Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/January 2012
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Giants2008 19:11, 21 January 2012 [1].
- Notified: Arsenikk, WikiProject Football
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe that after getting Liverpool F.C. in European football to good article status, I believe that these should be articles not lists. There is consensus of this see here and here. I believe that there would be more than enough info for an article to be developed here despite the lack of success the team has experienced in Europe. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list covers a notable topic in an encyclopedic manner. A reader interested in a prose summary of the article will find the club's history in European tournaments incorporated into History of Rosenborg BK, including placing participation and matches in a wider context. Had the team played only a fraction of the games in Europe, the table could easily have been included in List of Rosenborg BK records and statistics. However, it has to be a stand-alone list due to the length of the table. Comparison with larger clubs such as Liverpool and Real Madrid is not necessarily optimal, as their participation in matches and trophies is many-fold that of a more peripheral club and the general discussion of Rosenborg's participation in Europe can be covered in other articles. I am open to a different name, such as for instance 'List of Rosenborg BK matches in UEFA tournaments', 'List of Rosenborg BK matches in Europe' or something similar. If a new scope for 'Rosenborg BK in Europe' is required, that isn't a problem, but a list of matches should still retain, and for that purpose, this article remains featured quality, independent of its title. Arsenikk (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Arsenikk. A reader can find a more detailed summary in History of Rosenborg BK. I also agree on the fact that there is a substantial difference between Rosenborg BK and the likes of Liverpool and Barcelona, I'm sure that a summary of these clubs European endeavours also could be found in other articles. I believe that it is unnecessary for a more detailed prose to be added to this list when it can be found elsewhere. A change of title would perhaps be beneficial for clarification purposes, both of the two alternatives suggested above sounds good in my ears. Lets keep this as it is, a list of Rosenborg BK's European matches and let the summary stay in the history article of the club where it belongs. For a comparison, we don't classify List of Rosenborg BK seasons as an article with a prose to summarize Rosenborg BKs domestic matches, why should we do the opposite for its international matches? --Reckless182 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arsenikk and Reckless. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The way I see it there are various options:
- Keep and rename to List of Rosenborg BK games in European football.
- Remove and rename to Rosenborg BK in European football per comments at Liverpool F.C. FAC and then improve the prose to make it into an article rather than list.
- Keep, rename as above, but have this page in similar others to lists which can add more details to what a page Rosenborg BK in European football can include. I.e. Liverpool F.C. in European football which does not have a breakdown list of each game could do so at List of Liverpool F.C. games in European football. Brad78 (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are substantial differences between Rosenborg and Liverpool in european competition, but then there are substantial differences between the club's anyway and their main articles are similar so why should this be any different. The problem is that if the list stays the way it is, it effectively creates a two-tier system. You'll have prose articles for big clubs and lists for smaller clubs, but there are numerous problems with this. How would you determine whether a club that is not a major european one should have a list or prose its too open to interpretation. Another issue is that if there is a significant difference between the clubs does the smaller teams european exploits warrant an article? Personally simply listing the matches is WP:NOTSTATS, its not exactly encyclopaedic, I genuinely believe the list should become an article, hopefully we can reach some form of consensus because as Brad states there are a number of ways this can turn out. I'm not in favour of a list of European games as I don't think its particularly notable or worthy of being in an encyclopaedia but we'll see. NapHit (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like inconsistency and as you both have pointed out there will be a few problems. With the my opinion expressed above as ground I believe that if we should set a standard then it should be set up like this: A summary of the clubs European history to be included in articles such as "History of X FC" and a list of the same clubs matches in UEFA competitions should be named "List of X FC matches in UEFA competitions". This applies to all clubs and thus eliminating inconsistency. IF we decide that the European history of football clubs should be written in the way that NapHit is proposing and already using for Liverpool then I believe that we need to start discussing whether we should change the status of lists such as "List of X FC seasons" into articles. Since I don't see this as reasonable and don't want to treat domestic club history and international club history any different I vote that we will follow my suggestion as per above. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Season articles don't need prose, as every fixture the club is played in a season is included in the list. I really don't think a list of matches in uefa competitions is viable as a list, as I stated above its WP:NOTSTATS. I'm not sure why you think there is a difference between the seasons and european articles, for Liverpool F.C. the european stats are included in the seasons article so there is no need for prose as both european and domestic matches are under one list. i think where possible wikipedia articles should consist of prose, there will be enough info available to create an article despite the stature of the club os this is the route I feel should be followed, but i'm interested to see what other editors think. NapHit (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like inconsistency and as you both have pointed out there will be a few problems. With the my opinion expressed above as ground I believe that if we should set a standard then it should be set up like this: A summary of the clubs European history to be included in articles such as "History of X FC" and a list of the same clubs matches in UEFA competitions should be named "List of X FC matches in UEFA competitions". This applies to all clubs and thus eliminating inconsistency. IF we decide that the European history of football clubs should be written in the way that NapHit is proposing and already using for Liverpool then I believe that we need to start discussing whether we should change the status of lists such as "List of X FC seasons" into articles. Since I don't see this as reasonable and don't want to treat domestic club history and international club history any different I vote that we will follow my suggestion as per above. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are substantial differences between Rosenborg and Liverpool in european competition, but then there are substantial differences between the club's anyway and their main articles are similar so why should this be any different. The problem is that if the list stays the way it is, it effectively creates a two-tier system. You'll have prose articles for big clubs and lists for smaller clubs, but there are numerous problems with this. How would you determine whether a club that is not a major european one should have a list or prose its too open to interpretation. Another issue is that if there is a significant difference between the clubs does the smaller teams european exploits warrant an article? Personally simply listing the matches is WP:NOTSTATS, its not exactly encyclopaedic, I genuinely believe the list should become an article, hopefully we can reach some form of consensus because as Brad states there are a number of ways this can turn out. I'm not in favour of a list of European games as I don't think its particularly notable or worthy of being in an encyclopaedia but we'll see. NapHit (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this vs the LFC GA is comparing chalk with cheese. This is a good summary of what Rosenborg have achieved (albeit limited) in European football. It would be surprising (to me, at least) if we could ever hope to have an article like the LFC one for Rosenborg, and besides, the LFC article summarises, in general, all the cup wins. That's not possible here, so until Rosenborg become one of the best clubs in European history (like Liverpool), trying to make "one size fit all" as this nomination appears to be trying to achieve, is impossible. (Furthermore, don't forget we have the criteria, does this list currently fail any of them?) The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This is coming from someone who opposed the Real Madrid page linked above. I said there that it would be best if similar lists went through GAN/FAC. The question that comes to mind is, are these types of articles really similar when the accomplishments of the clubs differ so vastly? I'm not fully convinced that they are. For a club like Manchester United, I'd fully expect an article-type structure, but Rosenborg is at a much different level and may be better off as a list. I'm a firm believer that every list needs to be judged on its own merits. We shouldn't give a free handout to a list substantially similar to another FL, and we shouldn't insist that one page must be identical to another. I think this still meets the criteria and think it should remain an FL, not to mention stay in list form. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.