Talk:Middlesbrough F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMiddlesbrough 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
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 4, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 28, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 25, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Supporters section[edit]

It has come to my attention that this article is lacking a "Supporters" section. Most articles about English Premier League clubs have such a section, but FC Middlesbrough doesn't. The inclusion of this section is also stated in the Wiki Project/Football manual of style. If anyone (presumably a Boro supporter) has knowledge about Middlesbrough supporters could they maybe start such a section? wwicki

  • Just to say, I added the section a week or so ago. Its a start for a section, at least. I'm sure there's plenty more information and history that can be added. --Simmo676 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this website (http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats/stats_att_04.htm) which shows lots of useful info re "economy of football". I think we should definitely include that statistic [Boro 12th overall for average attendance]] and theres some more on the site we could use. The only qualm I have is that there would be a need for a rewrite of this entire section - I'm not quite sure how to go about this ... hmmm ... --Mofs 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are some good stats in there! Although some seem to be getting a bit out of date, I suppose financial information doesn't get released immediately after all, so it'll always be lagging a year or so behind, and the site is always being updated. Definately worth including, very good find!
Regarding a rewrite, an attendance fact doesn't really fit in any of the other paragraphs, so maybe a new paragraph before or after the famous supporters list? --Simmo676 18:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please,add some info about Russian Boro FanClub (Www.Boro.Ucoz.Ru)...thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 6asker (talk • contribs) 09:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

The supporters section seems to be written with a strong bias, is this section meant to look like an advert for Middlesbrough supporters? Also there is no real description of their supporters trying to gain a higher profile in the game, Ive seen them described elswhere as "Wannabe's", that pretty much describes their fans well as they support a relatively small club (Only the 3rd largest out of 5 in a 40 mile radius).--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to page[edit]

Having edited this page for the past few weeks (as well as History of Middlesbrough F.C. and Middlesbrough F.C. Season 2006-07, I've been thinking of some improvements to this page. Feel free to add your own suggestions in order to get this to FA status.

  • References - although Simmo and others are working on this, we still need to verify statements. I've realised my statement on McQueen and Pallister might not be verifiable - it can be nixed if necessary.
  • Supporters section - lot of stuff still to put in. See |^| but also need to filter in Middlesbrough Frontline hooligan section (with references ;) ), the data for "most supported club-15 mile radius-thing".
  • Roary the Lion! A picture would be good, as would basic info (when first appeared, charity work etc)
  • Summarising of 2006-07 season section into about 4 lines.
  • History section becoming both broader (ie covering more years) and tighter (ie fewer words on each year!)
  • Pictures in general would be good. Programmes, classic players (if anyone wants to scan in an old photo that would be cool).
  • Rockcliffe Park section - underway - please feel free to contribute.
  • Records page underway - to be added in
  • ? Notable players article - like with Liverpool's. Could work, then replace list in article with summary section.

Cheers for help! --Mofs 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Taking a look at other major club articles, none seem to have a "Notable matches" section. Maybe this should be merged into the history article either copy-pasted or probably preferably, written into the text. Other "Great Games" might be worth looking into to spread the matches over a longer timeperiod.

A mention of the Rockliffe Park training ground (unless I've missed one) somewhere in the article could be a good idea too. In the Stadium section (possibly renamed), maybe?

