Talk:List of Slovenian football champions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of Slovenian football champions 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
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
June 4, 2012Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Slovenian football champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Slovenian football champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supercup[edit]

I have removed Supercup winners as part of the "double / treble winners" since this competition is completely irrelevant for such a list – none of the other similar articles (Croatia, England, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Holland, Switzerland etc.) includes Supercup wins in any way, only domestic "double" (League + national cup), or European treble are included. As far as I remember, it has been agreed at WP:FOOTY that domestic Supercup is a minor trophy and not included anywhere towards double/treble tally. Furthermore, Slovenian Supercup was held only in 11 out of 27 seasons (which is roughly 40%) and this is not even mentioned in the article. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This list went through a complete process required for it to became a Featured List. This means the Wiki community found it good enough and the list mearly recieved annual statistical updates since then. I do not see any reasons for change. If you feel anything is missing feel free to add it into the article. Ratipok (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a "complete process" done by a "community" of only two reviewers (remember that literally anyone can review an article for a FL/GA status, including me and you) over 6 years ago, this doesnt mean that the article should not follow the example of other articles, which were promoted more recently since the notability and inclusion criterias change over years. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]