Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ipswich Town F.C. seasons: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:45, 18 September 2007

Ipswich Town F.C. seasons

Following on the theme of copying everything from Aston Villa F.C.'s overall structure, I humbly submit to the community my contender for featured list in the shape of this, the list of Ipswich Town F.C. seasons. Based on the existing AVFC FL, I'd love to hear comments, support or otherwise. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As with the Villa one you can see lots of hard work has gone into this list and i think it looks brilliant great work Rambling Man.Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ A few comments.
- Should a more specific reference be used, rather than the homepage of the website?
  - I didn't think so, I could add a reference for every season but thought that would become a hugely unwieldy list of around 140 references which only differ in year numbers... The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can the missing top scorers be filled in?
  - If the top scorers are missing it's because it is unknown who they were - the amateur era seemed very hit and miss with records. However, it's fair to point it out so I'll add a note to the table to clarify this. The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are the "three players" who were top scorers in 1901–02?
  - Well, that "three players" occurs in a few places and I didn't really want to expand it out, I suppose I could add a reference though. Yes, I'll do that. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, its jolly good. Mattythewhite 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fair enough. Pretty much dealt with, so changed to support! Mattythewhite 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The list looks in great shape and meets all the criteria. One change I would suggest is to include links to the Football League season articles for the club's recent Championship seasons, e.g. The Football League 2006-07. Dave101→talk 19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, I didn't realise those articles even existed. I'll link them as soon as possible. Cheers! The Rambling Man 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked to those seasons which have articles, thanks. The Rambling Man 09:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder comment pending copyedit and debate(s) at article talk page. --Dweller 11:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list is obviously well researched, looks good and is undoubtedly useful as a stats-based history of the club. I'd like to see the red links eliminated, but as far as I can tell they don't stop the article reaching featured status. I do have one significant concern, which I am open to persuasion on: This is a list article - a list of Ipswich Town seasons, but it does not link to any of Ipswich Town's seasons, it links to English football seasons in general. This seems to go against the spirit of what a featured list is - at least in how I've interpreted point 1a) of the featured list criteria. I'm just pointing out the anomaly here - I'm not suggesting that a load of club season articles be created (personally I dislike them anyway but that's a whole other topic). I'm sure this point has been raised before for a similar "seasons" list, but I can't remember which one or what the outcome was. Can someone jog my memory and/or let me know if I'm being over-critical? Thanks. --Jameboy 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comment. Under 1a are three examples:
brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;

is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles

While the point you raise falls foul of 1, the list certainly fulfils 2 and 3. I think it's OK on that score. And re redlinks, you're right, that doesn't stop Featured status (they're an encouragement to our Rambling friend and other Wikipedian binmen to create some new articles) --Dweller 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, I've found what I was looking for. It was Manchester United F.C. seasons, and despite the argument about lack of club season articles (although in Man Utd's case, there are a few, with English season articles used where there aren't), it reached Featured List. Having weighed everything up I am happy to go with precendent. The alternative is to have a zillion redlinks to club season articles which may never be written, which would look ridiculous. --Jameboy 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Comment''' The list is obviously well researched, looks good and is undoubtedly useful as a stats-based history of the club. I'd like to see the red links eliminated, but as far as I can tell they don't stop the article reaching featured status. I do have one significant concern, which I am open to persuasion on: This is a list article - a list of Ipswich Town seasons, but it does not link to any of Ipswich Town's seasons, it links to English football seasons in general. This seems to go against the spirit of what a featured list is - at least in how I've interpreted point 1a) of the [[WP:WIAFL|featured list criteria]]. I'm just pointing out the anomaly here - I'm not suggesting that a load of club season articles be created (personally I dislike them anyway but that's a whole other topic). I'm sure this point has been raised before for a similar "seasons" list, but I can't remember which one or what the outcome was. Can someone jog my memory and/or let me know if I'm being over-critical? Thanks. --[[User:Jameboy|Jameboy]] 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
-:Interesting comment. Under 1a are three examples:
+*:Interesting comment. Under 1a are three examples:
+*::''brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;
-brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;
 is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and
-contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles
+contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles''
+*:While the point you raise falls foul of 1, the list certainly fulfils 2 and 3. I think it's OK on that score. And re redlinks, you're right, that doesn't stop Featured status (they're an encouragement to our Rambling friend and other Wikipedian [[Ipswich Town F.C.|binmen]] to create some new articles) --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
-While the point you raise falls foul of 1, the list certainly fulfils 2 and 3. I think it's OK on that score. And re redlinks, you're right, that doesn't stop Featured status (they're an encouragement to our Rambling friend and other Wikipedian [[Ipswich Town F.C.|binmen]] to create some new articles) --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Support''' OK, I've found what I was looking for. It was [[Manchester United F.C. seasons]], and despite the argument about lack of club season articles (although in Man Utd's case, there are a few, with English season articles used where there aren't), it reached Featured List. Having weighed everything up I am happy to go with precendent. The alternative is to have a zillion redlinks to club season articles which may never be written, which would look ridiculous. --[[User:Jameboy|Jameboy]] 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)