Talk:Barrow A.F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of the Copy Edit Tag[edit]

Merge stadium article[edit]

Not sure there's much point in having a separate article for Holker Street just yet..can always be split off if/when there's enough verifiable info. Paulbrock 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holker Street used for speedway and has a link from Barrow Bombers article. Needs to be separate from football article.Hammer1980 23:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent form[edit]

Should Barrow's recent run of form in the Conference North be mentioned as they have gone from the relegation zone to the mid table and could possibly challenge for the playoff positions. TheTrojanHought (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree - they've had the strongest run (the previous 15 games from this posting) of any team in the league Audigex (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attendances?[edit]

I'd agree that there are attendances as low as 7/800 - but the average is higher (closer to the 1000 mark). Apart from anything else, 800-1100 is a huge range with a 25% percentage difference (approx) - surely we can get some more accurate figures? Audigex (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning the attendance for the match against Kettering on Tuesday - 2,086 - the highest attendance in years. TheTrojanHought (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the average for 06-07 was 795, and its pushing 1000 this year, so I don't think the range is that unreasonable. 800-1100 is a large range - this just reflects that attendances range fairly widely. http://www.thelinnets.co.uk/gate8.shtml --Pretty Green (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further update - 08-09 attendance is quotes as "1,499, 1,608 including friendlies" on the unofficial fansite. I can't find anything particularly verifiable at the moment, but if anyone can find any? Audigex (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spatiari ut progrediaris[edit]

Is this supposed to mean "to walk that you may progress" ?? Spatiari is a deponent present infinitive meaning "1. spread 2. take a walk, promenade 3. walk" Does it make sense in Latin or English. Spatiari doesn't seem to mean "to strive" Stikko (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to All Wikipediers.[edit]

Hello. Just to let everybody know, I am attempting to Fully Protect this page so only users approved by Barrow AFC ltd. May Edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrovian (talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For any particular reason? A company can't generally protect a page from being edited by their users... that turns it into an advert, not an enclycopedia article. Unless there's a stunningly good reason, this seems unwarranted. Can you show where you are attempting to get it fully protected, so others can participate in any discussion/appeals against it? Audigex (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no basis for doing so - you might want to check WP:OWN and WP:CONFLICT. There's no history of vandalising edits to this page and no suggestion that there will be. --Pretty Green (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the spirit of being bold I've edited it. Oh, I think it'll survive a few (it seemed like hundred but never mind) disambigs and redirects and then the odd redlink and some text that was poorly written or wrong and then an odd thing at the end. There might be bits that might need to go back, I don't know - but having a pile of red links lying around will mean articles get created about other people with that name and then you end up linking, for example, to a actress rather than a footballer.
In other news, my gut feeling is that there are a couple of issues with this page just now:
  • the recent history bit is just far too long. It needs structure
  • the list of managers needs it's own article with a paragraph or two summarising the famous ones or ones who did something worth mentioning whilst at the club. Hey, it had like 5 managers in some seasons. Talk about revolving doors - move this overlong section someplace else. (I'd do it myself but I imagine I'd get shot down in flames - let me know if you want me to do it)
  • are we thinking of references here at all? I nearly put a refimprove tag on straight away but throught it might be better to talk aboutit here first. There must be references for some of this stuff. I'm particularly anxious about the BLP issues associated with words like "gangster" and "money-laundering". Although those descriptions seem to be relatively fair I think we'd be better off with some reference to sources to back that up
So, there you go. Edit and be damned or something like that. Enjoy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers BST, I think this article needed some care and attention! I'll respond to a few of your specific questions in the week if no one responds to them first Pretty Green (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'd start adding refs myself but I'm not 100% sure where the best place to look is. I presume there are local papers in west Cumbria which may have archives for the recent stuff anyway? If you can point me in the right direction I may have time to be able to find some stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the "north west evening mail" is the local paper. www.barrowfc.com, a fan site, should do you for stats, league tables, etc Pretty Green (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts as to how to break up that awfully long history section at all? And whether the list of managers should go in its own article or not? A spot of discussion might be handy as my understanding is that edits are being described as "vandalism" which I'm not entirely sure is fair. But, you know, any thoughts anyone? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added some stuff on 2010-11 which I think is prolly fair enough, although, as I've said in the edit summary, it feels like it needs a finishing off sentence, perhaps with a more positive slant? I wondered about including the sale of Walker (see here) which seems to have been a club record sale, yes? Or the warning to players by Bayliss (here) or something similar - the management seems to have been under some pressure this season, yes? (see here for example)

Article Structure[edit]

Hmmm, tricky one this. There are some suggestions, btw, over at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs|WP:FOOTBALL, but the history section clearly needs splitting somehow to make it readable.

