Jump to content

Talk:List of Gillingham F.C. players

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of Gillingham F.C. players is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starList of Gillingham F.C. players is part of the Gillingham F.C. series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 16, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted
January 25, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
November 5, 2016Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
October 28, 2021Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

Discussion on inclusion criteria

[edit]

In case anyone's wondering, I based this list on 100 League appearances rather than all competitions due to the fact that Roger Triggs' book only lists league appearances, and many of these players do not have entries on Soccerbase from which it would be possible to get their "all comps" totals..... ChrisTheDude 09:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make it a list of notable players, would it make sense to also include those who played or managed in the top division and/or those who acheived international caps either before or after their Gills careers? Kevin McE 11:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those who might thus be added would include Micky Adams, Ade Akinbiyi, Gary Breen, Darius Henderson, Gavin Peacock, Glen Roeder, Ron Saunders; on the basis of internationals, I can only think of George Burley and Kelvin Jack as additions so far (excluding loan players), but there are probably others. Jack Reynolds, for reasons mentioned here, might also merit inclusion, as might club record holders Fred Cheesmuir, Carl Asaba and Robert Taylor. Kevin McE 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern would be that the article doesn't turn into a cluster/battleground like List of York City F.C. players has become, the debate there being whether a player who made 3 or 4 appearances for Club X but achieved greater fame elsewhere deserves mention on Club X's list as a notable player. For example, the only really notable aspect of Kelvin Jack's stint at Priestfield is that he's turned out to be one of our worst buys ever - do his nine appearances to date make him a "notable Gillingham player" as opposed to a "notable player who happens to have also (occasionally) played for Gillingham"? ChrisTheDude 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move at this time. JPG-GR (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gillingham F.C. playersList of players with 100 career appearances for Gillingham F.C. List of Gillingham F.C. players (100+ appearances) — This request has come about due to the current debate going on regarding featured lists of players and whether they should/shouldn't include every single player who has ever played for the club. This list was originally created (and promoted to FL) based on the criteria of players EITHER having made 100 appearances OR holding a club record OR having been capped while with the club. In light of the ongoing debate, I propose to knock off the players who haven't made 100 appearances (which only affects four players out of the whole list) and rename the article as shown above. I would then turn List of Gillingham F.C. players into a dab page and move List of players with less than 50 career appearances for Gillingham F.C. and List of players with 50 to 99 career appearances for Gillingham F.C. from my sandbox into the mainspace to complete the full list of every player that's ever played for the club. Let me know what you think........ —ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Two exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields. These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article.
I would like to keep these lists as one as it makes sorting by name or date consistent possible over the entire list of players. Qwghlm (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

This RM and the proposed FL delisting of the corresponding Arsenal list are dangerously close to violating WP:POINT IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not trying to make a point. But if the feeling emerging from the proposed FL delisting you refer to is that "List of (team) players" is a misleading title for such lists then I'm just trying to find a title that would be deemed appropriate. I'm trying to be the good guy here...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the page move, to correctly identify the page, but a word of caution. Are we talking about league or total career appearances, if the former, then it ought to say so in the title. My own preference would be List of Gillingham F.C. players with more than 100 league appearances.
Secondly, is there a reason to split those from 1-50, and 51-99? I'd simply have those from 1-99, unless there is a specific reason. Peanut4 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of all players with 1-100 apps would be approx 110KB in size, far too big per WP:LENGTH. In fact the 1-50 list is 77KB so that might need splitting down even further. And to answer your other point, the totals are for all comps ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would opt for List of Gillingham F.C. players with more than 100 appearances in that case. It might be wordy but it's a better explanation than one with brackets and a + sign. Though that would be the other two lists List of Gillingham F.C. players with less than 50 appearances, and the very cumbersome List of Gillingham F.C. players with 51 to 100 appearances. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.