Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/April 2008

Kept

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept 14:38, 27 April 2008.

---

List of North American birds

This article has no in-line citations, and for such a massive list that is very not good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep as FL The entire list is based on the ABA list as stated in the introduction, and ABA is referenced at the end. You are surely not suggesting that every one of the nearly 900 species should have an in-line reference to that source? I agree that the intro could do with a couple more refs, but that's no reason to declassify a clearly notable and useful list Jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right I am not, but there should be some...do some and I'll take a look. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is FL, not FA Jimfbleak. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to support it's removal as a featured list. The list is as misleading and at the very least ambiguous for the uninformed reader. It only includes species from the US and Canada. It does not include species from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean which are included in most references to North America. It is true the list does make mention as referencing the list as the ABA list, which it is, but even the ABA does not consider this to be a North American list, it is the ABA's list. I know there has been very involved discussions in past communications concerning this issue. For me, although the text does mention this is a list of North American birds recorded north of Mexico, it is not a true North American list which the title suggests...........Pmeleski (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are describing is a blatant WP:COPYVIO. Lists must be supported by independent research, not simply lifted from a copyrighted source. So, yes, you will need independent sourcing for the entries. Dhaluza (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The mere list of birds falls clearly within the realm of Feist v. Rural. The list of bird species seen in North America is not copyrighted to anybody, no matter who compiles it. Circeus (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. The raw data is not copyrightable, but a particular list may be if it contains creative expression in the format or choice of entries. It's not so clear to me that this list is the same as a telephone directory, which is much more cut and dried. Also the case you cite applies only to U.S. law. Regardless, copying a single (non public-domain) source is clearly plagarism, which is not acceptable either. The list needs more diverse sourcing, and should be delisted and tagged until improved. Dhaluza (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A list may be copyrighted if it contains creative expression, but a list of public domain information in a rationally obvious order is not a creative expression. The order of this list is in taxonomic order, which for lists of organisms is a rationally obvious order. Both this list and the ABA follow the taxonomic order established by the AOU. The ABA does not "own" that order. It is also the order followed by most field guides. This list also contains birds that the ABA list does not. The ABA and the AOU drops introduced birds that have become extirpated, it was decided not to do that with this list. It only affects a few birds, but is "creative decision" that is different from the one made by the ABA. The AOU and ABA are clearly cited as being sources for this list, so it is not plagiarism. I'm not sure why Feist v. Rural being applicable to US law only is mentioned. The wikimedia servers are in the US, the ABA and AOU are located in the US. Most of the major contributors to the article are located in the US. What law other than US law would apply? Dsmdgold (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is only strictly accountable to U.S. law for its hosted content, but one of the stated goals of the project is commercial re-usability, which implies a more general standard should be used whenever possible. Your reference to public domain is not applicable here, as the ABA claims a copyright on the list. That copyright may not be enforcable in the U.S. but it probably is enforcable in Europe and elsewhere. Nobody owns the information (which may be what you meant) but the expression of that information is not necessarily public. Altough the ABA is cited, this list is still plagarism since it is essentially a duplicate copy with some minor changes. So ABA is not one of many sources, it apparently the principle source. I think this is really a case where we need to start over to develop an independent list that will look very similar, but will come from a different process. Dhaluza (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be incorrect here Dhaluza; ABA has a copyright on its checklist, which is not the same as a list of birds. Its checklist includes (among other things) codes which indicate the likelihood of seeing a species in the US or Canada, something our list clearly doesn't have. Their list also doesn't include the headings that ours has for each family of birds (the bits that contain brief information about the group of birds that immediately follow). I will send an email to the ABA today, to see if they can help us to resolve this. MeegsC | Talk 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dhaluza, by "Public Domain" I meant that the fact that each bird on this list has been seen in North America is a fact in public domain. My understanding of public domain is the body of information that no one owns. Perhaps there is more technical definition that I am unaware of. In my understanding of the term "plagiarism", the copyright status of the plagiarized work is immaterial, since plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of another's work. We are not doing that here. We say that we are using the ABA list. As MeegsC, points out we do not have all of the information on the ABA checklist but do include information not on the ABA list. As to your other point, I don't think it is possible for Wikipedia to concern itself with every copyright scheme on the planet. We use fair use images, even though the idea of fair use does not exist in some other countries. Dsmdgold (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have received an email back from ABA saying that they do not feel the current List of North American birds violates their copyright. (They also had their attorney check this.) I can forward a copy of the email to whomever is appropriate in the Wikipedia hierarchy so that this issue doesn't raise its head again. MeegsC | Talk 21:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep as FL. I have addressed copyright complaints above. The title reflects the practice within the birding community. Field guides for "North American" birds all restrict themselves to birds north of Mexico. The ABA list reflects this. There is a certain reality on the ground to this division. The bird population of Mexico is significantly different from the bird population of the United States, and the border, by historical accident, is quite close to the transition zone. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring the nominating concern, which is a total lack of inline citation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are nine hundred or so discrete facts, all sourced to the same source, I don't think the software will perform well with that many pointers to the same footnote. I note that when multiple footnotes point to the same source, the footnote appears with a superscript letter. If someone clicks on the letter it takes him to the point in the text with the footnote. Assuming that the software will double that reference letter when the 27th footnote points at the source, by the time you get to the 900th bird the system will be on its 35th loop through the alphabet. This does not seem practical to me. Other than the individual items in the list, what specifically should have inline citations? Dsmdgold (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked for some, not 900, as that would be ridiculous. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But which ones? Should we pick twenty or so random birds and put in footnotes, all pointing to the same source? Dsmdgold (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If there are any controversial ones, or fine distinctions, those would probably be best to reference. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a neat way to avoid that problem - readers could be referred to the page (e.g. AOU, p.123) or section (e.g. AOU, Emberizidae) of the source in the footnotes, and then AOU could be listed in a Bibliography section. That's what's been done at List of animals displaying homosexual behaviour SP-KP (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The list of birds is adequately sourced to a single reference. There is no need for inline citations for the birds. Asking for some to be cited doesn't make sense. Whether the prose in the lead and in each section is adequately sourced is another matter. Those checklists don't contain that information. Colin°^Talk 11:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't argue with me about it, it's in the Featured list criteria, inline citations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find the words "where appropriate" in front. Colin°^Talk 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia:Citing sources article, citations should be provided for material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged", for quotations and for "checking content added by another editor" (also when adding info to articles on living persons or uploading images—not applicable in this context). There aren't really any controversial elements to this list (either a bird has been documented as occuring in the region, or it hasn't), and there are no quotations. Which sections are of the list are causing you to question the information, Judgesurreal777, so we know what you want cited? MeegsC | Talk 14:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I find it quite extraordinary that User:Judgesurreal777 nominated this article a full 10 days ago, and didn't even bother to contact the WikiProject which oversees it to mention that it was being reviewed with an eye to removal. I only happened to stumble across this today, and have notified WP:BIRD—which should, in fairness, have been notified immediately. MeegsC | Talk 13:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A list of species found is definitely mere information without creativity. Copyright does not apply here. You may argue that "database/compilation protection" is applicable, but I doubt a plain list that is readily available from the index of any recent field guide or Audubon club checklist could qualify under that clause. By that token we would even produce copyright violation in the category pages. I think the main list can have a single source - most of these have evolved over more than a 100 years. I would however at best expect inline cites for vagrants (for instance Palearctic species). Cannot see any valid reason for delisting. Shyamal (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Field guides for "North American" birds all restrict themselves to birds north of Mexico." Perhaps so, but there is no reason for us to copy an error. Is there any reason why the list should not be renamed to List of birds of Canada and the USA or similar? Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per all the above responses. I'm not convinced that in-line citations are necessary for such a non-controversial subject. If a name change is in order, I suggest using the title List of Northern American birds. I do not think though that this name issue is cause for delisting the article, merely discussion. --Bardin (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and rename. I agree with Bardin and others that the citations are in order. I'm quite happy with the 'Northern America' idea or indeed any other sensible name that describes the territory involved accurately. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remove per criterion 1c of the Featured list criteria, which says; ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations". I'd like to know what citations Ben MacDui feels "are in order", as the article does not have any. This list hasn't kept up with current standards, and certainly would not pass FLC now. Trying to rename the list changes nothing, and is a blatant attempt to divert conversation away from the real issue. It's about time FLRC enforces the 1c criterion - frankly, I'm fed up of lazy people who can't be bothered to add citations to their old FAs and FLs. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan can you please provide an example of where you'd like to see citations? (I asked this earlier of another editor but have still received no response from him.) This list is cited, and to a reliable source. The main cite is the American Birding Association webite: ABA is the recognized North American body in charge of examining all documentation for bird species reported in North America, and judging whether that documentation is acceptable or not. As I said earlier, there are no "contentious" elements to this list, because contentious elements are not accepted! Or are you saying you don't feel that the ABA is a WP:RS, which is another issue altogether... MeegsC | Talk 16:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear me. The references I think are order are the ones provided. I am very much in favour of in-line citations where required, but it is by no means uncommon for lists to have a small number of general references backed up by in-line notes where needed. In short I am in agreement with MeegsC. (I am assuming the text is verified by the references of course). As for a 'blatant attempt to divert' - for the record I have never edited this list and have no particular reason to offer it support other than that of a sympathetic passer-by. You may wish to avoid ad hominen arguments in future lest someone should interpret your enthusiasm as incivility. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is not "enthusiasm". I am a writer of four featured articles, so do not treat me like some inexperienced editor. I frankly don't care whether you think I was being incivil or not, and don't even attempt to try to stray me from my opinions with statements beginning with "You may wish..". No, I do not wish to change my opinion Ben MacDui. For the record, I do think this is an example of a case where nobody can be bothered to provide citations. I call the situation how I see it, and don't sugarcoat - if you don't like it, tough luck. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per reasoning that it is cited. I understand that there are many situations when inline citations are good, or great, but this list is adequately cited. However I agree with the sentiment that the list could be either renamed or have its scope widened to include all of North America. The ABA list is a product of dumb rule obsessed tickers and twitchers; and the AOU list is preferable. North America does not end at the border with Mexico. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but rename as above. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Even the ABA says, "The ABA area (sometimes referred to as the ABA Checklist Area) is essentially North America north of Mexico." [1] (On the other hand, they sometimes use "North America" to mean "the ABA area", as, "The ABA Checklist includes native North American breeding species, regular visitors, casuals and accidentals from other regions that are believed to have strayed here without direct human aid, and well-established introduced species that are now part of our avifauna." [2])

