Millwall F.C. was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 6, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed October 18, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Football: England B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please, discuss any re-reverted edits here, or a page protect is likely in order. karmafist 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Den and now 'The New Den' have never been in 'Bermondsey' but in the Deptford part of Lewisham. 79.75.124.232 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (Tony S)[reply]

The New Den is in the New Cross electoral ward of London Borough of Lewisham but it's geographical location within South East london (Zampa Road, Bolina Road etc) is Bermondsey SE16. The Den was in the same electoral ward, and it's geographical location was New Cross SE14. If you have any further questions please post at the bottom of the page. Thanks 'Arry Boy (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, Lion King. If noting that "Millwall qualified for the final from the lowest league position in the history of the competition, and took to the field in Cardiff 25 league places below their opponents. They were only the 24th team from outside of the top flight to play in the final." is relevant to the topic, would you care to explain why adding that they didn't face a Premier League team is not? SteveO 20:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I backed down on edits you made to the Dennis Wise page with the proviso, that you didn't touch the Millwall page. We faced a Premier League team, in the Final, end of. Lion King 23:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered my question. That fact is just as relevant as the ones currently included and helps to balance the "positive" facts. After all, Wikipedia is neutral, in theory. I haven't touched the disputed edits from the Dennis Wise page. I agree that they're relevant to the Millwall page. This is about an extra part. SteveO 00:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break- you "touched" the disputed edits on 1st December. This artcle does not need an extra part, I simply cannot understand, your almost pathological need, to add anything else to this part of the article. Lion King 02:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By that I mean I haven't touched the disputed edits from the Dennis Wise page that are also here because they are relevant to this topic. I cannot understand your almost pathological need to remove one line that adds balance and perspective to the paragraph. SteveO 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did touch this edits on the Dennis Wise page, because you checked this history, after posting. It seems to me that you are completly obsessed with football, and your motive has nothing to do with balance. There is really no NEED for your proposed addition, you WANT to include it, using "balance" and "persective" as your cover. It is my contention, that the disputed paragraph, is accurate and balanced as it stands- you are the only one disputing it Lion King 17:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The edits related to Millwall's FA Cup run on this page I did not touch. I did touch the same one's that are on the Dennis Wise page, because they were not relevant and seemed to be trying to exaggerate the achievement. I've already said I have no issue with the FA Cup stats that are here (and you'll notice I never removed them). My issue is that you seem to be trying to emphasise (and overstate) the achivement in getting to the final, while not wanting any facts that highlight the limitations of it because they don't suit your own allegiances. You cannot have your cake and eat it as well. SteveO 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to Millwall's or Utd's run to the final in this article, nor does there need to be. I could go into the 1937 semi, and add that the ref awarded Derby a pen. with the score at 1- 1. I could then add, it was discovered that he had a twenty quid bet on Derby to win, and he never took charge of another game as long as he lived, I could fill the whole article with stats. Ad Infinitum. I could start an article about about the skinny bint who wins all those distance races, and say that she only wins, because she dosen't fall over! stats are stats, and belong in an article called STATS. I also have cake and eat it- it's the object of the exersise.Lion King 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Primus Multorum- Optimus Ullorum.[reply]

There is no reference to Utd's run to the final, quite simply, because Utd's run is completely irrelevant to a Millwall article. Noting that Millwall were the 24th lower-division team to qualify for the final is a stat; as is the fact that they took to the field 25 places below Utd; as is noting that they qualified for the final from the lowest league position and as is the fact that they didn't face a single Premiership team. All the above are of a similar nature and somewhat pedantic. The first three are, apparently, acceptable to you but the last is not. Why? The only reason you can give for accepting those but rejecting the final one is your own allegiances. If stats of this nature are going to be in the article, then both positive and negative should be used. Btw, if you want to mention the 1937 semi-final then by all means do, this article is a little bare pre-1980. SteveO 15:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as where I come from we call this sport soccer, I have no idea how the FA Cup works. However a cursory read of FA Cup says that the Premier League teams don't even start playing until the third round, which seems like opponents wouldn't even have an opportunity to play a Premier League team until late in the Cup... Also playing a team 25 places higher seems relatively rare, how often has that happened? And is there any information on how often teams have made the final without playing a Premier League team? --bainer (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Premiership teams enter the FA Cup in the third round, as do team from the First Division (Millwall's division). From there, there are six rounds to play up to the final, which means the chances of meeting at least one top division team are fairly high. Numerous lower division sides have reached the final, such as Sunderland in 1973 and 1992 (winning the first one), West Ham in 1980, Southampton in 1976, QPR in 1982, Fulham in 1975 etc. SteveO 14:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• there has been only 24 (numerous?) teams from outside of the top flight, to reach the final, in the history of the competion- first final, 1871/72 season. Lion King 15:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)P.S.NONE of the above mentioned teams, played in the final, 25 places below their opponents.Lion King[reply]

• It is my contention, that SteveO is manipulating this "statistic", to state his point of view, that if Millwall had met a Premiership team, they would have not reached the final. Lion King 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I was very busy over Christmas and didn't have the time to continue this debate. However, I must set the record straight. It was not my contention that Millwall would not have reached the final had they faced a Premiership team. To do so would be pure conjecture. I merely added one fact that was as relevant as all the others in that paragraph.

Now, I have a contention of my own: Lion King objected to that fact because he is a Millwall fan and because it adds more perspective (or undermines, if you like) to the achievment. His own personal bias and alleigances prevented him from accepting such a fact in the article, though as for facts which big up the achievment, the more the merrier. Now go forth and make the Millwall article as partial and as biased as possible. Ad nauseum.

PS I'd say 24 is pretty numerous in that context. If it were 2 or 3 teams you might have a point.

PPS Sunderland were 25 places below Leeds in 1973. SteveO 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Millwall be called the Millwall AFC, as in, Millwall Athletic Football Club, ie, that is who they are officially owned by is it not? http://www.football-research.org/hope/hope-appendix1tables.htm

• Millwall F.C. are named after the place from which they originate- Millwall not the owners. They were then, known at the time of foundation as, "The Millwall Rovers Football AND Athlectic Company Ltd" It is alleged that, the AND Athlectic Co. Ltd, was added to make the club a Limited Company, so that the board didn't have to produce a ballance sheet. Now, what is your opinion of a statistic being manipulated to express a point of view? Lion King 18:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)PS. If you have a comment, please leave it on Wikipedia: Requests for comment/Millwall F.C. Lion King 18:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC) SEE BELOW.[reply]

I'll make an rfc in a bit, let's see if we can resolve this dispute there. Until then, nobody touches the article. karmafist 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, head over to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Millwall F.C. Go nuts, guys. I'll try to wrangle up more people. karmafist 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected this page - please do not resort to revert wars if you still don't see eye to eye over everything. If there is a dispute, try one of the established dispute resolution procedures. Thanks. Izehar 16:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this article is really good (especially the club history and so forth), but the supporters section is maybe a bit unencylopaedic and could perhaps do with some editing. I think it is reasonable to say that Millwall are famous as a football club for two main reasons: 1) the hooligan element present in their fanbase at times in the history of the club; 2) the recent amazing run to the cup final. It is a bitter pill to swallow of course, but the fact remains that an encylopaedia article on Millwall FC cannot gloss over incidents of hooliganism as glibly as this one does. Rightly or wrongly, MFC's supporters were generally considered to be amongst the most active perpetrators of football violence in the 1980's, and to some extent more recently. The way this section currently reads makes them sound as if they were/are a bunch of angels set up to look bad by some kind of media conspiracy; although it may well be that their notorious reputation has been exaggerated, the fact remains that they DID(/DO) have a bad rep and that this is to some extent the result of past misdeeds. The section as it stands glosses this over almost completely (no specific instances of violence or disorder are given or even hinted at) and much of it sounds very much like POV and/or original research (e.g. the Huddersfield incident). Most likely, the primary notability of MFC (especially to international readers) in my view (contrary comments of course welcome) stems from the connection to football hooliganism, given that their competitive standing in the game at the moment and throughout their history has never been consistently high (I do not say that to be in any way derogatory, it's just a fact- I support a minor club myself, and we just aint Man Utd no matter how much we may wish). The article should reflect this in a more balanced and encyclopaedic way, imho, and a part of that would of course include the great strides made by the club in recent years towards addressing the incidence of the kind of thuggery and violence that have blighted Millwall and other teams in the past. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 02:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that you can cite specific instantances of violence or disorder involving fans of Millwall, in an accurate, dispassionate and true manner, then by all means do so. Lion King 15:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I am not an expert in this subject, and my knowledge of source material (especially printed) is limited. It may be better for someone more familiar with the history of the club to step in. However, there is plenty of material on the web (e.g. here [1], here [2] and especially here [3]) for one of us to at least have an initial stab at it- I will do this over the next few days- unless you feel up to the job. I feel it is important to include this material to round out the article. There is no need to worry about accuracy or POV- I have no real interest in the subject having stumbled across the page by accident. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 19:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to you including the above links into this section of the article, the first link in particular, as all the guys on the pitch at Luton are my heroes, because if they had not gone over the fence that night, I and many other Millwall fans would have been crushed to death. Would'nt The Sun have loved that one- "South London Scum Commit Suicide At Luton" Best wishes, Lion King 21:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)BTW when you've finished with my team, you might like to go to the Liverpool F.C. page where the deaths of 39 people, caused by Liverpool hooligans, is described as a "Tragedy", and that English clubs, were "withdrawn" from Euro Competions! No "glossing over" eh? Lion King[reply]

