Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Burnley F.C. players (50–99 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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC).

List of Burnley F.C. players (50–99 appearances)

 * Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Burnley F.C. list (and the last one)... This one covers all players who have made between 50 and 99 appearances for the club. Some familiar names might include Charlie Austin and Joey Barton. One of the early pioneering managers and a quite unknown figure in England, Jimmy Hogan, is also included. I'm looking forward to all feedback/reviews! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per criterion 3c. I apologize I missed the other FLC, but I am just baffled why this would be split from List of Burnley F.C. players. Neither list is so long or complex that it needs to be broken up, and doing so reduces the utility of sorting the table. I just test-implemented a combined list and the page is only 70kb (and page length restrictions only apply to readable prose). Reywas92Talk 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I proposed a merger between the two lists not too long ago (Talk:List of Burnley F.C. players) but it was rejected. These kind of lists are growing rapidly because a player "only" has to play two seasons to be included. This list was never split in the first place but just created to include Burnley F.C. players who have played between 50 and 99 apps for the team, as is common for other clubs, although most have players included between 25 and 99 apps (see e.g. List of Arsenal F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Cardiff City F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances)). Also, this list is currently about 36kb, which is enough to be a stand-alone list. I hope you want to reconsider your oppose. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that there are already 12 FLs of the type "List of Example F.C. players (nn-nn appearances)"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Chris's comment there was "The merged article would be huge" but I just did a test merge on that page, and it is by no means too huge, smaller than many other FLs. GiantSnowman said there should be "manageable articles" but I see no basis to suggest that this is unmanageable. This combined Burnley article would have 371 names, while List of Gillingham F.C. players (also >50 apps) has 406 names. Is that page manageable? Absolutely. List of Manchester United F.C. players (1–24 appearances) has 477 names but are we actually having trouble managing that? If this were 1-99 two articles may make more sense. I think a few of the other teams' lists could be consolidated too – again, improving sortability and reducing duplication – and the excuse that other pages are split doesn't hold water, especially since it seems all of those go down to 25 or even just 1 appearance! Reywas92Talk 21:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That testmerge shows the list will be quite large and will be much larger within a few seasons per the reasons above (and might cause a split proposal in the near future). Burnley have had about 1,500 players in their history (in +/- 140 years). If we would make a list which includes players who made between 1 and 99 apps, it would consist of at least 1,200 players (too much and the number will grow and grow). I don't see a valid reason why such lists (25/50-99 apps) shouldn't be existing.
 * and (sorry to bother you both) might explain their reasons better than me... WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say to cross that bridge when you get to it. Neither the above Manchester and Gillingham articles are unmanageable, nor is this combined one. Reywas92Talk 22:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm getting confused as to what is suggesting - is it that the list of players with 50-99 apps should be merged in with the list of those with 100+ apps, while the 1-49 list should remain separate?  Or that all three should be merged together? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, scratch that, I hadn't noticed (half asleep) that there isn't actually a 1-49 list for Burnley....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I confess when I commented at the above-linked talk page I think I was skim-reading and thought the proposal was to create a single list for all Burnley players ever, not just one for 50+..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's standard to split lists like this into separate articles, broken down by number of appearances. I don't understand what the issue is. GiantSnowman 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies, Chris and Snowman. I should have been clearer in the merge proposal, to save the confusion. This situation leaves us with some options. Firstly, this nom can stay open but won't attract many reviewers because of the real possibility that this nom will be archived (and I don't blame anyone who doesn't want his/her time being wasted on reviewing it). We can also merge both lists. Thirdly, we can leave it as it is and maybe even create a third one (but leave the possibility it will be opposed for the same reason). And there are some more options. I don't really have a strong preference to be honest, but I'm interested what would be the wisest decision. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "this nom can stay open but won't attract many reviewers" - there's no reason to assume this will be the case....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * People are more than welcome to review the page and overrule my opinion, but I think one topic ought to be reviewed as one featured article rather than separate assessments, and I see no basis for this split other than "but other pages have been split!" since the other split pages have a greater total number of entries. IMHO the need to a split for "manageability" is not there as the merged list is still an easily editable size, in accordance with 3c. You've done really fine work on this and I otherwise support but keeping it on one page would still have it all featured. Reywas92Talk 19:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - I genuinely couldn't find anything to pick up, and I don't have an issue with the list being separate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you as ever for the comments and review, Chris! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this nomination as a merge with the parent article would probably be better... Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


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