Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Cosmos seasons/archive1

• Not keen on "New York, New York" in the lead. Factually correct, but a little unnecessary for me.
• Put (NASL) after the expanded version.
• "team's big names." I know what you mean but this is a little too colloquial for an encyclopedia in my opinion.
• Maybe not directly relevant but worth noting in the lead that Cantona was made "Director of Soccer" a couple of days ago?
• In Safari, the bit that talks about "Top scorer and number of goals.." is in an odd location.
• Coloured key needs a touch of explanation (e.g. an accessible symbol like {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}}) because it's not entirely clear that 3rd, 4th, or 7th means "missing play-offs" - this fails WP:ACCESS.
• Per recent discussions, if you use the dagger symbol, then please try to use an accessible one per my previous comment, to help screen-readers.
• I think I'd recommend the scoring system explanation become a footnote and not part of the key.
• Don't understand the % col, e.g. 1972, G=14, W=7 so according to your explanation of % (Percentage of games won) this should be 50%, instead it's 64.2%...
• New York Times -> The New York Times.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all done. I wouldn't put Cantona in because that's New York Cosmos (2010), not technically the same thing. You can easily find it anyway. Everything else sorted. As for the % thing, that was a misunderstanding on my part – a tie counts for half of a win in the percentage, which brings up the anomaly you mentioned. What do you think now? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 18:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done, in "footnotes". – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the decision to go with points over goals in the main table, but it's conceivable that some readers would want to know who the top goalscorer was. If there were any seasons where the top goalscorer was different to the top points scorer, could you add footnotes?
  • Done, in "footnotes". – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nowadays we generally avoid bolding to signify something specific in a table.
  • Knowing my footballing allegiance, I'm sure you of all people can understand my living in the past... Seriously though, you're right, off it comes. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• May be worth rephrasing the stadium caption to something like "The Cosmos played at Giants Stadium, New Jersey, from 1977...". The way it's currently phrased, someone more familiar with football than the area might think that they shared with the New Jersey Giants.
  • Fair point. Changed. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• On that note, do the regular season positions from 1976 to 1980 signify a position in the division, or conference?
  • Division. Conference comes under the play-offs. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• For the benefit of Dabomb, this bullet point should not be taken into account when deciding whether or not to promote, because at the moment it's a hypothetical. But as something that looks very likely to affect this list when it is an FL, I think it's worth briefly discussing now. Should the Cosmos start playing in the new NASL and/or MLS, would their season details be added to this list? The way the lead is written implies that they will. It's just that MLS teams with names from the NASL era (such as Seattle Sounders FC) generally consider the teams to be distinct, so I'm curious as to whether there's something different here. —WFC— 02:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the talk page at the revival page. There's a long discussion on this, and it's on-going. This list, and the other Cosmos list at FLC, will be altered accordingly depending on its outcome, but at the moment there is nothing to prove that there is any new team (Put very, very briefly, the debate is as follows: on one side, as you say, the teams are seperate; on the other, Seattle Sounders FC, for example, is a different entity to the previous teams with that name, whereas the Cosmos never formally disbanded and this "new" team is simply the "first XI" becoming active again). As I say, discussions are ongoing. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool. Even by Wikipedia standards, I'm sure it'll be resolved by the time it becomes an issue. Was just curious. —WFC— 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will have another look tomorrow for any final bits, but can't see myself not supporting this. —WFC— 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Once upon a time, there were two provincial football teams, and one of them won 53 of the matches, and the other won 36... ;) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statistically the other team have the edge when it comes to play-offs though ;) —WFC— 05:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But hark, children! That edge was dull and blunt when it came to objects of gold and silver... Ah, we still toast the boys of '78 at our house, don't you know. ;) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 05:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And well you might. T'was a glorious campaign. One of several. —WFC— 22:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will wind up this puerile (albeit somewhat amusing) mud-slinging match by pointing out that the '78 Watford Fourth Division triumph is precisely what I was referring to with my last comment; after studying your table of seasons throughly, I can only say that it does not help your case that Watford's trophy cabinet is dominated by the Third Division South Cup and third-tier Second Division title. While Watford, I admit, have had some admirable near-successes, and although I obviously realise the current relative positions of the two teams, I will just finish by saying that Luton have at least gone the whole way on occasion, and that no amount of points deducted can ever take that away. I now declare this drunken pub argument of a discussion, which I fear may otherwise become endless, to be closed. Thanks for the fun. ;) – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good call. Although for the record it wasn't totally unproductive. [2] Regards, —WFC— 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer to see the footnotes referenced.
• I'm not sure we need an image of the indoor pitch in the Footnotes section.
• "The NASL's scoring system" ->"NASL scoring system".
• Is there a more general football season category list this can be added to?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all done. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]