Talk:Blackburn Rovers F.C.

Speculation should not be in a wiki article

* 'It is likely manager, Steve Kean will be sacked and that a number of star players will leave the club.' - this is speculation, wiki is not the place for this (it's not a forum). It should be removed.

Early history

I've been filling out the early history, but I'm a little bit concerned that I'm including too much detail. I figured it was a good idea to cover the early years well, certainly up until the team moved to Ewood. Any comments? Motor 13:39, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I've just created the Fergie Suter link off this page if anyone is interested. Motor 11:21, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Just thought I'd make a note of the epic journey that occured between my recent edits: Just after moving the latin motto into the badge image caption in the article, my PC power supply (350W ATX) suddenly failed. Eeek! I had to dive into the loft and find an old machine to rob of its power supply. Sadly, that one seemed to have a busted fan... it worked, but with no air flow its not a good idea to run it for any extended period of time. A bit of fan surgery later, and everything seems to be working (for the moment)... no reason to mention it, other than I'm feeling good. More on-topic, I'd like to add more detailed information about Ewood Park (on its own article of course) -- its construction and history... the architects etc etc, but there's not much info. I took a trip to the library, but couldn't find anything. Anyone know of a good source? Motor 11:07, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

You could try asking on a message board over at one of the fan sites like www.brfcs.com. As for the early history (see top), don't remove anything. It's a great article! TreveX^talk 11:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Copied from the mine and Pal's talk pages

Hi, thanks for editing the Blackburn Rovers article. I've reverted some your changes and I thought I should let you know why. As I tried to explain in the edit summary, the introduction is supposed to serve as a summary of the entire article -- for readers who just want quick information -- as recommended in the Wikipedia style guide. I'm sure it can be improved though... so feel free to edit again bearing in mind its function. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was concerned about the intro becoming a second history section which was happening with some other club articles, but now that I've re-read it I can see it more as a summary. I just made one minor change that isn't really summary information (League Cup score), and expanded upon it in the "new millenium" section. And I assure you it's not just because I'm a Spurs fan! ;) - Pal 20:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I've just added Blackburn's 2000-01 promotion to the premiership to the honours box (since they won promotion by finishing as runners-up in the old First division) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.194.197 (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edit from 195.8.163.194

I reverted the edits by this IP because Jonathan Douglas does have an entry on Wikipedia, which mentions his association with BR. Jonathon Douglas does not. I don't know if the wikipedia article is wrong, but it made me suspicious, and so I reverted all four edits by 195.8.163.194 -- which included a couple of removed players -- pending some more checks. - Motor (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Famous players

I think this section is a bit dubious at best... but I've just removed some players from the section. They didn't have wikipedia entries (or had ones for other people with the same name). If anyone wants to add them back, could they please provide a source for them. - Motor (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Famous Fans

This section has been aded to quite a bit recently. There have been no sources quoted for the entries, and besides that I really don't see what it's supposed to add to the article. There's also the difficult issue of what constitutes "famous". So I'm removing it. - Motor (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

I edited the links section, however given my potential bias (I am an admin of brfcs.com and co-founder of BRISA) I figured it was better to be upfront about this and get some peer review.

I added BRISA. BRISA was formed after the club disbanded the official supporters associations and to my knoweldge is the only supporters association recognised by the club (other than a couple of indendant travel clubs and the Disabled Supporters Association with still operates under the club's "official" banner).

I added BRFCS.COM. For many years this has been the most used supporters web site. It is also referenced in the discussion section of this page.

I reworded the RoverTalk link. The "Fans Forum" is a recognised focus group run by the club, so I reworded it "fans chat forum" to avoid it being mistaken for the official group.

I removed the link to the official message boards (as they are simply part of the official website, which is already linked).

I'm fairly new to editing on wikipedia, so I won't be offended if my changes are removed.

SlamTilt 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What year?

Well, in the trivia section of this article, it is stated that Blackburn beat Man United 18-0 in a pre-season friendly. Does anyone know exactly in what year this occured. I feel that it is best to include the year in which this happened for greater accuracy. This is indeed a notable event as well! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've checked every section I can think of in the Mike Jackman Encyclopedia (probably the most authorative Rovers reference there is) and it makes no reference of this. However this may simply be because it wasn't a competitive game. SlamTilt 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Socks

The socks are gray.I saw the Rovers play.But,when I edited it,somebody changed it.It's true! And don't change my editings!@$#@#%$%$^^^^^^^^&%567 it!I was wrong! They're White!

