Talk:Roy of the Rovers

Roy of the Rovers is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 11, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 16, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 10, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
July 24, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
June 23, 2010	Featured article review	Kept
Current status: Featured article

Football 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.

Comics: British High‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by British comics work group.
	This article has been selected for use on the Comics portal.

Expansion[edit]

Big up Seb Patrick for an excellent expansion of this article!! ChrisTheDude 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. I started adding some of the "other strips" largely based on memory, and then decided I might as well try and fill out some of the main strip's history as best as I could. I recently got hold of a copy of the amazing Roy Of The Rovers : The Playing Years book, so when I get a chance I'll refer to that in order to fill in a bit more of the history of the weekly strip and info on the creators, and also to bulk out the quite small Melchester Rovers entry with some club history, honours lists and stuff. I'll also attempt to add some images at some point.

I'm quite disappointed by the lack of web presence that ROTR has (there's seemingly nothing out there beyond the official site) and there doesn't seem to be a single proper fansite. Hopefully getting the Wiki entry a bit more up to scratch will help people who go looking online for a bit of a nostalgia trip!

Seb Patrick 10:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have that book too, it's excellent.ChrisTheDude 11:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like roy of the rovers but that site seems good to me. There's loads of sections, info and images...TONS more than I expected 86.149.38.147 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

This article is desperately lacking in images. I'll add some asap. It might also be worthwhile expanding some of the sections on other ROTR strips, as some of them - such as Billy's Boots - were particularly famous in their own right. Seb Patrick 16:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Cor, it's like there's an editing war going on at the moment! Not that I'm complaining, as lots of good little snippets are getting added. ChrisTheDude, check out Talk:Melchester Rovers for what I've got outlined for that entry, and see if there's anything you can add... Seb Patrick 08:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racey's Rocket[edit]

I was going to add this strip to the list but can't remember what it was about - was it Roy Race as a racecar driver or something daft like that? ChrisTheDude 10:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly, although I don't remember it myself (my memory of pre-1990s strips is largely based on annuals that I was able to sporadically pick up in second-hand shops etc.). I'm currently trying to figure out which of various strips actually appeared in ROTR as opposed to other comics. Three that I specifically remember reading are Nipper (Nipper Lawrence did show up in ROTR, playing for England under Roy, but I don't know if his strip was ever in the comic), Jimmy of City and Jack of United (or maybe it was the other way round... but, you know, the two brothers who played for opposing sides and eventually the same one), and Bobby of the Blues (or Bobby's Blues, I forget which). Looking online, it appears these strips appeared in various combinations of Tiger and Scorcher, but I don't know which if any crossed over into ROTR. I have vivid memories of some Bobby and Jimmy & Jack strips, though, so they must have been in ROTR annuals I had. Whether they ever appeared in the main comic, though, I don't know, so I'm hesitant to put them in. Seb Patrick 10:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nipper strip definitely cropped up in ROTR around 1985 or 86, although I suspect they may have been reprints as it had him as a 15-year old kid as opposed to the adult who, as you note, had played for England in the ROTR main strip ten years *earlier*. As I recall, the first episode of the strip to appear in ROTR was also part way through a storyline (joining the action mid-match!!!). Not sure about the others you mention..... ChrisTheDude 11:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a quick spot of googling (when I should be working <g>!) reveals that the Nipper strips which appeared in ROTR were reprints from the very early years of his strip in Scorcher (c1970), many years before he crossed over into the ROTR main strip in Roy's England team. The reprints had probably been running in Tiger up until its cancellation and moved from there to ROTR.... ChrisTheDude 11:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish and Mouse[edit]

I'm pretty sure that while the Hot-Shot Hamish strip ran in Tiger, the Mighty Mouse strip was already in ROTR. Hamish migrated to ROTR when Tiger ended, merging with Mouse..... ChrisTheDude 11:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish and Mouse (again)[edit]