The "list of North American birds" should, as Sabine's Sunbird suggests, be based on the AOU's North American Check-list—"The geographic area covered includes North and Central America from the North Pole to the boundary of Panama and Colombia, including the adjacent islands under the jurisdiction of the included nations..." [3] By the way, when I was a member of the ABA (and a smart rule-obsessed ticker and twitcher, TYVM), they published North American list totals (the AOU's North America) as well as ABA Area totals.

On the subject of procedure, not only would a note at WP:Bird have been welcome, but so would an attempt to raise the issue of sources at the talk page before nominating the article for deletion. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've already voted to keep (at least once), but I would support a move. There still has been no indication of what data is being challenged, or is not covered by the existing refs, so current situation adequate. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've voted keep as well. I think that there is a consensus to move. I think that a strong case can be made for the existence of two lists. The north of Mexico region represented by this list is used by most field guides, the ABA, and most tickers (who whether they are smart or dumb, represent a large body of people). As a widely used region we should have this list. A list of birds north of Panama could the exist at this title, if someone wanted to assemble it. I will note that last time I looked, the AOU list includes the Hawaiian islands, which doesn't meet most people's definition of North America. Dsmdgold (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment It is true that most of the field guides I've seen also exhibit birds north of Mexico. My guess is that is because of the relative popularity of the hobby in those nations, for expediency, and to a lesser degree that those 2 nations are the only major English speaking nations in North America (the province of Quebec notwithstanding), which is the language most guides are printed in for those 2 nations. Adding about another 1000 birds (or more) would also make the guidebook too bulky and expensive for the field. The reason I suggested a name change is because this site is visited internationally, or we are encouraging international use. We can always make smaller (or larger) lists to accomodate the geography, which is not financially cost effective for the field guide publishers. Regarding keeping the name as the US and Canada list, I'd like to know how our Canadian bretheren like the idea of being lumped together (or vice-versa for that matter), since we are seperate nations, and I don't believe there is a similar collaborative list for any other continent. Just my 2 cents why this list should be presented differently.......Pmeleski (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have no quarrel with sourcing the list to a single source. I also think it is acceptable to define the scope of the list based on one authority's definition of "North American birds." However, (1) standard citations to the sources should be presented in the introductory section of the article (it is not sufficient to refer vaguely to "a checklist used by the ABA"), (2) there undoubtedly are a few points in the body of the list that should have specific citations, and (3) I find several specific statements and passages in the intro section that should be supported by inline source citations, including:

