Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners/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 The Rambling Man 17:09, 11 October 2010.

List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners

 * Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list is close to featured standard. This is my first time back here in over a year so I may not be up to date with certain criteria and conventions but I think there are not that many problems. Anyway let's see what you think NapHit (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Good work on improving this list. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - team names are not consistent - "Bayern München" and "Bayern Munich" are both used -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed NapHit (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that you also have both "Atlético de Madrid" and "Atlético Madrid"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right you are, amended now NapHit (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support didn't find anything at fault. Perhaps "Results by clubs" should be w/o flagicons. Sandman888 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * FIFA should be spelled out in the lead.
 * done NapHit (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note 6 could use a reference.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a reference and it's also covered by the general ref. NapHit (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support if only because Intercontinental Cup (football) should be viewed as it eventually should be, and not the sorry state it currently is in. Courcelles 20:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry I've come so late to this list, and I'm not going to improve my popularity rating any. But I've got to oppose per WP:WIAFL section 3b content fork. Apart from an incomplete column of attendance figures in the main tables, and a runners-up column in the By team/By country tables, this list is basically the same article as its parent Intercontinental Cup (football). I'd suggest improving that article similarly to how you've done here, and then submitting it as the featured list candidate, but other people might have different views.
 * I can see why your saying this, as the main article is rather slim on prose, but I think that article could be improved, there is a lot of history organisation and records that could be incorporated as prose, and I don't think it would suffice as a list. For starters I could remove some of the tables and add a bit of prose to the winners section, that would make it less of a content fork in my eyes, as that article has potential for much more content. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much you've been following the discussion going on currently about this section of the criteria. Personally, I don't really know where we stand at the moment. But assuming 3b is still part of the FL criteria, it says: "it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". The thing is, this list does largely recreate material from another article, and it's clear that it could reasonably be included as part of a related article, because most of it's still in one. Anyway, it's up to the FL directors as to whether this is an actionable oppose or not; maybe it isn't, in the current state of flux. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have other reviewers been asked to comment on the 3b issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The one thing I'm going to say is that if the main article was brought here with improvements, it would likely be opposed for having the potential to be more of an article than a list (someone would probably say to take it to GAN). I don't know how to feel about this one. I can certainly see why 3b is being raised, but at the same time, does the main article benefit from having all of these tables? Of course, my FAC-reviewing background leads me to prefer prose over tables in non-list pages.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree as precedence have it otherwise. We have the Balon d'Or, some freedom prize by the IRC etc, list of buildings of Jefferson college (the corresponding Oxford list is GA) which should be articles but are list, and featured lists. Sandman888 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Some other comments:
 * Don't need flags in By team section, or really in By country, the name should be enough
 * removed from by team section, the flag comes with the country templates like the one in the code here:, so I think their fine to be honest, as long as the names of the country follows the flag I see no problem
 * depends whether you think they're informative or decorative: not sure myself if a tiny stripey picture adds much to my understanding of the words Paraguay or Yugoslavia

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Struway. I have no idea how consensus interprets 3.b but here's my take: if it is a content fork that could be avoided per WP:AVOIDSPLIT it fails 3.b. Now the parent article may have the potential for more, but that is irrelevant; a summary style spin-off is only valid if the parent article is already long enough to justify a split. Not potentially long enough (everything is potentially long enough). Sandman888 (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on 3b criterium issue — I have lent my support to this list and it would be stupid for me to take it back, since I was somehow aware of this 3b issue. The solution has been pointed out: turning the parent page into a more developed, prose-rich and less table-ish article, thus potentiating this list as an acceptable article spinout. The thing is: does Intercontinental Cup (football) meet currently that status? No. Does that help this nomination? Not really. Just remember that if this list is not promoted, it's not by its own demerit, but because it's a subsidiary page of an under-developed article. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Support this is not a content fork (at least not more than say Olympic medal tables). The parent article does not need tables with so many entries (I would prefer just a list of winners, no results or finalists there) and should be instead focused on prose, with emphasis on history, notability/prestige, and demise. Nergaal (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3b comment. In my opinion this is one of the frailties of 3b because it is a subjective decision. At the moment (it should not be spun out, i.e. removed from the main article) because you end up with a stubby main article and a larger sublist. I don't think an article/list should ever be pre-emptively spun off because of what might happen to the main article - surely that is also WP:CRYSTAL. Expand the main article then spin-out if necessary. Maybe I'm an idealist but that's how I work. Otherwise you get a bunch of discogs or award pages with nothing on the subject themselves. I think there must exist some responsibiltiy on associated pages. Take List of The West Wing episodes, I could easily make seven fairly average season articles and then make said article into a fairly "easy" FL without ep. summaries because they could be developed within the season articles. Of cause they could be developed, but if they haven't been then am I not cheating a bit. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose because of 3b concern. This is basically the same article as Intercontinental Cup (football).  Good raise  19:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


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