Talk:Chasetown F.C.

Charlie Blakemore

Can anyone expand the Charlie Blakemore article? At the moment, it's a bit short. I see that there are references to interviews with Mr Blakemore. Is there anything else notable about him? I'm newish and not sure as to whether it should be marked up for cleanup attention or deletion to call in more editors.21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What do people want to know? I was Press Officer at Chasetown until 2007 and have known Charlie since he was 16 and a player for Chasetown. 86.133.144.90 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History

The history section is all over the place - it starts with extensive coverage of 2005, then progresses backwards through 2001 and the 1990s to the club's foundation, then progresses forwards again, passing the 1990s and 2001 again before finishing in 2005! This really needs to be put into a coherent chronological order..... ChrisTheDude 08:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus it's been lifted from the club's website and is therefore clearly copyright violation ChrisTheDude 07:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the chap who wrote it for the club (PDM on the official forum), was the person who put it on here too. 86.128.103.143 10:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The initial History - put up by me (PDM) in 2005 ran coherently but then I left the club in 2007 and it has been edited since (not by me from what I can see)

I can happily re-write it - I don't know whether it violates copyright if I wrote both articles? 86.133.144.90 (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Paul

It would violate copyright if it appears on the club's website, as content published there is assumed to be copyright of the club as publishers of the site (in fact I just checked and I see that the history page on the club's site specifically states at the bottom "© 2008 Chasetown Football Club. All Rights Reserved". But there's nothing to stop you re-writing it as long as it is not a straight "lift" from the club site -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But surely if the same person writes both, the copyright is held with the writer? what if the official website said "writer's name for chasetown football club" and the same writer's name appeared in wiki? or what if the wiki page said "reproduced with permission of chasetown fc"?? 86.133.144.90 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC) the original article was written by myself (on both sites the same) and updated by my successor on both sites...

Firstly, I have no reason to doubt that you genuinely are the person who wrote the piece on the CFC website, however I'm sure you understand that we only have your word for that, which would not be valid in the event of any sort of dispute arising (I'm sure no dispute would arise, but the Wikimedia Foundation has to be protected against such possibilities in all cases). Secondly, no, copyright does not automatically rest with the writer if it has been published by an organisation which claims copyright over the work. I used to work in book publishing and the company I worked for always held copyright over the contents of their books, so the authors could not reproduce their work elsewhere even though it was their writing, as far as I know it's exactly the same with websites. It is certainly permissible for an organisation to give permission for text from its site to be used on WP. What would need to happen is for the club's webmaster to email permissions-en@wikipedia.org stating that they were prepared to release the material under the GNU Free Documentation License. Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Never really been sure how copyrighting works on things like this when I was writing the Chasetown match reports for the local newspapers, I was sending the same report to 3 newspapers independent of each other (as much as anything to save my time) and all 3 ran the exact same wording in their newspapers. As the 3 papers ran on different nights they didn't really worry about re-wording my reports and I didn't think anything of it. I am meeting with the Chasetown chairman this weekend anyway, so I shall ask the question of him. Thanks for your help. 86.133.144.90 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Paul

To be honest I wouldn't worry about it too much, I just checked and the history section has been substantially re-written and is no longer a "lift" of the piece on the CFC website, nor would a word-for-word lift be appropriate anyway. The history piece on the CFC site is very well-written and perfectly suited for the club's own site but bits like "The magic of the FA Cup had been restored & Chasetown’s place in the rich history of the competition had been cemented in the hearts of all true footballing supporters" are not really written in a suitable tone for an encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Current season

Following a discussion at the Wikipedia football project, the exhaustive detail on the current season had been moved to a new sub-article, Chasetown F.C. season 2006-07 ChrisTheDude 08:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CFCsmaller.jpg

Image:CFCsmaller.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) 05:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chasetown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923132713/http://www.nonleaguenews.co.uk:80/team.php?name=Chasetown to http://www.nonleaguenews.co.uk/team.php?name=Chasetown

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) 19:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)