Talk:IFK Göteborg

Peer Review

I completed a peer review of this article, and made some minor style and grammatical corrections. Phoenix2 02:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Dress"? Or "strip"? Or something else?

The article users the term "dress" where Brits like me would use "strip". Is "strip" understood outside Britain? Or is there another term that can be used? (I can't think of one.) I'm asking because describing what the players wear as "dress" sounds a bit wrong to my ear. --Finbarr Saunders 12:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm British too, and "dress" also sounds wrong to me. I'd certainly use "strip" myself, but I don't think it is worldwide, though: Americans say "uniform", and until only a month ago (when I added a mention) neither the strip nor uniform pages so much as mentioned that Britons don't call them "uniforms". Besides, the article uses British English spelling (eg "colours"), and is about a sport not that popular at a professional level in the USA, so an American word might look out of place. Maybe "kit" could be used, as indeed it is at the end of the "Colours and badge" paragraph.

I think kit is the best word to use and have changed the article. How about the use of "jersey", is that an AE term and so should be changed to shirt, or is it used in BE too? -- Elisson • Talk 16:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Jersey" is used occasionally, but not as much in football as it is in rugby; "shirt" is by quite a long way the most common term here. I wouldn't say that "jersey" was incorrect though, and it's readily understood, so I think it's fine to leave it in. (Australians use "guernsey" in some sporting contexts, I believe, but that's never used in the UK.) Loganberry (Talk) 22:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The other section I have a slight problem with is this: IFK Göteborg, Malmö FF, and AIK are often considered to be the three biggest and most classic Swedish football clubs... "Most classic" doesn't really mean anything in English, and a better phrase would be nice, though I'm not sure what. Admittedly this is a small point, but it's a featured article and so has to expect such small points to be made!

Loganberry (Talk) 12:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

An anon user reworded it earlier today. Better? -- Elisson • Talk 16:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot better, Johan. Cheers to the anon. --Finbarr Saunders 19:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that reads pretty well. The hyphen in "make up" was a bit odd, but I've taken that out now, and that apart I think it's a major improvement on the original. Loganberry (Talk) 22:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting

• after the troubled start IFK won everything they could win that year, including Allsvenskan, Svenska Cupen, and the UEFA Cup - could this be described as a treble, or were there other minor competitions as well?
• The first Swedish official national league, Allsvenskan, started in autumn 1924 / IFK won their first Allsvenskan title in the spring of 1935 - would it be possible to put the month for these? Helps to avoid confusion among readers from the southern hemisphere. Oldelpaso 17:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It could be called a treble, but it should be noted (it seems I left that out when I wrote that section) that the actual Swedish Championship title was not awarded to the winners of the league, Allsvenskan, but to the winners of the league play-off (see 1982 in Swedish football for further info on the system at that time), which on the other hand was IFK as well. So it could be claimed that they won four major titles that year, but most people would consider Allsvenskan and the play-off to be one competition divided into two stages.
  • I'll fix all date/month related issues when I do my next inline citation edit.
  • I don't know how to thank you for the copyedit! – Elisson • T • C • 18:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't need to. At least not yet, I haven't finished! Oldelpaso 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It's good to see the "no-one really believed" has finally been removed. Epbr123 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Swedish football champions

The featured list List of Swedish football champions (in which Göteborg enjoy pride of place as the most successful team ever) is currently a candidate for removal. The discussion can be found here. I came here in the hope that someone might be willing to help us overcome the linguistic hurdle, and thus help keep the list at featured standards. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading phrase

In the introduction, this article says about IFK Göteborg "They have played top flight football in Sweden since 1977, which currently is the longest top flight tenure of any club in Sweden". This phrase suggests that no team has maintained its position in the "top flight" (Swedish premier league) longer than IFK Göteborg's 33 years. Malmö FF holds this record at 63 years, as can be read in the history section of Malmö FF's Wikipedia article. The phrase is misleading and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.145.39 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in IFK Göteborg

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of IFK Göteborg's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Allsvenskan & Swedish champions":

• From Malmö FF: "Svenska mästare 1896–1925, 1931–". svenskfotboll.se (in Swedish). The Swedish Football Association. Retrieved 22 August 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
• From Åtvidabergs FF: "Svenska mästare 1896–1925, 1931–". svenskfotboll.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 2009-11-25.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IFK Göteborg. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170914084828/http://www.ifkgoteborg.se/Vara-lag/A-laget/ to http://www.ifkgoteborg.se/Vara-lag/A-laget/

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) 09:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review Wikipedia's oldest featured articles to ensure that they still meet the featured article criteria. I am concerned that this article has not been updated much since its FAR in 2007, with information missing in its history section and other information that will need to be checked to ensure it is up to date (sponsorship, supporters, etc.) Also, there are lots of uncited sentences and sections that will need to be resolved, and many listed references are not used as inline citations. Is anyone interested in improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)