Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 21:03, 14 July 2010 [1].
List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners[edit]
List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: NapHit, WikiProject Football
I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the lack of any specific references as well as additional general references besides RSSSF. Most of the lead needs verification of some sort. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree this needs some TLC (ref 1 is dead for starters), but there is no set requirement for the number of references, nor is there a requirement for any general referenes. WFC (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But feature material are held to higher standards as they represent wikipedia's best work. The list is nowhere near of meeting the set of standards required of all feature lists; the first criteria is highly questionable and the third is next to non-existant on the list. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the prose could do with work (criteria 1). While I haven't scrutinised them, if anything is unclear in the tables footnotes may be appropriate (if so, criteria 3(a)). But my point on references stands. The UEFA links need fixing, and extra refs would probably be introduced if the lead were expanded. But the requirement is that everything is verified by reliable sources. If a small number of reliable sources were enough to verify everything, there would be no need for any more. WFC (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that everything needs to be verified. The entire table needs references. The lead, which is two paragraphs long, only has ONE reference and that source only backs up one sentence. What about the rest? I know next to nothing about the competition. What is a knock-out tournament? What does it mean when it says "home and away"? Who is Fiorentina? Rangers? Why is "Final" capitalized on the lead? That is just the few things I have found. Feature lists are exemplary because they provide any user, who knows jack crap about the subject, the very basic things to know about what they are reading.
- I agree that the prose could do with work (criteria 1). While I haven't scrutinised them, if anything is unclear in the tables footnotes may be appropriate (if so, criteria 3(a)). But my point on references stands. The UEFA links need fixing, and extra refs would probably be introduced if the lead were expanded. But the requirement is that everything is verified by reliable sources. If a small number of reliable sources were enough to verify everything, there would be no need for any more. WFC (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't even provide the basics. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least we agree that there is scope for improvement. I'll get to work on this one once someone else comments. By the way, in your notification to NapHit, you failed to link directly to the conversation. It surprises me that someone pedantic enough to demand a reference for a capital letter and monosyllabic words would be that careless. WFC (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't even provide the basics. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update I'm sure any good faith editor will agree that the sourcing for what is currently in the list is now up to standards. I await any further comments. Regards, WFC (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with having "good faith" as editors. Everyone here does. It has to do with a FL trying to keep its feature status with mediocre sourcing. You have 39 editions, two paragraphs and all there is to show for it are six references? This is far from being FL material and it clearly doesn't meet criteria 1 and 3 (especially 3) in the basic standards provided for all FL to meet...in other words, it doesn't even meet the basics OF the basics. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your contructive comments. Regards, WFC (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jamen, FLRC and FLC are not and have never been reference-counting games. Please give specific details on what needs to be improved (e.g. "This sentence needs a citation" or "The lead does not mention X, when it should"); otherwise, I will close this FLRC as a keep within the next few days as all of the actionable issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe it or not, I am being specific. The entire lead needs referencing or some sort of source. This list needs a lot of work. What is UEFA? What is FA Cup? What do they stand for? What is a knock-out tournament? What do they mean when it says "home and away ties"? Who is Fiorentina? Rangers? Lazio? Real Mallorca? Are those people, places or things? Why is "Final" capitalize in the lead? Is it a noun or else? Why is "reorganisation of its cup competitions" linked to an UEFA's club section that provides no reason as tp the "reorganisation of its cup competitions"? Why was the Cup Winners' Cup abolished?...
- Jamen, FLRC and FLC are not and have never been reference-counting games. Please give specific details on what needs to be improved (e.g. "This sentence needs a citation" or "The lead does not mention X, when it should"); otherwise, I will close this FLRC as a keep within the next few days as all of the actionable issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your contructive comments. Regards, WFC (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...this is simply the first paragraph. As I have said, this entire list needs a lot of work. This has nothing to do about reference-counting; it has to do with everything being verifiable (which I understand is a requirement for all FL if I am not mistaken). The great bulk of this page relies on RSSSF; while a great source, it is stil not an official source of any type and seeing that the external link is dead, there is nothing official backing RSSSF on anything they said. This list is entirely sub-standard of what a FL should be. Fix the above, look over the 2nd paragraph, give references for every edition of the competition (with official backing) and I will come back tomorrow to see if I should retire my FLRN. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All actionable comments addressed. I do not consider the nominator's reference requests to be actionable; references 2 and 4 cover all competitions, and there is no requirement for "official" sources. If anything the RSSSF is a better source than UEFA, as it is independent. Regards, WFC (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am looking and there has been almost no change in the lead. What does UEFA stand for? Who is Fiorentina, Rangers, Lazio, etc. (i.e. The first competition was won by Italian club Fiorentina who beat Scottish side Rangers...), what is two legs? The list goes on...you have to pretend that you know nothing about the sport and ask yourself those questions. The answer that I left on the UEFA Champions League FLRN section applies here too. Very little has been done. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All actionable comments addressed. I do not consider the nominator's reference requests to be actionable; references 2 and 4 cover all competitions, and there is no requirement for "official" sources. If anything the RSSSF is a better source than UEFA, as it is independent. Regards, WFC (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...this is simply the first paragraph. As I have said, this entire list needs a lot of work. This has nothing to do about reference-counting; it has to do with everything being verifiable (which I understand is a requirement for all FL if I am not mistaken). The great bulk of this page relies on RSSSF; while a great source, it is stil not an official source of any type and seeing that the external link is dead, there is nothing official backing RSSSF on anything they said. This list is entirely sub-standard of what a FL should be. Fix the above, look over the 2nd paragraph, give references for every edition of the competition (with official backing) and I will come back tomorrow to see if I should retire my FLRN. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent, ec) I agree, very little has been done. I have virtually no interest in the subject, other than being a member of WP:FOOTY. I will therefore deal with solveable, actionable requests, and leave anything above and beyond that to people with an interest in European football. Apparently there are a few of them. While it would normally be considered canvassing, I'm more than happy for you to invite other editors in good standing to contribute to this discussion, if you feel that actionable objections have not been met. Regards, WFC (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – It's true that UEFA could be spelled out (in the lead and references), and the lead could perhaps be slightly larger, but I'm failing to see any substantial issues that would require an FLRC. The referencing seems fine to me, keeping in mind that general references are not a bad thing, and that most of the lead's content can also be found in the table, which is cited. I also don't think we need to provide an explanation for every single term in the lead; that's what wikilinks are for. It would be nice to have teams' countries mentioned, but I again don't think an FLRC is needed for such a relatively minor issue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There aren't any actionable issues here. FLC does not and never has counted references, everything that needs referencing has been. The nominator's issues surrounding "explanation" are adequately addressed by wikilinks in my opinion. We assume readers have a reasonable amount of intelligence when they read the articles, we don't need to explain every word. In my opinion it still meets the FL criteria. Woody (talk) 17:56, 14 July 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.