Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana winners/archive1

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 16:45, 3 June 2010 [1].

---

List of Recopa Sudamericana winners

List of Recopa Sudamericana winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana winners/archive1
• Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana winners/archive2

Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it now meets ALL requirements in order to become a FA. I have followed every guideline and I have used the List of Copa Libertadores winners list as an added guideline in order to improve this article to FA standards. The Recopa Sudamericana is a highly important tournament and it is greatly regarded in its continent. It merits this. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support all looks good. Sandman888 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Given the nominator has been blocked indefinitely I propose a speedy fail. Sandman888 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "The Recopa Sudamericana is an annual association football competition contested between the winners of the Copa Libertadores and the Copa Sudamericana which was established in 1989" - it's not clear from this sentence if the Recopa or the Copa Sudamericana was established in 1989. I suggest the following re-word: The Recopa Sudamericana is an annual association football competition, established in 1989, that is contested between the winners of the Copa Libertadores and the Copa Sudamericana. "until 1998" - comma after "on points[2]." - reference after punctuation, and an explanation of "on points" is needed somewhere for non-football readers (if there's a link somewhere, that would be sufficient). "two-legs" - remove hyphen "two-legged tie." - explain "tie" (preferably with a link), as it is a word with many meanings "are also the only teams" "to have retained the Recopa Sudamericana" - do you mean that they are the only teams to win in consecutive competitions? If so, state that, as the current wording is vague. "The current champion are LDU Quito" - subject-verb agreement; either champions are or champion is comma after "LDU Quito" Do not put spaces between indicators and entries in the table (i.e., remove spaces before asterisks and other symbols) Because the # symbol is cap height, it looks better when superscripted. Boldface text cannot be used as the sole indicator of a winner, per MOS:BOLD; change to italics "would face the" - should just be faced the "Only 3 editions" - three per MOS:NUM "Copa Libertadores champion" - comma after "single-leg" - remove hyphen "both the Supercopa Sudamericana and Copa CONMEBOL were discontinued leading to a short hiatus between 1999 and 2002" - needs a reference, and preferably a reason "two-legs" - again, remove hyphen 2004 has the countries switched. Blank cells in tables should use em-dashes, not hyphens or en-dashes There is no reference verifying the 2010 row; without any information on the 2010 competition, it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Just add a reference about who will be playing in the upcoming matches and it should be fine. I already gave the link for it. Go to the bottom of the page and you'll see it. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for all of those insights! I have corrected every single one of them so it should be ready to enter that FL club. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think that sort facilities in this list would be valuable, but it would require some serious tweaks to the format.

This is the first time I have ever heard of any actual table to be sorted when we have a winner's table for clubs and nation underneath. Could you provide me a referance of any other sports page that has sortables? Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

All of these featured lists are sortable. Granted, they are not the same thing, but it would still be a valuable resource to have. Criterion 4 says that featured lists should have "where helpful, section headings and sort facilities". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You said it: it isn't the same thing. As a matter of fact, it is extremely different having sortable tables on the actual year-by-year table when every most editions have two or more matches, different locations, etc. I understand that there are standards but we can't compare two different sports. One sport defines a final by how many games one team has won which is why the tables are so basic; the other defines it by too many different factors to mention which is why it is so complex. The List of Copa Libertadores winners made the FL without needing sortables since someone probably figure out that the sort facilities can't possibly be used for it...why is it a problem with this one? That is the whole purpose of having the other two sortable tables below: to make up for the forementioned.

Besides that bizarre requirement, there is nothing else to do to the page. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not bizarre, because it's part of the criteria. Criteria change, and the list of Libertadores champions was promoted in 2009. Sort facilities are not absolutely necessary, but simply rejecting the possibility out of hand without making an attempt at improving the list isn't helping matters. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sincerily, I do not know how to make a sortable table that wouldn't jumble-up with our kind of information. You are talking about different things now. I will try to see how I could go about it but as you have said...they are not absolutely necessary for now. Right now, that is not a criteria; that is just discriminating a sport that doesn't have simple figures such as baseball, basketball, etc...unless you are asking to simplify the table to be like the other sports' pages which would be ludicrous. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Jamen, but I fail to how this could be considered "discriminating". Asking an editor who nominates a list to be displayed as part of "Wikipedia's best work" to meet the criteria set out for said work isn't ludicrous. That's the point of these review processes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have just looked over at the criteria for 2009. The List of Copa Libertadores winners was promoted in 2009. The latest "criteria" in 2008 was in August 26. Criteria 4 hasn't changed a bit and the list for the Copa Libertadores was STILL promoted. Once again...that is the whole reason we have two sortable tables below the year-by-year list.