Kit =

I recently posted the kits underneath the sponsorship section, it was removed, although i'm not sure why, I had intended to develop that bit with the old kits, different colours and history of the kits.

Banana Man?!

Anyone know what that is about... --Catz ^{[T • C]} 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

the article is under heavy attack by mindless vandals. Chensiyuan 16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Rivals

You may have noticed that there's been a bit of a revert war over who are Rovers' main rivals.

For purposes of clarity Rovers' main rivals are in this order:

1. Burnley
2. Bolton
3. possibly Man Utd, but also possibly Preston

Accrington Stanley aren't a rival due to them - until this season at least - being a non-league side...

D-Notice 23:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I too seem to have become embroiled in this.... it's clearly vandalism, but very subtle and well... odd. also had to remove some rubbish about a 'best fanzine seller'

Billcarr178 16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I found a survey which, I reluctantly say, indeed has 1. Burnley, 2. Bolton, 3. Man Utd. I personally disagree with this. Anyone who thinks MU are our rivals clearly hasn't moved on from the 90's. Historically, there is no doubt that PNE should occupy 3rd spot. I'm not sure what people would like to do. The survey was completed in 2003 and I suspect things may be different now, but it's the only source I can find so surely it has to be used. Here it is anyway: http://www.footballfanscensus.com/issueresults/Club_Rivalries_Uncovered_Results.pdf 80.189.230.94 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just silliness from young kids who don't know the historic rivalry that Rovers and Burnley have had down the years. I just wish Burnley were good again :-( Jimokay 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This edit war needs to Stop. I'm impartial as I don't follow Blackburn and don't know who their main rivals are, and I suggest that all rivalries are only included in the article if they are accompanied by a reliable source confirming that they are. This is Wikipedia policy and will be a good way of stopping the edit war. If the rivalry is mentioned in another source that already exists in the article, it can be used to source the rivalry by using the ref name parameter. The football fans census above is a good start but more sources are needed. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to stop this edit war and improve the article, I've started rewriting the rivals section to include more citations and a brief write up about the rivalry to provide a little extra information for the reader. The section is not complete and is as follows:

Main rivals

• In an extensive census on FootballFanCensus.com, the fans placed Bolton Wanderers F.C. as Blackburn's second rival after Burnley. The teams are located close to each other and the match is considered a local derby.
• Blackburn has a long term rivalry with Burnley F.C. which dates back to the 19th century. The two clubs are 8 miles apart and on some occasions violence has broken out. When Blackburn Rovers and Burnley play each other the match is called the East Lancashire Derby.
• Manchester City.
• Manchester United is a team located close by to Blackburn Rovers and so are considered a rival by the fans. The rivalry was fiercest in the mid nineties when Blackburn Rovers and Manchester United fought closely for the Premier League title.
• The local rivalry between Blackburn and Preston North End F.C. goes back over 100 years. In 1888 Preston refused to play a match against Blackburn due to their reception by the Blackburn fans.

I'll include the reference section so editors can check my links

References

Like I said before, I don't follow Blackburn closely so it would be helpful if the fans could check any inaccuracies and help find good sources to verify the derbies. If there's no objections, I'll replace the existing section with this one. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, it does need more than a list of rivals - but I'm not sure alphabetical order is the best way to write about it - more historical information is needed but I don't know much about it before the 1990s and I'm not sure if sources could be found. I wouldn't say Manchester City are one of the club's main rivals, but maybe some people think they are. There is a rivalry with Preston, but not as much as with Burnley, Bolton or Manchester United. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It has to be alphabetical order because otherwise the order of the list gets changed due to disputes. The citations if presented clearly provide relevant information while the list can remain alphabetical. Brfc97 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brfc97 (talk • contribs)

