Comments Few matters arising from the peer review, and some more bits.
- The scope of the list should be explicitly mentioned somewhere: "senior first-team competition from their foundation up to the most recently completed season" or some such
- Typo: "del Barça de les Cinc Copes" should be "el Barça...", and (I think) should be in italics, per
WP:MOS#Italics Foreign words
- Could you do something with the sentence about one of three clubs never relegated? changing "along with" to "the others being" would do, or move their names up nearer the mention of "three clubs"
- The image of the Campionat de Catalunya trophy is 'orrible, it looks like a graphic of a generic silver cup
- Source for Copa del Rey column?
- Added a ref to the RSSSF overview pages, which has links to the full details for each season of the competition. Let me know if you think a separate ref for each specific season needs to be added..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs currently 15 and 16 (Spain - Final Tables Catalonia and Catalonia: All-time tournaments) are the same thing
- The Marca ref (currently #16) should say it's in Spanish
- In the refs, I might have written out the publishers in full for the first time of using, with the abbreviation in brackets after, and then just used the abbreviated form. I look at Union des Associations Européennes de Football, and have to think for a moment to realise what it is...
- I agree that abbrevations shouldnt be spelled out. Nobody knows them by that. This is making the article worse IMO Sandman888 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should make myself clear. Abbreviations must be spelled out at least once, and if they weren't it would have been an MoS fail. I just meant that in hindsight, I might have written Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) the first time, and just UEFA thereafter. I might change them to that usage, if no-one objects. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it should be written that way every time it appears, as what's currently the first UEFA ref might not always be the first..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smarta**e... ;-) though i still think having the abbreviated form in a bracket as well would be helpful... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an issue, as long as it appears every time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly are the details of each La Liga season sourced from? There are two refs at the top of the column: the first has a graph of positions, and the second a results grid for the 1928/29 season with a search button for finding similar grids for other seasons. While I agree it's possible to work out Barcelona's W/D/L etc from that, I find it hard to believe that the creator of the list did it that way... (unless I'm missing something on the LFP website, which was both informative and user-friendly till they redesigned it...)
- Sourcing completely revised..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not sure its better now. Its still not very userfriendly, and it was verifiable before, from a better page than RSSSF.Sandman888 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This reviewer thinks it's better now. Neither reviewer nor general reader should be expected to verify a table by adding up goals and counting wins and losses in result grids. Wouldn't have a problem with replacing the six decade-refs with a link to the overview page, it's only one click from there to the relevant decade. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could have a single reference to the last game played in the 1928-29 season. But the problem is that number of games varies from season to season so its difficult for viewers to find the last one. Wd that be better?
- Sourcing revised again per a suggestion by Stru on my talk page..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Copa Macaya/Copa Barcelona/Campionat de Catalunya were leagues, so the details should be included just like for any other league, with Pos/Pl/W/D/L/GF/GA/Pts. Definitely for the amateur era, and (in my opinion, assuming the Campionat de Catalunya was still a first-team competition) also into the professional era.
- Started on this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that really customary? Sandman888 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. AFAIK, all football club season lists include details of leagues played in before they joined the current big league. Why would you not want to include that detail? the idea of a seasons list is to inform the reader about the club's playing history. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I agree this info should be included - see, for examples, List of Liverpool F.C. seasons..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohhh, I'm not so sure that the 1928 and onwards seasons of the regional leagues shd be included. It really clutters the table. How about continuing the amatour table to include it instead? The two eras will then overlap but so be it, because now they're given equal weight and thats just plain wrong. Similarly they still participate in the Catalunaen trophy, but its not given any significance. Sandman888 (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdented a bit for ease of reading) There's a decent argument for saying that once the national league started, the Campionat de Catalunya, as a regional competition, became a minor comp which wouldn't belong in this list. Going that route, it should be removed entirely, including the pretty gold boxes, from the professional era table, and the prose above the table changed to read something like "In 1929, La Liga, Spain's first national football league, was formed, with Barcelona among the founder members. The Copa del Rey continued alongside La Liga. Clubs continued to qualify for it via the regional championships, which for Barcelona was the Campionat de Catalunya, until 1940, when it became open to all teams in the top two divisions of the Spanish League and selected other teams." And the scope of the list should say something like "The table details the club's achievements in all national and international first-team competitions, and in regional first-team competitions in the amateur era, for each completed season since the club's formation in 1899."
