Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist (delist) Incomplete list, arbitrary and POV definition of "notable". Resolute 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That could work. Ultimately, my concern is that all players are represented. Resolute 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And this is the reason they all need to be on the list. -Djsasso (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. They're all catered for by the hat-notes. --Dweller (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Thanks for pointing that out! I'll get right on it!..... Just kidding! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • Comment The list should be moved to List of notable Arsenal F.C. players if anything. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And the other? HockeyDB with its nine adverts on the homepage? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(outdent) You get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
What's so much better about that than the status quo that points to a Cat? --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: first, the category does not include all players, and a category cannot include statistical history. Resolute 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Closing comment

[edit]

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)[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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_Arsenal_F.C._players/archive1&oldid=1145610618"