Jump to content

Talk:Collingwood Football Club

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I've just removed a couple of passages of text, one about Power Without Glory which had everything to do with the City of Collingwood but nothing to do with the CFC, and another about Nathan Buckley, which is good but belongs on a page relating to that player.--The Brain of Morbius 15:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I am attempting to clean up this article. People have donated alot of time, effort and knowledge to the content within this article but it reads as though someone is speaking face to face and this is not the best way to present information clearly in an encyclopedia. I have made minor edits to headings and subsections but a cleanup I did of the 'Rivalries' section was reverted instantly. Why? It should be presented more linearly, listing rivalries and a description of each (as in the Essendon article under the 'major' and 'minor' rivalries sections).

I think either a major cull of information in the History section OR the creation of a dedicated 'History of Collingwood Football Club' article must take place. I'm for the creation of a seperate article as we already have the information here, so I'll go ahead and do it, if anyone has any disputes please discuss them here. I'll continue to clean up a few things but if anyone reverts edits without discussing why they wish to revert them I won't bother helping. C'mon Collingwood supporters! Even the Footscray article is better than this! Nick carson (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries

[edit]

I don't know about the intense rivalry between Collingwood and Carlton as mentioned in the opening paragraph. This article seems to indicate that there is no rivalry anymore .. http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/rival-without-a-cause/2007/04/13/1175971352521.html --Rulesfan 00:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is the fool who uses the mass media as a source for accurate, unbiased information.Nick carson (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Wikipedia do that all the time? HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Size

[edit]

Whoever the person is that keeps changing the size of the Collingwood logo, stop it!. Leave it as "150px" because that's the right size for the logo. "250px" is too large, so stop it please.

Actually the agreed apon size is 250px. 150px is too small 300px too large, so 250px is the right size. And please sign your name when making a comment. --203.94.135.134 22:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who agreed on this?? That's just rubbish - 250px is too large!!! - takes too much space - have a look at the other sport logos like manchester united, south sydney rabbitohs, melbourne storm, melbourne victory, etc. 150px is the perfect size for a sports logo. Just leave it mate!!!. Once again, takes too much space!!! Steves101 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the amount of time that the logo sizes have been at 250px and other users who have reverted size changes back to 250px. The size of 250px is a perfect size, 150px to 200px is too small to be seen on the screen. As for those other club logos I feel that their sizes are too small to see, but this is about AFL logos not of other codes. And please, could you remain civil in your comments. --203.94.135.134 00:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

That article is not the most reliable source to quote from. Any others? Tarkyn 24 22:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Collingwood80s.png

[edit]

Image:Collingwood80s.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2001

[edit]

Why does the article go into so much depth for the season 2001? Will it be expanded so that every year of the new millenium is written in such a way? Tarkyn 24 23:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about source for membership data

[edit]

Could you provide the source for the membership data? This is also relevant for all AFL clubs.

History section needs a complete rewrite

[edit]

Just had a scan of the 2006 section - very unencylopedic. Needs a complete rewrite IMHO. The-Pope 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)..........[reply]

the 1990s onwards

[edit]

horrendously overwritten & far, far too detailed. needs deletion & a complete rewrite.

Dekooning 10:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port Adelaide is irrelevant to Collingwood

[edit]

I can't see what this paragraph..."Collingwood was not the only professional Australian football club nicknamed the Magpies. In 1997, the SANFL's Port Adelaide Football Club entered the AFL. The Port Adelaide Magpies had to change their name to the "Power" and they also abandoned their previous black and white colour scheme. However, the Power continues to sponsor a SANFL team, under the traditional name of the Port Adelaide Magpies." ...is relevant at all. If there's no good argument to keep it, I'm going to remove it. Dgen 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Collingwood-2007-Clash.gif

[edit]

Image:Collingwood-2007-Clash.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Collingwood-2007.gif

[edit]

Image:Collingwood-2007.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the pictures of the jumpers removed?