- However, if they entered a first team in it in order to win it, even if it wasn't as important to them as La Liga (source?), I can't see any argument against including it as currently presented. As, for instance, the featured List of Luton Town F.C. seasons includes their two seasons in the United League alongside the Football League 2nd Division in the 1890s. Struway2 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't the giving-it-equal-weight-being-wrong argument apply just as much if the Campionat details were continued in the amateur era section, between the pre-1929 years, where it was the main and only competition, and afterwards, when it wasn't? Struway2 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just been reading Catalan football championship, which says the Campionat de Catalunya became professional in 1917. Assuming that's accurate, then dividing into "Amateur era" and "Professional era" is wrong. Perhaps "Regional era" and "National era", or ...? Also, FC Barcelona's history pages refer to the Catalan Championships of the 1930s as if they were rather more than just qualification for the Copa del Rey. Don't know where that gets us :-) Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Headings changed. As far as I can tell, the 1930s Cat.Champs. were significant tourneys in their own right, but also doubled up as Copa qualifiers. I've reworded the section heading to take this into account..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused here. Is it a bad idea to expand the amatuer era, so it goes to 1937 when cat.champs ended? Also, yes they flaunt their victories, but it's obvious that they consider La Liga a finer competition. I don't see why it is given equal weight if the tables are seperate. The distinction amateur/proffessinoal will give any reader a hint that some competitions are "better" than others. Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent again) The distinction between amateur and professional is one of finance, not importance, which is why the headings needed changing. But the reason the first section can't be extended to 1937 for the Campionat is that this is a list of seasons: whatever happens in each season belongs together. It's not up to us to decide whether one competition is bigger or smaller than another. If the club entered it as a first-team competition, then it belongs in with everything else they entered in that season. Which is why I mentioned the club's pride in the Cat.champs on their history page: to clarify that they did seem to be entering that comp as a first-team comp, not just as a Cup qualifier. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus has always been with season lists that the ongoing season is excluded, for stability reasons
- Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished competitions were included (and rightly so) as they are part of the lead (winning a sextuple).Sandman888 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point: the lead shouldn't refer to something that isn't in the body of the article, and it would seem a little malicious to expect mention of the sextuple to be removed from the lead for the sake of a very few weeks left in the season... I wouldn't object to the finished competitions being reinstated in this case, though in future the list should stay within its scope of "for each completed season" in order to comply with the stability criterion. Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As RSSSF pages are all copyright to their authors as well as to RSSSF, could you include the author(s) in the refs. I might include date last updated as well
- Is this customary as well?
- I'd have thought so, that's why I recommended it. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struway2 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously I'm not trying to make the article worse, only trying to help out and help it get up to FL standards. Reviewers wouldn't suggest things to change unless they felt it needed to be done......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and it is truly appreciated. Though I agree with most of Struways comments I do not agree with all. I
- I've made all the changes Stru requested. I'll let you thrash out with him whether or not they needed to be made....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add it if Struway insists. Please see my reply above reg. putting all the campionat information in the amatour era Sandman888 (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struway can't insist on anything... would that this were the case :-) it's up to all reviewers (hopefully some more might turn up) and then the FL directors to decide whether the resultant state of the list is featureworthy or not... I've replied to the Campionat bit above, will come back on the league sourcing when I've got a minute. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note reply to current season/finished comps above. I'm happy to cap all remaining comments, if the other participants in the discussion are OK with that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply noted, and I fully agree. I'm okay with capping. Sandman888 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Couple more things, about the cup rounds.
- In the key, I wouldn't have thought we needed to wikilink plain English words like Champion or Semi-final, and it'd be enough to link just one of Round of 16/32/64
- In the table, there are still some rounds of the format R3 (presumably meaning 3rd round) as opposed to the Round of nn format. These need either conversion to Round of nn format, or if they don't equate to a Round of nn, they need to appear in the key (and possibly have an explanatory note about why they're different)
Once those are sorted, I'd expect to support this nomination. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
