Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Birmingham 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 Giants2008 21:11, 10 February 2013.

List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)

 * Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As the reviewers were so kind to my last attempt, I thought I'd submit this third and final section of the complete list while my luck still holds (hopefully). It has the same structure as the previous one, and comments made at that FLC have been actioned at this list as well. And there's a few more pictures on this one. All constructive comments welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The position column should really sort by position, e.g. GK to FW, instead of the current alphabetic method NapHit (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
 * Well I thought it was the done thing, as the equivalent lists for Man Utd and Liverpool use this method. Also as the positions key list the positions in relation to their position on the pitch, so to me it would make sense to reflect this in the column. I think a few more opinions are needed on this, before, as you say, you introduce 350+ sort templates. NapHit (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support a typically high quality nomination and my comments (where actually helpful) addressed nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support nice job. Arsenikk (talk)  16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


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