Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nelson F.C. seasons/archive1

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 promoted by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [1].

---

List of Nelson F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): -- BigDom 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of Nelson F.C. seasons/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it properly covers the topic and meets the featured list criteria. This is my first FL nomination, so I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance for your reviews. -- BigDom 12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments hey BigDom, welcome to FLC, hope you enjoy your visit and will return with more good lists! Link friendly to Exhibition game. Done You need some WP:ALT text for the image. Added "involoving" typo. Changed to "involving" "re-accepted into" not keen, perhaps "accepted back into"? Done Lead says they didn't play between 1915 and 1918, table says 1915 and 1919... Changed the lead to say they didn't play competitively between 1915 and 1919 (they played friendly matches between 1918–19) "thanks to the abolition " - as a result of the abolition, perhaps? Changed "re-accepted" again, don't like this... Changed again " never managed to progress past" remove managed to and say "never progressed past..." Done "second round proper" and "Second Round" - consistent capitalisation needed. Capitalised throughout Is there any difference between ref 6 and the external link? No, I've taken the reference out - it's all there in the ext link. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the advice, have made all the relevant changes and look forward to any more comments anyone might have. -- BigDom 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Nelson F.C. is an versus Nelson were accepted back. I believe in these situations, it is best to use the singular form as the club is singular. So that latter should be changed to "Nelson was". There are additional uses of "Nelson were" that should be corrected. All changed to "was" The list should be sortable. This has come up a lot recently (including with FLs I have done) and I believe the consensus has been for sorting the lists. I tried this when I was creating the list, but it really doesn't work, because of the rows where there are no league records, e.g. 1936–46 Nelson disbanded. I don't know what you want me to do about that one. I know I've seen other lists do it so I'll search for an example. I did find something which I think would work in this situation: Help:Sorting#Colspan workaround.—NMajdan•talk 18:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I've read it and I just can't work it out... To be fair, none of the other featured club season lists (Manchester United, Aston Villa, Birmingham City, Margate, Scarborough, and many more) have sortable tables.-- BigDom 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I made the same argument here, and I was told requirements change. May I ask where you tried it? Do you have a sandbox somewhere? I can help out if you duplicate the table somewhere else and will allow me to mess around with it.—NMajdan•talk 20:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Hi, I just tried it when I was creating the page, but when I could'nt do it I just used a normal table. Anyway, I've copied it into a sandbox here so any halp would be greatly appreciated. -- BigDom 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The table is now fully sortable. -- BigDom 22:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Per WP:COLORS, you need some other way to indicate "Promoted" and "Relegated". Used † and ‡ and added them to the key. Hope that's ok. I have some confusion regarding the image. It says it is PD because of its age. However, PD is determined based on when the image was first published, not taken. Also, the image would have to have been published before January 1, 1923 and this image is for the 1922-23 season. Granted the description says it is a start of the season photograph, but there is not further information. Where did the photo come from? Added some more info to the image page - it was definitely published in 1922. —NMajdan•talk 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, do you have any ideas about the sorting? -- BigDom 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) As per my understanding of UK copyright, in this country copyright is based on when the picture was taken, irrespective of when it was published. See {{PD-UK}}, which says If author is unknown it falls into the public domain 70 years after it was created..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The author is unknown, so I have changed the licensing to PD-UK accordingly. -- BigDom 09:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife I think this is a subtle reminder that I need to pull my socks up and get involved with my own club's equivalent. For the cup rounds, and in particular the FA Cup, it would make sense that when the rounds are sorted the preliminary rounds come before the qualifying ones. There is a simple way to achieve this (1Q --> Q1), or a more complicated method, as demonstrated by my "cheating" in the apps columns here (I wanted a player who has made 13 starts to sort higher than a player who has made 1 start and 12 sub appearances). If you wanted to use a similar method here, you could use the sort tag in this way: {{sort|Q1|1Q}} Changed to Q1, Q2, etc. so it sorts OK now. I have read the discussion above, but disagree with using "is" instead of "are". In British usage a club would be considered a plural. I thought that to start with, but the way I changed it before I think it reads fine now. This is a heck of a longshot, but are the top scorers lost in the bowels of history? Initially I wouldn't have even bothered asking, but having seen the Margate list I figured there's a small chance that the info is out there. If there's a small chance it's always worth asking, even if the ultimate answer is no. With the low levels that the club has tended to play at, it seems that no-one has documented this information – I was going to include it but I couldn't even find this data for the most recent seasons. Maybe the 1898-99 results should be added? The information is there at the FCHD, and the note below would remain anyway, to help explain it. The 1939–40 season is generally included in Football League club's lists, and my understanding is that those results were also nullified. Added the 1898–99 stats with a footnote. However, as the lead and the table say, Nelson were disbanded between 1936 and 1946, so they didn't have a league record for 1939–40. A † should be added to the 1922–23 season. Done Hope those help, WFCforLife (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot, again much appreciated. -- BigDom 21:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Re sorting: FL criterion #4: Structure says a list "includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities" (my italics). Personally, I can't think of any reason why it might be helpful to sort a season list, which is basically a timeline, into another order. It does no harm, but it seems pretty pointless. Struway2 (talk)

Made the column unsortable.

