Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Luton Town 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 IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [1].

Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One quick point before I look in depth - I would suggest that the current title is confusing and that the word "club" should be replaced by "opponent".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5

Second paragraph of the lead says "Luton" or "Luton Town" a lot; consider some creative re-wording or pronouns.
- Ok. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"first-team" → first team
- "First-team" is, to the best of my knowledge, the correct British usage. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I'm aware, "first-team" would only be used if the term is functioning as an adjective (e.g., "the first-team squad"). I've never seen it used in such a manner when functioning as a noun. Do you perhaps have access to a British source (like BBC or something) that would show the usage? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: I was just looking on BBC Sport and found several references ([2], [3], [4], and [5] to name a few) to "first team", whereas references to "first-team" ([6], [7]) all seem to be describing nouns ("first-team football", "first-team coach", etc.). Wiktionary doesn't make any mention of "first-team" as a noun either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case, I am proven wrong. It's now changed. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Luton have drawn more matches" - link "draw" to Draw (tie)
- Ok. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:BOLD, don't use bold as an indicator, like it is here in the table.
- Ok. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why some abandoned teams in the first column? Are they notable enough to be redlinked, even if they don't have articles yet?
- No, because they did not appear in fully professional leagues. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do the table headers mean? "P", "W", etc.
- Definitions given in key. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these help get you started. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting isn't working properly (I'm getting 83, 87, 9, 90, etc.). See Help:Sorting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, it was fine before... it was only the second and third columns respectively oddly enough, so I don't know. Oh well; I've forced these two columns. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Believe it was because of those colspans. They are good because they help the clarity of the header, but they add text to the column. Any columns containing anything that's not a pure number will sort as text, which means that 80 will come before 9, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No space between list entry and indicator symbols. Indicator symbols at cap height, like daggers, should be superscripted to avoid crowding. This can be done with a simple find and replace. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Superscripting was done, but the spaces are still there. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No longer. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Rather than saying fifth tier of Football in England, you could rearrange the sentance to say ...fifth tier of English football. You could then link either fifth tier or English football to English football league system.
- Ok. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also rather than say football authorities you could just mention The FA.
- No, because there were two separate points deductions: 10 from The FA and 20 from The Football League. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As KV5 says above, lots of mentions of Luton in paragraph 2.
- Sorted. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And again per KV5, the abreviations need to be expanded in the key.
- Sorted. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notes column doesn't need to be sortable.
- Ok. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Statto a reliable source?
- Statto's data comes from Tony Brown, whose Soccerdata company published "The Definitive Luton Town F.C." along with more than 100 similar books. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under references, change bibliography to general, and notes to specific.
- Ok. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all for now. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with all comments addressed. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I know we don't need to repeat the history of the club in detail here, but I wonder if it would make sense to state why they left the league in 1900, as it usually isn't voluntarily...
Bedfordshire is overlinked.
Are play-off game(s) included in this list?
Maybe just worth clarifying that a "blank" in the "Last" season cell means that the league fixture is yet to be conducted this season.

Otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Cheers. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Have a look at List of India women Test cricketers - there's a funky way (it would seem) of doing a colspan heading without messing up the sortability. Consider it for the separation of Home, Away and Total columns? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Notes column looks really silly with cells only on some lines - could it be changed so that every line has a cell in this column?
Columns with numbers in (including seasons) should be centre-justified

Looks good other than that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all looks alright now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ support – Assuming the Statto site tis found reliable, it appears to be a very strong list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the data for Statto comes from Tony Brown, a prominent British football statistician; this is confirmed here. I also said above that Tony Brown's Soccerdata company published The Definitive Luton Town F.C. and many other books of that ilk; this can be confirmed here (and his publication of The Definitive Luton Town F.C. here). – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one seems to be making an issue of the site, so in the absence of knowledge of soccer data sites, I'm forced to lean on the views of the others here. Switching to full support. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Should the unlinked clubs (Abertillery etc} not be redlinked? Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left them unlinked because I don't think they'd be notable (only ever rose as high as Southern League Second Division)... Still, what's your opinion on 'em? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clubs which have played in the Southern League are generally considered notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As are clubs which have played in the FA Cup, which they all have, except possibly Treharris, assuming it's a different club from Treharris Athletic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. It's done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This FLC is flagged as still needing reviews so here are some further comments. In my view the list is largely there with just a few niggles

