Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 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 Dabomb87 22:00, 8 February 2011.

List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)

 * Nominator(s): 03  md  02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it could be ready to become a featured list. 03 md  02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks as though the bulk of this page (i.e., the entire table, over 420 entries) depends entirely on one Web site. I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate copyright-wise to keep the text at the top and the photos at the right, lop off the entire table at the bottom, and add www.stretfordend.co.uk to the External Links section. Same for the List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances), which takes some 214 more entries from www.stretfordend.co.uk. I know they wouldn't be lists then, but it'd save us the embarrassment of ripping off what I think is an entire Web site. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually took my information for the majority of the entries from the general reference by Ivan Ponting (listed at the bottom of the article). The list follows the format of List of Manchester United F.C. players and exists as a seperate article due to size constraints. Would it be appropriate to just reference from the website for post-2008 players (as the book only goes up to this point). 03  md  00:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments –
 * The hyphen after 1908 in the first paragraph should be an en dash.
 * Now there's nothing there at all.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Add "and", replacing the comma in "along with 11 FA Cups, four Football League Cups."
 * Decapitalize Champions.
 * The Reference column can be shortened to Ref or similar.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All done. 03  md  12:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments - I dislike the idea of two separate formats for the key can't the Table header key and position key be formatted in the same way?. The fair-use for the Frank Buckley image prohibits use in the article. Afro  ( Talk ) 20:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why does this list exit? Is an under 25 caps at Manchester notable enough to create a list out of it? Do all players that played for Manchester deserve a list? Nergaal (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even then, the intro should mention the highest goalscorer in this category, and possibly how many played only once. Nergaal (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd assume that, as a list of all players who've ever played for the club (well over 1000, I would estimate) would be unfeasibly enromous, it has been broken down into subsections per WP:SIZE. You could eqaully ask why Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A), which is already at FL status, exists when there is nothing specifically notable about the combination of having played for the Phillies and having a surname beginning with A....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say don't include the players playing at the club, just not all of them. Those playing one game, and not even having their full name are just too not notable. I think part of this list should be merged into the 100-25 one and about 90% of it just discarded. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ......which would presumably leave us with List of some, but not all, Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 100 appearances) - how would that work exactly.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the Phillies list which was brought up earlier people of note in A are 3 hall of famers one of which has a retired number, just to clear that up. Maybe if we're discussing a content move it'd be easier to have it as List of notable people Manchester United F.C. players with fewer than 25 appearances. Afro  ( Talk ) 03:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Phillies B list (also an existing FL) contains 179 players of which 4 are in the HoF (2.2%) but it also contains such total non-entities as Dan Boitano (only 1 inning pitched for the team), Art Bramhall (1 career at-bat) and Joe Bennett (1 game played in his entire career with no at-bats). The Man U list also contains some former football greats (Henrik Larsson, Peter Beardsley) alongside comparative nobodies.  If it is acceptable for the Phillies to have multiple such FLs, why not Man U......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose wp:CFORK of the sub 100 caps one. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The two sub-100 lists can be merged if it is a problem. 03  md  22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, List of Manchester United F.C. players should list all the players to have made an appearance for the club as anyone to have played professional football is considered notable under WP:Notability. However it is unfeasible to have a list of 1000 players so for size reasons it has been split. I took a similar approach as for the Birmingham, Huddersfield etc. in terms of splitting up the players.

Comments If this list is failed primarily on the grounds that it is an excessive split, I will nominate the A, B and C (and if applicable, D) Phillies lists for FLRC. Although my personal opinion is that the Manchester United lists could easily be consolidated into two, United make a far stronger case for three lists than the Phillies do for twenty-one. —WFC— 15:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, no further problems. Well done! —WFC— 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. 03  md  23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Courcelles 09:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. 03  md  23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm rather interested in Courcelles' first point. Would it be better from a stability and usability point of view to list these players by surname, rather than appearances, like the Phillies?  I think the notability stems from them actually playing for MUFC, not how many times they've played for MUFC, but that is my opinion....  It may be that we need a wider discussion on this.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a broad discussion would be needed on the issue of appearances vs surnames, as the majority of clubs have a list of players who have reached a certain appearance threshold. I had the idea for the lists after seeing List of Manchester United F.C. players, which imho is a very good list and allows for discussion about the most successful players to appear for the club. In multiple alphabetical lists, this would be much more difficult to achieve. 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But I'm confused by the difference between this list and the Phillies one.  Are you arguing against a Phillies alphabetical list?  And what do you mean by "most successful players"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By most successful players, I meant the players featured on List of Manchester United F.C. players who have reached a certain appearance threshold. Alphabetical lists would limit the sorting functionality to the number of appearances by players beginning with a particular letter. Other sports may take different approaches but, in football, the most significant statistics are the appearances and goals. 03  md  17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know enough on the topic to properly review the list, but I see nothing wrong with the split style. The Phillies' list went with the alphabetical style laid out in the Medal of Honor lists because (I assume, I chatted with KV5 on these lists but not about this particular reason) baseball "appearances" are less clear (how do you weigh pitchers vs. hitters? Or pinch hitters/runners? Or even defensive replacements?). So long as the overall roster is notable, which it clearly is, then it simply becomes a WP:ACCESS issue of how to best present the information in a manageable and readable way. I see nothing wrong with either approach, appearances or alphabet, so long as the field/topic allows it (hence the alphabetical styling for baseball). Note that, for example, List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage has a "appearances" style cut-off (though not in the title) requiring at least 3,000 plate appearances both because that's what the excellent B-Ref uses but also because it draws a nice WP:ACCESS balance of not including the quickies who don't really belong amongst the long term .400-ers. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I see no problems here, and I don't have any issues with the splitting. You just need to switch round refs 2 and 3 after "....winning the European Cup" so that they're in numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your feedback Chris. 03  md  23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support no major traumas. I still think, if the initial sort is by span, then when I force the table to sort by span, Doughty shouldn't move, but no biggie. Probably blame lack of support for Safari on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


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