Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/German football champions/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [1].

German football champions edit

After addressing issues which caused the list to fail last time I feel it now meets the criteria necessary to be a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, number of teams in the infobox is clearly wrong. Secondly, the introduction text states that German football champions are the winners of the Bundesliga. This is not correct for any championship before the 1963-64 season (when the Bundesliga was established). Team names do not correspond to their respective Wikipedia article. Personally, I feel that the East German champions should be included here as well. Table formatting is partially ugly, especially the first table is unnecessarily wide. There is a surplus |} before the 1963- section. Adding the number of titles in brackets next to each champion would add depth to the information. Overall, I feel the article has deteriorated since his last nomination. Madcynic (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the number of teams, the German champions are winners of Bundesliga, it is stated that the bundesliga came into existence in 1963 which clears up any confusion. Team names don't have to correspond to wikipedia articles, if this was the case in English football there would be F.C. in every line which is a nonsense. The names represented in the tables are the names commonly used in England. The table is markedly better since the last nom, this had been stated at WP:FOOTY. Look at List of FA Cup winners this has a table with full width. Removed the surplus |}. The number of titles in brackets is unnecessary and makes the table look cluttered. The East German champions should have a separate article as this was a different list and would confuse readers as it confused me. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • "German football Championship" should be "German Football Championship" since it is a proper noun
Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaiserslautern are the only club to hve won the 2. Bundesliga and Bundesliga in successive seasons.": fix the typo on "have"
Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also this sentence is very confusing to me before I realize "2. Bundesliga" is a different thing. Add a brief explanation on 2. Bundesliga and add "the" in front of Bundesliga in that sentence.
Done NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change all "n/a" to emdash
The n/a is fine and the key explains that the match was not played it should remain. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you include third place winner in the second table? I think score should be included instead.
No. The second table is about the Bundesliga, a league competition. Therefore there is no score to include. OdinFK (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Chris! ct 23:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments they have all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • "...the first recognized national championship was staged in Hamburg in 1903...": The first final was played in Altona. Altona became a borough of Hamburg in 1937.
  • "Prior to the formation of the Bundesliga in 1963, the championship format was based on a knockout competition involving the winners from each of the country's top-flight regional leagues.": That wasn´t the case from 1934 to 1941 and again from 1951 to 1963 when there were group stages and then a knockout competition. --Hullu poro (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, they have all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Table width is still an issue for me. The List of FA Cup winners full-width table uses 6 columns, whereas the one used here only has 4, and not one column is even close to being filled. Refer to the second table in the FA Cup winner article, you will see this is not full-width. NB: This applies only to the first table, the second table is sufficiently densely populated to justify full-width.
If there is a source which states where these matches were played I could include the venue, if there is a reliable source. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gruene's Crown Prince to Bundesliga. I have the book and can provide info. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is not a source, how about you reduce the table width? Madcynic (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I will see what others have to say first though. NapHit (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See rsssf.com? Madcynic (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Club names: If I remember correctly the article names are based on the "common name" principle. I therefore fail to see why you'd choose Hamburg over Hamburger SV or FC Nuremberg over 1. FC Nuremberg. Same thing applies to FC Köln which has the article at 1. FC Köln.
  • Inclusion of East Germany. This should be decided, I don't quite see the point of mentioning BFC Dynamo without including a 1948-1991 championship table. I think the table should be in here, because I see the East German championship on par with the West German one, and ignoring it feels like passing judgment to me. Also it should be noted that Bundesliga champions have been regarded as national champions in West Germany, while the national champion in East Germany was the winner of the DDR-Oberliga as is well documented by the various East German participants in the European Cup. (first paragraph) You also don't want to get into the issue of whether East Germany was Soviet-controlled or not, I'd suggest removing that verbiage at this position.
Its not an issue or bit of POV. It is an historical fact and key to understanding why a separate football competition emerged in East Germany and why there were two championships. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and no. The sentence "while a second national championship was contested in Soviet-controlled East Germany under the auspices of the DFV (Deutscher Fußball-Verband" relates to the entire period of the two championships, and I do not think this is appropriate.Madcynic (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will just create a separate list for the East German info, and will remove reference to BFC Dynamo. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The East German championship deserves its own page, but hte material currently on this page puts that championship in the broad context of the country's history as a whole. I don't see a need to delete the short references - principle of least surprise.
