Talk:List of Norwich City F.C. managers

List of Norwich City F.C. managers is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 8, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 23, 2017	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured list

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Football: England Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unfinished article?

Greetings! I was patrolling for graffiti and typographical errors when I came upon this article, which appeared to me to be unfinished. Specifically, the beginning of the third paragraph seemed to be missing and there were a number of stub sentences and "xxxx" placeholders for words and phrases. I made a good-faith attempt at correcting some of these, but I also removed others, with the rationale that the incomplete fragments should not be in the article until they are ready to be "fleshed out". Hopefully, I didn't make things worse, and I apologize if I mangled the meaning of any part of the article. Please feel free to pick up where I left off. -- Bgpaulus (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did good, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graph idea?

I was thinking about how periods of stability and instability could be illustrated. I wonder whether a graph would work? Perhaps with years on the x axis with bars showing how long the incumbent was in place? --Dweller (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment section

Much as I love the neat table, I have two problems with it. First, it is seriously out of date, because Lambert would now come top of the table, but saying as much reeks of OR. Secondly, it is merely restating in slightly different form what anyone can do for themselves by clicking to order the managers table by win %. Win % is, it seems, the normative way of comparing managers of different eras, presumably exactly because of the change in the rule for how many points were earned for a win. I think we should simply remove it. Views? --Dweller (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was a section that I've always been mildly dubious of. Delete. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walker problem

Hi If we show Walker's two reigns in one row, we lose the chronology. If we show them in two rows, his overall stats cannot be compared with other managers. Views? --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because Megson was split out and wanted to be consistent. However, I noticed a couple of the earlier managers aren't split out either. I had second thoughts and wouldn't mind if it was reverted. (Note, the stats on Soccerbase were different, in total, to those which I modified....) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we need to be consistent. I'm inclined to think the chronology (the default view) is more important than the stats, but I'm unsure. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

I think that the history section is going to be big. So big, this is going to be more of an article than a list. Thinking of a page move to Norwich City F.C. managers - much like what happened with the similar article we once worked on for England managers. --Dweller (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well.... possibly. Don't forget there's History of Norwich City F.C. ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But I presume we'll be hung out for comprehensiveness if we don't say something in the blurb about every single one of these guys. And there's a lot of them. --Dweller (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you will if you're going to FAC. FLC is more accommodating, it'll tolerate mentions of just major periods of management I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List sorting

The list defaults to chronological order, but if you click to put them in some other order, it won't go back into chronological unless you reload the page. Any ideas how to fix? --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, it means the initial list is (a) not in the right order to start with or (b) contains some wonky text which is upsetting the sort function or (c) both. I'll take a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps this gives another reason to (as discussed above) split out second spells into a new line. We could convert the honours column to notes and note "Second spell". --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame

I think indicating Hall of Fame members in the list would be useful. How about bolding their names? --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great idea, Dweller-of-five-years-ago-yesterday. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not per MOS:ACCESS/MOS:BOLD! Coloured background and a symbol would be better. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. How dare you butt in to our Dwellersation (c). But that's a good idea --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Norwich City F.C. managers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080820023433/http://www.pinkun.com/content/NCFC/Info/CanaryCentury.aspx to http://www.pinkun.com/content/NCFC/Info/CanaryCentury.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easter egg links

Instead of linking to 1988–89 FA Cup by simply linking 1989, all Easter egg links here need to be fixed. Dweller, this is low-hanging fruit on an initial run. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

More than half the prose seems to deal with NCFC managers post-1992. Suggest the blinkers come off, let's strip out the fandom. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly. Yup. I think some of the older material might need thickening! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sections run roughly as follows:

1902-1958 57 years of achieving little, four parags
1959-1992 33 years of some reasonable achievement, five parags
1993-2000 7 years including some remarkable achievements, five parags
2001-2017 16 years of patchy stuff, 10 parags

So, 90 years=9 parags and 23 years=15 parags. Hmm.

I think:

Section one should be a little longer
Section two should be a little longer
Sections three and four should be merged and an awful lot shorter

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good analysis, correct conclusion, especially since the old Budgies haven't achieved much in the past 16 years. 10 sentences instead of 10 paras would probably do it..... ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. Shall we analyse a certain Suffolk side's recent and indeed not so recent achievements? ;-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on this:

1902-1958 57 years of achieving little, five parags
1959-1992 33 years of some reasonable achievement, five parags
1993-2017 23 years including some remarkable achievements, 14 parags

It's still balanced towards the most recent. Open to comment on this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soccerbase links

We've got a big problem with Soccerbase links. I tried a few at random and nothing really worked as I'd hoped. Archive.org perhaps... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erk. Soccerbase did a big revamp a few years back. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, all the historical league tables etc are dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll work our way through. Some of the helpful FOOTY bunch are really good at this stuff. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You must have the league finishes, from when you did the graph. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, well I'll go through the soccerbase links and add archive urls etc where available. Then whatever's left (I'll mark as dead) we can replace. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete sentence

"The "59 Cup Run" as it is now known locally,[11]...................................." ? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me?!?! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Eradicated. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caretakers

I propose to drop all mention of caretaker managers from the prose. It's already so choppy 'so and so appointed, did well, did badly, sacked, replaced by so and so', it'll help. It'll also deflate some of the length of the recent years section. Agreed? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could do. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]