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.

Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent

 * Nominator(s): Bladeboy1889 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * Support Arsenikk (talk)  16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Support NapHit (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#ccf;|contentstyle=border:1px #ccf solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)|content=Comments Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd remove "(known as 'The Blades')"; it seems redundant now every other reference to the nickname has been removed.
 * Do you think it'd be worth adding the county after Sheffield? I think it'd add a little extra context.
 * Like NapHit said, en dashes (–) should be used to separate season ranges, not em dashes (—).
 * The sentence starting "The football committee" seems a little long at 52 words.
 * Few words that need dashing, e.g. newly formed, ever present.
 * "Sheffield United" and "League One" only need wikilinking once; they're currently linked twice.
 * Since United have had spells in the Premier League they haven't been ever-present members of the Football League, so I think that sentence needs rephrasing.
 * "Midlands team Aston Villa" -> "West Midlands team Aston Villa"?
 * I think the second and third paragraphs would be better merged into one, since they each cover the same topic.
 * Could you give the years for the club's spells in The Football League and the Premier League, since you've done the same for the Midland Counties League and the Northern League?
 * Doesn't "For the sake of simplicity, present-day names are used throughout, unless the club in question changed it's name since the last league fixture with United in which case the name during the last fixture is used" contradict itself? At first you're saying present-day names are used, then you're saying historical names are used; or am I missing something?
 * And "it's" (and all future instances of it) should be "its".
 * "Statistics correct as end of the 2011–12 season." would be better written out fully, so "Statistics are correct as of the end of the 2011–12 season."
 * I'm not sure why every entry needs referencing twice; surely Soccerbase or Waring will suffice?
 * There's a number of clubs whose names aren't written out correctly; Grimsby should be Grimsby Town, Hereford should be Hereford United etc.
 * "Notes" - there's a lot of inconsistency with regards to singular v. plural when referring to clubs and teams. They're either one or the other. The rule of thumb is clubs being singular and teams being plural, so I'd stick to that.
 * I think "Peter Waring (2004). Sheffield United: Head to Head. Breedon Books. {{ISBN|1-85983-416-7}}." should be incorporated into the "References" section and be placed under the title of "General", with the specific refs being under the title of "Specific", like this.
 * I've picked up all of these (hopefully). In terms of referencing it was an attempt to be comprehensive -the book has more information than Soccerbase but only goes up to 2004 and the data was compiled from a mixture of the two (where relevant). I don't think it harms the article does it? Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments A few follow-up comments. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "(1992–1994 and the 2006–07 season)" - maybe "(1992–93 to 1993–94 and 2006–07)" or some such, to spell out the seasons?
 * Similarly, you could change "(from 1992–1994 and the 2006–07 season)" to make it consistent with the format used for the previously mentioned leagues, so "(from 1992 to 1994 and 2006 to 2007)"?
 * "For the sake of simplicity, present-day names are used" - I'm still finding this a little confusing. I'd personally just use the names of the opponents when they last played United, which is what they key says is being applied with the Glossop example.
 * "Statistics are correct as end of the 2011–12 season." -> "Statistics are correct as of the end of the 2011–12 season."
 * Sorry to be a pain but I think "Soccerbase" should be preferred over "Soccerbase.com" for the publisher parameters.
 * And there should be a space between p./pp. and the subsequent page number/s.
 * "Waring, p.31}" needs fixing.
 * York -> York City.
 * "General" and "Specific" should be titled using a semi-colin to make them bold, rather than using level 3 headings.
 * If there are any instances where both Soccerbase and Waring are needed (perhaps for opponents United played in a league that Soccerbase doesn't cover and have also been opponents from 2004 onwards) then they should both be retained, but when only one suffices I think it'd be best just to go with one.
 * I've updated all these. I've changed the website name to Soccerbase as it's generally referred to on WP although it's worth noting that the site is actually called Soccer Base (as can be seen in the browser title of the home page .) Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments This should be it hopefully. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "1992–93,1993–94" needs a space.
 * "and the 2006–07 season" -> "and the 2006–07 seasons".
 * Refs 1 and 4 use the same book, so you need only retain the author names and page numbers for ref 4.
 * Same goes for refs 3 and 40, which duplicate the content in ref 2.
 * The Waring refs need full stops after the page numbers.
 * "lcfc.com" should be written out with the club's full name, so "Leicester City F.C". Same goes for "leytonorient.com", "nufc.co.uk" and "swfc.co.uk".
 * Could a page number be added for the Greenslade ref?
 * Might be worth adding Clarebrough and Kirkham as a General ref due to the level of its usage. If you did you should remove the bibliographic info for that book's specific refs, retaining only the author names and page numbers.
 * All updated. I've redone the book refs in a different format so they should be consistent now. Bladeboy1889 (talk)
 * One last query before I cap my comments is about the wikilinking in the newly formatted refs. At the moment when I press any of the wikilinked refs (e.g. ref 1) I'm not taken anywhere. The template documentation at Template:Sfn gives a demonstration of how the the author and date info provides a link to the general reference in the "References" section. I think that would be worth looking into. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That should work now. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)}}


 * Support. Good work and thanks for persevering. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


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