[edit]

Ok the pictures of the jumpers were removed due to wikinazibots. Can whoever put them up there put them back up with full and proper explanation as to why it is fair and proper use. FFS it's just a picture (not a photograph) of a jumper. Jabso 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1990 Grand Final

[edit]

I've edited the actual page for the 1990 Grand Final, but I'm not sure whether the actual scoreboard is neccessary in the main club page, for it is only one of 14. I'll paste it in here, incase it is felt it should remain. User:Johnson26

1990 AFL Grand Final G B Total
20px Collingwood 13 11 89
20px Essendon 5 11 41
Venue: Melbourne Cricket Ground Crowd: 98,944

"The Catholic Club"

[edit]

I have removed this entire section (see here) as unsourced and not from a neutral point of view. It also seems to me to motivated by religous bigotry, although I would be pleased to be wrong about that. Please provide a reliable source and write in a neutral tone if you wish to include a section such as this. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adelaide Rivalry"

[edit]

Excuse my ignorance, but when has Adelaide ever been a major rival of Collingwood? We might be their rivals, but they aren't really ours, as I guess I speak for most of the Magpies supporters on this. As such, the Adelaide Crows section has been removed. User:Johnson26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson 26 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Cleanup + Note to anyone who wants to add somethign to the article

[edit]

Ok I'm currently working on a major clean up of this article. I'll try to model it on the Manchester United wiki article and other major soccer clubs especially Manchester City (which has been featured on the front page) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_City.


Things needed to work on. - Basically making it a bit more concise. - Perhaps making a seperate history article and summarising history? - fixing up contents system (it's totally unstructured)

If you are going to add a seperate section to this article please try to make sure it fits in with the contents. I.e. don't make a section about notable players and make it a subsection of "The 2000s".

Jabso (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2006 AFL Collingwood.jpg

[edit]

Image:2006 AFL Collingwood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coupla Questions

[edit]

Shouldn't there be in-text references for the bulk of the page - ie pretty much everything from 'Early Years' to '2000s' in which there are some fairly contentious statements??

And what does the contributor mean? "the rare success of never losing more than one match at a time" lol How can anyone lose two matches at a time? Does he mean not losing more than one consecutive match?

I'd change it myself but not being a Magpies fan, I have no idea what he's trying to say..

And - boy - is this a fantastic piece of purple prose or what???

The team, under the guidance of Shaw for the final time, produced some bright sparks in amongst the smouldering ashes of the 1990s, sparks which morphed over time into phoenixes providing hope of a bright future

Vault-emort (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article does need a big fix up with the history bit. As a Collingwood supporter 90% of it can be referenced to a book I have and the Collingwood website. There is a lot of stupid statements like that around that do need to be fixed up. When I have free time one day I might do a complete rewrite with proper references.

I assume that "losing two matches a time" losing two in a row where which I think we didn't do in 2007 (or 2006). I'm not sure if it is such a rare thing but it's worth noting when talking about a solid season I suppose.

Jabso (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]



collingwood r gay lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.76.15 (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^ TYPICAL BLOODY CARLTON SUPPORTER

collingwood 2008 premiers - FUK YEAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.141.78 (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Finishing place

[edit]

I've noticed that this article shows Collingwood as finishing 4th in 2007, and the Kangaroos' article has them as 3rd.

According to the below article, these positions should be reversed as Collingwood had a better percentage in the finals series.

http://www.afl.com.au/AFLHQ/History/AFL101/tabid/1029/Default.aspx#finishing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.174.13 (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may of played better than the kangaroos, but with both teams losing in the preliminary finals the tie breaker is who finished higher and with kangaroos 4th and collingwood 6th or 7th the Kangaroos would finish 3rd and collingwood 4th. 58.167.205.32 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious Champion of the Colony winners

[edit]

No source has ever been cited from any year during which a Champion of the Colony/Season award is alleged to have been made.