Bill's edit provides more information than a simple list so provides some background as to the rivalries. However, if the consensus dictates it remain a list, Brfc97's suggestion that it remain alphabetical as to avoid further edit wars seems to me to be the most compelling solution, unless the numerical list from the fans' census be integrated. Theelf29 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source for a Preston incident but ideally more information would be included to. I'm sure something like a match programme from a Blackburn - Preston match would mention the rivalry and that would be a useful source. This goes for any of the rivalries/derbies. As for the order, I think I'd prefer alphabetical order whether it be a list or the expanded version, unless a source is found with somebody high up in the club saying "This is our biggest rivalry". (A chairman or manager or something like that). Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now added this section to the article. I've not been able to find a source about the rivalry with Manchester City, but I've left it in with a {{Citation Needed}} tag. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Bill! I'd propose that the section on the article would be much more worthwhile with the expansion you've added. As for the Blackburn Rovers-Burnley rivalry, this[1] could be added as a reference. I think it's useful in gauging fans' perspectives. Also, Brfc97 added a couple of cites from the Lancashire Evening Telegraph (as it was then) from the mid-'90s to reference the Blackburn Rovers-Manchester United rivalry. Theelf29 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that article looks good and will be useful as a source. The Burnley rivalry seems to be the most talked about one on the web at least. My concern at the moment is that the edit war has broken out again and I urge editors to discuss things here. There's the Three Revert Rule to be worry about. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally created the main rivals article. The original order kept getting changed and when I changed it to alphabetical orders things seemed fine unless the further info was added. Personally I think the section now is just fine as it is. No further citations are neccessary as there are enough included already. Otherwise if it keeps getting changed I would vote for the whole section to be removed as I now regret creating it in the first place. A survey from 5 years ago is hardly a reliable source now and only included votes from a small percentage of Rovers fans.Brfc97 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brfc97 (talk • contribs)

