Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals/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 10:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals

 * Nominator(s): EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has the quality required, according to the Featured list criteria, to qualify to be considered a top article. The subject itself is also noteworthy as it determines the club World Champion. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - All concerns addressed.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed those issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments –
 * No need for two Corinthians links in the lead.
 * The List of finals heading has two words more than it needs. The last word would make a fine heading by itself.
 * All of the photos need alt text. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the above issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. Good work and well sourced page. --Carioca (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Support. As the nominator, I also support the promotion of this list to FL status. Since it is long past 10 days, and seeing that it clearly exceeds the criteria, can someone go ahead and finish this? EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Comment - Just as a general note, you don't need to support your own nominations - it is generally regarded that, by nominating it, you support it. Regardless, I agree this should probably be promoted. :)  Toa   Nidhiki05  00:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments The list is confusing. First, the competition names in the lead should be bolded. Then I think the list should be moved to List of FIFA Club World Cup winners or List of FIFA Club World Cup finalists, as it seems the competition was renamed (?) and you discuss the finalists, not the finals. However, I would name it List of FIFA Club World Cup winners, because the emphasize is given to the winners, and it is logical that each competition has a final. And additionally I am not sure if this list is standalone, even if the main article is large enough. The Club column in "Results by club" does not sort correctly. I think "Results by confederation" may be merged somewhere, perhaps into a column. If that does not fit, I would remove the Host column in the section "List of finals", since the Venues column includes cities, and in which country a season was played does not seem to be very notable. Finally I think the only table which should remain is "List of finals", because the below tables are overall redundant given that there were not many finals and every reader would be able to count, particularly if you have listed the flags. These are my initial thoughts; I am happy to revisit this nomination once these issues are addressed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)--Tomcat (7) 12:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * List of FIFA Club World Championship and Club World Cup finals = finals. If you find that confusing, you need help. On the FL criteria, and lists in general, there is nothing saying that anything in the lead needs bolding. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a list with bolded material in its lead. As for the rest of this rant, I go back to the first sentence.


 * BTW I fixed the sortable issues you mentioned. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You need help making constructive comments without personal attacks. I clearly indicated my position. This list is clearly confusing, especially for non-football gurus. You are writing about the winners, not the finals. As for the bolding, see WP:BOLDFACE: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph)." We have a lot of featured lists with highlighted phrases, for example a bunch of WP:GRAMMY lists. And finally, because of your harsh response and the list's failure to meet 3b, I am opposing this list for promotion. The initial table can be merged into the main article, and other tables are redundant. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this assessment - I am by no means a soccer guru (aside from US women's soccer), but it is quite clear as to what the event and finals are. The finals are included and listed, in the very first section no less, and if you didn't see that you must not have looked over the article very well. Bolding is either way, but I don't really see it as needed and I haven't seen it on many other soccer lists.  Toa   Nidhiki05  19:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Toa, the reason I didn't took anything he said seriously is because I know there are people that likes derailing things out of personal spite. Don't feed the troll and just ignore him. Nothing he said made sense and that is how one knows not to deal with their issues. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Struway2 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On a spot-check of sources: the 2009 final has three cited sources, none of which seem to verify the attendance (unless I've missed it). If it isn't there, you may want to check the others.
 * Following on from that, the main table rows all have several references, but some of them seem superfluous. For instance, the contents of the 2000 row is entirely verifiable from the FIFA ref. I can understand that you might include the RSSSF page as an independent source, but can't see what the Portuguese-language honours page at the Corinthians website adds? Or any of the other honours pages, for that matter.
 * It seems that you've done quite a lot of work on the list, edited the lead, added refs and some prose etc. But the article itself, including the main table and lead section, was created quite recently by User:Arbero. Have you considered asking them to co-nominate, or to become involved in responding to reviewers' comments?
 * I have fixed every single issue above. Now...about the 2009 final and the spectators...there are links on the above page that details in statistics and whatnot and you can see it there. I didn't want to be too redundant in putting references from the same source on one final.


