Talk:FC Den Bosch

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

F. C. Den Bosch → FC Den Bosch — Every naming any Football club, ther is no space , likes FC or F.C. Matthew_hk tc 00:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

1. Support as per nomination. Olessi 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

1. Oppose but, move to F.C. Den Bosch not FC Den Bosch as per all the other football clubs. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 20:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Matthew_hk tc 00:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from F. C. Den Bosch to FC Den Bosch as the result of a move request. Changing to F.C. would not increase consistency without creating a lot of work. --Stemonitis 07:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DenBosch.gif

Image:DenBosch.gif 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 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 05:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Racism

Hi all. I reinstated a section on racism on this page, but I do feel that the format of this page needs to be considered since it is the only significant prose on this page and other similar pages either don't include this information, such as FC Energie Cottbus, or more likely, include it as part of bigger sections such as history, club culture, etc, such as Millwall F.C. and Chelsea F.C.. This could be solved by just expanding the article but does anyone have any ideas on how best to include this information? SFletcher06 (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The racism section is violating WP:WEIGHT by highlighting two bits of racism (the only times their fans have been racist?) in a 55 year time span. The Moreira incident (which isn't mentioned on the Dutch wiki article) should be trimmed, have words like "reportedly" removed and be included with a club history section. The Altidore incident can go completely as there was no effect on games. Dougal18 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the whole part should be errased. If you want to place stuff about racism on every page of a club where this happend then you can stop with your payd job, cause it will take hours. Besides that you have to place every reaction of a club employ or stuff like that. Still think this don't have to be such a BIG part of a ENCYCLOPEDIA page of a FOOTBALL club. It is a disgrace, racism, but don't have to be 75% (cause when you post stuff about it, you have to post every little thing) of a page. Come with club stuff like links to champion movies on YouTube, players etc. User:82.173.108.240 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC+2)

@Dougal18: - I've added a club history section accordingly adding the Moreira incident to that and removed the Altidore incident section. SFletcher06 (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The part where you speak about the manager of FC Den Bosch isn't the truts, so that has to be removed. There are many DUTCH articles where he spokes about that fact and that it wasn't linked to racism, but a other incident in the match. Later the manager spoke about that with Moreira and he accpeted his words. So that is what I mean about this. It is not complete and that makes it a negative story and not 100% the truth. You can't post stuff like this and than don't post the solution. It gives a wrong view on the situation and that is not fair. This is the Dutch article: https://www.ad.nl/nederlands-voetbal/mendes-moreira-accepteert-excuses-van-der-ven-zo-kan-het-dus-ook~a4010050/?referrer=https://www.google.com/ I still think it is a disgrace to putt stuff like this on an open page, when it isn't 100% complete. You did that before and had to remove some stuff. And now it isn't complete eiher. Delicate things like racism, still think it doesn't belong here, but you post it, have to be complete before you post it. Not posting it and then say on the page that the part can be improved. That is wrongUser:82.173.108.240 (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC+2)

Still think it is AT LEAST strange that one person decides the the racism part has te be on a Wiki page and than writes down a part wich not is completely the truth. If you make a talk part about this then you have to ask many people for a meaning, not posting stuff down (cause I still don't see the racism part of the Leeds United player on that Wiki) and than change it, or let it change.User:82.173.108.240 (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC+2)

I changed the article based on another editor's recommendations and believe it is fine now. It is not there just because I think it is there since other editors agree it should exist. The Kiko Casilla incident was of a completely different nature to this and it is for that reason that it isn't mentioned on Leeds United F.C.. This is the way in which it is approached on articles like Millwall F.C. and Chemnitzer FC. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And where can people find that other editors think it should exist? Dutch editors don't think that, casue it isn't on the Dutch Wiki. This isn't a descent talk, cause ther are only 3 (!) people speaking about it here. The racism part is post on the page without any discussion. In mij opnion it doesn't belong on a site like this,DutchPJ (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC+2)

And again, cause Microwave Anarchist says it must be in this part of Wiki, the same question as above. So Dutch and English Wiki are different. That doesn't make sence in my opinion, cause both are about the same subject. So that reason can go in the dumpster. Don't get me wrong, racism is a disgrace, but serveral times said, also by other Wiki, or people, that the stuff people write down must be complete. Nowhere I read about the whole story after it, no where that the whole thing wasn't about the crown signs. And don't get me wrong again, but people from another country don't know the exact 100% from what happens in a Dutch (!) stadium. Cause we all know that televisoin, newspapers doesn't tell you everything. But I think people like me can talk and talk, one or a few more think they can deside everything. A lot of big things aren't on the page. And a lot like stuff placed on this FC Den Bosch page happen on many many other places...and aren't on Wiki. So come with good reasons why it has to be on this page and not simple answers as the English and Dutch page are different etc etc.DutchPJ (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC+2)

So this is how it works? When someone makes a change on an article someone else (in this case Microwave Anarchist) doesn't like it can be changed in a few minutes or hours, but when someone wants a descent talk about it (a tip from the same person) there is no reaction possible? Cause someone has another opinion about something? That is not what they call democracy, but, and that's ironic, anarchism.DutchPJ (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC+2)

I've made my view on the issue quite clear. Perhaps it might be worth posting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football if you want someone else's view on it. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you think you've made it very clear, but it isn't clear makes it not usefull to go into a discussion with you and make my words about you very clear. Have a nice day!DutchPJ (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC+2)

Excuses from me to Microwave Anarchist. That last one from me wasn't the way I had to say it. No I see your reaction at the other talk and that is what I mean with a descent discussion. So no hard feelings. And excuses also for my English, that doesn't help also haha :) DutchPJ (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC+2)

yeah, no worries. Your English is a lot better than my Dutch. :) Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Football Kitt Socks

Helle other Wikipedia people,

Just changed the away kitt and exactly ccpied the template link for the socks, but then it says it doesn't work. The socks must be white, with a black top, but _blacktop doesn't work. Can somebody help, cause now they are only white.DutchPJ (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC+2)

It works! Thanks for NOT helping ;-) DutchPJ (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC+2)