Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FIFA World Cup finals

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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [1].

List of FIFA World Cup finals

I've recently reformatted the page to be consistent with other FLs of similar scope. Hopefully it meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note The nominator is in the WikiCup. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would support this nomination since the prose and other related issues were resolved to meet
  WP:WIAFL, but with the discussion and worry about this being content forking, I will wait to see the outcome of that discussion first before making my final decision.--TRUCO 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Support - I feel that this article is fine to stand alone and is not subject to CFORK in this case.--TRUCO 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from OdinFK (talk) Shouldn't it be mentioned (in a footnote probably), that the 1950 "final" was not a real final but the final game of group play? OdinFK (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done (stolen from the FA FIFA World Cup :) ) Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

Support — I like the list the way it is. I also don't think that this is an unnecessary content fork. Actually some content has to be forked off from the main article, otherwise it will just grow to huge proportions with all there is to say about the World Cup. OdinFK (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

• No need for comma after first four words

• Done

• Ref 1 is before full stop, should be after

• Done

• "The championship has occurred every four years, except in 1942 and 1946, due to World War II." - reword, grammatically speaking this sentence indicates that the championship has occurred every four years due to World War II

• Done

• "Teams compete to win the World Cup Trophy" - very short sentence, should be merged with another one. Also, if you're going to mention the trophy, you should elaborate that a different trophy was used up to and including 1970

• Done

• Is it really necessary in the sentence starting "the most recent...." to write "Italian national football team" in full? Surely "Italy" would suffice? I doubt even the most non-football-savvy person would read "the tournament was won by Italy" and assume that the entire population of the country competed

• Done

• "In the eighteen tournaments held, seventy-five nations have appeared at least once in the World Cup finals tournament." - I suggest that everything after "once" is redundant

• Done

• "The current World Champions.....follows with four titles" - grammatically incorrect. Also I see no real reason for the capitals on World Champions

• Done

• "The other former champions are Uruguay who won the inaugural tournament" - needs comma after Uruguay and tournament

• Done

• In the table, for the two matches that went to a penalty shootout, you have listed the "score" of the shootout itself as the match result. This is completely incorrect, under the laws of association football the result officially recorded is that at the conclusion of on-field play. The score shown in the table should be the score as it stood at the conclusion of normal play, with the "score" of the shootout shown in the footnote.

• Not done (yet). I'm not sure about this one. I get what you're saying, but we're not governed by the laws of football. At the end of the game the winning score is that from the penalties. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the end of the game the winning score is that from the penalties". No it isn't, the final score of the game in 2006 was 1-1 (see BBC report), the penalty shoot-out did not form part of the game and was equivalent to a coin toss to decide who got the cup. If the game had been decided by a literal coin toss (as many big games were back in the day) would you show the score as 1-0 ont he grounds that Italy got one "head" to France's nil? We may not be bound by the laws of football, but we are bound by the requirement to present accurate information. The information as presented is inaccurate so unfortunately I have no option but to oppose unless it is rectified (if it's changed, I would support) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It now shows the Final scores with the penalty results in footnotes. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, "runner-ups" is not a real word, should be "runners-up" (as it originally was, in fact)

• Done

• In the footnotes, why are there capital letters on "Full-time" and "Extra time"

• Done

• Do BBC Sport and FIFA need to be wikilinked 20 times each in the refs?

• Not done There's no guarantee that what is currently the first ref will continue to be, and if removed the Wikilink will go with it. There is no harm in linking them each time.
  WP:OVERLINK
  states nothing about references.

Looks good apart from these points. The most important issue if the one regarding the scorelines for the 1994 and 2006 finals, which must be corrected as the information as currently presented is inaccurate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I have done all but two. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - unnecessary

Your oppose has no validity. The page has existed for over two years with no previous complaints of forking. The Featured list criteria does not mention content forking, which I don't believe this page is. It has eighteen entries in the first table and eleven in the second. That is well above the requirement for a List.

WP:Featured article, the formatting, layout and information in the table in the Results section is the same now as it was when it was promoted. It was not mentioned at its FAC, or its FAR

, where it was kept as a FA.

Your oppose should reflect what is listed at

WP:FL?

, nothing else.

• Does it meet Wikipedia's general requirements? Yes
• Does it contain professional standards of writing? Hopefully
• Is it comprehensive? Well it has the results for every World Cup final, there are no empty table cells of missing information, it has footnotes to accompany the entries. So yes
• It is easy to navigate? Does it have section headings and table sortability? Yes
• MOS compliant? Yes
• Visually appealing, suitable use of colors, layout and formatting? Yes
• Stable? No edit wars, only needs updating every 4 years. Yes.

