Talk:Carrow Road

[Done] Drive to FA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:The Rambling Man and I are undertaking to take this article to FA quality in the next few weeks. Apologies for any confusion during this period - there's a link to an unimproved (and unconfused) version of the article in the tag I've placed at the top of the article.

All collaborators in producing a quality article are welcomed. You can refresh your memory of the Featured Article criteria at WP:WIAFA.

A to-do list will follow here in due course. --Dweller (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] RS?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this source reliable? --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Could well be. Published by Reed Business Information... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Used it, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Jarrold stand/old South stand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding the old South stand being on the north side of the ground - google maps would seem to suggest it is more towards the south-east.[1] -NCFCQ (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Map

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How easy would it be to include a map showing the ground in relation to station, river, cathedral, castle, main roads etc? --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of what you could do, now some OS maps are free... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello old fella. Nice to hear from you. Sounds good. How do I go about it? --Dweller (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, not stopping, just passing! I'm not entirely sure myself. I'll have a play if I get a chance. In the meantime, you could get in touch with the author of the Whitehaven image file? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Infobox image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Of the various pictures in the Carrow Road cat at Commons ([2]), I think this exterior view is the best one for the infobox. What do others think? --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As no-one has disagreed in 5 years, I'm going to make the change. --Dweller (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Stand images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think a photo of each stand is a good idea, but we're not going to get enough text in each subsection to make them look right. Is this a case for a gallery? --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Galleries (from memory) are often frowned upon at featured reviews... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You could be right. How else could we cope with the problem? --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

More text, or fewer images....? Put a stand image in the infobox? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. More text - if justifiable, not just to help the images. Fewer images is less desirable - surely we need a picture of each stand. Infobox can only hold one. Anyone got a bright idea? How have other stadium FAs handled this? --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Other FAs (Portman Road, Priestfield Stadium) don't have a "Stands" section but "Structure and facilities" (with no individual subheadings) and they alternate images from side to side. Alternatively, maybe you could stack images using {{Multiple image}} or create a montage (on this basis, but better)? Or, get along there this evening take a {{Panorama}} and have the benefit of seeing Scott Loach keep a clean sheet on his 100th league appearance! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

111th? Thanks, some good ideas there. Sadly, I won't be at Carra Rud tonight, but my heart will be. --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I fancy the Beeb on that stat actually! (Actually, turns out his 11 for Stafford were non-league. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)) I'll try and take a look at this article properly some other time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Interested in your views on the other questions on this page, too. --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] To-do list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Check structure is comprehensive
2. Check history is comprehensive
3. Add cn tags for every unsourced comment
4. Source all cn tags
5. Check references - cite formats, names and order
6. MOS, MOSNUM, DASH etc
7. Check photo captions and add explanatory text for visually-impaired users
8. Third-party copyedit
9. FAC

Anything missing? --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WRT "aim to getting it to Featured status" on WikiProject Football talk page, and I expect you'll know some/all of this, but it might be useful to others too... so I hope this won't seem condescending...

I moved some pics to the right, and removed forced sizes, per MOS.

Adding 'cn' tags does not make things OK; they need to be referenced or removed, prior to any attempt at FAC; it's all about verifiability. The references need to be consistent, and provide all the details possible - authors, dates, and so on; that becomes very important in heading towards FAC.

Yes, MOS things need fixing, particularly units of measure, which need  's...but, better, use {{convert}}.

A good checklist to run-through is User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet, especially for all the formatting things.

The best advice is, to look very closely at existing featured articles on similar topics, e.g. City of Manchester Stadium, Old Trafford.

You might also request a peer review.

