* Though WP:DATED advises us not to use words like "currently": could you rephrase
Will rephrase these. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The image captions are sentence fragments, not full sentences, so shouldn't have full stops/periods: see MOS:CAPTION
Will go through this. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Key. Suggest putting the Allsvenskan specifics table below the other colour/symbol table, so that the Key to cup record table isn't quite so squashed up on the right
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1910-1919 section. Why are there two rows for 1916-17?
- This is due to the season format being changed for the 1918 season, thus all four competitions were held during the 1916–17 season. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could add a footnote so the reader won't have to ask the same question? Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting the league position by division as well as position is unusual but not necessarily unreasonable. However it does mean that the reader can't sort that column to see all division-winning seasons together. Is that a good thing?
- Since Malmö FF have played a large majority of their seasons in Allsvenskan I believe this is the best sorting solution. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Was wondering why you chose to appropriate gold and silver in the position column for Allsvenskan results, so that winning a lower division doesn't get coloured gold?
- I've coloured the Allsvenskan positions after the medals given by the Swedish FA, medals are generally not given to winners of lower divisions. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps in that case your Allsvenskan specifics key should be called something like Swedish league specifics, and add a note to clarify why the only coloured boxes are for Allsvenskan. As it stands, the reader would expect a gold colour for winning things. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified the matter in the relevant footnote. I don't think changing the name to "Swedish league specifics" is a good idea since the medal allocation only concerns Allsvenskan and not the entire league system. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm more used to reviewing English seasons lists, where the format seems to have settled on columns for the FA Cup and Football League Cup, i.e. competitions that all clubs enter without having to qualify, and then another column-pair for name and result in other competitions, e.g. Europe, lower-division cups, charity shield, short-lived trophies. That sort of layout means, for instance, that you wouldn't need a whole column devoted to a competition that didn't exist until 2007 and Malmö FF have only qualified for once, as with the Supercupen. The great swathes of n/a in this list do make it visually cluttered. I accept you want to distinguish between seasons where a competition didn't exist and seasons when Malmö FF didn't qualify, but I wish there were a less messy way of doing it.
- I see your point. We've discussed the different possibilities with indicating n/a and n dash in this FLC and we reached the current solution. I do agree that it looks a little bit messy but I would have a hard time merging competitions that are largely different and also both domestic and international in one column. I think the current format is best as of now. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the Billing et al article abstract really belong in the general references section, as it's only used to source one fact, albeit three times in various parts of the article, so only appears once in the specific refs list?
- Do you think we should include the entire ref in the specific list? I don't feel happy mixing different ref formats in a list. I don't have a problem with the way it looks now. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused am I a little, as you already have different ref formats in the specific list: Smitt page ranges, and cite-webs. I think it's a question of function rather than appearance. Smitt's a general reference, but Billing isn't. Nor are the 2011 and 2012 club handbooks, for that matter. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I've relocated both Billing and the clubs yearbooks to the specific list. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you add translations of the titles of the Swedish-language webpages referenced? they go in the
trans_title= parameter in {{Cite web}}
Will do. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The Rambling Man asked me to comment here. I hope you appreciate his efforts...
- Use the singular verb in the opening couple of sentences, where you're referring to the entity that is a football club, and not to its team. So, "Malmö Fotbollförening, commonly called Malmö FF, is a Swedish professional association football club based in Malmö, whose first team currently play in the highest tier of Swedish football, Allsvenskan. Malmö FF was founded..."
- I have discussed this with various users and come to the understanding that the plural verb can be used for club when referring to the club as a collection of players, therefore I've used this across all Malmö FF related articles, including the main article which was TFA last friday. I'll change it if I'm completely wrong but in my understanding both singular and plural can be used in British English. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called the discretionary plural, which some people interpret as meaning a writer can choose either singular or plural to go with a particular subject and then stick to that choice all the time. Where the writer's discretion actually lies, is in choosing which to use depending on what you're talking about. The plural verb can, and indeed in British English should, be used when referring to the club as a collection of players, as in the clause "who currently play in ... Allsvenskan". But in the clauses "Malmö FF ... is/are a Swedish football club" and "Malmö FF was/were founded", it's referring to the entity that makes up a football club – not just the players, but also the business, board of directors, club rules, deciding which park to play in, etc, etc. In that usage, it's a singular entity. Which is why when I tried to recast it above, I added the words "whose first team" as subject of the plural verb "currently play", thus avoiding the apparent inconsistency of having one singular and one plural verb with the same subject in the same sentence.
