Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners/archive1

• The lead needs heavy copyediting. There are words missing and some sentences could be better constructed and mingled with each other. I can help you on that, if you wish. Since it's hard to pinpoint you to every thing that I feel could be improved, my preference would be to draft my own version of the lead and show it to you, so you can see if there's anything that could be used from it.

that's fine with me, would be interesting to see your take on it NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check my sandbox. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ye it's better than mine I've put it in now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You can resize the lead image up to 300px. I usually do that if the image is not to vertical and if there's enough space below it;

done but it looks excessively large to me NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the image is too vertical, as I said. Anyway, 300px is the maximum recommended. Try 250px. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better at 250px NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the key, there's no need for the "Year" parameter, I think it's quite understandable from the list;

removed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not so sure if italics is enough to highlight the winner in two-legged finals... What about using boldface simultaneously?

changed it to bold which does look a lot better NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nowhere before you explain the "points system" used to find the winner up to 1968...

Explained it in the lead now NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also copyedited that paragraph in my draft version. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Only 1967 does not have its own article. Too bad to see just that one red link.

created the article NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose in 1977 and 1979 it was the European runner-up that played right? You should add notes on that as well;

Yep missed those two, this is fixed NapHit (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the names of the countries of the participating clubs should be spelled out next to their flag, instead of the three-letter code;

changed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "Results by clubs" table, there's a typo in the 1971 red link (which should fix it to a blue link);

fixed NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Peñarol was twice runner-up but where's the runner-up years in that list?

added NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix the [[Olympic Stadium (Tokyo)|National Stadium]] links to [[National Olympic Stadium (Tokyo)|National Stadium]]. Also, link directly [[International Stadium Yokohama]] since the article is named like that. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done NapHit (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Typo in 1973 row (Juvenuts);

fixed NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the usefulness in sorting "Score" in the single match finals;

It is quite useful, it lets the user sort by biggest win and smallest win this is something that I think many people would be interested in knowing so I think it should remain sortable NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sorts by most (or least) goals scored by the winner club, but it doesn't sort by (biggest or smallest) margin of victory as it considers a 3–2 win "better" than a 3–0. If you can find a way to fix this, great; if not, I won't be stubborn about it. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, think I've got it sorting properly, see what you make of it NapHit (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted the complete set of scores: 1st: goal difference; 2nd: goals scored. You fine with this? Parutakupiu (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep looks good to me NapHit (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Uruguay has two runner-up places (Peñarol in 1960 and 1987) and not one as its stated in "Results by country", which should give 21 runner-up places for CoNMEBOL. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amended NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment: the key does not need to be a section per se; place it as the first sub-section of "Winners". Parutakupiu (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead image seems a little too large for me.

resized NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "ran from 1960 till 2004" maybe "ran inclusively between 1960 and 2004"?

new lead so it's been worded differently now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The competition was organised by UEFA and CONMEBOL, it was contested between the winners of the European Cup and the Copa Libertadores" perhaps explain UEFA is European, CONMEBOL is South American?

I've spelled out the abbreviations so this should eliminate the problem NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "From the competition's establishment in 1960 to 1979 it was" some commas here, so "From the competition's establishment. in 1960, to 1979 it was"

lead's changed so hopefully this has been fixed NapHit (talk)

• "champions from all of the confederations" you need a note here to explain exactly which confederations you're referring to.
• Don't think you really need to link "Italian" to Italy. Perhaps a more appropriate footballing link could be found, or just don't link it.

unlinked NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Same with Brazil and Argentina.

unlinked NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid bold links, per MOS.

changed this to colours now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Score sorts very oddly in "Single match finals" table, well it does in Safari.

ye it was the code that was aligning the scores with asteriks, so I've removed this sorts fine now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Results by clubs" - Nacional and Flamengo's lines look incomplete (missing a vertical line).

added the lines NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Results by confed - 42 in total for CONMEBOL, 43 in total for UEFA. How?

silly mistake to make, fixed now NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review NapHit (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(Spain), and Milan (Italy) hold the record" Don't pipe away the A.C. in A.C. Milan. There is, after all, another quite well known team in Milano.

Don't think this is necessary as the other team are known as Internazionale, while A.C. Milan are generally referred to as Milan, so I don't think this is causing any confusion. NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did this myself. Too ambiguous to a non-fan. Courcelles 05:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"2 points each; Internazionale won playoff 1–0 at Santiago Bernabéu ‡" I know enough to know this is a stadium and not a city, well, only because I once stayed off Line 10 of Madrid's Metro. Short version... Wikilink the stadia that hosted the play-offs.

done NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check your flags, the Spanish flag used is the modern one, adopted in 1981. Before that, and the older flags should be used.

fixed NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1968; why break format and use ENG instead of England?

Must of missed that oen when I was changing them to full names NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1986; this should be using the flag of the Socialist Republic of Romania, not the plain tricolour.

Yep changed NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't a team with 3 wins and 4 runners-ups sort above a team with three wins and two, one, or zero runner's up?

probably but I'm not sure how you would be able to fix this problem NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I. Courcelles 05:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it I don't think a team with 4 runners-up should sort above a team with zero, as the team with zero has the better record as they've never lost a final, so I think they it was sorting was fine. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem in the Results by country section.

see above

The results by confederation section would be better in prose in the lede, and not a two-line table.

I know where your coming from but I think the information is better represented in a table NapHit (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, well... it's not. Leave the table if you must, but this really needs to be mentioned in a sentence in the lede.

Courcelles 05:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 02:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the table the info is now in the lede. NapHit (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so the reader would have to navigate to the by year table, plus aren't links supposed to be in place if a table is sortable? NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But linking isn't compulsory though, even in sortable tables; just if you do link, you have to link every occurrence

• Surprised there's no link anywhere to the competition's subsite on UEFA.com

So was I, they removed it a while ago, as they used to have that and the cup winners' cup one as well, but that has also vanished, the link is ok though, so I don't think it's a concern. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On the runner-up sorting, you can use {{sort}} to use hidden sortkeys, so you can force the thing to sort in whatever order you like. Here, I've used a sortkey for the winners column of the form 0x0y, where x is how many won and y is how many r-u.

As I said above, surely a team that has not been runner-up should come first in a the table as they have a better record than a tea that has won the same amount but been beaten 4 times as well? The way this table sorts would imply otherwise which I think is incorrect. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could just as well argue that a team having qualified 7 times had a better record than one with 3 :-) but which way up you sort it is up to you, assuming you can justify it. I thought you were asking above how to actually do the sorting. As it stood when I posted, once the table was out of order, it wouldn't sort back into "your" order anymore than into "mine". Sorry if I misunderstood.

• Also, if you keeping pressing the sort button on the Years runner-up column, it gets itself into some very strange orders.

Yep, for som reason it was sorting according to the runners-up and winners column, I've made the columns unsortable as I you can only sort the first win and fixing this problem is too much hassle which I don't have time to fix. NapHit (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And there are some winning teams missing from the By team table.

Don't why they were removed, anyway there back in now. NapHit (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]