A records section might also be good, the club must have some of those. --Simmo676 19:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockcliffe I was looking into. I could move the notable matches into the history section - get it referenced up. I believe Cunners |^| was looking into records - maybe he could put it in - I think its only missing a couple. --Mofs 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have just moved notable matches into History of Middlesbrough F.C. page.
Have just created page on Rockcliffe Park (Hurworth). Will have to work out where to fit it in. Have some links so I can build on the article.--Mofs 00:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already have a records page underway as mentioned a few topics up check it out. it's nearly completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunners (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checking out the records page, I noticed you're just missing the "Most goals in a single match" stat, so I did some research and got these:
Name Goals Date In At Against Score
John Wilkie 5 1901-03-02 Div 2 H Gainsborough T W 9-2
George Elliott 6* 1919-03-01 Northern Victory League H Hartlepools U W 8-2
Andy Wilson 5 (1 pen) 1923-10-06 Div 1 H Nottingham F W 5-2
George Camsell 5 1926-12-25 Div 2 A Manchester C W 5-3
George Camsell 5 1935-09-09 Div 1 A Aston Villa W 7-2
GC Stobbart 5 (1 pen)* 1944-04-15 League North (Second Championship) A Hartlepools U W 6-2
Micky Fenton 5* 1946-01-12 Unknown League A Sheffield U W 7-2
Brian Clough 5 1958-08-23 Div 2 H Brighton & HA W 9-0
*Goals scored in this competition did not contribute to player/club records.
--Simmo676 11:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lookes like John Wilkie has the record at 5 then! I guess George Elliot's wouldn't count - we only count official goals unlike Romario!:)
While writing George Elliott's article, I discovered that he held (at 1989) the club record for most goals in a single game, 11 for the Reserves in a 14-1 win over Houghton Rovers. While clearly not an official competition, if that stat still holds its probably worth mentioning, as 11 goals is amazing. --Simmo676 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a seasons page with details on all the Boro's seasons since 1883 with their first FA Cup entry. Using the "Middlesbrough, A Complete Record, 1876 - 1989" book by Harry Glasper, now naturally out of date by 18 years, but tis the best I have at the moment. Still though, those 18 recent years should have details more readily available elsewhere anyway. --Simmo676 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the www.mfc1986.co.uk page - has league tables for the entire history. --Mofs 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link, it was incredibly helpful and saved a lot of time too! I've completed the page now and moved it to an actual article. --Simmo676 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a major rewrite of the history section. Maybe (almost certainly) it's now too long again, but it's also spread out a bit more evenly over the years, so I'll move it into the history article itself and trim it back down in the main article from there. It seems easier to trim something long down evenly than write small amounts all the time. Was now too long and I've trimmed it back. --Simmo676 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could consider a peer review to get a wider variety of opinions and suggestions for the article. WATP  (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea. I'll do just that. --Simmo676 23:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the records section ready yet? --Simmo676 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable former players[edit]

What exactly leads to a player being notable, and in whose eyes is it that the player is notable? Naturally, the list of players is currently biased towards the more recent players as people have more memories of those players. But the likes of Ziege, Branco, Karembeu, Geremi, Hasselbaink and Zenden, all of whom spent at most two seasons here, are they as notable as Williamson, Mannion, Hardwick, Souness, Mowbray, Slaven, Cooper and all those others in the early part of the list?

Should this poll result from the MFC website count for some part in it? They're the top 10 Boro players of the last 21 years, though at least 2 (hopefully 3) are still players at the club. So Hendrie and Hignett are in that greatest bit, but are they notable? What're everyone else's views? --Simmo676 22:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Gazette Sports section (Saturday, May 26, 2007) has a vote running for the greatest Boro legends, seemingly in association with the Twe12th Man. They should generally be the most notable players, shouldn't they? Here's their list of candidates, compared with the current list:
Player Debut(s)
England Tim Williamson 1901
England Alf Common 1905
England Steve Bloomer 1906
England Jacky Carr 1911
England George Camsell 1925
England Sid Jarvis 1928
England Wilf Mannion 1936
England George Hardwick 1937
England Dicky Robinson 1945
England Alan Peacock 1954
England Brian Clough 1955
England John Hickton 1966
England Willie Maddren 1969
Northern Ireland Jim Platt 1971
England David Armstrong 1972
Scotland Graeme Souness 1973
Scotland Bobby Murdoch 1973
Australia Craig Johnston 1978
England Tony Mowbray 1982
England Colin Cooper 1985,1998
Republic of Ireland Bernie Slaven 1985
England Gary Pallister 1985,1998
England Nick Barmby 1995
Brazil Juninho Paulista 1995,1999,2002
Italy Fabrizio Ravanelli 1996
Brazil Emerson Moises Costa 1996
Brazil Branco 1996
England Paul Merson 1997
Italy Gianluca Festa 1997
England Paul Gascoigne 1998
England Paul Ince 1999
Germany Christian Ziege 2000
France Christian Karembeu 2000
Croatia Alen Bokšić 2000
England Gareth Southgate 2001
Cameroon Geremi Njitap 2003
Netherlands Boudewijn Zenden 2003
Netherlands Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink 2004
The ones not in our table but are candidates are:
Name
Hugh McIlmoyle
John Hendrie
Gordon Jones (footballer)
Micky Fenton
Stephen Pears
John O'Rourke (footballer)
Bill Harris (footballer)
Robbie Mustoe
David Hodgson
Stuart Boam
Massimo Maccarone
Terry Cochrane
Dickie Rooks
Uwe Fuchs
David Mills (footballer)
Terry Cooper
Mark Proctor (footballer)
Bosco Jankovic
I guess there is a difference between Boro legend and notable (e.g. Gascoigne isn't a Boro legend but I guess it's notable that he played for us). Maybe we should work these in, maybe along with the MFC.co.uk Heroes page? --Simmo676 18:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the "Boro Gold" book celebrating 125 years of the Boro (ie 1876-2001) in which we have year by year guides, but also best player, best captain, best in each position, best team up to that point voted by the fans and collected by the club. I think that might be more valuable than a "notable players section" which could be its own article if necessary. But what do people think?Mofs 19:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best team voted by the fans, I suppose it is one way of doing it. Taking a look at other articles, a notable former player is based on things such as appearances, international caps, and goals. Full articles on lists of notable former players (as opposed to small sections in an article) do things based on appearances, usually those making over 200. It'd probably make sense to do things in a uniform way across all articles. However, most have reasons to include a few other players too, such as members of a cup winning team. I'd probably think it is a good idea to include the members of that voted team in the list as well, but it needs a mixture of both. --Simmo676 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely reworked the notable former players section now. I based it on the version that is on the Aston Villa F.C. page which recently aquired featured article status, so I think that sort of way is a good way to go. I included top appearances and goalscorers too since we had no PFA players of the year or anything. I'm not too sure about some of the inclusions from the English Football Hall of Fame though, such as Viv Anderson. I wasn't sure what criteria I could come up with other than someone who played for/managed Boro and was in that list. Can anyone think of anything better, or shall we leave it? --Simmo676 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review[edit]

Looking at the box at the top of the page, it says we're currently under review as a good article. However, we're not actually listed as being on the page. Is that normal? Mofs--86.29.17.242 14:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history from the date of nomination, someone nominated lots and lots of football clubs for GA status, and then they were all removed, probably because the nomination was done so lightly and for so many things, but the notifications weren't removed. So I'll remove the tag since it's not really applicable right now. --Simmo676 15:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject, what do we want to do before going for Good artile then? Is it just the "notable players" section to really sort out? I read the suggestions before and that was the only major thing to change.mofs--86.29.26.79 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I can think of is those notable players, so that. Sorting out the players (numbers, etc.) might also be important but that's quick to sort. --Simmo676 21:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate[edit]

I've nominated the article for featured article status. Given it meets the comments that were given in the peer review and it seems to meet the FA criteria as well (in my opinion anyway), I put it forward. Feel free to leave support/objections from the link at the top of the page! --Simmo676 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seem rude, but why not try GA first before attempting FA? Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, given differences between the article standard and what I perceived to be FAC based on other team's articles, I might as well put it straight forward for FA status, and since an article could fail FAC but be passed on GA (I think) I thought I might as well try it out for the higher one right away. --Simmo676 15:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issues[edit]

Here is a list of mostly minor issues with the article. As they are not significant enough to warrant an oppose, I have listed them here instead of the FAC.

  • Is the lion mascot really significant enough to be included in the lead?
  • There were major fears that the club would fold in 1986 - simpler to write "The club nearly folded in 1986" or similar.
  • They finally turned professional for good - "Finally" is redundant, and "for good" is a little informal.
  • The paragraph about the financial problems reads awkwardly.
  • Middlesbrough fans can be found all over the world, in places as far apart as Norway,[35] Northern Ireland, South Korea,[36] Singapore,[37] Azerbaijan and New York. - it is not necessary to list different places, that is already implied by "all over the world".
  • Prominent supporters clubs include the Official Supporters Club, the Middlesbrough Disabled Supporters' Association, Derbyshire Reds, and Middlesbrough Supporters South. - what makes these prominent?
  • Club staff - this isn't a directory. Is the club historian etc. really that notable?
  • The number of external links looks excessive, ensure that the links all meet the guidelines in WP:EL. Oldelpaso 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of work based on your notes.

  • I'm not sure where else the mention of Roary would fit, other than in the general scope of the intro. It may not be ideal but he doesn't quite fit into any of the other sections, I don't think, unless he could be classed in some way as staff.
  • Sorted out some of the wordings of sentences/paragraphs.
  • Rather than take out the places, I took out "all over the world" since those places by themselves don't make up "all of the world", so the other way seems more accurate.
  • I changed prominent to largest, unless you meant why list any at all?
  • I removed some of the non-notable club staff.
  • I also tidied up the external links, leaving only the more prominent fan-news and information pages and news sites. --Simmo676 21:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right - have researched some bits and bobs to try and get this article FA class...

