Talk:Blackburn Rovers F.C.

message: Hi, thanks for editing the Blackburn Rovers article. I've reverted some your changes and I thought I should let you know why. As I tried to explain in the edit summary, the introduction is supposed to serve as a summary of the entire article -- for readers who just want quick information -- as recommended in the Wikipedia style guide. I'm sure it can be improved though... so feel free to edit again bearing in mind its function. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from the mine and Pal's talk pages

message: I've just added Blackburn's 2000-01 promotion to the premiership to the honours box (since they won promotion by finishing as runners-up in the old First division) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.194.197 (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Honours box

message: I reverted the edits by this IP because Jonathan Douglas does have an entry on Wikipedia, which mentions his association with BR. Jonathon Douglas does not. I don't know if the wikipedia article is wrong, but it made me suspicious, and so I reverted all four edits by 195.8.163.194 -- which included a couple of removed players -- pending some more checks. - Motor (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edit from 195.8.163.194

message: I think this section is a bit dubious at best... but I've just removed some players from the section. They didn't have wikipedia entries (or had ones for other people with the same name). If anyone wants to add them back, could they please provide a source for them. - Motor (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous players

message: This section has been aded to quite a bit recently. There have been no sources quoted for the entries, and besides that I really don't see what it's supposed to add to the article. There's also the difficult issue of what constitutes "famous". So I'm removing it. - Motor (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Fans

message: I edited the links section, however given my potential bias (I am an admin of brfcs.com and co-founder of BRISA) I figured it was better to be upfront about this and get some peer review.
I added BRISA. BRISA was formed after the club disbanded the official supporters associations and to my knoweldge is the only supporters association recognised by the club (other than a couple of indendant travel clubs and the Disabled Supporters Association with still operates under the club's "official" banner).
I added BRFCS.COM. For many years this has been the most used supporters web site. It is also referenced in the discussion section of this page.
I reworded the RoverTalk link. The "Fans Forum" is a recognised focus group run by the club, so I reworded it "fans chat forum" to avoid it being mistaken for the official group.
I removed the link to the official message boards (as they are simply part of the official website, which is already linked).
I'm fairly new to editing on wikipedia, so I won't be offended if my changes are removed.
SlamTilt 14:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Well, in the trivia section of this article, it is stated that Blackburn beat Man United 18-0 in a pre-season friendly. Does anyone know exactly in what year this occured. I feel that it is best to include the year in which this happened for greater accuracy. This is indeed a notable event as well! --Siva1979Talk to me 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked every section I can think of in the Mike Jackman Encyclopedia (probably the most authorative Rovers reference there is) and it makes no reference of this. However this may simply be because it wasn't a competitive game. SlamTilt 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What year? 

message: Anyone know what that is about... --Catz  [T • C] 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banana Man?! 

message: *In an extensive census on FootballFanCensus.com, the fans placed Bolton Wanderers F.C. as Blackburn's second rival after Burnley. The teams are located close to each other and the match is considered a local derby.
*Blackburn has a long term rivalry with Burnley F.C. which dates back to the 19th century. The two clubs are 8 miles apart and on some occasions violence has broken out. When Blackburn Rovers and Burnley play each other the match is called the East Lancashire Derby.
*Manchester City.
 The rivalry was fiercest in the mid nineties when Blackburn Rovers and Manchester United fought closely for the Premier League title.
*The local rivalry between Blackburn and Preston North End F.C. goes back over 100 years. In 1888 Preston refused to play a match against Blackburn due to their reception by the Blackburn fans.
I'll include the reference section so editors can check my links
Well, if anyone wants to add it there is a poll conducted recently called the League of Love and Hate that showed Rovers' top five rivals as Burnley, Preston, Bolton, Manchester United and Oldham.  I'm not editing anything as I'm a Bolton fan and wouldn't want to be accused of any bias.  ;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.18.172 (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main rivals 

