Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:09, 11 October 2010 [1].

List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners[edit]

List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list is close to featured standard. This is my first time back here in over a year so I may not be up to date with certain criteria and conventions but I think there are not that many problems. Anyway let's see what you think NapHit (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. This list lacks many things to be even close to featured quality. I don't like to oppose nominations from the start, but there's some work to be done:
  • The lead needs heavy copyediting. There are words missing and some sentences could be better constructed and mingled with each other. I can help you on that, if you wish. Since it's hard to pinpoint you to every thing that I feel could be improved, my preference would be to draft my own version of the lead and show it to you, so you can see if there's anything that could be used from it.
that's fine with me, would be interesting to see your take on it NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check my sandbox. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ye it's better than mine I've put it in now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can resize the lead image up to 300px. I usually do that if the image is not to vertical and if there's enough space below it;
done but it looks excessively large to me NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the image is too vertical, as I said. Anyway, 300px is the maximum recommended. Try 250px. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better at 250px NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the key, there's no need for the "Year" parameter, I think it's quite understandable from the list;
removed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure if italics is enough to highlight the winner in two-legged finals... What about using boldface simultaneously?
changed it to bold which does look a lot better NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere before you explain the "points system" used to find the winner up to 1968...
Explained it in the lead now NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also copyedited that paragraph in my draft version. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 1967 does not have its own article. Too bad to see just that one red link.
created the article NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose in 1977 and 1979 it was the European runner-up that played right? You should add notes on that as well;
Yep missed those two, this is fixed NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the names of the countries of the participating clubs should be spelled out next to their flag, instead of the three-letter code;
changed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Results by clubs" table, there's a typo in the 1971 red link (which should fix it to a blue link);
fixed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peñarol was twice runner-up but where's the runner-up years in that list?
added NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix the [[Olympic Stadium (Tokyo)|National Stadium]] links to [[National Olympic Stadium (Tokyo)|National Stadium]]. Also, link directly [[International Stadium Yokohama]] since the article is named like that. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo in 1973 row (Juvenuts);
fixed NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the usefulness in sorting "Score" in the single match finals;
It is quite useful, it lets the user sort by biggest win and smallest win this is something that I think many people would be interested in knowing so I think it should remain sortable NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sorts by most (or least) goals scored by the winner club, but it doesn't sort by (biggest or smallest) margin of victory as it considers a 3–2 win "better" than a 3–0. If you can find a way to fix this, great; if not, I won't be stubborn about it. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, think I've got it sorting properly, see what you make of it NapHit (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sorted the complete set of scores: 1st: goal difference; 2nd: goals scored. You fine with this? Parutakupiu (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep looks good to me NapHit (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uruguay has two runner-up places (Peñarol in 1960 and 1987) and not one as its stated in "Results by country", which should give 21 runner-up places for CoNMEBOL. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amended NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: the key does not need to be a section per se; place it as the first sub-section of "Winners". Parutakupiu (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image seems a little too large for me.
resized NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ran from 1960 till 2004" maybe "ran inclusively between 1960 and 2004"?
new lead so it's been worded differently now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The competition was organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL, it was contested between the winners of the European Cup and the Copa Libertadores" perhaps explain UEFA is European, CONMEBOL is South American?
I've spelled out the abbreviations so this should eliminate the problem NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the competition's establishment in 1960 to 1979 it was" some commas here, so "From the competition's establishment. in 1960, to 1979 it was"
lead's changed so hopefully this has been fixed NapHit (talk)
  • "champions from all of the confederations" you need a note here to explain exactly which confederations you're referring to.
  • Don't think you really need to link "Italian" to Italy. Perhaps a more appropriate footballing link could be found, or just don't link it.
unlinked NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Brazil and Argentina.
unlinked NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid bold links, per MOS.
changed this to colours now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Score sorts very oddly in "Single match finals" table, well it does in Safari.
ye it was the code that was aligning the scores with asteriks, so I've removed this sorts fine now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Results by clubs" - Nacional and Flamengo's lines look incomplete (missing a vertical line).
added the lines NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Results by confed - 42 in total for CONMEBOL, 43 in total for UEFA. How?
silly mistake to make, fixed now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - team names are not consistent - "Bayern München" and "Bayern Munich" are both used -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed NapHit (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that you also have both "Atlético de Madrid" and "Atlético Madrid"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are, amended now NapHit (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support didn't find anything at fault. Perhaps "Results by clubs" should be w/o flagicons. Sandman888 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • FIFA should be spelled out in the lead.
done NapHit (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a reference and it's also covered by the general ref. NapHit (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
"(Spain), and Milan (Italy) hold the record" Don't pipe away the A.C. in A.C. Milan. There is, after all, another quite well known team in Milano.
Don't think this is necessary as the other team are known as Internazionale, while A.C. Milan are generally referred to as Milan, so I don't think this is causing any confusion. NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did this myself. Too ambiguous to a non-fan. Courcelles 05:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"2 points each; Internazionale won playoff 1–0 at Santiago Bernabéu ‡" I know enough to know this is a stadium and not a city, well, only because I once stayed off Line 10 of Madrid's Metro. Short version... Wikilink the stadia that hosted the play-offs.
done NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check your flags, the Spanish flag used is the modern one, adopted in 1981. Before that, and the older flags should be used.
fixed NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1968; why break format and use ENG instead of England?
Must of missed that oen when I was changing them to full names NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1986; this should be using the flag of the Socialist Republic of Romania, not the plain tricolour.
Yep changed NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't a team with 3 wins and 4 runners-ups sort above a team with three wins and two, one, or zero runner's up?
probably but I'm not sure how you would be able to fix this problem NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I. Courcelles 05:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it I don't think a team with 4 runners-up should sort above a team with zero, as the team with zero has the better record as they've never lost a final, so I think they it was sorting was fine. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem in the Results by country section.
see above
The results by confederation section would be better in prose in the lede, and not a two-line table.
I know where your coming from but I think the information is better represented in a table NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, well... it's not. Leave the table if you must, but this really needs to be mentioned in a sentence in the lede.