You shouldn't use italics to denote the defunct clubs for both MOS and accessibility reasons. You should denote these clubs with a superscripted character (e.g. asterisk).
The fact that you haven't wikilinked the season when a club was only an opponent in one season looks a bit odd and arguably is not correct because the column is sortable.
Some people might quibble that their relegation last season wasn't directly due to the points deduction (i.e if they had played a bit better they could have avoided it) which the lead implies. Perhaps adding the word "largely" might be an idea.

As I said above this is almost there. Boissière (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, OK, done. On the second, yes, the column is sortable, but it will always be next to the same season directly to its left in the "first" column, which will be linked; that is why it is as it is. Thirdly, if my memory serves, without the thirty-point deduction, Luton would have finished 15th; therefore, it was the point deductions that relegated Luton, as had they not been there, then Luton would not have been relegated. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not coming back to this sooner. I am happy with the changes made for my first point. The other two are not a big deal (for the second item I understood why it was done like that - my point was that it just looked a bit odd for occasional black seasons amongst a sea of blue - but as said it's not a big deal). Boissière (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Why are some seasons unlinked?
"Win%" column needs to be explained in the key.
"Luton Town Football Club is" You use singular here, but later on I see "Luton Town have" in the key.
"The season given as the "last" designates the last season that included a league match between Luton Town and that side." Does last mean "final", or "most recent" (just clarify in the key).
The alt text you wrote for the picture was excellent. In the future, you don't need to be quite so detailed. One thing that strikes me as unnecessary: "he is clearly the goalkeeper". Doesn't matter that it seems clear; it's unnecessary detail and can be construed as original research. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorted. For rationale for the unlinked seasons see above – per WP:OVERLINK, if the team has only met Luton during one season, the link isn't given twice. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly good, but the singular/plural inconsistency is not sorted yet – "Luton Town Football Club is" but "Luton have", unless you are using "Club" as singular and "Luton Town" as plural? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that "Luton Town" or "Arsenal" would be plural, while "the club" or "the team" would be singular. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks – very sorry to come so late to this; I had been meaning to do a review for some time, but have only been around intermittently recently. Little is needed to improve this: as well as being very encyclopaedic and ideally suited to an online environment, this sort of list is endlessly fascinating for stat-heads like me. Did you know you have never won a home game against Wigan Athletic in five attempts, but you've won 13 of 15 against Torquay United at home? (Oh – we don't have an article on bogey team.) The ease of finding facts like that makes this very powerful. Anyway:

Lead

First sentence is a bit awkward; needs at least a comma after Bedfordshire, and could possibly be split into two sentences: Luton Town Football Club is an English football club based in Luton, Bedfordshire. It competes in the Conference National, the fifth tier of English football. or Luton Town Football Club is an English football club based in Luton, Bedfordshire, which competes in the Conference National, the fifth tier of English football. In my view, ...for the 2009–10 season... doesn't "work" with ...competes in..., if that makes sense. Having said that, it would be a shame to lose the link to 2009–10 in English football in the lead.
Watford sentence: won the most league victories is tautologous: try won the most league matches or recorded the most league victories

Key

All fine there.

The table itself

All colours and symbols are in the right place.
I would use AFC Bournemouth rather than to denote Bournemouth to denote that club, as AFCB is their official name and there is another club operating under the "Bournemouth" name (a non-league club).
Sorting works correctly.

~~In summary, very close to being able to support. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)~~ Support – everything looks good. First sentence flows nicely with the extra comma. Nice work. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done, except for the first sentence in which I have merely added a comma. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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