Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Super 14 champions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Super 14 champions

• Similar quality to Tri Nations Series champions which is a featured article. Support and self-nom--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's only one, is this a list? Joe I 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There has only been one Super 14 season. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This oppose is ignored under:

"Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored."

Seeing as the fact that there has only been one season can't be changed, this is ignored.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The source of my objection is that one entry does not qualify a list. A list is implied and accepted as a collection.

• From Wikipedia:What is a featured list? - "Useful: Covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic" Joe I 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes and this article does that, showing the teams, season and it links to the Super 12 champions list for futher information.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 14:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This article should be merged with Super 12 champions. Mário 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • why?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If Super 12 redirects into Super 14, it makes no sense to have different champions lists. Mário 19:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but is mainly because of lazyness of editors, who can't be bother writing an other seperate article. An other reason too though, is they are different competition and the Super 12 one has a note at the top.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe they should be merged Hamedog, only because I don't really see why they should be kept apart. For example, NRL fans won't be creating a seperate page next year once the 16th team enters the comp. I can see that the pre-96 Super competitions should be seperated, but the Super 12/14 really are not different competitions imo. Hmmm. Cvene64 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Understanding reached. Support Cvene64 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If we merge the articles, we will have different results in games played and points and such what, which will distort the figures. That is why they should be seperated.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is no critera surronding lenght, expect:"Comprehensive: Covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject.". It does cover every member set, so it is comprehensive.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is comprehensive, there was only one season, and will be only one if I read correctly. Either way, I don't see how we can have a list with only one thing. Joe I 10:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No there is another season next year. see 2007 Super 14 season--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 10:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is a good article, but it isn't really a list, is it, as there's only been one comp thus far?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoopydink (talk • contribs) 12:11, Jul 12, 2006 (UTC).
• I say it doesn't make sense to make a list of only one item. I'd wait until next year's season is over and then maybe renominate. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. A featured list must cover "a topic that lends itself to list format" - a topic with only one entry does not do that. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per OTB. This rather reminds me of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of pornstars named Jenna Jameson. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, yes it does have only one entry THUS FAR, but will be expanded when future seasons occur, such as the 2007 Super 14 season. --Hamedog_Talk|^@ 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reply And when there are additionally entries, making it a list rather than an article written in the style of a list, it will likely be featured quality. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The references are from Wikipedia? Also, I think that this list and the Super 12 list can be merged into Super rugby champions. Just divide them into sections, first with Super 12, then the next one with Super 14. --Howard the Duck 13:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC) I now support but I would still like them to be merged, oh well lol.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howard the Duck (talk • contribs) 15:33, Jul 14, 2006 (UTC). Just to confirm, it was really me. --Howard the Duck 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

References have been changed, no longer linking from wikipedia.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 15:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per OTB. Doesn't meet my criteria for a list. Pepsidrinka 00:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)