Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Recopa Sudamericana 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 16:45, 3 June 2010.

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)


 * 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)


 * 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. &mdash; 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)

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.