Talk:Club Puebla

Wow. This needs major cleanup. Instinkt 01:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the last part. I can't seem to find any other cause to keep this tag... Commanderraf 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Have just done a general tidy-up of most of the article - I've tried to fix grammatical errors and phrasing. I think it's a bit clearer but am unsure of the original author's exact meaning in places, so whoever wrote the piece initially might have to come back and check it to make sure I haven't unintentionally compromised any of the meaning. Neenish Tart 21.21, 22 November 2006

Fair use rationale for Image:PueblaFC logo.png
Image:PueblaFC logo.png 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 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 04:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

recent additions
Someone made a lot of edits to this article recently, greatly expanding the article. However this person was clearly not a native english speaker, and it's basically unreadable. If someone wants to take the time to clean it up that is great. Otherwise I will revert it to the last time the text made sense. misli h  19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Are recent additions helpful to article?
An IP has made significant additions to the page recently, however they seem unreadable to me. They aren't using paragraphs, spelling errors all over the place, and it seems to also be all OR. I have no stake in the article and don't really want to copy edit the additions to make them readable, I just found the page on "Recent Changes". I have reverted several times but keep getting re-reverted. What should I do here? 19:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mislih, I've posted a welcome on the IP's talk page without response, and they're throwing information at the article right now, so I've warned them on the talk page again. It's tough as their vandalism is not blatant, and it might well be that what they're writing is weak prose but good information, but it's still unsourced. It's also very difficult that they don't communicate. Hopefully someone else will comment, or we'll go off in search of more direct help. Bigger digger (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's good info. I suspect it is a non-native English speaker who is a bit put off with talking. A lot are like that  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks YAM, the current IP editor is making much smaller changes. Early May saw an IP editor more than double the size of the article with writing similar to a match report! The current editor seems to be adding similar things but has only increased it from about 13k to 18k. I reported it to the admin's noticeboard but they didn't seem too bothered, and I think I've already taken the article off my watchlist. It seems this might be a backwater for an IP editor to enjoy!! Bigger digger (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clean up
I corrected most blatant syntax error. I'm not a native English speaker, so this article needs a second clean-up by one of them.


 * I've done a little more clean up, spelling and grammar. In some places it is hard to know who is being referred to, and it seems like some of the names could be cut, or transferred to a "Notable Players Page"  The article is awfully long.  Picosaur (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Very long
The article is too long to edit easily. Can I suggest that the history section is split off into an article of its own. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on this article


This article has been identified as containing an excessive quantity of non-free content. Per the Foundation's requirement to keep non-free media use minimal, and per Non-free content criteria #3, the non-free images on this article have been removed. Please note: If this is a list type article, please read the WP:NFLISTS guideline. If you wish to dispute this removal, it may be helpful to read WP:OVERUSE, as it answers a number of typical questions and responses to removals such as this. If after reading these, you still feel there is grounds for restoration of most or all of the media that have been removed, please post to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. ΔT The only constant 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The presence of a fair use rationale for this article on an image description page does not make it acceptable for a given use.
 * Blanket restoration of the non-free images that have been removed can and most likely will be reverted, with subsequent reporting action possible.
 * If some restoration is desired, careful consideration of exactly what non-free media to use must be made, paying special attention to WP:NFCC #1 and #8. In most cases non-free media needs to be tied directly to the prose of the article, most preferably with inline citations tying the discussion to secondary sources regarding the image per Verifiability.

Damarcus Beasley reporting that tax collectors went in the stadium
Due to the club owing $14m pesos.66.108.210.86 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)