Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2010

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 12:40, 16 June 2010 [1].

Nominator(s): WereWolf (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have re-edited this list completely, as I added the infobox and uploaded pictures. I added all of the proper citations and sources, and have completed a peer review. I believe this list meets the criteria to become a featured list, and I would love to see it become one! Thanks, WereWolf (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Ranges (such as years) use an endash, not a hyphen, see WP:DASH.
  • done
• "Former touring musicians" should be in table format, just like the rest of the list.
  • done
• In the infobox, "alternate rock" should not be capitalized.
  • done
• "Red Hot Chili Peppers" should not be in boldface.
  • done
• It would be nice if the lead started with a summary of the number of bands, along the line of "has four member and has had fifteen all together".
  • done
• There seem to be several unreferenced sentences in the lead.
  • Such as...? done
• It is common to have a sentence or two explaining the content in the table, even if it is ever so clear. This should also include a definition of a touring musician.
  • done
• Stick in a center-aligned emdash where there are no images.
  • done
    • You've added an endash (–), not an emdash (—). Sorry to be so picky, but it creates consistency through the project. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, sorry, misread that. done
• "Jack Sherman" is a disambiguation page.
  • done
• File:Joshklinghoffergnarlsbarkley.jpg has no licensing information.
  • I recently added the photo to the WP:MCQ article in order to get some information regarding the image. I did not upload it, and I don't have enough experience to determine the licensing information myself. Replaced image. done Image was deleted. not done Done
• File:SlovakChiliPeppersUplift87.jpg is a fair use image and cannot be used in this article.
  • done
• Please upload your own images to the Commons, so they can be used in other languages. (File:Jack-Irons.jpeg and File:Arik Marshall.jpg can be moved using this tool.)
  • done
• Apter (2004) is 389 pages long, yet there is no page number used in the reference.
  • done Replaced reference.
• Some refs use "RollingStone.com", while other use "Rolling Stone". Be consistent (I would prefer the latter).
  • done
• Ref 17 is from blogspot. Why is it reliable? Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the interviewer's personal blog, and he was employed by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Grammy Foundation, a "widely recognized program" that allows "high school students with a focus on the music industry" to interview musicians and recording artists. [2] WereWolf (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure how FLC regards the FA criteria of high quality reliable sources, but is this really the only source available to confirm Klinghoffer's membership? Surely this must have been covered in mainstream media outlets as well, given the fame of the band? Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the only confirmation of Klinghoffer's membership. He has not made any confirmation himself, and the band has not stated anything else regarding his membership. This reference is also used on the Red Hot Chili Peppers article, so I thought it would be okay. WereWolf (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this is the only confirmation, then how can we be sure that he is even in the band? I tried various news searches, and there were lots of hits confirming his membership in the band. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're sure he's in the band because drummer Chad Smith confirmed his membership in that interview. It was the first official report of Klinghoffer's membership. If that isn't a good confirmation, then I don't know what is. WereWolf (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• While the lead is properly referenced now, how are the tables referenced? Normally there is a ref column in the table. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the List of Megadeth band members, the tables are not referenced, and referencing the tables on this list would be redundant. Everything is covered in the lead. WereWolf (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A certain amount of redundancy will only improve the article. It must be clear how the information is sourced, and many readers will read only the table, without the lead, and still want to see references. It also strains the reads to have to go through the entire lead looking for a reference when at no cost it could be right there in the lead. Also, it is unclear how any of the touring members are referenced, as these are not mentioned in the lead. [[User:Arsenikk|Arsenikk]^(talk) 21:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about the List of Megadeth band members? That was never an issue for that featured list. WereWolf (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There is an inconsistency in the dating format in the references. Stick to either ISO or full-length dating. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • done. WereWolf (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is insufficiently referenced. For instance, there is no reference for any of the touring musicians, and the table itself is not referenced, with the nominator insisting that readers refer to the lead for references. It is difficult to see how Klinghoffer can be a confirmed member if no media outlets have covered it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have divided the reference list into two sections, "General" and "Specific", so that readers can easily access reliable sources to verify the members. This technique is incorporated into the List of Megadeth band members, which I have used as a template for this list. WereWolf (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't this easily be in the RHCP main page, i.e. does it pass criteria 3.b? Why do we need a list of the members? Sandman888 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd have to disagree. Red Hot Chili Peppers have gone through fifteen official members, and the list makes it easier to understand who was in the band at what time, why members left, etc. I do believe that the list meets criteria 3.b, and I don't think it would be an easy task to condense this list into a manageable size in order for it to be on the RHCP main page. Also, RHCP has employed live members in their performances, which are not mentioned in the main article at all. This list clearly explains to the readers that RHCP has had backup or live musicians as well as official members. WereWolf (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 12:40, 16 June 2010 [3].

