Talk:Cypriot Second Division

Winners

The information on the page is not from reliable sources and there doesn't to be a list anywhere on the net. I need help finding all the winners. Anarxia 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Format

The league was played in two groups until sometime in the 50s. The page needs a format section that describes the previous formats. Anarxia 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cfa.gif

The image Image:Cfa.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 1966–67 Cypriot Second Division

The 1966-67 season itself does not appear to be notable. This content should be developed at the parent article, Cypriot Second Division and then spun out. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Don't merge. Cypriot Second Division is the second national level of Cypriot football league system. All its seasons are notable. Just remember that for English football league system we have articles for 8th and 10th level 2016–17 Northern Premier League and 2016–17 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division. Xaris333 (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed merging. Cypriot Second Division is one of the main divisions of the Cypriot football which are organized by Cyprus Football Association. It is the 2nd highest league of the country, and teams from all around Cyprus are participating. It is not a regional league competition to be considered as a not notable competition. That level of competitions i believe that they are matching wikipedia rules, and as i know many similar articles (for other countries football competitions, some of them for much lower divisions) already exist without any of them to be proposed for deletion or to be merged with their parent articles. Also individual season's articles should be kept apart the parent article, as the parent article provides general information and a detailed summary of the competition, not an analysis of every individual season. So, as the season's article are part of a notable competition (2nd tier level), my suggestion is that we must keep both the parent article and all the individual season's articles separately as they are now, without changing anything. Marios26 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 1967–68 Cypriot Second Division

The 1967-68 season does not appear to be notable itself. This content should be developed at the parent article, Cypriot Second Division, and then spun out. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Don't merge. Cypriot Second Division is the second national level of Cypriot football league system. All its seasons are notable. Just remember that for English football league system we have articles for 8th and 10th level 2016–17 Northern Premier League and 2016–17 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division. Xaris333 (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed merging. Cypriot Second Division is one of the main divisions of the Cypriot football which are organized by Cyprus Football Association. It is the 2nd highest league of the country, and teams from all around Cyprus are participating. It is not a regional league competition to be considered as a not notable competition. That level of competitions i believe that they are matching wikipedia rules, and as i know many similar articles (for other countries football competitions, some of them for much lower divisions) already exist without any of them to be proposed for deletion or to be merged with their parent articles. Also individual season's articles should be kept apart the parent article, as the parent article provides general information and a detailed summary of the competition, not an analysis of every individual season. So, as the season's article are part of a notable competition (2nd tier level), my suggestion is that we must keep both the parent article and all the individual season's articles separately as they are now, without changing anything. Marios26 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marios26: You're hardly an objective editor. You're a Cypriot, a football fan, and you've created a number of these articles, too. From the look of it you've never edited outside this subject. Please read WP:NSEASONS. Bottom line, please be aware that those of us at WP:NPP are going to find these unsatisfactory articles. You should be concerned that an outside editor does not approve. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I am always concerned about wikipedia policies and rules Chris, but obviously i can't be aware of everyone of them. I have to admit that i didn't knew that many individual seasons could be merged all in a single article, as i didn't involved in any similar (merging) case in the past. In all cases i was involved, when an article was considered as not notable, it was proposed directly for deletion. I have only two quick questions to ask, if you can help me: (1) That two seasons articles (1966–67 & 1967–68) are not considered notable because they lack sources or information, or just because they are "second division" articles? I mean they need improvement, or will not be notable whatever changes to be made? For example, this season's article 2014–15 Cypriot Second Division, which includes more information and sources is notable? (2)That question is just for encyclopedic purposes: In WP:NSEASONS, says that "multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article". That means a new (specific) article will be created and will include all seasons in it (and a link to this article will be included in the parent article), or all these seasons' information will be added directly (inside) to the parent article? Can you provide me a link to a similar case article (which already was merged), just to see how the new articles are look like in these cases? Thanks in advance. Marios26 (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marios26: To answer your first question, almost any subject found on Wikipedia should pass WP:GNG. For the subjects that don't we can presume notability based on Subject-specific Notability Guidelines (SNG) like WP:NATHLETE. When the subject doesn't pass an SNG and doesn't have the sources to pass GNG, it's not notable at all and ought to be deleted. Merging the content is way to consolidate under a few sources until it can be better developed per WP:SPINOUT. I don't follow sports so I took a look around at other articles in order to answer your second question. I found plenty of examples like 2004–05 Isle of Man League of similar practices so these articles are exactly in keeping with the norm of WP:WikiProject Football. It doesn't surprise me articles written ostensibly by fans are dominated by cruft. I can't show you a better example. I guess I need to take my complaint up with the WikiProject. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: WP:NSEASONS is for individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, not for leagues seasons. It is a policy about different things. "Just remember that for English football league system we have articles for 8th and 10th level 2016–17 Northern Premier League and 2016–17 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division." Are these two articles notable or not and if they are, why the seasons of the 2nd level of Cyprus are not? What are their differences (about policy)? And you have not answer if 2014–15 Cypriot Second Division is notable or not. Xaris333 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a list with seasons in second-tier football of European Countries:

• 1976 1. deild karla Iceland
• 1990–91 Cymru Alliance Wales
• 1992–93 Ukrainian First League Ukraine
• 2003–04 Swiss Challenge League Switzerland
• 2004 Superettan Sweden
• 1929–30 Segunda División Spain
• 1992–93 Slovenian Second League Slovenia
• 1993–94 2. Liga (Slovakia) Slovakia
• 2006–07 Serbian First League Serbia
• 1966–67 Scottish Division Two Scotland
• 1992 Russian First League Russia
• 1989–90 Divizia B Romania
• 1990–91 Segunda Divisão de Honra Portugal
• 2007–08 II liga (Poland) Poland
• 1965 Norwegian Second Division Norway
• 1966–67 Eerste Divisie Netherlands
• 2006–07 Montenegrin Second League Montenegro
• 2006–07 Moldovan "A" Division Moldova
• 2000–01 Maltese First Division Malta
• 1993–94 Macedonian Second Football League FYROM
• 1991–92 LFF Lyga Lithuania
• 2006 Latvian First League Latvia
• 2007 Kazakhstan First Division Kazakhstan
• 1966–67 Serie B Italy
• 1999–2000 Liga Leumit Israel
• 1985–86 League of Ireland First Division Ireland
• 2009–10 Nemzeti Bajnokság II Hungary
• 1980–81 Beta Ethniki Greece
• 2014–15 Gibraltar Second Division Givraltar
• 1974–75 2. Bundesliga Austria
• 1990 Pirveli Liga Georgia
• 1966–67 French Division 2 France
• 1983 Ykkönen – Finnish League Division 1 Finland
• 2014 1. deild Faroe Island
• 1992 Esiliiga Estonia
• 1968 Danish 1st Division
• 1993–94 Czech 2. Liga Checz
• 1998–99 Croatian Second Football League Croatia
• 2005–06 B Group Bulgaria
• 2002–03 First League of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina
• 2002–03 First League of the Republika Srpska Bosnia and Herzegovina
• 2009–10 Belgian Second Division Belgium
• 1992 Belarusian First League Belarus
• 2008–09 Azerbaijan First Division Azerbaijan
• 2004–05 Austrian Football First League Austria
• 2005 Armenian First League Armenia
• 2006–07 Segona Divisió Andorra
• 1951 Albanian First Division Albania

Xaris333 (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xaris333: Perhaps you should re-read what I already wrote. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As per mentioned above, no reason why the Cypriot 2nd league season isn't notable, while the rest of Europe's 2nd league seasons are notable. --SuperJew (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cypriot Second Division/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead is too short and doesn't summarise the article per WP:LEAD - it should be expanded two at least one large paragraph or two smaller ones

   " After their reform and their re-integration in the CFA they had to play in the Second Division in order to be promoted to the First Division, as is done" - I don't understand 'as is done'?

   "It was the only time from the unofficial period of the competition that a team promoted from the Second Division to the First Division." - unsourced

   "Since 1952–53 season, the second Division teams are taking part in the Cypriot Cup" - incorrect tense. Try Since 1952–53 season, the second Division teams took part in the Cypriot Cup

   " In some seasons during 60s and 70s" - 1960s and 1970s

   Structure almost entirely unsourced

   "Fourteen clubs are competing in the league, playing each other twice, once at home and once away for a total of 26 games per team. The top three teams are promoted to the Cypriot First Division and the bottom three are relegated to the Cypriot Third Division." - needs a source

   I would recommend converting the Points system section into prose as opposed to bullet points. Despite this, would it be worth keeping it?

   The harvrefs are broken. Also, what is the difference with the Sources section and the Bibliography section? Shouldn't they be one section?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm really sorry to do this but this doesn't meet the GA criteria in its current state. The harvrefs are broken, the lead needs expanding and most claims are left unsourced. Please understand that I hate quickfailing articles, and will be happy to review this again if you decide to renominate. JAGUAR  19:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)