Best of luck with progressing this; I only happened upon it by chance, from your mention on the project talk, so forgive my slightly out-of-the-blue edits...and "happy new season" to you too; sorry the first result didn't go your way, but hey, it was better than last season. Best,  Chzz  ►  23:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. All very helpful. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated below. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Schematic plan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just a minor point about the schematic plan image of the ground. Technically the side boundaries of the G. Watling City Stand should be extensions of the side line of the pitch rather than the goal lines, since the Thorpe and Wensum corners are both part of this stand. -NCFCQ (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this comment and NCFCQ seems to be inactive, and has no email contact. --Dweller (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I get it. The diagram shows vertical lines marking the ends of the Watling, but they should be horizontal. The Rambling Man, who do we know who could knock up a better schematic, maybe an amalgam of the old one and the more complex one you posted a link to, below? Do you know the chap that made the current image ;-) ?--Dweller (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to use some stuff at work for that, so I'll take a look on Monday, remind me if I forget! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Splendiferous. --Dweller (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Reminded. The more detailed schematic link is here, btw. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I need to get to this still.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh goody. I think we're close to ready - see the to-do list. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Some stats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

([3]) --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC) That was very useful for one part of the article. --Dweller (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Source material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[4] --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Used. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Pictures

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think there are probably too many.

I also think the one in the infobox is not a good representation of "the ground" - which of the many currently at [5] might work better? An external view perhaps? --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Done] Records

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this one worthy of inclusion:

"Highest attendance (first home game of season, all-seater)"

Seems a little random to me. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Too much weight to a triviality in the big scheme of Carrow Road. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To-do

Things to do in preparation for WP:FAC:

• Review issues on this page  Doing...
  • Just this puzzle to unpick now. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Cite everything tagged  Done
• Photos  Done In my subjective opinion --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Check deadlinks  Done
• Check references - cite formats, names and order
• Check photo captions and add explanatory text for visually-impaired users
• Solicit 3rd party copy-edit

Feel free to add to the list. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference 2 is a deadlink, but not tagged as such. Reference 3 does not mention the capacity of the ground. I think we ought to fine toothcomb the refs, I'm afraid. --Dweller (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree; by the way, I fixed ref 2 by adding the archive.org archived link. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As usual, you're a star. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• TRM, have you finished your review of the citations? --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• Any ideas of a candidate to c-e the article? --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Prose review

I am carrying this out while the current FAC proceeds, and am leaving my comments here rather than cluttering the FAC page.

• Second lead para I would rephrase: "Carrow Road, named after the road on which it is located" → "The Carrow Road ground, named after the road on which it is located,..."

  Good one. Done. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also: "with the ground opening on 31 August 1935" → "and opened on 31 August 1935".

  Yup. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Third lead para: "The stadium has been extensively worked on several times during its history" → "The stadium has been altered and upgraded several times during its history..."

  That's history. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also: "...the old City (now "Geoffrey Watling City") Stand in 1984:" – ugly parenthetical interpolation in the middle of a proper name. Also, if the City Stand was destroyed, you can't say that it is now the Geoffrey Watling City Stand – that is the name of its replacement. Personally I'd just say "a devastating fire that destroyed the old City Stand in 1984".

  Now destroyed. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Can you really call the club shop a "superstore"? The term is generally associated with very large out-of-town supermarkets.

  Not super enough for this article. Eradicated. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Background: "with a record attendance of 10,366" → "where the record attendance was 10,366..." I wouldn't bother including the words "in a first round proper FA Cup match", which detail has nothing to do with Carrow Road.

  Reduced greatly. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Can you provide the date when the pitch collapsed?

  No, but I'm not convinced it's a massive problem, unless/until we try to get The Nest featured. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stadium's name etc: "The new stadium took its name from the street which encloses the ground on three sides, the fourth being the River Wensum". Not quite sound, grammatically; suggest insert "boundary" after "fourth"

  Nice. Done. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "surgeon Philip M. Martineau" – false title. Since Martineau is not evidently notable this should be "a surgeon, Philip M. Martineau".

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of this section is something of a jumble. For example, I would expect the sentence about the possible Norse origins of "Carrow" to come in much earlier, perhaps as the second sentence in the paragraph.

  Good spot. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• The comma after "1850" should be after "1840s"

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "the 20 year leasehold" → "a 20-year lease". Strangely, I see nothing in the article to indicate what happened when the 20-year period was up.

  Hyphenated, but "20-year leasehold" seems perfectly acceptable to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "with the rubble dumped as a bank at the river end of the new ground" → "and dumping the rubble at the river end of the new ground, to form a bank".