  • Sourcing of introduction. The intro needs more sources, esp with regard to the 1904 championship. Madcynic (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardy Gruene has a couple of books that'll be useful 100 Years of German Championships and From Crown Prince to Bundesliga. One of these is already identified at the project page. Tor! and CPtB both have info on the missing 1904 and 1922 championships. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was sourced properly before the lead was reworked, I'll sort it out soon. NapHit (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned in my comment at the project page that it would need to be resourced. Wiggy! (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that a 5-sentence lead can be properly sourced but still not enough. So please do not remove information just because -you- cannot readily find a source. Wait if there are others who can. Madcynic (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you got that part about promotion and relegation wrong. 16th place has to play against 3rd in the 2. Bundesliga for a spot in the BL in the next season. OdinFK (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed NapHit (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're drifting guys. This is about the national championship, not about qualifying for different levels of play. Focus. You can't on one hand complain about the length of the thing and then drop in material that's not relevant. Wiggy! (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relevant it shows how the league works, and is brief. Anyway with the history section the lead needed beefing up a bit. NapHit (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "They competed in Germany as the thrir was no national football federation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire." in the introduction supposed to mean? I guess it's just a typo, but then there might be a deeper meaning, I don't get... OdinFK (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye it's a typo, fixed now NapHit (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think the number of titles, which used to appear in brackets next to each champion, should be re-included, whether in a bracket as before or in a separate column. It's informative, something a reader might well want to know, and IMO rather more relevant to a list of German football champions than the third-placed team or the number of goals scored by the division's leading scorer.
That information appears in a separate table that follows the group of era-based lists. I agree that the third place and scorer info might be out of place, but will leave it set pending discussion. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean the total number of titles won by each club. I meant the bracketed number of titles against the winner of each year's championship, as in this old version, which informed the reader that, say, Bayern Munich won their fifth title in 1974. Struway2 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table headings are inconsistent: should be either Champions and Runners-up (both plural) or Champion and Runner-up (both singular).
Resolved. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the prose, names of football clubs shouldn't be in italics ...
Resolved. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and there are a number of hyphens which should be endashes.
  • Not sure what the point is of making the leading scorer column sortable when some years have multiple scorers, so it sorts only on the first-named of joint top scorers.
  • In general, as the structure and content of the list are being very actively changed as I type, it's quite hard to make sensible comments as they might be irrelevant by the time I next view the article. Perhaps it might be an idea to withdraw the nomination temporarily until the various editors finish their work, and then possibly put the article up for peer review before re-submitting? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Work in progress. But what you've posted here so far is still quite useful. Wiggy! (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Club names should be consistent. For example Schalke is used as well as Schalke 04 or Hamburg and Hamburger SV are also both used. Also the table of total tiles won occasionally uses different names as the other tables. I would change that myself, but I'd like to keep out of this naming business as my preferences for which names should be used are quite different.
    • I see the inconsistency and have started to correct it preferring more complete names. I have been using "Hamburger SV" in place of "Hamburg" for example to disambiguate things - there are a lot of Hamburg clubs. In the case of VfB Leipzig vs. Lok, the club won the titles as VfB, Lok was an East German appellation. Etc. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if FC Köln, VfR Mannheim and similar club names should be sorted as such. Shouldn't these sort as "Koeln, FC" and "Mannheim, VfR"?
    • Mmm. Hadn't considered that. Any experts out there on managing the sort tool? Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you check the tables before User:NapHit got involved, you will see they had exactly this funcionality. Hope that helps. Madcynic (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the tip. I'll look. Wiggy! (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still "-" is often used where an ndash should be (in years and results especially). I fix these on occasion, but there are still more.
    • Speed typing. The m dashes will have to be added after. Sorry. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the introductions to the tables, but they are totally devoid of refs.
    • As I mentioned above, I'm focusing on the prose side to start. Almost all of the material is from Vom Kronprinzen bis zur Bundesliga or Tor!. The later Bundesliga material will come from another source. After I read up on ref formatting I'll add the cites. Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally I wonder why the actual titles were removed from the Total titles won table. In my opinion that was quite useful to see at a glance when a certain club had successful periods.
    • Overzealous editing? Just a mistake. Oops?
    • Its coming along. I'm a little concerned about the length, but I think the general treatment of the thing is working out and its not a hard fast rule, so I'm not worried about it as the thing is still readable. Some of the longest articles on en:wiki are lists.
    • Will add a "see also" link for the East German championship as part of that section. May do the same for the Saarland and will probably say something in passing about the German amateur championsghip introduced in 1956(?). Other comment? Wiggy! (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OdinFK (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some more comments

Hey Wiggy!! I think you are doing great. A few more thoughts though:

  • As far as I know external links are not supposed to be in the body of the article, when not absolutely necessary. There is one in the second paragraph of the intro, though. That might as well be a ref I think. There is another in 1903-32
  • Naming consistency is still an issue with the last to tables (most sucessful clubs and tiltes by region)
  • A few paragraphs still go uncited, but I understand that you might still be working on that.

