# Talk:Linfield F.C.

This section lists the names of some sixty-three non-playing staff. Is this a little excessive? I am reluctant to edit without some discussion and perhaps a consensus. GardenGlobetrotter (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This page has been hacked to show a IRA, Socialist movement's logo in place of the clubs badge. Another wiki fail. Sort your acts out.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.120.143 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC) 

I don't even think they are professional!! The league is semi-pro plus most of their players have other jobs, when Peter Thompson was there he worked for the Royal Mail as a postman and David Jeffry is a social worker so I suggest this be removed from the article as their is no hard facts to back it up. Andrewfinn2009 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you do a simple search on Glasgow Rangers FC, we are told that they are the world's most successful football club, and that they are the first club to reach the milestone of 200 trophies. I would in fact, beg to differ. Linfield FC are the first club to break both barries, and as such are the world's most successful rather than Rangers. Regardless of the trophies won, or the league both teams play in - Linfield are more successful. You could argue if you take the approach of standard, that rangers are certain at least a trophy a season, as it always has been with either Celtic or themselves dominating. Also, if Linfield's trophy haul is overlooked in this matter, then why does it mention us as tie holders in the "domestic double" record with (as it happens) Rangers? Davie74 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Rangers are the worlds most successful football club. They have won over 270 trophies in all competitions. check out the honours page here rangershistory.co.uk Robrangershistory 12:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
linfield are infact the most sucessful team in the world with 210 FIFA recognized trophies rangers have approx. 198 would you like to add the other trophies that rangers have won and how many times they've won it, also why has no-on else stated this point. IT'S OBVIOUSLY A LIE!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.188.175 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 

Can I suggest tha the article be re-organised a little bit?
How about a history section, fully detailing Linfield's past and incorporating the euro games as a subsection. Then have another section on Linfield's more rectn fortunes?
Jdorney 09:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I see this had been done already, but someone had vandalised it.

I think the main Linfield article needs to be shortened down somewhat with most of the information befeed out to other Linfield FC pages. ifcp1 09:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's some information missing on the Jackie Milburn page, in particular how many games he played for Linfield and the exact number of goals he scored. If anyone has the info to hand it'd be great if you could add it. Thanks --Daduzi talk 03:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Be fair! If you're going to record an attack on Linfield supporters by Nationalists, you should also mention the strong anti-Catholic element associated with Linfield - can't have one without the other! Better still, simply remove the comment, because it has nothing to do with football.

i have redone the sectarianism section to include a more modern true blues section, that will hopefully be more palletable to onlookers --Ifcp1 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
As you should know there was no such "no catholics" policy. I have removed the section and urge you not to re-enter the libelious statements. --1886 LFC

Is the statement that Linfield are Ireland's biggest supported club not a tad subjective? Is there imperical evidence to suggest this?

I think they work out as the biggest on numbers through the turnstyles, The data for RoI is here [[1]], but unfortunetly the irish FA dont publish their stats. I would guess on that basis, it fails WP:VERIFY criteria for inclusion! 86.12.249.63 21:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Irish living in the US and it seems that all the Irish over here are celtic fans. Estimate that a larger percentage of fans in Ireland would support an non-Irish team like Celtic or Man Utd.

Hello unnamed user
I'm looking to reword that section so as its not upseting to some people, because its been vandalised alot.--Ifcp1 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers. I don't think anyone can dispute they are one of the biggest clubs but Derry, Cork, Shamrock Rovers and Bohemian FC may all throw in various claims to that title in one was or another.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs.  Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. 
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If this ever was a good article, it certainly is no more. A very quick glance reveals that it fails at least the following WP:WIAGA criteria:

1b - inferior lead section, list incorporation
2a,b - not referenced properly, no citation tags
3 - especially note the imbalance between "2005-06" section and history section (see WP:RECENT)
6 - image has no fair use rationale
Punkmorten 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was the capacity for Internationals were different from those of domestic games, due to the use of the Railway stand, I've tagged this for citation The Fashion Icon 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Linfieldfc.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.

