've explained previously on this talk page why I think this link is appropriate for inclusions. I have also tweaked the wording to ensure it's clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...on some occasions violence has broken out." is sourced by "on the pitch the 2 clubs haven't been in the same league since 1982 but still they see each other as the big rival. There have been some cup matches with violent outbreaks in the meantime though." on the footballderbies.com link
This link I believe is useful as it provides a summary of the derby, and confirms the claim of violence over the years.
Though out of date, as Blackburn & Burnley were both in the Football League First Division (now Championship) in 2000-2001 (with my apologies if this has already been pointed out). Theelf29 (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the two teams play each other, it is known as the East Lancashire Derby." is sourced by "...the next East Lancashire derby between Blackburn Rovers and Burnley". on the lancashire telegraph link
Since the addition of the footballderbies.com link, this citation isn't as necessary. It does however provide evidence of a single outbreak of violence, though it cannot be used to confirm that all the violence over the years is down to Burnley fans.
  • "Manchester United is a team located close by to Blackburn Rovers and so are considered a rival by the fans." is sourced by the football fans survey(pdf)
  • "The rivalry was fiercest in the mid nineties when Blackburn Rovers and Manchester United fought closely for the Premier League title." is sourced by "...much like Blackburn's brief flirtation with a 'rivalry' with United in the early 1990s..." in the Eurosport article.
This citation could be expanded upon as it is quite vague. It does however confirm a rivalry.
  • "In 1888 Preston refused to play a match against Blackburn due to their reception by the Blackburn fans." is sourced by "Preston North end actually refused to play a Lancashire cup tie against Blackburn Rovers as a result of 'the offensive way North End players have been received in Blackburn'" in the book link.
This citation only confirms one incident but does provide context and an historical example of the rivalry. I'd suggest another citation is needed to directly confirm that there is a rivalry.

Bill (talk|contribs) 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Peters.[edit]

Although i think he is a decent player, i do not think this guy deserves to be in "notable former or serving players" section. Maybe its just me but i would class 'notable' as a player who has atleast moderate fame with the fans or media. This guy is still young and does not really qualify for it, heck even Matt Derbyshire is more notable than sergio peter and he isnt listed! (and i wouldnt class him to be listed yet either!). anyone elses opinios? Lukey12345 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think your correct, he's barely had 10 match starts, so shouldn't be on the "notable former or serving players"

Zurab Khizanishvili[edit]

Doesn't seem to be in the current squad. He didn't leave, did he? Whoizzet 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he didnt leave, im guessing when the vandal the other day removed half of the team and added players who dont play there, when undone probably just missed adding him back. I'll do it now. Lukey12345 09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Due to amount of vandalism the page has been suffering over the past few weeks, does anyone feel that it should be locked to non-registered users? D-Notice 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vadalism may be in part related to users affiliated with certain Rovers forums. I noticed that since I updated the links section in September the order has been changed (moving one site up the list) and one of the links has been slighty modified to an incorrect url (and incorrect desciption). Is there an easy way to spot when the changes were made without stepping through every revision ? Anyway, locked to non-registered users gets my vote. SlamTilt 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore that. After closer checking it seems all the links "non-corporate" sites were removed and then later re-added (all be it, incorrectly). SlamTilt 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname[edit]

Isn't Blackburn Rovers' nickname supposed to be, "The Riversiders"? Flonto 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think that would be Middlesbrough's nickname because their stadium is called the Riverside. Fulham are called "The Cottagers" in referance to their stadium, Craven Cottage. FootyStavros 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.pubquizhelp.34sp.com/sport/names.html, Blackburn Rovers are sometimes nicknamed 'The Riversiders' in reference to a stand at Ewood Park, their homeground. Morstar (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates & dashes[edit]

En dashes should be used in scorelines and only full dates and dates with a day and month should be wikilinked, including in the footnotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Epbr123 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC) roque santacruz te amamos-----------------------------------francisco matias bedoya 021585057 yamame es mi numero[reply]

Chairman[edit]

Surely someone could make a page with background information on the Chairman, John Williams? Or would that be pointless now that takeover talk is rife? sepmix 23.26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Foreign players[edit]

I noticed the team has only four Englishmen (and a North Irishman and Welshman apiece) on the current squad, a good deal fewer than any other Premiership club... Is this noteworthy to mention? Is it a point of contention among supporters or opponents (I don't know, I'm not a Briton)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Three references.

¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The history section is rather patchy. The section headed "Early 20th century" in particular seems extremely short, with four lines covering 30 years or so. As Rovers won the League title twice before World War One, and the FA Cup (for the last time so far) in 1928, surely this deserves more attention. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article[edit]

It seems that a new article on the history of the club has been created. However, said article seems very similar to the history section on the main BRFC page. I feel there is a need to discuss whether the history section of the main article is culled in favour of the new page or whether this new article is itself not needed. Theelf29 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the new article should be left, and the history on the general page should be alot shorter! In comparison to other premier league teams, our history is far longer. Somebody needs to trim it, and leave all the excessive details in the specific 'history of' page. talk) 09:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC

Renewed hope and downfall (1997–1999)[edit]

Hodgson was sacked in December ... team captain and midfield enforcer Tim Sherwood was sold to Tottenham Hotspur, leaving the side without a leader. Brian Kidd ... was named as Hodgson's successor.

This implies that Hodgson sold Sherwood but the Tim Sherwood page states that he was sold in 1999, after Hodgson's sacking. There's a reference online to the exact date of the transfer at Sherwood to make pounds 4m move to Spurs . Sherwood was sold during this period, but not by Hodgson. Whilst it may be true that Hodgson was a factor in Sherwood's transfer, the sequence as currently written is inaccurate.

Simon Marchese (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club websites[edit]

Regarding advertising of personal websites I am the owner of www.brfcattitude.com. I believe it is left to neutral editors (i.e not the owner) to decide whether or not the link should be included. I believe there is no reason why it shouldn't be there as it is authentic and relevant to Blackburn Rovers. Content is low at the moment but that is generally the same with all new websites. I will be adding historical sections + profiles in due course so in terms of regular updates it is very active.

So your decision and I hope you decide to keep it there as one website link isn't really damaging the page. Please add the link if or when it is approved. Thank you.BRFC Attitude (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal websites are generally not added to articles. They need to be reliable, verifiable and be a good resource of information for the user. As the content is low and it is just one person creating the content then I don't believe the link should be added at this time. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRFC97, etc[edit]

I've seen that another one of this editor's sockpuppets has been blocked for blanking the page and refusing to get involved in any debate whatsoever.

How long until another one appears?

By the way, I saw that the page was semi-protected. Can someone tell me why it didn't stop the vandalism? D-Notice (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a problem with his sockpuppets until the semi-protection expires. Creedab was an old sockpuppet which hadn't been indefinitely banned so it was able to get around the new account limit. Today I tried once more to get the user to communicate on the talk page in a civil way, but he said he wouldn't accept any version that he disagreed with. Bill (talk|contribs) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

The length of the history section is ridiculous, considering that the history of Blackburn Rovers already has its own page. Why doesn't someone reduce this significantly, so the page for the club can function as a good resource. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, somebody, please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash99 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is free to edit! Chensiyuan (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to submit my photo... http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w139/timpickup/PremiershipTrophyBase1.jpg

Paul Ince era[edit]

heyy...just wondering if the phrase 'paul ince era' is strictly correct...it was less than 6 months so surely it's more of a spell? And with the takeover thing, as everything has gone quiet and nothing is happening with any of those bids any more is there a point to it? Just wondering. Nikki clash'd (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Injured Heading / Missing from First Team[edit]

If a player is injured it does not mean that they are not on the first team squad any longer. For example, Brett Emerton at this moment. No other football club wikipedia pages do this as far as I can tell other than the Blackburn Rovers page. If there are no objections, I'd like to move the injured players back into the first team squad as it's inaccurate otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquavit (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable players[edit]

The notable players section has been deleted for no apparent reason. I'm happy to debate the reasons in favour and against it being listed. D-Notice (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to examine the material you added in your own reversion you will see exactly why this section has been deleted! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does look to me (as there's not a single source) that the section is built using personal opinion. However I think this sort of thing would be easy to produce as a verifiable list as a lot of publications refer to players' notability. For example the BBC has an article where they refer to Ian Rush and Peter Schmeichel as Liverpool and Manchester United legends, so it does seem plausible that there's articles out there that would be useful to verify such a list for each team. As far as dealing with it now goes, it could be removed and people could refer to the list when attempting to build the verified list. Or it could be kept in place while sources are found and items without sources could be removed later. Either way it needs sources. On another note, Fasach Nua I suggest you leave a more detailed edit summary than "delete section" in future, and bring it to the talk page if you find resistance to an edit. In my experience discussion is the best way to get results. --Bill (talk|contribs) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Allardyce era (2008-2010)[edit]