When that's fixed I will give the article a thorough read again and tell you what I think. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Its shaping up fairly well (I think) and everyone's been a big help. Almost down to the point where we can get to the seriously nitpicky stuff.
With repsect to the external links and citations, I'm just trying to work my way through how to do these things the right way. I only have some limited experienced with them as, for better or worse, I've always been a writer sort of guy and have given the short shrift to that side of it. I am repenting and trying to get a grip. :) More cites to go.
I've not completely standardized all the club names yet. Yeah, the last couple of tables are pending. I still need to go back and sort out the sorting issue(!) identified earlier.
I'm intending to make a reference to the women's championship, along the same lines as how the East German championships are handled: sub-header, paragraph, point to separate article.
Additional remarks, folks? Thx. Wiggy! (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this sentence in the introduction to Early Championships: "The formation of the DFB helped establish for the first time a clear divide between association football and its close cousin." Who is the close cousin? Non-association football? Is it just me or could that be formulated more clearly?
The sentence immediately before that one refers and wikilinks to rugby. One sentence builds on the next. Could be rebuilt maybe. Wiggy! (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the names in the text be consistent with the names in the tables? I guess so.
Usually. Can depend on the context, I suppose. Wiggy! (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: The references seem to be of an inconsistent format. Sometimes the dates are missing, etc. Also I don't get what this Bibliography part is about. Can that not be incorporated in the regular References?
Yes, you have a point. Still a work in progress and needs cleaning up big time. Haven't had a chance to get at it over the past few days. Wiggy! (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix these things and I am pro FL. Regards, OdinFK (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The prose needs work; redundancy and some choppiness need to be weeded out or smoothed. These are just examples from the lead and the first section:

  • "with VfB Leipzig defeating DFC Prag 7–2." When a gerund (defeating) follows a noun (VfB Leipzig), the result is usually awkward and ungrammatical. Perhaps: ", in which VfB Leipzig defeated DFC Prag 7–2."
  • "Prior to"-->before.
  • Whenever a year range is preceded by "from", change the en dash to "to". Sample: "from 1915–19 due to World War I and again from 1945–47"-->from 1915 to 19 due to World War I and from 1945 to 47.
  • "Following World War II, Germany was occupied by the victorious Allies and two German football competitions emerged." Occupation doesn't make it clear why the two competitions emerged. You might mention that the country was divided in two.
  • Inline citations should come after punctuation. Sample: " winning these championships in consecutive seasons (1979–88)[4]."
  • "No champion was declared in 1904 due to the DFB not being able to resolve a protest filed by Karlsruher FV over their 1–6 semi-final loss to Britannia Berlin to determine which of these sides would face defending champion Leipzig in the final that year."-->No champion was declared in 1904 due to the DFB's inability to resolve a protest filed by Karlsruher FV over their 1–6 semi-final loss to Britannia Berlin to determine which of these sides would face defending champion Leipzig in that year's final.
  • "Some limited play"
  • "in the name of "good sportsmanship" — which they grudgingly did" Em dashes are unspaced on wiki, see WP:DASH.
  • "other lesser national football competitions"
  • "They disappeared in the 1933 reorganization of German football under the Third Reich that consolidated all sporting competition in state-sanctioned leagues."
  • "Competition for the national title was maintained through most of World War II and was supported by the regime for reasons of morale."
  • "Play became increasingly difficult as the war drew to its conclusion and in the era's final championship match Dresdner SC beat the military club LSV Hamburg 4–0 on 18 June 1944 in Berlin's Olympiastadion." These ideas (the difficulty of play and the final match) are not sufficiently related to warrant being connected by "and". What do you mean by "play became difficult"?
  • "The 1944–45 season kicked off ahead of schedule in November," Comma should be a semicolon.
  • "now occupied" Should be hyphenated. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, two dab links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Ref 2 needs a publisher and a note that it is German.
  • What makes either of the two web sources reliable?
  • The citation date formats are inconsistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2009 (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/German_football_champions/archive2&oldid=1143874332"