Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Aston Villa F.C. seasons
Aston Villa F.C. seasons edit
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines as the recently promoted List of Aston Villa F.C. players and List of Aston Villa F.C. managers. This is part of the continuous improvement by Woodym555 and myself, of all Aston Villa F.C. articles. I think this meets all the criteria and is now worthy of FL status. This article is along the lines of the recently promoted Manchester United F.C. seasons. Thanks Everlast1910 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to say i am here to help field the comments if neccessary. As stated by Everlast1910 we have based this list along the lines of the recently promoted Manchester United F.C. seasons. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Looking forward to your comments. Thanks Woodym555 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So some comments from me...
- 1. Use the en-dash for season separators - you'll need to pipe the link for the season.
- 2. Don't use parentheses when simple prose with commas etc can be used.
- 3. Expand a little on the quote under the image - what's that mega trophy?
- done found out it was the 1897 double winning side
- 4.How does one win the Charity Shield (shared)?
- 5. I prefer not to overwikilink the top scorers, once they're done once, it should suffice.
- done removed links to people that have been top scorer more than once.Everlast1910 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit that, personally, it helps with the flow of the page of they are wikilinked. it somehow looks chunky without them wikilinked. Personal opinion i suppose. Woodym555 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This same point came up in the FLC for Manchester United F.C. seasons and it was decided that it was best to leave them all wikilinked for the reason that it is much easier to wikilink them than to have to scroll up and down the page looking for the first instance of a name. - PeeJay 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit that, personally, it helps with the flow of the page of they are wikilinked. it somehow looks chunky without them wikilinked. Personal opinion i suppose. Woodym555 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- done removed links to people that have been top scorer more than once.Everlast1910 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. World War I and World War II - try First World War and Second World War for nice British English.
- done changed Everlast1910 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to pipelink them from World War I and World War II respectively to avoid the redirects. - PeeJay 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Do not change links to redirects that are not broken it doesn't matter either way. As this is a Commonwealth article, First World War is the correct term. Woodym555 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to pipelink them from World War I and World War II respectively to avoid the redirects. - PeeJay 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- done changed Everlast1910 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Who top scored for the club during the 1946 FA Cup?
- 8. Not convinced about the Charity Shield having its own column considering 99.9% of it is empty. However, not a big deal.
- Not 99%, more like 95% ;), but where else would it go? It is a fairly important trophy.Woodym555 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I used Europe / Other in Manchester City F.C. seasons, which is a possibility Oldelpaso 12:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not 99%, more like 95% ;), but where else would it go? It is a fairly important trophy.Woodym555 14:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 9. I think that I'd like to see a summary of the major achievements written as a prose overview - something akin to that in the Italian football champions featured list. A couple of paragraphs expanding on perhaps the most notable seasons?
- I think that the current Lead is adequate and serves its purpose. It summarizes the scope of the list and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections. It adds historical context as well. I think that the current sumary is adequate in terms of detail. Woodym555 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all for now, hope some of that helps. The Rambling Man 13:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - good work. The Rambling Man 11:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Why start with the season the club first won the FA Cup rather than the season the club first entered it?- In the lead it says "Many of these games were played with one half under Rugby rules and another under football rules." The reference doesn't say that.
Also, there must be better sources than a one-page potted history on a commercial fansite. Rugby needs to be linked to Rugby football, not to a disamb page.- Done
- League position column. Why does 2nd usually appear in a small font? There are at least two typos in this column - if someone typed in all these numbers, perhaps another proof-read might be a good idea.
- Small font removed. Care to enlighten me as to the typos? I will copyedit and cross reference when i can. Thanks Woodym555 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Season 1960-61 43 (pts) duplicated into Pos column. 1900-01 15t rather than 15th. (I do a bit of proofreading elsewhere, so do tend to notice that sort of thing.)Struway2 | Talk 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Whilst i have to admit that i was initially sceptical about the usefulness of a proof-read, i found quite a few small errors in the data. I have now proof-read and checked all the data and have amended where appropriate: diff. Thankyou for suggesting that i proof read it!! It has really benefited the article. Woodym555 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Small font removed. Care to enlighten me as to the typos? I will copyedit and cross reference when i can. Thanks Woodym555 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1892-93 footnote raises more questions than it answers. Don't need to mention the Football Alliance to explain why the change from FL to Div 1.
