Jump to content

Talk:Crystal Palace F.C.: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 19: Line 19:
{{WikiProject Football|class=GA|importance=Mid|England=yes|non-league=high}}
{{WikiProject Football|class=GA|importance=Mid|England=yes|non-league=high}}
}}
}}

== Weasel Words? ==

Quoting:

''"Many Palace and Leeds fans believed that Shaun Derry might have been the player who shared the information but Derry's agent played down these reports. Misery followed for Palace as they were beaten at home the following week by rivals Birmingham City, to the suspected anger of Palace Chief Simon Jordan."''

''"Many people are still in doubt as to whether Peter Taylor was the right man to take charge at Selhurst, as Palace finished February some way off the playoff place that was achieved a year earlier during Dowie's final season."''

Personally, I think these paragraphs cast Taylor in an unfair light against him. The paragraphs keep citing "Many Palace fans/people" and there's a mention of the "suspected anger of Palace Chief Simon Jordan," but no citation for proof on those statements regarding the fans and Jordan. Not sure what to do about these: reword this paragraphs, or delete them altogether? I don't really think they're that important to the article and I would delete them, but I don't think I have enough seniority to make a decision on this type of situation. (ChicagoEagle8, 13:51 GMT, 14 March 2007)

: I see your point, and unless anyone has any objections, or does it before me, over the next few days I will try and sit down and re-phrase, or plainly delete the paragraphs. [[User:Tarquin88|Tarquin88]] 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


== Re-arrangement and changes to the page. ==
== Re-arrangement and changes to the page. ==

Revision as of 15:41, 12 January 2023

Good articleCrystal Palace F.C. has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 5, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
July 18, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Re-arrangement and changes to the page.

I have made numerous changes to the page and am still in the process of making changes.

Some may notice that the some of the page headlines have changed, I have also moved some sections around so they have more of a flow to them.

The "Centenary XI" has been imposed onto a pitch, to look more aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion. The section current has a few lines of 'line breaks' in order to keep the notable players from covering some of the pitch.

The notable players have been listed alphabetically, and alphabetically by country. The players included will more than likley change, as there is a fair few players on there, some of who aren't that 'notable'

The managerial history has been added to a table, with each managers stats next to them, including the win percentage.

I have also changed the external links, removing the BBC Link for the moment and organising the links into official links and supporter links.

Any suggestions are obviously welcome.

Update: I have now made ammendments to the 'Rivals' section of the page.

Tarquin88 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work you're putting into the page. ChicagoEagle8 5 April 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Palace1970sbadge.jpg

Image:Palace1970sbadge.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 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 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates & dashes

En dashes should be used in scorelines and only full dates and dates with a day and month should be wikilinked, including in the footnotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Epbr123 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rivals

The `Rivals` page is in urgent need of deleting/clean up, as the only rival whos hould be mentioned, is the only rival of CPFC, which is Brighton.

All other accounts are not required, i.e West Ham, birmingham comments. Encyclopedia ?

Disagree about Brighton being the only rivals. The quip about hardly playing Millwall should go as Crystal Palce have been in the same division as Millwall 50% of the time since 1920! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.197.168 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the whole section might as well go. It rambles on endlessly about the Brighton stuff which has only been in effect since their unfortunate experiences during the temporary ground share, totally ignores Charlton, has forgotten about Wimbledon (RIP) and restricts comment on Millwall to one snide and inaccurate dig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.82.73 (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, Charlton were removed along with Wimbledon. As they are not rivals of Crystal Palace FC. There maybe some arguement for Charlton, but Wimbledon were never ever rivals and therefore not worthy of comment whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.4.199 (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect the rivalry with Charlton goes back decades with Palace fans consistantly referring to Charlton as "Clowntown". For their part whilst Charlton have historically been less concerned antagonistic to Palace than Millwall they developed a considerable resentment of the former club during the groundshare. Wimbledon are of course no longer rivals since they were hijacked to Milton Keynes but for some years they were more successful than Palace and although Palace fans scorned their hatred I can assure you that the Dons supporters ahd no time for you whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.43.234 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Nice work by Dancarney to update the rivals section. Having a quick look around other 'good article' football teams they have very little on rivals. Arsenal's entry barely mentions Spurs, Aston Villa instead links to an article on birmingham rivalries. The only football team i can find with a section is Gillingham and Sheff Utd and that's only a couple of paras. extraordinary (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think that a club's rivals should be noted - it gives some insight into a club's psyche, or what have you. However, these sections can easily get out of hand, with endless statistics and details of every match between the clubs in question, plus a whole load of POV stuff on who's best, etc. All that's needed is, who the club's fans consider (or have considered) rivals, why this is and for how long this rivalry has existed (particularly where it's not just the nearest neighbours). The only other things that could possibly be mentioned are things such as an extremely long winning/losing streak. Dancarney (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

chants

It would be good to add chants to the page i know many other club pages have them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.128.95 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other pages have chants doesn't mean this one should. In fact, if anything, the chants should be removed from the other pages as they are often quite offensive and not very encyclopaedic. - PeeJay 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section