message: :Like I said before, I don't follow Blackburn closely so it would be helpful if the fans could check any inaccuracies and help find good sources to verify the derbies. If there's no objections, I'll replace the existing section with this one. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree, it does need more than a list of rivals - but I'm not sure alphabetical order is the best way to write about it - more historical information is needed but I don't know much about it before the 1990s and I'm not sure if sources could be found. I wouldn't say Manchester City are one of the club's main rivals, but maybe some people think they are. There is a rivalry with Preston, but not as much as with Burnley, Bolton or Manchester United. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It has to be alphabetical order because otherwise the order of the list gets changed due to disputes. The citations if presented clearly provide relevant information while the list can remain alphabetical. Brfc97 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill's edit provides more information than a simple list so provides some background as to the rivalries. However, if the consensus dictates it remain a list, Brfc97's suggestion that it remain alphabetical as to avoid further edit wars seems to me to be the most compelling solution, unless the numerical list from the fans' census be integrated. Theelf29 (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've now added this section to the article. I've not been able to find a source about the rivalry with Manchester City, but I've left it in with a  tag. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Bill! I'd propose that the section on the article would be much more worthwhile with the expansion you've added. As for the Blackburn Rovers-Burnley rivalry, this could be added as a reference. I think it's useful in gauging fans' perspectives. Also, Brfc97 added a couple of cites from the Lancashire Evening Telegraph (as it was then) from the mid-'90s to reference the Blackburn Rovers-Manchester United rivalry. Theelf29 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that article looks good and will be useful as a source. The Burnley rivalry seems to be the most talked about one on the web at least. My concern at the moment is that the edit war has broken out again and I urge editors to discuss things here. There's the Three Revert Rule to be worry about. Bill (talk|contribs) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *If the survey from 5 years ago is not a reliable source how is a one-off event in 2000 added without sources valid to support the claimed Manchester City rivalry? --Snigbrook (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the alphabetically order, and the section is in alphabetical order in order of team names, but it doesn't need to say this in the heading title. The commented out part is there to encourage editors to keep it in the neutral alphabetical order. Citations are always needed for all content that can be challenged. I'm not sure why you want to limit the number of citations in use. I tried to find a source for the Manchester City pitch invasion and I couldn't find anything that wasn't subscription only. The article also mentioned that it was both fans that invaded the pitch, so this is exactly the sort of thing that definitely needs a reliable source confirming the details. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with the alphabetical order (or whatever order it is in) but the citations need to stay in. As for validity of the 2003 survey, it should stay in unless it is contradicted by a reliable source (e.g. another survey) that is more recent. Also what does the phrase "From a town standpoint" mean? --Snigbrook (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've removed "(Alphabetical order)" from the heading - is this really necessary? Theelf29 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding Manchester City, I recall reading a certain chant used by City fans at the 2000(??) game at Ewood Park of "you're just a small town in Burnley". I don't have a cite to hand and I'm not sure as to how this suggests a "rivalry" between the clubs, but I can certainly understand Brfc94's point about this. Apologies for the lack of a citation - I have a friend who, for his sins, supports the Sky Blues, so, if it's of use, I'll ask him about this. Theelf29 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd agree, though I feel that an alphabetical list is the way to go to avoid further edit warring. Theelf29 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The current order on the page goes Bolton, Burnley, Man City, Man Utd, Preston. This is alphabetical order. I'm not sure what you mean by alphabetical order, but what I think you're concerned about is the wording. Those phrases are based on the source, and there's no real reason to ignore such a comprehensive survey from a reliable source. Perhaps the date of it needs to be noted in the article, but there's no reason to remove it. I also think you should reconsider your editing style as you went ahead and reverted again after your block, when many people have asked you to discuss first before going against the consensus that has been reached. Bill (talk|contribs) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That survey is from a website which has the backing of The football league and all 72 league clubs, the Chief Executive of the PFA, the Cheif Executive of the League Managers Association and Ivor Caplin MP, so I'd say it's fairly reliable. It's important to note that the section doesn't say outright that Bolton are the 2nd rivals, it simply reports what the survey has found. So it doesn't actually make any official claims to the order of rivalry. There was a consensus for this version reached on the talk page so how about you leave the section and see what happens? Bill (talk|contribs) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The version you're suggesting we leave there is disputed as it has been changed by a handful of editors. The new section however has been quicky reverted by yourself and has had no chance to see if it is disputed by many people. So far there has been a few editors to say that they like the new version on the talk page. Let's see how the new version stands before saying "there will be disputes". I have reverted the article to the new version once more and I strongly suggest you leave it for a while to see if it really is disputed. Bill (talk|contribs) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You cannot dictate what the content of the page is to be against consensus. That is "ownership". You've now removed all citations apart from one for no apparent reason. You've removed sourced content. All of this against consensus. How do you justify that? It's a genuine question because I want to know exactly what your concerns are. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Although i think he is a decent player, i do not think this guy deserves to be in "notable former or serving players" section. Maybe its just me but i would class 'notable' as a player who has atleast moderate fame with the fans or media. This guy is still young and does not really qualify for it, heck even Matt Derbyshire is more notable than sergio peter and he isnt listed! (and i wouldnt class him to be listed yet either!). anyone elses opinios? Lukey12345 23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sergio Peters. 

