Jump to content

Talk:Burnley F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBurnley F.C. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starBurnley F.C. is the main article in the Burnley F.C. series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 18, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2020Good article nomineeListed
May 28, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
June 14, 2020Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 7, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
September 3, 2021Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


Semi-protection

[edit]

Has any thought been given to requesting semi-protection for this article? I've had it on my watchlist for a while and it seems to me that none registered users contributions seem to be limited to vandalising it every couple of days. The articles for most of the "big" clubs are indefinitely protected in this way. Requests can be made here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection --Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalry

[edit]

Someone mention Burnley's rivals.--Sammanhumagain (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section

[edit]

As advised by this tag, I incorporated much of the material from this section into the article proper. @Welovevenkys: can you please explain why you are reverting that change? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Introduction information

[edit]

A lot of editors had questions about the information I added to the introduction. I do not quite understand it, while I have used reliable sources and I have cited all my additions. Most of the information come from the book "Never Had it So Good: Burnley's Incredible 1959/60 League Title Triumph" by Tim Quelch (2015) and I have tried e.g. as precisely as possible to indicate the pages/chapters I used for my additions. I would like to return my additions, as in my opinion there is nothing wrong with it. I like to hear you opinions.

Yours sincerely,

Welovevenkys 

Welovevenkys (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction is just meant to be a summary of the subject - further details go into the main body of the article. That would be a good place to introduce new info and, if it's absolutely key, a brief summation can also go into the intro section.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Burnley F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burnley F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This article needs additional citations for verification."

[edit]

Is this template message at the top of the Burnley F.C. page still applicable?

Cheers. --WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Away kit

[edit]

I've noticed that the football club has just released the colours of their away kit but I have no knowledge on how to change the colours in the club infobox kits. Is there someone with that experience who can deal with this? Iggy (Swan) 15:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you should change the following to the correct hex color codes:
| leftarm2 = 000000
| body2 = 000000
| rightarm2 = 000000
| shorts2 = 000000
| socks2 = 000000
If you can find a source for the kit, I can probably manage to change it. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have just modified an external link on Burnley F.C.. The reason for it is - "An unofficial forum and not a credible resource". Please take a moment to review the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenknieling (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Reviewed by Tina

[edit]
Burnley FC Supporter here. I agree with removing this. It is a poorly moderated forum too and has some threads that are political and might be offensive. I invite other editors to have a look to the edit made and keep it removed from the page. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenacioustina (talk • contribs) 03:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Nationality of Ashley Barnes

[edit]

It has been confirmed on many external sources[1][2][3] that Ashley Barnes cannot, and is ineligible to represent Austria internationally under FIFA eligibility rules. The source[4] from Burnley FC's website is therefore incorrect when it says Barnes is an Austrian international. Unless additional sources are provided showing that he can represent Austria in international football, please refrain from repeatedly changing his nationality to Austrian on the Burnley FC page.

Multiple senior users such as "Mattythewhite" and "Iggy the Swan" have accused me of 'edit warring' and/or have constantly been reverting my correct edits; which I believe is an abuse of power. "Mattythewhite" has also threatened me with a potential user account block.

Swazzer30 (talk • contribs)00:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ashley Barnes Austrian call up denied". Sky Sports. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  2. ^ "Ashley Barnes Austrian dream over". 101greatgoals via Austrian Council Minister for Sport. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  3. ^ "Ministry of the Interior decides: Barnes does not become an Austrian". Tiroler Tageszeitung via Austrian Ministry of the Interior. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
  4. ^ "First team". Burnley F.C. Retrieved 15 May 2019.

Feedback

[edit]