  • Roary the Lion does a lot of charity work. Therefore, we create a section "middlesbrough FC in the community" detailing the work of www.mfcic.co.uk (an oficial Boro site) to reference the charity work the club does.
  • Not sure how to sort out fans details. Will think about it!

I know we can get this good - just need minor things to do and try and engage more mods - only two people seemed to vote! Mofs 21:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit disappointed it closed while things were still ongoing, and in the small number of different respondees but I suppose with all the FAC's there are they need to be shared out and am definately thankful to those that did respond. Anyway, a "Community" section sounds good, whether in addition to or in a merged replacement of the Media section. "Public relations" maybe? Or perhaps its own section might indeed be better. --Simmo676 22:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised how quickly it was closed, normally at least a week is given. Still, if all the points raised are dealt with the article should be in a strong position when it is next submitted. Oldelpaso 10:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards the MFC in the Community inclusion, I took a look at it and it says on the website that it is completely independant of the club, however it does receive support. So, given it's separate, is it actually relevant to this article? --Simmo676 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just point out a small error is the date really 2012? as in the following :- The First World War soon intervened and football was suspended. In 2012 Boro went on to win the league Before league football resumed, Middlesbrough won the Northern Victory League, but the team were unable to maintain their previous form and finished the 1919–20 season in mid-table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.77.66 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honours[edit]

I think this needs clearing up a wee bit.

Looking at it at a glance the casual observer could think Boro won the top league- when in fact it was just the 'new' first division they won. Most teams seperate this by listing stuff under 'first flight', 'second flight', etc... or marking 'New first division', 'old second division, etc.... I think something should be done there but I'm unsure of the best way to do it. Considering how little there is there it could be overkill to break it up too much... --Josquius (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing it to:
Champions 1926–27, 1928–29, 1973–74, 1994–95; runners up 1901–02, 1991–92, 1997–98
--Simmo676 (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are no objections I'll change it to just that. --Simmo676 (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Second tier of English football.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference LeagueResults was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Rivals[edit]

Just removed this paragraph:

There is no notable rivalry with their immediate neighbours Hartlepool United and Darlington. This is mainly because the clubs have very rarely been in the same league. In fact some Middlesbrough fans indirectly support the two clubs by looking out for results and occasionally attending games when Middlesbrough are not playing.

Block quote

Seemed a bit jarring. Feel free to renter it if you can reference it - I couldn't find any specific articles online myself. --Mofs (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

There is also some information which conflicts with the Tyne-Tees Derby page.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review etc[edit]

I just submitted the article for a peer review to see how we can get it to FA. I also have been editing Steve Gibson's page recently and would appreciate any comments/ changes people can make to improve it. A picture of him (fair use of course) would be particuarly useful.

Cheers guys.--Mofs (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, with reference to the peer review from OldElPaso, I've removed these links. We don't need that many!--Mofs (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

Are the "Smoggies" really a nickname that Middlesbrough fans use? I always thought it was a derogatory name used by rival supporters. Or have Boro fans embraced it like how Arsenal have embraced "Gooners". --Tocino 18:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is a nickname of derogatory origins that fans have adopted for their own use. One of the most common uses of the term is in the phrase "Smoggies on tour" (see link) displayed on flags while on away trips, especially during the UEFA Cup run. --Simmo676 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it has not been unknown for away fans to turn up at the ground dressed in nuclear/biological warfare protection suits, although this is now frowned upon by the police and there has been a few expulsions from the ground.--The Mercenary 73 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gareth southgate[edit]

hello has anyone got a free use picture of the manager to help improved his wiki page. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Club Debt[edit]

I think that the club's debt of £85 million is sufficiently noteworthy to be added to the main article. --New Thought (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits from 86.141.196.22[edit]

Hi - a string of edits from 86.141.196.22, who doesn't use edit summaries, have made a fair lot of change in the "Legends" section. I don't know this topic and hope these edits are correct - can anyone verify? Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and here's the main diff - hope this helps. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legends ?[edit]

