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 The Rambling Man 07:30, 15 September 2010 [1].

---

List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries[edit]

List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list removal candidates/List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries/archive1
• Featured list removal candidates/List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Conscious, WikiProject Football

In these World Cup days I came across what I was hoping would be a thrilling list, but was rather dismayed. There are several key concerns:

• The lead uses half its space in defining UEFA and who are members, instead of quickly defining it and discussing the leagues and teams. The prose is not enganging and needs to be longer. Also, the key needs to be seperated and more structured. The first sentence is obsolete. (fails criteria 1 and 2)
• Referencing, if it can be called that, is a mess. Four general pages are provided, all with access dates from 2006, yet the article is up to date as of the 2010–11 season. Of the links, I was only able to navigate myself to this seasons tables via the UEFA link, but not the other ones. There should be at least one reference for each table.
  • Done cites up to Latvia so far, will do the rest but its too mind-numbing for a single sitting. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite a number of the tables sort wrong, i.e. the are alphabetized wrong by default or the sort key alphabetizes incorrectly. (fails criteria 4)
• I was under the impression that flagicons (i.e. images) in headers will wreck the syntax in some browsers, but havn't been able to verify this 100%. Similarly for links in headers.
  • Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am uncertain if the term "city" is acurate; for instance, the list claims 11 "cities" in the Faroe Island, an area with less than 50,000 people. See for instance Eiði with its 669 residents. Perhaps "location" is better.
  • Changed to Town or City, Location seemed too vague to me. There might be the odd village, but the meaning is clear enough I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely there must be some suitable way to illustrate this, beyond a simple map. There is loads of space down the right, an image from selected teams would improve this list a lot. (fails criteria 5b)
  • To compensate for the fact that this is a fun job, I'm starting with the difficult countries. Obviously I can and will add more, but what do you think about the general balance of images I'm adding? WFC (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There are five disambiguation links.
  • Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Ideally you would revamp each section to something like this with a reference next to the As of... and maybe a map of where the clubs are. However this would take a lot of work. I could help out if others were prepared do put in a fair bit of work to, but I couldn't do it all on my own. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with the FL. This whole page is rather redundant when we already have several templates and links this same information. Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder, this is not a deletion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry. Thinking of something else. Either way, it is still a redundant page that simply bring different pieces of information in one article...when we already have separate articles for each page. If it where like this two] lists I could understand but... Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I had minor involvement in getting this list to FLC the first time around. Busy busy busy right now, but over the coming week I'll look at revamping it. Oldelpaso (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, I have a serious question...how did this page even become a FL?! I have had a list that has been screwed with to death for almost two months and nothing. This one only has seven references in total and, presto! We are upgrading you to FL status...what is this??!! Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is obviously a different kind of list which was considered complete at the time of its promotion to FL status. --MicroX (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list was promoted in 2006. The standards then were quite different. At both FLC and FAC, over time there has been a steady increase in the standard required. In 2006 this genuinely was an example of Wikipedia's best work. In 2010, perhaps not so much. That's what this process is here to address. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove – The lead and referencing, which were noted as problems in the nomination statement, seemingly remain so. Just doesn't seem like the page's structure holds up to modern standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment below is completely true. The list already looks quite a bit better, though some work still remains. I'd like to recommend that the directors hold this one for a while to allow for further improvements; we must be understanding that the fixes required here are quite time-consuming. If the list can be saved, then the extra time is well worth it. As for the current state, just having the photos and maps gives the list much more life. One quick suggestion: City should be de-capitalized in each of the many tables since it isn't a proper noun. That should be among the less work-extensive fixes that can be done here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave open - I entirely share Giants' concerns, but I'm extremely impressed with the work that has been done on referencing and verifying this. So much so that I'm going to chip in as well. This certainly won't be a quick or easy save, but the will seems to be there. WFC (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm getting through this at a better pace than I had anticipated; half way there, ignoring the fact that I've already done some random bits in the second half. A few questions though. Firstly, Oldelpaso asked me on the talk page if it would be possible to restore the bold text for champions in addition to the yellow, as colour alone is not compatible with text-based browsers such as Lynx. I'm fine with that, but I was under the impression that bolding is depreciated? Secondly, I'm leaving some of the sorting until last. With some of the countries I'm not sure if I should sort by the very common first word. Taking Israel as an example, I personally would have ignored Maccabi and Hapoel for sort purposes. But the list didn't do that before, so I thought I'd open it up to comments before doing a lot of work needlessly. Finally, I know I'm making work for myself here, but does anyone think it's worth noting newly promoted clubs (where applicable)? --WFC-- 13:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, bolding is discouraged now, at least according to MOS:BOLD. Italics can always be used as a substitute, if this turns into a sticking point. The work so far looks good in general. One more thing while I'm here: reference 26 shouldn't have all caps in the title. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for the reply. --WFC-- 08:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep tho RSSSF refs need author and date. Tedious work. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments WFC asked if I'd pop over and have a look. It's certainly improved since people started working on it, well done... Few quick comments, haven't got time for a thorough review, sorry:

• Agree with Sandman re author(s)/publication date for the RSSSF refs. If he had to do it for the Barcelona lists...
  • I agree. I'm not ignoring it, just waiting as long as possible. As Oldelpaso hinted above, it's a tedious job. --WFC-- 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, it'd be nice if the foreign-language references had the trans_title parameter completed (where it isn't obvious)
• Also, it'd be helpful for the reader wanting to know where the information came from, if incomprehensible (to us semi-literate Brummies, anyway) foreign-language publishers e.g. Fótbóltssamband Føroya were either linked to their WP article or translated in parentheses (Faroe Islands Football Association)
• What makes the general references World Football Organisation and eufo.de reliable sources? assuming you're still using them for anything
• If it was me, I'd move the note about TNS/Llansantffraid/etc into the Wales section, as was done with the AS Monaco/France one, rather than leaving it in a general Notes section. That particular note's probably visible from its table anyway, but in general, it's kinder to the reader if they can see a section-specific note without having to click down to a Notes section and then back up to where they were.
• In Albania, as of 2010-11 season, what's the asterisk for?

hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll carry on methodically (one country at a time so that there is visible progress, to keep my chin up as much as anything else!). But I agree with pretty much all of that. Thanks for your time, it's much appreciated. --WFC-- 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to directors Work is ongoing. I made a request here for help with the lead. You may want to bear this in mind if there is a sudden flurry of !votes. Regards, --WFC-- 01:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine by me. As long as work is on-going then this can run (and run and run)... It does already appear that there's no consensus for a delisting, but the continuing improvements are well worth keeping the FLRC open for. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. As an aside, I know that FL has a few detractors, but FLRC in particular is productive and efficient. Even when people take on a major, protracted job like this, we tend to get the job done quicker here than elsewhere. Point-y nominations aside, the end result almost always justifies the effort. --WFC-- 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close? It seems fine to me now, no need to let people read all this stuff. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 07:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All looks good to me now, I dealt with a couple of typos but I couldn't see any issues when compared to the FL criteria. Looking at how it first passed and at the beginning of this review it looks a lot better. Well done to everyone involved. Woody (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and motion to close. While the original list was not up to standards, the current version is infinitely better. Great work, it's night and day. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks a lot better than when it came here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks significantly better. Well done to all involved. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and second move to close. Courcelles 23:37, 14 September 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.