Is this worth updating yet or should we wait until new season begins? It's just there is nothing about us managing to stay up under Sam

sutton and shearer the sas[edit]

hi, sorry to get all technical but sas isnt an acroynm its an initialisation, an acroynm is pronounced and an initialisation is spelt out .calling it an acrynm would make it rhyme with pass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelestation (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maceo Rigters[edit]

Is Maceo Rigters still in the Blackburn team?


yes he is still with the team, he just hasn't been allocated a squad number.

Andy Todd[edit]

Was player of the year 2004-2005 if you cared194.75.129.200 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Rovers F.C.[edit]

Under the section 'Main Rivals', it is stated that the two teams, Blackburn and Burnley, are EIGHT miles apart; they are in fact SIXTEEN miles apart. The two towns are 14 miles apart centre to centre, Ewood Park is 1.5 miles outside town centre and Turf Moor is 0.5 miles outside town centre in opposite direction, making 16 miles in total. I can authenticate this, having been a taxi driver in the area for over 20 years. Signed Leprechawn. 28th Jan 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechawn (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They pronounce it like WHAT?[edit]

Blackburn Rovers Football Club (pronounced /ˈblækbərn ˈroʊvərz/) ???????

Only those with a speech impediment do. And, by the way, whoever wrote that really should try to provide a 'verification'!

92.239.71.235 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Jemmy Hanson, Bryn. 92.239.71.235 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you don't understand what IPA is or the IPA is wrong? Chensiyuan (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henning Berg?[edit]

Can someone put Henning Berg on the list : "Premier League Apperances"? I think he has 209 P.L apperances for Rovers. How could Berg be let out/forgotten - the only player with the Premiership title with two different clubs and also the most capped player in the club`s history.

(Ok201agi (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Edit request from Antimojo, 1 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} at the beginning, where it says "in 1890 Rovers", add a "the" in there.

Antimojo (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone this edit; proper nouns are not preceded by an article in this case. Furthermore, Rovers are referred to without an article in this article's references. --Muchness (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Anothergopher, 27 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Change Vasky's to Venky's

Anothergopher (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Also removed the apostraphe to fix the grammar. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order of "Main rivals" section[edit]

The section has a comment, only visible when editing the page, stating that the section is listed alphabetically. It isn't alphabetical - Burnley before Bolton, and Manchester United before Manchester City. I would have removed the comment, as there has been a discussion in the past about this, I decided to mention it here first - what is the current consensus? Peter E. James (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on Athletic de Bilbao and Atlético de Madrid[edit]

I don't know if this is a relevant fact, but you might want to put in the article that Blackburn Rovers' blue and white colours influenced the early kits of Spanish teams Athletic de Bilbao (founded by Englishmen from Blackburn) and Atlético de Madrid (founded, in turn, by Basque students in Madrid), who played in blue and white until 1911, when the person who was in charge of traveling to England to buy the kits for both teams couldn't find Blackburn Rovers' kits and bought Southampton FC's instead, therefore changing the Spanish teams' colours to their current red-and-white stripes.

Athletic de Bilbao decided to switch completely to Southampton's colours (including the black shorts), whereas Atlético de Madrid decided to retain Blackburn's blue shorts.

There's more information and sources in the teams' articles on Wikipedia.

Edit request from Srigz, 18 June 2011[edit]

Blackburn Rovers are traditionally a big club and the 6th most succesful club in England.

Srigz (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avicennasis @ 17:33, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please disambiguate correctly the listing for Paul Robinson in player of the year section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.60.141 (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Avicennasis @ 17:34, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

colours[edit]

3rd colours should either not be listed, or be red/black/red as last seasons away kit was — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.4.91 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC) home socks should also be blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.4.91 (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Rovers Lancashire Senior Cup[edit]

On the Blackburn Rovers F.C. article in the Honours section it states that Blackburn Rovers F.C. have won the Lancashire Senior Cup 17 times but they have won the Lancashire Senior Cup 18 times and it says so on the Lancashire Senior Cup article. I wish for an administrator to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan11diouf (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Blackburn Rovers won The Lancashire Senior Cup in 2011 and Blackburn Rovers F.C., Honours it is written 17 times up to 2007 but they also won it in 2011, it needs to be edited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Senior_Cup This is a source and proof that Blackburn Rovers have won the Lacashire Senior Cup 18 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.197.138 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire senior cup[edit]

blackburn won the lancashire senior cup in 2011, i have added this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordaniair (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 19 August 2012[edit]

In the current squad section Paulo Jorge has now played a senior game, so should now be able to have a wikipedia article, Paulo Jorge Gomes Pereira is his full name so the article should be linked to a page at that title.

