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 by Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [1].

---

Premier League Manager of the Month[edit]

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured list candidates/Premier League Manager of the Month/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Okay this list is the partner to Premier League Player of the Month, which is currently pretty well supported at FLC. The reason I'm bringing it here now is because I believe the other list may have been promoted had there been closures, and also I know I'm going to be busy in a couple of weeks so hopefully, by nominating this now, it will be wrapped up or not require much work by then. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick question - when you sort by year, is it possible for it then sort the months either in ascending or descending order? Otherwise I'd combine the year and the month so it sorted properly forwards or backwards chronologically. Also, that lead image caption is going to be out of date in, what, two or three weeks? Not sure it's worth it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is (Help:Sorting#Secondary key). That's why they are seperate, and also Struway2 commented at the Players FLC that it was clearer with them separate. Wrt the lead caption, I don't think it makes a difference seeing as the rest of the article will need updating, but I'll remove it anyway. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what I meant was, when you sort by year, could the months automatically sort into the right ascending or descending order? Otherwise it's a little odd.... (or it could just be, once again, my browser...) A little like sorting Olympic medals tables, 1 gold is worth more than 100 silvers, so when sorting by total I'd expect to see gold winners above silver and silver winners above bronze. You get my drift? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now, do you mean you want be to put in a sortkey like ((sort|1993.1|[[1993–94 FA Premier League|1993]])) etc. for the years so they have a underlying month attached to them. Also do you also want me to do this for the players FLC? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's it. An example, if I list per descending year, I want to 2009 September, followed by 2009 August then 2009 July. Works? And yeah, do it for the other list too. Surprised I didn't notice it there, but it's been a long week. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All redirects can be fixable. You can use User:Splarka/dabfinder.js to find them, which finds redirects and dabs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. There are no dabs and replacing redirects is "an unhelpful exercise". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh... I just thought that some people would might want to know what GBP is before clicking the link. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one is fair enough and I've fixed it. I didn't know what redirects you were talking about because you can obviously identify them with that tool. Not having the tool I thought you might have been talking about player names redirecting to diacratics or fuller names, and I didn't really fancy clicking on them all to find out. If there are any examples like the GDP please point them out, and apologies if I was a bit "bitey" in my original reply. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my comment not having enough clarification. After checking the article again, the only redirects left are the names of players and cities, so ehh... I won't support the nomination, as I only had one comment. I will probably come back to review the article again, so I'll just leave this open. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kenny Dalglish has only won the award twice as far as I can tell, not three times. Houllier and Thompson's shared award in the main table should be linked to/from footnote 2. I think footnote 1 is a bit clunky. I'm not sure if this goes too far the other way, but I think "Each year in the table is linked to the corresponding football season." would be sufficient. (edited WFCforLife (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC))[reply] Once you have sorted the main table it is impossible to get back to the default position without leaving or refreshing the page. I understand the reason behind counting Thompson and Houllier's joint award twice for awards by nationality and multiple winners, but am less sure about awards by club. My reason being that the manager of the month award has gone to Liverpool F.C. eleven times. I won't oppose if you disagree with this conclusion (there is an argument about consistency), but in either case footnote 2 should explain how the award has been counted in the smaller tables. Hope that helps. WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] All done.[2] For the last point, I was being consistent with requests at the Premier League Player of the Month FLC, because originally I was counting them as half an award which reviewers disliked. I have explained the method in the footnote though. Thanks a lot for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I agree that counting it as half an award would have been wrong. FWIW I've cross checked the smaller tables with the big table, and as far as I can tell they are all consistent now. Here are a few things I spotted on closer inspection. Some of these things may in fact be right and the questions more for my benefit, but it's worth asking anyway: Does Barclays Manager of the Month need to be bolded? It is the official name, just like Premier League bolds Barclays Premier League later in the lead. Per Wikipedia:BOLDTITLE#Abbreviations_and_synonyms: "If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, ... each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Were Hughes and Bryan Robson players when those photos were taken? Could they possibly be replaced by free players of themselves (or other winners) while they were managing? Yes, but there are no other free pictures available: [3][4]. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Is there a reason not to wikilink seasons in the prose? Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_be_linked: "avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia" Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Eight managers have won awards in consecutive months Joe Kinnear, Kevin Keegan, Roy Evans, Ferguson, Arsène Wenger, David O'Leary, Paul Jewell, and Rafael Benítez. Stuart Pearce also won consecutive awards, but one was at the end of the 2004–2005 season, and the other was at the start of the 2005–2006 season." I agree that the fact that Pearce's awards were in different seasons should be mentioned, but the way it's phrased makes it seem as if the article is deeming his consecutive awards as a lesser achievement. Reworded to sound less condescending. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think that's everything. WFCforLife (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully I've addressed those points adequately. If not let me know. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All those responses are fine to me. As I said, some of them were for my benefit more than anything else. In that case I'm happy to support, with the caveat that if someone disagrees with your responses to my second set of comments, appropriate action is taken. Well done, it's a pretty good list! WFCforLife (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Take a quick peek at the archived Premier League references, because they all say "Manger of the Month". Don't understand this? It is a Manager of the Month list, so surely that is the correct thing for them to say. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Manger" not "Manager"! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Stupid me. Thanks for politely pointing out my stupidity TRM. Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] How about moving "Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson" to the bit that mentions him in the second paragraph, and starting the third with just "Ferguson has been Manager of the Month the most times..."? Done Comma before "winning a Manager of the Month Award in each of those spells. Done No need for two Premier League links in the lead. Done Colon after "Eight managers have won awards in consecutive months". Done Giants2008 (17–14) 16:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Nice list that meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comments (pathetic, as they may be...)

