Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:35, 25 May 2010.

List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances

 * Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, it recently went through PR and all refs are in order. I have another list nominated, but it seems all objections have been met as of now. Sandman888 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral per TRM's concerns. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While not a requirement, alt text would be appreciated.


 * Since there was no input from the footy project or the stand-alone list talk-page on this point I've now moved the page to "List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances". I reckon it should be "List of Athletic Bilbao first-team players with at least 200 appearances in all official and regional competitions", but that is a bit long. So I reckon the remaining player-lists should be taken to FLRC after this. Sandman888 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it is necessary to nominate every such Featured List for de-listing (which is what FLRC is) just because you think the title needs changing. A move request for each one would be more than sufficient IMO..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want something done on a project basis then you need a consensus to do so, listing a dozen or so FLs seems like a pointed way of trying to achieve some dialogue and some consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mentioning it because that was the way done on the previous discussion of this, see List of Arsenal players, FLRC from 2008. There also have been some instances were all FL's suffering from the same flaw was taken to FLRC, though connected, to correct the flaw. Sandman888 (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record: on Talk:List of Arsenal F.C. players consensus (finally) established that a qualification in title was unnecessary, so will move article back after FLC. Sandman888 (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that discussion did not establish that qualification is unneeded on all lists; it established that it's not needed for the Arsenal list. A wider discussion needs to occur. This list should not be moved (especially not right after an FLC) until a wider discussion happens. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * yes it did. The discussion was general and not limited to the Arsenal list. Any contributor to the discussion will tell you that. Sandman888 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't. That discussion ended with "no consensus" to delist the Arsenal list.  At no point did it result in a consensus for anything else.  Anyone who has read that FLRC will tell you that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the page move, not the FLRC. Obviously. Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'm unsure as to why you've pointedly moved a page just to get it through FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your continued accusations of wp:point is becoming tiresome. I'm politely asking you to stop accusing another editor of such behaviour and yell point when you are out of words. Sandman888 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's uncalled for. I'll ask you to retract your uncivil comment, please. As for the consensus (if there is one), it doesn't apply to all lists if the discussion was only about the Arsenal list, which the discussion on that article's talk page was. It does not apply generally across all lists. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on where and how I was being uncivil. Sandman888 (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment above, in which you imply that TRM, a director and respected editor, is "[yelling] point when you are out of words". Additionally, your comment below, where you dismiss his opposition as "rubbish". It's impolite and uncalled for. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are friends and protect each other, but it must surely give pause to some reflection that both of you, and only you two, seem to clash with another editor, in this very moment, on the same project page. Perhaps you have yourself not handled the situation the best way possible? Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you assume that we are "friends"? I respect the work of The Rambling Man; he's a valuable contributor to this project and does great work both as a content contributor and one of the FLC directors. That said, I've never met him, and I don't know him as a person, and I still consider your comments to be uncivil and ask again that you retract them. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  12:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record: 1) I have been extremely patient in trying to establish some consensus in a wider community, both at WP:FOOTY and at WP:stand-alone lists. There was little if any replies on both sites. 2) I then proceeded to move the page because the discussions where completely dead (one of them became archived, the other dormant at best), and I don't care which solution/consensus is made as long as its consistent. 3) ChrisTheDude noted the possibility of a request-move which can be done for all lists simultaneously. I made such a request. TRM then joins the move request discussion and accuses me of wanting to delist all the articles just for fun. 4) The move request concludes with a consensus that lists should not have a qualifier. 5) I now see there is consensus and move request this article back. 6) TRM then says I'm gaming the system. That doesn't make any sense at all and seems to be a idontlikeyougoaway oppose. To KV5 and TRM: Feel free to report me to RfC if you do believe that you are right in this. I would like an outside view on this. Sandman888 (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, you yourself have admitted you've changed the name to assuage concerns of other editors over the inclusion criteria, and that you yourself will be moving the article back as soon as it passes FLC. That's why I'm in opposition to promoting this list. Whether I like you or not is irrelevant.  I don't want the FLC process to be gamed.  Of course, Dabomb is entirely entitled to ignore my oppose.  I will no longer be participating in this FLC.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No that's not the case at all. I move it because there is no consensus. Consensus then arrives, and implies that the move was wrong. I then say it should be moved back. If I wanted to game I wouldn't state my intent of moving it back. Sandman888 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose nominator appears to be gaming the system, renaming a page specifically to get it through FLC before stating he will move it after promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. That is utterly ridiculous. NB: " If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. " Sandman888 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your statement is indisputable. You've changed the title to get this to pass FLC.  And then you'll change it back when it's promoted.  That's gaming.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Support In my opinion, this list now satisfies the criteria. The nominator has actually done a lot of good work to progress the list to featured quality. A minor thing, but I was impressed by his updating the retrieval date in the references for those players whose stats were updated at the end of the season; many editors wouldn't have bothered. For what it's worth, I think it should stay at the name it was moved to, reflecting its scope, pending a wider discussion of naming issues relating to both complete and incomplete lists of this type. Though in the absence of any recent and explicit consensus to the contrary, I also think either name satisfies naming conventions. It's a pity the unpleasantness got out of hand. Struway2 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Link Real Madrid and Barcelona in the first paragraph.
 * "netting a total 78 goals in 89 games." Either add "of" after "total", or remove "a total" as redundant language.
 * "The current player with most appearances for the club...". Missing "the" after "with".  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * all done Sandman888 (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of the hardest FLCs to judge that I've ever encountered. On the one hand, my comments have been addressed, and I have no more (if I did, I would have put them up already). However, I've become quite concerned about everything that has taken place above. There is a stability criterion in the FL criteria, and the name of a page would be covered if it is changed again and again. Let's just call my position a strong neutral. For the record, I would be more inclined to support if the nominator indicates that they won't move the list right after the FLC. With the earlier comments, it would be easy for an outsider to infer that the original move was done for the sake of this FLC, even if that wasn't the intent behind the move. Perhaps an RfC on titles of soccer player lists is the ultimate solution to this issue, even though that's beyond the scope of this FLC.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall then start an RfC if that is the correct venue to achieve consensus. Which page should the RfC then be at? I will start a move req. if the RfC ends in a consensus on status quo. Sandman888 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing director's note There was a lot of uncertainty over the list's name. As an uninvolved editor I suggest that this issue be resolved once and for all in a centralized discussion; I think future FLCs for this list as well as other association football player lists would run more smoothly if football editors can agree on a permanent solution beforehand. In addition, I noticed there was a lot of extracurricular comments from a few editors; just a reminder that FLC is a content review process and any behavior-related disputes should be resolved on user talk pages and through the usual dispute resolution process. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


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