message: Doesn't seem to be in the current squad. He didn't leave, did he? Whoizzet 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No he didnt leave, im guessing when the vandal the other day removed half of the team and added players who dont play there, when undone probably just missed adding him back. I'll do it now. Lukey12345 09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zurab Khizanishvili

message: Due to amount of vandalism the page has been suffering over the past few weeks, does anyone feel that it should be locked to non-registered users? D-Notice 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vadalism may be in part related to users affiliated with certain Rovers forums. I noticed that since I updated the links section in September the order has been changed (moving one site up the list) and one of the links has been slighty modified to an incorrect url (and incorrect desciption). Is there an easy way to spot when the changes were made without stepping through every revision ? Anyway, locked to non-registered users gets my vote. SlamTilt 10:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ignore that. After closer checking it seems all the links "non-corporate" sites were removed and then later re-added (all be it, incorrectly). SlamTilt 11:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Isn't Blackburn Rovers' nickname supposed to be, "The Riversiders"?
Flonto 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: En dashes should be used in scorelines and only full dates and dates with a day and month should be wikilinked, including in the footnotes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Epbr123 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates & dashes

message: I noticed the team has only four Englishmen (and a North Irishman and Welshman apiece) on the current squad, a good deal fewer than any other Premiership club... Is this noteworthy to mention? Is it a point of contention among supporters or opponents (I don't know, I'm not a Briton)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign players

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Three references.
¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: The history section is rather patchy. The section headed "Early 20th century" in particular seems extremely short, with four lines covering 30 years or so. As Rovers won the League title twice before World War One, and the FA Cup (for the last time so far) in 1928, surely this deserves more attention.   --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: It seems that a new article on the history of the club has been created. However, said article seems very similar to the history section on the main BRFC page. I feel there is a need to discuss whether the history section of the main article is culled in favour of the new page or whether this new article is itself not needed. Theelf29 (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: Hodgson was sacked in December ... team captain and midfield enforcer Tim Sherwood was sold to Tottenham Hotspur, leaving the side without a leader. Brian Kidd ... was named as Hodgson's successor.
This implies that Hodgson sold Sherwood but the Tim Sherwood page states that he was sold in 1999, after Hodgson's sacking. There's a reference online to the exact date of the transfer at Sherwood to make pounds 4m move to Spurs . Sherwood was sold during this period, but not by Hodgson. Whilst it may be true that Hodgson was a factor in Sherwood's transfer, the sequence as currently written is inaccurate.
Simon Marchese (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renewed hope and downfall (1997–1999) 

message: Regarding advertising of personal websites I am the owner of www.brfcattitude.com. I believe it is left to neutral editors (i.e not the owner) to decide whether or not the link should be included. I believe there is no reason why it shouldn't be there as it is authentic and relevant to Blackburn Rovers. Content is low at the moment but that is generally the same with all new websites. I will be adding historical sections + profiles in due course so in terms of regular updates it is very active.
So your decision and I hope you decide to keep it there as one website link isn't really damaging the page. Please add the link if or when it is approved. Thank you.BRFC Attitude (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal websites are generally not added to articles. They need to be reliable, verifiable and be a good resource of information for the user. As the content is low and it is just one person creating the content then I don't believe the link should be added at this time. Bill (talk|contribs) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club websites 