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is good enough to be a FL. I will be happy to received feedback about it. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this article meet 3(b)? Why can't there just be "List of number-one albums of the 20002 (Mexico)" or something similar? I don't really have an opinion (I'm not the strongest supporter of 3(b)), but I'd just like to discuss it now, particularly because the promotion of this will probably prompt "number-one albums of 2009/2007/etc." Mm40 (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already took to FL status the list for 2009, (see List of number-one albums of 2009 (Mexico)). I will be happy to have a decade long lista (as a I did for the Hot Latin Tracks from the 1980s and Top Latin Albums from the 1990s, but the electronic database for Amprofon in lescharts.com only provides information from mid 2007 to date. Is that enough?. Jaespinoza (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Dabomb87 00:45, 13 June 2010 [4].

Nominator: Tompw (talk) (review) 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believ it meets all the criteria, with good prose, a suitable lead, a comprehensive covering of all items within the defined scope, a simple structure and style, and is stable. This list will need to be updfated every few years as new elections occur, but otherwise the list is stable. Tompw (talk) (review) 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "This article provides a summary of..." Featured lists no longer begin like this; please see recently promoted FLs for examples of more engaging intros. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've chnaged the opening sentence now. Tompw (talk) (review) 16:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, looks much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs 9, 10 and 12 need an en-dash, not a hyphen.
• Not convinced that the districts need to be bold. The List of Alberta general elections is actually in pretty poor shape and could use bringing up to our current standards.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is one dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Ref 1: Who publishes this guide? Is it this? Link to it if that's correct.
• "There have been nineteen ridings for all elections to date, each electing one Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA)." Change riding to link to Electoral district (Canada). Also, reword this sentence. Even after finding out what a riding is, it was difficult to understand this sentence.

Jujutacular ^T · C 17:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Footnote D is an incomplete sentence. Ucucha 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• The lead is relatively short compared to those of most FLs that have come through here lately. Is there a possibility for any more prose?
• I believe this has been mentioned before, but reference 1 needs a publisher. Don't think the publisher needs an external link, though.
• Spell out CBC in the references and note H. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 19:38, 3 June 2010 [5].

