Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Super Bowl champions/archive2

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 IMatthew 13:57, 12 September 2009 [1].

List of Super Bowl champions

Notified: WP:NFL, Phoenix2, Instinct, Orlady, Psantora, Zzyzx11

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I left some concerns on the talk page two weeks ago that have gone unresolved. One other editor agreed with my comments, which actually echo comments left by other editors over a year ago.

Two people have raised concerns about sortability of the tables, and the issues still exist over a year later. In the NFL Championships table, the Game column is sorted alphabetically -- err, they're Roman numerals. They should be sorted by number. The score column sorts by winning score only. What about the losing score? Either find a way to sort both, or don't sort it at all. The venue column doesn't sort LandShark correctly, and the City column sortability is completely messed up. When I click on the button, it just sends me to the top of the page.

The footnotes use an archaic form that needs updating per WP:FOOT, References are too reliant on primary sources, and there should not be any rows for future games, since there are no champions yet. I've tried to remove these twice, but another editor claims that it was promoted to WP:FL like this; it wasn't. They've crept in somewhere during the last 18 months.

The "See also" section is way too big and ugly. It's like editors come along and add any article they find with the words "super" and "bowl" in their title, so much so that now it's actually a deterrent to click on these links, where one, two, or three could actually be of some value. The tables make use of WP:COLORS incorrectly, as there is no accompanying text such as daggers or asterisks per WP:ACCESS, and one reference doesn't even work.

Currently, it fails Criterion 3, because it includes Superbowls that haven't happened, Criterion 4 due to its sortability issues, Criterion 5 for color and visual appeal, and WP:V. Matthewedwards : Chat 16:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all the sorting and WP:COLOR issues. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City and stadium sorting work properly now. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: footnotes have been modernized and See also has been cut down to four links. As for the primary sources, I've replaced them for more than half the Super Bowls with secondary sources, and I estimate their overall usage has been cut in half. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Further to my comment on the article's talk page, I suggest that the list requires another table listing each Super Bowl winner and the number of times they have won, similar to the table at List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners#Results by clubs. If I wanted to see, at a glance, which team had won the most Super Bowls, I wouldn't want to have to trawl through the main table looking for each team's name. – Pee Jay 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Bowl wins by team, though I believe that article should be merged into this one, per what you said. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psantora merged that table into this list. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What make http://sandiego.about.com/od/prosports/a/stadium_names.htm and http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/MiamiDolphins/index.htm reliable sources? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below, I got rid of these two. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think we can effectively remove "Superbowls that haven't happened" in the long run unless there is a separate List of Super Bowl host cities. The problem is that both the dates and sites for each Super Bowl are officially announced several years in advance. It seems to me that throughout its history, many new users and anonymous IPs treat it more as List of Super Bowls than List of Super Bowl champions. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So should we rename the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not if List of Super Bowl wins by team gets merged into the article. – PeeJay 23:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it is fairly appropriate to put the next Super Bowl, even if there is no champion for that game, just for the readers' convenience, but I do not believe it should be renamed to List of Super Bowls, as later Super Bowls can be mentioned in the main article. The only things I could like to see is that both List of Super Bowl appearances and List of Super Bowl wins by team be merged into this one, and have the references pointed out by Dabomb to be fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Forgot about wanting both tables to be merged. Anyone disagree with what I am saying? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Rose Bowl" and "Orange Bowl" link to the articles about the college games rather than the stadiums. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm going to do everything in my power to save this one, whatever it takes, and will comment on the issues above as I go through them. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced the two questionable sources with pages from the ESPN website. Also dropped a bit from the Dolphin Stadium note, since it wasn't backed up by the new source or my trusty ESPN Almanac.
- Sorting works in the Game column. The only way to have both scores sort would be to split them; that's not my idea of visualy appealing, so I recommend removing the sort function from that column. Venue sorting is okay, except for the 2010 contest, and City is still off.
- I assume the archiac formatting is for the notes directly below the table?
- Will make a run to get secondary sourcing put in place, and will look for a replacement for the dead link. Don't love the 2010 entry, and wouldn't mind seeing it be hidden like the others.
- Agree on trimming See also. The colors have been given symbols since the review began; I don't think they look so hot, but that's a subjective opinion. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I was a bit surprised by the invitation to this discussion, as it has been a very long time since I got involved with this list (basically, the last time it was listed at FLRC). The current list article is much better than it was back then, and appears that most (if not all) of the issues listed by MatthewEdwards are now resolved.
- This is a very informative list, covering more than just "who won?", but therein lies a problem. List of Super Bowls is a redirect to this page, which explains why users treat it as if it were List of Super Bowls. Creating a separate list at that location -- and including in it links to more specialized list articles such as this one, List of Super Bowl wins by team, List of Super Bowl halftime shows, etc. -- would make it easier to avoid clutter on this page. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a problem with primary sources if we are just using it for basic "descriptive" information such as the date, teams, score, and location for the games? (From WP:PRIMARY: "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.") Also, how does having future games violate the "Comprehensiveness" criterion? If anything I would expect the absence of these games to make the list incomplete. ~ Paul^T+/_C 01:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources are fine for most of the data in the list. Some of the footnotes might need secondary sources (WRT stadiums). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In regard to the stadium cites, are you referring to those from the U.S. census or the NFL? There are several of the former, but only one NFL.com link. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't care if the future games or added or not. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks good. Except "The Kansas City Chiefs and New York Jets have not appeared in the Super Bowl since the AFL–NFL merger in 1970," doesn't have a ref. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a cite. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is a citation even necessary? That information can easily be gleaned by looking at either list in the article. ~ Paul^T+/_C 16:32, 7 September 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.