message: I've seen that another one of this editor's sockpuppets has been blocked for blanking the page and refusing to get involved in any debate whatsoever.
How long until another one appears? 
By the way, I saw that the page was semi-protected. Can someone tell me why it didn't stop the vandalism? D-Notice (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be a problem with his sockpuppets until the semi-protection expires. Creedab was an old sockpuppet which hadn't been indefinitely banned so it was able to get around the new account limit. Today I tried once more to get the user to communicate on the talk page in a civil way, but he said he wouldn't accept any version that he disagreed with. Bill (talk|contribs) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRFC97, etc 

message: The length of the history section is ridiculous, considering that the history of Blackburn Rovers already has its own page. Why doesn't someone reduce this significantly, so the page for the club can function as a good resource. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone is free to edit! Chensiyuan (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: heyy...just wondering if the phrase 'paul ince era' is strictly correct...it was less than 6 months so surely it's more of a spell?
And with the takeover thing, as everything has gone quiet and nothing is happening with any of those bids any more is there a point to it? 
Just wondering.
Nikki clash'd (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Ince era

message: If a player is injured it does not mean that they are not on the first team squad any longer. For example, Brett Emerton at this moment. No other football club wikipedia pages do this as far as I can tell other than the Blackburn Rovers page. If there are no objections, I'd like to move the injured players back into the first team squad as it's inaccurate otherwise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquavit (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injured Heading / Missing from First Team 

message: The notable players section has been deleted for no apparent reason.  I'm happy to debate the reasons in favour and against it being listed. D-Notice (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you care to examine the material you added in your own reversion you will see exactly why this section has been deleted! Fasach Nua (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does look to me (as there's not a single source) that the section is built using personal opinion. However I think this sort of thing would be easy to produce as a verifiable list as a lot of publications refer to players' notability. For example the BBC has an article where they refer to Ian Rush and Peter Schmeichel as Liverpool and Manchester United legends, so it does seem plausible that there's articles out there that would be useful to verify such a list for each team. As far as dealing with it now goes, it could be removed and people could refer to the list when attempting to build the verified list. Or it could be kept in place while sources are found and items without sources could be removed later. Either way it needs sources. On another note, Fasach Nua I suggest you leave a more detailed edit summary than "delete section" in future, and bring it to the talk page if you find resistance to an edit. In my experience discussion is the best way to get results. --Bill (talk|contribs) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable players 

message: hi, sorry to get all technical but sas isnt an acroynm its an initialisation, an acroynm is pronounced and an initialisation is spelt out .calling it an acrynm would make it rhyme with pass  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelestation (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sutton and shearer the sas 

message: Was player of the year 2004-2005 if you cared194.75.129.200 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andy Todd

message: Under the section 'Main Rivals', it is stated that the two teams, Blackburn and Burnley, are EIGHT miles apart; they are in fact SIXTEEN miles apart. The two towns are 14 miles apart centre to centre, Ewood Park is 1.5 miles outside town centre and Turf Moor is 0.5 miles outside town centre in opposite direction, making 16 miles in total. I can authenticate this, having been a taxi driver in the area for over 20 years.
Signed 
Leprechawn.
28th Jan 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leprechawn (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackburn Rovers F.C. 

message: Blackburn Rovers Football Club (pronounced /ˈblækbərn ˈroʊvərz/) ???????
Only those with a speech impediment do. And, by the way, whoever wrote that really should try to provide a 'verification'!
92.239.71.235 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying you don't understand what IPA is or the IPA is wrong? Chensiyuan (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  They pronounce it like WHAT? 

message: Can someone put Henning Berg on the list : "Premier League Apperances"?
I think he has 209 P.L apperances for Rovers.
How could Berg be let out/forgotten - the only player with
the Premiership title with two different clubs and
also the most capped player in the club`s history.
(Ok201agi (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henning Berg? 

