Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records

List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records

I'm nominating this list for WP:FL as I firmly believe it meets the criteria required, (most specifically 1-(a)-3. : 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). It's been thoroughly copy-edited, factually verified, peer reviewed and I humbly submit it to the scrutiny of the community as part of an on-going drive to bring Ipswich Town F.C. to featured topic status. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article went through a very thorough PR and I think all issues have now been ironed out. To me this is a very-well referenced and annotated series of lists that fit together underneath the umbrella of the article's title and meets the criteria TRM suggests. Peanut4 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Crzycheetah

Comment How did Ipswich qualify for the 1979-80, ~~1982-83~~, and 2001-02 UEFA Cups?--Crzy cheetah 21:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - They won the FA Cup in 1978 to qualify for 1979–80, and finished second in the league in 1981–82 to qualify for 1982–83 and finished fifth in the Premier League in 2000–01 to qualify for the 2001–02 UEFA Cup. In fact they were only denied Champions League in the final moments of the season thanks to Liverpool! Did you expect to see this in the article? The only place I felt an explanation was necessary was when they got through on Fair Play, otherwise it's always been down league, domestic or European cup success. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assumed that the FA Cup they won in 1978 allowed them to participate in the 1978–79 Cup Winners' Cup, instead. If what you are saying is true, then how did they get to play in the 1978–79 Cup Winners' Cup? They won only one FA Cup, right? Also, since finishing fifth in 2000-01 allowed them to participate in the UEFA Cup, I think it is a major honour and should be listed somewhere.--Crzy cheetah 20:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't really want to clog up this FLC page, but my own feeling is that your points ought to be chronicled at Ipswich Town F.C., or History of Ipswich Town F.C., rather than on a stats page. Peanut4 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - (e/c)Hey, thanks for getting back to me. Righty ho, ITFC won the 1977-78 FA Cup so they qualified for the Cup Winners' Cup the following season, i.e. 1978-79. They did win only one FA Cup, absolutely (unfortunately!). I think the article says that at the moment and has done since this FLC kicked off, or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
      - Next up, major honours. Coming fifth in the league isn't a major honour, otherwise dozens of clubs would have hundreds of honours between them that aren't currently listed. It's generally accepted that either first or second (if the number of firsts is low) count as major honours, but otherwise a team like Man Utd or Arsenal would have 50 or 60 major houours each. The qualification for UEFA Cup was, in fact, remarkable because we'd only been promoted the season before and almost got Champions League but that's purely my POV - fact is we finished fifth and for English clubs in the top tier, that will always result in a UEFA Cup place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're contradicting yourself now. At first, you said "1978 FA Cup allowed them to play in the 1979-80 UEFA Cup". Now, you're saying that "1978 FA Cup allowed them to play in the 1978-79 Cup Winners' Cup". So, which one is true? As far as I know one FA Cup should not have allowed anyone to play in both European Cups.
        Add a note next to the 2001-02 UEFA Cup stating that they finished fifth in the Premier league. --Crzy cheetah 20:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the article itself says they qualified for the Cup Winners' Cup. Nothing else. You asked me how they qualified for the UEFA Cup. The article never said otherwise, did it?! So you're right, the FA Cup win meant they qualified for, and played in the Cup Winners' Cup which has always been the case in the article. And as for stating they finished fifth in the Premier League, is it necessary? It's not a major honour and if I added that then presumably you'd like me justify the reasoning behind all the other European qualifications? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I believe it should be explained how they qualified for those European Cups, unless it's obvious. To me as a football fan, everything is obvious, except the 1979-80 and 2001-02 UEFA Cups. I think these two Cups should have a note explaining further. You explained to me how they qualified for the 2001-02 UEFA Cup here, but I'm still waiting for an explanation about 1979-80 UEFA Cup.--Crzy cheetah 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        NB, the article should not be exclusive to football fans. It might be obvious to football fans, but if you want notes to those that aren't obvious then notes should be added to all European campaigns for those who don't know. Peanut4 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Sorry, I'm confused here. Are you expecting me to justify every single qualification for Europe or just those you've specified? It should be all or nothing, surely? 79-80 Cup Winners' Cup qualification is obvious since we won the FA Cup in 77-78 as I said above and no-one ever said anything about 79-80 UEFA Cup except for you! It was always the Cup Winners' Cup. Where does it say we qualified for the UEFA Cup? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your reply to me where you said that FA Cup in 1978 was the reason they qualified for the 1979-80 UEFA Cup.