Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 [1].

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

List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): 03md 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it could be ready to become a featured list. 03md 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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). 03md 00:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • The hyphen after 1908 in the first paragraph should be an en dash.
  • 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)[reply]
  • All done. 03md 12:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • The two sub-100 lists can be merged if it is a problem. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Not convinced the list is going to be particularly stable, it's going to be prone to {{update}} after every match or so.
  • Agree with Chris that the existence is probably as arbitrarily acceptable as Phillies (A) etc.
  • An example of the potential instability is what you have in the lead : "As of December 2010, a total of 424 players have played fewer than 25 competitive matches..." this could change on a regular basis.
  • This is the case for all team articles. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and oddly, I'd make it into the list because I've made fewer than 25 appearances for MUFC...
  • This is the title of similar articles for other clubs and I can't think of an alternative. The fact that it is "Man United players" should remove that ambiguity. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole list is referenced by the general reference so these links can be removed if necessary. 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some spaced hyphens in those reference titles, should be en-dashes.
  • Done. 03md 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This list seems to be sorted initially by the career years. Seems a little odd to me, why not just by name? In any case, there's a problem because if you sort by years, the list changes (slightly) so something's out of order.
  • Well, try sorting it yourself, you'll see that Owen/Doughty reverse order when sorting initially by span. I guess it should be alphabetical when the starting year is the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If a player played international football, the country/countries he played for are shown. Otherwise, the player's nationality is given as their country of birth." - how do I tell the difference?
  • Should I add in a column for international caps while at the club? 03md 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should distinguish between the two categories of players you've mentioned here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]

Resolved comments from WFC
*To say Larsson "inspired" United to the title is arguably true, but a pretty strong claim. —WFC—
  • Changed the wording slightly. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think Jimmy Davis does merit a special mention in the lead, Geoff Bent should receive the same treatment. Same goes if any players on this list had their Manchester United careers ended by being killed in wartime.
  • Added Geoff Bent to lede but will have to find out about wartime deaths. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns over whether the 424 statistic could/would be accurately updated if you were to stop editing the list. I have inserted similar phrases into similar lists in the past. But while it is possible to verify the total number of players for a club, or the total number of drivers in a racing category, it would be far harder to do so for the number of players below an arbitrary appearance threshold. —WFC—
  • I don't think this is really too much of an issue, as only a handful of new players are added to or removed from the list each year, with Fabio and Smalling are the only two members of the current playing staff who may reach 25 appearances by the end of this season, for example. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this is a valid list, as expressed above. My personal preference would be for two lists, but 1-100 and >100 would be a lopsided split, so in the absence of consensus on the issue I think consolidation would be an unreasonable demand to make. —WFC— 20:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless a player literally played everywhere (like Steve Palmer, for instance), I'm not too keen on the "utility player" designation. As an example, Roger Doughty is listed on his page as an outside left and right back. Surely it would be more informative to communicate both positions? —WFC—
  • The policy adopted by the main Manchester United players article was that players were designated as "GK", "DF", "MF" or "FW" regardless of their exact defensive or attacking position, with "HB" and "FB" for pre-1960s players. I could make list both positions for Doughty though if you feel this would be better rather than "Utility". 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a good approach. Given how messy Andrei Kanchelskis's nationality is on the main list, I don't really get why the authors there decided that two positions was too much. —WFC— 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. 03md 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. One last thing on this subject- the row in the key and corresponding note are now redundant. —WFC— 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no further problems. Well done! —WFC— 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your feedback. 03md 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
In a paper encyclopaedia, this list would not exist. Not because listing everyone who has played for MUFC is not notable, but rather because on paper you can just keep going and going. Here, we have WP:SIZE for a reason, and a breakup that contains 400 names is in no way a fork. (I think the alphabetical split of the Phillies lists, while creating more articles, is slightly more user-friendly, but that's likely just me. (And editor friendly, as noone ever needs to be moved between lists using that format))
  • See my comment about updating the list above. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A further 22 players made more than 20 appearances in their Manchester United career." Uh... everyone on the other lists has made more than 20 appearances, too...
  • Removed this sentence. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Major Frank Buckley.jpg is a non-free image without hint of a fair-use rationale for this use. One will not be able to be written for this article anyway, so remove it.
  • Removed. 03md 02:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who publishes StretfordEnd.co.uk? Courcelles 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: add StretfordEnd.co.uk as a general ref (keep the specific ones too though). This would enable you to add every minute bit of information there is about the ref, without the need to repeat anything more than is necessary the other 420-odd times. In answer to Courcelles' question, it's published by Barn End Media [2] —WFC— 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks mate. I've added this as a general reference. 03md 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks mate. 03md 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. 03md 17:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Done. Thanks for your feedback Chris. 03md 23:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Manchester_United_F.C._players_(fewer_than_25_appearances)/archive1&oldid=1089079668"