• North American birds most closely resemble those of Eurasia
• ...which was connected to the continent as part of the supercontinent Laurasia until around 60 million years ago. Done
• One species, the Cattle Egret, was historically an African bird. In the 20th century this bird colonized North America and is now found throughout the lower 48 states of the United States. Done
• The Cattle Egret is the only Old World bird to establish itself in North America in historical times without being introduced by man.
• ...the Glossy Ibis, which probably had a similar history. Done
• The status of one bird on this list, the Ivory-billed Woodpecker, is controversial. Until 2005 this bird was widely considered to be extinct. In April of that year it was reported that ar least one adult male bird had been sighted in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas. This report however, has not been universally accepted, and the American Birding Association still lists the Ivory-billed Woodpecker as extinct. Done
• The original list published by the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) in 1886 covered...
• In 1983, the area was expanded to include...
• Other organizations, such as the American Birding Association (ABA), use a smaller area... Done
• ...two introduced species that are not on the ABA checklist, but which are recognized by the AOU as having established populations. Done

--Orlady (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Orlady for taking the time to provide some examples of what you feel should be cited. It's been very frustrating to have several editors complain about a lack of citations, but not provide any indication of where they felt such citations were needed! We'll work on getting those facts sourced to your satisfaction. MeegsC | Talk 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept 16:37, 16 April 2008.

