Talk:Rotherham United F.C.

message: British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term  club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979Talk to me 18:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on British English 

message: If anyone can find out when he played for the Millers, I'd appreciate it. - Dudesleeper 13:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steve McIlhargey]] 

message: In researching for an article on Jack Edwards (footballer born 1925) who played for Nottingham Forest, Southampton and Notts County in the 1940s and 1950s, I came across John Francis Edwards who played his entire career (1944-1954) for Rotherham United, making 312 appearances at wing-half (9 goals). Should he not, therefore, be listed in the Rotherham United F.C.#Players records section?  --Daemonic Kangaroo 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jack Edwards (footballer born 1921)]] 

message: A line states "In the same year [2003], in a supporter's survey of football league grounds, Millmoor was voted as one of the worst grounds to visit as a travelling fan, second to only Bramall Lane.".  Is this true?  As a Blade myself, and a prior visitor to Millmoor, I'd be very surprised that either of these ground came out as worse than, say, Layer Road, Belle Vue, Vicarage Road, Kenilworth Road, Ashton Gate Stadium or Bloomfield Road.  Is there a source?  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second-worst ground in the country? 

message: What happened to the honours list? Or had this article never had an honours list added? Govvy (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honours list. 

message: There seems to be some debate over whether the Chuckle Brothers should have their own section on this page - I know unbelieveable!  
I think that some users (you know who you are!) are obviously not rotherham united fans and do not understand the impact of the Chuckle Brothers have had on the club.  Rotherham united are now well recognised amongst Europe's elite largely because of their association with Paul and Barry.  
Please give a valid reason for not removal of this subject heading - otherwise leave the management of this page to real rotherham united fans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.135.105 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, continually adding content about the Chucke Brothers right at the top of the artice, replacing the lead section is not how to edit articles. There is no debate about them having a section, as they are already mentioned in the article, with a source, in the correct place, so there is no need for them to be mentioned twice. But regardless of that, sentences such as "The association of these worldwide superstars with the club instantly raised the standing of Rotherham F.C. amongst Europe's elite" point to the edit being frivilous at best as they are cleary not "worldwide superstars" and their association has equally cleary not raised the standing of Rotherham F.C. amongst "Europe's elite. None of your edits has been backed up by a source. Also, "notable fans" should be added in the correct section lower down the article, but only if you also add a source. If you persist on adding this edit then the only option will be to request for this article to be semi-protected.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chuckle Brothers 

message: IP editor 194.75.129.200 keeps on inserting their opinions of recent transfer activity to the article.  I've removed it and ask them to cite things.  To be precise;
* "Controversially" - Uncited.  No mention of this either cite.  Closest one gets is "surprising", which is a different  thing altogether.  Where is the controversy?
* "increasing the bookmakers odds for the forthcoming season" -  Uncited.  No mention of it anywhere in either cite.
* "After concerns were raised over the quality and experience of new players brought in" - Uncited.  No mention of "concerns" anywhere in either cite.  Raised by who?
* "in order to raise supporters and critics' expectations for the forthcoming season" - Uncited.   No mention of "expectations" anywhere in either cite and critics are not identified.
* "who were both considered coups for a League Two club." - Uncited.   No mention of "coups" anywhere in either cite.  No explanation of who is doing this "considering".
So all this is unverifiable, and looks to be simply IP editor's 194.75.129.200 opinion on matters. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply and consideration.  If they are the opinions of the "general supporting public" then you will be able to find good sources saying this.  Unfortunately you saying "this is the public's opinion" is not adequate verification. Without a reliable source, all we have is what you think is general opinion.  You may be right, you may be wrong, who can tell? Similarly, you comparing bookmaker odds is original research, which is not permitted. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squad transfers summer 2011 

message: Millerman1963 (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dismal start to the 1981-82 Season?  

message: I'm seeking support for the Chuckle Brothers having a more prominent section on this page.  There are some non-Rotherham natives who understandably do not grasp the impact Barry and Paul have had upon this football club.  We are now known worldwide directly as a result of Barry and Paul's celebrity.
I vote for a section at the top of the page for B&P.  Who's with me?
85.210.173.93 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chuckle Brothers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rotherham United 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  tag to http://www.themillers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10360~805836,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325101055/http://www.themillers.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10360~2321927,00.html to http://www.themillers.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10360~2321927,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224214504/http://www.themillers.co.uk/page/Attendance/0,,10360~200910360,00.html to http://www.themillers.co.uk/page/Attendance/0,,10360~200910360,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517061447/http://www.themillers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/WhosWho/0,,10360~158828,00.html to http://www.themillers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/WhosWho/0,,10360~158828,00.html
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) 23:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Rotherham compete in EFL League One in 2024-25. BRACK66 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotherham United