Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rosenborg BK league record by opponent/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rosenborg BK league record by opponent[edit]

Rosenborg BK league record by opponent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this article will become the fourth Rosenborg FL. I believe it meets the criteria, but I'm sure you guys will find at least a few issues I've overlooked. Arsenikk (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - my main concern is that the article only includes stats from 1967 onwards - what about the teams/games Rosenborg played before that date? Current FLs like Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent include stats for all league games, in the case of Luton even from the super-obscure United League. If the intention is to only include top-flight stats then a) why is that? and b) surely 1978 should be excluded as well..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main reason for starting with 1967 is that no reliable sources have published statistical information for earlier seasons, so it is physically impossible to produce a more extensive list within WP guidelines. I agree that going back to 1918 would be ideal, but back then RBK wasn't even allowed to join the FA (for instance it is not even known which date Rosenborg played its first match). While Luton Town always has been a spectator-based team, it was first in the 1950s did Rosenborg become sufficiently good to draw a significant crowd and even then it was a smaller player in town. All major, reliable sources I have come across (the club itself, major news sites etc) put 1967 as the starting points for stats. Thus starting in 1967 is the only way to not violate WP:OR and WP:V. As for inclusion of 1978, I have a neutral stance. I have included it because the source includes it, but if it would make the article more neutral by excluding that season, then I am open to that too. Arsenikk (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it the book by Svardal that puts 1967 as starting point? On the website "Motstandere" published by Rosenborg BK, cited in the article, all league-matches from 1964 are listed. If we mail them, and ask if they could add the matches from the 1963 season, would it be OR to add those 4 seasons at the second tier to the list? I think starting from 1963 would be reasonable, as the Norwegian league-system was reorganised in 1963. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are several possible starting points and 1963 would also work, as would the "marathon" 1961–62 season. As for the website you mention, it has been updated further since I created this list and adding that information would be fine, although I am not sure if it is complete or not. I'll have to look a bit closer at the stats. Arsenikk (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Statistics is complete back to 1964, all three additional season when RBK played in the Second Divison. I can add these years, alternatively remove 1978 or leave it as it is. Either way is fine for me, but I would prefer any discussion to take place before I do the bulk of the work. Arsenikk (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe it would be strange to start in 1964 and not 1963, so if the stats from 1963 is unavailable in RS's, we have two options left: remove 1978 or leave it as it is. I have no opinion on which of those two options should be chosen, but I understand that it looks strange to only have one season at the second tier included. On the other hand, when RS's included 1978, why shouldn't Wikipedia? Mentoz86 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments Just suggestions, but I am inclined to support the list.
  • "It is Norway's most successful club,[2] having won the Norwegian Premier League 22 times and the Norwegian Football Cup 9 times.[1]" - I would write "Norway's most successful club,[2] Rosenborg won the Norwegian Premier League 22 times and the Norwegian Football Cup 9 times.[1]"
  • "it was not permitted to play Football Association of Norway-sanctioned matches until 1928.[4]" - the compound modifier is odd in this case, how about "it was not permitted to play on matches sanctioned by the Football Association of Norway until 1928."
  • Perhaps " Rosenborg joined the top league in 1967 and won the leagueit in the club's inaugural top tier season.[5]"
  • "With 41 seasons, Viking is the club which Rosenborg has played the most times. " suggest "Viking is the club with which Rosenborg has played the most, on 41 seasons"
  • "With 40 seasons, Brann has been played the second-most times and the team Rosenborg has beat the most times."
  • "Strindheim is the only other team from Trondheim that Rosenborg has played against in the top league against."
  • "is the only team which has beaten Rosenborg more times than Rosenborg has beaten it."--Tomcat (7) 18:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I have amended the lead as you suggested. Arsenikk (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Tomcat (7) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "on" matches and "on" seasons in Tomcat's suggestions above should be "in" matches and "in" seasons. "On" is not correct English in those sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "based in Trondheim, Norway. Norway's most successful club...". Try to avoid repetition like this from one sentence to the next. You could try "The most successful club in Norway" to fix the issue here.
  • "Rosenborg won the Norwegian Premier League 22 times and the Norwegian Football Cup 9 times." Add "has" before "won" since the club is still in existence and this serves as a running tally.
  • "Brann has played the second-most times and Rosenborg has beat the most times." Could use "is the club" after "and".
  • "the latter three in which Rosenborg holds a clean sheet." Don't like the sentence structure here; a semi-colon before this, followed by "Rosenborg holds a clean sheet against the latter three" would be better. And can we say a club holds a clean sheet through multiple games against another?
    • Amended as proposed. I honestly don't know if clean sheets count for multiple games; it sounds good to me, but I am happy to change it if others feel it sounds odd. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are the only teams Rosenborg has only played while in the Second Division." Would be nice to avoid having two "only"s in five words.
  • Using List as a section heading is really plain and boring for an FL. The Manchester United list used All-time league record, which I think is a lot better.
  • The lead image could use alt text.
  • "while for the 1978 this represents the Second Division." Remove "the". Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Per WP:ACCESS, it's best not to use a semi-colon for bolding as done in the reference section (i.e. the "General" and "Specific" headings). Screen-readers don't pick them up very well apparently, so it's best to use the three apostrophes instead.
  • For the general refs, put {{refbegin}} at the start and {{refend}} at the end of the section, in order to make the text the same size as the specific refs.
  • For the specific refs, use {{reflist|30em}} instead.
  • Add table caption to the main table per WP:DTT. I'd suggest "Rosenborg BK league record by opponent" in order to match the Man United one.
  • As a sidenote, could you please help review my current FLC in exchange?

—Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. All has been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – meets all 6 criteria in my opinion. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you say in the lead "Rosenborg joined the top league in 1967" and then at the top of the list "Rosenborg BK has played in the domestic league from the 1967 season and onwards", so a simple question, did Rosenborg have a "league record" before 1967? If not, then this list is either incomplete or incorrectly titled, or inadequately caveated in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section header title was proposed by a reviewer here, so I guess I have to get more careful of what advice I accept. I have changed the section header title. I have only been able to find a league record for a single season prior to 1967, per the discussion above, which is why the list has the chronological scope it has. Arsenikk (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The parent article, Rosenborg BK, discusses the club's history prior to 1967, or 1964, or any arbitrary time-frame being discussed. I accept that you can only provide reliable information for that time period, but unfortunately, without the remaining information, I think that the list is incomplete, and fails criteria 3a. Harrias talk 09:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Rosenborg_BK_league_record_by_opponent/archive1&oldid=1086351914"