Courcelles 05:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 02:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the table the info is now in the lede. NapHit (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Is linking the years in the By team section a bit excessive?
I don't think so the reader would have to navigate to the by year table, plus aren't links supposed to be in place if a table is sortable? NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But linking isn't compulsory though, even in sortable tables; just if you do link, you have to link every occurrence
So was I, they removed it a while ago, as they used to have that and the cup winners' cup one as well, but that has also vanished, the link is ok though, so I don't think it's a concern. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the runner-up sorting, you can use {{sort}} to use hidden sortkeys, so you can force the thing to sort in whatever order you like. Here, I've used a sortkey for the winners column of the form 0x0y, where x is how many won and y is how many r-u.
As I said above, surely a team that has not been runner-up should come first in a the table as they have a better record than a tea that has won the same amount but been beaten 4 times as well? The way this table sorts would imply otherwise which I think is incorrect. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could just as well argue that a team having qualified 7 times had a better record than one with 3 :-) but which way up you sort it is up to you, assuming you can justify it. I thought you were asking above how to actually do the sorting. As it stood when I posted, once the table was out of order, it wouldn't sort back into "your" order anymore than into "mine". Sorry if I misunderstood.


  • Also, if you keeping pressing the sort button on the Years runner-up column, it gets itself into some very strange orders.
Yep, for som reason it was sorting according to the runners-up and winners column, I've made the columns unsortable as I you can only sort the first win and fixing this problem is too much hassle which I don't have time to fix. NapHit (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there are some winning teams missing from the By team table.
Don't why they were removed, anyway there back in now. NapHit (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. Sorry I've come so late to this list, and I'm not going to improve my popularity rating any. But I've got to oppose per WP:WIAFL section 3b content fork. Apart from an incomplete column of attendance figures in the main tables, and a runners-up column in the By team/By country tables, this list is basically the same article as its parent Intercontinental Cup (football). I'd suggest improving that article similarly to how you've done here, and then submitting it as the featured list candidate, but other people might have different views.