This section should be severely pruned. Most of the information would be better suited to a separate history article, or even individual season articles. - PeeJay 16:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's not necessary to have a report on every season. Perhaps a table of league positions or a link to a site which displays them. What's left could be put in a separate article, History of Crystal Palace F.C. or something like that. I've tagged the article so it can be discussed what steps to take. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 14:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the history section to its own page as suggested as I believe it improves the look of the article. "Old" history is in the seperate article. Current history (i.e this season) is still in the Original article as I believe itys relevant. Random Jack 11:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial statistics

If Steve Coppell took over in 1999 and left in 2000, how did he manage to manage 596 games? (Chorleypie 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There's a note next to his name which explains why it says that many ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cystal Palace FC SEASONS

Unlike the current page of Crystal Palace F.C and History of Crystal Palace, A dedicated page should be created simular to the Sheffield United F.C. seasons Page. As this brief synopsis of each season would be welcome.

Thoughts ?


Other topics

I'm Australia and have recently heard former Newcastle Jets player Nick Carle signed a 2 year contract, can anybody confirm???. Cheers Nath1991 (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No confirmation yet, still speculation --Rockybiggs (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its confirmed now Nath1991 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Since Crystal Palace is pronounced exactly like the words Crystal and Palace, and that every English speaker in the world knows how to say those words, do we really need the pronunciation guide in this article? I think we should remove it. 220.253.17.146 (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bust? Nope, not yet

Clearly any change to the text that changes the tense to past tense is wrong, ESPECIALLY without a source. If you actually know how the process goes, it won't get wound up at 3pm, what will happen is the club's assets will be sold. The club will still be a legal entity until it's formally liquidated, which won't take place right now. Unless there is a clear source for it, Crystal Palace can be considered as of right now still clearly legally operating and any changes that tries to imply it's "bust" or "liquidated" without a cite will be deleted on sight. Smoothy (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, We'll just have to wait for the page to be semi'd (which I have reported it for but since theres quite a backlog, it may be a while) If you know of an admin online currently get him to protect this page otherwise we'll be reverting all day. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the reason why the page should never have been changed by naughty people to suggest that Palace have gone under - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/crystal_palace/8714650.stm Smoothy (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

transfers?

would it be prudent to add a transfer section for english championship teams, including palace? or is that too much work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.167.205 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by a "transfer section"? Bacchus87 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Head - A manager ahead of his time! (pun unintended)

Bert Head - A manager ahead of his time! (pun unintended) Bert Head was manager of Palace from 1966 to 1973. The webpage WRONGLY states he was head from 1963 to 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortsmouthPete (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Head - A manager ahead of his time! (pun unintended)

PortsmouthPete (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Bert Head - A manager ahead of his time! (pun unintended) Bert Head was manager of Palace from 1966 to 1973. The webpage WRONGLY states he was head from 1963 to 1964.[reply]

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

  • It features a sort function
  • Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
    • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
    • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
  • It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
  • It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
  • It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Crystal Palace F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, Edinburgh Wanderer 19:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

It says the club was formed by the builders of the Crystal Palace. Now, think about it logically - The Crystal Palace was built in 1851. Even if the builders were 20 years old then, they would have been in their 70's by 1905! You've sourced it, but it's clearly wrong. Perhaps even the source was unaware of the existence of Crystal Palace F.C. (1861)...? 195.24.44.116 (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have referred to the original & basically unrelated club formed circa 1861. Eagleash (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardew not actually yet manager

Probably being pedantic, but AP is not actually yet manager at this point in time. Should the article be edited for the sake of encyclopaedic accuracy until it is confirmed? The Newcastle United page is stating that AP is still manager there, which I think is technically correct as we go Martyn Smith (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2015

As there is a break in league games, how about updating Pardew's stats in the managers table?? Played 11, Won 6, Drawn 1, Lost 4 Mikebenns (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Re: History of original . To add more detail to your Crystal Palace FC Eagles club badge article. During 1973 I, Keith Payne, was the official club photographer also designing Crystal Palace "splash badges" for sewing onto track suit tops and working under Commercial Manager Tony Shaw at that time. Malcolm Allison who had just joined Crystal Palace as Team Manager was telling me that "the Glaziers" was a boring nickname and we wanted somethin more appealing like "the Eagles" eg., like the name used by Benfica Eagles of Portugal. With that I designed a "splash badge" with an Eagle sitting atop the old glaziers mofif so the history would not be lost. Allison liked the "splash badge" and it immediately became the new "Club Badge" and worn on the player's shirts. Obviously it has been modified a few times since then but it was the very first and hence the "eagles" fanfare at all matches we played. Keith Payne ex Crystal Palace Club photographer.