I'm still worried about the Legends bit. It's getting edited a bit, but it claims it is sourced from the Evening Gazette. Surely, if it is a known, existing list, then it doesn't need editing, and a good ref can be provided, and it should be stable, woo hoo. A half-holiday for the village schoolchildren and chocolate pennies all round; thank you Lady Pease. On the other hand if it's just people's personal opinions on who is or is not "a legend", which is what some recent edits look like, then the list should not be here and all and needs deleted. Do please comment, I feel as if I'm whistling in the dark here! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at the original version of the Legends list, which excludes Mark Schwarzer, Robbie Mustoe and Graeme Souness. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and thank you for the reply. Do you think that that represents a stable version that should be regarded as "the right one" and if so can we give a reference for it? Cos there is no way it's going to remain stable, I fear, unless it's possible to point to one thing and say "but this is the right one"! cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ref we give at the Gazette has gone. However the Wayback Machine still has it and it lists these players:

1. GEORGE CAMSELL

2. GEORGE HARDWICK

3. WILF MANNION

4. BRIAN CLOUGH

5. JOHN HICKTON

6. WILLIE MADDREN

7. TONY MOWBRAY

8. BERNIE SLAVEN

9. JUNINHO

10. GARETH SOUTHGATE

- and that's yer lot. Fans voted for that list of 10 from an initial shortlist of 40. The list of 40 is also on that page but it does not explain how the 40 got onto the list, so if this article is talking about the list that was voted for, it's the 10 above. Please have a look at the archived page and see what you think. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since someone very helpfully added the Wayback Machine archive for this, I've put in an HTML comment which I hope may dissuade people from changing the list. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ground capacity[edit]

The capacity of the ground was recently modified and in trying to verify the change I looked at the source quoted and found that a specific figure was not given only some vague capacity details. A reference that actually gives the figure quoted is required. I have tagged it with {{Not in source}} until a suitable source can be supplied. Keith D (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Middlesbrough's official site as a ref, which notes that recent modifications have reduced the capacity to 34,988. Fribbler (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Keith D (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 season[edit]

Is there a page for this on the go?Mofs (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is now connected to the Middlesbrough F.C. page throught current season.

Season changeover date?[edit]

When does the season actually, officially, properly change over? It's a mess of back-and-forths at the moment and at least of the edits are not even well done which gives us broken links and factually wrong juxtapositions. Is there some consensus reachable here (or already reached elsewhere??) on when the changes should actually happen? The whim of individual editors (yes, including me!) is surely not a good guideline ... :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official changeover date is 1 July of each year, it is also the date when players who are out of contract leave. I think there is some agreement on the football project to retain information as is until that date. The same problem happens every year when people keep changing the league and the playing squad before the changeover date. Keith D (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse/mass deletion[edit]

As of 8th April 2010, this page has been heavily reduced in size with a host of references removed. Compare now with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middlesbrough_F.C.&action=historysubmit&diff=346689279&oldid=340498968. I have attempted to put some sections back how they were but I'm sure there's a better way to do it... who deleted everything in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.160.12 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

The History section of this article is so littered with POV that it's almost unbelievable. I'll start cleaning this up. Dancarney (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames again[edit]

Is there a definitive list of correct nicknames anywhere? I've just reverted the list to an earlier version but I'm not sure it's correct yet. I was sure that at least one recent contribution was a joke or mistake, and others seem dubious, but surely there's some reference somewhere which can nail this for sure and not just have it dangling in the breeze? On a separate but related matter, if you are sure that it needs to list both "Boro" and "The Boro", as if they were two separate nicknames and no-one could ever infer the one from the other, do please feel free to say so. <g> Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squad table format[edit]

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

  • It features a sort function
  • Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
    • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
    • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
  • It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
  • It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
  • It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Middlesbrough F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, Edinburgh Wanderer 19:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Middlesbrough 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) 22:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kit icons[edit]

How come Middlesbrough's new kits arent in the article instead of last seasons? --Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 23:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because no one has worked out/created the appropriate icons to create the new kit. Keith D (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middlesbrough 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) 02:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middlesbrough 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) 18:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Middlesbrough 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) 16:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Players section[edit]

So a string of edits has added all of Middlesbrough's U23 players to the first team player's list and the changes haven't been reverted. I just wanted to know why as there is already a page dedicated to the U23 and U18 squads where the players are already listed there (Middlesbrough F.C. Reserves and Academy). It makes no sense to have the U23 players mixed in with the first team, no? ~~ Brududesom (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the youth team aren't needed here if listed on their own page, I have redone the list based on the first team as given on the official website and updated the citation accessdate. EdwardUK (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Middlesbrough_F.C.&oldid=1209047334"