--Crzy cheetah 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but is the article correct or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, in that link, it's you asking me how they qualified for the UEFA Cup, I (perhaps unclearly) answered based on what was in the article, which was a justification of their European qualifications for those seasons. I hope we've cleared it all up now! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haha, I like the way you're trying to change the subject. That link shows what you wrote, that was your edit, not mine. The article should state how ITFC qualified for the 1979-80 UEFA Cup because as of now, it is unknown. Based on the major honours listed in this article, IPFC should not have qualified for 1979-80 UEFA Cup. So what I am saying is that it is possible that there is a major honour missing from this article. Maybe ITFC was a runner-up in the 1979 Championship? There had to be some major honour that let ITFC to qualify.--Crzy cheetah 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I have to agree with Peanut4. All European competitions have to have notes explaining how ITFC was qualified. It is useful to know how or why they received that honour. Even if they finished fifth or sixth, it should be added beause it allowed them to compete in the European competition. If finishing fifth weren't an honour, then UEFA would not have invited ITFC to the UEFA Cup. --Crzy cheetah 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ok, interesting comment, the qualification into UEFA/Cup Winners' Cup/European Cup is obvious to football fans, and is never considered an honour. An honour would be a FA Cup win or runner up place, a UEFA Cup win or runner up place, a Cup Winners' Cup win or runner up place, a Champions League win or runner up place, a League win or runner up place, a League Cup win or runner up place but not a league fifth place. However, to make the article accessible to all (which is essential in my mind) I'm happy to add the relevant qualification criteria to each and every qualification place. I will not add it as an Honour each season because, simply put, it isn't. I hope when Man Utd, Arsenal, Milan etc get lists like this they're not expected to justify each European qualification because their footnotes will number in the hundreds. Luckily Ipswich are nowhere near as successful so in this case the footnotes will be manageable! Also, I think that Peanut4 was saying it's either all or nothing, erring on the side of nothing, but I wouldn't want to speak on his behalf. Nevertheless, to counter your oppose, I'll add the required notes. Thanks again for your time and critical eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree it has to be all or nothing. Adding just one or two notes would be incomplete. I'd rather have nothing beause this is a list of stats and records and I feel it's an irrelevant and laborious list for this entry. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I've noted every single qualification despite it setting a dangerous precedent in my opinion. However it does remove the problem of qualification criteria not being obvious. I hope this alleviates the issues above. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for the notes. I understand your concern about precedent, but it should not stop us from making articles more useful.--Crzy cheetah 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Crzy cheetah 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support assuming you'll correct the typo in "Allan Hunter has a toatal of 53" in one of the footnotes..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, correction made, good spot! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support sorry I've not been more, er, supportive, at the list itself. Great work as ever. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Existing content looks fine, but I've thought of a couple more that could be added, namely streaks (ie. most consecutive wins / losses / matches unbeaten / matches without a win) and most/least points in a season. May need definitions and caveats, but I think they are interesting to know. What do you reckon? --Jameboy (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Added those you've recommended but I must be careful that this doesn't descend into trivia! Hope that's enough for you! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very comprehensive, excellent. But I guess my mission to find out the number of blades of grass on the Portman Road pitch will have to wait... :-( --Jameboy (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This list had an active peer review as a result of which the nominator improved its quality significantly. It manages to deal with an inherently almanac-y topic without descending into fancruft, and is well annotated and referenced. Three minor points (without which the nominator would be concerned I hadn't considered the matter properly):

The European attendances section uses "v" where other sections use "against".

I'm not sure the successive references to Ipswich's qualification for various European competitions (notes 53-60 approx) need to wikilink Football League First Division every time.

Please could you add the ISBN for your book source.

Good work! Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've adjusted the article per your comments above, I hope you're now completely satisfied! Thanks for your eagle eyes, as ever.. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this follows a good template and I am glad this has been accepted as a list format. I think it meets all the FLC criteria and stays on the right side of the Almanacy line. Well done. Woody (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic list, definitely worthy of Featured List status, more great work by The Rambling Man! NapHit (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very impressive piece of work. Never thought I'd see a records article reach it this far. Well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]