Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FC Barcelona players/archive2

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 23:41, 22 June 2010 [1].

List of FC Barcelona players[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, I already have one list at FLC with all content-comments adressed, a question of title remains. Given that consensus of proper title is formed at an ad-hoc basis in the FLC proces, I'd like to nominate this list which follows the format of List of Ipswich Town F.C. players especially regarding the inclusion criteria (with some modifications, but the principle is the same). An RfC has begun on the WT:FOOTY#Name of football player lists page regarding proper naming. It was recently through peer review, all comments at previous FLC has been adressed. Sandman888 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restarted previous version

I support it. --Jordiferrer (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments which will have to be brief, because I have no internet access for a couple of weeks after today so won't be able to address any matters arising. I'll have to leave it to the FL directors to decide whether anything mentioned here is actionable, and if it is, whether it's been actioned acceptably. Their decisions are fine by me.

Perhaps restrict the hatnote to the players cat and the current squad, and link the legends list when you mention the inclusion criteria. And/or include it in a See also
- Done. Not included in see also, as it is in template in button.
Probably better to use the full names of pages in the hatnotes, so the reader knows what they're getting: i.e. for a list ... with a WP article see Category:FC Barcelona footballers, and for the current squad see FC Barcelona#Current squad
- Done.
The lead section prose could do with a copyedit
- Tried CE.
Thought Alcantara was the all-time top scorer, not "one of its"?
- Done.
Not convinced by the extra criteria. Not so much the "legendary" players: if you're only counting La Liga appearances at least it's the club website selecting the extras rather than the nominator. But on what basis are the record holders chosen? the Pedro Rodriguez scoring in six competitions in a season seems a bit trivial, for instance.
- Criteria now limited to >99 games and legends. Sandman888 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's something wrong with the note M in José Mari Bakero's row
- Removed, was a leftover.
Notes. Note G: lose the first "in all competitions"
- Done
Note F, H, maybe others: where someone was the first player to do something, you'd say was the first, not is
- F, H fixed
Note L: "guided" sounds like management rather than captaincy; perhaps just "captained"
- captained it is
Note Q: is there a more reliable source for the fee than goal.com?
- Removed.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Adressed above. Sandman888 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This deserves proper scrutiny, although my initial reaction is that it's nearly there.

My only initial gripe is with the inclusion of Rodrigez and Ibrohimovic (and any others who only qualify through a club record that I've missed). From reading the (lengthy) discussion at WT:FOOTY I've come to the conclusion that the legends are acceptable. It's a clearly defined group, and it's possible to include all of them indiscriminately, which is one of my main concerns at FL. On the other hand, it's impossible to say that you have covered every single record. I don't have a problem with listing records as footnotes, but I don't think a record alone should qualify a player to be included. The players in question will still get the recognition they deserve here, and there is the chance that they'll reach 100 appearances or be recognised as legends in future, and qualify that way. I hope to give this a proper review, but given my (lack of a) recent contribution history I can't make any promises. Best of luck either way. WFCforLife (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the inclusion criteria more strict, since this seems to be a trend toward community consensus. Only Legends and >99 games are now included. Sandman888 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed above, i feel that any list of the sort should only include players with 100 matches or more; however, the legend part is a little more "fuzzy", a good source for debate. For instance, Pedro Rodríguez, as of June 2010, only has 42 league games (12 goals), but if his career ended TODAY at the club, it would certainly (in my opinion) reach something nearing the legend status, due to his HUGE importance in 2009-10 (for example, i feel Kiko achieved legend status at Cádiz CF in spite of only playing three years at the club - less than 100 league games - as storyline demonstrates). I support it - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this and I think it's good stuff. I support it... La Fuzion (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Left most of my commentary before the restart, but do have one thing to add: reference 33 should have the publisher (AFP) spelled out like in the FIFA, UEFA and RSSSF citations. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sandman888 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstaining on the sourcing, support everything else. In light of the discrepancies I found in the first nomination, a reasonable sized random sample of statistics need to be checked against the sources, to ensure that they're accurate. Regrettably I don't have the time to do that at the moment. On all other criteria I feel that this is now FL quality. WFCforLife (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only official lfp stats are now used, so the mix-up from previously is well in the past. Sandman888 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I checked a couple references and they were fine, and I'll check the statistically-based ones on a second read through. Here are a couple things I found:

- "Thirteen years after the foundation of Barcelona," Founding of Barcelona might sound better.
  - Founding it is. Sandman888 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the biggest fan of limiting inclusion to 100 matches; I would prefer it be lower, perhaps 50. That being said, if that's what consensus is I'll accept that and this note can be ignored.
  - Personally I agree with you. A recent relevant discussion can be found here. Although the numerical threshold wasn't central to the discussion, it was part of it. The only real consensus was that inclusion criteria must be clearly defined. WFCforLife (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get why only some ballplayers have references and others don't. Should they all have one, especially to make sure the goals and appearances are right?
  - Originally they all had refs, from bdfutbol.com (a site that takes the stats from LFP and lists it under each player). But that wasnt a respectable source and they were removed. LFP doesn't list stats for ind. players on a single page, so it is explained under general refs how to get them (you have to scroll through each season), so only legend-refs remain. Sandman888 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still have some irks about this list (in my comments above), but they're personal preferences rather than outstanding issues, so I'll weakly support this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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