• If the survey from 5 years ago is not a reliable source how is a one-off event in 2000 added without sources valid to support the claimed Manchester City rivalry? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the alphabetically order, and the section is in alphabetical order in order of team names, but it doesn't need to say this in the heading title. The commented out part is there to encourage editors to keep it in the neutral alphabetical order. Citations are always needed for all content that can be challenged. I'm not sure why you want to limit the number of citations in use. I tried to find a source for the Manchester City pitch invasion and I couldn't find anything that wasn't subscription only. The article also mentioned that it was both fans that invaded the pitch, so this is exactly the sort of thing that definitely needs a reliable source confirming the details. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the alphabetical order (or whatever order it is in) but the citations need to stay in. As for validity of the 2003 survey, it should stay in unless it is contradicted by a reliable source (e.g. another survey) that is more recent. Also what does the phrase "From a town standpoint"[2] mean? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed "(Alphabetical order)" from the heading - is this really necessary? Theelf29 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Manchester City, I recall reading a certain chant used by City fans at the 2000(??) game at Ewood Park of "you're just a small town in Burnley". I don't have a cite to hand and I'm not sure as to how this suggests a "rivalry" between the clubs, but I can certainly understand Brfc94's point about this. Apologies for the lack of a citation - I have a friend who, for his sins, supports the Sky Blues, so, if it's of use, I'll ask him about this. Theelf29 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to state for the record my preference for the Main rivals section at this diff (16:15, 13 February 2008). In my opinion, this version is more informative, written in a more encyclopedic tone, and more comprehensively referenced. I also feel (though it appears I'm in a minority of one on this issue) an alphabetical list isn't necessarily the best way of rendering this info. I feel a prose section that progresses logically from most heated rivalry to lesser rivalries and from an historical to a present day perspective would be a better format. --Muchness (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, though I feel that an alphabetical list is the way to go to avoid further edit warring. Theelf29 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Phrases such as "2nd rivals after" is NOT alphebetical order. Anything referring to any order other than alphebetical should be deleted. The survey should also be deleted as it is from 5 years ago and not alphebetical eiether.Brfc97 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The current order on the page goes Bolton, Burnley, Man City, Man Utd, Preston. This is alphabetical order. I'm not sure what you mean by alphabetical order, but what I think you're concerned about is the wording. Those phrases are based on the source, and there's no real reason to ignore such a comprehensive survey from a reliable source. Perhaps the date of it needs to be noted in the article, but there's no reason to remove it. I also think you should reconsider your editing style as you went ahead and reverted again after your block, when many people have asked you to discuss first before going against the consensus that has been reached. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrases and survey is likely to cause disputes. If I don't remove it someone else would I assure you. It's best that it isn't included as there is still enough information included. The source is not reliable as it is from an independant site and only a very small percentage of fans probably voted. My editing was only done in the belief that the list was supposed to remian alphebetical only and that wasn't the case. Any other order causes too many disputes. How about leaving the section as it is for a few days and seeing whether that resolves the situation? Brfc97 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That survey is from a website which has the backing of The football league and all 72 league clubs, the Chief Executive of the PFA, the Cheif Executive of the League Managers Association and Ivor Caplin MP, so I'd say it's fairly reliable. It's important to note that the section doesn't say outright that Bolton are the 2nd rivals, it simply reports what the survey has found. So it doesn't actually make any official claims to the order of rivalry. There was a consensus for this version reached on the talk page so how about you leave the section and see what happens? Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If I leave the section someone else would edit it anyway as there are too many disputes. If people want to look for suggested orders other than alphebetical there are other places to find out. I think we should see what happens and if nobody changes anything just keep things the same. Neither an alphebetical list on it's own as it originally was or any other order info is the way to go. I believe the current version is the correct balance so I think it should be left as it is for now. Give it a few days at least. Brfc97 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The version you're suggesting we leave there is disputed as it has been changed by a handful of editors. The new section however has been quicky reverted by yourself and has had no chance to see if it is disputed by many people. So far there has been a few editors to say that they like the new version on the talk page. Let's see how the new version stands before saying "there will be disputes". I have reverted the article to the new version once more and I strongly suggest you leave it for a while to see if it really is disputed. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted again because clearly you aren't even bothering to take my views into consideration. The survey is not relevant and will not be included on this page. Put it on another page if neccessary but not this one. You can block my account again if you wish but I strongly doubt that would make a difference. Somebody else would edit the section again in my opinion. The current version is fine and I suggest you experiment with my version. Alphebetical order was what was agreed nothing else. You wanted further info and I had no issues with that but I'm not going to cater to every demand when it is not in the best interests of the section. Everybody should be allowed a say in this and I'm going to have mine. There is the right balance now and an explanation so I can't see what's wrong with the current version. Brfc97 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot dictate what the content of the page is to be against consensus. That is "ownership". You've now removed all citations apart from one for no apparent reason. You've removed sourced content. All of this against consensus. How do you justify that? It's a genuine question because I want to know exactly what your concerns are. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Each rival has at least one citation which is more than enough. There are quotes in the 96-97 section referencing the Man United rivalry. Bolton and Burnley are local sides and that is a citation itself. Preston is also local. I request that the currrent section remain as it is. The survey can be posted elsewhere. I think that there is a case for the whole section being removed. I have tried to be reasonable and the current version is the right balance in my view. If people want more info and order surveys they can visit club messageboards and other sites. Wikipedia presents facts not surveys and opinions. Just leave the section alone for 24=48 hours and see if it remains the same. I have been asked to debate this issue yet you keep changing it anyway so further debate would be almost pointless. Brfc97 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that there are "too many disputes"[3]. The "main rivals" section was created in 2006 containing only Manchester United[4] [5]. On more than one occasion when this was changed, the creator of the section reverted it. The same IP deleted content from the East Lancashire derby article around the same time, and as a result was warned about vandalism[6] [7] [8] [9]. Now Brfc97 claims to have created the section [10]. It looks like the recent "edit war" is a repetition of one that occurred a year ago, only this time we have decided to assume good faith. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall that long ago so I don't know whether I was involved in past "edit wars." As far as I recall I created the main rivals section but can't recall several months back. That's my point though that if there is any dispute over the order it keeps getting changed. Some people don't want Manchester United on the list and some don't want Burnley on the list. Therefore it's best it's in alphebetical order rather than including links such as surveys. I feel the current version means everyone has had a fair say in what the section should include. Brfc97 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• What is important is verifiability not the opinions of those users, if they have evidence to back up their disputes it can be provided as references in the article, and if still disputed then discussed on the talk page to gain consensus. Otherwise their edits will be challenged and reverted. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

The following is a breakdown of the citations in this section:

• "In an extensive census on FootballFanCensus.com in December 2003, some fans placed Bolton Wanderers F.C. as Blackburn's second rival after Burnley." is sourced by the football fans survey(pdf)

This link confirms that Bolton is seen as a rival by some fans. I've explained previously on this talk page why I think this link is appropriate for inclusions. I have also tweaked the wording to ensure it's clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• "...on some occasions violence has broken out." is sourced by "on the pitch the 2 clubs haven't been in the same league since 1982 but still they see each other as the big rival. There have been some cup matches with violent outbreaks in the meantime though." on the footballderbies.com link

This link I believe is useful as it provides a summary of the derby, and confirms the claim of violence over the years.

