Talk:East Stirlingshire F.C.

East Stirlingshire 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
Date	Process	Result
March 29, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Football: Scotland Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit]

Champions League? --TheMadTim 02:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true the strip is correct

iam the chairman otf the supporters club

Thou the away stip is all orange saddly

Norwegian fanclub[edit]

What is this all about. 24 hours after East Stirlingshire was mentioned in a Norwegian comedy show, a fan club was created and now they have over 1000 members. Quite amazing. Should this be put in a trivia section?

Not 1000 members, but 5044... It's free to join the supporters club, so it isn't that amazing. The most amazing thing is this: "The new away kit sponsors will we Lifeskills Solutions, with the reverse sponsors the Norwegian fans' website, www.norwayshire.no."[1] --Sosekopp 18:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kit change?[edit]

[2]

This page really does read like a magazine feature[edit]

I feel there are too many colloquialisms and the article is overly sympathetic to the club. I want NPOV.80.41.46.19 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:East Stirlingshire F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will copyedit and make straightforward changes as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~No need to bold words such as "Britannia" in the body of the prose.~~

~~No need to have all the F.C.s everywhere, they can all be abbreviated as I've done.~~

Hello, I have seen to the above requests. Cal Umbra 07:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be tricky, but the history section seems pretty bare of player names - were there players who were integral parts of the team for spells that are worth noting? Just a few here and there I think would help liven up the section.

I have mentioned the club's all-time top goalscorer Lawrence McLachlan who was influential in the club's early years and internationalist Eddie McCreadie who was sold to Chelsea with the funds helping the club to attract new players and win promotion. I have also mentioned the players' wages in the early 21st century in general as I think it is notably low for a senior club. Cal Umbra 16:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, try to condense prose into paragraphs - don't leave single sentences forming their own paragraphs..

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- a nice warm engaging article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on East Stirlingshire 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) 05:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on East Stirlingshire 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) 07:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on East Stirlingshire 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) 09:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

East Stirlingshire.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is history here and in separate article?[edit]

Almost exactly the same time as this article, including its History section, passed a Good Article review in 2013, a separate History of East Stirlingshire F.C. article was populated with identical info. The situation has barely changed since then. Could anyone interested please indicate their preference for either the section of the main article to be severely truncated, or the History article to be returned to a redirect (taking care to include any differences in the added content since the fork). No need for both to remain at the size they are. Crowsus (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be merged, I don't see why a separate article would be needed, especially when the information is basically the same. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll wait for others to contribute but I kinda think the same. The issue is whether the history is too long as a section but I don't really feel it is, and the length was similar at the time of the GA seemingly with no problem, and no attempt made to chop it down in the 8 years since, so nobody seems to mind. But silly to have it in two places in such detail. Crowsus (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]