Sorry, that's me failing to make myself clear as usual. It was the idea of having this particular type of table sortable at all that I was ranting about. If you and other reviewers think it should be, then obviously you need the season column to be sortable as well, so you can get the thing back to the proper order without having to refresh the page. I've changed it back. Struway2 (talk)

Ah, I get you now. I totally agree with you but, as you can see further up this nomination, after his comment from NMajdan me and him spent quite a while changing the whole format of the table to make it sortable. -- BigDom

Perhaps the sort of lists that NMajdan has been working with are the sort where it is helpful to have them sortable :-) Discographies and filmographies aren't expected to be sortable, presumably by prior consensus, nor are episode lists, which are actually quite similar in structure to a season list. As you pointed out above, prior consensus for season lists is that they aren't sortable, and I don't think requirements have changed in that regard. However, please don't think I'm trying to get you to change it back to unsortable (unless you actually want to... :-) Struway2 (talk)

To be fair, I'd really rather not spend ages changing it all back now... Like you say, there's no harm in having it sortable, so we may as well keep it sortable. -- BigDom

Comment Please sign your comments. I can't make head or tail of what's being said if there is no date or username to associate with the comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was clearer before I capped the other comments: the intervening comments are by the nominator, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Signed mine as well just for clarity. -- BigDom 08:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

* FL criterion #3a suggests that "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". I know some of us go a bit over the top where annotations are concerned, but is there really nothing even remotely interesting, quirky, or needing explanation? Added about 20 footnotes, I think it's a lot better now so do I. I added references to 3 or 4 of the notes, the ones which weren't wholly sourced either to the list itself or to the general reference Thanks a lot * like for instance, why the 2008–09 division isn't bolded despite the different name... Included as one of the 20-ish notes Seasons 1899–1900 and 1999–2000 should be displayed as such, not as 1899–00 (per WP:YEAR) Done Could you put the † and ‡ into the appropriate colour boxes in the key, in with the words they represent. Already in the key, but done anyway I know they were, but as they're the accessible alternative to the coloured boxes, they needed to be together. OK, fair enough. The contents of the table don't seem to be sourced to anything. They used to be sourced to the main external link, until I changed it due to a comment further up this nomination. I can easily put it back if you want... WP:EL#References and citation says that sites used as sources for the article should be cited inline or appear in a references section, not as an external link. What people tend to do is have General and Specific subsections in the References section, as at this or this. Changed the references section to General and Specific The image caption isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop (per MOS:CAPTIONS} Removed full stop. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your time, -- BigDom 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. List now meets criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Founded in 1881, the club played friendly matches for the first eight years". Should second "the" be "its" or "their"? Changed to "its" Doesn't make much sense to link First World War. It's common enough that anyone will understand, and Second World War isn't linked later. I didn't add that link, but I've removed it now "never finishing higher than 15th in the four seasons." Chop "the". Done No need for multiple FA Cup links in the lead. De-linked second one "the side have reached the second round twice; in the 2000–01 and 2005–06 seasons." Minor point, but the semi-colon should be a comma. Changed A bunch of the newly added footnotes need references. Just saw a comment above. If covered in the general reference or the table itself, citations are probably not needed. Will leave this unstruck pending verification that that is the case. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Like it says above, the ones without specific references are all taken from the general ref and/or table. They are now, anyway (that was my fault, mistakenly thought I'd ref'd all the ones that needed it) Struway2 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) The general reference needs a bullet point and some more formatting. It should be formatted like the general references, with author first and date of last access. I've added a bullet point and the access date, but using the {{cite web}} template the author doesn't go first unless the date that the page was created is known, which it isn't. Richard Rundle is publisher, not author, which is why the name comes after the work. Struway2 (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Cheers for the comments, all resolved now. -- BigDom 07:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support if the top-scorer details genuinely aren't recorded anywhere. For the record, I also fail to see why a table of this type needs to be sortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.