Sources for apperance: [11] & "82:08 Substitution Substitution Danny Murphy goes off and Paulo Jorge comes on. " [12].

Sources for name: [13], [14], previous wiki article that was deleted before his debut [15].

Thank you

95.148.62.21 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect converted to article; unclear whether editors were aware of this request. Dru of Id (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 11 December 2012[edit]

Please change Least points gained in a season (3pts) from 35 (1998/99) to 31 (2011/12)[1] 90.215.235.46 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pol430 talk to me 23:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This poster was correct and it seems to have remained incorrect on the site for the last 12 months. Blackburn were relegated to the Championship at the end of the 2011/12 season after finishing with 31 points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Premier_League - I haven't yet qualified to edit semi-protected articles so I will change it at a later date if no-one else has picked up on it SimonUpNorth (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SimonUpNorth. The point of last year's rejection was not that the poster was wrong, but that he didn't provide a reliable source. People who look after these requests are just perfomring a clean-up service -- we aren't always familiar with the article or with the subject. If sources are provided we check them, but otherwise we usually ask for sources rather than carrying out the requested edit. You have cited a Wikipedia page, but we don't use those as sources, because that would lead to circularity in Wikipedia. If you could give us a link to an outside relaible source, we can make the edit. Otherwise, yes, please go aheaed once you become autoconfirmed. --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Here is a link to the final table 2011/12: http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2011-2012 SimonUpNorth (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done including the provided reference. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EPL Winners end of intro[edit]

take out the comment about Man City winning on goal differential. This is a qualifier irrelevant to Blackburn. There are 5 winners, you win or you lose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.181.245 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The club's Latin motto[edit]

  • The Wikipedia article on Blackburn Rovers is, as usual, excellent and informative, However, it's opening sentence, reproduced below, should end after "By skill and hard work". At present, it is:
   "The club's Latin motto is "Arte et labore", the club's translation of which is "By Skill and Hard Work", but literally             means "Craft and Labour".

Whoever produced that sentence clearly never studied Latin, so missed the significance of those final e's. I checked the original English translation - and my own. I did get a distinction in Latin, many years ago - and confirmed my own translation from contributors to my favorite "third hemisphere'- who else but Wikipedia? The first two translations of "arte et labore" from Wikipedia are printed below. 

                         1. effort, labor, toil, exertion
                         2. The literal translation of "Arte et Labore" can be:
                               -<< By skill and work
                               -<< By ability and work
                                                            etc., etc.

I rest my case, and suggest that the original translation should be restored (a) in the interests of Wikipedia;'s reputation for accuracy; and (b) to do justice to Blackburn Rovers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcleod duckworth (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is correct. "Art and Labour" would be "Ars et Labor" (nominative case) in Latin. As the motto is "Arte and Labore" (ablative case), the "by" translation is right. Crookesmoor (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Meadows[edit]

Seems to be a bit of confusion about the date that Rovers moved to Alexandra Meadows and their first game there. Clitheroe ran a feature in one of their match programmes in 2001 about how they were the first team to beat Rovers at Alexandra Meadows by winning 1-0 on 17 November 1877 (programme 24/03/2001 v Taunton Town). This goes against the first game being against Partick in Jan 1878. It seems that they moved to Alexandra Meadows earlier around September, Clitheroe beat them in November, and then the Partick game came along in Jan 1878.

The Rovers official web site does not say that the Partick game was the first, just that it was a big game against renowned opponents: http://www.rovers.co.uk/news/article/1875-1884-the-early-years-223575.aspx?pageView=full#anchored

Reading about the Pleasington ground situation, it seems clear they were there for a short time, from early 1877 to the end of the season probably.

I suggest that the title "Pleasington Cricket Ground 1877–1878" be amended to remove "-1878". I suggest that the title "Alexandra Meadows 1878–1881" be amended to "Alexandra Meadows 1877–1881" and references to Partick being the first game to be amended to more closely match what the official Rovers site says.

