Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/FC Barcelona in Europe/archive2

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 Dabomb87 22:52, 21 September 2010 [1].

FC Barcelona in Europe

Featured list removal candidates/FC Barcelona in Europe/archive1

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With three supports and MoS issue fixed the Gamper looks a closed deal. Incorporating the legend into this oddball of various competitions, it has been through two PRs and one FLC. Sandman888 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—a dab link to neutral ground (which doesn't seem like a particularly useful link anyway); no dead externals. Ucucha 12:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not much text to go on, but I think [2] is in Spanish, not Catalan. Ucucha 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - oh you're right, changed to Spanish. Delinked neutral as it doesn't exist(!). Sandman888 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—There is a huge mistake in this page that Inter Cities Fairs Cup is UEFA Cup, That's truly wrong. You should fix that by omitting the un-official (Inter Cities Fairs Cup) or making another list for it. This source (which is one of page's references) provides that "Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record."--Life alone (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another mistake : Pyrenees Cup is not international/European competition, correct that. It was regional competition like nowadays friendly cups.--Life alone (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the introductory note: "The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is considered to be the forerunner to the Europe League, but it is not recognized as an UEFA competition. As such Inter-Cities Fairs Cup wins doesn't count toward the tally of Europa League wins, though it is recognized as the forerunner.[46] This list tallies the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup together with the Europa League tournament." emphasis added. I don't see how it could be any clearer. Sandman888 (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Comma needed after "which lasted from 1910 to 1914".
The Manual of Style says we should avoid slashes if possible. A few of the section headings use them; would dashes work?
UEFA Cup Winners' Cup: Decapitalization needed in "in the First round."
Remove last word in "In 1969 they".
Inter Cities Fairs Cup: "but it is not recognized as an UEFA competition." "an" → "a". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, thanks for spotting it. Regarding slashes, I do believe they are more intuitive than dashes (one might think the competitions were simultaneous). According to MOS:SLASH, slashes are okay if "a different construction would be inaccurate, unfamiliar, or ambiguous". I do believe slashes works better than dashes here. Sandman888 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*The lead is inadequate, far too short for a "list" of this size.

- PR preferred longer intros in subsequent sections versus a long lead. Sandman888 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I think the lead is too short. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've expanded slightly. Anything in particular that needs mentioning? Sandman888 (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Latin Cup or Copa Latina?
"and the old Inter-Cities Fairs Cup " as opposed to the new one?
Not sure you need the years in the headings. Instead, include that information in the prose for each section.
Link "friendly" appropriately.
"these games"? You've only mentioned one so far.
Why is Les Corts in italics?
"After the introduction of the European Cup it disappeared, and today it is not recognized..."
- What is "it" here?
- recognized is USEng, is that what you want here?
"after being champions in the 1958–59 season." champions of what?
"part from becoming runners-up " very poor English.
" In 1992 Johan Cruyff's Dream Team led the side" Cruyff's dream team led the side? Really? Wasn't it Cruyff's Dream Team that won the final?
"but it was to last three years " -> it was three years
"first round" or "First Round"? There seems to be a considerable amount of over-capitalisation in the list.
"Fairs Cup wins doesn't count toward" - do not.
Not at all convinced about a separate "Finals" table which repeats a lot of what's already happened.
If you do keep it, consider making it sortable.
Overall record table - the total row shouldn't sort.
- Why not?
  - Because it's the total row and should always be at the bottom. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does one do that? Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ahh, cheers. Sandman888 (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All notes which claim scores, results etc should be referenced.
Ref 45 doesn't have the expanded version of UEFA like all other UEFA refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of unless noted, final table is gone. Thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - very weak grammar and internal inconsistencies...

"semi-final" or semifinal" or "Semi-Final"?
- Semi-final
  - Why Quarter-Final then? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And First round vs Second Round. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both fixed
"he first international cup they took part in was the Pyrenees Cup, which lasted from ..." I bet the first cup didn't last four years, perhaps the competition did.
- Done
"winning four out of five competitions. " who did?
- Barcelona
"From 1914 to the start of the Latin Cup in 1949," do you mean the first edition of the Latin Cup?
- Tes. Beginning?
"Barcelona did not participate in any international competitions." is this referenced?
Latin Cup is overlinked.
- Delinked two
"two times as champions " why not just "twice"?
- twice