A number of Collingwood players undoubtedly won an individual newspaper's "Player of the Year" award. However, that should be noted as the media award by that paper, not the mythical vote by multiple journalists.

The Argus listed the following for example,

1938 - M Boyall shared the paper's award with N Ware (Footscray), see issue of 4 September 1939, that issue including a list of the winners for the previous three years.

RossRSmith (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 114.76.83.90, 2 October 2010

[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change the line in the club theme song from 'See the barrackers are shouting' to either 'Hear the barrackers all shouting' or 'Hear the barrackers a shouting.' I believe the first one quoted hear is the version I have by the "Fable" singers on a 45rpm 7" single from the 1970's. Its unknown studio singers singing all the club theme songs and the record was on the 'Fable' label. The second version I have put hear is straight from the official CFC web site although I'm unconvinced that this version is what I hear from players or supporters in the modern era.114.76.83.90 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

114.76.83.90 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Club Presidents

[edit]

There is a complete list of former Presidents of the Collingwood Football Club available, several of whom are notable in some regard. It may make a valuable addition to the article to include these.[1] Crikey2046 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://forever.collingwoodfc.com.au/the-presidents/
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collingwood Football Club. 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) 00:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman. President.

[edit]

The info box cites Eddie as Chairman, but the article doesn’t.

The article cites him as President (more than once), but not as Chairman.

Is he both? MBG02 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woodsmen

[edit]

In info box, not explained in article, added some time in 2016 (but I couldn’t get search history to tell me).

New nickname? MBG02 (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you're one of our younger editors? "Woodsmen" is a very old nickname for the Pies. That nickname provided the name of Collingwood's coterie back in 1975 - http://thewoodsmen.com.au/ - but as an older person I can recall that name being used well before then. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A rivalry with Brisbane? Really?

[edit]

The article talks a lot about Collingwood's rivalry with Brisbane. There are several sources, but none actually mention a rivalry. This stuff needs to be sourced, or it needs to go. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally I've never heard a Collingwood supporter refer to Brisbane as a "rival". This article in fact says that since the 2001-2002 Grand Finals, any rivalry that may have existed is now dead: https://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl/list/afl-rivalries-local-derbies/19399r5j2i00m1qt7zqwe78bza/16 Striker161 (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use somebody's anecdotal evidence as basis for removal. As I have repeatedly addressed elsewhere, search for you own sources. They can be found. I'll copy across what is in the Lions page, as that has an actual source to support the information but does require more. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"As I have repeatedly addressed elsewhere, search for you own sources." Um. No. That demand is one typically made by conspiracy nutters on the web trying to prove something ridiculous. Wikipedia sports articles are full of nonsensical garbage about rivalries. I'd like to see a proper definition of a rivalry. It would NOT be "A club we've had a few good matches against" or "a club some fans allege did something nasty to a player in my club". And remember that the job of sports journalists is to keep the fans interested. Telling you there is a rivalry where one doesn't really exist does just that. We had claims of a rivalry between Sydney Swans and GWS before the latter club had played a game! I believe 90% of claimed rivalries in Wikipedia should probably be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be typically used in that context, but the statement is relevant here as you seem to have made no effort to find sources which support the content, instead opting to delete it and state 'No Sources' - hence I am requesting you make an effort to search for sources. The fact of the matter is that if it supported by the outside sources, regardless of its intent, we are obligated to report the information as accurately as possible, even if we view it as garbage. As an example, if multiple sources began claiming a rivalry between GWS and West Coast, we should report this as such, even if we disagree. In large part, most rivalries in Sport are brief (take Sydney-West Coast as an example), but if they have existed, they should be made mention of, even if in passing. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we report ephemeral trivia? HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: We should make note of this as rivalries are commonly associated with Sports - they are not simply trivia, instead being a key aspect of the sporting landscape. Despite rivalries themselves only lasting for a brief time, the interactions between the two teams will have still occurred. (Taking the Dogs-GWS rivalry as an example, it could cool off next year, but that doesn't eliminate what has already transpired.) It becomes a case of reporting a historical rivalry as opposed to current one, both of which are valid to their own merits. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: I agree with you that rivalries is just pumping by media / club media staff. But that doesn't mean it's not notable or relevant if it is covered in reliable sources. --SuperJew (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That comment reads to me as a contradiction. If it's "just pumping by media / club media staff", then it's not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: The notability is if it's covered by reliable sources, not it's truth or how we define things. --SuperJew (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot more than that needed to make something notable. For starters, have a thorough read of Wikipedia:Notability. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between writing an article about it and between including a paragraph in a different article. --SuperJew (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48:@SuperJew:SuperJew is correct here - the article you have linked to makes mention of the fact the notability requires outlined apply to full articles as opposed to sections within. The article you would be looking for is Wikipedia:WEIGHT, which outlines the following - "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Reusing my previous analogy of GWS - West Coast, it would not matter what the general public's thoughts on the matter are, so long as the reliable sources used sufficiently support this.
To summarise - Wikipedia:Notability is irrelevant in this case, Wikipedia:WEIGHT is the the relevant guideline, which supports the inclusion of the information supported by reliable sources Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It's ephemeral trivia, and adds nothing to the article. Tabloid content at its worst. It makes sports articles the trashy back page of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please also add this important edit to that section - "There was also animosity between the Brisbane Bears and the Magpies after the Bears' number one draft pick Nathan Buckley famously defected to Collingwood after one season on the Bears list.[42] The rivalry between the two clubs peaked in the early 2000's, as the clubs played off in two consecutive Grand Finals in 2002 and 2003, with the Lions emerging victors on both occasions.[42]" which should have "two consecutive Grand Finals in 2002 and 2003, with the (newly renamed) Brisbane Lions emerging victors on both occasions." Because not everyone is going to know that's not a mistake, and it's also an important part of the history of the Brisbane AFL team story. หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Mick Malthouse picture

