Talk:List of Gillingham F.C. players

Discussion on inclusion criteria
In case anyone's wondering, I based this list on 100 League  appearances rather than all competitions due to the fact that Roger Triggs' book only lists league appearances, and many of these players do not have entries on Soccerbase from which it would be possible to get their "all comps" totals..... ChrisTheDude 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To make it a list of notable players, would it make sense to also include those who played or managed in the top division and/or those who acheived international caps either before or after their Gills careers? Kevin McE 11:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those who might thus be added would include Micky Adams, Ade Akinbiyi, Gary Breen, Darius Henderson, Gavin Peacock, Glen Roeder, Ron Saunders; on the basis of internationals, I can only think of George Burley and Kelvin Jack as additions so far (excluding loan players), but there are probably others. Jack Reynolds, for reasons mentioned here, might also merit inclusion, as might club record holders Fred Cheesmuir, Carl Asaba and Robert Taylor.    Kevin McE 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My only concern would be that the article doesn't turn into a cluster/battleground like List of York City F.C. players has become, the debate there being whether a player who made 3 or 4 appearances for Club X but achieved greater fame elsewhere deserves mention on Club X's list as a notable player. For example, the only really notable aspect of Kelvin Jack's stint at Priestfield is that he's turned out to be one of our worst buys ever - do his nine appearances to date make him a "notable Gillingham player" as opposed to a "notable player who happens to have also (occasionally) played for Gillingham"? ChrisTheDude 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Gillingham F.C. players → List of players with 100 career appearances for Gillingham F.C. List of Gillingham F.C. players (100+ appearances) — This request has come about due to the current debate going on regarding featured lists of players and whether they should/shouldn't include every single player who has ever played for the club. This list was originally created (and promoted to FL) based on the criteria of players EITHER having made 100 appearances OR holding a club record OR having been capped while with the club. In light of the ongoing debate, I propose to knock off the players who haven't made 100 appearances (which only affects four players out of the whole list) and rename the article as shown above. I would then turn List of Gillingham F.C. players into a dab page and move List of players with less than 50 career appearances for Gillingham F.C. and List of players with 50 to 99 career appearances for Gillingham F.C. from my sandbox into the mainspace to complete the full list of every player that's ever played for the club. Let me know what you think........ —ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose. Excessively wordy title. If it really affects only four players, just leave them in. Andrewa (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But then when I create a second article for players with less than 100 apps, you'd have List of Gillingham F.C. players with less than 100 apps and List of Gillingham F.C. players, which doesn't make sense...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - why not just have a single list of all? I'm in the process of doing the same for Arsenal players and it isn't disgracefully long nor creating technical problems (yet). The alternatives seem far too wordy. Qwghlm (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be 140KB in size (and that's without including players who only played in the clubs non-league days!), surely that's far far too long per WP:LENGTH.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah - at 140k it's not even in the top 100 longest pages! :) As for WP:LENGTH:
 * Two exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields. These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article.
 * I would like to keep these lists as one as it makes sorting by name or date consistent possible over the entire list of players. Qwghlm (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not even in the top 200 it would appear..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Keep it simple. If the "featured list" criteria supporters don't like articles/lists structured like this, it's their loss not ours. - fchd (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So (assuming I don't merge them all together per Qwghlm's suggestion) what would you suggest as a title for the list(s) of players with less than 100 apps....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The proposed title seems a bit wordy to me. How about something like List of Gillingham F.C. players (100+ appearances) or List of Gillingham F.C. players (>100 appearances)? – PeeJay 10:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not mad on the >, but the + version seems OK to me..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I assume the other articles would end up being titled List of Gillingham F.C. players (1-49 appearances) and List of Gillingham F.C. players (50-99 appearances). Seems like a good move to me, if it can be done to the same standard as the current article, and since you're doing it, Chris, I have no doubts in that department. – PeeJay 11:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When then lists are complete, would you envisage them being merged? Personally, I think having 3 lists is counterintuitive, and the arbitrariness of the divides would be more of an issue than it is about the blunter include/exclude.  At what stage does arbitrary cut off policy  overcome WP:Length? Meanwhile, I prefer PJ's suggestions. Kevin McE (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see the lists being merged, as the resultant article would be well over 100K and therefore far far too long. So there has to be an arbitrary break, and 100/50 apps seems as good as any.  It's no different to the way in which the History of Arsenal F.C. is split in two, with 1966 being selected (apparently arbitrarily) as the break point..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And then there would also be the problem of the template transclusion limit. If there are too many items in the list, you'll end up getting hundreds of instances of cite web, flagicon and sortname, which would probably end up going over the transclusion limit. – PeeJay 11:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This RM and the proposed FL delisting of the corresponding Arsenal list are dangerously close to violating WP:POINT IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not trying to make a point. But if the feeling emerging from the proposed FL delisting you refer to is that "List of (team) players" is a misleading title for such lists then I'm just trying to find a title that would be deemed appropriate.  I'm trying to be the good guy here...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the page move, to correctly identify the page, but a word of caution. Are we talking about league or total career appearances, if the former, then it ought to say so in the title. My own preference would be List of Gillingham F.C. players with more than 100 league appearances.
 * Secondly, is there a reason to split those from 1-50, and 51-99? I'd simply have those from 1-99, unless there is a specific reason. Peanut4 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A list of all players with 1-100 apps would be approx 110KB in size, far too big per WP:LENGTH. In fact the 1-50 list is 77KB so that might need splitting down even further.  And to answer your other point, the totals are for all comps ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would opt for List of Gillingham F.C. players with more than 100 appearances in that case. It might be wordy but it's a better explanation than one with brackets and a + sign. Though that would be the other two lists List of Gillingham F.C. players with less than 50 appearances, and the very cumbersome List of Gillingham F.C. players with 51 to 100 appearances. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.