Criteria 4 says, "It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities". Key phrase: WHERE HELPFUL. In our year-by-year list, it is NOT helpful. As a matter of fact, it is damaging. Nothing in there says that it is a requirement for every table.

While I'm going to ignore the above commentary on myself, I stand by my assertion that sortability would help this list. If you're unwilling to try, Jamen, I'll see if I can make something happen on a test page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "two top premier competitions" top and premier really mean the same thing. Taken care of "the continent's most coveted trophy" according to whom? Taken care of What is CONMEBOL? Taken care of "which Cruzeiro won 6–0 on points" I think this needs explanation in the lead. Taken care of "The competition has been played over two legs" since when? Forever? If so, rephrase to "is played" Taken care of "First run"? Strange nomenclature. I'd be specific and just state the years. Taken care of Some refs seem to be centrally aligned, some are left-aligned. I see it but there is nothing I can do about it. "the rest were disputed in a single leg" not "disputed", perhaps "contested"? Taken care of Years runner-up doesn't sort correctly. Nor does Years won. There is nothing I can do about that. That is probably why sortables are not a requirement and it simply states to put them where it helps: sortables only takes into account information systematically, not on quantity. That is why it only sorts by years won, not how many times one has won. Yes, there is something you can do about it; {{sort}} has more information. — KV5 • Talk 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Foreign language refs should use the language= parameter. Taken care of Avoid double .. in the references (e.g. 8, 9) Sao Paulo provides info on both finals separately which is why I have two different pages. Comply with MOS in the references, i.e. avoid OVERCAPITALISING TITLES. I don't get this. Don't USE CAPITALS in your references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Taken care of! I will go out on a limb and say that abbreviations are included. Ref 16 needs to comply with WP:DASH. I have no idea what you mean. Use en-dashes not hyphens in your references. If your really want to get this promoted you'll read these guidelines, rather than just saying "I have no idea". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Gotcha! And it is taken care of The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Well, I have fixed most of the things mentioned except for the overcapitalizing of titles...and Ref 16 needs a dash?? I don't know what you mean. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything is taken care of! Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're doing a great job Jamen. Keep it up! As for the criteria, try to think of them as guidelines, if a criteria makes the article worse, feel free to ignore it. And alway write polite replies, even though many don't, you can always try to behave better than them. Sandman888 (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're doing a good job. Despite what Sandman888 says, the criteria are criteria, and cannot be ignored. Also, yes write politely, despite the fact some here don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the case. Even if sortability was a stringent criteria, if it was detrimental to the article you can simply ignore it, meaning you can argue why your article should not abide by some X criteria/MOS standard or whatnot and that'll be perfectly acceptable if others agree with you. It'll of course help if you have like-minded friends who can support you on this. Sandman888 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunetely, there is no criteria that says that it is necessary to have a sortable table; just when helpful and in this case it doesn't help, it hurts. This article already has everything it needs to be a FL. Even though I don't need to, I am trying different experiments to see if it is even possible to make it a sortable table. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep...no way. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you speaking to yourself here? To whom was this comment addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing. Just ignore it. Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So is this becoming a FL or not? Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion isn't completed, and nominations take a minimum of seven days, almost always longer. — KV5 • Talk • 02:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And you need some consensus of support, which right now is missing. And you still haven't fixed the sorting problem I noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have had one person support it (although only four people, including myself, have written about this article). As far as "that problem", I have already shown you the criteria which specifically states that table sorting is to be implemented WHERE IT HELPS which in this case doesn't (and is pointless). Let me remind you what the sort help page says...

“ Javascript sorting may not work properly on tables with cells extending over multiple rows and/or columns (however, sorting of columns up to and including the first with colspan does not seem to be affected). Also, while cells can be empty, they should not be missing at the end of a row. In these cases sometimes the table gets messed up when attempting to sort, while other times some of the sorting buttons work while others don't. ”