88.96.57.182 (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: What you're saying about the date seems to be a bit speculative; a 2001 from another club isn't a very convincing source. As to amending to match the official site, you are asking us to go off and do the research for you. Please note that the edit request template states: "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK sorry - this was the first request I have ever done :) I will make it clearer what I am requesting. The issue is that the current text contradicts both the official Rovers site: http://www.rovers.co.uk/news/article/1875-1884-the-early-years-223575.aspx?pageView=full#anchored and a feature article I read written by Clitheroe FC. To clarify, Clitheroe FC (or Clitheroe Central as they were called then) played Blackburn Rovers at Alexandra Meadows on 17 November 1877 and they were the first team to beat Rovers at the ground, so pre-dating the Partick game by around 2 months. There is no source for the Partick game being the first game there on the Wikipedia page, and it seems to have come from a single web site, rather than anything official. The page in question is here: http://www.englandfootballonline.com/TeamStadia/England/EngAlex.html - it is an Unofficial site listing grounds where England played internationals, and because they played once a Alexandra Meadows in 1881, they have listed what they believed was the first game there. However, the official Rovers site talks about this game, but as a one-off lucrative game against Partick, and does not make any reference to the fact it was the first game at the ground - a fact that clearly seems to have been assumed by the England site, and since the site has not been updated for almost 6 years, cannot be claimed as reliable. So, I will reference the Official Rovers site (URL above) in the re-write that I am suggesting :

-- TO BE REMOVED -- Pleasington Cricket Ground 1877–1878

Due to the rough conditions at Oozehead, the committee felt an established sports ground would be best to play on. Therefore half way through the 1877 season they acquired the use of Pleasingtons cricket ground to the south west of the town. Play stopped on this ground after Henry Smith of Preston North End died of a heart attack whilst playing.[53]

Alexandra Meadows 1878–1881

Still adopting cricket grounds, the committee acquired the use of the East Lancashire Cricket Clubs ground in the centre of the town, Alexandra Meadows. The first game played was a friendly against Scottish team Partick on 2 January 1878. It was on this ground Blackburn Rovers played for the first time under artificial light against Accrington on 4 November 1878.[53] -- END --

-- TO BE REPLACED WITH -- Pleasington Cricket Ground 1877

Due to the rough conditions at Oozehead, the committee felt an established sports ground would be best to play on. Therefore in 1877 they acquired the use of Pleasington Cricket Ground to the south west of the town. Play stopped on this ground after Henry Smith of Preston North End died of a heart attack whilst playing.[53]

Alexandra Meadows 1877–1881

Still adopting cricket grounds, the committee acquired the use of the East Lancashire Cricket Club's ground in the centre of the town. Alexandra Meadows was where on January 2nd 1878 they met the renowned Partick Thistle team. Two goals from Dick Birtwistle brought a famous victory.[2] It was on this ground Blackburn Rovers played for the first time under artificial light against Accrington on 4 November 1878.[53] -- END --

Ref 64 would then be added: 1875 - 1884: The early years [16]

Please let me know if I need to provide further clarification or have not presented the changes correctly. Thanks.

Not done for now: I tend to agree with User:Stfg - this still seems pretty speculative. Right now we have an existing source which (official or not) is referenced hundreds of times throughout Wikipedia. That source explicitly states that the first match at Alexandra was Blackburn v. Partick in 1878. To counter that, you have an article which doesn't say anything one way or the other about Partick being the first match, it just mentions the match. That lack of specificity could be because the Partick match was not the first match, but it could also be because the authors of that article didn't know which match was first or simply chose not to say. If you can provide a specific source that directly contradicts the information on England Football Online (like the Clitheroe feature you've referenced a couple of times?) then I would be willing to revisit this. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have scanned and uploaded the programme in question - the URL is a jpg of the front cover and page 38 of the Clitheroe v Taunton programme. Clearly the author of the article has a source that had the date of the Clitheroe Central v Blackburn Rovers game as 17 November 1877 (although I note that they have spelt Alexandra Meadows wrong!), so I will happily contact the club to try and get hold of the source that led to the programme feature pictured here if this is not enough evidence - please let me know if this is the case. On the front cover of the programme you can see that Clitheroe FC was founded (as Clitheroe Central) in 1877 and so this Blackburn Rovers game would have been one of their first ever games: http://www.jameshreeve.co.uk/gallery/ClitheroevTaunton.jpg Thanks.

Have you ever considered registering an account and working on making some of these edits yourself? I think you would definitely be an asset to the project.
In any case - I've made changes to the article based on the information you've provided. Since there is a reliable source that disagrees with you, I've tried to work both in. Please check me over and see if I've worded everything correctly. I am American, so I'm guessing at some of the formatting and spelling for British English, and know next to nothing about what most of the world calls football. (That word means something completely different for me.) Please let me know if I need to change anything. (No need to reactivate the edit request, I'm watching this page.) Also, I purposely didn't link to the image you provided in the article for copyright reasons, though it should be fine to leave it linked on the talk page. Thanks for all your work on this! --ElHef (Meep?) 04:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating. Just a typo in there - you have missed an apostrophe out: "...the East Lancashire Cricket Club's ground..." is correct rather than "...the East Lancashire Cricket Clubs ground..." I do have quite extensive experience of Lancashire football as a reporter across the county since 1999, having covered hundreds of games at all Lancashire club league and non-league grounds, although that doesn't make it any easier to produce the absolute factual evidence to work on these articles. I will sign up at some point and try and understand how it all works. Regarding the Clitheroe example here, I have been in touch with the club and they have passed me to the secretary at the time the article was written so if I can produce conclusive proof (presumably from Clitheroe FC's official archive) then I will do so. -- Update -- I have now signed up :) Just trying to get my head round how it all works! SimonUpNorth (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you decided to jump in! I've made the correction to the article. Happy editing, and I look forward to running into you in the future! --ElHef (Meep?) 01:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to track down more evidence that confirms that the Blackburn Rovers v Clitheroe Central match at Alexandra Meadows was definitely the first defeat for Rovers at the ground. However the date 17 November 1877 is quoted as the date of an earlier reverse fixture, which supports the opposite of what I was thinking. As this means that it is feasible that the 2 January 1878 game v Partick was the first game there (with Clitheroe beating them afterwards). I am awaiting further hopefully conclusive evidence, and will see that the article is updated as appropriate. Source: Match programme for FA Vase Final 1996 at Wembley - Page 28: http://www.jameshreeve.co.uk/gallery/Clitheroe1996.jpg SimonUpNorth (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Premier_League_2011-12.html
  2. ^ [64]

Protection[edit]

By all means, protect vital, controversial pages like this one. God forbid this should continue to be a true wiki when the snooty ignoramuses who couldn't make it in the real world can foist their agendas on the world unmolested. Wikipedia is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.61.121 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014[edit]

Manager ---Karl Oyston--- Morganshand1 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: If you want to suggest a change, please cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014[edit]

Minor Corrections - The url of Spartacus Educational has changed. There are two links in Early Years and one in the External Links that need to be updated. 1. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fblackburn.htm needs to be changed to http://www.spartacus-educational.com/Fblackburn.htm 2. www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Ffacup.htm needs to be changed to www.spartacus-educational.com/Ffacup.htm 3. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fblackburn.htm needs to be changed to http://www.spartacus-educational.com/Fblackburn.htm Thanks 2.120.239.61 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015[edit]

Please change the plain text reference to Dave Whelan to a hyperlink to Wiki's page for him. 86.145.138.151 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done NiciVampireHeart 15:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blackburn Rovers 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 05:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2016[edit]

Hello just looking at the edits. That have been reversed. Somebody appears to have been blocked for the facts as below but they are sourced -

Also worth a mention is the proud fact Blackburn Rovers are the 7th highest producers of England internationals [[17]]

Blackburn Rovers are currently the 9th most succesful club in England football and the most successful town team in England. Having won 3 League Titles, 6 Fa Cups and a League Cup. [[18]]. Blackburn Rovers have much history to be proud of namely being the only team in existence to win 3 Fa Cups in a row and has spent the majority of its existence in the top flight of english football with 72 years. [[19]].Blackburn Rovers have spent far longer in the top flight than local opposition Burnley, Preston, Blackpool Wigan.[[20]]

Blackburn Rovers supporters have formed several support clubs related to the team, and almost all of them are partially focused on making trips to Ewood Park easier. Rovers home games were incredibly highly attended as a percentage of the Blackburn population throughout the 2000’s with an average attendance of 24019, on average their crowds were equal to roughly a quarter of Blackburn (pop. approximately 100,000).

