Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:35, 25 May 2010 [1].

List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances edit

List of Athletic Bilbao players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, it recently went through PR and all refs are in order. I have another list nominated, but it seems all objections have been met as of now. Sandman888 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per TRM's concerns. — KV5 • Talk • 18:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5
Oppose from KV5
  • "The club has played in the Primera División of Spanish league since its start in 1928, winning La Liga on eight occasions"
  • Why is "Primera Division" italicized?
  • La Liga does not need to be linked twice that close together (I would remove the first link per WP:EGG).
  • There's also a wording problem here, as something is missing in "the Primera División of Spanish league". Perhaps "the Spanish league" or "the Spanish football league"?
Adressed above
  • "In the history of La Liga," - extraneous, remove
    • Rmved
  • "one of only three clubs"
    • stricken
  • "The club is known for its youth policy of only bringing players of Basque origin through the academy, as well as only recruiting Basque players from other clubs." - the reference doesn't say that they are "known" for this policy, just that said policy exists.
    • added ref
  • "somewhat relaxed" - WP:AWW, unless this is a direct quote from somewhere
    • more flexible
  • "and players... have played" - surely this could be worded better?
    • men have ... played
  • "San Mamés stadium" - no link?
    • wl
  • "August 21 1913" - comma after "21
    • all dates in dd mm yyyy
  • "Since 1958" - comma after
    • Done
  • La Liga linked again? Remove
    • Done
  • "On September 29 1940" - comma after "29" and "1940"
  • You've mixed US and UK date format along with British spelling here (particularly "honour"). Should be consistent one or the other.
  • "During his stay at Athletic" - comma after
    • Done
  • Copa Del Rey linked again, remove
    • Done
  • I think Copa del Rey is singular; is there a plural form, since this mentions that he won five?
  • "Etxeberria agreed a deal" - agreed to
    • Done
  • You don't use the term "cap" in this article (at all) until it suddenly appears in a caption, so it definitely has to be linked, and should probably be explained somewhere.
    • cap -> app
  • All year ranges in the table (complete and incomplete) need en-dashes, not hyphens.
    • theres a script somewhere
  • Using bold as the sole indicator of a record is a violation of MOS:BOLD.
    • it's not. Playername is marked.
  • Footnote: "most appearances in la liga" - capitalize La Liga
    • Done
  • Footnote: "most goals in La Liga (256) of all La Liga players" - this redundancy is redundant.
  • "Also has the record for most goals scored in all competitions (333) for Athletic" - is not a complete sentence. Reword.
    • Reweord
  • "Iribar is the Athletic player with most appearances." - clarify, should be with the most career appearances".
    • Done
  • "Joseba Etxeberria is the current Athletic player with most caps and goals." - suggest Joseba Etxeberria has the most career appearances and goals among active Athletic players".
    • Used
  • "Francisco Yeste playing for Athletic." - is not a complete sentence, remove period/full stop.
    • Dobne
  • This list relies heavily on official team sources, where a secondary source would be preferred. Is no other source available for the information in this list?
  • What makes "200 appearances" a non-arbitrary criterion for inclusion in this list? Just the fact that 200 is a round number is likely not enough.
    • What makes any arbitrary number non-arbitrary? Some use 50 or 100. This uses 200.
      • OK, then what makes 200 apppearances notable? My point is that, since the list is entitled "List of Athletic Bilbao players", then it should include them. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps I may interject. Our own criteria ask for "an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." So as long as the lead incorporates the inclusion criteria then I guess our criteria are met. Otherwise, we're back to the drawing board where Europeans say "our teams have thousands of players" and Americans say "tough, it says 'list of players' so it should be complete". We had a minor ding-dong about this a while ago... and I guess that's where the "inclusion criteria" came from. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But still, what makes the criterion itself appropriate? Why not 100 appearances, why not those players who have scored a goal, why not 600 appearances? An argument could be made for any of those (though the last would be admittedly pointless). Our players lists have thousands of players too, so that's why I'm asking. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess (and this is no doubt a cop-out) that consensus determines whether the criterion is appropriate. Typically for football (soccer) teams, 100 appearances, club record holders, internationals (who played for their country while at the club), a combination of these (as long as clearly stated) has generally had sufficient consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I'm primarily considering here is WP:LSC, which states, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources." I don't know if 200 appearances is considered objective or subjective in this case; it's a bright-line rule, but it's also arbitrary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fair enough. What I can say is that the BBC this season seemed pretty obsessed with 100, but that's just one source. Would you be looking for some independent sources which also use 100/200/whatever, as their cut-off point? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions:
                  • That would be a great thing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I've dug around a bit, it seems like there's little or no consensus across the clubs I've looked at online. Many will just list the top ten appearance makers, many club official websites don't list them at all, I have a couple of books which list every single player... as such I'm not sure we'll get far with this. I'll keep looking though... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Outdented) Here's a long discussion which ended in some sort of consensus that arbitrary cut-offs are okay; Sandman888 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_Arsenal_F.C._players/archive1[reply]
That list was closed as "no consensus", which means that's not true. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed your comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football (bottom), since it affects all football FL. I suggest we move the arbitrary discussion there. Sandman888 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the discussion; there have been few comments, and WP:LENGTH is not a reason to create an arbitrary cutoff for this list. However, as a WP:SPLIT, it does support renaming this article, and then creating a second list for players with less than 200 appearances. As for this FLC, if that discussion is going to continue, then this nomination should be placed on hold pending its outcome. If not, then this list should be renamed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if I renamed to List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 caps that would be okay with you? Also, should all the other "List of X players" be taken to FLRC to comply with this? Sandman888 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer "appearances" to caps, but yes, that would satisfy me. I wouldn't make the change to any other lists yet or go to FLRC. The best course of action is to make the move here, see if this FLC passes, and then start a separate discussion at WT:FOOTY saying that consensus has determined that the inclusion criteria should be clear in the title. Then the project can go about moving the lists on its own timetable instead of flooding FLRC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. I feel the FLC process would then hijack a discussion which essentially belongs in the wp:footy project. I've c&p comments from here to there, and I suggest we continue over there. Sandman888 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can strongly disagree if you like, but the fact remains that if the discussion is going to continue, this nomination can't pass until it's complete one way or the other. So it would go on hold. If it's not going to continue, then the list needs to be renamed and it's business as usual. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The current modus operandi is to allow for lists to be called "List of X players" with an arbitrary cap. I would thereby take it that any deviation from business-as-usual should be bear the burden of consensus, not the other way around. Meaning the nomination continues until consensus has settled on something that undermines the current precedent.Sandman888 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Iribar is the Athletic player with most appearances." - clarify, should be with the most career appearances".
    • Done
      • Still not corrected. Needs to be the most career appearances. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.

Normally I would just leave comments here, but due to the arbitrary nature of the cutoff of inclusion and the heavy reliance on primary sources, I am opposing this list for now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Does your concern still stand? Sandman888 (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have capped resolved comments, with the unresolved others still outlined above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: "Also has the record for most goals scored in all competitions (333) for Athletic" in the footnotes is not a complete sentence. Add He to the beginning and remove "also" as it's unnecessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • While not a requirement, alt text would be appreciated.
  • Since there was no input from the footy project or the stand-alone list talk-page on this point I've now moved the page to "List of Athletic Bilbao players with at least 200 appearances". I reckon it should be "List of Athletic Bilbao first-team players with at least 200 appearances in all official and regional competitions", but that is a bit long. So I reckon the remaining player-lists should be taken to FLRC after this. Sandman888 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think it is necessary to nominate every such Featured List for de-listing (which is what FLRC is) just because you think the title needs changing. A move request for each one would be more than sufficient IMO..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want something done on a project basis then you need a consensus to do so, listing a dozen or so FLs seems like a pointed way of trying to achieve some dialogue and some consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm mentioning it because that was the way done on the previous discussion of this, see List of Arsenal players, FLRC from 2008. There also have been some instances were all FL's suffering from the same flaw was taken to FLRC, though connected, to correct the flaw. Sandman888 (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: on Talk:List of Arsenal F.C. players consensus (finally) established that a qualification in title was unnecessary, so will move article back after FLC. Sandman888 (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that discussion did not establish that qualification is unneeded on all lists; it established that it's not needed for the Arsenal list. A wider discussion needs to occur. This list should not be moved (especially not right after an FLC) until a wider discussion happens. — KV5 • Talk • 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes it did. The discussion was general and not limited to the Arsenal list. Any contributor to the discussion will tell you that. Sandman888 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it didn't. That discussion ended with "no consensus" to delist the Arsenal list. At no point did it result in a consensus for anything else. Anyone who has read that FLRC will tell you that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about the page move, not the FLRC. Obviously. Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm unsure as to why you've pointedly moved a page just to get it through FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued accusations of wp:point is becoming tiresome. I'm politely asking you to stop accusing another editor of such behaviour and yell point when you are out of words. Sandman888 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's uncalled for. I'll ask you to retract your uncivil comment, please. As for the consensus (if there is one), it doesn't apply to all lists if the discussion was only about the Arsenal list, which the discussion on that article's talk page was. It does not apply generally across all lists. — KV5 • Talk • 01:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate on where and how I was being uncivil. Sandman888 (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above, in which you imply that TRM, a director and respected editor, is "[yelling] point when you are out of words". Additionally, your comment below, where you dismiss his opposition as "rubbish". It's impolite and uncalled for. — KV5 • Talk • 11:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are friends and protect each other, but it must surely give pause to some reflection that both of you, and only you two, seem to clash with another editor, in this very moment, on the same project page. Perhaps you have yourself not handled the situation the best way possible? Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you assume that we are "friends"? I respect the work of The Rambling Man; he's a valuable contributor to this project and does great work both as a content contributor and one of the FLC directors. That said, I've never met him, and I don't know him as a person, and I still consider your comments to be uncivil and ask again that you retract them. — KV5 • Talk • 12:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: 1) I have been extremely patient in trying to establish some consensus in a wider community, both at WP:FOOTY and at WP:stand-alone lists. There was little if any replies on both sites. 2) I then proceeded to move the page because the discussions where completely dead (one of them became archived, the other dormant at best), and I don't care which solution/consensus is made as long as its consistent. 3) ChrisTheDude noted the possibility of a request-move which can be done for all lists simultaneously. I made such a request. TRM then joins the move request discussion and accuses me of wanting to delist all the articles just for fun. 4) The move request concludes with a consensus that lists should not have a qualifier. 5) I now see there is consensus and move request this article back. 6) TRM then says I'm gaming the system. That doesn't make any sense at all and seems to be a idontlikeyougoaway oppose. To KV5 and TRM: Feel free to report me to RfC if you do believe that you are right in this. I would like an outside view on this. Sandman888 (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you yourself have admitted you've changed the name to assuage concerns of other editors over the inclusion criteria, and that you yourself will be moving the article back as soon as it passes FLC. That's why I'm in opposition to promoting this list. Whether I like you or not is irrelevant. I don't want the FLC process to be gamed. Of course, Dabomb is entirely entitled to ignore my oppose. I will no longer be participating in this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not the case at all. I move it because there is no consensus. Consensus then arrives, and implies that the move was wrong. I then say it should be moved back. If I wanted to game I wouldn't state my intent of moving it back. Sandman888 (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose needs another peer review.
  • Bad grammar in the lead.
  • POV writing, e.g. "The highlight of Athletic..." and "The star of that team was Pichichi..."
    • Rmved
  • References, some are dated in the 70s etc, why? There's no evidence that the info published on the official website was published then. I think you're mixing up dates of birth of players with publication dates.
    • Rmved.
  • Why would "Currently playing for Athletic" link to Athletic Bilbao?
    • Place of current player rooster.
  • En-dashes, not hyphens for year ranges.
    • There's a script somewhere.
  • "playing for a third division club is not considered against the one-man club" nope. Poor and arbitrary and personal decision on the definition.
    • and clarified.
  • Notes should be consistently formatted.
  • Is ref 87 Spanish? If so, say so.
    • Said
  • Ref 93 needs an en-dash.
    • dashed
  • "All playerdata " not English, please rewrite.
    • Re-written.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • " and has currently (as of 2010)" don't have both.
    • Done
  • the team.[3][2] - correct order please.
    • Done
  • "and men with direct Basque ancestry or with no Basque ancestry but formed in Basque clubs" you've already said main with direct basque ancestry could play for the team.
    • There's a difference between being born there and having Basque ancestry.
  • " prolific goalscorer, Pichichi, who scored the first goal in the San Mamés Stadium on 21 August 1913, and a hat-trick in the 1915 final." sounds weak to me. He's introduced as a prolific goalscorer but yet you only tell me that he scored four goals in 3 years.
    • added goalscoring stats.
  • "During his stay at Athletic" - perhaps "time at Athletic"?
    • time it is
  • " matches played " maybe just "appearances for the club"?
    • done
  • "Table is initially sorted after appearances and include all Athletic players who have made 200 appearances or more." -> "Table is initially sorted in descending order of appearances and includes all Athletic players who have made 200 appearances or more."
    • done
  • "complete and up-to-date " what's the difference?
    • template. Complete - exhaustive. Up-to-date - when it was last updated.
  • The upright images should be the same width.
    • done
  • En-dashes for the career ranges.
  • Ref 6 appears to have an auto-generated title.
    • Done
  • Ref 7 has a publication date so should be included here. And an author...
    • Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "club from Bilbao" perhaps "based in Bilbao" would be more appropriate.
    • Done
  • "Primera División" is this an official league title? If not, why not just "top tier" or "highest division"?
  • "and has as of 2010 played for 82 years" "and, as of 2010, has played..."
    • Thanks!
  • Why link Spanish top-tier and not Primera Division?
    • KV5 suggested it would be less surprising.
  • Biscay is overlinked.
    • Rmved link
  • I think perhaps you should use Pichichi's name that we use here on Wikipedia before you use his nickname.
    • - Rafael "Pichichi" Moreno it is
  • Stats could use an update since they're now six weeks out of date, assuming there are current players whose stats are on this page. E.g. Yeste seems to be on 352 games now.
    • will update on May 16 (end of season)
  • Do you mean Europa League as opposed to Europe League?
    • Europa it is
  • Why aren't the players without articles red-linked? Surely they meet WP:ATHLETE?
    • red-link it is.
  • What does "currently playing for Athletic" really mean? You have Iraola, Orbaiz, Ripodas showing no end date to their career at the club but yet they're not in italics.
    • Mistake. But Ripodas' career ended in 2008
  • Notes should be individually indicated, i.e. don't have three N.B.'s
    • NB1 , etc ok?
  • "in La Liga (256) of all La Liga players" no need to repeat La Liga.
    • I want to make sure the reader understand that it's not just among Athletic players.
  • Why not add the {{Athletic Bilbao}} template here?
    • Added

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • One club man means just that, one man club. Playing in the second or third division for other clubs means these players are not one club men. List of one-club men says "a football player who has played his entire professional career with only one club" - can you show me that all of the players you've said are one-club-men did not play, at any point, for another cub in their professional career? e.g. Orbaiz, were CA Osasuna really non-professional in the 1999-2000 season?
    • Not sure. Per the footy project, it was an amateur league, but it's a bit vague definition they are using. I'm not very keen on keeping the indication, was just to point out the long service / loyalty of Athletic players.
      • Can you show me where WP:FOOTBALL said that Osasuna were non-professional in the 99/00 season?
        • it says that the league was not professional. Which included Osasuna. I can remove players who played in 2nd division clubs, from set of one club men, if its a problem. Sandman888 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry but the "league" could be not professional, but clubs within it could be. Please prove that Osasuna (and really, that's just one example) was an unprofessional club. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iribar image has incorrect information on it regarding sourcing. You removed a deletion template twice. I suggest you fix this.
    • Done.
  • " Statistics for current players are updated continuously throughout the year" this isn't true, you said you'd be updating the stats at the end of the season. And it conflicts with "This list is complete and up-to-date as of 15 March 2010."
  • "Players are listed according to the date of their first-team debut for the club" not true. I'd say they're initially listed in descending appearance order.
  • When sorting by goals, those on equal goals should have the player that played in fewer games sort higher - it's more significant if a player scores 21 goals in 217 games than if they score 21 in 356 games. Some cricket featured lists may help you with this.
    • I don't agree. That wd imply he is somehow better, but a list shouldn't make such subjective judgments.
      • Not at all subjective. When goals are equal, goals per game is important. It really isn't that difficult to fix this using the {{SortKey}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about those with 0 goals? It seems odd that a goalkeeper shd rank higher than another because he has played fewer games. Sandman888 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting closer though, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • Using {{SortKey}}, you can sort them any way you like if you particularly dislike my suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • All sorted that way except those with 0 goals, as they have the same goals per game ratio. Sandman888 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sandman888 (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nominator appears to be gaming the system, renaming a page specifically to get it through FLC before stating he will move it after promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. That is utterly ridiculous. NB: " If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. " Sandman888 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your statement is indisputable. You've changed the title to get this to pass FLC. And then you'll change it back when it's promoted. That's gaming. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments sorry, should have come back sooner, few more bits

just passing...

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Embarrassing. Uriarte included, and Lezama now spelt with an a.Sandman888 (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I'm not sure where in the sources it says specifically they can sign players of Basque ancestry, as opposed to birth or formation.
    • I've rewritten that part.
  • Are Zarra's 6 Pichichi trophies a club record, in which case perhaps word it as "club record six" for clarity, or the overall La Liga record, in which case it needs a source?
    • would it be clearer if it read "most in La Liga, of all La Liga players" ? Source added.
  • If I click on note NB2, it takes me to note NB3 in the Notes section
    • sorry, NB2 shd have been deleted. solved.
  • In lead and key, the as-of date is 15 March, but the table says 17 May.
    • removed as of in key, and updated the stats in lead.
  • The current players have been updated to 17 May, but they haven't been moved to their proper places in the table. For instance, Francisco Yeste now has 353 apps but is still between Urquiaga with 345 and Luis Etxeberria with 341
    • Missed him, moved now.
      • Not just Yeste Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • oops. all names in italics cleared.
  • Sorry, I can't work out what note NB2 means
    • clarified.
  • Again, I may be being stupid, but I can't see where on the Marca Pichichi y Zamora page it gives any history, all I can see is this year's winners
    • sorry, changed with RSSSF ref.
  • Need to sort out the backlinks for the Pichichi/Zamora notes
    • what do you mean?
      • If I click on the Zamora note at Raimundo Lezama's row, I get to Note Zamora. If I click on the little up-arrow to get back, it takes me to Iribar's row. Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how to solve such things. Can't you use multiple references to the same note?
  • Ref currently #93, which you've titled "Official Site: Zarra" actually goes to a club history page
    • changed the title.
  • Ref #96 titled "Official Site: Blasco" likewise goes to the first page of the club section on the club site. As far as I can tell, neither ref for Note Zamora verifies Blasco conceding 20 goals from 15 games
    • I can't remember where I got that from, so removed goals conceded. Ref titles changed.

All comments resolved. Will cap once nominator has had a chance to see replies. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support In my opinion, this list now satisfies the criteria. The nominator has actually done a lot of good work to progress the list to featured quality. A minor thing, but I was impressed by his updating the retrieval date in the references for those players whose stats were updated at the end of the season; many editors wouldn't have bothered. For what it's worth, I think it should stay at the name it was moved to, reflecting its scope, pending a wider discussion of naming issues relating to both complete and incomplete lists of this type. Though in the absence of any recent and explicit consensus to the contrary, I also think either name satisfies naming conventions. It's a pity the unpleasantness got out of hand. Struway2 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Link Real Madrid and Barcelona in the first paragraph.
  • "netting a total 78 goals in 89 games." Either add "of" after "total", or remove "a total" as redundant language.
  • "The current player with most appearances for the club...". Missing "the" after "with". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of the hardest FLCs to judge that I've ever encountered. On the one hand, my comments have been addressed, and I have no more (if I did, I would have put them up already). However, I've become quite concerned about everything that has taken place above. There is a stability criterion in the FL criteria, and the name of a page would be covered if it is changed again and again. Let's just call my position a strong neutral. For the record, I would be more inclined to support if the nominator indicates that they won't move the list right after the FLC. With the earlier comments, it would be easy for an outsider to infer that the original move was done for the sake of this FLC, even if that wasn't the intent behind the move. Perhaps an RfC on titles of soccer player lists is the ultimate solution to this issue, even though that's beyond the scope of this FLC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I shall then start an RfC if that is the correct venue to achieve consensus. Which page should the RfC then be at? I will start a move req. if the RfC ends in a consensus on status quo. Sandman888 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing director's note There was a lot of uncertainty over the list's name. As an uninvolved editor I suggest that this issue be resolved once and for all in a centralized discussion; I think future FLCs for this list as well as other association football player lists would run more smoothly if football editors can agree on a permanent solution beforehand. In addition, I noticed there was a lot of extracurricular comments from a few editors; just a reminder that FLC is a content review process and any behavior-related disputes should be resolved on user talk pages and through the usual dispute resolution process. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2010 (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_Athletic_Bilbao_players_with_at_least_200_appearances/archive1&oldid=1143879456"