 Not done Edit request does not contain references to reliable sources. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United League

Given there has been a revert war, can we discuss this properly? I'd remove it, for 2 reasons:

  • Site link provided [1] fails WP:RS / WP:USERG
  • Even if it passes, the competition itself is not notable: it seems to be a reserve league for Southern League teams. The page states:

"The United League was founded in 1896 to provide additional mid-week fixtures for teams drawn from a number of leagues." and "The League was re-formed in 1905 solely as a secondary competition for Southern League teams, although membership soon dwindled" Spike 'em (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.royalsrecord.co.uk/cups/united.html

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crystal Palace 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, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Player numbers (pre-season)

I've reverted 4-5 changes recently where editors have added/changed shirt-numbers. At present time, CP are on a pre-season tour, but have not announced which numbers players will wear during the season. There is no guarantee that players will keep the numbers assigned on tour (e.g. I noticed on a CPFC tweeted team sheet that a fringe player played in no. 20 which was used last season by Jonny Williams, who is not on the tour, but is still with the club)). The relevant section of the club website [1] doesn't even list the new players. Last year they made a formal announcement on 24th July[2], until they do the same this pre-season I don't think we should change any numbers, as otherwise fails WP:VERIFY Spike 'em (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted 3 more changes, including one for a player who hasn't appeared for the club yet (Mandanda). Players may have a preferred number from previous clubs, but until we are told about it we can't use it. Please provide source that says Palace will use it and I will stop doing this. Spike 'em (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I adapted this from the Ipswich Town page and would suggest adding similar here:


<!----------------------------- READ THIS NOTICE FIRST BEFORE EDITING ---------------------------------- – Do NOT add new players before their signing is officially announced by the club through the Crystal Palace F.C. website, including medical and signing the contract. – Do NOT remove players before their exit is officially announced by the club. – Do NOT add or change squad numbers until it is official on the Crystal Palace F.C. website. – Only add numberless players that are new signings or youth players who have become part of the first team. – Pre-season numbers can be added temporarily with A REFERENCE. – This is Wikipedia, not a football gazette. Anything unconfirmed and unsourced will be removed on sight. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> or a shorter version on Arsenal page: <!-- Any changes not listed on http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/players will be removed All edits must meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy--> Spike 'em (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On related point, should video on club website count as a source? Have changed captaincy based on Pardew saying so on a club video, so please feel free to revert if this is not reliable enough! Spike 'em (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could people also stop changing Townsend and Benteke's numbers (though this is probably pointless as you'll never look here) Spike 'em (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cpfc.co.uk/team/
  2. ^ http://www.cpfc.co.uk/news/article/squad-numbers-201516-2569546.aspx

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Crystal Palace 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, 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) 03:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Crystal Palace 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) 08:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crystal Palace 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) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ground / club location

I've just started discussion on ground page : Where is ground located? Spike 'em (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Crystal Palace 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) 15:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of foundation, edit-warring restarted

