Talk:Luton Town F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luton Town F.C. article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Wot no artificial pitch?

Come on, surely it deserves a mention. The QPR page does. Jooler 11:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] You've forgotten the most important part of their existence

Eric Morecambe was a fan. God bless 'im.--Crestville 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

But Ernie was more Wise....bada bing bada boom :-)

[edit] squad template

Could somebody who knows about the team make a squad template? Guidelines can be found here SenorKristobbal 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This page has been vandalised a lot lately. Keep an eye out, as I have already reverted three times. --Gray Porpoise 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A POV statement has just been added. Will someone please revert it? --Gray Porpoise 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link removal

Will the person with ip 81.107.127.33 stop deleteing my entry (hatters-forum) from the external links section . And why are you removing it ? 21-8-6

I think you should refer to this because it explains why people are keen to remove 'linkspam'. Especially as you don't appear to have added anything else to the Wikipedia since you started contributing. Budgiekiller 21:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarity, see the above link paragraphs 3 & 9 (i.e. you run the site, and it's just a forum). Budgiekiller 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Theres plenty of information on the site as well , If you are going to remove my link i think you should be removeing other links that are just to forums as well .

I have also checked several other football clubs an they have external links to fans forums , so why are they ok an mine is not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatters-forum (talk • contribs)

Their existence does not mean they are 'ok'. Users watch various pages, I happen to watch Luton Town F.C. because it's subject to so much racist vandalism. I refer you once more to paras 3 and 9 of the above link to explain why your link is being removed. Budgiekiller 12:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watford claims

In the article Luton are claimed as beig a bigger club than Watford. I find this claim very hard to understand. Watford have in recent years been consistently in an equal or higher league. Have had premiership places more recently (06-07 season). and have a larger ground and average attendence. It seems a remarkable claim to suggest Luton is a bigger club and really needs some serious citations to back this up.--GazMan7 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Luton Town badge.jpg

Image:Luton Town badge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1980s Millwall match

I will continue to revert this section to the original version. Factual accuracy should trump the notion of finding a "compromise".

There were not 10,000 Millwall fans at the match. One wonders where home supporters would have found room to stand. Kenilworth Road was not, and is not, the San Siro.

There were not two pitch invasions. There were numerous pitch incursions, but only one "famous" one which was repeated incessantly on the TV news. Since this section of the article discusses the fall-out of those pictures in government and FA circles, referring to "a pitch invasion" is accurate.

Wikipedia is not a good place for ageing hooligans to boast about their past exploits. This is the essence of 'Arry's edit, and that is why it should be reverted.

Membership of the "Bushwhackers" at its peak was only a hundred or so. One of the first things one notices in the pictures I mention is that there are rather more than 100 people on the pitch. Apparently there were 10,000 in the stands, too. The possible involvement of the "Bushwhackers" group do not pass the notability test. Police intelligence was not what it is now. No reliable documents have ever been released to the public that identifies who started or participated in the trouble.