message: at the beginning, where it says "in 1890 Rovers", add a "the" in there.
Antimojo (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've undone this edit; proper nouns are not preceded by an article in this case. Furthermore, Rovers are referred to without an article in this article's references. --Muchness (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Antimojo, 1 October 2010 

message: Change Vasky's to Venky's
Anothergopher (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Also removed the apostraphe to fix the grammar. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Anothergopher, 27 October 2010 

message: The section has a comment, only visible when editing the page, stating that the section is listed alphabetically. It isn't alphabetical - Burnley before Bolton, and Manchester United before Manchester City. I would have removed the comment, as there has been a discussion in the past about this, I decided to mention it here first - what is the current consensus? Peter E. James (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of "Main rivals" section 

message: 3rd colours should either not be listed, or be red/black/red as last seasons away kit was  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.4.91 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  colours 

message: On the Blackburn Rovers F.C. article in the Honours section it states that Blackburn Rovers F.C. have won the Lancashire Senior Cup 17 times but they have won the Lancashire Senior Cup 18 times and it says so on the Lancashire Senior Cup article. I wish for an administrator to update the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan11diouf (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackburn Rovers Lancashire Senior Cup 

message: blackburn won the lancashire senior cup in 2011, i have added this to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordaniair (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancashire senior cup 

message: In the current squad section Paulo Jorge has now played a senior game, so should now be able to have a wikipedia article, Paulo Jorge Gomes Pereira is his full name so the article should be linked to a page at that title.
Sources for apperance:  & "82:08 Substitution Substitution Danny Murphy goes off and Paulo Jorge comes on. "  . 
Sources for name: , , previous wiki article that was deleted before his debut .
Thank you
95.148.62.21 (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect converted to article; unclear whether editors were aware of this request. Dru of Id (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 19 August 2012 

message: Please change Least points gained in a season (3pts) from 35 (1998/99) to 31 (2011/12)http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Premier_League_2011-12.html
90.215.235.46 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pol430 talk to me 23:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks, . The point of last year's rejection was not that the poster was wrong, but that he didn't provide a reliable source. People who look after these requests are just perfomring a clean-up service -- we aren't always familiar with the article or with the subject. If sources are provided we check them, but otherwise we usually ask for sources rather than carrying out the requested edit. You have cited a Wikipedia page, but we don't use those as sources, because that would lead to circularity in Wikipedia. If you could give us a link to an outside relaible source, we can make the edit. Otherwise, yes, please go aheaed once you become autoconfirmed. --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Done including the provided reference. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 11 December 2012 

message: take out the comment about Man City winning on goal differential.  This is a qualifier irrelevant to Blackburn.  There are 5 winners, you win or you lose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.204.181.245 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPL Winners end of intro 

message: *The Wikipedia article on Blackburn Rovers is, as usual, excellent and informative, However, it's opening sentence, reproduced below, should end after "By skill and hard work". At present, it is:
    "The club's Latin motto is "Arte et labore", the club's translation of which is "By Skill and Hard Work", but literally             means "Craft and Labour".
Whoever produced that sentence clearly never studied Latin, so missed the significance of those final e's. I checked the original English translation - and my own. I did get a distinction in Latin, many years ago - and confirmed my own translation from contributors to my favorite "third hemisphere'- who else but Wikipedia? The first two translations of "arte et labore" from Wikipedia are printed below.
                          1. effort, labor, toil, exertion
                          2. The literal translation of "Arte et Labore" can be:
                                -<< By skill and work
                                -<< By ability and work
                                                             etc., etc.
I rest my case, and suggest that the original translation should be restored (a) in the interests of Wikipedia;'s reputation for accuracy; and (b) to do justice to Blackburn Rovers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcleod duckworth (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The club's Latin motto 

message: By all means, protect vital, controversial pages like this one. God forbid this should continue to be a true wiki when the snooty ignoramuses who couldn't make it in the real world can foist their agendas on the world unmolested. Wikipedia is dead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.61.121 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Manager ---Karl Oyston---
Morganshand1 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: If you want to suggest a change, please cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014 

