Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FC Barcelona honours/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 01:40, 17 July 2010 [1].
List of FC Barcelona honours edit
List of FC Barcelona honours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first nomination (AFAIK) of a list of football honours.
Took this list from this to triple the size, including independent references and the usual lead. It also serves as a nice gallery of the different trophies. It's been through PR where one editor was concerned about 3.b, which was before the inclusion of runners up (as per consensus on FCB talkpage). The layout is based on List of Aston Villa F.C. records and statistics and the general footy honours layout. Sandman888 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I'm trying not to review articles until the English season starts, I do watchlist the main FLC page in case lists that I'm interested in come up. There is, in my opinion, scope to include the pertinent information in the list of seasons article, by using footnotes to elabourate on scores and opposition in finals. Even for a club as successful as FC Barcelona, I'm confident that a Featured topic on the club would not need this list. You may wish to initiate a discussion there, to garner the opinions of regulars at that process. Regards, WFC (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you mean? on WP:FT or on List of FC Barcelona seasons? I don't think having the wins in footnotes would be a good solution, as most english football clubs have a section on trophies per se (on a record and stats page), and curiously, some spanish teams have a separate articles about honours. So in either case the content shd remain somewhere. Sandman888 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant on WP:FT, as they are the more authoritative guide on the completion of a topic. If regulars there feel that this article is merited, I doubt anyone here would have just cause to oppose on 3(b). If they don't, or there isn't consensus, it may be appropriate to consider alternative solutions. You are of course correct, the content merits inclusion somewhere, and the season article was merely an idea that popped into my head; there is probably a better way. I just question whether a stand-alone article is the best way forward. Regards, WFC (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you mean? on WP:FT or on List of FC Barcelona seasons? I don't think having the wins in footnotes would be a good solution, as most english football clubs have a section on trophies per se (on a record and stats page), and curiously, some spanish teams have a separate articles about honours. So in either case the content shd remain somewhere. Sandman888 (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- one editor thought it shd be included. No-one else has offered their opinion. Discussion is here. Sandman888 (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put the two articles together here User:Sandman888/Sandbox, so people can see how they'd be if merged. Sandman888 (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I'm the one that caused the delay here, but I'd appeal for this FLC to be kept open for a bit. Sandman's attempts at seeking consensus on the matter at the featured topics page and WT:FOOTY look like producing some sort of consensus. Even if the end result is a merge, this FLC being open could add uncharacteristic urgency to the decision making process there. WFC (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you opposed the Europe article on 3.b I wd like to hear where you suppose that shd go? As noted on the footy page, "Europe" "Stats" and "Honours" in one article is about 114 kb, that is too much. So which one do you reckon shd not be merged? Sandman888 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal opinion is that there is no need for ten articles if seven will serve the purpose to the same effect. I'll leave that judgement to others, and go with the flow. As an aside, a 114kb list isn't really a problem. An indidivual, 114kb sortable table possibly would be. Regards, WFC (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that you opposed the Europe article on 3.b I wd like to hear where you suppose that shd go? As noted on the footy page, "Europe" "Stats" and "Honours" in one article is about 114 kb, that is too much. So which one do you reckon shd not be merged? Sandman888 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I'm the one that caused the delay here, but I'd appeal for this FLC to be kept open for a bit. Sandman's attempts at seeking consensus on the matter at the featured topics page and WT:FOOTY look like producing some sort of consensus. Even if the end result is a merge, this FLC being open could add uncharacteristic urgency to the decision making process there. WFC (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with WFC. Regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- withdraw , too much hassle for little stars. Have fun! Sandman888 (talk) 23:51, 16 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.