Talk:Rotherham United F.C.

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

A note on British English[edit]

British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979Talk to me 18:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McIlhargey[edit]

If anyone can find out when he played for the Millers, I'd appreciate it. - Dudesleeper 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Edwards (footballer born 1921)[edit]

In researching for an article on Jack Edwards (footballer born 1925) who played for Nottingham Forest, Southampton and Notts County in the 1940s and 1950s, I came across John Francis Edwards who played his entire career (1944-1954) for Rotherham United, making 312 appearances at wing-half (9 goals). Should he not, therefore, be listed in the Rotherham United F.C.#Players records section? --Daemonic Kangaroo 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second-worst ground in the country?[edit]

A line states "In the same year [2003], in a supporter's survey of football league grounds, Millmoor was voted as one of the worst grounds to visit as a travelling fan, second to only Bramall Lane.". Is this true? As a Blade myself, and a prior visitor to Millmoor, I'd be very surprised that either of these ground came out as worse than, say, Layer Road, Belle Vue, Vicarage Road, Kenilworth Road, Ashton Gate Stadium or Bloomfield Road. Is there a source? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honours list.[edit]

What happened to the honours list? Or had this article never had an honours list added? Govvy (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chuckle Brothers[edit]

There seems to be some debate over whether the Chuckle Brothers should have their own section on this page - I know unbelieveable!

I think that some users (you know who you are!) are obviously not rotherham united fans and do not understand the impact of the Chuckle Brothers have had on the club. Rotherham united are now well recognised amongst Europe's elite largely because of their association with Paul and Barry.

Please give a valid reason for not removal of this subject heading - otherwise leave the management of this page to real rotherham united fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.135.105 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, continually adding content about the Chucke Brothers right at the top of the artice, replacing the lead section is not how to edit articles. There is no debate about them having a section, as they are already mentioned in the article, with a source, in the correct place, so there is no need for them to be mentioned twice. But regardless of that, sentences such as "The association of these worldwide superstars with the club instantly raised the standing of Rotherham F.C. amongst Europe's elite" point to the edit being frivilous at best as they are cleary not "worldwide superstars" and their association has equally cleary not raised the standing of Rotherham F.C. amongst "Europe's elite. None of your edits has been backed up by a source. Also, "notable fans" should be added in the correct section lower down the article, but only if you also add a source. If you persist on adding this edit then the only option will be to request for this article to be semi-protected.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What this boils down to IMHO is that however famous they are the title of this article is not "The Chuckle Brothers". Britmax (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add my voice to this crucial argument. Bitmax - if you check the history the article was never called "The Chuckle Brothers" - it only ever had a subsection called this. I agree that this subsection should maybe be lower down the article but the contribution that Paul and Barry have made to the club since being appointed honorary presidents justifies the inclusion of their own subsection. You are clearly not familiar with the club and the giant strides it has made since the brothers have been appointed into their positions. Although it may have been over-egging the facts to describe them as worldwide superstars, the celebrity of the Chuckle Brothers has certainly raised the standing of Rotherham United. Although I am new to Wikipedia IMHO i think the subsection regarding the Chuckle Brothers should be re-instated. 80.42.30.63 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squad transfers summer 2011[edit]

IP editor 194.75.129.200 keeps on inserting their opinions of recent transfer activity to the article. I've removed it and ask them to cite things. To be precise;

  • "Controversially" - Uncited. No mention of this either cite. Closest one gets is "surprising", which is a different thing altogether. Where is the controversy?
  • "increasing the bookmakers odds for the forthcoming season" - Uncited. No mention of it anywhere in either cite.
  • "After concerns were raised over the quality and experience of new players brought in" - Uncited. No mention of "concerns" anywhere in either cite. Raised by who?
  • "in order to raise supporters and critics' expectations for the forthcoming season" - Uncited. No mention of "expectations" anywhere in either cite and critics are not identified.
  • "who were both considered coups for a League Two club." - Uncited. No mention of "coups" anywhere in either cite. No explanation of who is doing this "considering".