Right now, you are talking about a whole different thing and that is not my thing. If you have any idea of how to make a sortable table for the types of pages CONMEBOL has, I would welcome them. If you want to block this from becoming a FL (which I believe will happen) over something as insipid as what I have shown you, just go ahead and do so and get it over with. If you view someone being honest being offensive, that's you. It seems no one understands the criteria here even when it is explicitaly written out. I'm tired of arguing with people that doesn't understand anything. Just go ahead and cancel this. Peace. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For some ideas on how to make a list like this sortable, you may be interested in the ongoing discussion, New table format, over at WT:FOOTY. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd be better off if you tried to fix the sorting problem rather than yelling about how unfair this whole thing appears to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rambo, I was the one who started that discussion. Unfortunetly, the tables being proposed are many times worse than the current one; besides that, reading the comments on that discussion was enough for me to go ahead and ignore the rest. People can't seem to understand that sortable tables are meant for facts and figures, not year-by-year lists (which is probably why the criteria says to implement sortable tables WHERE HELPFUL). Unfortunetly, even though I explicitly stated the criteria mentioned, those two above me keep going on and on about the same thing and then actually have the balls to say I am insulting them for stating that they don't understand. That is another reason why I blocked their comments from my page: I can discuss and talk with others but I can't talk to "walls" that think, "they are right, screw everyone else. I don't care if you can prove me anything...I am still right"....and I refuse to. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you were overtly rude and really are risking being blocked. The notes left for you by me and KV5 were not vandalism, as you asserted. Anyway, to the list. If you have sortable tables, they should sort correctly. If you don't want sortable tables, don't make them sortable. It's quite straight forward really. Once this issue is resolved, I'll conduct a full review of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "coming out the winners[3]" poor English, just "winning" would be fine. Plus you need a full stop before the ref. Fixed "was contested has varied" reads awkwardly to me. You have to read the entire sentence, "The format in which the competition was contested has varied greatly". I am welcomed to any better sentences stating the same. I did read the entire sentence, it still reads awkwardly, after all, isn't it still contested? "was" is past tense... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed "varied greatly" but it seems to have only had three variations? Eight of those editions were played on a home-and-away format. Another seven were played in a single match on a neutral stadium. One was played as part of the Copa Mercosur. Another one was played as part of the Brazilian league. The 1991 edition was not played at all since the team that won it won both tournaments that qualified a club to dispute the title. Despite the fact that another team also won the two qualifying competitions, they were forced to play against the Copa CONMEBOL winner in order to have a match (the only time a tertiary winner of a CONMEBOL tournament disputed the trophy). That is six different formats...on a 22 year old competition that has been played 17 times. That, in my opinion, is "varied greatly" unless anyone can tell me otherwise why. I am open to any and all opposition of that. Well you could start by putting all that information in the article, with references of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed "since its inception." not sure this is strictly necessary, the wins couldn't have occurred before the inception. Fixed "..Argentina is the most successful nation of the tournament, with teams from the country winning the competition six times." "... the most, winning six times". Fixed "6–0 on points " you need to explain the points system. Fixed You ought to explain it in the lead because several of the winners are decided on points. All matches on ANY CONMEBOL tournament are decided on points including the single-match finals. That is how CONMEBOL works. It's confusing why points should be used in preference to goals. It needs explanation. This is English Wikipedia, not South American Wikipedia, so we need to ensure our universal audience understand what's going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Sincerily, I do not know why. I have looked in countless articles (including the portuguese and spanish versions of this and any page that deals with CONMEBOL) and found no answer. I just know the "what", not "why". The most reasonable answer that I found is that it is the method chosen in CONMEBOL. Well, all I'm asking for really is an explanation of the system and how it's applied to this cup competition in the lead, because while it may be commonplace in South America, it certainly isn't in Europe. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed You note the various winners of the Copa CONMEBOL, is that relevant to qualification for this competition? The lead doesn't mention that the 1994 winner of the Copa CONMEBOL qualified... Or perhaps I am misunderstanding something... They were invited; Sao Paulo won both the Supercopa and the Libertadores and CONMEBOL had everything ready for a match in Japan. To keep from canceling the match, CONMEBOL invited Botafogo to dispute the title. As I mentioned earlier, the competition has had many different formats and circumstances which is why I left that part as "varied greatly"; we would be getting off topic if I explained every single thing. Most of the editions were created by me and I left special note and links explaining the situation on each occasion. I think it needs explanation in the text because otherwise it's unclear as why they played. Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Some refs are left-justified, some centrally, be consistent. Fixed Any reason why the second leg of the 2010 tournament doesn't have a stadium? That is because User:Digirami decided to put that information despite the fact that I have shown that the 2nd leg most likely would not be played in Buenos Aires. CONMEBOL mentioned that the 2nd leg would be played in Buenos Aires but no stadium was given. You shouldn't say it was Buenous Aires and have no stadium without explaining why. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed Refs should explain what RSSSF and FIFA are. Fixed Refs 8 and 9 have "..", I know this the template, but you can pipelink Sao Paulo F.C. and remove the spare . Those two references are completely different from each other. Look carefully. I didn't say they were the same. I said they have a .. in them, after Sao Paulo F.C.. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed Footnotes look like complete sentences so should take a full stop. I am welcomed to any better way to phrase They don't need to be rephrased, they just need a full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Footnote A is unreferenced. Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose It's not accurate; the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2003 and 2004 did not have a designated home team. These matches were played at neutral grounds. Also, the bars separating editions are distracting. --MicroX (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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