You need to calm down. If you are not an objective wikipedian, you should not be editing this page. I am not having a pop at Millwall or anyone else. I am not a contributor to the LFC page and have only just glanced at it as a result of your comment above, but if as you say it does not detail the events of Heysel in an objective and accurate way then you ought to get on that talk page, discuss the problems, make some edits and do something about it (the only thing I would say as an aside is that English clubs were in a sense 'withdrawn' from European competition; this local action (by the FA or the league or both, I can't remember) preceded the later UEFA edict. In a sense, the English football authorities 'withdrew' their clubs, but of course a simple statement of that nature is ambiguous and needs elaborating, as you say). I think the important thing for you to consider as obviously a keen contributor to this page is to make it as good as you can, and not worry about what others are doing wrong on other pages. I sense from the earlier comments that you may be having problems with someone inserting their own POV into this page- the best response to that is to keep your cool and exemplify what good wikipedian editors should be- calm, objective, rational and responsive to constructive comment and criticism. Any Millwall article that skips over the hooliganism issue is unencyclopaedic and should be updated. I will make the necessary edits over the coming days if I get time, but it is a shame that you don't feel able to do it yourself since your knowledge of the club and its history is obviously superior to mine. Sorry for any upset. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologise, you've not upset me, nor do I need to calm down, i'm perfectly calm thank you and appreciate your concern. Best wishes, Lion King 23:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth mentioning that the film "ID", about football hooliganism was, or appeared to be based on Millwall. The fictious team was called "Shadwell", nicknamed "The Dogs" and they played at "The Kennel". Coincidence? 125.239.236.114 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever posted the paragraph below is seriously misinformed!

"Their traditional strip consists of blue shirts, white shorts and blue socks. The club was founded in 1885 as Millwall Rovers, by Scottish dock workers from the town of Greenock, where the local Scottish Football League side Morton F.C. share the clubs' colours. The club's name comes from where it was founded, at the Millwall Docks on the Isle of Dogs, across the River Thames from where the club now plays."

Millwall Rovers had no connections with Morton FC, except a co-incidence in that the firm the players who founded Millwall worked for was called JT Morton!

I suggest the paragraph is replace along the lines as follows:

Millwall Rovers was founded by workers of JT Morton in Millwall on the Isle of Dogs. The firm had its origins on the East coast of Scotland in Aberdeen and Dundee. They opened their first English cannery and food processing plant on the Isle of Dogs at Millwall Dock in 1870. They attracted a workforce from across the country including Scotland. The group of Tinsmiths, who formed Millwall contained a predominance of Scots, but was certainly not exclusively Scottish. The Club Secretary was 17-year-old Jasper Sexton, the son of the Landlord of the Islander pub in Tooke Street where Millwall Rovers held their meetings. The First Chairman of the Club was Irish International and Local GP Dr William Murray-Leslie, who suprisingly never played for the club.

Gazza (Millwall History)

I agree that your version of the club's history makes more sense than the present one, but how do you explain the nickname of "The Dockers?" Cheers, Lion King 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion King, Millwall's first nickname was Rovers, the dockers nickname developed from the occupations of the fans who followed Millwall.

Makes sense to me mate, off you go Gazza! Cheers, Lion King 13:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waited for you to change the article, I have inserted your version myself. Any problems, message me on my page. Just click on my user name, and go to my discussion page. Cheers Lion King 15:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link between Millwall and Morton is a bit tenuous, but in a roundabout way Morton F.C. take their name from James Morton, Iron Merchant and owner of the JT Morton cannery and bottling plant. James Morton was Town Provost of Greenock from 1868 to 1861 and laid the foundation stone of a social housing project undertaken by The Greenock Provident Investment Company in 1868. The street in the East End of Greenock was called Morton Terrace, and was home to the founder members - James Farrell, Robert Aitken, Matthew Park, Alistair Ramsay and John Barry - who founded the football club in December 1873 called Morton FC after the street where they all lived.

Hope this helps.  :) Taxloss

• Thanks for the info, but as you say the link is indeed tenuous, as there is no doubt that Millwall Football Club's name, emanates from the place they were founded - Millwall. Cheers, Lion King 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxloss, are you sure that we are talking of the same James Morton here. I've not seen mention of any Greenock or Glasgow connections before. I'm looking to see if I have a Date of Birth for him, but what I've read seems to have Morton as an East Coast Scot. Gazza

• What is it that you have read, and from which source does it emanate? Cheers, Lion King 12:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of the name of the club is not what we are disputing here, merely the origins of Millwall's Scottish heritage.

• There is no doubt that Millwall's founders were predominatly Scottish. Best wishes, Lion King 11:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very interesting info regarding Provost Morton. Cheers, Lion King 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It is very interesting, but I'm afraid it's incorrect. J.T. Morton was founded in Aberdeen in 1849. And if he was the Provost of Greenock he would had a very long bus ride! Thanks. 'Arry Boy (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ve got to say, I ve always kinda linked the MFC with the legendary Only fools and horses and the Sheringham and Cascarino era. Although I ve just had a glance at this page, it seems to me that there aren t enough things for a foreign supporter, or a potential one to be precise, to identify with. It s only cos I support the Lions, too. Encyclopaedic parts are important, but a section which could show why we really support them wouldn t be too subjective-it would provide a background for understanding of what is MFC all about. I am currently some 2000 miles away and never been to Peckham or England, but there are some qualities that each human being can recognize in the spirit of the real MFC supporters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.101.146 (talk • contribs)

Encyclopedic "parts" are indeed important, Wikipedia is an Encylopedia. Best wishes, Lion King 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the current version it says "In 1974 Millwall were the first team to play a game on a Sunday", but shouldn't this be "first team to play a home game on a Sunday?", or "took part in the first Sunday match" ? There are usually two teams on the pitch :-) Ttwaring 19:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good piont:) How about "the first team to host the first game to played on a Sunday"? Lion King 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wot no copy edit? Lion King