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete list of the leaders of the Soviet Union which i have nominated. ;P --TIAYN (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please remove the overpowering bright red from the table.
  • Done
• There should not be a comma between month and year in --TIAYN (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)a date. Also be consistent with MDY or DMY format.[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:DATESNO#Full date formatting
    • Done
• The notes could be moved into the table so that it is clearer which leader each note belongs to. There is plenty of room to widen the table and it is easier to read with the relevant note being right next to the person.
  • The notes are in the table; what do you mean? --TIAYN (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could put the text in the table so that readers conveniently have that relevant information right next to the leader rather than elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please follow the section order and titles at MOS:APPENDIX.
  • Done
• Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Oppose Comment. I worry that the question of who was the leader of SU at any particular historical time may be entirely subjective. For instance, why Trotsky is not included? He may be considered the leader in 1923-1924. Ruslik_Zero 16:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trotsky never had enough support in the Communist Party to became leader of the republic or even the party machine, thats why Joseph Stalin became leader. If Trotsky had enough support and strength between 1923-1924 Stalin would probably not become leader, and the mass murders would probably not have happened. To conclude, while you may be right, your view is hold by a minority, and is therefor a WP:FRINGE theory. --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not attribute to me opinions that I have never stated. I have never said that Trotsky should be included. I just asked a question. I, however, do not understand the criteria used to choose particular leaders for inclusion in this list. Why Malenkov is included? He was never especially influential within Soviet leadership at that time. Is 'troika' a leader? (Anyway, this is incomplete list of troikas.) Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying does not make sense, George Malenkov was First Secretary and controlled the Soviet Union before the rise of Khrushchev, and this is not an incomplete list of Troikas. Tell me missing troikas? Your statements and opinions are wrong on this matter. You are right, they may have been other troikas, but none of those other troikas ruled the Soviet Union. The inclusion is easy, those who ruled the Soviet Union!`--TIAYN (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He never was the First Secretary. He was a secretary and resigned form the secretariat on 13 March. The position of First (or General) Secretary did not even exist in 1953. Ruslik_Zero 10:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is again both inaccuratte and absurd. The post of the Genereal Secretary was established in 1922 and was re-named right after Stalin's to First Secretary. Malenkov was elected to the secretariat in 1952, not 1953, and seeing as i'm right, the post existed in the 1950s. Just remove your absurd oppose, its ridicules and, you are basing your claims on inaccurate information. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The post of the General Secretary was formally abolished in 1934 during the 17-th Party Congress (see here, p. 158). Stalin was just the first secretary meaning that his name was first in the list of secretaries. Formally all secretaries were equal. Malenkov was elected a secretary (together with Stalin and others) in 1952 and I never claimed otherwise. No General Secretary was elected. On 6 March 1953, just after Stalin's death, Malenkov's name was moved to the first position in the list of secretaries (see here, p. 123). In other words he became the first secretary, literally. On March 14 Malenkov resigned from the secretariat. The post of General Secretary was reinstated only in 1965. You should be very accurate when composing such lists as this one. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, see table, Malenkov ruled the Soviet Union not as a secretary but as a premier. --TIAYN (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not strike out against reviewers; Ruslik has been civil, whereas you have now twice attacked him. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i'm not trying to attack him or act like a jurk, but what he is saying is inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused by the date. Based on my understanding, from April 3, 1922 to January 21, 1924, Lenin and Stalin both were the country's "leader".—Chris!_c/t 1:28 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Done

• Comment I am confused by the timeline. According to the table, Stalin replaced Lenin on Jan 21, 1924. However, the timeline shows them overlapping for '22-'24, with no explanation as to what that means. Similarly, the table has Malenkov as ruling for a week before being supplanted by the troika, but the timeline has him overlapping Stalin and Krushchev for '48-'55. I understand that Soviet politics is not a straight-forward affair, but there's no textual explanation in the list to explain this discrepancy. On a different note, I think you should say who the members of the troikas are in the table- this is not such a long list that you need to conserve space. --PresN 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done

Comment. I stuck my oppose, however, the lack of well defined inclusion criteria makes me to stay neutral. Ruslik_Zero 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Repetition: "The office of the People's Commissars was the equivalent of the office of prime minister," instead how about 'was equivalent to the office of' [in that way the repetitive of is removed]
  • Done

• Same thing here: "while the office of the Central Executive Committee was the equivalent of president."

• • Done
• "though the Soviet Union collapsed before this was tried out." -- 'tried out' -> 'before it could have been tried.'
  • Done
• "Lenin was elected Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars on 8 November 1917 by the Russian Congress of Soviets, as such, he declared; "Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the entire country" in modernising Russia into a twentieth-century country" - no need for the semi colon
  • Done

More later..--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued

• "After a failed assination attempt, Lenin's popularity was on the rise,[15] but his health, as a 53-year-old man, declined from the effects of two bullet wounds, later aggravated by three strokes which culminated to his death in 1924." -- so many commas and pauses, it would just be best to split these two sentences; also a typo on assassination.

• To be quite honest, this list should have been peer reviewed before it came to FLC. There are a lot of poor sentence structures in the summary portion. This is not a place for PR, so I have to stand with an Oppose until either the prose is revised. --Truco ₅₀₃ 01:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 19:23, 3 June 2010 [6].

