Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2010

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 19:38, 3 June 2010 [1].

---

List of leaders of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a complete list of the leaders of the Soviet Union which i have nominated. ;P --TIAYN (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please remove the overpowering bright red from the table.
  • Done
• There should not be a comma between month and year in --TIAYN (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)a date. Also be consistent with MDY or DMY format.
  • See Wikipedia:DATESNO#Full date formatting
    • Done
• The notes could be moved into the table so that it is clearer which leader each note belongs to. There is plenty of room to widen the table and it is easier to read with the relevant note being right next to the person.
  • The notes are in the table; what do you mean? --TIAYN (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You could put the text in the table so that readers conveniently have that relevant information right next to the leader rather than elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Please follow the section order and titles at MOS:APPENDIX.
  • Done
• Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Oppose Comment. I worry that the question of who was the leader of SU at any particular historical time may be entirely subjective. For instance, why Trotsky is not included? He may be considered the leader in 1923-1924. Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Trotsky never had enough support in the Communist Party to became leader of the republic or even the party machine, thats why Joseph Stalin became leader. If Trotsky had enough support and strength between 1923-1924 Stalin would probably not become leader, and the mass murders would probably not have happened. To conclude, while you may be right, your view is hold by a minority, and is therefor a WP:FRINGE theory. --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not attribute to me opinions that I have never stated. I have never said that Trotsky should be included. I just asked a question. I, however, do not understand the criteria used to choose particular leaders for inclusion in this list. Why Malenkov is included? He was never especially influential within Soviet leadership at that time. Is 'troika' a leader? (Anyway, this is incomplete list of troikas.) Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying does not make sense, George Malenkov was First Secretary and controlled the Soviet Union before the rise of Khrushchev, and this is not an incomplete list of Troikas. Tell me missing troikas? Your statements and opinions are wrong on this matter. You are right, they may have been other troikas, but none of those other troikas ruled the Soviet Union. The inclusion is easy, those who ruled the Soviet Union!`--TIAYN (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He never was the First Secretary. He was a secretary and resigned form the secretariat on 13 March. The position of First (or General) Secretary did not even exist in 1953. Ruslik_Zero 10:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That is again both inaccuratte and absurd. The post of the Genereal Secretary was established in 1922 and was re-named right after Stalin's to First Secretary. Malenkov was elected to the secretariat in 1952, not 1953, and seeing as i'm right, the post existed in the 1950s. Just remove your absurd oppose, its ridicules and, you are basing your claims on inaccurate information. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The post of the General Secretary was formally abolished in 1934 during the 17-th Party Congress (see here, p. 158). Stalin was just the first secretary meaning that his name was first in the list of secretaries. Formally all secretaries were equal. Malenkov was elected a secretary (together with Stalin and others) in 1952 and I never claimed otherwise. No General Secretary was elected. On 6 March 1953, just after Stalin's death, Malenkov's name was moved to the first position in the list of secretaries (see here, p. 123). In other words he became the first secretary, literally. On March 14 Malenkov resigned from the secretariat. The post of General Secretary was reinstated only in 1965. You should be very accurate when composing such lists as this one. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, see table, Malenkov ruled the Soviet Union not as a secretary but as a premier. --TIAYN (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not strike out against reviewers; Ruslik has been civil, whereas you have now twice attacked him. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm not trying to attack him or act like a jurk, but what he is saying is inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Specific problems as you asked: However, after Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power in the 1920s[3] the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, later re-named First Secretary and re-verted back to General Secretary The post 'General Secretary' was not renamed it was abolished in 1934 and reinstated in 1965. The First Secretary was an informal name for the secretary who was first on the list of formally equal secretaries. Done You should mention all posts that Stalin held including General Secretary and Secretary with dates. Ruslik_Zero 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Done As chief of the executive branch There was no separation of powers in the Soviet Union. Done Lenin was forced into semi-retirement. He was not forced into semi-retirement. He was seriously ill (suffered several strokes). This is inaccurate. Done On March 6, Malenkov left his office in the Central Committee to become Chairman of the Council of Ministers. He did not. He quited the secretariat on 14 March a week after he was appointed the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. (See the second ref I gave above.) Done Not done. Ruslik_Zero 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Done --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) The table contains two columns called Took office and Left office, but it is not clear what office? 'The leader' was not an official post. Done The 'party' column is superfluous and should be removed—they all were members of one party. Done The table says that Malenkov took office on 5 March 1953 and left office in 1955. However the timeline above the table says otherwise. In it he was in power since the end of 1940s. Done You changed the composition of the first troika replacing Khrushchev with Molotov. What was the reason for this change? Khrushchev was never a member of the Troika, he was the one who destroyed it... I am worried that is is your subjective opinion. Can you quote a source, which directly says this. Ruslik_Zero 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I have no sources which directly claims that Khrushchev was member of any troika, on the other side, i have sources which mentions Molotov, Beria and Malenkov, but no Khrushchev... --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Do any sources actually call them troika? Ruslik_Zero 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, if they hadn't used that particular term, i wouldn't have known about it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC) The second troika is rather strange—it is made of four people! Mikoyan was later replaced as Chairman of the Presidium, it sais to in the note In the first note General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks until the party was re-named to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1952. This has the same problem as in item 1 above. Done Please, add dates. Ruslik_Zero 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Done Served as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Premier from March 6, 1953 to February 8, 1955 This sentence wrongly implies that he was the first secretary for two years! Done Not done. He left the secretariat after he became the Premier not before. Ruslik_Zero 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I've cleared up the sentence, better now? --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) The first Troika consisted of Georgy Malenkov, Lavrentiy Beria, and Vyacheslav Molotov and lasted until Khrushchev was able to consolidate power. Well, Beria was arrested in June 1953, so I do not understand how this troika could last until the September as the table implies? Done Note V still says: The first Troika consisted of Georgy Malenkov, Lavrentiy Beria, and Vyacheslav Molotov and lasted until Khrushchev was able to consolidate power. Was Khrushchev able to consolidate power by June 26, 1953? Ruslik_Zero 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Didn't see that, but i've fixed it now. --TIAYN (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Served as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party[59] and later Chairman of the Presidium Breznev served as the First Secretary in 1964-1965 and as the General Secretary after the 23-th Congress. Done What do you think about this troika? This is not a complete list of problems in the article. Done Why did you decide to include it? Before you claimed that the list of troikas was complete. Ruslik_Zero 08:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC) First, that Troika never seemed to be a ruling Troika, from what i read, but seeing that i don't know much about the subject of of pre-Khrushchev Soviet Union, i'm letting this one slip. --TIAYN (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) What is a ruling troika? Remember that those leader did not know that they were members of a troika. They were assigned to it later by historians. Ruslik_Zero 12:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Ruslik_Zero 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I know, but it seems that this troika didn't rule the country, but simply blocked all resolutions made by Trotsky, I'm not saying they had power, but they didn't controll the Soviet Union together, and seeing that Lenin (1922-24) and Trotsky held key positions in Soviet politics at that time, it would have been hard for them to actually rule the country. What other troika's have in common is that three top officials, who all share important posts, share power. This Troika seemed to be build on the foundation to stop Trotsky, and nothing more. --TIAYN (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