Though out of date, as Blackburn & Burnley were both in the Football League First Division (now Championship) in 2000-2001 (with my apologies if this has already been pointed out). Theelf29 (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• "When the two teams play each other, it is known as the East Lancashire Derby." is sourced by "...the next East Lancashire derby between Blackburn Rovers and Burnley". on the lancashire telegraph link

Since the addition of the footballderbies.com link, this citation isn't as necessary. It does however provide evidence of a single outbreak of violence, though it cannot be used to confirm that all the violence over the years is down to Burnley fans.

• "Manchester United is a team located close by to Blackburn Rovers and so are considered a rival by the fans." is sourced by the football fans survey(pdf)
• "The rivalry was fiercest in the mid nineties when Blackburn Rovers and Manchester United fought closely for the Premier League title." is sourced by "...much like Blackburn's brief flirtation with a 'rivalry' with United in the early 1990s..." in the Eurosport article.

This citation could be expanded upon as it is quite vague. It does however confirm a rivalry.

• "In 1888 Preston refused to play a match against Blackburn due to their reception by the Blackburn fans." is sourced by "Preston North end actually refused to play a Lancashire cup tie against Blackburn Rovers as a result of 'the offensive way North End players have been received in Blackburn'" in the book link.

This citation only confirms one incident but does provide context and an historical example of the rivalry. I'd suggest another citation is needed to directly confirm that there is a rivalry.

Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sergio Peters.

Although i think he is a decent player, i do not think this guy deserves to be in "notable former or serving players" section. Maybe its just me but i would class 'notable' as a player who has atleast moderate fame with the fans or media. This guy is still young and does not really qualify for it, heck even Matt Derbyshire is more notable than sergio peter and he isnt listed! (and i wouldnt class him to be listed yet either!). anyone elses opinios? Lukey12345 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your correct, he's barely had 10 match starts, so shouldn't be on the "notable former or serving players"

Zurab Khizanishvili

Doesn't seem to be in the current squad. He didn't leave, did he? Whoizzet 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No he didnt leave, im guessing when the vandal the other day removed half of the team and added players who dont play there, when undone probably just missed adding him back. I'll do it now. Lukey12345 09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Due to amount of vandalism the page has been suffering over the past few weeks, does anyone feel that it should be locked to non-registered users? D-Notice 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The vadalism may be in part related to users affiliated with certain Rovers forums. I noticed that since I updated the links section in September the order has been changed (moving one site up the list) and one of the links has been slighty modified to an incorrect url (and incorrect desciption). Is there an easy way to spot when the changes were made without stepping through every revision ? Anyway, locked to non-registered users gets my vote. SlamTilt 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore that. After closer checking it seems all the links "non-corporate" sites were removed and then later re-added (all be it, incorrectly). SlamTilt 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nickname

Isn't Blackburn Rovers' nickname supposed to be, "The Riversiders"? Flonto 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be Middlesbrough's nickname because their stadium is called the Riverside. Fulham are called "The Cottagers" in referance to their stadium, Craven Cottage. FootyStavros 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.pubquizhelp.34sp.com/sport/names.html, Blackburn Rovers are sometimes nicknamed 'The Riversiders' in reference to a stand at Ewood Park, their homeground. Morstar (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

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 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC) roque santacruz te amamos-----------------------------------francisco matias bedoya 021585057 yamame es mi numero

Chairman

Surely someone could make a page with background information on the Chairman, John Williams? Or would that be pointless now that takeover talk is rife? sepmix 23.26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Foreign players

I noticed the team has only four Englishmen (and a North Irishman and Welshman apiece) on the current squad, a good deal fewer than any other Premiership club... Is this noteworthy to mention? Is it a point of contention among supporters or opponents (I don't know, I'm not a Briton)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Three references.

¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

History

The history section is rather patchy. The section headed "Early 20th century" in particular seems extremely short, with four lines covering 30 years or so. As Rovers won the League title twice before World War One, and the FA Cup (for the last time so far) in 1928, surely this deserves more attention. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New article

It seems that a new article on the history of the club has been created. However, said article seems very similar to the history section on the main BRFC page. I feel there is a need to discuss whether the history section of the main article is culled in favour of the new page or whether this new article is itself not needed. Theelf29 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that the new article should be left, and the history on the general page should be alot shorter! In comparison to other premier league teams, our history is far longer. Somebody needs to trim it, and leave all the excessive details in the specific 'history of' page. talk) 09:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC

Renewed hope and downfall (1997–1999)

Hodgson was sacked in December ... team captain and midfield enforcer Tim Sherwood was sold to Tottenham Hotspur, leaving the side without a leader. Brian Kidd ... was named as Hodgson's successor.

This implies that Hodgson sold Sherwood but the Tim Sherwood page states that he was sold in 1999, after Hodgson's sacking. There's a reference online to the exact date of the transfer at Sherwood to make pounds 4m move to Spurs . Sherwood was sold during this period, but not by Hodgson. Whilst it may be true that Hodgson was a factor in Sherwood's transfer, the sequence as currently written is inaccurate.

Simon Marchese (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Club websites

Regarding advertising of personal websites I am the owner of www.brfcattitude.com. I believe it is left to neutral editors (i.e not the owner) to decide whether or not the link should be included. I believe there is no reason why it shouldn't be there as it is authentic and relevant to Blackburn Rovers. Content is low at the moment but that is generally the same with all new websites. I will be adding historical sections + profiles in due course so in terms of regular updates it is very active.

So your decision and I hope you decide to keep it there as one website link isn't really damaging the page. Please add the link if or when it is approved. Thank you.BRFC Attitude (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal websites are generally not added to articles. They need to be reliable, verifiable and be a good resource of information for the user. As the content is low and it is just one person creating the content then I don't believe the link should be added at this time. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BRFC97, etc

I've seen that another one of this editor's sockpuppets has been blocked for blanking the page and refusing to get involved in any debate whatsoever.

How long until another one appears?

By the way, I saw that the page was semi-protected. Can someone tell me why it didn't stop the vandalism? D-Notice (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a problem with his sockpuppets until the semi-protection expires. Creedab was an old sockpuppet which hadn't been indefinitely banned so it was able to get around the new account limit. Today I tried once more to get the user to communicate on the talk page in a civil way, but he said he wouldn't accept any version that he disagreed with. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

History section

The length of the history section is ridiculous, considering that the history of Blackburn Rovers already has its own page. Why doesn't someone reduce this significantly, so the page for the club can function as a good resource. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, somebody, please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash99 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is free to edit! Chensiyuan (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to submit my photo... http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w139/timpickup/PremiershipTrophyBase1.jpg

• Premier League Trophy Base
  Premier League Trophy Base

Paul Ince era

heyy...just wondering if the phrase 'paul ince era' is strictly correct...it was less than 6 months so surely it's more of a spell? And with the takeover thing, as everything has gone quiet and nothing is happening with any of those bids any more is there a point to it? Just wondering. Nikki clash'd (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Injured Heading / Missing from First Team

If a player is injured it does not mean that they are not on the first team squad any longer. For example, Brett Emerton at this moment. No other football club wikipedia pages do this as far as I can tell other than the Blackburn Rovers page. If there are no objections, I'd like to move the injured players back into the first team squad as it's inaccurate otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquavit (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable players

The notable players section has been deleted for no apparent reason. I'm happy to debate the reasons in favour and against it being listed. D-Notice (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you care to examine the material you added in your own reversion you will see exactly why this section has been deleted! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It does look to me (as there's not a single source) that the section is built using personal opinion. However I think this sort of thing would be easy to produce as a verifiable list as a lot of publications refer to players' notability. For example the BBC has an article where they refer to Ian Rush and Peter Schmeichel as Liverpool and Manchester United legends, so it does seem plausible that there's articles out there that would be useful to verify such a list for each team. As far as dealing with it now goes, it could be removed and people could refer to the list when attempting to build the verified list. Or it could be kept in place while sources are found and items without sources could be removed later. Either way it needs sources. On another note, Fasach Nua I suggest you leave a more detailed edit summary than "delete section" in future, and bring it to the talk page if you find resistance to an edit. In my experience discussion is the best way to get results. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sam Allardyce era (2008-2010)

Is this worth updating yet or should we wait until new season begins? It's just there is nothing about us managing to stay up under Sam

sutton and shearer the sas

hi, sorry to get all technical but sas isnt an acroynm its an initialisation, an acroynm is pronounced and an initialisation is spelt out .calling it an acrynm would make it rhyme with pass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelestation (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Maceo Rigters

Is Maceo Rigters still in the Blackburn team?

yes he is still with the team, he just hasn't been allocated a squad number.