So all this is unverifiable, and looks to be simply IP editor's 194.75.129.200 opinion on matters. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was myself who made this particular edit. While I take your opinion on board, I respectfully disagree with you. These were not my opinions, but those of the general supporting public. If you look at current Bookmakers odds, RUFC are regarded as outsiders at 16/1 for promotion, as opposed to the previous 3 years when they were either first or second favourites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.128.200 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and consideration. If they are the opinions of the "general supporting public" then you will be able to find good sources saying this. Unfortunately you saying "this is the public's opinion" is not adequate verification. Without a reliable source, all we have is what you think is general opinion. You may be right, you may be wrong, who can tell? Similarly, you comparing bookmaker odds is original research, which is not permitted. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Players - Current Squad[edit]

Ranking player listings by numbers assigned to players is of secondary importance. Players within a squad should be ranked by playing position to give an overall ease of reading to the general public viewing this site. Reading by numerical order distorts the overview of positions within the squad. It is more important to view the squad based on current playing positions rather than numerical order of shirt numbers, which are irrelevant. The squad numbers were not deemed important in the past and have not been included at all until this season - where I added them as extra information. This is the only article I have personally edited, it is a shared workplace IP. There would not be a editing war if people used common sense and did not rank footballers by a shirt number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.19.125 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usual practice appears to disagree with you. I picked a dozen teams off the top of my head and looked at how their squads were listed in their articles.
Every single one of them is listed by squad number, with the exception of the last where the numbers are not included. So I'd think you need a better reason why Rotherham United should be different. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above. Every single team from this division has players listed in ascending numerical order; the original statement is utter nonsense. Please can we stop this change being undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.129.200 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can say the above it utter nonsence blah blah that's not an arguement its an opinion. If a lemming jumps off a cliff, would you? Why should we copy other clubs just because they did it first. Lets be more logical. A manager would not care what number is assigned to their players, do you think he organises his squad by numbers in his head, or the positions they play in. In short, when you look at a teams squad, you want to be able to identify what strikers they have, or who plays in midfield for them. It's about ease of use, how to gather information quickly. Afterall, that is what the wikipedia website was created for. Ranking by numerical order takes away from that not adds to it.

That may be your opinion, but if you look at the official website, matchday program, BBC website, Sky Sports website - for Rotherham and every other club in the country (and in Europe?) they are all listed in numerical order, as is the standard. Whether you think this is illogical or not, it is standard practice.194.75.128.200 (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We copy other clubs because they are following a standard template that was introduced to have consistency across all the football clubs in the encyclopaedia. That's a good thing, much in the same way that all football clubs follow the same set of rules of the game. Or are they all just being lemmings following each other?
Your suggestion is reasonable, but if you think that Wikipedia has got it all wrong I suggest you go argue your case over here on the standard template talk page. The people there may be able to tell you why things as are there are.
As it is, you do not have consensus to change this article to a non-standard layout, so please stop changing it. Edit warring, especially while this discussion is on-going, is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal start to the 1981-82 Season?[edit]

Millerman1963 (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)== Dismal start to the 1981-82 Season? ==[reply]

Considering that November 1981 saw the Millers beat Chelsea 6-0 at home In a Televised Division 2(then second Tier)Match,followed by 4-1 at Stamford bridge the next March,describing Rotherham as having a 'dismal start' to the 1981-82 Is Inaccurate, regardless of their other games of the season,very few of which could be described as 'dismal' In any case. I'm sure Millers fans will agree with my addition regarding this. Certainly,the vast majority of fans around my age (50 as of 2014) who are known to me personally remember the Chelsea games as the most memorable league victories In our modern era,however my most vividly recalled match was In the 1978 League Cup 3rd round, seeing the Millers come back from 1-0 down to beat 'Mighty Arsenal' 3-1. Unforgettable atmosphere. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.162.1 (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC) https://[reply]

The Chuckle Brothers[edit]

I'm seeking support for the Chuckle Brothers having a more prominent section on this page. There are some non-Rotherham natives who understandably do not grasp the impact Barry and Paul have had upon this football club. We are now known worldwide directly as a result of Barry and Paul's celebrity.

I vote for a section at the top of the page for B&P. Who's with me?

85.210.173.93 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rotherham United 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) 23:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rotherham_United_F.C.&oldid=1210128997"