Although I haven't got any issues here to check, I'm pretty sure the merged strip was originally called "Hot Shot Hamish and Mighty Mouse" rather than simply "Hot Shot Hamish and Mouse"..... ChrisTheDude 12:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right... I just remember off the top of my head a banner at the top of some stories saying "Hot Shot Hamish... and Mouse!" My memory could be hazy on this one, though. Of course, it could just as easily be that it was both - the series went through enough name changes after all! Until we can be sure, though, I'll revert the edit. Seb Patrick 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My parents are coming to visit in a couple of weeks' time, I think I will ask them to go up in the loft and see if my RotRs from the early 80s are still up there, and bring them with them if they are. Should be able to get some more images and story details from those :-) .... ChrisTheDude 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! If enough information can be found, I think there might be enough scope for a separate Hamish & Mouse article. Hamish, in particular, is one of the most well-remembered of the football comics characters (along with Roy and Billy's Boots), so I think it's a worthwhile venture if enough stuff can be found. I also found a page of late-era artwork from the strip (from when they were at Glengow Rangers in the early '90s) on a website about Schiaffino [1] that reminded me just how good his art had become by the time the strip ended... Seb Patrick 13:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14-0[edit]

Interestingly, Chris, you added mention of the Rovers' record win in one section ("Success and Failure") just as I was about to mention it in another (the footnote about Roy's shooting - I was going to mention that listening to the game brought him out of his coma)! Which do you think it would be better served in? I'm not sure it doesn't make the "success and failure" paragraph a bit needlessly long, so I'm wondering if I might move it to the footnote instead.... Seb Patrick 12:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea - maybe leave in the "success...." section the one sentence to the effect that they did once manage to get relegated but stormed their way back up, but put the stuff about the 14-0 win and Roy's absence into the footnote - what do you think....? ChrisTheDude 12:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walford[edit]

Good spot - I couldn't remember off the top of my head if it was the final or an earlier round that MR beat WR in! Seb Patrick 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

Well that has to be about the easiest GA decision I've had to make. The article was excellent.
Minor comments

Be sure to give fair use rationals to all of those images. The FAC people are really anal about that.
Was there not any one big memorable moment in the series? No one story arc that was considered the best or the highest selling?

But seriously, minor stuff. I'm giving you the Good Article status but I doubt you'll need it for long :P This is Featured Article material. Thanks for informing me on what seems to be a really important part of British culture I had known nothing about. Virtually the only UK comic aside from this I knew was Judge Dredd but now I'm certainly more well informed :) Once again, superb work.--SeizureDog 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to Seb, who did most of the work in turning what was a stub of a couple of sentences into a Good Article!! ChrisTheDude 19:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! I've started to get to work providing a bit more copyright info and fair use rationale on the images; as for plotlines, it's probably the early '80s period at which the comic was at its bestselling (unfortunately I can't find any online sources to cite with regards to the comic's circulation, so it's hard to outright state it) and also had its biggest plotlines, so I may spin a paragraph out in the "Plot" section to deal with that. Thanks a lot for your suggestions, and your recommendation! Seb Patrick 08:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a very minor tweak to the "Roy Race - Shot!" section to clarify that the 14-0 win came about because the players were so buoyed up by hearing of Roy's emergence from the coma - hope you don't mind ChrisTheDude 12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nay problem. The "plots" bit is something of a work in progress, anyway - it'll probably need plenty of tweaks here and there like the main article has gone through! Seb Patrick 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists[edit]

Excellent addition there about the reaction to the stereotypical portrayal of the terrorists - I had no idea about that. Ah, to still have some of the monthly issues - not only to be able to bulk this out with a bit more info about them (including writer/artist info), but simply because I remember really enjoying them at the time... Seb Patrick 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits[edit]

Per the FA nomination, I read through the lead and made several copyedits. I still find the following sentence confusing, not to mention seemingly unencyclopedic:

to this day dazzling displays on the pitch, amazing "fairytale" results and sheer unbelievable incidents are often referred to by commentators or writers as "real Roy of the Rovers stuff":

I recommend rewriting this whole sentence in a way that is easier to understand and which is scholarly in tone.

Also, I think the following sentence should be rewritten:

"However, its status as something of a British institution cannot be underestimated."