Some comments Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Founded on 18 May 1882, it was one of the first to become professional (in 1883), and subsequently put pressure on The Football Association to allow [professionalism]. - be good to rephrase bracketed bit to vary wording - looks weird with 2 "professional-" in same sentence
Rephrased it by elaborating the definition (to allow professionalism > to permit payments to players)
Yep/better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and the first copy edits, Casliber. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WA8MTWAYC: I tightened the prose a little - could be some more examples. I gotta sleep now. I think it is withn striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber Thanks for that, much appreciated. I'm on holiday but will look further into it (more detailed) in a few days' time when I return. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might get a chance for another lookover. But we're at a point (I think) where it should pass. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Hi. I've made a few amends throughout the article, added a bit of info and removed some, and checked the refs. We're at a point where I don't think there's much to alter/improve. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I was a little confused about "the BBC Television sporting panel show They Think It's All A Question of Sport". The piped link is to They Think It's All Over (TV series), which explains that TTIAaQoS was an occasional Sport Relief one-off version (done twice... two-off?). Perhaps the unfamiliar programme name might be briefly explained? Or is it wrong - the source mentions A Question of Sport? Paul W (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, changed it to "and appeared on the BBC Sport Relief programme They Think It's All A Question of Sport after the event". Also added a additional ref. Hope it's clearer now.
The name of the show is correct by the way, I even managed to find some footage on YouTube: [1] (around minute 13:00 and 20:30; it's quite good). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley F.C. 2019-20 Season

[edit]

I've reverted your edit (again) as it's certainly no improvement. "It completed the 2019–20 season 10th in the Premier League, the top tier of English football." is in no way a correct English sentence. Furthermore, it's redundant to put the club's 2019–20 finishing position in the lead. The article is running at WP:FAC so I suggest you stop vandalizing the page. Cheers, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only A cunt would call that edit vandalism. We have a link 1885–86 FA Cup but none to Burnley's most recent season. I'm no idiot so I cannot see your reasoning that Burnley's most recent season is redundant. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the edit should not be considered vandalism, your response here Jorge is completely unnecessary. Personally I would agree with WA8MTWAYC on the layout changes, the lead is a summary of the article, so a 10th placed finish in any season is not particularly relevant in the overall history of the club. Kosack (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JorgeLaArdilla There is a link to 1885–86 FA Cup because it was the club's first season in that competition (important) and there's none to last season as finishing 10th isn't noteworthy. Maybe my message to you was a bit blunt, but don't expect me to be pretty reasonable when I've come across multiple users in the last few days who were so convinced of their own (faulty) edits and wouldn't listen to the explanation of others. I hope it's clear. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link ... because it was the club's first season in that competition (important) and there's none to last season ...
I would be convinced if my own (faulty) edits were not reverted but grammatically improved. The "reader demand" for my link far exceeds that of yours. I think we should consider that when deciding what is important or noteworthy. I would further add, it is tortuous to actually get to my link, greatly reducing the pageviews. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JorgeLaArdilla Why doesn't any football club page contains its last league position in the lead (unless champion, promoted or relegated)? Because it's redundant and not necessary. Take a look at Manchester United F.C. or even Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.. This is also not about page views, the 1885–86 FA Cup was Burnley's first season in the FA Cup and therefore it is notable to mention. Finishing 10th isn't noteworthy and neither is mentioning the club's last results. Or do you want to update this every season? That's a waste of time and just reads clumsy. If the reader specifically wants to go to that season page, he/she can also take a look at e.g. List of Burnley F.C. seasons or search the page. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to league position is a Straw man. The issue is a link to the most recent season. Yes it may well require updating for the upcoming season and yes, the reader would benefit if Man U and Brighton also had a prominent link to their most recent season. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JorgeLaArdilla No it's not a straw man. I (and Kosack) have given multiple examples/statements why we don't do this and why it's not needed, but if you want to keep ignoring comments from others that's up to you. Again, "the lead is a summary of the article, so a 10th placed finish in any season is not particularly relevant in the overall history of the club". The most recent season (and finishing position) is also linked in the infobox and in the templates, so I don't see the problem if there ever was one. I have also never seen anyone complain about this before. But if this really is a problem for you, please take this to WT:FOOTY. You don't have to copy this conversation, just begin a new section and propose your issue. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent season is not linked in the Info box. When the new season starts up, If this article is still in FAR, I will leave a comment there.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JorgeLaArdilla The 2019–20 season and finishing position are present in the infobox (second from bottom, above club website). The current season (2020–21) is linked in "Current season" (below the home colours/kit). So it's present in the infobox. I suggest you take this to WT:FOOTY if this remains an issue for you as leaving a comment at FAC won't solve anything. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2019–20 season is not linked in the info box, the current season is linked so that will do me...no more listening to your bullshit. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Mumbongo

[edit]

He has came on for his Premier League debut, does that mean he’s eligible to be in the “current squad” tab, thanks. AngusMacintosh (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Burnley, Early players

[edit]

While working thru November 2010 Orphan articles, I came across these biographies & am hoping to clear out their orphan status.