  Honestly, I think it's better as it is! --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Replace "but finally" with a simple "and"

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The original stadium" → "The new stadium"?

  Excellent spot! --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• The quote marks in the first line of the third paragraph are confusing at present – it's not clear whether this is one or more than one quotation. Also, rather than "was described as", you should say who described it.

  I think it's better now. Agreed on the previous confusion. --Dweller (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Inglis describes..." First mention of Inglis, give full name and description.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "At this time, the ground's capacity was 38,000, with 10,000 of "the more vociferous of the home and away supporters", in the new Barclay end." I'd modify this, e.g. "...often to be found in the new Barclay end." (They weren't there all the time!)

  Think I found a better way still :-) --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ground developments: "soon after" is not worthy of quote marks, it's routine wording. Suggest paraphrase as "shortly afterwards" (no quote marks)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "In the wake of the Ibrox stadium disaster in 1971, safety licences were required by clubs which resulted in the capacity being drastically reduced to around 20,000." More detail required. It is not obvious why safety licences would result in the ground's capacity being almost halved.

  I think I've clarified --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• "A two-tier terrace was built at the River End and soon after seats began to replace the terraces." When was this terrace built, and why, if it was to be replaced by seats "soon after" (that phrase again).

  Done --Dweller (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Conversion to all-seater: Figures need clarification. My guess is that after the 1990 Taylor Report pland were laid for a 27,000 all-seater stadium, and that this was finally realised in 2010. This, however, is not presently reflected in the text.

  Worse. It was just misleading. Fixed, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Pitch: Rather than "intended to", I think you should say something like: "which, according to the supplier..."

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Eightieth anniversary: As we are now well into July, I imagine that the date of the exhibition match against West Ham is now known. Since this match is being played at least a month before the actual anniversary, it can't really be said to "mark" the occasion. I would say "In anticipation of the occasion..."

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Fans can also book to attend a celebratory dinner, designed by the club's joint majority shareholder Delia Smith, with the first-team squad." Trivia, non-encyclopaedic, recommend delete.

To be continued. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Terrific stuff. I'll get on with it. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

(Continuing)

• Norwich and Peterborough Stand: "The stand was renamed..." Did it have an official name previously? If not, it wasn't "renamed".it was "named".

  Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Barclay: "The purpose of the rebuilding was "to allow for the implementation of an all-seater stadium as per Lord Chief Justice Taylor's report". Wordy, clunky. I would just tag on to the previous sentence "...in accordance with the recommendations of the Taylor Report". The report has been mentoned earlier, and doesn't need linking again here.

  Faxed. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Barclay subsection ends with an uncited statement re floodlights. As this is the first mention of floodlighting since the £9,000 spent in the days of the ark, I would have expected to learn a little more about the development of the floodlighting arrangements on the ground.

  Foxed. Actually removed. It's really not encyclopedic. The ground has floodlights. And rooves. And walls. --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Visiting supporter accommodation: unnecessary subsection heading. The brief info and quote should be absorbed into the Jarrold section.

  I disagree. If I was a [potential] visiting supporter, it would be very helpful that it's separately subheaded. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Holiday Inn Hotel: "The club had a 30% stake in the hotel business at its launch, and granted a 150 year lease" – a rather imprecise way of putting it. I woulod prefer: "The club granted Holiday Inns a 150-year lease, and took a 30% stake in the hotel", or some such.

  There was a crucial element missing, which was in the source. Now all sorted. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Catering: I think you should introduce Delia Smith as the celebrity chef when she is first mentioned in the article, a few sections back. And the words "celberity chef" speak for themselves and do not require a link.

  Indeedy. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Nor does the plain statement of fact "became a supporter of Norwich City in 1969 when she met her husband, writer and editor Michael Wynn-Jones" deserve to be presented as a quotation. Try a simple paraphrase.

  Hmm. There is, believe it or not, some dispute over Delia's allegiances (ridiculously) but you're still right, in fact, this gumpf isn't needed in this article at all. Gorn. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Likewise, paraphrase the next verbatim sentence, beginning "The food is all based..." etc. Quotations should be used for striking phrases or for personal viewpoints, not for ordinary details which should be presented in your own wording.