It is stated in the article that Linfield are the only club never to have lost an F A cup tie. This is not the case as several clubs in the early days of the competition won or drew in ties and then withdrew from the competition without playing again  thus never losing a tie.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.9 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 
BetacommandBot 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A clean sweep would mean winning everything on offer. Linfield never won any European competition they entered. Domestically, maybe, but they haven't won a true clean sweep. Just a thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.107.222 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 

I believe we have called it a domestic clean sweep?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.69.60 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC) 

Did Linfield not have a non-cathlic, sectarian sihning policy for years, until the 1990's. I'm going to put something about this in, unless someone can explain that this in not true.
Fry2000  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 

The onus is on the person adding information to WP:PROVEIT, not on other editors to diprove it Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has come to the attention of an editor intent on imposing a personal view that the term "Northern Irish" is unacceptable. Under WP:BRD, editors are expected to come to the Talk page if they have been reverted. To continue to edit in these circumstances can be considered as disruptive.
The text should be restored so as to remain consistent with other similar articles. There is no consensus that references to "Northern Irish" as a demonym for football clubs should be removed from the encyclopaedia. Mooretwin (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I know your edit is politically motivated thats why I removed the POV. BigDunc 12:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
What edit do you "know" is politically motivated, and what is the alleged political motivation? There was no "POV" to remove. You are obliged to seek consensus for edits which you know are controversial. No such consensus has been established for your claim that "Northern Irish" is POV when applied as a demonym for a football club. Mooretwin (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(commenting as an uninvolved admin) And what do the sources say? Any further controversial edits to this article should be accompanied by a source so that the information can be verified by third party editors.  Please also find a centralized location for discussion, rather than having this same discussion on multiple talkpages. --Elonka 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for rewarding edit-warring. Mooretwin (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
UEFA. When Saturday Comes . RTÉ. Breakingnews.ie. Irish Football Association. Mooretwin (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone has claimed that Linfield has developed links with the GAA. What's all that about? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