Editors who would like to contribute to this section might perhaps ask themselves what qualifies them to do it. Have they read the police and media reports from the time? Are they supporters of one of the teams, or is their knowledge based on anecdote? Were they even at the game? --Lingvo9 (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, how dare you accuse me of being a football hooligan boasting about past exploits, I find this remark highly offensive, I have never commited a criminal act in my life. It is patently obvious that you do not have a clue what you are talking about. Yes, I was at the game and I am a Millwall supporter-not a Millwall hooligan or Bushwacker. You also have no idea of the capacity of Luton's ground in 1985 do you? The attendence was 17,470 13 March - didn't know that either did you? Luton didn't make an FA Cup quarter final an all ticket match hence the presense of so many fans from London, that not only included "Bushwackers" but The Headhunters and the Yid Army to name but a few. Yes, some so called Millwall fans were involved but the vast majority of ordinary Millwall fans took no part in any act of violence, in fact, "Millwall Fans" were themselves injured. I therefore take great exception to this article demonising all Millwall fans as hooligans - I hope I have made my position quite clear. 'Arry Boy (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how 10,000 Millwall supporters, roughly the same number of home supporters and thousands of supporters of other London clubs equate to an attendance of 17,470. My memory has become foggier over the years, but I don't remember Millwall fans arriving early and building a new stand before the game.
Please direct me to the line where I accused you of being a football hooligan. Try as I might, I cannot find it.
Please direct me to the section which demonises all Millwall fans as hooligans. Try as I might, I cannot find that, either. --Lingvo9 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You need directing to where you called me a football hooligan? I think you need to make an appointment at Specsavers. If you really need to be directed to where Millwall fans are demonised as hooligans it reads thus: "Following a pitch invasion by Millwall fans". What all the Millwall fans? Some of the Millwall fans? How many Millwall fans? Who says they were Millwall fans? The BBC, The Sun, YOU? You weren't even there, if you were, why didn't you know Luton's ground capacity at the tme? You didn't even know the date, you do now because I told you. What makes a Millwall fan? Any yob that was allowed to travel down from London because Luton didn't make the game all ticket? Because they paid and entered the ground at the away end, that makes them all Millwall fans does it? Any of those yobs on the pitch wearing Millwall colours? No, the media and you and people like you just want to believe it - and I want an apology for being called a football hooligan. 'Arry Boy (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect Lingvo9, this comment, "Wikipedia is not a good place for ageing hooligans to boast about their past exploits. This is the essence of 'Arry's edit, and that is why it should be reverted." is quite clearly aimed at Arry Boy and equally clearly, linking him and ageing football hooligans in the same sentence. Whilst you did not specifically make an accusation that he is/was a football hooligan you also quite clearly linked him and being an ageing football hooligan. And someone reading that posted to them could very easily read it as an accusation of being a football hooligan. In addition you did not appear to assume good faith with the edit summary of "nonsense". Nonsense on wikipedia is content that is "unsalvageably incoherent with no meaningful content" and "This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc". What it cleary is in this case is a content dispute between the two of you. His edit made perfect sense, whether it is correct or not is another matter, but to state that it was nonsense is not correct. It was something with which you totally disagree and to use an edit summary of "nonsense" is both not helpful and inaccurate. I would though suggest to both of you that you refrain from criticising each other as it will not help improve the article, and would urge you try and work together and discuss it civilly withouth the sarcasm and criticism.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick google search found a few articles, one of which here includes very specific comments about that day as follows -
"At the final whistle all hell let loose and the inadequate number of police and stewards could not cope as the pitch became a footballing battlefield. Thirty one people were arrested, many of whom turned out to be supporters of West Ham and Chelsea. The suspicion that it was as much an organized riot by outside sources as Millwall followers on the rampage was strengthened by the estimated 10,000 traveling supporters behind one goal -- double the southeast London club's average home gate at the time." That quite clearly states that "many of them" were fans from other clubs than Millwall. It also mentions the "estimated 10,000 travelling supporters". This from an article which is a fully reliable third party source written by a British journalist in the lead up to the 2004 FA Cup Final. And it can also be used quite easily as a source to state that there were an estimated 10,000 travelling supporters whith many of that support being fans of West Ham and Chelsea.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Tangerines, the key words in your citation are "many" (could be any number between 1 and 31), "suspicion" (of whom?) and "estimated" (by whom?). This non-contemporary article which does not cite its own sources (evidence? anecdote? hearsay) is not reliable evidence of anything. Most respectfully. --Lingvo9 (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect, you are removing a source written by a Daily Telegraph journalist, Christopher Davies, stating that it is an "unreliable citation" and replacing it to back up what you are claiming with something that does nothing of the sort. All it does is confirm that Millwall supporters were involved that day and nothing more. Whereas the article by Christopher Davies who you seem to think is unreliable and who I would suggest you are absolutley wrong, gives quite specific information about that days events. If you disagree with two other editors then you need to take it to Admin and conflict resolution rather than simply removing everything you disagree with especialy so when your revert removed perfectly valid refs templates for the articificial pitch source. There was absolutley no need or reason for you to have reverted that. Please stop reverting and take this elsewhere if you disagree. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this report is a much more accurate and truthfull account of what happened. The trouble caused that night came from the Millwall Bushwackers and members of the West Ham ICF and the Chelsea Headhunters among others, the ordinary Millwall fans were caught up in it, some were even attacked by members of other London "firms" who went with the sole intention of causing trouble, and for no other resason. MFC had asked Luton Town to make the game "All Ticket", but they flatly refused and accepted no blame for doing so. In all fairness, the article should be changed to reflect this. 'Arry Boy (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I would urge that this edit war stops now and that this is taken elswhere as it is clearly not going to get sorted. I have tried to compromise with it; I have tried to use what is a relable source despite what is being said. If a source from a Daily Telegraph journalist is "very unreliable" then much of what is used on wikipedia as sources is very unreliable. Reverting my edit simply because you (Lingvo9) disagreed with most of it (though not all as part of it was merely reformatting a reference) was not exactly conducive to sorting this out. At the very least you could have retained the part which was just reformatting the reference. There was absolutely no need to revert that part of my edit. Two editors disagree with you here Lingvo9, and I would ask you to take it elsewhere if you cannot agree to some compromise. Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have reverted your formatting. Wikicode can be difficult for humans to read.
I am not going to debate this any further. If anyone replaces edits supported by reliable contemporary sources with comments based on less reliable, non-contemporary sources, or anecdote, or hearsay, they may expect to have those edits reverted.--Lingvo9 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I find your attitude quite astonishing, not only have you called me a hooligan, now your'e saying a BBC website is more reliable than the Japan Times - truly astonishing. 'Arry Boy (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, the sopurced content which I added is written by an established and very experienced sports journalist with the Daily Telegraph who also writes regular articles about football in England for the Japan Times. With respect, that is hardly "less reliable", in fact I would argue the opposite that it is perfectly reliable; especially when the article is very specific in detail. It isn't in any way whatsoever "hearsay" or "anecodote". It is content added with a perfectly reliable source. The Daily Telegraph, the Japan Times and the BBC are all equally reliable sources. And the BBC article used as a source simply doesn't mention about followers of other London clubs being there that day. It does not however state anything to say that did not happen, it is merely focussing on the Millwall element. I in no way condone what happened that day, it was not a very good day for English football and for Millwall FC.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed a sad night for Millwall supporters who were solely blamed by the BBC and still are. They have had since 1985 to amend their articles, but have choosen not to. They know only too well that so called "supporters" of MFC were not the only people involved. I'm just grateful for reponsible journalists such as Christopher Davies who know the truth, and are prepared to put it into print. Personally, I found and still find, the BBC's biased reporting, completely reprehensible. 'Arry Boy (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extensive cleanup

I believe that this page is in need to a serious cleanup because it is full of uncited claims, opinion and is not written in a consistent prose. UKWikiGuy (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)