The phrase "something of" is unencyclopedic, and the sentence is subjective. It can be underestimated, that's just an opinion. Can we find another way to say something similar? It might help to elide the sentence with the next one to give backing evidence immediately. --MarkBuckles 05:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. I'll have a crack at rewording both of those. Seb Patrick 06:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that and had a stab at it myself - see what you think.... ChrisTheDude 06:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, we got an edit conflict there, as you got in just before me! I took your rewording of "dazzling displays" etc., and mixed it with my rejigging of the sentence structure. Although the "real ROTR stuff" sentence still feels a bit long to me. I'll have another go at trimming it while still making the same point. Seb Patrick 07:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those revisions are a marked improvement. Nice job. If you haven't already, I recommend reading Tony's guide to how to raise the level of prose to FA Status: User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. --MarkBuckles 07:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tony didn't like that sentence boys ;p. I think the article looks much better overall. ;). Congrats MarkBuckles 21:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Players Inc[edit]

Here is the reasoning behind the removal of the section on Players Inc, from the person who runs the ROTR website. If anyone thinks the section can be rewritten to reflect this, then please do, but as it stands the section was inaccurate, so I believe its removal was fair :

I’ve taken out the entry on the RoTR wiki page to the Players Inc – hope you don’t mind. It was totally inaccurate (the reference you referred to in the Metro not your reference to that reference – if you know what I mean!). They never bought the copyright, they had permission to reproduce one (old) strip for an initial fee of £150 but after that there were incorrect quotes from Players Inc along the lines of that in the Metro and so that agreement was terminated. [Egmont] are aware of the wiki pages... but quite rightly objected to the para on Players Inc as it was opportunism by a guy in Newcastle who in the end lost out. Seb Patrick 09:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melchester replica shirts[edit]

Back in the eary 90's i brought a replica shirt from the mag it was made by nike got the shorts and socks to go with it

88.96.88.153 11:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) kevin rowley[reply]

Sources[edit]

For a featured article, this has a severe lack of sources. There are plenty of books about British comics on the market, they've probably got stuff about Roy in them.--Nydas^(Talk) 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kits[edit]

I have the 2000 annual and it has pictures of the kits. It has the:

50's red with long sleeves & collar
50's red with short yellow sleeves & collar
60's red with long yellow sleeves & yellow crew neck
70's red with long red sleeves & yellow stripe on left
80's hooped Gola
80's red Nike with thin yelow stripes
90's striped Sega
90's similar TSB
00's McDonald's with big V

Should I upload it and what licensing should I use? Malpass93 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an open-license image of all the main Rovers kits (including the short-lived "star" one from the first few Match of the Day comics), it can be found on the Melchester Rovers article. I imagine that'd probably do the job rather than padding out the article too much with copyrighted artwork, but... it's up to you, really! Seb Patrick (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy[edit]

Yeah, sorry. I mentioned this article in a discussion of plot summary length, and he now thinks that, even though the plot summary has extensive discussion of everything, he can carry out his campaign against articles on fiction discussing that fiction here. There's no policy or guideline whatsoever behind his tag, and it may and should be removed on sight. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:BEANS. Hiding T 09:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget WP:NOT!DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This plot summary is RIDICULOUSLY long. It exceeds our normal standards by an excessive amount. We aren't talking about the plot of Shakespeare's work here. There's no justification for this level of detail for this topic. We're an encyclopedia, not a place for long winded summaries of trivial details. The claim that there's no policy or guideline behind the tag is just sheer nonsense, and Shoemaker's Holiday knows it. What he really means to say is that there is a policy behind it and he's been trying unsuccessfully to have that policy section deleted because he doesn't care about encyclopedic standards. The tag can be removed when the section is brought in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and not any time before that. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said there was no poloicy or guideline behind your use of the tag: There is substantial critical commentary, and WP:NOTPLOT only applies where there is no other commentary. This is an FA. It shouldn't be treated like this as part of a policy-unsupported campaign against plot summaries. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 17:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd actually read WP:NOTPLOT you'd know that your claims are absolutely false. It says nothing of the sort. I think you're confused into believing that something you tried and failed (and quite dramatically at that) to change actually got changed. Please edit by the actual policies and not what you want them to say. Your highly aggressive statements and attacks are nothing but disruption and harassment. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and strip out some of the more extraneous detail from the plot section, but I doubt I'll have time this weekend..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to make those badly-needed changes. No that the plot summary actually follows policy more closely, I agree with the removal of the plot tag. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roy of the Rovers/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

For info - as per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roy of the Rovers - already polished to a high standard and identified as a Featured Article before it was tagged as part of WP:CMC. --Mrph 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Roy of the Rovers. 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) 17:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roy of the Rovers. 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/20101214113556/http://www.royoftherovers.com/behindthescenes/writers.aspx to http://www.royoftherovers.com/behindthescenes/writers.aspx

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) 09:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Roy of the Rovers. 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) 09:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]