 * As far as sources go with things like this, I like having a FIFA link, RSSSF link and a link from the club that won said competition. If anyone needed any information on the final, the details or the victorious squad, that would be three links that anyone can use. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Struway2 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add a sentence explaining what the Toyota Cup was and why it should be absorbed/merged into this competition. Also, in English I think it's generally called the Intercontinental Cup.
 * What's more concerning is that some of the cited sources don't verify the sentence they go with. e.g.
 * "FIFA agreed with UEFA, CONMEBOL and Toyota to merge the Toyota Cup and Club World Championship into one event.[4]": ref#4 doesn't mention the Toyota Cup or CONMEBOL or UEFA;
 * You've removed UEFA and CONMEBOL from the sentence, but the ref still doesn't mention the Toyota Cup. Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Milan crushed Boca Juniors 4–2, in a match that saw the first player sent off in a Club World Cup final: Milan's Kakha Kaladze from Georgia at the 77th minute. Eleven minutes later, Boca Junior's Pablo Ledesma would join Kaladze as he too was sent off.[15]" ref#15 shows the players sent off, but not the minutes, and I can't see anything to say Kaladze was the first to be sent off in a final.
 * Still nothing to say Kaladze was the first to be sent off in a Club World Cup final. Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all of the above issues.
 * Yes...I do use American English and that shouldn't be a problem. After all, Wikipedia is an American website that was founded by an American. If you noticed, I use the American way of dating things.
 * I am not putting any more information into the Toyota Cup than it needs. A mention is more than enough since it will only derail the article from its main purpose: to provide information on the FCWC finals. For your information, the competition was a friendly tournament officially called "European/South American Cup" by its organizers, UEFA and CONMEBOL, and later renamed to "Toyota Cup" for obvious reasons. It has been called "Intercontinental Cup" informally. If anyone wants to learn more about it, they can click on the actual article or go into the main FCWC itself. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you over-react on two counts. I asked if "would show its class" was acceptable usage in American English, that's all. The featured list criteria include a requirement for "professional standards of writing". Second, on the Toyota Cup. If the reader comes across a sentence telling them that the Toyota Cup was merged into this competition, then they'll want to know at the very least what it was. And if this article is intended to be an example of Wikipedia's "very best work", it shouldn't be driving the reader to another article, or off the site entirely, for want of a few words of explanation. Struway2 (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I go by your logic, I will have to do the same for every club and nation mentioned since that is of far more relevance to the list than a friendly competition. Derailing the article would not be considered a "professional standard of writing".EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the idea that including one phrase of explanatory wording helpful to the general reader, something like "the Toyota Cup, an annual match between clubs representing the European and South American confederations,..." would be so unprofessional as to "derail" the article escapes all logic. Since I reviewed, a couple of quoteboxes have been added. Not sure what the Martin Edwards quote adds, but the second one hints at controversy: perhaps that might go better with context in the relevant bit of prose than in a quotebox. I'm sorry, but I can't devote any more time to this review. Those facts that my limited spot-check turned up as unsourced and have not been capped, have still not been fixed. While this is the case, my oppose stands. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Navbox (below the article) uses unbelievable terrible colours. Nominator wrote this is "FIFA colours" (#234670) without explanation where we can read about "FIFA colours". Other FIFA navbox use standart blue colours. Need change all FIFA templates (not only this one) or keep all in standart colours. Also in section List of finals key to table must be above table but not left of it. Lead section is without bold text. Also unneeded big quotes are present in article. NickSt (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominator is indefinitely banned as a sockpuppet of an account indefinitely banned for disruptive editing.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the "history" section in this list is more relevant in FIFA Club World Cup (which is full of false and useless information, as all the writing and citations discredit the Intercontinental Cup in a whole paragraph not have any relation with this tournament) being a companion article to the "main" article. In addition, the two citations included in this article does not make any reference to any final, but there are part of the author's attempt to give more value to the competition.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. Since this is a club competition, honours are reserved just to clubs, not countries or confederations of origin of the winning team.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.