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) --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something i had noticed on this page was the inclusion of Fabian Estay in the squad list, i for one have certainly never heard of him and am 100% that reading his article he is not a Millwall player. 62.253.199.29 14:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC) << that was me forgetting to sign in Ookie001 14:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Millwall badge.jpg 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 other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Theo Vasiliou seems to be a former (albeit I think rather minor) player for Millwall. Are there sources which would allow us to say how many games he player for the team, and when? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a Millwall supporter for over 40years and I have never heard of this player, nor can I find any record of him playing for Millwall. The only thing I can suggest, is contacting Gazza@millwall-history.co.uk as I believe he is in possesion of Millwall A Complete History by Richard Lindsay, a most expensive publication! He may be able to shed some light on the matter, but If you want my opinion, it sounds to me like he's trying it on. There is a remote possiblity (of course) that he may have been on Millwall's books, but as I say I have no knowledge or memory of this person playing for Millwall. Hope this helps. Lion King 16:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MillwallLion.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at 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.

BetacommandBot 19:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction paragraph states the legend "we fear no foe" was on the team shirts in 1930s. This is wrong. The rampant lion badge with MFC below it appeared on shirts in team photos from 1936, although Millwall did not always play in shirts with these badges. Gazza Millwall-History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.197.168 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see mention of the Greenwich Foot tunnel in the den section. It stresses the North to South traffic of East End supporters continuing to support Millwall after the move and suggest a new set supporters south of the River after 1910. This of course missed the point and reason why the foot tunnel was built in the first place as much of the Labour in the docks and other industries on the Isle of Dogs lived south of the river and the way the Isle of Dogs was virtually cut off from the North by the West India docks. Gazza Millwall-History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.30.230 (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the criteria for a player to be listed here?

Do they have to famous? Internationals? Or just Millwall Legends?

Can't see the justification for Christophe Kinet, Huckerby or Dave Savage being listed here.

Question by Gazza Millwall-History

On most club articles some objective criteria has been established for listing ex-players. On the Manchester City F.C. article, they only list members of their hall of fame, and the Chelsea F.C. article lists the winners of their player of the year award. Why not just list the players in Millwall's Hall of Fame? SteveO (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SteveO, yes that's quite a good suggestion. By the looks of things the players Gazza mentions seem to have been "dealt with":) The only problem I can see is that the Hall of Fame leaves out Keith Stevens, Mister Magoo and certainly our most notable player of all time, although he only played 4 league games, Curtis Weston along with our all time league-goal scorer Neil Harris I also think that members of the FA Cup Final squad belong on the list, I doubt if we will ever make another, certainly not in my lifetime! I think some of them should go certainly, and would value any further opinion you care to offer. Thanks, 'Arry Boy (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

going by the current criteria "A list of notable footballers who have played for Millwall Football Club. Players who have been honoured in Millwall's Hall of Fame and have significantly contributed to the club's history. Be it through being founder member players, having been given a testimonial for 10 years of service at the club, making over 100 appearances, scoring 50 goals or having receieved international recognition by their country in the form of caps, while playing for Millwall." I think that should see Darren Byfield removed as his caps pre-date his Millwall Spell. Kim Grant's caps may aslo pre-date his Millwall spell. There are several other very minor figures who by virtue of a cap for a low ranking get listed which seems wrong, players like Michael Gilkes, Bobby Bowry and Marc Bircham, players who are not notable in the least! Gazza Millwall-History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.231.56 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why dosen't this article have the Club Crest like the all others? 'Arry Boy (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I really like Wikipepia, full of answers you lot! 'Arry Boy (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was one, but it seems to have been deleted for copyright reasons. You can upload it again (or I will if you can point me to a good picture of it), but make sure it has a fair use rationale (see Image:Arsenal FC.png for instance). It should be safe then. SteveO (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for your courteous and prompt reply. Unfortunately I'm still pretty new to all this and will need help. The only place I think the current Club Crest would available is here [4] I don't know if it could be used, but once again I would value both your opinion and help. Thank you, 'Arry Boy (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries mate, we were all new here once. Other than the one on the banner, I can't find much on that site. I know the club have changed their crest a few times over the years, so I want to make sure I get the right one. How about this? SteveO (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve, wow thanks for all your time, that's really nice of you! The Lion with the circle you have is the old one which was replaced by the double lion badge. The new one is just like the one I showed you except it has a black outline. I tried the official site and they seem to be pulling every trick in the book to conceal the new one. I've done quite an extensive search but can't seem to find it. I did however find a page that said the new one had been uploaded by wikipedia user:Pal and has been deleted, I don't know if they can help? All the very best, 'Arry Boy (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I can't find it anywhere on the club's site, google etc. Unfortunately, user:Pal has been inactive since August, but I'll drop a note on their talk page anyway and see what happens. It may be worth uploading one of the old ones for now. At least then there's something there. SteveO (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's very strange. I think that's a good idea, the closest one to it would be badge "a" here [5] and once again, thanks. 'Arry Boy (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've uploaded the one you suggested. It should do until the current one is located. SteveO (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that's a knockout! Thanks very much indeed for all your time and trouble. All the best, 'Arry Boy (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall didn't win the league (Top Tier) in 1988-89 as stated, and as far as I know have never won the league. --82.45.200.179 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ther's something up with the intro - sombody sort it.RicoRichmond (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a page for the current season, could someone with the power please add it on to the main page? Thanks.. also I'm a rookie at this, so feel free to edit it however you like.

