Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Austin Aztex all-time roster/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010 [1].

Austin Aztex all-time roster

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Austin Aztex all-time roster/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the criteria. It is modelled in large part on List of Seattle Sounders FC players, which seems to be heading for FL status at the moment. This is my first attempt at writing an article in American English (I am British), so please point out any turns of phrase which aren't correct for "Stateside talk". And anything else that needs changing too, of course.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gifton Noel-Williams. I was wondering where he had gotten to! This looks pretty good, and the things that are missing from the Seattle list are probably not appropriate here (i.e. international appearances). The one thing I would say is that the Seattle Sounders list was renamed, because some players had played for the club but were never actually on Seattle's "roster". I don't know if any of the Aztecs' players were centrally contracted (i.e. employed by USL, rather than the club), but if so it might be worth considering a similar change. Clearly I'm somewhat biased, but FWIW I'm happy to lend my support. WFCforLife (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Rawlins not notable enough for a redlink (despite founding this mighty club?)
- I have redlinked him for now
Perhaps worth a note/ref to explain "affiliation agreement".
- Fleshed out a bit
Just a quickie - is the bolding of Aztec Aztex in the lead strictly correct per our MOS, since it isn't the title of the article? It's not a big deal at all...
- Dunno, I was just mirroring the lead of the Sounders article mentioned above
"In 2010 the team will play its home games at House Park..." makes it sound like they didn't play there before? I know this is a roster, not a history article, but you know what I mean?
- They didn't play there before - have reworded
"both McMahen and Brown were released " - don't want to get all ORish but any reason why you can find?
- After what was perceived as an incredibly disappointing season, they released over half the roster, so these players weren't singled out in particular, have reworded slightly
One thing I noticed before which could be confusing to non-US readers, do these US seasons run in a complete year, i.e. not span over Xmas like ours? Only reason is you have 2009 for the year of every single player... Effectively what I'm saying is that the "year" column seems to apply only if the player has played in that actual year, not if they're contracted in that actual year... again, I'm confusing myself, but do you get what I'm saying?
- Not really. The US soccer season is indeed confined within one calendar year, so to date all these players have only played in 2009. Not sure what change needs to be made.
"Miguel Gallardo played fifteen times..." 14 in the table.
- Corrected
I know it's the template, but ref 2 has a spare .
- Fixed

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One quick thing. You might want to be careful with the image captions. They're fine for now that the club has only existed the one year, but as time and seasons pass the "in the first season" factoids won't be sourced by the table anymore (since they will include multiple seasons of statistics). Fine so long as you keep them updated, but could be annoying. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I promise to keep an eye on them and keep them updated -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why the titular inconsistency? This article should be called List of Austin Aztex players to be consistent with all the other player FLs. Reywas92^Talk 00:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea, I didn't name the article. All the other articles linked in the template at the bottom follow the same naming scheme. I'm not fussed either way, I'll change it if people think it needs changing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - US soccer clubs seem to have an "all-time roster" while the rest of the world has "list of .. players". Per Chris, I'm not fussed either way as well/either/whatever...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note also the existence of existing FLs such as Hartford Dark Blues all-time roster -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support then. I see no other problems. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Key I would think it wouldn't hurt for it to be a in table. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 11:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ support – Looks mostly very good. ~~Just one thing I saw during my reading: the NASL's abbreviation is not needed since it isn't used anywhere else.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check Reference #5. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 00:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed it. I have no idea whether its use in one of the references (as opposed to the article proper) means it should be put back in.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's just in a reference title, as I think, I don't believe it's required. That would be really picky, even by my standards. I've always known abbreviations to be meant for use in the body of a page, not the citations in it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no problems with the list, everything looks to be good. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 22:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) As an Austinite it would be criminal if I didn't review this. I do wonder what got you interested in this particular club...

"a British-born entrepreneur" You can't have been born in "British"...
"In 2010 the team will play its home games at House Park," We are now in 2010. Any more specifics on the "when"?
"the Aztex used a total of thirty outfield players" I think there's a better verb than "used" out there. Would "fielded" work?
"Mexican-born Miguel Gallardo" Same comment as the first. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think. In Britain we do actually say "British-born", "Mexican-born", etc., eg this and this. Two countries separated by a common language etc etc :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally rename it to Austin Aztex all-time roster, or at least something consistent with other lists of this type. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as I see it the only outstanding issues with the article are that two people think the title should be changed, but, unfortunately, have wildly differing views as to what it should be changed to. How do we proceed from here.............? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Reywas is fine with "All-time", though I think Wizardman is right in saying that "All-time" should be moved after "Austin Aztex". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then would someone also mind moving the related articles (Template:USL-1 all-time rosters)? The name/grammar is fine either way, but there should be consistency. Very nice job on the article. Reywas92^Talk 03:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I did not notice that so many lists followed that naming convention. Maybe we should discuss this in a more centralized place? Personally, I think that "all-time" should come immediately before the word it is most directly modifying ("roster"), but am willing to hear other opinions on this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the articles in Category:NBA all-time rosters follow the "<name of team> all-time roster" convention rather than the "All-time <name of team> roster" format followed by soccer articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So should I go ahead and move this one now...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if it's done now. However, eventually we will have to deal with the inconsistencies with other articles... Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:08, 10 February 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.