Wikipedia

Talk:Lincoln City F.C.

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Prova-nome in topic History
Learn more about this page

Fair use rationale for Image:Lincolnlogo.PNG

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Lincolnlogo.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 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 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Lincoln City F.C. badge.png

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Lincoln City F.C. badge.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 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 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What on earth does this mean?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"The club did not actually come 1st place, they came 13th, but were champions on the basis of re-election." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Holding on

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"They regained their Football League place automatically via promotion as champions of the Conference (beforehand it was done by re-election) at the first attempt with a long ball game devised by eccentric manager Colin Murphy and have held on to it ever since." They've held onto what - their Football League place, or the long ball game? (Chorleypie (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC))Reply

Jackie Robinson (footballer)

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm currently researching Robinson to improve the article on him, and he was player-coach for a brief period in 1949, however this is not mentioned in the managerial history on this article. Am I getting the wrong end of the stick; was he more involved in assisting training at the club or something, rather than actually managing the team? Also, as a four time England international and having played for two First Division clubs (Shef Wed and Sunderland), shouldn't he be included in the notable player's section, despite only making 8 appearances? Fintan264 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

2016–17 FA Cup section paragraph

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it me, or is this whole section really poorly written? The progression ordering seems off also. Would it not be better to rename the section for the season? Because it has also failed to mention how well Lincoln have done in the Conference League. Govvy (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lincoln City 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) 05:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lincoln City 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) 03:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lincoln City 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) 10:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

History

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

@Prova-nome: I am inclined to restore all that been removed, I see no point in you destroying the article to separate the history when the article itself isn't even that large. This seems a pointless WP:CONTENTFORK in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Govvy: Regarding content forks, I point you Huddersfield Town A.F.C. and it's history page, Hartlepool United F.C. and it's history page, Gillingham F.C. and it's history page, Stockport County F.C. and it's history page, Carlisle United F.C. and it's history page, Cambridge United F.C. and it's history page and many other football clubs in and around League One and Two of the EFL and the National League and their articles in Category:History of association football clubs in England. Personally, I do not really care either way, but I would like to see some consistency across the board on football club articles and their history. So if you wish to restore the content in this article and redirect the created history page, I would like to see the same done to Huddersfield Town A.F.C., for instance, and merge History of Carlisle United F.C. to the main football club article, etc... On the other hand, the history sections of many football clubs' articles suffer from WP:RECENT, having not much information on the club's early history, but an excess amount of information on the past few years - this was the case with Lincoln City F.C., which was one of the reason why I forked it out in the first place. Prova-nome (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Govvy: Also see the article on Southend United F.C. Prova-nome (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
This is a yes and no, there is always room to expand and content fork out, I am not against it, but you have to remember the size of the article, you removed some of the key points from the second and third paragraphs in the article which should be restored. The article really wasn't that big to begin with, it needed work more to tidy up the article maybe shave off some bits, making sure sources are right. This primary article needs more work rather than to fork out. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Southend is the worse of the lot, there is no overview of the history on the article, that's very poor MoS. Govvy (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Govvy: Brentford F.C. has the same issue as Southend United F.C., and yet it's history is forked out into three separate pages. I've raised this issue up at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Football Prova-nome. (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lincoln_City_F.C.&oldid=1208185060"