message: Minor Corrections - The url of Spartacus Educational has changed.  
There are two links in Early Years and one in the External Links that need to be updated.
1. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fblackburn.htm needs to be changed to http://www.spartacus-educational.com/Fblackburn.htm
2. www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Ffacup.htm needs to be changed to www.spartacus-educational.com/Ffacup.htm
3.  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fblackburn.htm  needs to be changed to http://www.spartacus-educational.com/Fblackburn.htm
Thanks
2.120.239.61 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014 

message: Please change the plain text reference to Dave Whelan to a hyperlink to Wiki's page for him.
86.145.138.151 (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done NiciVampireHeart 15:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Blackburn Rovers F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131219052616/http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/blackburn_rovers/7787940.st to http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/blackburn_rovers/7787940.st
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello just looking at the edits. That have been reversed.
Somebody appears to have been blocked for the facts as below but they are sourced -
Also worth a mention is the proud fact Blackburn Rovers are the 7th highest producers of England internationals []
Blackburn Rovers are currently the 9th most succesful club in England football and the most successful town team in England. Having won 3 League Titles, 6 Fa Cups and a League Cup. []. Blackburn Rovers have much history to be proud of namely being the only team in existence to win 3 Fa Cups in a row and has spent the majority of its existence in the top flight of english football with 72 years. [].Blackburn Rovers have spent far longer in the top flight than local opposition Burnley, Preston, Blackpool Wigan.[]
Blackburn Rovers supporters have formed several support clubs related to the team, and almost all of them are partially focused on making trips to Ewood Park easier. Rovers home games were incredibly highly attended as a percentage of the Blackburn population throughout the 2000’s with an average attendance of 24019, on average their crowds were equal to roughly a quarter of Blackburn (pop. approximately 100,000).
Pagemanager91 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the sources may well be usable, but the suggested text is unduly promotional and non-neutral. Wikipedia should not read like a fan publication. Huon (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2016 

message: Re: Squad list 
Feeney is not Irish (he has Irish flag beside his name)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.156.67 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liam Feeney 

message: Nathan Delfouneso needs to be added to the list of players who are out on loan. He has a wiki page that says he's currently on loan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:898B:7A00:A830:4F64:AF3C:63B5 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to the Players Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blackburn Rovers 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/20090309030206/http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/ThroughTheYears/0,,10303~78737,00.html to http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/ThroughTheYears/0,,10303~78737,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209043226/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/History/HistoryDetail/0,,10794~1357277,00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/History/HistoryDetail/0,,10794~1357277,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefaintertotocup.com/pastwinners.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511203500/http://www.premierleague.com/page/blackburn-rovers to http://www.premierleague.com/page/blackburn-rovers
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Blackburn Rovers 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/20090907202058/http://www.the-football-club.com:80/football-nicknames.html to http://www.the-football-club.com/football-nicknames.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105183804/http://ewoodpark.jimdo.com/blackburn-rovers-pre-football-league-fa-cup-football-league-past-season-s-history/ to http://ewoodpark.jimdo.com/blackburn-rovers-pre-football-league-fa-cup-football-league-past-season-s-history/
*Added  tag to http://www.friendsreunited.com/soccer-fa-cup-final-blackburn-rovers-v-sheffield-wednesday/Memory/8093da79-e4c2-45c3-8543-a00b010e492b
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505005730/http://facup.co/1891-fa-cup-final-result/ to http://facup.co/1891-fa-cup-final-result/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217091739/http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk:80/page/NewsDetail/0,,10303~1489931,00.html to http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10303~1489931,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Blackburn Rovers 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.the-football-club.com/football-nicknames.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/ThroughTheYears/0%2C%2C10303~78737%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/History/HistoryDetail/0%2C%2C10794~1357277%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927142320/http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10303~1332318%2C00.html to http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10303~1332318%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rovers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10303~1489931%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911091641/http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/HistoryRecords to http://www.rovers.co.uk/page/HistoryRecords
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Blackburn Rovers 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/20151018014255/http://www.footballdictionary.net/BlackburnRovers/History.asp to http://www.footballdictionary.net/BlackburnRovers/History.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blackburn Rovers 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/20101113114702/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/blackburn-rovers/records to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/blackburn-rovers/records
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217023314/http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2011-2012 to http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2011-2012
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1999–2000 2620:0:107A:FD00:F597:2664:D758:E8B1 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018 Incorrect Flags on Player of Season Awards 

message: Hi, in the records section it has our record points total as 91 from 2000-01, however in the 2017-18 season we finished with 96 points in League 1. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1E5F8 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting change to Records section.  