---

List of Arsenal F.C. players

After three attempts at FLC for List of Chicago Blackhawks players, there appears to be a consensus to delist all sports-related lists that do not include all of the players that ever played for the club. The game limits for inclusion (in this case 100 games) were deemed arbitrary and POV. This is the first of many lists that will be brought here. I invite your input. Teemu08 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delist A 100 game limit to a listing of players who played for a major club is arbitrary and POV. Any player who played for this team is notible enough for their own article, and thus is more than notible enough for this list. -Djsasso (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - i.e. maintain FL status. Firstly, it is not arbitrary if the limit is agreed on by consensus (which it previously had been), and it is not POV as it is based upon an objective and verifiable fact. Furthermore, this is dangerously heading down the route of WP:POINT - if the article you want to achieve FL status is denied, then removing other lists with FL status first is not the way about it. At the very least, you should raise the point on their respective talk pages about improving or expanding them to bring them up to the standard you think they should be at first. Qwghlm (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because you arrive at a number by consensus does not make it any less arbitrary. You just picked a number. Is someone who played 99 games that much less notible than the person who played 100 games? It is POV in that it indicates that people who played less than 100 games are not as notible as those who played more than 100 games. -Djsasso (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as the creator of the List of England international footballers (alphabetical), I would like to have this as a featured list one day. The list is complete, but many of the players who have played one or two games only are redlinked, which would prevent the list being a featured list until articles are created for every player on the list. The article is huge, and is often criticised for this reason. A complete list of Arsenal players would be equally huge. To prevent this, there has to be a cut-off point and 100 games seems a fair compromise. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Such a list would be too long (almost certainly breaking WP:LENGTH) and would be of limited use due to being full of red links (until you created a few hundred articles to turn all the links blue). I agree that the 100 game thing is an arbitrary number but a limit does need to be imposed IMO. I think that 100 games, used alongside other criteria such as international caps won at the club, players of the season, club captains, hall of famers etc is a good compromise and I personally can't think of a better way to do it. --Jameboy (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delist (delist) Incomplete list, arbitrary and POV definition of "notable". Resolute 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delist delisting as incomplete, though I do agree with Qwghlm that to do this Removal Candidate right now is WP:POINT. Tsk, tsk. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:LENGTH and per this being a WP:POINT. Professional football clubs have been established for over a hundred years and with squad sizes now over 30 as a rule, this would be unmanageable. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep defeaturing. The concept of 100 appearances is well established on Wikipedia as conferring special notability in such lists. I would, however, like the article to more clearly establish the rationales for each <100 inclusion, usually done through footnoting. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A quick check on my club, Gillingham, revealed that just under 600 players have played for the club just since 1950, so I hate to think what the total number would be for clubs like Preston North End who have played professional-level football constantly since 1888. Saying that a list had to include every player who'd ever played for a club equates to saying that no such list could ever be allowed for any club, as they'd all be far too long per WP:LENGTH. As Dweller states, though, I think nebulous "he played less than 100 games but still made a significant contribution" inclusions should be avoided..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I did a quick check on the players I have recorded in my Arsenal subpage - 761 have played a first team game in League or Cups (excluding wartime matches); 440 or so have articles already, which probably wouldn't be enough for FLC should the list be expanded. Qwghlm (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If the decision was taken that such lists had to include every player in order to remain at FL, I'd be prepared to suck it up and expand the Gillingham list accordingly, although in the short term it would probably involve the mass creation of several hundred articles which initially just said "X is a former professional footballer who played Y matches for Gillingham"...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep To include all players in these lists would be quite absurd, and the current criteria which is commonly deployed by these lists (100+ apps) seems suitable. True, it has been subjectively deicded, but it has been done by a community consensus which feels it to be right. It's definetley an improvement on sections on articles like this, which is POV-ridden "naming favourite players", which is certainly not present on these features lists. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps this list (and others from the soccer realm) should then be renamed "List of Arsenal F.C. players who have played 100 matches" or some such. As it stands, this very clearly is not a comprehensive list of Arsenal F.C. players. Also, I find the WP:LENGTH defence to be quite weak. There is no reason at all why the article couldn't be split due to size. Afterall, you didn't cut out massive amounts of team history to fit the entire club's existence into History of Arsenal F.C., did you? Resolute 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - As the list is "sortable" splitting it into sections would destroy that sortability - or perhaps there should be two sections; those players who have made 100+ appearances, and the rest. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Ultimately, my concern is that all players are represented. Resolute 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Where would you stand on clubs which played at a non-professional level for substantial lengths of time? My own club played at a non-pro level from 1893 until 1920 and again from 1938 to 1950, so players who played for the club during those 40 years don't meet WP:BIO requirements - do you feel they should or shouldn't be included in such a list.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Do the team's record books include or exclude players who were on the rosters at those times? That would be the ideal indicator of whether such players should be included in a list such as this. Resolute 15:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The book I have gives the bare bones info, but only to the extent of "F.Smith: 10 appearances, 5 goals", nothing more detailed than that (not even forenames!)..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cats are better at catching all members of a large group, irrespective of relative merits. List articles can be more selective. There's already a sufficiency of hat-notes at the top of this list which explain where the reader can find the exhaustive information. With that in mind, I don't see a comprehensiveness problem. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Firstly the removal is a WP:POINT], and if all players had to be included it would just be unworkable, my own club Liverpool F.C., has numerous amounts of players, therefore the list would become huge. The list also explains why some players are not included, so it does not need removing. NapHit (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• REMINDER This is not a vote. The number of votes will not be counted, the validity of the arguments will be. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Alongside the lack of completion, the lead is too short and the lack of citations concerns me. As well, why are there no statistics for David Danskin? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There are no specific citations as all the majority statistics come from a single book, cited in the foot of the page, augmented with up-to-date ones from the web. Danskin's stats are lost in time as records are not kept, but he is kept in as he was the man who founded the club. Qwghlm (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The book cited goes up to 1995 and the website (which appears to be a fan site) used hasn't been updated since 2006 and most of the statistics I saw haven't been updated since 2005, so there are no sources for statistics of any players since 2005. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Added in Soccerbase (which is the standard reference used for contemporary players by WP:WPF members) to the list, with a clarification. Qwghlm (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal What about splitting the list up like the history aritlce is? Have List of Arsenal F.C. players (1886–1966) and List of Arsenal F.C. players (1966–present). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That would eliminate one of the strengths of the list - the ability to sort by appearances or goals. I agree with Dweller's points about the differences in scope between categories and lists, and see no reason to delist on the grounds of comprehensiveness. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see absolutely no merit in this whatsoever, and Scorpion0422 has failed to provide any sort of reason, let alone a compelling one. It would also cause a problem for any player whose career straddled the year 1966 (among them a good proportion of them the Double-winning side). Qwghlm (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My reason is that if the list was split up, you would be able to list every player but it wouldn't be overly long. FL criterion 1b says the list "covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" and with a title like "List of Arsenal F.C. players" one would expect the list to include every player. So either it should be split up (to solve the length problem) or retitled. Personally, I would prefer the first solution. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delist It's incomplete and should be defeatured unless the title of the list is changed to something like List of Arsenal F.C. players who played at least 100 games. Any reader who sees List of Arsenal F.C. players assumes, and rightfully so, that he/she will find each and every player who played for Arsenal. Right now, this page is basically deceptive to readers.--Crzycheetah 23:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were to be renamed, I believe List of notable Arsenal F.C. players would make more sense, as it includes more than just players who made 100+ apps. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with that is that according to our own definitions, every single player who has ever stepped onto the pitch for Arsenal is automatically "notable". --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is the reason they all need to be on the list. -Djsasso (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. They're all catered for by the hat-notes. --Dweller (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

