Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Joan Gamper Trophy/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 22:05, 7 September 2010 [1].

Joan Gamper Trophy edit

Joan Gamper Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC), User:Djln[reply]

I already have one here with two supports, and hopefully another reviewer will support so it can be closed. Due to calls for more FLCs I hereby nom this. This is quite the inverse of my earlier FLC in terms of complexion, being basically a copy of a RSSSF list. Have a go at it! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I co-nomed Djln, he doesn't answer to talkpage queries.[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - general refs should go before specific refs. Can't see any issues other than that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all looks OK now to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd have the general reference font size the same as the specific ones, but its no big deal. Good work. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I just added a couple of things that you can revise. You have done a very good work. I only have one small comment regarding the "Flag legend" section. Is that section really needed?. If a flag is unknown for you at any of the tables, you can always place the mouse on it, and a yellow text is telling you the country. Anyway, if you finally decide to keep this section, I would rather move it below all the tables. --Jordiferrer (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
"and later president of the club." Didn't you get a list of these presidents through FLC? Seems like a good link for context. Same with the managers earlier in that sentence.
Should appearances 1981 and before be using the older Spanish flags?
What month(s) is the competition usually held in?
"Köln subsequently won the competition in 1978 and 1981 and were runners-up in 1981," Umm... check that. Can't win and be 2nd in the same year.
Flags again, that wasn't Bulgaria's flag in 1972.
That said, advancing the flags to modern in the "Appearances by club" section makes sense.

Courcelles 00:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have thought of the wikilink and checked the flags. Oh well, all done now, thanks for pointing it out. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 00:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "usually held in late August" reference?
  • "Barcelona. It is named in" merge "Barcelona and is named..."
  • "a 800 grams silver cup with five micrometres of gold finishing, on-top of a 10-kilogram"
    • Would like to see these converted.
      • Converted, there is no imperial equivalent for micrometres.
    • "a 800 grams" -> an 800-gram.
  • "Barça were joined" avoid this nickname, just stick with Barcelona.
  • "Barcelona beat the latter team 3–1 in the final. Köln subsequently" "the latter team" reads poorly to me. Needs a small revision to avoid the inevitable repeat of Koln, I understand, but please try.
    • "beat the German team..." I think it sounds worse.
  • " The next edition saw the first appearance of another Spanish team, Atlético Madrid, who were joined by German side Bayern Munich, and Argentine Boca Juniors" makes it sound like only three teams in this edition.
  • "Bayern were runners-up in 1984, 1987 and 2006. Boca became the first of several South American guests to be invited and have since returned in 1977, 1984, 2003 and 2008." merge with "2006 while Boca..."
  • "the Italian Serie A" you qualify Serie A (even though it's linked) with "the Italian", similarly with "Spanish La Liga", is this really necessary?
    • TBH I think a lot of non-Europeans would not. I don't see the harm. If they need to know what 800 grams is...
  • "most notably Tenerife and Valencia" perhaps just "including" rather than "most notably".
  • Did I miss where the teams selected to play are determined? Are Barcelona always involved?
    • Is that a rhetorical question? It is stated that Barcelona host the tournament, seems to be labouring the point to include a sentence stating they also participate.
  • Table:
    • Winners->Winner
    • Runners Up->Runner-up
  • What does (p) mean?
  • Should Újpest sort after or before V? Right now it sorts after V (in alphabetical order).
  • "Participations by club" -> Participation by club.
  • This table shouldn't be all cells, it looks terrible, perhaps just two columns, no rowspans.
  • Category suggests this is a Friendly competition, this isn't mentioned in the lead.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Infobox. Does the infobox template impose the tiny font in the parenthesised bits? if not, could we have the same size as everything else
  • Lead. "hosted by Spanish club FC Barcelona" not side
  • "on-top" shouldn't have a hyphen
  • If it was me, I'd put the score in the final between the teams participating in the final, rather than between the r-u and the 3rd
  • If including the third-place playoff teams in the table, why omit the score in that game?
    • Hmm between 3rd and 4th?
      • That's what I was asking, yes.
  • There are a few club names which would be clearer using their English common names and/or not piped quite so much:
    • Crvena Zvezda is still Red Star Belgrade, after 6 (and counting) requested moves, and certainly would have been in 2002;
    • Athletic Club doesn't imply Athletic Bilbao, to the general English reader;
    • FC Zurich rather than just Zurich, to avoid confusion with Grasshoppers;
    • Use Moscow rather than Moskva for the various Moscow clubs, as their respective page names do;
    • If it was me, I'd use Rapid Vienna and Steaua Bucharest, even though the page names don't, but others might disagree;
    • AC Milan for clarity.
  • Following on from that, if you're keeping the flags in the Participation by clubs section, despite the aesthetic opinions expressed at WT:MOSICON, please could you put non-breaking spaces between each flag and its club, to keep them together at line breaks.
    • The &nbsp's didn't work for me, on Firefox, Chrome or IE7; did they for you? The next suggestion from Wikipedia:Line break handling is {{nowrap}}, which does work, at least on FF3.6
      • Removed per below.
  • Also, could you clarify what the flags in that section mean. They appear to indicate the countries the clubs are based in as of 2010, not the countries they were in when they appeared in the trophy...
    • If that really is what you intended, please could you say why? I don't see the relevance of the 2010 country to a 1969 participation.
      • Removed per below.
  • In 2002, would Belgrade not have been in Serbia and Montenegro rather than Serbia?
    • Still seems to be in Serbia
      • Sorry missed it.
  • The Titles by club doesn't sort, because of the rowspan
    • Unsortable, was no real point in that.