;Comments 'Soviet government' should be capitalized in this instance, because it is referring to it as a proper noun. Done According to the MOS, titles such as "General Secretary" should only be capitalized either when before the name or in its full version, such as "General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union". Done Why do you use "Central Executive Committee of the USSR", while the article is located at "Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union"? Done As far as I can see, there is no link to "Soviet Union" in the lead. Done Could the lead be split into two paragraphs? It is long and tedious, as it deals with a lot of heavy terminology. Done Perhaps a little short lead, too. More could be said about the actual people, even name them all. Done First mention of Khrushchev and Brezhnev need full names and links in the lead. Done As "threesome" is the term being translated to, it should be in quotation marks. Done Should not the synonymous o"Soviet Union" and "USSR" somehow be established, such as Soviet Union (USSR) or similar? I am sure there are people out there who do not know that Soviet Union = USSR (it's been gone 20 years now). Done There is a timeline, which seems to have to bars, but the difference is not explained. What do you mean with "two bars"? The timeline consists of two horizontal lines (or bars) on top of each other. They contain color-coded information about the various leaders. What does the top line represent, and what does the bottom one represent? Arsenikk (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Done The caption for Gorbachev in the infobox shouldn't be in bold. I'm unable to remove the bold text there, if you are able to fix this, please do Hm, this would require a tuning of the infobox. Arsenikk (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC) All the time "Russian Communist Party (bolsheviks)" redirect to "Communist Party of the Soviet Union", is it really necessary to have the party entry? It isn't as if the list is describing a multi-party system. I know, but that was the party's name under Lenin and Stalin until 1952. It it is a mere name change, still don't see why it should be included. Done If you're gonna link one entry in the table, you've gotta link the whole column. Again, what are you talking about? Should i link all CPSU links in the article in thet table? Each row of the table needs to stand on its own merit. I see no need to include the party, or even link to it if it is included, but if it is linked in one row, it should be linked in all. The same goes for troika. The party linking looks good now. Arsenikk (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Done Is the red, vertical bar really necessary in the table? It's the USSR, I think we all understand they were communist. Done File:Konstantin Chernenko.jpg and File:Andropov1.jpg are fair use images, and can't be used on this list. Done; replaced them with two other images with lower quality. --TIAYN (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC) That's the Wikipedia spirit! Get rid of those non-free, high-quality images we most likely legally can use and replace with low-quality, free images ;) Arsenikk (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC) All the bibliography entries contain page numbers, yet are typically referred to with several pages in the references. I really don't understand what you are trying to say. The external link should have an endahs instead of a hyphen in it, see WP:DASH. Done All in all looks pretty good, although there is always the picky details. Arsenikk (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the late reply, but there are so many things to do on Wikipedia and in real life right now. As a lot of the prose is rewritten, so I have some more comments: The sentence starting with "However, after Joseph Stalin's ..." is very long and should be split into two or even three. Done In "As head of the union government as a whole,[5] general secretary", need a 'the' in front of 'general secretary'; similarly 'premier' Done According to the MOS, 'general secretary' should only be capitalized in long for (General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) or in front of the name as a title. Similar for 'vice president'. Done "fifty-three-year-old" should be "53-year-old". Done 'General secretary' does not need to be re-linked in the summary section, similarly 'troika' and 'politburo' Done In "Stalin, as head of the Politburo consolidated", there should be a comma after Politburo. Done In "which would prove to be a strategic mistake because the party would later prove to", try to avoid using the word 'prove' twice in the same sentence. This is not wrong as such, but featured lists require excellent prose. Done 'Underestimation' links to cost underestimation which discusses an aspect of accounting, not strategy or politics. Done In "both in 1956 and later in 1962", the word 'later' is redundant and breaks the flow of the sentence. Done If you're going to use an abbreviation such as 'CPSU', you've got to explain it by put it in parenthesis behind the full version at first mention. Done Instead of "The Anti-Party Group, were however a minority", say "The Anti-Party Group was a minority..." Done Could you break up that sentence in two, please. Done 'domineering' sounds awfully Norwegian, although it does exist in the English dictionary. Perhaps 'dominant' is a better word? Done Comma after 'Constantine Chernenko'. Done "11th of March 1985" isn't allowed per MOS. Instead, use March 11, 1985. Done Comma after "By the mid-to-late 1980s". Done Rephrase "The years of 1988-89" to for instance "In 1988 and 1989" to avoid using a dash in-line. Done Arsenikk (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am confused by the date. Based on my understanding, from April 3, 1922 to January 21, 1924, Lenin and Stalin both were the country's "leader".—Chris!_c/t 1:28 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Done