'Whats this is all about?'
Linfield arranged for a hurling team from to train at Windsor Park a couple years back.
Seeing as you like trawling through websites for links and references to put a bad light on anything Linfield, why don't you just toddle on and look for the relevant article? Hint hint: http://www.u.tv/sport/The-history-of-Linfield-Part-3/741d1387-0c2a-4534-9667-fe46ead9946f --GC1886 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2010
Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I was asking what that was about because I was genuinely curious and wanted to add the citation, which I have since done. That wasn't a hurling club, it was a camogie club. Since camogie is not a GAA sport the wording of the article struck me as inaccurate and, conscientious editor that I am, I want to ensure that wiki is as accurate as possible. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The following sourced material has been removed multiple times from this page, often by user accounts that seem to be set up just to edit this particular page. Please note that removal of sourced material will be considered vandalism per WP:VAND. Just because you may not like the contents of an edit is no reason to vandalise the page.  Remember, the criteria for inclusion on wiki is verifiability. These facts are all quoted from reliable sources per WP:V. Sourced material:
The management of Linfield has spent recent years attempting to overcome a perception that the club is closely identified with the Protestant community. and has long suffered from endemic sectarianism. This sectarian reputation is partly the result of the actions of fans who have a history of anti-Catholic behaviour ranging from sectarian chanting on the terraces to outright violence. It is also partly the result of a historical unofficial policy of not signing Catholic players , and an insignificant number of local Catholics playing for the club since the start of the Troubles. The problem is further exacerbated by Windsor Park's location in a part of Belfast that is hostile to Catholics.
--Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the one constantly vandalising the page towards a anti nationalist slant with statements like "and an insignificant number of local Catholics playing for the club since the start of the Troubles." That is the reason your 'additions' are repeatability removed by those who know far more about the club than yourself --GC1886 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010
Please bear in mind WP:CIVIL.  Please provide actual reasons to remove sourced material which fulfills all criteria for WP:VERIFY. That you do not like an edit is no reason to remove it. The fact is that sectarian violence on the terraces and a policy of not signing Catholics is a part of this club's history whether you like it or not. Furthermore, the sources I have cited are not just media reports (and it is not your place to declare them "biased") but also from books written by reputable authors. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
When you can find written proof from Linfield FC itself, and not from 'reputable reporters and authors' who have shown their dislike for the club countless times, it will then stay. Until that time any lies you constantly add to the page will be removed. --GC1886 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010
Au contraire, WP:V prefers secondary sources over primary sources. If you're going to claim that my sources are 'liars' then you'd better have some evidence to back that up. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I also direct you to the WP:NPOV which you are in breach off with your edits, removing neutral points of view for those slated towards Anti Catholicism . Cheers. --GC1886 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010
WP:NPOV requires that "due weight" be given to all points of view. Whether you like it or not, sectarianism has been a problem at Linfield irrespective of recent efforts to tackle the issue. Brushing this prominent part of the club's history under the carpet is not NPOV, quite the opposite in fact. NPOV requires that 'due weight' be given to all appropriate points of view, and my edits, complete with their citations, gave exactly that. Please do not conflate your own POV with NPOV.  For example, "Genghis Khan killed thousands of people" is NPOV, and does not violate NPOV just because it neglects to say "but he loved his dear old mum".  All that matters to wiki is that it is verifiable and has secondary sources saying so. If you want to put in recent efforts to tackle sectarianism then go for it.  I even added it myself when I first wrote this section, but nobody came up with a citation for it after it sat on the page for months, so it was removed.  By all means talk about efforts to tackle sectarianism, but you cannot remove sourced material about the problem that existed in the first place. Also, please do not remove indentations from this discussion, indents make threads easier to read. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm proposing the following compromise text which I think gives fair weight to the history of Linfield's problems and the recent efforts to overcome them.  I'm all in favour of adding that the squad is diverse but that will have to have a citation:
The management of Linfield has spent recent years attempting to overcome a perception that the club is closely identified with the Protestant community, and has in the past suffered from endemic sectarianism. This reputation is partly the result of the actions of fans who have a history of anti-Catholic behaviour ranging from sectarian chanting on the terraces to outright violence. It is also partly the result of a historical unofficial policy of not signing Catholic players , and an insignificant number of local Catholics playing for the club since the start of the Troubles. The problem is further exacerbated by Windsor Park's location in a part of Belfast that is hostile to Catholics.  However, the club has moved forward in cooperation with the IFA which has launched a campaign called "Give sectarianism the boot."  It has also assisted a local Camogie team who needed space to train in 2005, and also built links with the Gaelic Athletic Association which has traditionally had little support from the protestant community in Northern Ireland. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is constant deletion and reposting of this section. How can those with citable material that demonstrate information that disproves or at least counters some of the material cited in this section be allowed to do so? I have several that I would like to comment on but do not wish to get into a tit-for-tat editing war. I know there are others who wish to add/correct too. 
I wish to edit one paragraph ie the one relating to the firework incident in 2008 though this section is currently deleted. There was not rioting following that incident. The Online Mail initially carried that story but later corrected it. However they could not at the time delete the picture and caption shown as it came from another source. The riots referred to were correctly reported by the Northern Ireland press as a completely unrelated incident ie: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/youths-clash-in-recreational-rioting-14035248.html
Mr Parker (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)--Mr Parker (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

