Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football League Cup winners


 * 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 promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009.

List of Football League Cup winners
I believe this list is worthy of featured list status, it has had a thorough peer review which addressed many issues, and I now believe the list is very close to attaining FL standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note Nominator is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - A very good list (started by me, I might add ;) ). My only suggestion would be to use "Wembley Stadium (1923)" and "Wembley Stadium (2008)" instead of "Wembley Stadium (original)" and "Wembley Stadium (new)", as, while the current Wembley Stadium is currently the "new" Wembley Stadium, that will not always be the case, so it would be better to disambiguate by the year that each one opened. – PeeJay 15:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I'm not aware of any guidelines on how much prose can or should be included in a list, I don't think the History section is required. It says For more details on this topic, see Football League Cup, but the History section there is the same size, so something isn't right. The History section could be merged into the lead without losing any information, and I have put forward a proposal for what this may look like in my sandbox. By doing it this way, the reader goes straight from the lead into the list, while maintaining a good lead to introduce the list. --Jameboy (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I was just going along with what has already occured in other featured lists such as List of FA Cup winners which has a history section, I think it should remain personally it is nice addition and does not detract anything from the section in the main article. NapHit (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with NapHit. Similar sections have been included in pretty much all of the other "List of [competition] winners" articles, so it stands to reason that this one should have one too. It doesn't stray from the main topic of the article too much, so I don't see what harm it does. – PeeJay 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I agree with User:Jameboy, I don't see any need at all for this to be a standalone article. Merge the table of winners back in to the main League Cup article, and you have all the information in one article, which isn't too big (which might have been the case for the FA Cup). The way this stands now, it's just an article for an article's sake. - fchd (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * The competition was established in 1960, and is considered to be the second most important domestic cup competition for English football clubs, after the FA Cup. - remove the first comma
 * This one seemed alright to me, as an example of the Oxford comma, but I've removed it anyway.
 * You're right, I misread the sentence, you may readd it, sorry.-- TRU    CO   01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Upon a second reading of the sentence, I'm not sure it needs the comma. It would probably be fine either way. – PeeJay 01:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It could go either way, so its fine either or.-- TRU    CO   16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The first Football League Cup was won by Aston Villa, who beat Rotherham United 3–2 on aggregate, after losing the first leg 2–0.[3] For the first six seasons of the competition, the final was contested over two legs, one at each participating club's stadium.  - 1)the second sentence should go first because it helps to explain what the terms in the following sentence means 2)What does aggregate mean (link? footnote? elaboration?)
 * 1) done; 2) linked
 * Liverpool hold the record for the most League Cup titles; they have won the competition seven times[4] including four consecutive titles from 1981 to 1984. - comma before including
 * Done
 * The cup is held by Tottenham Hotspur, who defeated Chelsea 2–1 after extra time in the 2008 final. - add "currently" before held
 * Done
 * Swindon Town also then of Division Three matched this feat in 1969. - comma before also and after Division Three
 * Done
 * Sheffield Wednesday then in the Second Division became the last club to win the competition whilst competing outside the First Division, when they beat Manchester United in the 1991 final. - comma before then and after Second Division
 * Done
 * With the promise of potential European football, First Division teams entered the competition, and all 92 Football League clubs entered the League Cup for the first time in 1969–70. - since the year is in that format, where is the link to that season or respective article?
 * Linked to the appropriate season, although it is a redlink
 * The final returned to London in 2008, where Tottenham Hotspur became the first side to win the competition at the new Wembley, beating Chelsea 2–1 after extra time. - the first side? Is this another word for "team"?
 * Yes
 * Is the attendance necessary? It doesn't add to the relevancy of the list. If it is, it should be summarized in the prose as well.
 * The attendance isn't especially relevant, but I've left it in as I don't really fancy removing so much info myself. I don't like the pressure, you see.
 * Well you should note something about it in the prose if you are going to leave it.-- TRU    CO   01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could do, but I'm going to bed now, so if someone else could do that, that'd be great. – PeeJay 01:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes the list incomplete because a major part of the list is not being summarized in the lead and is just there for no apparent reason [in regards to the reader]. So until then, I can't support.-- TRU    CO   16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not needed describing the attendance in the lead is unnecessary, it is overkill, I will add a link to attendances or something so the reader can click on that if they are interested, otherwise there is no need for anything else. NapHit (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then at least add footnote stating why the attendance is there, if I didn't know any better, I would be like "Why the hell is the attendance in this type of list"?-- TRU    CO   18:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added note to clarify NapHit (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since ref #3 and 8 mostly verify the entire list(s), how about making it a general ref, as seen in this FL's references?-- TRU    CO   22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the comments. – PeeJay 01:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL. TRU    CO   20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the references need some slight formatting. Please check with User:Ealdgyth
 * guardian.co.uk, independent.co.uk and football-league.co.uk are the names of websites and should not be italicised. football-league.co.uk can be removed completely since the publisher is "The Football League"
 * Ref #4 needs a space between "BBC Sport" and "(British Broadcasting Corporation)"
 * To add on that, I would argue that the .co.uk is unnecessary. Just use The Independent or The Guardian as the work. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To Matthew: There is actually a space between the publisher and work, but the italics obscure it. There is no way to fix it without editing cite news. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the problem with the refs. NapHit (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.