  Eaten. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that the blurb "sleek, contemporary lines ... [that] would not be out of place in many a top London venue" is justified in an encyclopaedia article.

  No longer contemporary. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Describe, rather than merely link, Bryan Gunn. In fact I would advise reconstruction of this entire sentence, which meanders on and on and on.

  Gunned down. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Future plans for construction: delete the unnecessary words "for more".

  Done --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Another factual sentence needing paraphrasing ("boasted one of..." etc)

  Dine. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am not sure of the usefulness of "therefore periodically", or of "Specifically" at the start of the following paragraph

  Dane. Well, except, I've left both "therefore" and "periodically" as they do add something. Therefore correctly shows a linkage of thought and periodically correctly shows that it's not a one-off thing, but something that recurs from time to time. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Should "included" ("these plans included building a second tier...") be in the present tense?

  Dune. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• First mention of "Championship" since lead. I think you should spell it out, and link it.

  It was unnecessary detail. Hacked it out. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Paraphrase Burkett's comments - verbatim quotation unnecessary.

  I've shortened the quoted parts, but I think some of the verbatim was good and kept it. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Likewise the quote, presumably from the chief executive, that concludes the section.

  Durn. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Other uses: The "but" in the first line would read better as an "although"

  Not the way I write. :-) --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we need so much detail about the five U-21 internationals played at Carrow Road. The article is about the ground rtaher than the matches played there. Consider reducing these details a little

  That's a good point. Bashed it around a bit. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't bother with the Tom Jones cancellation, either.

  I definitely agree. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

These, although fairly numerous, are mainly quite minor points and can be easily fixed. I have made a few complimentary fixes myself. A more substantial concern, to me, is the over-reliance on verbatim quotes when a simple paraphrase is called for; this definitely needs looking at. Please ping me when you feel you've addressed these points. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent stuff and a good comment, picking up a flaw in my editing style, stemming, I think, from worrying about close paraphrasing. I'll review whether we can ditch some. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton All done/responded to, methinks. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD

@The Rambling Man: Following WP:BRD I'm staring this (short, hopefully) discussion. The link in [6] is dead.Or at least it is a soft 404, since it is redirecting to the home/main page, instead of the intended subpage (see the link) it was intended for, so ergo it is dead. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Which link? --Dweller (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Capacity

I was about to update the capacity using the 2015/16 Premier League handbook with their figure of 27,010, before realising that figure is lower than the 27,036 attendance recorded at the start of the season. Either the Premier League have incorrectly recycled an old figure, or there were 26 Canaries perched on one of the stands ;) Mattythewhite (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, Mattythewhite. In the article, we have the official capacity as 27,244, a couple of hundred more than that highest all-seater attendance. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

1986 Women's FA Cup Final

Seems to have hosted 1986 women's final between Norwich L.F.C. and Doncaster Belles L.F.C. https://womensfootballarchive.wordpress.com/cup-finals/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.12.56 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. It'll be added. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no it won't. The site is just a blog and wouldn't pass our criteria for a reliable source. I'd love to add the fact though. I'll do some digging and see if I can find RS. --Dweller (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrow Road. 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/20140122060849/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2013-14.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2013-14.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carrow Road. 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/20150704204438/http://www.geoffreywatling.org.uk/docs/2013-04-10.pdf to http://www.geoffreywatling.org.uk/docs/2013-04-10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617061429/http://www.canaries.co.uk/commercial/partners/ to http://www.canaries.co.uk/commercial/partners

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrow Road. 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/20141006103932/http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/mobile/news/city_college_students_design_colman_s_bicentenary_cake_1_3596681 to http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/mobile/news/city_college_students_design_colman_s_bicentenary_cake_1_3596681

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carrow Road. 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/20150709092935/http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/norwich-city-my-seat-my-club-2208801.aspx to http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/norwich-city-my-seat-my-club-2208801.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.heritagecity.org/research-centre/cultural-superlatives/norwich-city-football-club.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610185818/http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/norwich-city-season-ticket-prices-information-2208584.aspx to http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/norwich-city-season-ticket-prices-information-2208584.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Source material

([7]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Source material

([8]) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Source material

[9] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)