I can see why your saying this, as the main article is rather slim on prose, but I think that article could be improved, there is a lot of history organisation and records that could be incorporated as prose, and I don't think it would suffice as a list. For starters I could remove some of the tables and add a bit of prose to the winners section, that would make it less of a content fork in my eyes, as that article has potential for much more content. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much you've been following the discussion going on currently about this section of the criteria. Personally, I don't really know where we stand at the moment. But assuming 3b is still part of the FL criteria, it says: "it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". The thing is, this list does largely recreate material from another article, and it's clear that it could reasonably be included as part of a related article, because most of it's still in one. Anyway, it's up to the FL directors as to whether this is an actionable oppose or not; maybe it isn't, in the current state of flux. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have other reviewers been asked to comment on the 3b issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing I'm going to say is that if the main article was brought here with improvements, it would likely be opposed for having the potential to be more of an article than a list (someone would probably say to take it to GAN). I don't know how to feel about this one. I can certainly see why 3b is being raised, but at the same time, does the main article benefit from having all of these tables? Of course, my FAC-reviewing background leads me to prefer prose over tables in non-list pages. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as precedence have it otherwise. We have the Balon d'Or, some freedom prize by the IRC etc, list of buildings of Jefferson college (the corresponding Oxford list is GA) which should be articles but are list, and featured lists. Sandman888 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other comments:

  • Don't need flags in By team section, or really in By country, the name should be enough
removed from by team section, the flag comes with the country templates like the one in the code here: {{ENG}}, so I think their fine to be honest, as long as the names of the country follows the flag I see no problem
depends whether you think they're informative or decorative: not sure myself if a tiny stripey picture adds much to my understanding of the words Paraguay or Yugoslavia

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with Struway. I have no idea how consensus interprets 3.b but here's my take: if it is a content fork that could be avoided per WP:AVOIDSPLIT it fails 3.b. Now the parent article may have the potential for more, but that is irrelevant; a summary style spin-off is only valid if the parent article is already long enough to justify a split. Not potentially long enough (everything is potentially long enough). Sandman888 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on 3b criterium issue — I have lent my support to this list and it would be stupid for me to take it back, since I was somehow aware of this 3b issue. The solution has been pointed out: turning the parent page into a more developed, prose-rich and less table-ish article, thus potentiating this list as an acceptable article spinout. The thing is: does Intercontinental Cup (football) meet currently that status? No. Does that help this nomination? Not really. Just remember that if this list is not promoted, it's not by its own demerit, but because it's a subsidiary page of an under-developed article. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is not a content fork (at least not more than say Olympic medal tables). The parent article does not need tables with so many entries (I would prefer just a list of winners, no results or finalists there) and should be instead focused on prose, with emphasis on history, notability/prestige, and demise. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3b comment. In my opinion this is one of the frailties of 3b because it is a subjective decision. At the moment (it should not be spun out, i.e. removed from the main article) because you end up with a stubby main article and a larger sublist. I don't think an article/list should ever be pre-emptively spun off because of what might happen to the main article - surely that is also WP:CRYSTAL. Expand the main article then spin-out if necessary. Maybe I'm an idealist but that's how I work. Otherwise you get a bunch of discogs or award pages with nothing on the subject themselves. I think there must exist some responsibiltiy on associated pages. Take List of The West Wing episodes, I could easily make seven fairly average season articles and then make said article into a fairly "easy" FL without ep. summaries because they could be developed within the season articles. Of cause they could be developed, but if they haven't been then am I not cheating a bit. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because of 3b concern. This is basically the same article as Intercontinental Cup (football). Goodraise 19:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Intercontinental_Cup_(football)_winners/archive1&oldid=1089079940"