Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:09, 28 December 2012 [1].

List of Birmingham City F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It's been some time since I've nominated anything here, so if conventions have changed, please be gentle with me. All constructive criticism welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I know there's a template, but I'd much prefer we avoided "#" links in hatnotes. Our readers may not get that at all. Can you just write it out and pipelink it?
    • Removed entirely: it makes sense having that hatnote for the List of ... players, which a reader might visit when looking for the current squad, but not on this one.
  • Often as not, I've seen the (second right) etc in image captions shown in italics. Not sure what our policy is in this respect, perhaps worth a quick check.
    • MOS:CAPTION bullet point 3 says "The text of captions should not be specially formatted (with italics, for example), except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text." MOS:ITALICS doesn't seem to address the matter.
      • Remarkable how our MAIN PAGE (!!!) strives to avoid compliance with the MOS. How odd.... No issues here then. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When nationally organised league football began, the club, by then called simply Small Heath F.C., became a founder member of the Football Alliance, formed in 1889, the year after the Football League." comma check... five in this sentence. Perhaps too many run-on clauses?
    • Reworded
  • "More than 500 men have played ..." typically reinforce the subject on the start of a new lead para, so maybe "More than 500 Birmingham City F.C. players..."? (not great, but you get my gist?)
    • Reworded
  • " Billy Slater scored Small Heath Alliance's first FA Cup goal in the 4–1 FA Cup defeat of Derby Town in October 1881.[2]" so?! You don't mention that he's one of the sub-25 gang, although it could be inferred I suppose.
    • I'd argue it should be inferred, seeing as this is the introductory section to a list of <25s. But I've dropped him: the James brothers illustrate the lack of national football at that time well enough without him.
  • "Others left to seek opportunities with other teams. " again, not reiterating the subject (although I concede we wouldn't want to become uber-dull) but I do take issue with the repeat of "other" here.
    • Reworded
  • "who played one FA Cup-tie" (a) "in" one? and (b) does FA Cup tie need a hyphen? I'm not sure at-all....
    • Not sure "in" is necessary, but added anyway. And probably not.
  • "Some players' careers were cut short by the two World Wars." then one example only. Maybe it's a case of "for example" here or something to bridge that gap.
    • Reworded
  • "For more information, see Association football positions and Formation (association football)." this would usually be a Note... I personally hate seeing "see also" comments in the main body of an article, even a key.
    • Disagree. I personally hate making the reader click up and down an article to see a note that they may well be irritated to have clicked down to, found uninteresting, and then had to click back up again (or bugger off entirely). When I was helping with the Arsenal F.C. FAR, the judicious use of (see articlename) was suggested by Tony1 as a means of reducing overlinking in the prose (endless blue football seasons). So at the first mention of a season in the history section, it was unlinked and (see Seasons in English football) added, with the intention of telling the reader how to get to a season if they wanted to. And it's still there after nearly three years...
      • Though I've converted them to wikilink items in the first sentence anyway.
  • "Players marked * were registered for the club as at the date specified below." below? I think you specified the date above...
    • It was below before I rearranged the key.

Pause: I now have to attend a militant residents' meeting. I may be some time. My apologies.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing

  • "Where a player was never " some of these players are current so this tense is a little odd.
  • Hamer is Hameur in our own article, which is correct?
    • An interesting question. The article was moved from Hameur to Hamer when he joined Millwall, but has now been moved back. English common spelling I'd guess to be Hameur, which is what the FA use, though his FIFA page has Hamer. I'll change it back
  • "Tresor Luntala" has a missing diacritic.
  • Could you pipelink Utility player to the associatoin football section (although, in all honesty, the section is pretty weak...!)
  • Sid Moffatt - our article has him as Moffat... which is right?
    • Another interesting question: see Talk:Sid Moffat. One "t", for the sake of argument :-)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for parts 1 and 2 of your review: presume there's still more to come. Will go and deal Have now dealt with matters arising from the second batch of comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last orders please

  • "loan spell" we all know what that means, is it International Englishishish?
    • Don't know: should we wait and see if non-BritEng speakers question it?
  • You have five lovely images down the side of the table, I suspect you could add another 25 without unnecessarily elongated the list. How about it?
    • I'll see what there is about, but free images older than very recent, newer than 100 years old, and depicting someone whose caption might read something more interesting than Fred Bloggs played three times for Birmingham in the 1920s, aren't that easy to come by. And a stack of players photographed in the last five years might be a touch recentist.
  • Many lists like this I've seen initially in alphabetical order. You have it in descending appearance order followed by surname I think. Possibly worth just a quick note....
    • ...like the one in the Key, bullet point 1? The main list is split into three parts by number of appearances, so logically the parts should be ordered by the same criterion. There was a small discussion on the subject here.
  • Now then, a nasty thing, per WP:YEAR, we don't often repeat the century in a year range if it's the same. How do you feel about that?
    • Uncomfortable, to be honest. The problem arises from using what looks like a year range to indicate years of first and last appearance. There's no logical argument for year of last appearance being less legible than year of first appearance, and without the century it would be. The alternative would be to have two columns, one for first app and one for last, but that'd get very messy with the many single-appearance players and people with more than one spell at the club. I think I'd invoke the word "normally", as in "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits", to suggest this should be an exception to the norm.

That is all. Sorry for the disjointed review... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Hope your residents' meeting went well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it didn't, but hey ho. As usual, your diligence has pretty much superseded most of my comments, mainly due to my incompetence in reviewing. I'll recheck over the weekend (sounds patronising, but sorry...) and cap it all off. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support glad to see a decent contributor continuing to make FLs better every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –

  • The photo caption refers to Jack Lee, but the name of his article here is John Lee, and I don't see a reference to a nickname there. Is this all correct?
    • There is now... The article was written using info from a 1995 book, which called him John, but in the 2010 edition, he's Jack. Presume the more recent work ought to be more accurate. Will think about moving the article, but haven't got time today. Thanks for noticing.
  • The two website links in the general references need access dates, just like the websites used in cites.
    • Done.
  • What makes ref 137 (Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats) a reliable source? Looks like a blog to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Any reason why Fred and Tommy James don't have articles or are not red-linked?
    • The same reason as the other very early players: appearing in the FA Cup isn't one of the criteria for a presumption of notability as per WP:NFOOTBALL, and insufficient media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Arthur James is different in that he was a top player at the time, regularly playing for the Birmingham FA XI in inter-association representative matches, which were basically one step down from senior international, and enough media coverage exists to write a better article than he's got at the moment.
  • refs should come after punctuation, currently ref 6 does not NapHit (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • MoS says that "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation". But there isn't any punctuation, so it just immediately follows the text. Please see the first example at MOS:REFPUNC.
Thanks for your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my queries have been dealt and I feel the list meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The wikilink for first team leads to Glossary of association football terms#F, although this does not provide a definition for first team. I'm pretty sure it used to but it seems to have been removed.
    • There was an article first team, which was apparently "merge"/redirected to the glossary section some time ago. And there was indeed a definition at that time, but it was the one that now attaches more accurately to "first eleven". I've added "first team" to the glossary.
  • Are there appropriate wikilinks for the German and French Olympic teams?
  • Do you think it'd be worth mentioning who Finnan played for at the 2002 World Cup?
    • Wouldn't do any harm
  • "Club career is defined as the first and last calendar years in which the player appeared for the club in any of the competitions listed above." - don't you mean below?
    • Above, below... As per the reply to TRM (capped, above) it was correct before the key got rearranged
  • A few players appear to be incorrectly ordered; shouldn't Jack Thorogood be listed above Alberto Tarantini, Paul Tomlinson be listed above Nicky Hunt and Harry Haddon be listed above Joe Smith?
    • Indeed, thanks for noticing. Butland's out of place as well, but he'll move anyway when I update for yesterday's game.

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Birmingham_City_F.C._players_(fewer_than_25_appearances)/archive1&oldid=1076193582"