Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French football champions/archive1

< 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 promoted by Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [1].

List of French football champions edit

List of French football champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is capable of being one due to the list's importance in French football and its overall accuracy. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sandman888 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think it's against the policy to have it at FLC and PR at the same time.
it is against the policy, I suggest you withdraw nomination until PR's over. "A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time."
Not a single reference. That does not meet the FL criteria :)
lead cd be longer.
tables cd be sortable. If sortable, wikilink all clubs in table Sandman888 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please write '* Done' when you have addressed a concern, it makes it easier for us to track the progress. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cd you use a system such as {note} instead of non-clickable numbers? Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some more images available? Lots of white space on the right. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to find pictures of coaches or players for free going back to the early years of the league. Most of them I want to post are current. Is that OK? – Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm steering clear of reviewing per se at the moment, but I've put a few images in for you. Although I think there are enough now, there will doubtless be more floating around on the French wikipedia if needed. WFCforLife (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Took FLC down and re-posted following conclusion of peer review. Made some edits based on peer review, other than posting pictures as it is very difficult to find pictures of old French coaches and players. Will possibly do that later.Joao10Siamun (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are no references at all for the tables, what is sourcing this info.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted the references for the tables. Didn't know exactly where to put them, so I added them to after the tab subject. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment
  • What on Earth is this, and why is it a reliable source?

I may come back with more later, but this struck me. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only source I could find in English that verified that the first French championship was held in 1894. After further researching, I found a better source. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I know others will pick apart the prose, and I'm just nto feeling like digging through endashes and stuff today, but the referencing needs some attention, so, here comes nitpicking.
  • Reference one appears to be a book- we need a publisher, and an ISBN if available.
Done. Didn't have an ISBN #, so I got the OCLC #. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 is tagged as in French, but is in English. Further, the publisher is tagged as "UEFA"- an acronym that is nowhere introduced- spell it out.It also has a quasi-publication date at the bottom
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 has both an author and publication date, as well as another new acronym as the publisher. Not convinced on reliability, either.
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5- identical problems as above
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6- Publisher- You've not introduced FIFA in this article, so please don't use acronyms that aren't defined anywhere. (Yeah, anyone knows what this means, but it's not defined in the prose.)
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7- Give the author, and the publisher (Guardian Media Group, for the record)
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9- is in French, and not tagged as such.
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10- Give the author, and the publisher, (Independent News & Media this time)
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11- Ditto as above
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12- Why is this reliable?
Got proper source. Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13- Link all the publishers and works that have articles, or link none of them.
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest look alright, but put me down as an oppose until the references are carefully cleaned up. Courcelles (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of the rest tomorrow. It's getting late. — Joao10Siamun
  • Provisional Support if Rambo's issues are resolved- the referencing (the only thing I've taken a hard eye to on this one) now looks fine to me. Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Spell out USFSA and provide the initials inside parentheses. That way, readers will know what the abbreviation stands for.
  • "In 1926, the first division's reigns was handed over...". "was" → "were".
  • Spell out LFP as well.
  • "became the modern club of the country going on a dynastic run" is not the most encyclopedic writing I've ever seen.
  • De-capitalize Up in the two table headings.
  • In reference 16, the title shouldn't be in all capital letters. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 21:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Should I wiki-link the years to its corresponding season? — Joao10Siamun (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's strictly necessary for the lead, but links would be useful in the tables. If you add links in the Year column, make sure to include a note saying that they go to season articles. Without a note, readers may think the links are regular year links, which are much less helpful than season links like these. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment:
    • "the ownership of the amateur league title began rotating back and forward" Back and forth sounds better.
    • South of France is linked but North of France isn't? Any rationale behind that?
    • I changed 10 to ten in one spot, which I think is right per WP:MOSNUM (the 10-25 part is fine as is). If not you can change back.
    • Any hypenated accessdates should be written out (i.e. 5 June 2010 rather than 2010-05-05).

