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]
I would explain that the FIFA Cup is used to represent the championship, and that way you can eliminate saying that in this sentence..The Italy national football team were crowned champions after beating the France national football team in the final, and awarded the FIFA World Cup Trophy.
The current World Champions, Italy, follow with four titles, while Germany hold three. - "holds" not hold
The other former champions are Uruguay (who won the inaugural tournament) and Argentina with two titles each, and England and France with one title each. - it maybe the punctuation but it should be like ..The other former champions are Uruguay (who won the inaugural tournament) and Argentina, with two titles each, and England and France, with one title each.
I find it redundant to link to the respective finals article in the World Cup and Final score columns, it should just be in one.
In the year column, it's the link to the article about that year's competition. In the Final score column, it's a link to the article about the final match. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)
Oh okay.--TRUCO 22:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but IMO the World cup column should be called "Year" and then a footnote should be added that each year is linked to the respective finals article.
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]
Support, all issues resolved. I think that this article is fine as a stand-alone list. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:59, 7 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]
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]
"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]
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]
Oppose - unnecessary content fork of FIFA_World_Cup#Results. A list this size can easily sit within the parent article. Only the stadium and host city of the final match have been added, and these could be added to the existing table with a bit of re-formatting (maybe by giving the third and fourth place teams less prominence). --Jameboy (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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 FIFA World Cup to this list, I think he or she would be disappointed to see the same information repeated - the list has to offer them something more. Increasing numbers of lists are appearing that, while well-produced and informative and great standalone pieces, fail to ask the questions "should I exist?" and "where do I fit in"? If stating my opposition based on such things is invalid, then fair enough, I accept that. I guess this is a wider point that I should take up at WP:Lists and 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:FL based on the FL criteria. Content forks should be discussed at a different venue, either WP:AfD or WP:Proposed mergers. I had opened a disussion at AfD, but it was closed after an hour by an admin who apparently had not read 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:FL?. I'll discuss whether the list meets the criteria, but not whether it deserves to exist. This isn't the right forum for that. Take it to WP:AfD or 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 WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'd like to point out that many such "content-fork" like lists have been promoted at FLC in the past eight months. For example, by some of the opposers' reasoning, just about everything at 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 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:AfD or 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]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
Comments - Actually, I didn't support above. I merely said that I thought it was an appropriate list for Wikipedia to have. As long as I'm here, I might as well offer a full review. I probably don't do enough reviewing at FLC anyway, considering that I have five FLs myself. Wish we had 36 hours in a day to make things easier.
What are your thoughts on making the table key its own section? It looks like it doesn't cover the Results by nation section, when it is meant to.
Here's an innovative one: How about offering a note in the key that the links in the Winners and Runners-up columns go to national teams? They're a lot more valuable than straight country links, which are what they appear to be at first glance.
Footnote 3: Take "also" out of the parenthetical part?
Is the TM mark needed in reference 5?
Very good list overall, and I'll be happy to support for real when these are done. You also might want to put ChrisTheDude in your summary above. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have made the necessary changes and removed you from the summary below. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Italy and South Africa links are still in. Do you want to leave them? I'm not really worried about the South Africa link, but am not crazy about having duplicate links in the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:27, 10 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 Maracanazo was not actually a World Cup final as such, the explanation for its inclusion should be described fully in the text, not hidden away in a footnote. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
What was the outcome of this anyhow? I haven't really followed and the discussion at WT:FLC is a bit confusing.--TRUCO503 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]
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.