By all means re-add the deleted content. I would then make your edits subsequently so that we can see the corrections. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that some editors on this page are unfamiliar with Wiki's policies.  
First, let me draw your attention to the fact that removal of legitimate sourced material does indeed constitute vandalism.  I quote from WP:VAND which refers to 'blanking' in the following terms:
"Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary."
Second, let me draw your attention to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.  If sourced information appears in an article that irritates you, that alone is not reason enough to remove the information.  If you wish to present the perfectly legitimate counter argument that Linfield has been tackling sectarianism in recent years, by all means present that information along with the sources to back it up. I'll even help you to format the citations. But to remove sourced material complete with citations can constitute vandalism, and that you dislike something as inconvenient as the truth should not be the basis for removing material.  If material is not cited, then you may remove it, but I think that you'll find that all the claims about sectarianism in this club's history all have verifiable sources cited and are in full compliance with WP:V.
Third, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or your own personal feelings on a topic.  Indeed, WP:NOTESSAY explicitly says that you cannot include personal essays, which means that no matter how much you love this club, you cannot let that influence the content of the article.
Fourth, Wikipedia is not censored.  That means that material that you personally may find objectionable may still appear here as long as it is in compliance with wiki's other policies. See WP:NOTCENSORED.
Fifth, some people have claimed that my additions to this article are in violation of WP:NPOV.  This is not the case. WP:NPOV says that "due weight" should be given to alternative points of view.  This means that fringe beliefs (9/11 conspiracies, psuedo-science etc.) are not given equal attention as the mainstream view. The fact is, a significant number of people in Northern Ireland perceive Linfield as having a history that is greatly affected by sectarianism.  This is not a fringe view, it is widely held, and there are academic sources that back it up.  It is therefore deserving of a mention in this article in proportion to its importance.  The club's efforts to tackle the problem deserve a mention as well, but they are going to look a bit silly if the existence of the problem in the first place has been censored from the article.
Finally, please use this discussion page to discuss this issue. The compromise text proposed above is, in my opinion, a fair and balanced presentation of the facts of the matter. Continuous reversion of edits is no way to reach a satisfactory solution and does a disservice to wiki readers. Please remember to be civil in all discussions per WP:CIVIL.
Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that individuals are practically obssessed with the political history involving Linfield Football Club and have absolutely no concern for any positive aspect of the club and therefore only has one function but to tarnish the name of the club.   In doing so, this individual is linking to dubious books making sweeping unproven statements about 'unofficial policies' at windsor.
These statements will continue to be removed unless conclusive proof of said facts are there.
User is encouraged to remove himself from editing the Linfield FC page if he has absolutely no intent of representing the overall factual information involved with the club.   It is clear this user is a common GAA editor, one not located even within Northern Ireland, his entire desired contribution has absolutely nothing to do with representing Linfield from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, but representing it from an Irish Republican point of view.
Until this changes, any references to political history by the method of his links to dubious sources such as CAIN (a notorious nationalist viewed source), they will be removed.  User is encouraged to kindly revert to editing about the sport he may know 100% and not the club he really knows nothing about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourkidpauluk (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 

These personalised comments are inappropriate. Comments about my editing history and conjecture about my affiliations are interesting, but are no basis for asking me to stop editing a page. I have as much right to edit this page as anyone else, Linfield fan or no Linfield fan.  As I have tried to explain in the discussion above (which nobody here seems interested in getting involved in) I have no problem with the positive and negative aspects of the club being presented here whether it paints the club in a positive or negative light. It is not wikipedia's job to act as a fan club. The job of this article is to present ALL verifiable information about the club. You cannot just say "Linfield have overcome problems of sectarianism" and then censor all mention of the original problems. As for sources, I say again that all that counts on wiki is verifiability per WP:V. The sources I have cited do exactly that, just like the sources cited by your esteemed colleague User:Mooretwin on GAA matters. I don't remember telling him to stop editing GAA pages even though his edits are almost exclusively negative. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw this article for the first time because it got a mention in The Troubles ArbCom. Obviously, I don't approve of wholesale deletion of content. However, having read the section in question I do feel it is in need of updating. For instance, the quote, "the team remains essentially a bastion of Protestant Ulster", is from 2005. A lot can happen in six years. Could anybody have foreseen in 2005 that Alan Mannus would one day play for Shamrock Rovers? If it's still "bastion of Protestant Ulster" in 2011 a more up-to-date citation is needed; otherwise the sentence needs to go. Also, the reports of riots/distubances, although they are sourced, are basically just a laundry list; three of the five incidents took place the same year, 2008. Those five paragraphs could easily be combined into one, and edited down considerably, without losing any vital information. Finally, it says "The management of Linfield has spent recent years attempting to overcome the club's close identification with the Protestant community." How? And how successful have they been? There must be some information out there. Eamonnca1 made a suggestion, which seems to have got lost during the edit-war. Also, I think that that sentence (but not the rest of that paragraph) should go after the reports of disturbances. As it is the section reads "there have been problems - management is trying to fix them - there have been problems."  Scolaire (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here, for instance, is a 2011 Irish Times story about Lish and Gerry at The Shrine being performed in Windsor Park, and here is a December 2010 discussion on both the location and the governance of Windsor Park, where the issue of sectarianism is dealt with.  Scolaire (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree could do with an update and trim. Mo ainm~Talk 12:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What are the criteria for inclusion on this list? --John (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious about that myself looking at the list I would say given the fact that he went to a major English soccer club could lend to the addition of Jackie Milburn. Dessie Gorman is uncapped so not sure why he is on it(is he possibly the first player to play in both the FAI and IFA leagues?), Tommy Dickson had one international cap but had 660 appearances for the club maybe he is highest capped player. Noel Bailie can't see any reason for his inclusion as his article has conflicting figure for number of appearances ranging from 577 in infobox to 1013 in the body of the article. Alex Russell, I'm not sure if the wikilink is to the correct person so have no information on him. Joe Bambrick scored 6 goals in one International match against Wales and I think he holds the record for the most amount of goals scored in the history of the local game. Glenn Ferguson has played over a 1000 senior matches. Mo ainm~Talk 21:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I felt it necessary to get short semi-protection for this page, as 3 new users & 1 IP address vandalised the page today. It's only for 48 hours though, hopefully the unhelpful editors will have gone away by then. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good call. I'm usually around to keep an eye on the page, and of course the moment that I'm not, things go to hell. :) Reddev87 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Linfield F.C./CommentsTalk:Linfield F.C./Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 04:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 22:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Linfield 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906133226/http://home.online.no/~smogols/ifcp/clubs/linfield/clublinfield.htm to http://home.online.no/~smogols/ifcp/clubs/linfield/clublinfield.htm
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Linfield 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326011756/http://www.kukrisports.com/gb-nwfootball-news-nw to http://www.kukrisports.com/gb-nwfootball-news-nw
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Linfield 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117032339/http://www.linfieldfc.com/events.aspx?id=8243 to http://www.linfieldfc.com/events.aspx?id=8243
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529161215/http://www.irishfa.com/news/item/7418/windsor-park-redevelopment-project/ to http://www.irishfa.com/news/item/7418/windsor-park-redevelopment-project/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220234930/http://www.irishfa.com/domestic/item/7995/green-light-for-stadium-redevelopment/ to http://www.irishfa.com/domestic/item/7995/green-light-for-stadium-redevelopment/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517120400/http://www.irishfa.com/news/item/9062/work-begins-at-windsor-park/ to http://www.irishfa.com/news/item/9062/work-begins-at-windsor-park/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120929110134/http://www.u.tv/Sport/The-history-of-Linfield-Part-1/0554b264-a544-4c01-8a58-571096e19f9c to http://www.u.tv/Sport/The-history-of-Linfield-Part-1/0554b264-a544-4c01-8a58-571096e19f9c
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725011520/http://www.u.tv/sport/The-history-of-Linfield-Part-3/741d1387-0c2a-4534-9667-fe46ead9946f to http://www.u.tv/sport/The-history-of-Linfield-Part-3/741d1387-0c2a-4534-9667-fe46ead9946f
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this section could be rewritten for clarity, specifically its discussion of the 1948 pitch invasion against Belfast Celtic. As written, this sentence:
"In 1948, Belfast Celtic withdrew from the Irish League after years of sectarian crowd problems culminated in a Boxing Day match against Linfield at Windsor Park which ended in a pitch invasion and riot in which Belfast Celtic's Protestant centre forward, Jimmy Jones, suffered a broken leg.[72]" is unclear in several ways.  A reader could be left unclear on three points:
1. Belfast Celtic was generally considered to be a team representing Belfast's Catholic/Irish nationalist fans.
2. The pitch invasion was conducted by Linfield fans.
3. The pitch invasion was generally viewed as sectarian attack against Belfast Celtic because of its connection to the Catholic/Irish nationalist population of Belfast.
A reader unfamiliar with this subject could read this description and be left with the impression that Jones was attacked for his Protestant faith, which is really not the case.  Furthermore, I don't think this description captures the importance of the riot; Belfast Celtic were a genuine rival to Linfield.  Obviously, the description on the Belfast Celtic page is more in-depth (since the attack was, after all, more important to them than it was to Linfield, but this probably should be expanded.  My recommendation would be:
"One of the most notable such instances occurred in 1948, at a game between Linfield and Belfast Celtic (a team whose support was largely composed of Catholics and Irish nationalists).  Following a 1-1 draw, the pitch was invaded by a mob of Linfield fans.  In the ensuing violence, three Belfast Celtic players were seriously injured, including striker Jimmy Jones, who suffered a broken leg.  Belfast Celtic withdrew from the league and never competed again." (the website itself would not be an ideal source, but the Sunday Tribune article is)
Without any feedback, the only change I'll make for now is to link Belfast Celtic to this article.GriffinBullet (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Ireland-Linfield Mural.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)