Just fix those things and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I didn't notice my comments were fixed originally; make sure you reply to comments here so that we notice in the future. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll happily review the list as soon as outstanding comments are addressed. Just leave a note on my talkpage if I don't spot it automatically. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think outstanding concerns have been addressed. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as pointed out above, in a sortable table, names need to be linked every time they appear, not just the first time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As a regular contributor of French football here, I should express some remarks : - Third image on the right (1926-27 champions) should be CA Paris instead of CA Paris-Charenton, which is the name the club took in the 1960's if I remember well. - No AS Saint-Etienne image. That's a shame for the dominent French club of the 1970's. Maybe the picture of Georges Bereta could be used, as he was a key part of the team. - Tom me, in the "Championships by club" table, amateurs championships should be, just as the 1944-45 championship, written in a different way (italic) as they have a different "status" than professional championships and are not really recognized. For example, Marseille has officially 9 championships. However, that's a very good work. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking about removing the 1944–45 season completely. Also, clubs, such as Le Havre and Marseille, who have won an amateur championship, do consider them legitimate. They might not carry the same weight as professional titles, but each club recognized them as official league titles they have won. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. English champions before 1920 harp on about their early titles as equal achievements to recent ones, despite the fact that at that stage clubs south of Birmingham didn't take part. I think the current system is adequate- a reader can easily tell by looking at the table how many of a club's titles were amateur or professional. WFCforLife (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now
  • "the professional football championship of France has been contested through Ligue 1", I know what you are saying but if I'm nitpicking it is not strictly true. It was actually contested through National (1932-33) and Division 1 (1933-2002), which have now become Ligue 1. It might be worth mentioning these previous incarnations as the majority of French champions actually won "Division 1".
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reverting the league" You never mentioned it had that structure before.
  • "Marseille's dormant stage" - choice of wording. They still came second on multiple occasions so I don't think wikt:dormant is the right word
    • "title-winning drought" isn't much better. Drought is not very neutral and sounds critical. Maybe something like ...in the hiatus between... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly don't really understand the issue with the original statement. When I was referring to Marseille's dormant stage, I was eluding to the club's consecutive years without a league title as stated in the previous sentence. Dormant can also mean "alive but not actively growing", which I was implying. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The championship started a national record-breaking streak of seven successive titles" - had to read this multiple times. I found "the championship" confusing. Suggest rewording.
  • "Marseille has nine professional league titles and one amateur title having won that one during the 1928–29 season" - might be me but "has" then "having" seems strange. In fact, perhaps, it is just the "having won that one" which is redundent. How about ...and one amateur title which they won in the 1928–29 season.
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table link SC Fives to SC Fives. You should also not in the "Championships by club" section why that title is attributed to Lille.
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understading that abbreviations such as "RC" (Racing Club), "SC" (Sporting Club), "CA" (Cercle Athlétique), "SO" (Stade Olympique) are all placeholders a bit like FC (football club). I'm not sure you should sort by these letters when they appear at the start of a name: see {{sort}}
    I kept CO Roubaix and RC Roubaix and RCF Paris and CA Paris in order to differentiate them. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some are still present. SO Montipellier and others. Additionally, where you have "RCF Paris" and "CA Paris" you should use {{sort}} to make both sort under "Paris". This should be done for other clubs where prefixes are kept too.
    Does "RC Roubaix" need its RC any more than "RC Strasbourg"?
    Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you use short names (e.g. Saint-Étienne) in one table but full names in the next table (e.g. AS Saint-Étienne). Be consistent
    There are still examples - "Amiens AC"
    In France, their are two clubs based in Amiens; AC and SC. Obviously, I kept the AC to differentiate them. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1932–33, none of the sources seem to indicate that Marsielle would be third. This season was unique in that it had Group A and B. With the winners in the final 1st and 2nd place are obvious but why are Marseille (Group A runners-up) more eligible for third place than FC Sochaux-Montbéliard (Group B runners-up). Either needs source, explanation, or an mdash (probably with a footnote of explanation).
I remember specifically, while updating the Ligue 1 article, that since there was no official promotion/relegation system for the league, the FFF simply combined the two tables to determine which and how many clubs would go down. When the table was combined, Marseille were, by virtue of Antibes' disqualification were in third place. Hopefully, I can find the source. Until then, I'll remove Marseille. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Haven't had time to search for source. I'll just leave it blank for the time being. Done. Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all simple to fix but I'll oppose temporarily until they are sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these details I've not seen before. About the previous names of ligue 1: they are just renaming, not the creation of a new entity such as the English premier league. About Marseille dormant stage : after their champion's league title, they did not won a major title in 17 years, so it could be justified.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dormant means inactive. I agree they didn't win anything in a long time, but they weren't inactive (dormant). A better choice of word is needed. As for the name. I know it isn't a new league but I think the names are worthy of a mention (the one-year National I can do without but almost 90% of French championship seasons have been called Division 1). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (Still Oppose)

Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the references for the third place team in the ameteur era. For example, take 1893, the RSSSF says "Standard Athletic Club – The White Rovers 2 - 0" for the replayed final so I'm happy with your 1st and 2nd. But why is beaten semi-fianlist "Club Français" (beaten by Rovers) any less of third place than "Cercle Pédestre d'Asnières" (beaten by SAC). If you are choosing the semi-finalist that lost to the eventual winner as your third place this is WP:OR!
This is the only issue I had with the article, of course, before you showed up : P. I tried searching for the user who posted the third place teams, but to no avail. I think it was done by an IP when the article was first created. I agree it is OR. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references for 1926/27, 27/28, and 28/29 aren't given. Assuming 27/28 is this then the final isn't explicitly mentioned (it mentions one QF & one SF). Therefore, without other references, we can only know the winner. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently searching for club Stade Français played in the final (has to be either Bastidenne or Belfort). Until then, I'll leave runner-up blank. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Couldn't find it. Stade Francais' official site only mentions that they won the league in 1928, not who they played. Will leave it blank for the time being. Done. Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you get some of the amateur team names from? For example Asnières could be anywhere.
The club is CP Asnières as you mentioned above, but you informed me it would be best to remove the abbreviations, so it is moot. Team will likely be taken off anyway as their third place finish is likely OR without sources. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting in 1896 there was a "Championship of Fédération des Sociétés Athlétiques Professionnelles de France" (a seemingly a professional tournament). The first three were won by Union des Sports de France. What is this? Is it worth a mention?
The USFSA was the country's federation during this time so they set precedent, which is why their league is considered the country's primary league during this time. The USFSA also supported amateur sport. The FSAF supported professionalism and created a league, like many other rival organizations, but the USFSA quickly denounced the league. The league had minor popularity, but since the USFSA was the country's federation at the time, the league is considered unofficial. Doesn't really deserve mention. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you get the name "White Rovers Paris" from "The White Rovers"?
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does "Le Perreux" come from? If anything it looks like it should be "Association Sportive Française"
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These latests comments are much more concerning and in future please do not strike my comments. Just let me know what you've done and I'll strike them if I'm happy they have been addressed. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more, Tourcoing is referenced as "Union Sportive Tourquennoise". Is Tourcoing a common abbr. of Tourquennoise and if so is it the "US Tourcoing" mentioned in CO Roubaix-Tourcoing. If so, and there wasn't another Tourcoing team it is fine as is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
US Tourcoing was part of three clubs that formed CO Roubaix-Tourcoing. The club's full name is Union Sportive Tourquennoise, but they are commonly referred to as US Tourcoing. Similarly to how Stade Brest's full name is Stade Brestois 29, but everyone knows them as Stade Brest or simply Brest. It's not an issue. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some useful informations about these "historical" clubs. CO Roubaix-Tourcoing was a merger between RC Roubaix, Excelsior Roubaix and US Tourcoing (Tourquennoise being an adjective which mean "from Tourcoing" such as Stade Rennais for Rennes, not an abbr.). Today, US Tourcoing still exists as Tourcoing Football Club. CP Asnières is from Asnières-sur-Seine.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your fixes and clear responses. My final comments are:

  • "1927–282". Judging by the footnote, the next season should also have the same indication to read the note. As an aside, I believe using a WP:REFGROUP for explanitory comments is prefered (but not required) as it is more functional.
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrt the previous comment "For the next two seasons (1927–28 and 1928–29), ..." should probably become: For the xx and yy seasons, ...
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2 comes before note 1 in the article (WP:REFGROUPs would automatically fix this).
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too fussed here, but might be worth re-iterating current refs 10/11 for note 3: "No winner was declared for the season."
Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you can nest these references so they directly attach within the note as follows. I've done this one for you as an example for if you want to use it in future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think that is my final lot, great job thus far. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Really appreciate the assistance. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Excellent. Very final thing (I think) is the images. File:Ajax-Marseille.jpeg needs to go for the reasons given where I nominated it for deletion. The three images before that aren't very clear cut. For example, Argentina probably wasn't the country of origin for the Kopa image and for the two images above it, there doesn't seem to be any way to determine the photos' author(s). However, I suspect they would be fine under no-notice or whatever the applicable license would then become. Therefore, unless someone disagrees with my assessment, only the one I nominated for deletion really needs to go. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it and find an adequate replacement. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Right, I feel I've made a thorough review of this candidacy and am now happy to offer my support. Congratulations. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Image caption is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop.
  • Football in France is overlinked in the opening paragraph of the lead.
  • Is it "White Rovers Paris" or "The White Rovers"? Lead says former, first line of table says latter.
  • "Marseille has nine..." and "Marseille initially equaled " next sentence. Can we avoid repeating the club name?
  • "bribed players of an opposing team" "bribed opposition players" perhaps?
  • Three team pictures have captions with full stops but which aren't needed.
  • Would prefer consistency in name say Lyon as Olympique Lyonnais (the article really should be internally consistent for all these sort of things).
  • "millenium " typo.
  • Images should be same width, using upright where possible.
  • "championship winning teams " championship-winning...
  • Refs 3, 6, 9 and 15-18 appear to have work confused with publisher.
  • External link should be in English (with (in French) if necessary)...

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don't like the floating reference [4] under the section title but above the table. Can you not just write an introductory sentence to attach the reference to?
    • I've got no problem with GF edits. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm suggesting you write some text here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know that, but I honestly don't see a problem with it, though, which is why I said good faith is not a problem or what would you recommend? If it violates a rule or guideline or if your support of the list depends on it, then I'm cool with that and I'll add something. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • All I'm saying is that a floating reference isn't something I'd expect to see in a professional article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand that. I guess I'll put them in the table. Is that okay? I just think having an adjoined sentence near the table would look weird. I will also note (not directly to you TRM) that this article's English and Italian counterparts, which are FLs, don't have its tables directly referenced, which is weird. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Those lists were promoted to FL status a while ago, so they not be up to current standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprised that a number of French football champions don't have their own article, or at least aren't redlinked - surely they're notable by virtue of the fact they won the French league?
  • Is note 1 referenced anywhere?
    • Yes. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever it is that references it, I suggest nesting the reference within the note (explained in my capped cmts or just copy what I did on the list before). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. The reference doesn't directly mention the switch, but it does state that changes were made following the first season. I posted the season articles from a historian site to add more inference. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (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/List_of_French_football_champions/archive1&oldid=1089080184"