Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scottish football champions
- 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 16:52, 20 March 2008.
List of Scottish football champions
The bare bones of this list was already present, but I've shown it some TLC and brought it up to what I think is FL standard, please let me know what you think......... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "initially as an amateur league as professionalism in Scottish football was not legalised until 1893" → "initially as an amateur league until professionalism in Scottish football was legalised in 1893"
- Is there a way of sorting Dumbarton and Rangers separately?
- Same for Sandy McMahon and John Campbell, Robert Hamilton and William Michael, etc, as it currently sorts only by the first mentioned.
- "Hearts" should be given as "Heart of Midlothian", not their common name.
- Is there a better way of displaying the "Champions shown in bold also won the Scottish Cup that season; Champions shown in italics won the Scottish League Cup; Champions shown in bold italics won both cups" bit? Perhaps shading the cells?
That's it! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments, I believe I've now addressed them all. I don't know of a way to make the table sortable in such a way that it can sort two names in the same cell, and on reflection I'm not sure the sorting's really that important to a chronological list (the equivalent English list, an existing FL, doesn't use sortable tables after all.....), so I've taken it out...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments, I believe I've now addressed them all. I don't know of a way to make the table sortable in such a way that it can sort two names in the same cell, and on reflection I'm not sure the sorting's really that important to a chronological list (the
Support -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Well, much better since the PR but still a number of easily resolvable (I should think...) red links for the top scorers... are you going to work on that? It's not a dealbreaker but just something that would improve the list to perfection... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get onto it :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all done :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - yay, all good, my concerns addressed both here and in the PR. Another Dude-tastic work of Wiki-pwnage... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The doubles and trebles are now twice in the article. Redundant or not? I say yes. -EdgeNavidad (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you feel the entire section on doubles/trebles/quadruples need to be removed, or just the table within said section......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the table should certainly be removed. The text is interesting, maybe it can be placed somewhere else? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it I concur, and have merged a trimmed version of the text into the overview at the start - what do you think now........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's great! You still give the same information, and it's easier to read. By the way: the reference for the top scorers is a Danish page, consider this rsssf page, it's in English.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's great! You still give the same information, and it's easier to read. By the way: the reference for the top scorers is a Danish page, consider this rsssf page, it's in English.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it I concur, and have merged a trimmed version of the text into the overview at the start - what do you think now........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the table should certainly be removed. The text is interesting, maybe it can be placed somewhere else? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you feel the entire section on doubles/trebles/quadruples need to be removed, or just the table within said section......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satisfies timeline criterion, comprehensive, well-referenced and with appropriate free-use illustration. I thought it was close to FL standard at peer review and it's improved very significantly since arriving here. Also, I changed my mind about wanting the clubnames left-aligned, they look fine as they are. Couple of suggestions you may wish to consider.
- You took out a row for the Second World War period because it messed up the sorting. Now you've very sensibly made the tables unsortable, don't know whether you want to put it back in, or do you prefer the current footnoted version?
- In the Total titles won table, you have a column for total runners-up spots, but only for those clubs having been champions. Consider including those clubs which have been runners-up but haven't been champions? I think there are only 3.
- Both points actioned as you suggest ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fanastic list, well referenced well done NapHit (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.