Killervogel5 (talk | contribs) |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
*Comply with MOS in the references, i.e. avoid OVERCAPITALISING TITLES. |
*Comply with MOS in the references, i.e. avoid OVERCAPITALISING TITLES. |
||
:I don't get this. |
:I don't get this. |
||
::Don't USE CAPITALS in you references. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*Ref 16 needs to comply with [[WP:DASH]]. |
*Ref 16 needs to comply with [[WP:DASH]]. |
||
:I have no idea what you mean. |
: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". [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 20:19, 20 May 2010
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
Toolbox |
---|
- 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)
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:55, 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- I have shown you more than enough evidence to promote this page. You don't want to promote it or understand that sort facilities can't be used on the our tables (it really doesn't take much ingenuity to figure out why), fine. Simply get me someone else that can understand. Apparently from the Copa Libertadores list, there is someone out there that can. Thank you. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:28, 20 May 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.
- 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 you references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
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)