The first bit is prolly fine, although it'd be nice to see some more detail on the period in the league I think. It might want a sub-heading perhaps as well, with the History bit seeing a brief summary. The 'Wilkie Years' - yes - perhaps add the dates to the sub-head? Should the graph really be at that point as well?

I wonder if it would be useful to split the section at the end of August 2002, following the ownership change? This might necessitate moving a little of the information around as well. Then the rest will probably work - perhaps a sub-heading of 'Return to the Conference' (or Rebuilding and return to the conference)? Or similar - my knowledge of non-league football isn't great fwiw so I might not always suggest the best wordings for these sorts of things!

Oh, given that this chap (Fred Laycock) got a DYK recently using Barrow's name (April 25th) he might be worth a mention - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Did you know

Oh, while I'm at it, when was this Chas Kendall trophy last played and how many times have Barrow won it? Just that it could become a rather long list - it's rare to see this kind of trophy mentioned in articles ime. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would this approach be a good way to deal with the Chas Kendall thingummy? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I'd be just as happy removing it. A pre-season friendly with a sponsored trophy from a local bookmakers is not worth including here. The deeper issue with this article is that (like a lot of football articles on wiki) much more easily-findable info exists on recent seasons. I don't see the need to provide blow-by-blow accounts of what's happened to a club every season on Wikipedia. So I agree (for different reasons!) with Barrovian that a FA Cup exit in 2011 is not especially notable (why not mention the many other years that Barrow went out in that round, or indeed in earlier rounds when they were in lower leagues). That said, Barrow have had a few particularly notable seasons over the last few years, compared to say the 2001-2006 period in which, essentially, nothing of note happened other than the tidying up of the Vaughan period. Ideally, I think the history section should consist of:
  • A section on pre-1920s football
  • A section on period in the league (1920s-1972). In the long run, perhaps a section on the 1965-1972 period (promotion and run up to loss of league place) would emerge
  • A section on the club 'refinding itself' in the non-league, perhaps culminating in the Wilkie period
  • A section on the turmoils of the 1990s
  • A 2001 to now section
To that end, we'd probably have to dig into a couple of books (at least for the pre-1990s stuff), which I could get hold of and should maybe take up as a challenge! But to stick to the contemporary, I think it reads just about OK, but yes a split post-Vaughan might be a good idea.
As for the manager's list - yes, I think this could be farmed off to its own article? Before doing that however it might be a good idea to find a source for it... Pretty Green (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In light of this, I've had a go at expanding the history up to 1972. I'll try and run through the latter stuff at some stage. You'll probably want to check through my changes! Pretty Green (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all fair points I think - and the recentism issue is a major one in football club articles certainly. That sort of structure looks pretty sound, although there's currently a lot of stuff on the post-2007 seasons. That might need a touch of trimming - although the couple of FA Cup third round ties, for example, seem reasonable things to have there. Not sure what sort of stuff to cut - perhaps things like the couple of sentences on the semi-final FA Trophy wins, for example? The early stuff looks good at a first glance - if you can eventually find books rather than the club website I suppose it would be preferable, but that can be a longer term aim I think. The sections certainly make it a lot easier to follow what's occurring! Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk (2011)[edit]

When people edit this page, half the time it is wrong on invalid infomation, or unnessisary. Recent edits make Barrow look shoddy and have uneeded defeats, such as at FCUoM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrovian (talk • contribs) 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why unneeded? They reached the 3rd round the previous two seasons. It places the season in context for the management which did that - despite the higher league position. It's about balance - FCUoM are two divisions lower - that's pretty significant, albeit a club which can be expected to do similar stuff to Wimbledon I imagine. On balance - on the grounds we need to keep a balance to the article and to the sections - it's reasonable I think. You could think of it as a way of deflecting any COI issues if you wanted to... (joke) Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wimbledon are a bigger club, and look where they are in the table, The Play Offs. You imagine? So your not from Barrow by the sounds of it? Cool. Barrovian (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I meant FCUM might be expected to do the same sort of thing as Wimbledon! Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this may be a starting point:
The 2010–11 season was less successful for the club, although they finished in 18th place and retained their Blue Square premier place with a 2–0 victory over Hayes and Yeading on the last day of the season.[7] They failed to defend the FA Trophy, beaten 2–3 at home by Blue Square Bet North side Guiseley (possibly: in the first round - this is factually accurate afterall)[8]. For the first time in 3 seasons (check accuracy of this please) the club was unable to progress to round 1 of the FA Cup, beaten 1–0 by F.C. United of Manchester at Gigg Lane in the 4th qualifying round.[9]
I'm sorry and all that, but unless there's some attempt at balance you're right on the edge of a major COI issue. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, given that the directors of the club seem to have seen fit to make a formal statement to fans about the result against FCUoM, I would now very strongly argue it has to be included in the wiki article in some form. Seriously - it seems to have been the only formal statement they made all season as far as I can tell. I'm also increasingly thinking the Walker sale has to be in the article as well, given his importance to the club. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bunch of refs to deal with some of the BLP issues I mentioned earlier on this page. In places I've changed the wording a little to ensure that it represents the refs - for example, Vaughn's never been charged, Walker can be described as a Liverpool drug-dealer with certainty, whereas gangster is potentially dodgy I guess. I can only go on the refs I've opted for here, which are national newspapers in the main (or WSC) so there may be slight inaccuracies that those with local knowledge can pick up on.
Would it be legitimate to mention Keen's name in respect to having led the new company? He comes up in the refs quite a lot and it would seem reasonable to reference him somewhere. I also wonder if we shouldn't put something in about the FA Cup tie with Chester as that seemed to generate a lot of the coverage and appears reasonably notable to me Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Managers[edit]

