Talk:List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances)

Too many rows to be sortable
This table is far too big to have fields sortable by Javascript - I'm not entirely sure of the best solution around this, but in any case, the table is too big. Adamjhepton (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Adam, it could just be your browser - it sorts for me perfectly. Cheers, GiantSnowman 08:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm using Firefox 3.5 (on Windows), but sorting for me brings a "halt execution" dialog on any long table. FF3.5 is one of the quickest browsers out there for Javascript execution.  From looking around, this issue has been brought up on other pages with long tables on them, although for users with much less optimised browsers. Adamjhepton (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I use IE at home and Firefox at work (where I currently am), and no problems for me on either...very odd. GiantSnowman 09:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 12:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Bradford City A.F.C. players with fewer than 50 league appearances → List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances) – More specific title that explicitly qualfies the rationale for inclusion into the list. Follows the format used by featured lists, including List of Birmingham City F.C. players (1–24 appearances) and List of York City F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Mattythewhite (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral - although WP:BROKE kind of applies here. I only reverted the move as it was undiscussed and incorrect. If there is consensus for move then please ensure that related templates/links are updated, which also did not happen with the first move. GiantSnowman 11:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as technically speaking the current title could cover players who were on the books but made no appearances at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Proposed title is both precise and concise. Agree that any navigational template appearing on the article should have the title updated so that it displays in bold (redirects don't). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - not a major issue but does help firm up the inclusion criteria and ensures editors don't flood the page with players who have never featured for the club but were contracted. Fenix down (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with similar articles.  ONR (talk)  21:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Naval Rooftops (talk • contribs)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.