• Caption has 'twenty-four', not convinced why this shouldn't just be 24.
  • I feel as it is directly along side the prose, it is comparablie quantity. If not it is just my preference - WP:ORDINAL: "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words"
    • No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and I suspect it's missing a "the"...? Done
• Not sure (probably discussed) that the next version of MOTM needs to be in bold. Perhaps italics?
  • I have no idea what you are talking about. Being fairly slow today. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have two bold titles in the lead. I'm just wondering if the second "bold" name for the list could be better (i.e. more MOS-compliantly) done in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per MoS: "If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, ... each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note to self: re-read MOS periodically..................... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you "prove" the managers who are current are, well, current? (once again, I had someone query this before on the PL hat-tricks list I did...)
  • You've said this before, but seeing as they all walked up and down the touchline for the latest Premier League fixtures three days ago I just don't see the point in raking out a source from each club website stating that they are the current managers. I waste enough time on here as it is... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I know. Sorry. It annoyed me too. I just wanted to put it out there so no-one could accuse me of not passing on the message. As they say, don't shoot the stoopid TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to apologise, I thought I'd put in a bit about me knowing that this wasn't really a desire of yours. Obviously I forgot, and it made it seem as I was getting at you, which I really wasn't. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose you could change it to something unambiguous, such as "Managers who have managed in the Premier League during the 2009-10 season". As annoying as the comment was (I also fell foul of it at a recent FLC), there is a valid point; content tends to get updated less frequently once it becomes featured, and by extension "current" is that bit more likely to be out of date. WFCforLife (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unfortunately lack of updating featured content won't be a problem here, as I'm going to have to update it every month. I see the point, but if we can have "most recent recipient", why can't we have "current" whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's nothing unfortunate about the list remaining up to date ;) I agree with you, I'm happy with "current", just trying to explain the other POV. WFCforLife (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Any suitable link for "caretaker manager" should it be a tricky one for non-English readers? Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text comment The alt text is pretty good, but phrases such as "An upper body photograph" should not mention that the picture is a photograph; just say "The upper body of". Similarly, "A head-and-upper-torso photograph" could be "The head and upper torso of", and "A photograph of a grey haired, bald man" could be simply "A grey-haired, bald man". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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