- The tl;dr version goes: There's a question about the concept on the BBC's Learning English subsite, which sums it up as "The thing to remember, is when we look at them as a collection of individuals, we would normally use a plural noun, and if we want to look at them as a unified institution we use the singular." Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to change the first sentence in the lead if I can keep referring to Malmö FF as a team, a collection of players, in the rest of the prose. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only ones that need changing are the "Malmö FF are a professional..." in the 1st sentence, and the two "Malmö FF were founded", one in the 2nd sentence and one at the start of the History section (you can't "found" a collection of players :-) You'd be correct to use the plural elsewhere. Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In 1935 and 1936, shouldn't the promotion play-off boxes be coloured? Also, the second p in Promotion Play-offs shouldn't be capitalised
- I could colour the play-off box for 1935–36 in green but it might be unnecessary since the position is already coloured, also what colour would be appropriate for the 1934–35 box? --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be covered by above. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've de capitalised the second p in Promotion Play-offs. I'm a bit confused as what you mean above, is the colouring in the league position column enough or do you think I should add colouring for the 1935–36 box? --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was: In seasons lists, we are used to a box showing a team winning something being coloured gold and a box showing a team coming runners-up being coloured silver. Although I wouldn't necessarily expect that for play-offs, it looked to me like an omission that the 1930s promotion play-offs boxes were not coloured silver and gold when the 1980s play-offs were. However, I was assuming that the note you were going to add to the Allsvenskan specifics colouring footnote (in what was then the previous comment, and is what "above" referred to) would be enough to explain why this was the case.
- I don't think there's a problem now, and nothing needs changing. Sorry for my lack of clarity. Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, no problem, thanks for clearing that up! --Reckless182 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In 1946/47, why didn't they enter the Svenska Cupen?
- No Allsvenskan teams entered that years edition of Svenska Cupen for unknown reasons. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could add a footnote so the reader won't have to ask the same question? Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And a source for that? While you're in the footnotes, "calender year" in footnote D should be spelt calendAr. Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Turns out the reason for Allsvenskan clubs not participating was the absence of some key players that were away for the 1948 Summer Olympics in London. I've added a ref for this and corrected the spelling error. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did Malmö FF not enter the Fairs Cup? It wasn't a UEFA-organised competition, but it was certainly an official competition, so the reader would expect to find it in this list.
- They did, however The fairs cup is not part of the official European competition record recogonized by UEFA, I've therefore chosen not to include it in this list and Malmö FF in European football. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its omission would bother me from a comprehensiveness criterion 3a point of view. The Facts page on Malmö FF's website says they had 16 participations in the UEFA Cup. Your list shows 13. Malmö FF entered the Fairs Cup 3 times. Given that Malmö FF's website appears happy to count the two competitions as the same thing, a decision to omit it from this list just because UEFA didn't run it would also bother me from an original research point of view. Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I worked on Malmö FF in European football I worked with the idea that UEFA's European record is a good and proper guideline for relevant and notable competitions to be included in lists such as the European list and this one. It's simply more difficult to come up with a better definition for which competitions to include. Malmö FF's official website might include the fairs cup record, however, the Swedish FA doesn't. Malmö FF have also competed in competitions such as Royal League, Intertoto Cup (Before UEFA) and various other minor international tournaments of various quality. It's very difficult to draw the line. I don't think that this goes against criterion 3a due to the fact that the sources differ on the subject. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Malmö FF in European football would be better named Malmö FF in UEFA competition, for accuracy? There's no inclusion scope mentioned in the lead of this list, as perhaps there should be by criterion 2, but the note in the Europe column heading specifies what's included, and your content is consistent with that. But the approach I'd expect from a season list is an accurate and as-complete-as-possible reflection of the seasonal history of the club, to include all senior first-team competition. I don't know if the club sent first teams to the Royal League or the pre-UEFA Intertoto. But the Fairs Cup, particularly when Malmö FF were playing in it in the latter half of the 1960s, was a successful major competition. If it hadn't been, UEFA would have gleefully watched it die rather than taking it over and naming it after themselves. You may want to invite other opinions on this. Struway2 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The naming issue was brought up for discussion at the FLC for that list. A third opinion would definitely be welcomed here. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fairs' Cup is actually the more-or-less official precursor to the UEFA Cup, so I would expect to see it here. I apologise for not catching this earlier; I was not aware Malmö FF had played in it. But as Reckless says, it's difficult to draw the line. I must make clear that although I would consider the Fairs' Cup a major competition, that does not make it the same thing as a UEFA competition. I would not agree with including all non-UEFA competitions. I would agree with Struway2's inclination that the Fairs' Cup should be included here and in Malmö FF in European football (with an advisory explanation, however, that although it was not a UEFA competition, it ultimately became one), but I do not think it is necessary to actually rename the European football article. I don't think the Royal League or pre-UEFA Intertoto competitions are necessary for either of these. I hope my comments here are helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm OK with adding the fairs cup as long as that draws the line. I don't want the list to be overcrowded with competitions that are not relevant and/or not notable. Thanks a lot for your opinion! I'll add the fairs cup to Malmö FF in European football later as well. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now done. I've added the results to the list and added further clarification and a ref to the footnote. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
