Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent/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 promoted by Giants2008 00:08, 19 July 2012 [1].
Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's part of a drive to improve the comprehensiveness and quality of articles about Sheffield United on Wikipedia.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
I'll take a second look when the lead issues have been resolved, but the table itself looks good at first sight. Arsenikk (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the same thing exists at the similar articles, but is it known why the defunct/current opponents are marked by colour coding as well as daggers? Are the colours "approved" under WP:ACCESSIBLITY? More to the point, is it really worth drawing such loud attention to a team that they haven't played for 6 years and no longer exist, as opposed to a team that they haven't played for 10 years because they happen not to have been in the same division? And even though the trophies of Wimbledon FC are transferred, the statistical history does not, so those histories (Winmbledon and MKD) should be integrated as are those of the USSR and Russia in international stats. Kevin McE (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick note, the use of colours without the symbols would not be allowed under WP:ACCESS. As long as the symbols are there the usage of colour is allowed. Its a valid point about highlighting a team that is defunct though, one which has not come up before. Personally I think its ok, as it provides the reader with useful information and will help them interpret the table clearer. It also distinguishes between teams that they can play in the future and those they won't, but other users may disagree. Regards the Wimbledon MK Dons, issue as Sheff Utd, first played MK dons in 2011, I think the issue over stats is not a concern as MK Dons renounced any claim to Wimbledon's history in 2007. NapHit (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TBH I just followed the format used in previous lists of this nature that had received Featured status as I assumed there'd been some sort of consensus. Personally I'd agree about the prominence of the defunct clubs - it does seem to make them the most important element - if anything maybe the colour coding should be the other way round (as current opposition is more pertinent?) Or change the blue to a less aggressive shade (which would help accessibility concerns. As for Wimbledon - my understanding is that they are a completely separate entity to MK Dons having returned not only their trophies to AFC Wimbledon but also renounced the club history as well thus becoming a completely new entity as of 7th August 2004. There's always the possibility that MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon could be in the same division in the coming years which would make things even more complicated if we were to merge them in with Wimbledon as both would have legitimate claims to the Wombles' historical stats. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would stick with the present set-up for Wimbledon/MK Dons, as a) the two clubs are distinctly separate entities b) listing them separately adds historical context and c) it's supported by the cited source. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the colours: OK, so colours are permitted so long as their is a symbol as well, but my point is, once they are indicated by a symbol (which is entirely appropriate) it is superfluous and distracting to have them additionally and obtrusively indicated by colour.
- Re Wimbledon/MKD, I had thought that as well, but when I noticed the combined history on the LMA website I challenged this, and the reply was that the FA and FL acknowledge continuity between the two. MKD agreed not to stake any claim to trophies and honours, but statistically they are apparently officially regarded as one entity. The trophies were given to the Borough of Merton, not to AFC Wimbledon, and they make no claim to organisational/institutional continuity. Kevin McE (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think its superfluous to use colours, personally it makes it easier to distinguish rather than just having a symbol. I've just looked on the MK Dons site and they only list statistics going back to the 2002/03 season. The LMA source is interesting, but the cited source implicitly states that the history (which would indicate statistics etc) was transferred to the council and that MK Dons would renounce any claims to a history before that. You say you challenged the LMA's listing did you email them about this? NapHit (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes: it was their reply that I summarised above (the reply was...): I don't seem to have kept the e-mail, but that wouldn't have been acceptable as wp:rs anyway... Kevin McE (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re Wimbledon / MK Dons - would this discussion be better held on WP:Football? Currently the two clubs are treated separately on Wikipedia which must have come from a consensus there. For this article I've used the existing WP line on the two clubs and I wouldn't want the it to be held up or even fail FL by getting bogged down in a much wider debate. Cheers Bladeboy1889 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I think it would be more practical if we took this issue to WP:FOOTY instead of here. NapHit (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think its superfluous to use colours, personally it makes it easier to distinguish rather than just having a symbol. I've just looked on the MK Dons site and they only list statistics going back to the 2002/03 season. The LMA source is interesting, but the cited source implicitly states that the history (which would indicate statistics etc) was transferred to the council and that MK Dons would renounce any claims to a history before that. You say you challenged the LMA's listing did you email them about this? NapHit (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would stick with the present set-up for Wimbledon/MK Dons, as a) the two clubs are distinctly separate entities b) listing them separately adds historical context and c) it's supported by the cited source. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TBH I just followed the format used in previous lists of this nature that had received Featured status as I assumed there'd been some sort of consensus. Personally I'd agree about the prominence of the defunct clubs - it does seem to make them the most important element - if anything maybe the colour coding should be the other way round (as current opposition is more pertinent?) Or change the blue to a less aggressive shade (which would help accessibility concerns. As for Wimbledon - my understanding is that they are a completely separate entity to MK Dons having returned not only their trophies to AFC Wimbledon but also renounced the club history as well thus becoming a completely new entity as of 7th August 2004. There's always the possibility that MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon could be in the same division in the coming years which would make things even more complicated if we were to merge them in with Wimbledon as both would have legitimate claims to the Wombles' historical stats. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments A few follow-up comments.
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This should be it hopefully.
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Good work and thanks for persevering. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Cheers Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.