Pagemanager91 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Some of the sources may well be usable, but the suggested text is unduly promotional and non-neutral. Wikipedia should not read like a fan publication. Huon (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Feeney[edit]

Re: Squad list

Feeney is not Irish (he has Irish flag beside his name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.156.67 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to the Players Section[edit]

Nathan Delfouneso needs to be added to the list of players who are out on loan. He has a wiki page that says he's currently on loan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:898B:7A00:A830:4F64:AF3C:63B5 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Blackburn Rovers 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Blackburn Rovers 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blackburn Rovers 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blackburn Rovers 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blackburn Rovers 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018 Incorrect Flags on Player of Season Awards[edit]

1999–2000 2620:0:107A:FD00:F597:2664:D758:E8B1 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting change to Records section.[edit]

Hi, in the records section it has our record points total as 91 from 2000-01, however in the 2017-18 season we finished with 96 points in League 1. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1E5F8 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019[edit]

Scott Wharton with No 34 Daniel Butterworth to remove No 34

Source:https://www.rovers.co.uk/teams/first-team/ Peizhou9 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Trialpears (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019: Football hooliganism in Blackburn, two sources included. BIG PART OF BLACKBURN ROVERS HISTORY MISSING[edit]

Add section on hooliganism, Blackburn Rovers have had multiple firms such as Darwen Mob, H Division, Mill Hill Mob, and the Blackburn Youth

A whole host of information can be found in this book

Nick Lowles, Andy Nicholls Hooligans, Volume 1 (Milo Books Ltd, 6 Sep 2007) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g_hmDwAAQBAJ Page number unclear, search 'Blackburn Rovers', a whole chapter on the subject of football hooliganism in Blackburn is present.

A news report on the Blackburn Youth firm can be found here

Stocks, Rob Hooligans not welcome here (Blackpool Gazette Retrieved 23 November 2006)


The hooliganism in Blackburn in the late 1960s and early 1970s was notorious and made Ewood Park a feared place to visit. Firms were run by greasers and bikers, the Darwen Mob was run by Hell's Angels members who called themselves Moses, Jesus and God. Reports as early as 1963 shows that football violence was present in Blackburn in a major way, but it goes unnoticed due to it being way before the time of the big hooliganism crisis in the late 70s and 80s.

It is a fairly large part of the history of the club which is never heard and is important to show how Blackburn Rovers was seen pre-Jack Walker and the identity of the club in the 1970s.

An edit to show such information would be most appreciated, more info can be found in the sources cited. 2A00:23C5:6825:B700:70:2C5B:514B:D73F (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please propose specific text to add and provide reliable sources for any claims made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021 - Third kit update[edit]

Blackburn Rovers have a third playing kit this year which needs to be added to the kit icon section.

I don't know how to do it myself.

Source: https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2021/august/Rovers-unveil-30th-Anniversary-third-kit-/ 2A02:C7F:F2E2:A700:50A6:39D3:943D:E3EC (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Is this going to be a normal kit, or just something worn a single time for publicity then sold? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The third kit has now been worn numerous times and so is deserving of being added to the article. (User:ScottishFinnishRadish) Lankyant (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add it. I didn't have any objection other than having no idea if it was something normally worn, or just promotional. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021[edit]

In 2020-2021 Season, Blackburn Rovers Finished 15th in the Championship. On August 10, 2021, Adam Armstrong, Rovers' top scorer in that season was sold to Southampton for £15 Million with Newcastle United receiving 40% of the fee due to the sell-on clause that they put in when Armstrong signed for Rovers back in 2018. Thomas200309 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Consider updating the location to an appropriate level of precision. Hundredths of a second are blades of glass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.119.245 (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022[edit]

82.5.97.161 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plays for Middlesbrough

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023[edit]

Please change "though" to "but" in three sentences in the lead – inappropriate use of "though":

  • "though returned to the top-flight as Second Division champions in 1938–39" to "but returned to the top-flight as Second Division champions in 1938–39"
  • "though would be relegated in 1966 and again in 1971" to "but would be relegated in 1966 and again in 1971"
  • "though were relegated in 2012 and again into the third tier in 2017" to "but were relegated in 2012 and again into the third tier in 2017"

2001:BB6:4734:5658:6910:A783:A096:1EEA (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Record away win[edit]

Needs updating to 8-0 win over Harrogate Town in the League Cup tonight. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:986D:EFA9:3D67:A64B (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blackburn_Rovers_F.C.&oldid=1206322962"