Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/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 SchroCat 07:56, 25 March 2015 [1].

List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/archive1

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. It is the second of a three-part series of lists headed by List of York City F.C. players, which has been a featured list since October 2007. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is great. Can you clarify sourcing for me? I recently worked on an FL and it felt like every cell of the table needed a reference. You have a column of refs that is barely populated. Clarify that and I am happy to support.

I'll go through the sourcing column by column. Positions are cited by either Batters, Windross & Jarred, Soccerbase or an individual reference in the Ref column where necessary (e.g. Michael Coulson). Club career, apps and goals come from a combination of refs 14 & 15 in the key. International selection and caps are referenced individually in the Refs column. Loans in the Notes column are referenced by either Windross & Jarred or Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other notes: The image MOS is not perfect since you have people facing away from the text. Making adjustments would either screw up the layout or reduce images. I recommend keeping them all.

I've just stumbled across MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and I was completely unaware of what it recommends. I would agree with keeping the images as they are. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the key should be an independent section but it is in depth enough that I'll yield to whatever is considered best/standard.

I've gone with what has been done on other featured lists, like List of Birmingham City F.C. players, List of Lincoln City F.C. players, and List of Malmö FF players, which include key sections. I feel there's enough content to justify it having its own section. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the other lists be wikilinked in the lead?

They are linked directly below the list, which I think is a logical location, and in the template at the bottom of the page. So I think it would be a bit OTT to include them in the lead too. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, Support. The aesthetics of the blank columns irks me but presenting that much data is better than I could have done. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• In the Positions key, you have "Full back" and "Half-back", be consistent and either use a hyphen in both, or neither.
  • Hyphen added to full-back. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note F needs clarifying: I know what you are saying, but it could be read as "While at Yeovil, Dunphy was the first player capped by the Republic of Ireland."
  • I'm not sure about rewording it as that, as the emphasis wants to be on him being the first player capped by any country, rather than the Republic of Ireland. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that it be rewritten as that, but that the note could be interpreted as meaning that. Harrias ^talk 11:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. I've removed "by his country", this should remove any ambiguity. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are some of the players not linked in the table?
  • The players not linked did not play in any fully professional leagues and as such are not deemed notable accoring to WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead looks as though it would be better suited in the second paragraph. Though personally, that whole piece explaining the list would be better suited in the Key section.
  • I've moved the last sentence of the first paragraph into the second. I'm a little reluctant to move it into the Key, as it wouldn't match the bullet-pointed format used there, and that is it used to explain the contents of each column. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The last paragraph of the "Introduction" needs a reference.
  • I chose not to reference these two sentences as the content in them, like in the list, is supported by the general references. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that "England amateur" doesn't capitalise all words, I think it should be "Wales semi-pro". Harrias ^talk 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• My only concerns are as follows:
  • "The club's first team have competed in numerous nationally organised competitions, and all players who have played between 25 and 99 such matches [...] are listed below" - this suggests that only matches in national competitions are included in the totals, but Midland League matches are included and that was not a national competition
    • Removed "nationally organised" to make it clear that all competitions are included. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that you've made that change, "all players who have played between 25 and 99 such matches" doesn't really make sense. I'd be inclined to change it to something like "all players who have played between 25 and 99 matches for the club's first team" or something like that......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, now I look at it, it still doesn't look quite right. Maybe try "The club's first team have competed in numerous competitions, and all players who have played between 25 and 99 first-team matches....." - with this change made I'm happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reworded as suggested. Thanks for the comments and support. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the Introduction starts with a numeral, which the MOS says should not be done
    • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's it.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2

