Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Manchester City F.C. seasons

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 19:28, 22 March 2008.

---

Manchester City F.C. seasons

• previous nom

This list was the subject of a failed nomination last year. Since then, a number of similar lists have become featured, and thanks to a peer review it should now be of the same standard. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comment

• I don't know much about football, and nothing about Man City, so whatever is in the list is fine by me. The lead looks good too, so no issues there.
• My main issues are with the references:
  • Because it's easier to do than to explain, I messed around with the references and footnotes sections a little bit, as what were listed under footnotes were actually a mixture of footnotes and references…
  • …This also means that what is now listed under footnotes can actually be referenced in the normal way.
  • I'm a little concerned that there are only 4 references. Two of them are websites and each page should be referenced specifically, rather than the general main page as it currently is.
  • Is [1] a WP:reliable source? It should also use as many fields as possible from {{cite web}}.

That's it for now -- Matthew

Support

Resolved comments from Peanut4

• A few comments
  • Perhaps central align the Europe / other competition names.
  • I'd also abbreviate Winner to W, and Runner-up to RU, particularly to narrow the other column.
  • Can you manage to create even stubs for the red-linked top scorers?
  • Possibly wikilink to the individual FA Cup and League Cup years that currently exist.
  • Other such entries, have gold and silver for winning and runner-ups.
  • Maybe change the key to columns for ease of reading, again per other such seasons articles.
  • 1899-00 and 1999-00 possibly ought to be 1899-1900 and 1999-2000.
• Only minor things really. And I can't see anything else. Peanut4 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 1, 6 and 7 done. I think Winners provides more clarity than W, so I'm reluctant to alter that.
  • I should have an article for Johnny Williamson done either during this FLC or soon after, but for the other 6 redlinks I have no substantial biographical information - all I have is the snippets of information in my sandbox.
  • I'm not keen on the idea of linking to every cup season, I think that would be overdoing it.
  • The gold and silver have always seemed too high contrast to me, and poor from an accessibility point of view. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good now. Everything I suggested has either been addressed or a good argument made against it. The only thing I woul suggest is trying to narrow the list, but it's not an objectionable comment. Peanut4 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good list! Some small minor issues that are already mentioned above, but after these are solved I approve the nomination. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Struway2

Comment

• Not sure why the footnote system was changed. WP:CITE says specifically that "Many editors use "Notes" as their preferred title for the footnotes section, as the same section can then hold both source citations as well as general notes", so there's no policy argument against the original system used. That's by the by; the problem is that the current lettered notes don't work. If I click on superscript-letter A at the top of the Top scorer column, nothing happens, although clicking on the 'A' in the notes section does take me back to the top of the Top scorer column.
  • Update on above. It does work using IE6 but not with Firefox 2.0. Struway2 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• I wonder if anything can be done about the relative column widths. As it stands (for me, 1024px screen, can't go any wider or I can't read the print), any scorer with a name longer than very short is wrapping to two lines (Derek Kevan and Hugh Morris both wrap, for instance), and consequently where there are joint leading scorers, that table row occupies four display lines.
• While I agree the gold and silver are gaudy, and when used over the whole Competition column (as in some of the earlier FLs of this type) can look like an accident in a paint shop, but I wonder if you'd explain why they're poor from an accessibility viewpoint? Do you mean purely visually, or for access from other devices, for instance?

that's all for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong preference on the footnote issue (it wasn't me who changed it). This box is running a pre-2.0 version of Firefox, on which it works OK, but if it causes problems that edit is perhaps best undone. Readability and width is a difficult balance. I've tried changing Runners-up to RU, maybe it will help, maybe it won't; it seemed to work when I tested it by setting my window to a width which resulted in the behaviour you describe. Re accessibility, I was speaking in terms of the tread with caution approach advised by Wikipedia:Colours. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Further update on footnote system. There was, and presumably still is, a known problem where popups conflicts with the ref label/note label system (see here and further down that page here); if I disable popups the refs work OK. Though that talk page does mention problems with Mozilla browsers unrelated to popups use.

Changing Runners-up to RU is a definite improvement re wrapping. You could always bold the RU to make it stand out a bit from other rounds beginning with R.

Colours is an interesting one. For me personally, the silver is problematic. I can't pick out normal-weight wikilink-blue clearly on a silver background, and on BCFC seasons I didn't use the gold and silver in the league position column, as has been done on other lists, because I can't see the silver as significantly different from the colour denoting relegation.

(un-indenting for more odds and ends)

• I've taken out one level of bullet-pointing in the key, think it looks neater. Though please feel free to revert if you disagree.
• You could add a note to the 1992-93 season to mention the divisions being renamed on the formation of the Prem.
• Some of these lists have the top scorer bolded when he was also top scorer in his division, and a note as to how many goals that was.
• You may (not) want to add a note against 1998 mentioning relegation to the third tier for the first time.
• In footnote K, wikilink play-offs. Also some of these lists add a bit of detail (opponents, score, that sort of thing).
• The Footnotes section might look better in smaller font.
• Consider changing the row after 1939-40 which says "No competitive football was played between 1939 and 1946" to something like "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War", on the basis the early rounds of the 1945-46 FA Cup were played in 1945.

That's all I can think of for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done most of these. The prose already mentions that only one season has been spent in the third tier, so I haven't added a footnote. Bolding divisional top scorers could potentially cause confusion IMHO, as the figures are for all competitions, not just the league. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• One last question, we hope. Your note A doesn't mention including goals scored in minor competitions (Anglo-Scottish-Italian-Texaco whatever your lot were in) whereas the table does mention the rounds reached in same. Are these goals really excluded, or have the minor competitions just been omitted from the note? Struway2 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the note is correct, but I am away from my books over the Easter weekend. Perhaps they should be included for consistency. I'll check it out in full when I next have my books with me. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support assuming you sort out the above. The list follows the general pattern of other featured lists of this type; the nominator adequately justifies those differences of approach which do exist. It satisfies the timeline criterion, is well-referenced and annotated, stable and complete, and has an appropriate free-use image. Well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to address the issue people are having with the references, previously the footnotes and references were a mixed jumble, and they should be separated, see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. It also allows the footnotes to be referenced, previously they couldn't be. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't reference [4] be a footnote? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I replaced a hyphen with an en dash but beyond that, nothing else to moan about! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.