I don't see where you're coming from. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have opened a deletion discussion at
  WP:DEL#REASON says Content forks are a reason for delting, and I am happy to let it rest if the community agrees with you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Firstly let me say that as a standalone piece of work, it is excellent, and I hope I wasn't too blunt or disrespectful with my previous comment. You are correct, it deserves to be a featured list based purely on the list criteria, but if content forking is not part of the list criteria, I think it should be. Given that that the user is quite likely to have navigated from

WP:FL. --Jameboy (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - Another pointless list that should be the centre piece of the main FIFA World Cup article, not split off onto a separate article. I see the AFD raised this morning was closed on a technicality within a very short space of time. Perhaps putting a mergeto tag here would be a better idea. - fchd (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after looking at the main World Cup article again, all the information in this list is already there, albeit in a slightly less-readable form. Therefore, I suggest just copying the two tables and the references to replace those in the main article, and making this a redirect. - fchd (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think this is the wrong forum to discuss that. Here we discuss the list and decide if it is worthy of being listed at

WP:GD for it says, "Nominations imply a recommendation to delete the article unless the nominator specifically says otherwise". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose as fork of FIFA World Cup#Results. The fact it existed for two years has no bearing on whether it is suitable as a standalone article. Given the list's relative brevity, I would recommend merge & redirect into the main page. Qwghlm (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppose is invalid based on

WP:Proposed mergers and I'll be happy to discuss it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Even though this is an invalid
  Template:NBA head coaches by team could be nominated for deletion, even though 80% of those articles are Featured lists or good quality (those not eligible to be featured). Same with Template:MLB managers by team. As I said, perhaps invalid, but consider that there may be a precedent set at FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Content forks, because this discussion has the potential to affect many FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest we place this nomination on hold until a discussion about it being either a valid stand-alone article or a content fork takes place in the appropriate venue --
  WP:PM. We at FLC cannot decide that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Generally I favour larger lists/articles, but I'm ok with this as is. Support. Tony (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think this is fine as a stand-alone article. Does FIFA World Cup even need a list? I don't think removing that table from the main article would do any harm; directly below it is a list of finalists with all winners and runners-up. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not really convinced by the rationale of the opposers, and it's a high-quality list that meets the standards. I noticed that a new paragraph has been added, and I'll make any needed fixes myself when I get a chance to read it closely. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There isn't enough context for the list to stand alone as it is currently written. At no point are we told what a World Cup final actually is, i.e. that it is a one off match with extra time if required etc. Since the

There's nothing I can do about it being a stand-alone article. I still feel FLC is the wrong forum to discuss it. I've tried to address your point about describing what the final is, and the Rules of the Game for the match. Since the refs, including FIFA,

verify the claim that the 1950 final is the final, and since the article does discribe the discrepancy, I'm leaving it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean not to debate as to whether the article should exist, but to say that it ought to be able to stand up without having to refer to other articles to get context. For penalties, it'd be useful to put that they have been the tiebreaker since [year] - the rules used to be different. I'd much prefer an explanation for 1950 in the prose. It wouldn't take much, a paragraph starting something like "The tournament has been decided by a one-off match on every occasion except 1950, when..." Oldelpaso (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I have moved the footnote and put it in the lead section. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent piece of work here, meets the criteria and is fully deserving of that little bronze star. Great work. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising !votes of those who have commented

(as of 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

• User:Dabomb87 Supports
• User:Tony1 Supports
• User:ChrisTheDude Supports
• User:OdinFK Supports
• User:Giants2008 Supports
• User:Rambo's Revenge Supports
• User:Sunderland06 Supports
• WP:CFORK
  but notes it is an excellent piece and "it deserves to be a featured list based purely on the list criteria"
• WP:CFORK
• User:Oldelpaso Opposes
• User:Richard Rundle has not opposed but also feels its a CFORK
• User:Truco Supports is holding back from supporting or nominating due to the CFORK issue

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the outcome of this anyhow? I haven't really followed and the discussion at WT:FLC is a bit confusing.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FLC is still open; there is still no consensus on the validity of this page's existence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made two minor copyediting changes. I support the prose and list, and abstain from commenting on the CFORK issue. I'll let Matthew or Scorpion make that decision for us. :P Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Odelpaso is on a WikiBreak. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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