Talk:East Lancashire derby

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Lancashire and Cumbria Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Bolton Wanderers & Manchester United

I've added the former to the paragraph relating to Manchester United, though am not sure that this is really necessary. I can't see why mentions of any other clubs is relevant to the history of the East Lancashire Derby. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Theelf29 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United were considered as rivals in the mid 1990s but not as much now - not sure it is relevant. There are sources that claim the East Lancashire derby is against Bolton so maybe that should be mentioned. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you, Snigbrook. Which sources suggest a Blackburn-Bolton ELD? These would certainly be relevant - maybe we could include this info in a paragraph in the article? What do you think? Theelf29 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure now - when looking for references (referring to the ELD - without adding any team names to the search) I found two - but one is not a reliable source (it's on a newspaper site, but in a comment to an article, not part of the article itself) and I am now unable to find the second. There are sources that suggest it is a Lancashire derby (e.g. BBC News and Yahoo articles) but not East Lancashire derby. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolton is in Greater Manchester therefore can not be considered an East Lancashire match. (Not Registered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.232.144 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, considering Blackburn Rovers & Bolton Wanderers have histories stretching long before the 1974 local government reorganisation which created Greater Manchester, it is applicable. Theelf29 (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester is totally irrelevant. Football is a game of tradition, and therefore traditional county rivals will remain as such regardless of local government bureaucracy. I will make a point though that calling this game the 'East Lancashire' derby isn't entirely accurate. Blackburn Rovers, Burnley, Bury, Oldham Athletic and Rochdale are all traditional East Lancashire teams within 20 miles of each other, and games between any of them are often referred to as East Lancashire derbies. Bolton hardly classifies as in the east of the traditional county though. The 'Cottons Mills Derby' isn't a particularly accurate term either, seeing as all of these clubs are based in former cotton mill towns.

Complete Overhaul

Posted a new version of this article today, quite frankly the old version was crap and had no references so have just replaced it. I have removed the section about Manchester United and Bolton. This is mentioned on the Blackburn rovers page and this page has nothing to do with those two teams as it is only about Blackburn and Burnley. Check the other derby match pages and you will notice no references to any teams apart from the two involvedBobatron83 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I have a little more time, I intend to undertake another thorough review of this article. As it incrementally grew, there were paragraphs added in the present tense which should now be changed to past tense. Also, much of the descriptive narrative is blatantly not WP:NPOV - although that is to be expected given the subject matter and the likely partisan nature of any editors interested in it. Please append any comments that you may have regarding a rewrite, or any suggestions for improvement, so that I know there's general approval before I start.Astronomy Explained (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems needed to me. Although I recently played around with some tweaks, I didn't want to touch the prose because of the lack of references, especially in the early sections. I also notice that many of the report links in the football boxes have rotted. I don't usually get involved with football articles, so outside of Burnley library I'm not sure where to look for sources on the older stuff. I suppose in the spirit of collaboration I could find some time to fix the rotten links.Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illegible table colouring

I understand the significance of the background colours used in the table but blue-on-purple and blue-on-blue is difficult to read, almost to the point of illegibility. Could you please explore some alternative to this? Knepflerle (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be exact...

The games in the 1982–1983 season were not the last of the 20th century, since the Dec. 17, 2000 match also was in the 20th century. The first century was C.E. 1–100, thus the 20th is 1901–2000. There is no year 0.

Uttrediay (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Lancashire derby. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309030206/http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/ThroughTheYears/0,,10303~78737,00.html to http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/ThroughTheYears/0,,10303~78737,00.html

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) 04:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancashire derby

Please provide URL's to back up this statement in the pre league friendlies section: "The total number of pre-league meetings between the clubs was 13, with Burnley winning seven, Blackburn four and the other two being drawn." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.69.211 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4668181.History_of_the_Blackburn_Rovers_v_Burnley_derby__part_one/: "The total number of pre-league meetings between the clubs was 13, with Burnley coming on on top seven to four". This source is already used in the article, for example in the head-to-head section. The point is, you, 86.180.69.211, delete these stats without a reason, only stating the statistics are "dingle facts".--WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the given source into the place of the "cn template"--WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]