Andylfowler (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall F.C. season 2008-09

Is this page of value? I can't see similar pages for other clubs, and there don't seem to be any season pages for other seasons.. AfD anyone? Bertcocaine (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of similar pages for other clubs, cf. Chelsea F.C. season 2008-09, Arsenal F.C. season 2008-09, Newcastle United F.C. season 2008-09, etc. SteveO (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of this at all in either the main article or Millwall history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.96.10 (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no good with wikipedia to be honest and editing the kits would be too hard, but the current away strip is a vertical striped red and black kit, not the white shirt. If somebody could edit that, that would be brilliant. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docklanders (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[Millwall Athletic F.C.]] links here, but there is no mention of Millwall Athletic in this article: is there certainty that the two clubs share a history? Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Rivalries" section because:

• The word "rivalry" makes no sense between a newspaper and a football club. They might be enemies, but they aren't rivals in the way that Millwall and West Ham might be. The FA also don't seem to be obvious rivals to a football club.

• There is a large section about a conspiracy that would need some kind of verifiable reference.

Ttwaring (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Millwall F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

There is a lot of good work here, the article is nearly unrecognisable from what it was a few months ago. However, the issues present are probably too much to justify putting the nomination on hold while they are resolved, so unfortunately this is a fail.

I'll start off with a caveat to say I review featured article candidates more often than GA nominations, so my reviews are perhaps pickier than some.

• Sections on famous fans are discouraged. From various discussions over the years at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, the consensus is that if someone's support for a club is notable it should be mentioned in their article, not that of the club. In particlar, the fact that Ian Tomlinson was wearing a Millwall t-shirt is of little relevance.
• The "Nicknames" section could do with expansion into a section incorporating information about the colours and crest per the suggested layout for football clubs.
• Little things like a greengrocers' apostrophe in one of the most passionately contested local derby's in football and the odd run-on sentence suggest a third-party copyedit would be useful.
• The definition of "contributed greatly to the club's history" for the notable former players section is unclear.

• It would be useful to break down some of the Complete Record references using page numbers.
• Many paragraphs in the history section are unreferenced. Any sentence containing information that cannot reasonably be regarded as common knowledge should be referenced. For example, It was not unusual for Millwall to attract thirty or forty thousand spectators to a game, especially at their second ground at East Ferry Road. should be referenced. The same goes throughout; every record listed in the "Statistics and records" section should be referenced. This is probably the single biggest issue preventing a GA pass.

• Addressing the topic of hooliganism in an appropriate manner is no doubt the biggest challenge in writing an article about Millwall. However, at present, aside from a couple of sentences at the start, the "Supporters" section reads mostly as a rebuttal based on incidents reported in the past few years. Whether merited or not, Millwall fans have a reputation for hooliganism. The question that needs answering by the section is why that reputation came about. There is a wealth of information available on the topic (by which I mean scholarly sources rather than the hooligan "memoirs" that would probably be better placed on the fiction shelves in many cases). A quick Google Books search yields freely-viewable titles like No one likes us, we don't care: the myth and reality of Millwall fandom and The roots of football hooliganism: an historical and sociological study. The 1985 Kenilworth Road riot is not mentioned at all, yet it led directly to Thatchers plan for ID cards. Away from hooliganism, though alluded to elsewhere, the section fails to mention that the club's support mainly draws from the surrounding areas of south and east London.
• A certain amount of recentism creeps into the history section. When a 16 year period including a 3 year unbeaten run gets a single paragraph, do we really need to know that the club had a strong record against top half teams last season?

• File:CasandTed88.jpg has an external website given as the source, but is tagged as being released into the public domain by the uploader.
• Without a discussion about the crest itself, File:MillwallFCLeapingLionCrest.png may well not be regarded as appropriate fair use.

Reviewer: Oldelpaso (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've put a fair chunk of time in to transforming the article over the past few months and wanted to grasp what it truly needed to become a Good Article.

• Nicknames has been expanded in to a section with crest and colours, as per suggested layouts.

• Did a copy-edit myself, changed derby's to derbies and other minor grammatical fixes.

• Defined Notable former players requirements section more expansively.

• Broke down Complete History book references by page number.

• Every record in statistics and records has a reference.

• Removed superfluous facts from recent years and buffed up the unbeaten home run section.

• Removed disputed image, File:CasandTed88.jpg which is most likely copyrighted.

• Addressed supporters and hooliganism. I linked to the main Kenilworth Road riots and West Ham riots articles. Completely re-wrote it in chronological order of problematic history. I traced back to 1906 from your The roots of football hooliganism: an historical and sociological study suggestion. Good call!

• the crest, File:MillwallFCLeapingLionCrest.png can be obtained from the club itself, like nearly every football crest displayed on wikipedia. Is this not allowed? I see featured clubs' pages, such as Arsenal, Man Utd and Gillingham ( File:GFCOldBadge.jpg ) have Non-free media use rationale - non-free logo's. Either way, this can be deleted.