KEEP As mentioned above it would be rediculous to have to include every player that has played for a particular club as this would make the list to big and unmanageable as the list would expand all the time 02blythed (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delist - it's inappropriate for the list to be incomplete; being broken into two lists would be far preferable to not having a complete list. And it would go beyond category duplication because not every player who player for Arsenal, presumably, has an article. I know that there are still redlinks in the lists I work on, like the Minnesota Twins all-time roster. matt91486 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Without getting all waxy about it, presumably if the football lists are de-featured then those who supported that will then be moving on to de-feature List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters or List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A, neither of which contains every person who meets the requirement suggested by the title.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out! I'll get right on it!..... Just kidding! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• The difference on those lists and lists of players on a team is that players on a team are relatively finite with only a small amount being added each year and is more than easily kept up with. -Djsasso (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, that's purely subjective. Any "incomplete" list would need to be delisted if this list is delisted. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think there is a difference, in this case any player who has ever played for Arsenal is automatically considered notable (per the guidelines) but in the case of LGBT people or Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters, being one does grant automatic notability. Plus in both cases, they include everyone that has a wikipedia page, while this list does not. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • So the selection of LGBT people is subjective too or purely subject to WP:BIO? A lot of talk has taken place about notability of footballers. Perhaps this "local" interpretation of the notability criteria needs removing. But the US contributors must understand that we're talking about thousands of people per team here. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand that, which is why I suggested renaming it or splitting it. The criteria does not say "covers the defined scope by including every member of a set unless the list would be too long", so it does fail the criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
          • But, as you know by now, splitting these notable players into subsections is not good. The criteria applied, while possibly subjective, are, at least, clearly defined. We, in the UK, are used to having these players defined by some level of notability. Over a thousand players for over 100 clubs is incomprehensibly difficult to manage. Most of the NHL lists I've looked at which deal with only the past 10 or 15 years are virtually useless. They're non-sortable, split by surname, effectively not much better than a category. Finding a member of such a list is as difficult as going to the category and clicking on the name. Because the NHL lists are non-sortable, they're almost pointless other than a massive collection of stats which are unusable. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't see how not being sortable makes names easier to find, so you'll have to explain that to me. I'm not even sure why this list is initially sortable by the date they joined anyway, because it seems that people looking for a specific person will search by last name. Since WP:FOOTBALL members are so adament that the lists can't be split up, then they should be renamed to "List of ____ players who played more than 100 games". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I think the issue here stems from the fact that all WP:FOOTBALL articles about clubs have a "notable players" section which, in general, has been forked off to an article with some generally accepted criteria (within the project, admittedly). However, if you're saying that the acceptable solution to this is to rename all football lists with "more than 100 games" than I'm sure that most people would prefer that to delisting all the football articles. But it seems a little one-eyed. However, it's an objective criterion which couldn't be disputed. So perhaps that's the way forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
                • In my continuing quest for an easy life I have already put in a request to move List of Gillingham F.C. players to List of Gillingham F.C. players (100+ appearances)..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • .....which was refused ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as FL. Good topic, valuable content. At worst, revert to a previous version that is FL-worthy. There must be a better way than this of resolving the issues raised. See WP:POINT. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Another perspective I'm currently reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients and it's clear here that, under the objections raised above, this list cannot pass because there are 3500+ recipients but the article forks out to major groups. Thus the actual "List of Medal of Honor recipients" is incomplete. However, if this Arsenal list had a fork to List of Arsenal F.C. players who have played less than 100 professional matches for the club then we surely have a complete list? Just thought I'd poke the wasp's nest! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• This list article already has a hat-note pointing to the Cat which is where those whose contributions were less historic can be found. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Even better! Have we gone full circle yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• But the category doesn't include every player either. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What would be really useful would be if there was some way to put redlinks into a category. I wonder whether the ability to do so has ever been considered by the devs. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I recently began my personal quest to get every NHL team list featured. So far I've been working on the more recent teams that have no more than 200 players in the teams history. Now I've begun working on List of Montreal Canadiens players. The Canadiens are a team that has been around for nearly 100 years, and in the 90 that its been part of the NHL, over 700 have played with the team. I've completed around 2/3 of the list so far, and am now seeing just how long it really is. So I'm in full support now of something being done to reach a compromise that will allow a full complete list of team lists, as well as a shorter, more narrow list that cuts out the fringe players of teams. Both have their merrits, and it isn't very proper to just have one list. We have the capability to include a full list, seeing how Wikipedia is not paper. But I think there needs to also be limits, defined in the title of the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Just think how long the page would be if all players were listed! Also, there have been, probably, several thousand Arsenal players over the years, and to list them all would take years. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment But it is a finite number of players and is easy to find information. Leaving it out is just plain laziness if too much work is your arguement. I am fine with having multiple lists like Players who played more than X games. Or even players by letter of the alphabet. But to call this "List of Arsenal F.C. players" is completely inaccurate as it is not all the players who played for the team. -Djsasso (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Comment First I would endorse some of the realism expressed by many (but not all) above about the impracticality of listing all payers regardless of their contribution which was summarised so well by Kaiser matias (talk) just now, that I was compelled to add my support to what has just been said. I was interested to hear that a NHL team around for 100 years could have 700 or so players. Having just carried out some similar work on a Premiership football team which has been around some 125 years I estimate there have been at least 1300- 1400 players. As has been commented on before and not wanting to fuel the fires it does seem that the argument for listing all is coming from those who have not grasped how many thousands of football players there have been, not just in the British teams but elsewhere over the years. Although a fair amount is known about a lot of them for many of them sadly their careers were short and typically uneventful with not just one club but many and what there is to say about them is either very brief or nigh on impossible to turn into a useful / cited article. Frankly if I knew I had to find and list all 1400+ to ensure the List / article survived I would prefer not to start fear of dying of boredom in the attempt. Tmol42 (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't about keeping an article. It's about stating that it is not feature worthy. The purpose of a list is actually the perfect place to have those types of people who had short uneventful careers as they are notable and better than making individual articles for them you put them on the list. This is actually one of the primary reasons why the list should have every player on it. Because it's better than leaving them to one line stubs for articles. -Djsasso (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't that a shift from the arguent you put at the top of this discussion when you said "Any player who played for this team is notible enough for their own article, and thus is more than notible enough for this list"?Tmol42 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Not at all. They are notable for their own article per WP:ATHLETE, but that doesn't mean they have to have one. It is a very common practice to place articles that would be one liners into a list so that they are not perpetual stubs while redirecting the article to their spot on the list. An relevant sports example would be List of one-gamers in the National Hockey League. -Djsasso (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The list should be moved to List of notable Arsenal F.C. players if anything. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What consitutes notable though? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Again all players who play professionally per WP:ATHLETE are notable so that title doesn't work either. -Djsasso (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For me the only tenable solution is to create sub-articles on this list page which are called "List of Arsenal F.C. players who have not made 100 appearances for the club" and fill that in over time. That way this list title is perfectly accurate, as per List of Medal of Honor recipients. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what I'm planning on doing for the Gillingham list. I've nearly finished creating all the articles on players in the 50-99 range, I'm going to add them onto the already-featured list and then create a fork for those players with less than 50, which will initially be full of redlinks. The 50 apps mark pretty neatly cuts the total list in half, as it happens..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As stated previously, I have been working on List of Montreal Canadiens players. The Canadiens are a team that has been in the NHL since the league was founded 90 years ago, and has over 700 players in it. I just finished reformatting the article for FL status, and would like to point out how difficult it is to list all players of more established sports teams.

As it stands, the list is very simple with no images or extra notes that are on other NHL team lists (see List of Tampa Bay Lightning players as an example. Even so, the list is 90kbs long. If I were to add available photos (there are plenty on Wikipedia), notes about Stanley Cup wins (the Canadiens have won it 24 times, nearly twice that of any other team), award winners (as the dominant team of the league for decades, there are quite a few), and members of the Hockey Hall of Fame (again, they were the dominant team, and have 42 in the HHOF), the article would probably show up on the list of largest articles on Wikipedia.