• Comment I am confused by the timeline. According to the table, Stalin replaced Lenin on Jan 21, 1924. However, the timeline shows them overlapping for '22-'24, with no explanation as to what that means. Similarly, the table has Malenkov as ruling for a week before being supplanted by the troika, but the timeline has him overlapping Stalin and Krushchev for '48-'55. I understand that Soviet politics is not a straight-forward affair, but there's no textual explanation in the list to explain this discrepancy. On a different note, I think you should say who the members of the troikas are in the table- this is not such a long list that you need to conserve space. --PresN 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Done

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Done

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments - some quick notes reverted isn't hyphenated. Done gecretary? Done "however is underestimation of the party machine" reads like a newspaper. Done "close-knite" knit. Done "Because political offices varied in strength in different period, such as the General Secretaryship under Stalin and Gorbachnev, there has been much discussion on who the leader of the Soviet Union 'really' is. However, this list follows the majority view and not the minority view." this is a real problem. This indicates that there's some kind of original research going on as to who's included in the list. As this is fundamental in the list, Done; Removed the sentence, don't really now why I even added it in the first place. --TIAYN (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I'll oppose right now, and review again should this issue be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I stuck my oppose, however, the lack of well defined inclusion criteria makes me to stay neutral. Ruslik_Zero 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Repetition: "The office of the People's Commissars was the equivalent of the office of prime minister," instead how about 'was equivalent to the office of' [in that way the repetitive of is removed]
  • Done

• Same thing here: "while the office of the Central Executive Committee was the equivalent of president."

• • Done
• "though the Soviet Union collapsed before this was tried out." -- 'tried out' -> 'before it could have been tried.'
  • Done
• "Lenin was elected Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars on 8 November 1917 by the Russian Congress of Soviets, as such, he declared; "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the entire country" in modernising Russia into a twentieth-century country" - no need for the semi colon
  • Done

More later..--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued

• "After a failed assination attempt, Lenin's popularity was on the rise,[15] but his health, as a 53-year-old man, declined from the effects of two bullet wounds, later aggravated by three strokes which culminated to his death in 1924." -- so many commas and pauses, it would just be best to split these two sentences; also a typo on assassination.

• To be quite honest, this list should have been peer reviewed before it came to FLC. There are a lot of poor sentence structures in the summary portion. This is not a place for PR, so I have to stand with an Oppose until either the prose is revised. --Truco ₅₀₃ 01:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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 19:23, 3 June 2010 [2].

---

List of glam metal bands and artists

Nominator(s): RG (talk), FateForger

I am nominating this for featured list because it gives readers a brief summary of hair metal and a pretty well sourced list of its groups. Me and User:FateForger were the main two contributers who worked on the article. Essentially this list is based on the list of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, a former Featured list. Also there have been almost no edit wars. Please feel free to comment on any problems the list has. RG (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm pretty sure that this list is missing a tons of bands, such as, you know, European, Asian or even African glam metal bands which are not that notable. --TIAYN (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: We actually do have a lot of European acts on the list (Europe, Scorpions, Crashdïet, The Darkness, Krokus, Yngwie Malmsteen, etc.) and one Asian group (Loudness). I seriously doubt we could find notable groups from Africa and more importantly reliable sources citing them as hair metal bands. RG (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This list is a re-post of a list that was previously nominated for AfD and the result was delete. Wiki libs (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposer has openly admitted on the article's discussion page that factual accuracy was not a consideration when compiling the list. Criteria for inclusion seem to be arbitrary, i.e. any single semi-reliable source will do, regardless of how many other sources exist to the contrary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment:Articles can be recreated just so you know and the fact that the article was deleted is not relevant. Also might I add that the only reason the list was deleted in the first place was because of Libs and his sockpuppets, Fair Deal and Peter Fleet. And Breton you're personal beliefs are not to be used here on wikipedia. As I've stated before wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. This list covers all criteria for featured list status. RG (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My personal beliefs? Like what? Like my personal belief that you openly admitted on the article's talk page that you weren't worried about facts? Would you like me to supply that quote here? Here you go: [3]. WP:Truth doesn't say anything about providing a single source for a piece of information, and using it to try and deny a huge number of sources that say something else. That's what is being done on this list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I said that because I myself disagree with some of the bands on the list, but the list is in fact 100% accurately sourced so my opinion and more importantly your opinion doesn't matter. Even the bands you have disagreed about have multiple sources categorizing them in this genre. Your oppose vote was based not on Featured List criteria. RG (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it more important that my opinion doesn't matter than yours? You might want to rephrase that. Are you a more important editor? You appear to be claiming that my vote doesn't count, and whether you like it or not, it counts. You are not addressing the fact that there are many more sources placing some of these bands in a different genre, making this list misleading and not suitable for Featured List status. Ghits suggest that Slade and T-Rex (as examples) are up to ten times more closely associated with glam rock than glam metal. The scope of the list is too broad in that it includes bands far more commonly associated with other genres, diluting the function of the list. It suggests that sources were selected specifically to verify one point of view, while a far more commonly-held point of view was ignored. My view is that the reason for this list would be far better served by a category. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, you've completely misunderstood my statement. You're the one making the decision on whether this is going to become a featured list (which it mostly likely won't seeing how this discussion has started off) or not. I know that my opinion won't influence you hence why it isn't as important. Only your thoughts and your beliefs influence the way you make decisions. Also, google hits are not relevant. A majority off the websites that you see are blogs, forums, fansites, etc and not reliable. And might I add that bands can play more than one style at a time. A band doesn't have to be just glam rock. And having more sources calling something something else also, again frankly isn't relevant. If the list of psychedelic rock bands was well sourced and put up for FLS would you complain about Cream being on the list even though you might find more sources calling them a blues-rock band (hypothetically speaking of course)? RG (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Then it was a poorly worded statement on your part, I think. I know that ghits aren't a toll of reliable sources. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between us regarding what is and isn't metal, but that is not why I oppose this list. More sources placing bands in a different genre is relevant; it makes the list misleading, and calls into question the whole function of the list. A particular point of fact is that each of these sources probably have different definitions of glam metal - they are not working to a single definition. What does this list tell people? The list implies that (e.g.) T. Rex were a glam metal band and shared something intrinsically in common with the likes of W.A.S.P. and Whitesnake. The genre most commonly associated with T. Rex is not glam metal but glam rock, and honestly, with the best will in the world, T. Rex and WASP had very little in common. Why is it so important that at least one reliable source calls T-Rex glam metal, when it is clear that many more sources call them something else? If bands can play more than one style at a time, and be several different genres at once, then discerning criteria for a list is far too vague for comfort. I think lists of bands based on genre are fundamentally flawed, subjective and better served by categories which can more comfortably overlap. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:10, 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.

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 [4].

---

List of Recopa Sudamericana winners

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.