Comments.

  • MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names says that "The name of a flag's country ... should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags." Further, in sortable tables, each row should be able to stand on its own, so the name would need to be repeated for each use, just as you have with the club names.
    • Yes I thought about that, hated as it is it's still 'policy'. I recommend we ignore it, the only solution is to remove the flags which I don't see how anyone can gain from. Including four extra columns for all of the flags would be horrible. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I'll have to oppose on the flags. Daresay most of us have bits of the MoS that we're not keen on, but I don't think this is one that can be ignored. Are there no other lists of this type? if there are, how do they deal with the issue? Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Legend added per recommendation on MoS#Flag. I'm unaware of similar lists. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments shuffled a bit to put whole conversation together. My fault for separating them in the first place. Thank you for taking the trouble to seek advice at WT:MOSICON#The use of flags and common sense. I'm no expert on accessibility considerations: if providing a legend is an accessible alternative to using country names with flags, then I strike my oppose. Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table. Aren't numeric columns (edition, year, score) normally centre-aligned?
    • I havn't thought of that before you asked. A question of taste I guess, I do not think the layout as such stand out.
      • Probably a matter of taste, See if others have a view. Struway2 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Numbers such as km or kg are better should preferably be right-aligned. Regarding a match score, both left and center seem fine.--Jordiferrer (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done except if commented on. Thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A legend may be added but it's still a multicoloured mess. The flags should go . Words are clearerGnevin (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that legend could do with some reformatting, but otherwise it meets policy. --WFC-- 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have, flattering the aesthetic considerations of the MoS#icons people, removed the flags from the participation by country. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That strikes a good balance in my opinion. The flags are clearly relevant in the big table, even if they are not to everyone's tastes. --WFC-- 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "Barcelona were joined by Belgian RSC Anderlecht, French FC Nantes and German FC Koln." I get the feeling that the word "side" or similar is missing before each of the team names. I also know that you want to avoid repeated that word, so how about this: "Barcelona were joined by RSC Anderlecht of Belgium, FC Nantes of France and FC Koln of Germany."?
  • Later on I see "Argentine Boca Juniors." Here, "Argentina's" would work fine; in fact, a similar solution could work as an alternate to the suggestion above.
  • Bonus points for the flag legend, It's a creative approach to resolving a problem that has been seen intermittently at FLC for a while. If there were 100 countries or something it wouldn't be as practical, but for this number it functions well.
  • Is reference 5 a Spanish-language page? If so, it should have an indication of the language, just like reference 3. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Meets FL standards. While I personally prefer score and year columns to be center-aligned, it's not something I feel strongly enough about to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 2 September 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/Joan_Gamper_Trophy/archive1&oldid=1138480628"