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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Following on the theme of copying everything from Aston Villa F.C.'s overall structure, I humbly submit to the community my contender for featured list in the shape of this, the list of Ipswich Town F.C. seasons. Based on the existing AVFC FL, I'd love to hear comments, support or otherwise. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As with the Villa one you can see lots of hard work has gone into this list and i think it looks brilliant great work Rambling Man.Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 17:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few comments.
  • Should a more specific reference be used, rather than the homepage of the website?
    • I didn't think so, I could add a reference for every season but thought that would become a hugely unwieldy list of around 140 references which only differ in year numbers... The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the missing top scorers be filled in?
    • If the top scorers are missing it's because it is unknown who they were - the amateur era seemed very hit and miss with records. However, it's fair to point it out so I'll add a note to the table to clarify this. The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are the "three players" who were top scorers in 1901–02?
    • Well, that "three players" occurs in a few places and I didn't really want to expand it out, I suppose I could add a reference though. Yes, I'll do that. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, its jolly good. Mattythewhite 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fair enough. Pretty much dealt with, so changed to support! Mattythewhite 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The list looks in great shape and meets all the criteria. One change I would suggest is to include links to the Football League season articles for the club's recent Championship seasons, e.g. The Football League 2006-07. Dave101→talk  19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, I didn't realise those articles even existed. I'll link them as soon as possible. Cheers! The Rambling Man 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked to those seasons which have articles, thanks. The Rambling Man 09:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Placeholder comment pending copyedit and debate(s) at article talk page. --Dweller 11:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Support All issues now either dealt with or relatively insignificant. --Dweller 12:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The list is obviously well researched, looks good and is undoubtedly useful as a stats-based history of the club. I'd like to see the red links eliminated, but as far as I can tell they don't stop the article reaching featured status. I do have one significant concern, which I am open to persuasion on: This is a list article - a list of Ipswich Town seasons, but it does not link to any of Ipswich Town's seasons, it links to English football seasons in general. This seems to go against the spirit of what a featured list is - at least in how I've interpreted point 1a) of the featured list criteria. I'm just pointing out the anomaly here - I'm not suggesting that a load of club season articles be created (personally I dislike them anyway but that's a whole other topic). I'm sure this point has been raised before for a similar "seasons" list, but I can't remember which one or what the outcome was. Can someone jog my memory and/or let me know if I'm being over-critical? Thanks. --Jameboy 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting comment. Under 1a are three examples:

  brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;

  is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; and

  contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles

  While the point you raise falls foul of 1, the list certainly fulfils 2 and 3. I think it's OK on that score. And re redlinks, you're right, that doesn't stop Featured status (they're an encouragement to our Rambling friend and other Wikipedian binmen to create some new articles) --Dweller 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support OK, I've found what I was looking for. It was Manchester United F.C. seasons, and despite the argument about lack of club season articles (although in Man Utd's case, there are a few, with English season articles used where there aren't), it reached Featured List. Having weighed everything up I am happy to go with precendent. The alternative is to have a zillion redlinks to club season articles which may never be written, which would look ridiculous. --Jameboy 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I will be removing the red links - the articles are ready to go, but as an anon at the moment I can't create them. They'll be sorted by Thursday evening. Cheers! 193.82.16.50 11:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (easyRambler)[reply]

  Red links gone... Hope that makes you more confident that support was the right answer! The Rambling Man on tour 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• All issues seem addressed. Any more? --Dweller 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe it must remain here for ten days before it can be promoted or otherwise... The Rambling Man on tour 10:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with qualification about Lead. Looks good, all the little details have been ironed out in the main list. Good work! Meets all the criteria as far as i can see. I must add that it is slightly less colourful than Villa's, i wonder why? ;) Woodym555 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although i think that the lead is just about adequate, could you not expand it? I really do think it needs expanding. Where do the numbers come from pre-Football League? What Leagues did they play in? Explain about the amateur era and then moving into the professional arena. The Lead should introduce the topic and prepare the reader for the higher amount of detail in the main list. (FLCriteria 2(a)) Currently, anyone not interested in football would have a hard time understanding the list, especially when comparing it to Villas or Man Uniteds. The more and more i look at it i am not liking the length of the lead. Woodym555 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll have a look at expanding it as soon as I can... thanks for your advice. The Rambling Man 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've expanded it a bit, describing the amateur era a bit more before leading into the entry into professionalism. Hope it works better for you. The Rambling Man 10:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yep, that has assuaged my concerns and i have changed it to unqualifying support. Meets all the criteria as far as i can see. Well done. Woodym555 11:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks Woody. The Rambling Man 11:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]