To come back to something I mentioned a wee while ago - the list of managers is awful long. I was pondering what to do with it and came across what they do at Ipswich Town#Managers (as much as it pains me to admit that they had a good idea down there...). Any thoughts as to whether that's a sound idea? I'm happy enough to put the work in - 50 games OK? Obviously anyone notable and/or famous ones might merit a text mention as well I guess, but I'd need a bit of hand to identify them prolly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'd also include: the current manager(s) , even if they didn't have more than 50 matches; any manager with 'major honours', which in this context would be any league wins or promotions. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


No, The list is fine as it is, everybody needs recognition! Barrovian (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's arguing that they wouldn't be "recognised" - it's simply too long and clogging up the page. The other people go to a page which just has a list of managers on it - nothing else basically. This seems to be common practice for when lists get too long. 50 games is arbitary but not unreasonable as a way forward. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in re-canvasing opinion on this. I'll leave it a while because it's the summer and all, but does anyone have particularly strong (and logical...) objections to reducing the size of the list here and moving it to a different article. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium and badge content[edit]

Am I missing something? This content looks fine to me, is generally referenced and seems entirely factual to me. I don't understand why it's been characterised as opinion or bad content? Is there a problem with it that I'm not seeing that someone can explain? Sorry, this is probably me being thick or something - so some kind of tuition would be very welcome. Thanks in advance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if content is removed then an explanation on here should be necessary. To comment specifically on the edits last night:
  • Removing One of Blue Square Things Opinions, Only legit facts should be on I entered this, not Blue Square Thing. I thought the comment about originally using the town coat of arms was interesting and useful, but the only source for it that I could find was a fan forum. I put it out there to see if anyone had any knowledge of where it could be corroborated. But it probably is appropriate to remove it.
  • Getting rid of MORE opinons This isn't an opinion; it's to note that Barrow played in yellow and blue in the 2010 Final, which is significant. The club re-used the colours because they were associated with this success and it may be that they become permanent second colours. I think that's valid
  • Stop slagging Barrow Off! Firstly, as has been noted above, this page doesn't exist to promote Barrow AFC. Secondly, the presence of the Cross Bar at Holker Street is one of the ground's most distinguishing features: it means that the Steelworks End is open to the elements and is not terraced, unlike the three other sides. The ugliness of this is commented on by a number of writers (check the sources!). I'll reword this to indicate more clearly that this an opinion, but as it is a common one I think it's worth including.
  • Barrow Raiders do not need to be mentioned. Yes, but the point of this comment is to show that the colours of blue and white are associated with Barrow in a wider context than just the football team. In explaining the club's colours to people, that's important information.
To make a direct comment to User:Barrovian: please engage in more talk on here if you want to help improve this page. Accusations of bias/NPOV editing in edit summaries can be easily washed off, but its not conducive to a collaborative editing process. This page exists to describe Barrow AFC to those who do not know the club, not to promote the team. Neither you nor any of us who have edited on this page have the right to act as 'article police'. The article benefits from editing, from multiple users checking and correcting each others work; please begin to edit in this manner. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow AFC Userbox[edit]

Hello Everybody, I have entered this userbox code on the page for userbox creation, so if it gets made, you can show your colours on your userpage!

This user supports Barrow AFC.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Barrow A.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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Barrow A.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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Barrow A.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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrow_A.F.C.&oldid=1205766569"