Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of UEFA Cup winning managers

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 21:00, 15 March 2008.

List of UEFA Cup winning managers

I'm nominating this to become a featured list - it's well illustrated, well referenced and meets the criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments, criticism and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent work, can't find any issues ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work,only issue is that maybe the refs section should not be sortable, and I'm not sure if the captions require full stops, but these are minor issues. Great Work NapHit (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good spot, fixed now. And captions only need full stops if they're not sentence fragments so, in this case, I think they're all okay. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just some minor, easily changable style issues:
- "Wolves" → "Wolverhampton Wonderers"; just a little unclear right now where Wolves is if you're outside the UK
- "25" → "twenty-five" per Wikipedia:MOS#Numbers as figures or words
- "Internazionale" → "Inter Milan" or "Milan's Internazionale"; "SS Lazio" → "S.S. Lazio" / "Rome's S.S. Lazio" (as Wolves comment) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed, thanks for pointing them out Matthew! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're welcome! Support -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to differ but my reading of the MOS is that it should be "25". --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your nose outavit buddy... Well, it can go either way I think. My reading of the MOS says either are acceptable but Matthew likes words, I like words, you like parentheses, so let's call the whole thing off.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Struway2

Comments
- First sentence. Either it gives the title of the article, in which case the bolded title shouldn't contain wikilinks, or it doesn't, in which case it shouldn't be bolded. See WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  - Unbolded The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- over two legs. Can this be wikilinked?
  - Linked The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I prefer Internazionale to Inter Milan, but both occurrences need to use the same name, and the second needs delinking.
  - Names aligned and overlink removed The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure three-time winner is standard English?
  - Pretty sure... It gets a few positive hits on Google The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - in which case it needs hyphenating in Trappatoni's image caption. Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done, thanks for the spot The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- in both 2006 and 2007 UEFA Cup Finals. I know what you're saying, but it doesn't sound right. Maybe "in both the 2006 and 2007 UEFA Cup Finals" works better?
  - Should work better now... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last sentence reads very awkwardly, and "different than" certainly isn't standard British-English. Try something like Only three managers have won the title in charge of teams from a country other than their own; the most recent of these was the Frenchman, Gérard Houllier, as manager of English club Liverpool.
  - Done The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images. Per WP:MOS#Images, images in portrait format should have the 'upright' parameter. They normally wouldn't have a width set if the thumb parameter is present, though if they're going to start interfering with the table at some combination of screen width and user preferences, that's probably a good enough reason to set an image width.
  - Not familiar with upright so I'll need to look into this further. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well that was pretty straightforward... done! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By year table. It would be helpful if the countries (both of manager and of club) were in separate columns to make the table sortable by country. The reader might well want to view, say, all the Italian winners together.
  - Hmm, that's a bigger job. Would you consider it essential? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - yes, to be honest. It's the sort of thing the reader (at least, the reader who knows that those little shapes after the column headings are sort buttons) would expect, especially as the By nationality table prompts them into thinking about it. Ideal use for a sortable table. Wouldn't have thought it was that big a job, would you like me to have a go at it? Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it's a really big job, the hardest part I think will be coming up with succinct headings for the two new columns... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Wouldn't bother with headings, if the flags are right next to the name and club respectively, it should be as obvious what they refer to as it was when they were in the same column. Struway2 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- One more thing. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering says that Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should always be in earliest-to-latest chronological order.. If this list is a chronological list within the meaning of this guideline, can you think of a good reason for going against the guideline? Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only reason I could come up with is that I didn't know the guideline said that! I'll fix it... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - not surprised, I didn't either :-) Was just wondering if there was a reason lists were always that way up, and found the guideline. Struway2 (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support All issues resolved. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I mean, you are after all a mega-officianado. Can't argue with that. Drewcifer (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments See my comments made in the List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winning managers FLC. Many of the same concerns apply here. Drewcifer (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The in-line citations are over wikilinked. Only the first instance of a publisher value should be wikilinked.
- I tend to disagree. If an article has dozens of links to one place then why should someone go off and search for the right link in another potentially completely unrelated reference? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a deal-breaker here (or the others), but I'm just going off WP:MOSLINK. Especially when all the citations lead to essentially similar pages. Drewcifer (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm a mega-officianado of the MOS, in my last two and a bit years here I've seen the MOS questioned and modified a few times. Fingers crossed this'll get changed too. I'm not trying to be awkward but I hope these links won't be the only thing that would prevent your support. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Giovanni Trapattoni in the lead, while the others are beside the table? I'd recommend putting him down there with the others.
- He's the record holder - he's won the cup three times. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure you didn't put him up there because he was your favorite.=) Drewcifer (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not! I feel that despite the logical placement of some images, aesthetic articles are better. Anyway, I think his image's position is justified (if you don't mind me saying that!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should include a bolded description of the page.
- I'll have a look and fix that. But this is a bone of contention between reviewers... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reworded so it's the same as the title and then bolded. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend centering the Final column.
- Sounds perfectly reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flag columns are great, but they are a little big confusing. It's not entirely obvious which other columns they apply to. On one hand I'd say give it a column header, but that would kind of ruin the functionality... any ideas?
- No, and this was an issue when I added them as separate columns per the comments of Struway2. Unless you can suggest something dynamic and brilliant, I'm going to leave it I think. Perhaps I could add a note in the main text? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with the flags is that the link to the image, not the country. Again, I don't have a solution up my sleeve, but that seems like a problem.
- I'll do my best to get the {{sort}} template working harder! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, my initial optimism seems to have been misplaced. You get the flags to sort nicely in country order, but there doesn't seem to be a way to link them to the country. Again, as a suggestion of Struway, I made them sortable according to country name. Perhaps this is a bigger problem than just this FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An external links section would be nice. Drewcifer (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can muster... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is one now, and I'm asking our fchd.info expert for another... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I've added a couple of general references to rsssf.com which is an excellent resource.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for clarification re bold title.

Please have a look at WP:MOS#First sentences and WP:LEAD#Bold title. They say that the topic of the article should ideally appear as the subject of the first sentence and in bold face; but "if the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive", the title need not appear verbatim and if it does, it is not bolded. Personally, with these lists I'd lean towards the title being a descriptive one, but wouldn't have a problem if you think otherwise. However, if you are bolding the title, it should not contain wikilinks. Anything that needs linking should be linked later on in the paragraph/section. hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing that up for everyone (myself included) Struway2, I think I'll revert to not bold and a decent opening sentence... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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