Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 23:17, 20 July 2010.

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners

 * Notified: NapHit, WikiProject Football

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it seriously lacks any references in the lead or in the table itself. One external link?? The lead needs to get looked over in order to verify its contents. And the image used is suspected of being a copyright infringment. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Image replaced with one from Commons, that was easy to fix....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead still has incorrect information as well as many unverified statements. The table of winners lacks almost any sources. And the image used is more of a copyright violation than the one before and it has been set to become speedily deleted.


 * Even giving it a bird's view, anyone can tell this isn't even close to being FL material. How did it ever get promoted is beyond me. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk)  17:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've substituted all the templates of article parts for Accessibility reasons as first cited at this FLC (I believe). I've redirected templates to article sections to preserve GFDL. Also I've moved to a WP:REFGROUP system and will look to nest references within some of the second "group" of notes.
 * I was about to mention this too but you caught it.
 * RE: External links. "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
 * That's right. But those are criteria set for any article. The criteria for all feature content must be exemplary. ONE external link for a competition that has been around for nearly 6 decades is far from being noted as a FL. It does not meet the FLC at section 3; as a matter of fact, it is highly ignored.
 * And the existence of this list is in violation of wikipedia's policy on CF; the entire information on this list can be found on the parent article. Either the tables on the parent article be removed or this page should be eliminated but we can't have two seperate articles showing the same information.
 * "many unverified statements." - putting in citation needed tags would be helpful here. But if they are just statistics summarised from the later tables it does not need an explicit reference (provided the information in the tables is referenced).
 * Ok, I will break it down: the entire lead needs sources, references, something...it is obvious that three references for a whole page is far from meeting the forementioned section. I don't even need to go beyond the first sentence: "The UEFA Champions League is a seasonal association football competition established in 1956"...1956 or 1955? Which one?
 * The entire lead needs references and sources. That is what prevents it from being scrutinized. Once again, with such glaring errors like the above, it is highly surprising that it got promoted.
 * I agree the referencing is a bit weak and I'll see what I can do.
 * I recommend you gather some people and start now. I strongly recommend that this list becomes demoted immediately. BTW, two of those 6 links you have lead to the main UEFA page meaning they are worthless. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jamen, article improvement is always preferred to immediate removal as FL; as long as changes are ongoing this FLRC will remain open (within a reasonable time frame). Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As for "two of those 6 links you have lead to the main UEFA page". There is no "you have", this is not an article I have ever worked on before today. However, they are now all fixed. This process is about improving lists so making constructive comments is much more helpful than "this [should be] delisted immediately". Rambo's Revenge (talk)  19:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All right...then, the entire lead needs to be revised. The lead is three paragraphs long and only 6 sentences can be verified. Incorrect information still exists. No final on the table of winners has references. The mere existence of that page is against Wiki's policy on content forking; either this list needs to go or the lists here ...im short, the list needs a lot of work. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

At the suggestion of WFCforLife and the blatant double copy that this article has become, I have suggested that this article be merged with its parent article (although the process has long started) since we effectively have two different articles showing the exact, same information. Here is the talk page.Jamen Somasu (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Update. I've cited all the lead. Also the table is now completely referenced (sources on the column heading). I've added some tooltip functionality to hover and reveal penalty scores while keeping the slightly longer system where WP:ACCESS issue exist. What I think needs doing still:
 * RSSF gives the attendance figures but I want to double check they are all right (I think I found one mistake before) before I put the reference on the column heading.
 * Nest some references into the notes, such as referencing eligibilty, disqualification etc.
 * If there is anything outside this that people think need doing please comment what and I'll see what I can do. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I have seen, criteria one has been met (unless there are any objections). Criteria 3, in my opinion, is still lacking since the list is far from being comprehensive. Every edition needs a reference. For example, look at this list which is a FLC. If you go down to the actual table, you will see references on the right. Click on, say...the reference for the 1995 Recopa Sudamericana between Independiente and Vélez Sarsfield. If you do, it will take you to a link directing you to Independiente's trophy room, specifically the Recopa they won.


 * This is what I mean when I said that everything on the table of winners needs to be referenced. I know every club that has achieved anything has a trophy page, and some even go into details like the example shown above. Every edition needs to have winning club's official site backing each edition won.


 * Why should it be done? Because the list now, while passable, is mediocre: the bulk of the list is backed up only by one source (UEFA). You're telling me you can't find 20+ references on a tournament that has been around for over half-a-century? Technically, there is nothing I could object now. It just seems that, rather than trying to make top-notch lists like the list I have proposed (which has been butchered to death), we are just promoting mediocrity if we let this go. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your constant referal to Recopa is bordering on WP:POINTY. We are not discussing that list. I could use 55 different UEFA and 55 different RSSF citations but what is the point when it is all covered by current refs 9 and 10 it is just WP:CITEKILL. As you said there are no grounds to object now. Could it be better, yes, but remember no article can be perfect. If there is something your really want, you are welcome to add it yourself.
 * Rambo's Revenge (talk)</b>  (a.k.a the butcher of featured candidacies) :p. 21:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Status What issues, if any, remain to be addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes need references. Sandman888 (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – The references have some publishers that could use spelling out. Other than that and the notes (mentioned above), this is in keep territory.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Sandman that notes 1-10 need inline citations. I always have and always will defend stand-alone usage of BBC, but the football specific acronyms UEFA (Union of European Football Associations) and FIFA (International Football Association Board) should be spelt out at least once. After that's done I think this is a definite Keep. WFC (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

* Note: The nominator of this FLRC has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry --WFC-- 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question on references. What exactly needs to be referenced? Refs 1-10 won't be a problem. [ Referenced notes 1-10. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC) ] What about things like "No Greek clubs entered the competition from the 1955–56 season to the 1957–58 season" and "Romanian clubs did not enter the inaugural competition." Sure I could reference the general RSSSF tournament pages and there would be no Greek or Romanian club, but is it worth it? I've done the withdrawals, disqualifications and Monaco situation. <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b>  <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  19:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly involved, but as indicated above I think this is fine now. --WFC-- 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.