message: Scott Wharton with No 34
Daniel Butterworth to remove No 34
Source:https://www.rovers.co.uk/teams/first-team/ Peizhou9 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Trialpears (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019 

message: Add section on hooliganism, Blackburn Rovers have had multiple firms such as Darwen Mob, H Division, Mill Hill Mob, and the Blackburn Youth
A whole host of information can be found in this book
Nick Lowles, Andy Nicholls Hooligans, Volume 1 (Milo Books Ltd, 6 Sep 2007) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g_hmDwAAQBAJ
Page number unclear, search 'Blackburn Rovers', a whole chapter on the subject of football hooliganism in Blackburn is present.
A news report on the Blackburn Youth firm can be found here
Stocks, Rob Hooligans not welcome here (Blackpool Gazette Retrieved 23 November 2006)
The hooliganism in Blackburn in the late 1960s and early 1970s was notorious and made Ewood Park a feared place to visit.  Firms were run by greasers and bikers, the Darwen Mob was run by Hell's Angels members who called themselves Moses, Jesus and God.  Reports as early as 1963 shows that football violence was present in Blackburn in a major way, but it goes unnoticed due to it being way before the time of the big hooliganism crisis in the late 70s and 80s.
It is a fairly large part of the history of the club which is never heard and is important to show how Blackburn Rovers was seen pre-Jack Walker and the identity of the club in the 1970s.
An edit to show such information would be most appreciated, more info can be found in the sources cited. 2A00:23C5:6825:B700:70:2C5B:514B:D73F (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: .  It's not clear what changes you want to make.  Please propose specific text to add and provide reliable sources  for any claims made.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019:  Football hooliganism in Blackburn, two sources included.  BIG PART OF BLACKBURN ROVERS HISTORY MISSING 

message: Blackburn Rovers have a third playing kit this year which needs to be added to the kit icon section.
I don't know how to do it myself.
Source: 
https://www.rovers.co.uk/news/2021/august/Rovers-unveil-30th-Anniversary-third-kit-/ 2A02:C7F:F2E2:A700:50A6:39D3:943D:E3EC (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Is this going to be a normal kit, or just something worn a single time for publicity then sold? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The third kit has now been worn numerous times and so is deserving of being added to the article. (User:ScottishFinnishRadish)  Lankyant (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add it. I didn't have any objection other than having no idea if it was something normally worn, or just promotional. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2021 - Third kit update  

message: In 2020-2021 Season, Blackburn Rovers Finished 15th in the Championship.
On August 10, 2021, Adam Armstrong, Rovers' top scorer in that season was sold to Southampton for £15 Million with Newcastle United receiving 40% of the fee due to the sell-on clause that they put in when Armstrong signed for Rovers back in 2018. Thomas200309 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021 

message: Consider updating the location to an appropriate level of precision. Hundredths of a second are blades of glass.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.119.245 (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: 82.5.97.161 (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022 

message: Please change "though" to "but" in three sentences in the lead – inappropriate use of "though":
*"though returned to the top-flight as Second Division champions in 1938–39" to "but returned to the top-flight as Second Division champions in 1938–39"
*"though would be relegated in 1966 and again in 1971" to "but would be relegated in 1966 and again in 1971"
*"though were relegated in 2012 and again into the third tier in 2017" to "but were relegated in 2012 and again into the third tier in 2017"
2001:BB6:4734:5658:6910:A783:A096:1EEA (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Mvqr (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023 

message: Needs updating to 8-0 win over Harrogate Town in the League Cup tonight. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:986D:EFA9:3D67:A64B (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record away win 

message: Request to change History section of page to reflect managerial changes made since 2016-17. JacobP98 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Irltoad (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2024