• Removed the Ian Tomlinson mention, famous fans can be entirely removed. Would a famous fans section, which is now placed at the end of the article (in the In popular culture section), prevent a GA classification? Thank you. NoOneLikesUs (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section called Infamous fans, but this doesn't seem to line up with the dictionary definition:

• having an extremely bad reputation; deserving of or causing an evil reputation; shamefully malign; detestable

This hardly seems to apply to someone walking home from a G20 protest, or Del-Boy's father. Should this section just be merged in with "Famous Fans", dropping the "Infamous" heading? - Ttwaring (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I submitted the page for a Good article once over the guy suggested the whole famous fans section be taken out, as sections on celebrity supporters are not encouraged, altho personally I see it on quite a few pages and find it interesting and informative myself, but yeah maybe Tomlinson and the Only Fools part should go, rather than being merged. I just thought it was quirky trivia, and the Tomlinson incident/verdict is more infamous than the man himself.NoOneLikesUs (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zapping it works for me - Ttwaring (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Millwall F.C./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this article again. I've spent a fair time reviewing it and making some changes, but I feel there's still a lot of work to do. There is an awful lot good with the article, but there's some not so good things. I've given you a full peer review below, which should help with a lot of stuff. It's possible that I could have kept it on hold, but I feel that it would be easier for you to get a full peer review or other help to get it passed properly without putting the pressure of it being on hold. And secondly, I just feel there's a bit too much to do or think about to put it on hold.

I would seriously suggest three options or all three.

• Get a peer review at WP:PR and find editors who may help out on this type of article. NB, I've given my own peer review below.
• Seek help at WP:FOOTY.
• Read over some other similar articles, which are either featured or good.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There's a lot good with the prose, but I've given a review below. Particular problems are WP:MOS issues, some items in the lead not elsewhere and a few grammar issues. Also the history section does not flow well in places and I think needs at least a fresh pair of eyes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There's a lot of POV in the article. Some of it comes across as very pro-Millwall. There's also some terms and sentences which need referencing. The references also need cleaning up to give full publisher and/or newspaper details, even simply The Yorkshire Post, rather than yorkshirepost.co.uk. Freelibrary is not the publisher either - if you look at that article, it was original in The Journal, in Newcastle. Nor am I sure about how reliable some sources are such as millwallprints, millwall-history, gonedigging, comedians, ruinedendings, etc are.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Just about fine here. Though I've got concerns about the recentism of the history section. E.g. The last section covers three years yet is six paragraphs long and goes into individual signings. The first section covers 34 years and is only five paragraphs long naming just one person. It needs some balance across the entire article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   As I've mentioned above, it comes out overly-biased in a pro-Millwall account.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Millwall_vs_Burnley_125_year_anniversary.JPG is copyright of the Football League since taken at a league game. LutonMillwallriot13March1985.png is maybe alright - but I'm not au fait with fair use policy. VictoryoverHuddersfield.jpg poor quality and I suspect may be copyright of the Football League. File:Crystal Palace 0 Millwall 1.ogv copyright Football League. File:MillwallvCharltonAthletic2010.JPG copyright Football League.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• I know this is the use of British plural for football clubs, but I'm not sure about the first two pars. It starts off with "Millwall Football Club is an English professional football club ..." Then the second paragraph starts "They are"; both plural. They as a pronoun doesn't have any frame of reference when you use Millwall FC as a singular noun in the first sentence. I realise club is sounds better, but football clubs tend to use British plural, as you do in the second sentence. As a result, I'd say that all uses should be in the plural.

• "They currently play..." Try not use "currently" per WP:DATE. This sentence suggests Millwall are playing right now. I would re-word to something such as "They play in the ..." or if you want put the season in they sentence.

• "2009-10 League One Play-off Final" contains three links, one of which is hidden, i.e. 2009–10 is not clear what you link to until you click on it. I'd say since it's best just to link to the play-off final, with one single link.

• "Millwall have reached the FA Cup semi-finals on three separate occasions," Strictly this is incorrect as Millwall have reached four semi-finals. I'd reword this to put the 2004 final first up and then say "Millwall have reached another three FA Cup semi-finals".

• "1988–89 First Division" As above, just use one link.

• "Based on all results during their 83 seasons in the Football League from 1920-21 to 2009-10, Millwall are ranked as the all-time 41st most successful English football club domestically." I can't find this in the main body of the article. Per WP:LEAD, all info in the lead needs to be in the main body.

History

• "J.T. Morton was first founded ... They opened ..." Similar to above, though companies are normally a singular noun, so either use "It opened ..." or "The company opened.." and your problem is solved.

• "Jasper John Sexton (pictured left)". How come the picture caption doesn't say it's Jasper John Sexton?

• "The newly formed team was well beaten 5–0." Was/were?

• "The match finished 2–2 and the teams shared the cup for six months each." Could do with a reference.

• "In those days, The Football League was in its infancy and consisted mostly of northern clubs. In the south, the Southern League was not only seen as a rival league, but on equal par." Probably true, but again needs a reference.

• "They are most famous for The Den at New Cross, London, which they moved to in 1910." Again possibly true, but I don't think you need to say "Millwall are most famous". Simply say Millwall moved to The Den in 1910. Why did they move there?

• "They had previously occupied no fewer than four separate grounds..." No fewer than four = four. It's superfluous.