Nominator(s): RG (talk), FateForger

I am nominating this for featured list because it gives readers a brief summary of hair metal and a pretty well sourced list of its groups. Me and User:FateForger were the main two contributers who worked on the article. Essentially this list is based on the list of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, a former Featured list. Also there have been almost no edit wars. Please feel free to comment on any problems the list has. RG (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm pretty sure that this list is missing a tons of bands, such as, you know, European, Asian or even African glam metal bands which are not that notable. --TIAYN (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We actually do have a lot of European acts on the list (Europe, Scorpions, Crashdïet, The Darkness, Krokus, Yngwie Malmsteen, etc.) and one Asian group (Loudness). I seriously doubt we could find notable groups from Africa and more importantly reliable sources citing them as hair metal bands. RG (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This list is a re-post of a list that was previously nominated for AfD and the result was delete. Wiki libs (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The proposer has openly admitted on the article's discussion page that factual accuracy was not a consideration when compiling the list. Criteria for inclusion seem to be arbitrary, i.e. any single semi-reliable source will do, regardless of how many other sources exist to the contrary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Articles can be recreated just so you know and the fact that the article was deleted is not relevant. Also might I add that the only reason the list was deleted in the first place was because of Libs and his sockpuppets, Fair Deal and Peter Fleet. And Breton you're personal beliefs are not to be used here on wikipedia. As I've stated before wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. This list covers all criteria for featured list status. RG (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal beliefs? Like what? Like my personal belief that you openly admitted on the article's talk page that you weren't worried about facts? Would you like me to supply that quote here? Here you go: [7]. WP:Truth doesn't say anything about providing a single source for a piece of information, and using it to try and deny a huge number of sources that say something else. That's what is being done on this list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said that because I myself disagree with some of the bands on the list, but the list is in fact 100% accurately sourced so my opinion and more importantly your opinion doesn't matter. Even the bands you have disagreed about have multiple sources categorizing them in this genre. Your oppose vote was based not on Featured List criteria. RG (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it more important that my opinion doesn't matter than yours? You might want to rephrase that. Are you a more important editor? You appear to be claiming that my vote doesn't count, and whether you like it or not, it counts. You are not addressing the fact that there are many more sources placing some of these bands in a different genre, making this list misleading and not suitable for Featured List status. Ghits suggest that Slade and T-Rex (as examples) are up to ten times more closely associated with glam rock than glam metal. The scope of the list is too broad in that it includes bands far more commonly associated with other genres, diluting the function of the list. It suggests that sources were selected specifically to verify one point of view, while a far more commonly-held point of view was ignored. My view is that the reason for this list would be far better served by a category. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, you've completely misunderstood my statement. You're the one making the decision on whether this is going to become a featured list (which it mostly likely won't seeing how this discussion has started off) or not. I know that my opinion won't influence you hence why it isn't as important. Only your thoughts and your beliefs influence the way you make decisions. Also, google hits are not relevant. A majority off the websites that you see are blogs, forums, fansites, etc and not reliable. And might I add that bands can play more than one style at a time. A band doesn't have to be just glam rock. And having more sources calling something something else also, again frankly isn't relevant. If the list of psychedelic rock bands was well sourced and put up for FLS would you complain about Cream being on the list even though you might find more sources calling them a blues-rock band (hypothetically speaking of course)? RG (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it was a poorly worded statement on your part, I think. I know that ghits aren't a toll of reliable sources. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between us regarding what is and isn't metal, but that is not why I oppose this list. More sources placing bands in a different genre is relevant; it makes the list misleading, and calls into question the whole function of the list. A particular point of fact is that each of these sources probably have different definitions of glam metal - they are not working to a single definition. What does this list tell people? The list implies that (e.g.) T. Rex were a glam metal band and shared something intrinsically in common with the likes of W.A.S.P. and Whitesnake. The genre most commonly associated with T. Rex is not glam metal but glam rock, and honestly, with the best will in the world, T. Rex and WASP had very little in common. Why is it so important that at least one reliable source calls T-Rex glam metal, when it is clear that many more sources call them something else? If bands can play more than one style at a time, and be several different genres at once, then discerning criteria for a list is far too vague for comfort. I think lists of bands based on genre are fundamentally flawed, subjective and better served by categories which can more comfortably overlap. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [8].

Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support all looks good. Sandman888 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the nominator has been blocked indefinitely I propose a speedy fail. Sandman888 (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Everything is taken care of! Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep...no way. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking to yourself here? To whom was this comment addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Just ignore it. Jamen Somasu (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is this becoming a FL or not? Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion isn't completed, and nominations take a minimum of seven days, almost always longer. — KV5 • Talk • 02:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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...

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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