Talk:2016–17 Leicester City F.C. season
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Fixtures
editDon't remove the fixture list, it's impecably sourced, notable, neutral. You know we'll have the info as soon as the match is played, fucking around with it beforehand is just annoying....especially as you've already changed your reasoning. 79.74.2.33 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- IT is both questionable regarding copyright laws, but also totally unencyclopedic and not notable with future fixtures with dates and times not even set. Just look at all the other PL team articles. Qed237 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is not at all questionable, and it's strange that you'd say it was. It has been ruled on conclusively; definitively answered. Other PL articles are done by the same mistaken copyright rule, the information is as encyclopedic as anything else, they're fixtures, no crystal involved....notability, relevance, weight....what on earth is your actual objection to inclusion? Your original reasoning was completely incorrect... 79.74.6.195 (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is there or isn't there a copyvio issue? This is important. El_C 09:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: All I have at the moment is this article from inbrief which the IP said is wrong. Qed237 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- I rememeber a discussion at the Football project about that, and that the copyright issue was "fixed". If that's the case, the games should be shown in advance. If they get moved, so be it. Kante4 (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: All I have at the moment is this article from inbrief which the IP said is wrong. Qed237 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is there or isn't there a copyvio issue? This is important. El_C 09:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is not at all questionable, and it's strange that you'd say it was. It has been ruled on conclusively; definitively answered. Other PL articles are done by the same mistaken copyright rule, the information is as encyclopedic as anything else, they're fixtures, no crystal involved....notability, relevance, weight....what on earth is your actual objection to inclusion? Your original reasoning was completely incorrect... 79.74.6.195 (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2016–17 Leicester City F.C. season. 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/20160616145923/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2016-17/jun/100616-premier-league-clubs-submit-retained-and-released-lists.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2016-17/jun/100616-premier-league-clubs-submit-retained-and-released-lists.html
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) 00:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)