Putting this in perspective, I am now a strong advocate of having similar articles shrunken, but noted in the article title. As an example, I will be using a more refined article on the Canadiens when the time comes to nominate it, with an appropriate title and link to this larger article. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

SOP is to split articles when they become too long. In the case of the Canadiens list, this could easily be accomplished by turning List of Montreal Canadiens players into an index, and creating three sub-articles: one for goaltenders, skaters (A-L) and skaters (M-Z), as an example. Completeness should be encouraged whereever possible, and I see no reason why your impressive work on that list should be stripped down to suit some arbitrary size restriction. That flies in the face of Wikipedia's mandate. Resolute 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, sub-articles need to be created. And not by date, as Scorpion suggested once, but alphabetically.--Crzycheetah 09:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So do you also agree that lists with subarticles can only be FL's if their subarticles are reviewed as throughly as the main article? Otherwise how can you be sure the subarticles are complete? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That creates its own problem. How could a list with (say) 1,000+ names on it be assessed for comprehensiveness? --Dweller (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you'd have to assume that people supporting the promotion of one of these comprehensive NHL lists has either checked them all or hasn't gone the whole way and supported regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In most sports, I would assume soccer is no different, teams have all time player lists available for media etc. This is how the NHL articles are kept track of. -Djsasso (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no. Clubs themselves may have this information but there's no guarantee it's made public, e.g. on a website. But do you honestly believe people actually check that every player is there? I seriously doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked to see that they don't? Its an extremely common practice in pretty much every other sport. And yes, people who are serious about editing these types of articles do check that sort of thing. That is sort of the point of making these articles. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course I've looked! Some clubs are lucky enough to have fan sites which list every player they can, but a lot of clubs don't even have names for players who played for them in the 1870s. Most NHL franchises don't have this problem. And I don't believe people will be prepared to check over a thousand entries across the lists. Sorry, that's just nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the NHL articles, at least, there are two sources on the net, at least, that will provide full lists: Legends of Hockey, and HockeyDB. We've also typically used the team media guides, which is a third, while other publications, including Total Hockey, as well as the NHL Guide and Record Book will have such lists. There is, as always with non internet sources, an assumption that the editor citing them has done so properly, and completely. If you feel that there is an issue with any such lists, please bring it up and we will attempt to address them.

Do FLC reviewers assess the list for completeness? I would hope so, but I would agree that many likely don't. That is, however, a flaw in the process. I think there is a difference, however, at FLC, in a list that claims to be complete, and one that makes no attempt to be so, which is the issue we're specifically discussing here. Resolute 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But what you NHL guys have is irrelevant here - I'm saying a lot of football clubs, some of which have now been around for almost 150 years, don't have this information. So you're saying that all football player lists should be precluded from becoming featured on that basis? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an incomplete list is incomplete. You can hardly be the shining example of a list when its missing key information about its topic. -Djsasso (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's it then for football articles since I'd bet my house that 99% of the records don't extend that far and, with various inconveniences like world wars, may have been lost forever. Out of interest, who validates your "reliable sources"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well one of them is the hockey hall of fame itself, so its pretty much beyond question.... Nevermind the team and league lists. -Djsasso (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And the other? HockeyDB with its nine adverts on the homepage? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to look for the link at their site, but they actually have a page of sources, which means they meet WP:RS. -Djsasso (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree there needs to be a reasonableness factor as well. Wikipedia lists should be as complete as possible, but if reliable sources do not exist for a period of time in a team's history, then that should be noted, with the list as complete as possible. If there are no records for a period of time, then Wikipedia's lists will reflect this fact. If the list is as complete as possible, then I would still support it at FLC. Resolute 16:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Its the arbitrary number of 100 games that I do not like. If there are no records available then fine make note of that somewhere in the list. But to not even try to be complete is a pretty big issue. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and you're happy with contravening WP:LENGTH? If, as most English clubs do, over 1,000 players have played for a club, it'll make it difficult for the page to be used. I'm now a proud owner of a dual core 2.4GHz MacBook and even that struggles with some of the "big" lists I've seen WP:FOOTBALL create as an example of what would happen if this removal is sanctioned. Assuming my laptop performance to be in the top 5% then you're making the list virtually universally inaccessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thus the discussion of splitting the article. Really, I'd have no problem with leaving this article as is, and creating a second for players below 100 games, if that is how you choose to split them. Resolute 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But the discussion to rename an article similar to this accordingly ended with negatively. What's the difference? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I speak only from my personal opinion, if consensus opposes that idea, then we look for a different way. Personally, I'd be fine with leaving this article as is, with a hatnote stating this article lists players who played over 100 games, and to see article x for those who played below 100, or some such. Resolute 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that would be top notch. But would you also review the subarticle for completeness before supporting its non-delisting? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, no. I would treat each article as an independent entity. However, the existence of, and directions to a subsequent article that completes the data set would eliminate my objection to this list due to lack of comprehensiveness. Resolute 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points. Some football clubs don't even list their honours, I mean just one or two trophies, never mind 1,000 or so players. Secondly, I don't see how splitting a list between those surnames A-M and N-Z (or however you feel) is appropriate. How do you compare relevant players. If you need to split lists, I'd do it by either era (probably impossible because players' career overspan) each other, appearances or positions (in some sports impossible because of fluidity, in others possibly American Football very appropriate to compare stats). Peanut4 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Haven't read every last word above but it is quite fatuous to imagine that a credible list has to include every last item it possibly could if the list would become unmanageably long. It is not called 'The List of...' or 'A List of Every....'. It contains the information I'd expect to see. The nomination is simply a breach of WP:POINT and indeed common sense. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its a breach of common sense at all. By being named List of X, the The is being implied. I expect to see everything. If you tag on a qualifier like that played X games. Then I have no problem with it, but without the qualifier in the title then the title of the article is simply not accurate. I do however, agree the Resolute's suggestion would work for me. As long as there is a list created for those under 100 games and at the top of this one its clearly labeled that there is a sub article at X my concerns would be gone. -Djsasso (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What's so much better about that than the status quo that points to a Cat? --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things: first, the category does not include all players, and a category cannot include statistical history. Resolute 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But we've just agreed it's OK to have a hat note to another list article that may "not include all players" and who says it'll have to have a statistical history? --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked how it would be better. The versitility of a list article that can include stats, images, etc is what makes a list better than a cat. As far as not listing every player, ideally, that would only happen due to a lack of available information, not the lack of an existing article for each player. Such a list could have red links until those articles are created. Resolute 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question Out of interest, what's the procedure for resolving this FLRC? It's now been open for more than three weeks and generated 40KB of debate, but what's the resolution going to be.......? ChrisTheDude (talk)
  • Well, I see no reason to close it yet, but in about a week I'll ask a neutral user to take a look at this and make the call. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Cheers! ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Comment I've been asked to look at this discussion by Scorpion, as someone uninvolved but with experience in FLs.

• The lead is a little short and concentrates too much on the team name. Try to find interesting facts about the team players over the years. If you want to give a very short summary of the club, don't focus on the name--include major achievements, and statistics. I would drop the section heading to leave two lead paragraphs. You should drop the "notable" from the bold text as the entry criterion is not notability. The entry criterion should be given earlier in the lead.

• The entry criterion for the list is 100 appearances in a well-defined class of match types. This is the main focus of discussion and the reason the FLRC was created.

• Does that criterion have to be reflected in the title? It would be desirable and would in fact be essential if someone wanted to create an alternative list of all players ever. But it isn't a requirement and there are a few lists where the entry criteria are too complex to express in the title, or it would make the title unwieldy.
• Does that criterion allow for a useful list? Note: this is different to "Is this the most useful criteria?" for which there appears to be no consensus. I can see advantages to having an abridged list for practical reasons and because it would otherwise list lots of players who have no articles. But I can also see the argument for having a complete list. However, I believe the list as it stands is useful and therefore meets WIAFL. It is up to the football projects to discuss the best way to arrange their lists.
• But it is arbitrary and POV. It is arbitrary (though some comments hint that it isn't without precedent). I can't see what POV (insofar as WP defines that term) has to do with it. It is justifiable to an extent. Would the list be better with 50, 20, 12? Don't care.
• Delist all incomplete lists. With some lists, it is unreasonable to expect them to be complete, or they would actually be less useful if this were so. This list is on the fence IMO. Many lists are necessarily incomplete because the set isn't finite and WIAFL allows for that.
• Change the name to say "notable". This is disallowed by WP's lists naming rules. It is also a subjective criterion.
• But other such lists are complete! Consistency among sporting lists and the establishment of guidelines is a matter for the relevant wikiprojects. If you are able to come up with a guideline that has consensus approval, then that guideline could be used to recommend for or against a particular entry criterion. So if you want soccer lists to be complete, establish that as a guideline. If you are happy for all or some of them to be abridged in an objective and clearly defined manner, then establish that as a guideline. In the absense of a specific guideline for such lists, each list should be judged independently. Based on the above discussion, there is currently no consensus to demote this list based on the choice of entry criterion.

In summary: provided this list is complete wrt to its defined objective entry criterion, it does not fail WIAFL in that regard. It is, IMO, not a ridiculous entry criterion. Whether it is the best entry criterion is not a matter for this forum. Please take that discussion elsewhere.

• Lastly, and most importantly. There are three references for the list. I am unable to check all these out but assume the Football project can do so and ensure that all the information in the table can be extracted from those references. The middle refrence (Gunnermainia) is an abandoned personal home page "by some Swedish bloke called Johan Karlsson." This utterly fails WP:V and must be replaced ASAP. This is serious enough for the list to be removed. A quick look at Soccerbase didn't make me confident that it lists anything other than current players. For such a well known team, alternative sources surely exist and should be found. Colin°^Talk 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not sure if anyone else has offered this suggestion but why not just have the list be for all players with an article page on wikipedia? After all, if a player is not notable enough to have an article page on wikipedia, then the player should not be considered notable enough to be on the list. That's pretty much what we have on many music-related lists where we purposely and deliberately exclude any bands that are not notable enough for an article on wikipedia to appear on a list that they could otherwise qualify for. --Bardin (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The issue there is that all Arsenal players, past and present, are deemed notable by WP:ATHLETE. If any do not have WP articles it's not because they aren't notable, just that nobody's got round to creating the article yet........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, forget about my suggestion then. --Bardin (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the dodgy source is removed and replaced with Soccerbase, then presumably this would alleviate the WP:V concern? It doesn't address the overwhelming point of discussion over inclusion/exclusion from this list, but it should deal with Colin's concern. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing comment

This has been open for over a month and the discussion seems to have stalled so the time has come to close this. This was a test case with the FL status of dozens of lists also hanging in the balance and for the time being, I think there is clearly No consensus. For a lot of this I was on the side of the delisters because of criterion 1b which states ""Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject." However, as the discussion went on, I began to agree that in many cases including every player on some of these teams would make the page far too long and unwieldy. I think Colin summed it up best with this remark: "Does that criterion have to be reflected in the title? It would be desirable and would in fact be essential if someone wanted to create an alternative list of all players ever. But it isn't a requirement and there are a few lists where the entry criteria are too complex to express in the title, or it would make the title unwieldy." Perhaps the Featured list criteria needs to be updated to say that lists like this are allowable, but that is for a different discussion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Delisted

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed 21:54, 1 April 2008.

---

English national cricket captains

I believe this article fails criteria 1c because all of the current refs just link to a news or information site and don't give any specific pages. Thus, the information is not verifiable. As well, none of the prose has citations. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support, fails referencing requirements completely per FLRC nom. Lead appears to be completely unreferenced with the current style, and the references give absolutely no specifics as to where the information came from or how its used. Impossible to tell what is unverified and what is properly sourced. List has extremely odd format with two reference sections, one sitting in the middle of the article! Fails basic MOS requirements. Collectonian (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• CommentHas WP:CRIC been notified? Verifying all the numbers would almost certainly be made trivial by looking in Wisden, listed as a general reference, which is the cricket reference publication. I'm sure a WikiProject Cricket member with access to Wisden would most likely be able to make short work of converting refs to inline cites. For someone with the relevant material available, reaching the criteria should be easy enough, which makes me think that raising concerns on the talk page might have been sufficient. As it is, I have made a start to inline referencing for some of the totals, a task involving much repetition of refs, which is probably why general references were used in the first place :) . Oldelpaso (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • yes -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Quick archiving talk pages never cease to confuse me. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
      • And another comment, I have no problem with using general sources, but this one just links to the main pages of some cricket sites. And part of the reason it was nominated is because several other similar lists were recently delisted over similar concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed 18:00, 16 April 2008.

---

List of Ohio county name etymologies

1. The list lacks properly formatted individual references.
2. It isn't as clear as it should be, for example Several of the references say "For the Indian word for ______". There are several different Indian languages, so which tribe does the word come from?
3. Several of the entries contradict eachother (one source says Crawford County was named after the treasurer William Crawford, others say it was named after William Crawford the soldier.
4. Finally, some of the entries are confusing, ie. the entrie for Adams county says it is named "For President John Quincy Adams (clearly wrong)"... What? If it's clearly wrong, why is it in the list?

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you should hold that (#2) against this list. It's not this list's fault that there are different respectable books that are contradicting each other. The lead mentions that there are disagreements.--Crzycheetah 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• I just removed the "(clearly wrong)" part. That entry should stay because there is a reliable book that states it.--Crzycheetah 07:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yea, I agree. Interesting idea for a list, but the execution seems spotty at best. Drewcifer (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well, it's original and complete, but where are the references in long sections such H or M? --jskellj - the nice devil 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you oppose the delisting of the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Elementare, Watson :-) This list must exit from the featured lists! --jskellj - the nice devil 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove from featured lists. It's no longer a good example. To retain featured status, reference callouts should be updated to current standards. Also, the "Analysis of names" section should either be converted to text (discussing the namesake types that occur more than once) or somehow merged into the same list (for example, in the form of footnotes). --Orlady (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree. If you wanted to research more than one or two of these, you would not want to have to deal with 150 numbered footnotes at the bottom of a web page. This format is more accessible. There are twelve reliable reference texts and each is represented by its author's name or initials. This referencing method has been used for decades in the humanities-- and literature and history seem to be what we are referencing here. So why break out of the style used by a specific field?

I don't see that making the individual numbered entries more complicated would be a benefit to readers, especially if from different sources. It simply would not make it easier to interpret the data presented. For example, changing the following:

Wyandot County (1845):

1. For the Wyandot Indians, who lived in the area. "Wyandot" supposedly means "around the plains" in their language. (O.R., O.A.)

2. For the Indian word meaning "calf of the leg" or "tobacco tribe" (Rydjord)

3. For the Indian word meaning "dwellers on a peninsula" (Rydjord)

to

Wyandot County (1845):

1. For the Wyandot Indians, who lived in the area. "Wyandot" supposedly means "around the plains" in their language. (O.R., O.A.)

2. For the Indian word meaning "calf of the leg" or "tobacco tribe" (Rydjord) or the Indian word meaning "dwellers on a peninsula" (Rydjord)

simply doesn't make the information any more clear; if anything, it makes it more difficult to follow the list and interpret what each entry indicates-- which is the entire purpose of a list in the first place.

On a final note, this list cannot be faulted if the historians that have bothered to try to answer the question of 'where did this place get its name' have not been particular about which Indian language or dialect their suggestion comes from. At this point, there is a good chance that many of the 'Indian' languages referenced are extinct and therefore no one really knows what the words were. If you review other states entries by clicking at the bottom of the page, you will find no references, and a single, pretty entry for each one. The fact that Ohio has competing theories about a lot of its counties is what makes this list look the way it does. Would the list be better if only one of the sources were followed and all of the others removed (leaving this list looking like the other state county name lists, but with one source)? No--because it would not include all of the varied theories proposed by different historians.

Just my 2¢, I suppose. The footnotes should probably be made to look like the other parenthetical references, though-- for consistency sake; this is a matter of 5 minutes of editing. --Matthew K (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (edited)

• Support, the referencing is spotty, and uses a mix of styles (per MOS, one style should be used consistently). Specific referencing is also preferred to just "this book" or "somewhere on this site." Nothing wrong at all with 150 references in a list of 88 counties. Collectonian (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you support the delisting or support the keeping of the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Support the delisting. Collectonian (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• KeepIndividual references are fixed. --Crzycheetah 06:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's better, but the lead still needs to be expanded. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead explains why the particular Indian language isn't known and why there are more than one entry for each county. What else would you like to see there? --Crzycheetah 07:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have three specific issues for the lead:
      • What reference support exists for the assertion that "some of the scholars in this area have been unfortunately unconcerned with or unable to determine the particular Indian language"? (That assertion borders on being defamatory of "unconcerned scholars". As an aside, I doubt that all of the sources cited are accurately described as "scholars.")
      • If the information is available, it would be nice to tell how Ohio's county names were determined. (Are they bestowed by the state legislature, selected by referendum of settlers in the new county, or what? Probably the naming methods were different at different historical times.)
      • See my earlier comment about the "Analysis of names" section in the article. Some of the information there could profitably be added to the lead (such as the number of counties with names derived from Indian languages).

--Orlady (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) / refactored to add third issue --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delist needs to link references to individual page numbers. More explanation of multiple etymologies. gren グレン 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Closing comments Consensus seems to be balanced against this list (crudely 5:2) largely over inadequacies with the referencing. The per-entry citation format style isn't critical but not all entries are explicitly cited, which can be a problem for a list such as this where anyone can come along and add their own best guess. As noted, the references lack page numbers, and many are substantial volumes of work. Ultimately, the reader has to work too hard to verify the info, which (given the disagreements among sources) appears to be often mere speculation by local historians. Other issues raised were an inadequate lead and the "analysis" table providing a less then optimal presentation of the information. Compare List of U.S. state name etymologies. Colin°^Talk 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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