Any person who is not a football fan would wonder why it suddenly changes. I would think were they relegated? As such, it serves a useful purpose. If people want to find out about the Football alliance, then they can click on the wikilink. Woodym555 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Understand the change needs explaining, but i thought the reason was that the FL decided to expand, not that the two leagues decided to merge - more of a hostile takeover than a merger! No objection to the Football Alliance being mentioned, just didn't think it was very clear, that's all. Struway2 | Talk 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry!! I misunderstood you! Would you be more amenable to: With the merger of the Football League and the Football Alliance in 1892, the league entitled Football League beacme Division 1 of the Football League. (?) Woodym555 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- or something like "The Football League expanded to two divisions in 1892, absorbing most of the teams from the Football Alliance. The league previously known simply as the Football League became the Football League First Division." I can't make it sound right either ;-) Struway2 | Talk 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry!! I misunderstood you! Would you be more amenable to: With the merger of the Football League and the Football Alliance in 1892, the league entitled Football League beacme Division 1 of the Football League. (?) Woodym555 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand the change needs explaining, but i thought the reason was that the FL decided to expand, not that the two leagues decided to merge - more of a hostile takeover than a merger! No objection to the Football Alliance being mentioned, just didn't think it was very clear, that's all. Struway2 | Talk 17:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
League Cup and Charity Shield columns have a note at the top saying when they started, it's not really necessary to have n/a in every box until the season in question. A footnote from the box for the first instance of each would do - which is already there for the League Cup.I'm no fan of over-linking either, but I think you were right in the first place to link all the leading scorers, on grounds of user-friendliness. For instance, Harry Hampton has a block of six seasons running up to the war, but he was top scorer for the first time in 1904-05. It's irritating for the user if they have to search back ten seasons to find a name to click on.- Hope this helps, Struway2 | Talk 15:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Personally, I would align the text in the FA Cup, League Cup, Charity Shield and Europe columns to the left. It makes the columns look a bit neater that way, in my opinion. - PeeJay 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment- Data for the European Cup in 1982–83 is missing.
- Do you have any information for Villa's wartime record? While not viewed as competitive, it may as well be included for completeness.
- No need to mention the FA Youth Cup in the lead, as it is not a first team competition
Oldelpaso 12:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC) changed to support Oldelpaso 11:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Footnotes - could do with some cleaning up. for instance
- notes 1-3 - inconsistent source (AVFC, AVFC.co.uk), do better with Aston Villa F.C.;
- 4,5 - years shouldn't be linked;
- 9 - "currently", better "as of end of 2006-07";
- 11 - don't think so - possibly most in a 42-game season;
- 10 (and others) - if your link goes to the Charity Shield article, link it from the words Charity Shield or Community Shield, not from words like "formed" or "renamed".
- Links to Eurocomp rounds - e.g. in season 1983-84, R2 is supposed to link to the corresponding section of the UEFA Cup 83-84 article. Good idea, but the link has UEFA Cup 1983-84#Round-two whereas the article section is actually called UEFA Cup 1983-84#Second round. There are others.
Struway2 | Talk 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can the extra linking in "top goal scorer" be nuked? Circeus 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, no. The earlier conversations above and on Manchester United F.C. seasons was that they would all be linked. This was primarily beacuse it looks better (personal opinion, but of the majority). This was also because several topscorers are in the list many years apart. Please read, The Rambling Man's comments, then Struways and then Peeways on Struways. Any other problems? Thanks Woodym555 19:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Lead section - "...from 1887 (the year of the club's first major honour) to the present day." Needs changing to reflect the earliest season in the table. Also, perhaps consider changing to "the most recent completed season", as no information from 2007-08 is included at the minute.
- Done
- Seasons - Where it says "Runners-up", the text needs increasing in size as it looks a bit odd having some text smaller than the rest.
- Done
- Seasons - I would recommend removing the "n/a"s from the League Cup and Charity Shield columns up to when the competition was established. Maybe put in a note saying when the competition was established in its first season, but the "n/a"s just make it look a bit busy.
- Done You were right, removed, and used footnotes instead.
- Lead section - "...from 1887 (the year of the club's first major honour) to the present day." Needs changing to reflect the earliest season in the table. Also, perhaps consider changing to "the most recent completed season", as no information from 2007-08 is included at the minute.
- No other comments. In fact, once my first two comments are rectified, I can see no reason why this article shouldn't get promoted. - PeeJay 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]