Andy Todd

Was player of the year 2004-2005 if you cared194.75.129.200 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers F.C.

Under the section 'Main Rivals', it is stated that the two teams, Blackburn and Burnley, are EIGHT miles apart; they are in fact SIXTEEN miles apart. The two towns are 14 miles apart centre to centre, Ewood Park is 1.5 miles outside town centre and Turf Moor is 0.5 miles outside town centre in opposite direction, making 16 miles in total. I can authenticate this, having been a taxi driver in the area for over 20 years. Signed Leprechawn. 28th Jan 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechawn (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

They pronounce it like WHAT?

Blackburn Rovers Football Club (pronounced /ˈblækbərn ˈroʊvərz/) ???????

Only those with a speech impediment do. And, by the way, whoever wrote that really should try to provide a 'verification'!

92.239.71.235 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Jemmy Hanson, Bryn. 92.239.71.235 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't understand what IPA is or the IPA is wrong? Chensiyuan (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Henning Berg?

Can someone put Henning Berg on the list : "Premier League Apperances"? I think he has 209 P.L apperances for Rovers. How could Berg be let out/forgotten - the only player with the Premiership title with two different clubs and also the most capped player in the club`s history.

(Ok201agi (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Edit request from Antimojo, 1 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} at the beginning, where it says "in 1890 Rovers", add a "the" in there.

Antimojo (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've undone this edit; proper nouns are not preceded by an article in this case. Furthermore, Rovers are referred to without an article in this article's references. --Muchness (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Anothergopher, 27 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Change Vasky's to Venky's

Anothergopher (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Also removed the apostraphe to fix the grammar. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Order of "Main rivals" section

The section has a comment, only visible when editing the page, stating that the section is listed alphabetically. It isn't alphabetical - Burnley before Bolton, and Manchester United before Manchester City. I would have removed the comment, as there has been a discussion in the past about this, I decided to mention it here first - what is the current consensus? Peter E. James (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Influence on Athletic de Bilbao and Atlético de Madrid

I don't know if this is a relevant fact, but you might want to put in the article that Blackburn Rovers' blue and white colours influenced the early kits of Spanish teams Athletic de Bilbao (founded by Englishmen from Blackburn) and Atlético de Madrid (founded, in turn, by Basque students in Madrid), who played in blue and white until 1911, when the person who was in charge of traveling to England to buy the kits for both teams couldn't find Blackburn Rovers' kits and bought Southampton FC's instead, therefore changing the Spanish teams' colours to their current red-and-white stripes.

Athletic de Bilbao decided to switch completely to Southampton's colours (including the black shorts), whereas Atlético de Madrid decided to retain Blackburn's blue shorts.

There's more information and sources in the teams' articles on Wikipedia.

Edit request from Srigz, 18 June 2011

Blackburn Rovers are traditionally a big club and the 6th most succesful club in England.

Srigz (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:33, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please disambiguate correctly the listing for Paul Robinson in player of the year section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.60.141 (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:34, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

colours

3rd colours should either not be listed, or be red/black/red as last seasons away kit was — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.4.91 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC) home socks should also be blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.4.91 (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers Lancashire Senior Cup

On the Blackburn Rovers F.C. article in the Honours section it states that Blackburn Rovers F.C. have won the Lancashire Senior Cup 17 times but they have won the Lancashire Senior Cup 18 times and it says so on the Lancashire Senior Cup article. I wish for an administrator to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan11diouf (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Blackburn Rovers won The Lancashire Senior Cup in 2011 and Blackburn Rovers F.C., Honours it is written 17 times up to 2007 but they also won it in 2011, it needs to be edited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_Senior_Cup This is a source and proof that Blackburn Rovers have won the Lacashire Senior Cup 18 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.197.138 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Lancashire senior cup

blackburn won the lancashire senior cup in 2011, i have added this to the article.