Hi @WA8MTWAYC: - thanks for your comments on those reverts. I did not realize FA status or these are minor footballers. Just wondering, even though a handful of people,

Early players

[edit]

Would it be okay to create a page to gather them? For example "List of Burnley F.C. early players". Then any future early players could be added there. And they would not be within any of the Burnley-related articles you mentioned.

Or if not notable, should they be tagged for deletion? Even though I have worked on orphan articles from time-to-time, this is a rare experience having additions reverted so I do value your thoughts & opinions. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoeNMLC. I think there are two options: a new season article needs to be created (such as 1902–03 Burnley F.C. season, in which e.g. Towler can be placed), or even better (and as you mentioned), they should be tagged for deletion. I've never heard of any of those names and they played only a handful of games for the club. I don't think a list of early players will work as I believe it's best to keep club's players' lists at an absolute minimum. Personally, deleting these articles would be the way to go. Keep up the good work. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@WA8MTWAYC: - So that I can continue focused on those Orphan artices, would you be able to take care of getting these articles deleted? I did read thru deletion options & have not done that before. If that's okay, as I go thru more orphans I can skip early footballers & leave those until a month is done so they can be deleted in a bunch. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JoeNMLC I've also never gone through the process of getting articles deleted, but I'll see what I can do. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WA8MTWAYC: - Still mulling over about these footballer articles. Last night, I found about how to move an article into Draft space here. And there is already Category:Draft-Class football articles so this could be a good option, especially for long-time articles, instead of tagging to delete. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JoeNMLC That's a great idea. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year of foundation

[edit]

As Burnley FC are in fact a direct continuation of Burnley Rovers (founded September 1874) why is the foundation date continually misrepresented as 18 May 1882 ? All that happened that evening was that the existing club dropped the Rovers suffix and adopted association rules having to that date played both codes. 2A00:23C8:2B80:4E01:586F:66DB:81AC:F2C3 (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of the club can be traced quite easily through the British Newspaper archive .. the fact that 18 May 1882 has been chosen by the club in later years for ease of understanding / marketing purposes does not make that date correct . 2A00:23C8:2B80:4E01:586F:66DB:81AC:F2C3 (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Clarets Chronicles (Simpson, 2007) puts the date on 18 May 1882, as does the club, and even an article in the early 1930s in the Burnley Express about the 50th anniversary of the club (which can also be found in the British Newspaper archive). The consensus thus seems to be 18 May 1882, which is not a marketing trick. Burnley Rovers played rugby football since its formation but were discontinued in the late 1870s. They were refounded around 1880 I believe and played a variety of sports, but were not an association football club per se. On 18 May 1882, Burnley really became an association football club (and organisation), dropping rugby football and every other sport they might have tried. The rugby players suddenly had to change codes/sports; most were not very good, one of the reasons why Burnley turned professional the following year, importing lots of Scottish players. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the narrative out about by the club , it is not however the facts as they appear in the Burnley Gazette and the Burnley Express and Advertiser . Mr Simpson's book is littered with errors. 2A00:23C8:2B80:4E01:F40D:D16:C6D6:DEA7 (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off-topic, but I saw a similar topic about the club's founding date on the UpTheClarets forum a couple of weeks ago. I don't think it's a narrative by the club as e.g., the Burnley Express also already stated the date of 18 May 1882 in the early 1930s. The same newspaper reported on 20 May 1882 about a meeting two days earlier, stating: "Mr. Bradshaw moved that the recommendation of the committee that the club in future play under association rules be adopted" (i.e., Burnley Rovers were not an association football club previously). There are indeed some news articles on the British Newspaper archive which report Burnley Rovers playing football, but this was most certainly rugby football (and not the association code) as words such as "try" are used. There are also no (reliable) sources using 1874, and Wikipedia is of course built on e.g., verifiability and no original research. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the trouble with Wikipedia I suppose .. the reliance upon the invention of tradition and the misconceptions of well-meaning amateur historians. 2A00:23C8:2B80:4E01:F40D:D16:C6D6:DEA7 (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burnley_F.C.&oldid=1213988218"