• "who spoiled the celebrations by winning 0–1." 0–1 looks wrong, should really be 1–0.

• "Millwall's first Football League match at The Den was on 28 August 1920." How come they were promoted/elected to the league? Who did they replace? Why did they decide to enter this time now?

• "notably defeating three-time league winners (and reigning champions)" doesn't really need the brackets.

• "The 1937 FA Cup game against Derby still stands as Millwall's record attendance." What was the attendance?

• "Mighty Newcastle United" is a WP:PEACOCK term.

• "Millwall were the tenth best supported team in England in the pre-war years, despite being a Third, then Second Division side." Being a third then second doesn't make sense, either use Third or Second, or specify some years.

• "Many thought they would go on to become" Who does many refer to?

• "that is until the Second World War cruelly robbed them of their chance." cruelly is POV.

• "The club accepted offers from neighbours Charlton, Crystal Palace and West Ham to stage games." Use clubs' full names, e.g. Charlton Athletic, West Ham United, at least on their first reference.

• "Their form during the 1950s was poor, and they suffered relegation on a regular basis." Can you be more specific? To me, regular would suggest three or four relegations which would take them at least to non-league. So I'm not even sure regular is the right word.

• "One highlight during this period was on 5 October 1953, when Millwall played Manchester United to mark the opening of their floodlights." Can new floodlights really be a highlight? And you can't open floodlights.

• "Later in the decade, Millwall established an incredible record of 59 home games without defeat from, 22 August 1964 to 14 January 1967." Incredible is POV. See WP:POV or WP:NPOV. Also needs a reference.

• "The entire record stands as: Won 43, Drawn 16, Lost 0. Goals for 112, against 33." try and turn into prose.

• "In the early 1970s Millwall boasted a truly impressive side, now remembered by Lions fans as "The Class of '71"." Again this is POV. Needs a reference.

• inspirational is another WP:PEACOCK term.

• "This was a team that boasted the inspirational Harry Cripps, Dennis Burnett, Derek Possee, Barry Kitchener, Eamon Dunphy, Keith Weller, Doug Allder, Bryan King, and more." Why just these players? Especially when you say "and more".

• "In 1974 Millwall hosted the first game to be played on a Sunday against Fulham." Why was this held on a Sunday?

• "Millwall surprised observers" Which observers? Why were they surprised? Needs a reference.

• "Millwall had a good start to the 1984–85 First Division campaign, topping the League on 1 October 1988" These dates don't coroborate.

• "Also, Terry Hurlock and team Captain Les Briley who dominated the Millwall midfield." needs a reference for "dominated".

• "They also briefly led the league for one night in September 1989 after beating Coventry City 4–1," I would make this obvious it's the following season.

• "Striker Teddy Sheringham, who later played for the England team and was the highest scoring player throughout the Football League in 1990–91,[46] was sold to Nottingham Forest for £2,000,000 after Millwall's 6–2 defeat to Brighton in the Second Division play-offs." Again flicks between seasons without it being obvious where or when - particularly with the change in manager.

• "The new ground was the first new football stadium to be built in London since the Second World War." Needs a reference.

• "beating them 0–2 at Highbury." I'd prefer 2–0. All scorelines look better with either the winners score first or Millwall's score first; preferably the former.

• "(mainly due to a horrendous series of injuries)," horrendous is POV. Needs a reference.

• "Bonds was sacked and replaced by Keith "Rhino" Stevens, with Alan McLeary as his assistant. McLeary was promoted to joint manager." I don't understand this. Is McLeary manager or assistant?

• "Stevens and McLeary led Millwall to their first ever official Wembley appearance." Why official?

• "The Lions reached the final with a Golden Goal win against Gillingham in the Semi-Finals," Needs either a link or explanation of golden goal.

• "2004–05 UEFA Cup" Link to the specific UEFA Cup article not two different less specific pages.

• "Surprisingly, whilst Millwall were seeded, Ferencvaros were not." Why surprising? Needs a reference.

• "Millwall could have had an easier draw against Chechnyan minnows Terek Grozny" Is this just supposition looking at the weakest non-seeds? Or did Ferencvaros beat Terek Grozny. Either way this and the following sentence are a little redundant. Simply say Ferencvaros won and progressed to the group stage.

• "In March 2007 Chestnut Hill Ventures, led by American John Berylson, who have interests in ..." Is "who have" referring to Chestnut Hill Ventures or John Berylson? If Chestnut Hill Ventures, it should be "whish has" if Berylson it should be "who has".

• "The continued investment of Berylson, who has since become the club's major shareholder and chairman,[9] have provided a successful time on and off the pitch for The Lions." Investment is singular noun therefore should be "has provided". Secondly successful is POV. Needs a reference.

• "Over the course of the last two seasons Jackett has led Millwall to two top 6 finishes in League One," Changes tense from the rest of the history section. Maintain your previous prose e.g. "Over the course of the next two season, Jackett led Millwall ..."

• "After play-off final heartbreak" heartbreak is POV. Use defeat.

• "His signings of Steve Morison, Jimmy Abdou and Darren Ward have given Millwall a strong backbone to the team. Also, utlilising the loan market, his shrewd signings of James Henry, Liam Trotter and Shaun Batt (all who he has now signed permanently), helped propel Millwall toward the play-offs, and eventual promotion." Serious POV. And no reference.