[edit]

I'm bringing this here because it's one of the clubs Mick has been associated with. I'm just seeking a few more views on a discussion underway about an image an editor has proposed for the article. See the article history and the Tak page. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Collingwood Football Club Reserves into Collingwood Football Club

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge accepted. I realise I contributed to the merge discussion but WP:MERGECLOSE allows any user to close a proposal where there's a rough consensus after a week, and it's clear there's total consensus after a lot longer time than that. Not sure what the editor of the new article was thinking, but he/she hasn't come to defend their actions and neither has anyone else. Given every other AFL club article on wikipedia does not split their reserves team into a new page, with the strange exception of Adelaide, and all comments from those who were bothered to respond favours merging, merge it is. Global-Cityzen (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Collingwood Football Club Reserves into Collingwood Football Club

Not independently notable. The-Pope (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An illogical inclusion in Wikipedia. The corollary of it existing would be to have an article called Collingwood Football Club Firsts. And we won't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems this has already been discussed and merged, twice. BTW, this page was created yesterday. --SuperJew (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been debated ad nauseam here. Merge it Global-Cityzen (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

President section

[edit]

Currently the presidents section is an exact copy of what is written in the article List of Collingwood Football Club presidents. Any proposals as to what we should do? Shorten the section? Delete the stand-alone article? It is rather silly the way it is currently to update the exact same information twice on two pages. --SuperJew (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maggies

[edit]

While it is plausible that Maggies is in use as a nickname for the club, what sources are out there to corroborate its common usage? —C.Fred (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copeland trophy

[edit]

Just on that Jack Crisp needing a source? I added a source that linked to his biography FlagPies23 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Maggies" as a nickname

[edit]

[Copied from my Talk page - HiLo48]

dont revert my edit. Tell me what citation I should add. Maggie is definitely and should be a nickname for the club. His daughter is named magie and that's the coaches daughter. It has relation to the club. New nickname. Can we talk this through? FlagPies23 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

FlagPies23 - I've copied your question here to the article's Talk page, where it really belongs, and where more editors can join in if they wish. You will find the relevant Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Ideally, we need a reliable source that explicitly says "Maggies" is a nickname for the club. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What we should do is add Maggies as a nickname. But underline it as citation needed. Can we do this HiLo48? Because Maggie's is definitely a nickname for the club. I'm sure you have heard "COME ON THE MAGGIES" "LETS GO MAGGIES"" FlagPies23 (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. If YOU want to add something, YOU must provide a source. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. I added maggies one time before and an admin added as citation needed. Do you hate this football club so your being rude. I know what your saying though. Maggie's is definitely in use at the club but there is no relevant source. Citation needed is the best option. I've read the policy and terms and conditions of Wikipedia. FlagPies23 (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't remove the nickname unless it's irrelevant, doesn't make sense or it's unreliable. You must add citation needed. Don't remove the whole nickname FlagPies23 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first paragraph of WP:VERIFIABILITY. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ive already read it but you are acting like a hot seriously mate. "LETS GO MAGGIES. PLAY BETTER FIRE UP MAGGIES. COME ON THE MAGGIES. Have you heard that. YOU CANT REMOVE THAT NICKNAME. The players and fans use it. That's just stupidity. Read citation needed FlagPies23 (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i understand why you won't be to read it. But if you read citation needed on Wikipedia's pages. You will see you have to add citation needed before removing the nickname. Unless it is unreliable or completely made up. How is Maggie's made up. Magpies Maggie's many people use the nicknames. Put citation needed. Agree? FlagPies23 (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Citation needed To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, Wikipedia provides a means for anyone to question an uncited claim FlagPies23 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(side note to HiLo48) regarding your edit summary Twitter is an unacceptable source, Twitter can be an acceptable source, especially when it's from a verified account. However, in this case the tweet cited has nothing to do with "Maggies" as a nickname for the club (was just another source saying that Craig's daughter is named Maggie). --SuperJew (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FlagPies23 - You are now Edit warring and have breached the Three revert rule. This will get you blocked. Please stop now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ive only reverted 1 edit of yours? Read Wikipedia: Citation Needed first paragraph FlagPies23 (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to discuss this. Dont remove the nickname yet FlagPies23 (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cn tags are not an excuse to add unsourced information. Personally, I've never heard "Maggies" used as a nickname for Collingwood. And if it was as widespread as you claim, there would be sources. --SuperJew (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one talks about nicknames... You just make them up and it goes viral right? I think 4TheWynne should be told off to. Because when I put Maggies as a nickname he added {cn}. I think he has more experience than you. You might have to talk to him. I see on Carlton football club there is a few statements with citation needed underlined. It actually sounds better to use Maggies than magpies believe it or not. GO THE MAGGIES FlagPies23 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't remove my edit. You can see it's not vandalism. We need to talk about a source and all you do is remove it! 4TheWynne added {cn} needed not remove the whole nickname. I've heard you go for collingwood. You must have heard someone say Maggies, or think about it, does it make sense? -Yep FlagPies23 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could be 4TheWynne wasn't familiar with it and didn't have time to check therefore put in the tag, to ask for a citation (as that tag is used). However, 2 days later deep in a discussion, no sources have come up, then it's quite legitimate to remove the information. The tag is not to be used so unsourced information can be added indefinitely. --SuperJew (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah but we need to find a source. Best case scenario, seeing Craig Mcraes daughter was born "Maggie" it probably made his day better or happier and made him coach better. L FlagPies23 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
best day of his life FlagPies23 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle United ties with Collingwood

[edit]

Both clubs share links. Mascot, Kit and historical. Both are directly linked with Lord Collingwood. Geordieboy23puncher (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2024

[edit]

Owner should be Sam Darcy 103.214.221.167 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collingwood_Football_Club&oldid=1227722745"