This is just the lead. I'll come back, if requested, to the rest of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Barcelona was among the first participants in European football" prove it.
- removed
" the matches are given in the Finals table below." doesn't exist now.
- removed
what does "City" mean?
- The reference only list the city where it was held.
"with Barcelona's arch-rivals Real Madrid" POV.
- I think that's a little excessive but ref included
"Johan Cruyff's Dream Team " direct ref for Dream Team?
- ref included
"The Cup Winner's Cup started in 1960, but it was three years before Barcelona participated in the cup" terrible prose.
- removed "in the cup".
"In their first competition they were eliminated by Hamburg SV in the first round. In 1969, their second participation, they advanced to the final, but were beaten by Czechoslovakian side, Slovan Bratislava." ditto.
- could you be a bit more specific here?
"before the cup was absorbed " no no no, it wasn't "absorbed"... Rephrase.
- "was re-organised as"

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Possible copyvio[reply]

You have copy-and-pasted text from RSSSF for reference 63, word-for-word. This is very worrying. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." This is indeed brief and hard to re-word. But independent query has been made at media questions. Sandman888 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just copied sentences of prose. This can easily be phrased another way to avoid copyvio. I have detected other instances of this throughout the article. I will need to check your other work as a result. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why did you clog up the question I filed with duplicate information just to frame it more to your liking? I added both instances in full, which is the honest thing to do. But have fun investigating. Sandman888 (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was illuminating the fact that you copy-and-pasted a complete sentence of prose. No "clogging". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You removed the context. Why did you feel the need to "illuminate" when I gave the full sentences, but for framing it as a accusation. Anyone could tell whether or not it was a copyvio by the information already given. Sandman888 (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Who's clogging now? It would be much easier if you just reworded the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To be fair, I think that RSSSF page is free to copy verbatim, but it really is a bad idea to get into that habit, particularly when it's incredibly simple to rephrase it to avoid any of this discussion. As such I've added "possible" above. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, that's fair enough. In lieu of recent events (Reg. Dharious or something), I'm a bit defensive regarding copyvio allegations, hence the media question instead of immediate re-word. I've re-phrased it now. Sandman888 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"round" in Latin Cup table should be "Round" (it's a heading).
- Done
I'm still not sure why you think "Semi-final" is a proper noun, e.g. "featured two Semi-finals, a third ", particularly if final isn't.
- sorry, yes that's true.
"established themselves as one of the strongest sides in European competitions, when measured in UEFA coefficients" is this referenced?
- Added UEFA ref. I am not sure whether the xs4all.net ref given in the wikilink is acceptable.
Why "Second Stage" in capitals?
- decapped
"round of 16"->"Round of 16".
- Certainly.
Notes A to C are unreferenced.
- That they lost on coin toss etc. is reffed in the table reference. I think that is easier to verify than re-list all of the refs again. Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the 2010–11 season be included if this list is to be complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally ongoing seasons are not included for stability reasons. Sandman888 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, maybe a note on the overall record that says accurate as of the end of the 2009/10 season then? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re-worded the update section. Better? Sandman888 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where are the individual rounds referenced? I looked at reference 29 for instance, where I can see the score of the final referenced, but not the preceding rounds, which are referenced here, here, here and here... Also, in that particular instance, you call it "Round of 16" while UEFA call it "First knockout round"... Ref 35 (63/64 CWC) doesn't even mention Barcelona... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- There's a table to the right where you can click "preliminary round" "first round" etc. Is it not clear enough how to navigate the page? Sandman888 (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it's not ideal, considering these are "specific" references... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added a note above the specific references. Better? Sandman888 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I had a look at refs 59 through 61 which you use to reference the overall record, and I can't see how you got the data you use in the table, most specifically the goals for and against, but also in wins (one of those references is a 2009 page, the other includes this season, so neither tally up with your data). The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- this gives Goals for and against up to December 2009. this gives Goals from August 2009 to July 2010. this gives the # of games, updated continuously. Sandman888 (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't see the middle reference you've given there in the list, must have missed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also can't see where the specific venues for the Intercontinental Cup / FIFA Club World Cup section are referenced, I can find Tokyo, but no mention of the National Stadium... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - from the RSSSF ref "Since the beginning of the eighties the Cup was sponsored by Toyota and played in one leg in Tokyo (Tokyo National Stadium or Kokuritsu Kyogijou, from 1980 to 2001)". The FIFA venues are harder to locate on the FIFA page, so have added RSSSF refs. Sandman888 (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ref 35 appears to repeat Mike Morrison a couple of times, not sure why? And the last two refs appear to have the same author, but in differnet formats... And is there a reason why the source for Murray has him as Bill Murray and William J Murray, and this is repeated in the refs? And what does ref 13 refer to? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ref issues fixed. Sandman888 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Be consistent with hyphenation in Inter-Cities Fairs Cup throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two instances hyphenated. Sandman888 (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review TRM. Always appreciated. Sandman888 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, such articles are a "bit too much", and i explain why i think so:

if i'm not mistaken, some clubs - as BARCELONA - have articles with "X" or "Y" season, which contains info on both domestic and European play. Moreover, in the team article proper, storyline on both can also be found. Hence, i think this one is unnecessary, with all due respect. I oppose. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Just to clarify: Is that a content fork concern? I must say that none of the information here is anywhere else; several of the FC Barcelona season articles does not exist. Sandman888 (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see mate. In that case, and being the club that it is, i support. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, thank you. Sandman888 (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments:

- ~~Why are there five refs all clustered together, when some of them don't even concern that sentence or even paragraph?~~
  - They were previously all used. I have removed the two which currently doesnt reference anything. Sandman888 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~The refs on the CWC and ICFC could be placed just after the sentence that talks about them. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
      - Yes that's true, duly moved. Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I don't think that last paragraph about the tables should be in the lead. Could you find a better fitting place?~~
  - I do believe the lede is the best place to have it, if it were in the first table it might easily be missed. This way it's clear that this concerns the whole article Sandman888 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My idea would be to create a section named "Competitions", under which all the sections about Barça's participations in European cups would be moved, and place the notes on the tables plus flag legend as an intro text just before the cup sections. This way those explanatory notes/legends would still concern the whole article as you say. Anyway, my suggestion, not an imposition. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And then have the individual competitions as sub-section? I must admit it doesn't sound as a very tempting idea. Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I just think that it looks extraneous in an already not-so-big lead. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~There's a great image of the 1952 Latin Cup won by Barcelona that you could use alongside its section.~~
  - It used to be there but it's too big and messes with the next section.
    - Alright, no big deal. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the Intercontinental Cup/FIFA World Club Cup fit into an article about Barcelona's participation in European competitions? OK, at least the Intercontinental Cup was endorsed/co-organized by UEFA, but such thing is not true for the FIFA World Club Cup. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how the fact that UEFA organised it made it a European competition. To keep consistency with other "Club in Europe" article this has the same title format; the FCWC/intercontinental cup is the exception to the rule. Sandman888 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's it: it doesn't. But at least UEFA was somehow involved in that cup which could be an argument to keep those records. These are all international competitions, so an article title defining that better could be a solution that included all these records. I'm not saying that this should be done now nor that this should be the prototype for that change, but it's something to think about. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - yeah I did think about it and asked the WP:FOOTY project for some input, but nobody really cared that much... Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe that's a sign that they wouldn't bother if you did it yourself ;) Parutakupiu (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh no trust me, it is very hard to make the FOOTY project decide on anything and just unilaterally moving stuff without discussion is not considered polite (even though noone wants to discuss it). I dont want anymore drama on that front. Sandman888 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You sourced every season's results for the EC/UCL and UCWC in their respective tables, but not for the UC. Any reason why? Parutakupiu (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the refs provided for the UC it is very easy to navigate to the specific season. But that is not the case for the other references. Sandman888 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's just as easy to do that for the EC/UCL and UCWC. But this to say that I think that—if we can—we should provide direct links to sources and not make the reader have to cruise through them to find what they're looking for. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No what I mean is that the ICFC/UC refs are easy to navigate, a general ref for CL is not. I'm not sure providing separate refs are really necessary, it's easy to verify if you want to. Sandman888 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry but I'm not sure I'm following you... Parutakupiu (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah sorry I sometime fail to make myself clear. it is easy to find the specific season in the RSSSF reference given, that is why it is the only one used. I could perhaps list it under general references instead, would that be better? Sandman888 (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess that would suffice. I just think that if you provided specific refs for each season of the EC/UCL and ECWC (from UEFA.com) you should at least do the same for the UC seasons, since UEFA.com also has the results for every season. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only noticed this now: refs 3 and 49 are one and the same. Check if you don't have more duplicates. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a single general source (a book), but there's only one specific ref taken from it (ref 7). If this is the only info taken from that source, you might as well cite it wholy in the specific refs rather than as a general source. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good call! Both instances taken care of. Sandman888 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support gladly. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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