• I don't usually comment on prose, but it might be an improvement to turn the second sentence round so that the link from "elected", to a Football League-specific page, is more appropriately placed. Something like "Formed in May 1922, the club failed to be elected to the Football League for the coming season, but succeeded in gaining admission to the Midland League."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In the key, you've missed out the |alt= bit in the double-dagger template call, and you might want to clarify that it's York City's Clubman of the Year
  • |alt= added and added to text. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Fairclough image caption, "injury hit" should be hyphenated, as should "extra time" in the Leaning caption
  • Hyphenated. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If the stats are correct as of match played 7 March 2015, shouldn't the accessdate for their source be more recent than August 2013?
  • Accessdates updated where needed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Are Caribbean Football Database, englandstats.com, and Dragon Soccer reliable sources?
  • Caribbean Football Database: I'm not sure as to its reliability, but I've replaced it with Soccerway anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • englandstats.com: Their website states who "designed, maintained, researched and updated" their content, and it probably doesn't count for much but I've never encountered any issues with the site's accuracy. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try the FA profile, which confirms Mr Hulme played for England, but not till long after he left YCFC. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I've replaced it with that ref. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dragon Soccer: same drill as Caribbean Football Database. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorting for the club career column is inconsistent. E.g., when sorting the column in ascending order, if the two years are in the same century, the end year also sorts ascending: so 1923–24 sorts before 1923–25 sorts before 1923–26. But if the range goes over the century boundary, it doesn't: 1998–2000 sorts before 1998–2001 sorts before 1998–99... Should it be consistent?
  • I think the only way to remedy this would be to write the years in full, although this would contradict MOS:DOB. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wouldn't, in fact. Notes at that section exempt year ranges in tables specifically because of the century-sorting problem. To be fair, I changed various lists to the what-was-then MoS-compliant format last close season, and didn't realise it messed up the sorting until several months later, at which point I changed them back. Somewhen in the meantime, the MoS was changed to include that exemption. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Year ranges written out in full. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not comfortable with sourcing the post-07/08 "other" apps/goals to Soccerbase plus a list of twenty-nine newspaper match reports, especially as there's no explanation of why they're needed or what they cover. Or, for that matter, the unexplained extra newspaper links for league apps/goals. See e.g. WP:CITE#Additional annotation. Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The league apps/goals contains additional refs for where Soccerbase have made errors, and they are not needed in other apps/goals as they apply only to league appearances. The sourcing of the appearances has long been a concern for me, and it's arisen out of Soccerbase excluding excluding FA Trophy and Conference League Cup appearances. I will try and replace the newspaper pieces with Non-League Club Directory refs sometime soon. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I've used Soccerbase plenty long enough to know why you might need 29 match reports as well :-) Are the competitions that Soccerway covers e.g. FA Trophy from 10/11 onwards, equally error-prone? The problem is the reader doesn't know why, and doesn't know what any of those 29 match reports are supposed to be referencing. The explanations and annotations do need to be in the article, whether in a separate notes section or in with where the refs are now. If you want to keep them all together in one giant reference, like they are at the moment, it'd be more helpful if they had a bit of structure. E.g after the Soccerbase ref, put something like "Soccerbase has no data for a number of competitions:" and then group the match reports by season:
      • For the 2008–09 FA Trophy and Conference League Cup, see
      • 1st match report
      • 2nd match report...
      • For the 2009–10 Whatevertheyremissingthisseason Cup, see
      • 11th match report
      • etc etc etc
    • {{plainlist}} is a useful tool, and more accessible than using <br>s.
    • As to the league apps/goals, if any of those extra refs only affect one or two players, like for omission from a lineup or awarding of a dubious goal, I'd be tempted to put them on the row for the player(s) concerned, with an explanatory note. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've structured the apps/goals ref in the way you recommended, and have used {{plainlist}} to separate the sources. I've moved the league apps/goals sources to the rows for the players concerned and have included explanatory notex. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reckless182

• The first thing I notice is the left alligned text in the international selection section. Now I don't know if there is a MOS for this, but I would prefer for it to be centrally alligned as all other text (except for the player names) are centrally alligned.
  • I've looked through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables for guidance on this, but haven't found anything explicit. The example tables at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Appropriate use show text aligned to the left for cells containing substantial text. And having done a preview of some left aligned and some centre aligned, I think they look more presentable left aligned. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Same section as above. I'm inclined to disagree on the inclusion of youth and B team selections, most certainly for youth teams. I just don't think that it is notable enough to include.
  • I would prefer to include them for the sake of comprehensiveness, by presenting the players' highest level of international representation per country rather than just senior level. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Have you considered colour-coding the players marked with symbols? It would perhaps increase the ability for readers to find what they're looking for.
  • I'm not opposed to this, but I'm concerned about what would be done with the colour-coding if there was one cell with multiple symbols. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the list! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - A very good list in terms of its technical composition as well as meeting all the criteria of what a Featured List should be. I'm not overly enamoured with the idea of including the national teams represented by some of the players as I don't think such a column would be present if York City was a more prominent club that had international players as a matter of course, but its inclusion has a rationale, even if I don't agree with it. – PeeJay 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.