There is currently a discussion at WP:FOOTY about the club claims to be founded in 1861, please discuss further there before changing the foundation date on the article. Spike 'em (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_131#Crystal_Palace_F.C. Spike 'em (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen70: your edits are on the verge on edit-warring and they are introducing the incorrect foundation date. Please see the discussion linked above and discuss before making any further changes. The change in date has not been recognised by any reliable secondary sources, we can't just take the club's word for it Spike 'em (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying it is "incorrect". Some of use claim it to be correct. But unfortunately you do not like our sources as all we have is "primary", "OR", SYNTH", "unreliable" etc in your definition. And your edits are on the verge of CANVAS, as you had "the intention of influencing the outcome" of your edit war. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss this at WT:FOOTY Spike 'em (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Again you are trying to influence the outcome with recruiting editors that are on "your side". And the previous debate was archived with no concensus anyway. It is about this club and I will discuss it here. Actually I have nothing to discuss as the things stand now, so just ping me when you will have genuine interest in improving Crystal Palace FC article in encyclopedic way. Until then avoid using terms as correct and incorrect in your edit wars, that was my point. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because that page has a wider participation, and the discussion was started there first. If you can provide any sources, that aren't the club itself, that say the present-day club was founded in 1861 then I will discuss it here or there. Spike 'em (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be adding miss-information again, it was known as Crystal Palace Club that played cricket that decided to start playing football in the winter of 1861, amateur football wasn't founded then, they started playing then, it's an origin date, not a founded date. I strongly suggest you adjust what you have written before I decide to go and remove it all. Govvy (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a chunk of miss-information on the article, it wasn't founded as a Cricket club, it was just simple called Crystal Palace Club at the beginning. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "original" club has been at Crystal Palace F.C. (1861) for 10 years so you'd need to get consensus to change the formation date. Spike 'em (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault, but Ian King wrote the history and even on the official website, the founding is first noted as "Crystal Palace Club", it was never founded as "Crystal Palace Cricket Club" That's false information and completely wrong. Following that by football being established in 1861, it's straight forward simple facts, the club had an earlier found date, origins of the football, established date, I really don't understand why people are messing around over this and providing miss-information. Govvy (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the club is raising this again: WP relies on reliable secondary sources for verification. This does not include the club, which is not neutral in this regard. Despite what has been said in edit summary, I have not seen any news reports that the FA nor the PL have endorsed the club's claims. Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors (either sock or meat puppets?) state that the FA must have ratified the 1861 formation date for the club to change the crest: if this is the case then it should be simple to find a report of such ratification. We need reporting of this in reliable sources, independent of the club. Perhaps you should all read WP:V and WP:RS before you accuse others of having an agenda. If you can provide these sources, then I will help make the changes necessary to this and the 1861 article. Spike 'em (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and it continues, based on a third-hand information that the club believes the FA accepts the date: 1861The Trust asked about the recent confirmation of the historical development information of the Club and changes to badges etc. Although some evidence for this date existed it did not seem it was universally accepted. The Club were convinced of the validity of the date and the Club historian supported the position. Changes to badges etc. had to go through certain FA procedures and the new badge had done this, so the Club indicated there was FA acceptance of their position. There is no way that minutes of a meeting with the club which represents the club's view of the FA's position is a reliable / independent source. Spike 'em (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

In the Statistics and records section of this page Change X ... "They are also the only club ever to be relegated from the Premier League even though they finished fourth from bottom, as it had been decided that at the end of the 1994–95 season, the bottom four clubs would be relegated in order to accommodate the league being reduced from 22 to 20 clubs for the 1995–96 season; " ...to Y see wording below They are also the only club ever to be relegated from the Premier League even though they finished fourth from bottom, as it had been decided that at the end of the 1994–95 season, the bottom four clubs would be relegated in order to accommodate the league being reduced from 22 to 20 clubs for the 1995–96 season; Chelsea were also relegated from after finishing 4th from bottom in 1988 (18th in a 21 team division) although ultimately Chelsea's relegation was confirmed via the play-off system. Camberwellse5 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. HeartGlow (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

Under History > Into the Football League (1920-58), is the sentence “This achievement meant they joined Preston North End, Small Heath, Liverpool and Bury as the only clubs to win a championship in their first season as a league club.“

Suggest the addition of “, a feat since only matched by Peterborough United in 1960-1” 86.159.109.181 (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

I have rewritten the paragraph on the current ownership of the club, which wasn't cited. It specified the ownership split post-takeover as written the accounts but it was not cited.

I am not aware of any useful sources as to the ownership of the club, although it is generally presumed to be owned by Parish, Harris and Blitzer in equal measures. This may have previously been true but it is not disclosed in the accounts or on Companies House. I am therefore not aware of any sources that aren't primary (i.e. from the club or Parish himself). I am not even aware of any primary sources that are recent and the clearest one I can find is the forum post cited, from Jan 2017.

It may be reasonable to remove the sentences on the forum post and replace it with a line about the general presumption as to the ownership. However I still think it is notable enough as a citation.

I have replaced the list of owners in the box at the top of the page with "Undisclosed" as the ownership is certainly undisclosed officially. I do not believe we should accept unverified primary sources as to the ownership since there is an obvious potential bias in Parish's statements regarding ownership. I could not find the evidence of ownership on the page cited, which again was the official CPFC website so should not be used anyway.

I think this is important - given the uncertainty over the ownership, it is very likely that people will take what is written on Wikipedia as generally accepted fact. The reality is that it is clearly (intentionally) difficult to determine who really owns Palace and to what degree.

81.111.45.250 (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerleaders

Should the Crystals cheerleaders be mentioned in this article?DeathTrain (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New official logo with modified year of foundation announced by the club (June 2022)

The club announced a new official logo on their website on 18 June 2022, here. The only difference from the previous logo, is that the foundation year is now displayed as '1861'.

Also, they are already using the new logo on various other places within their website, and on their social media pages. An example being on their official Facebook page, here. Craig Andrew1 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crystal_Palace_F.C.&oldid=1133178564"