• "The game had been much hyped due to City's signing of then England goalkeeper David James." Not sure this is relevant to Millwall.

• "Only days after the humbling defeat, Steve Coppell resigned as City manager." Humbling is POV. To be honest, it's not needed. In fact, again is this relevant again?

• The entire history section suffers from too much recentism for the latter sections. Ironically this is the parts which includes the better prose, which flows easier. I would try get rid of the less relevant information and keep this in the expanded History of Millwall F.C. page.

Colours

• "they played in a dark Dundee blue for their shirts and socks, with white shorts." Why Dundee? This isn't an accepted colour. Needs more explanation what this means.

• "In 1936 Millwall changed to a lighter Navy blue and have played in this colour for the best part of 74 years," Similar to above, this changes tense. Probably simply just get rid of "have".

• "The Red Lion was a popular pub name and the red leaping lion often displayed outside pubs is remarkably similar to the first Millwall badge." Is this the reason why or is this guesswork? It looks like the latter without a better explanation.

• "In recent years the club has started to once again recognise its unique link with London's docks by introducing Docker Days," Again changes tense. Say "In XXXX, the club started to ... "

• This section looks a little untidy with the text forced in between opposite images and then the table of kit sponsors, etc. See WP:MOSIMAGE for help on how to align images.

Home attendances

• I feel this list isn't needed in the article. Perhaps a synopsis of the attendances, but this information would be better demonstrated with a graph. The information could also be included at the as yet unstarted List of Millwall F.C. seasons article.

Supporters

• "Millwall are a well supported club, for their comparative size and status." POV. Needs a reference.

• "The club and fans have a long unwanted history" long unwanted (while I admit is correct) is POV. Needs a reference.

• "On five occasions The Den has been closed by The Football Association, with the club receiving numerous fines for crowd disorder." Again incorrect tense. The Den is a former ground so this should be "On five occasions, The Den was closed..." anyway.

• "windows were put in" put in is probably slang.

• "minnows" WP:PEACOCK

• "As a result, along with arrests from Millwall's hooligans, Luton's own firm the MIGs, 37 fans arrested after the violence were identified as being from rival hooligan firms, Chelsea (Headhunters) and West Ham United (Inter City Firm)." This sentence needs rewording. I've tried to read it four or five times and don't understand it.

• "Former Chairman of the club Reg Burr, once commented; "Millwall are a convenient coat peg for football to hang its social ills on",[106] an example being the reporting of convicted murderer Gavin Grant. Although he had played for eight different football clubs, playing his fewest (only four games) for Millwall and was currently signed to Bradford City at the time, BBC News used the headline 'Former Millwall striker Gavin Grant guilty of murder'.[107]" Did Burr link the reporting of "former Millwall striker"? I can't see a reference to say such. Or is this your own supposition?

• "After recent trouble" recent doesn't mean anything. In ten years time this will be redundant.

Rivalries

• "The Lions fiercest rival is West Ham United, one of the most passionately contested local derbies in football." run-on sentence.

• "The South East London derby was a franetic affair" POV.

• "After being promoted to The Championship for the 2010–11 season, Millwall re-ignited their South London derby with Crystal Palace, playing each other for the first time in four years on 16 October 2010 at Selhurst Park. The Lions made it six games without defeat against The Eagles, winning 1–0." Seems recentist to me. See WP:RECENTISM.

Players, Managers and Records

• All three sections are little more than lists. See WP:EMBED on how to handle lists in prose articles. Some of the info could be turned into prose, some of the info looks redundant in a prose article.

Club officials

• As above. Not all these positions should be in the article though. See WP:NOTDIR

External links

• Trim. Severely. I'd almost be tempted to say only include the official site. But for more information see WP:EL.

MOS and grammar

• All seasons and results should use an endash not a dash, i.e. – or simply a – from the tools below, rather than a -. E.g. 2009–10.

• Apart from a couple of exceptions, numbers above ten are usually in numerals, e.g. 17, or below ten written out, e.g. seven. See WP:MOSNUM for more details.

• You should not use contractions, e.g. can't, wasn't, won't, don't.

• Be careful about proper nouns. I've changed captain and defender. There may be more.

• Watch out for over and repeated linking.

• Lots of incorrect use of apostrophes. I've tried to catch most of them, but there may be some still in there.

Images

• Several images were taken at league games and are therefore copyrighted to the Football League.

Others

• There's a link to disambig page Upton Park.

Hope this all helps. If you need any further advice, please don't hesitate to ask. Brad78 (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this section as someone had incorrectly labelled Reg "JR" Smith as Scottish (he was an England International, capped while playing for Millwall!) and former Millwall Captain!

I have deleted the link to the scottish Jimmy Smith, whoever he was!

Gazza Millwall-History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.231.56 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Bob Hunter is Scottish rather than English, given his Schoolboy prizes and Montrose connection, but don't have absolute confirmation

Gazza Millwall-History —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.231.56 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note he is described as on loan from Arles-Avignon and an edit has been undone to revert to this from my entry.

Millwall FC describe his signing as "a short term contract after leaving French side Arles-Avignon, A fee of £150,000 is rumoured. ^[1]

217.44.14.231 (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate