Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [1].

List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) edit

List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewers were so kind to my last attempt, I thought I'd submit this third and final section of the complete list while my luck still holds (hopefully). It has the same structure as the previous one, and comments made at that FLC have been actioned at this list as well. And there's a few more pictures on this one. All constructive comments welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "including first million-pound player" I think there should be a "the" before first, reads strange without it
    • added
  • "Birmingham team that won an unexpected victory" not sure about the unexpected victory bit, I would simply say team that won the cup. If you insist on keeping it, I would revise as "won an unexpected victory" reads awkwardly
    • How about "Birmingham team that beat the odds-on favourites and ruined Arsene Wenger's season by winning..."? Removed.
      • That would be more accurate, although probably a tad too POV! NapHit (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a point, is it necessary to use a symbol to highlight the players that are still at the club? Surely the date column provides that information?
    • Not necessary, no. But I do think it's helpful both to sighted and to screen-reader-using readers to have a symbol next to the player's name, rather than expecting them to look in two columns that aren't even next to each other to pick out the names of the current squad members.
      • That is a good point, will definitely aid screen reading users. NapHit (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • problem with Dave Barnett's ref column, appears to be missing a pipe somewhere
    • Fixed, thanks for noticing
  • The position column should really sort by position, e.g. GK to FW, instead of the current alphabetic method NapHit (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
      • Well I thought it was the done thing, as the equivalent lists for Man Utd and Liverpool use this method. Also as the positions key list the positions in relation to their position on the pitch, so to me it would make sense to reflect this in the column. I think a few more opinions are needed on this, before, as you say, you introduce 350+ sort templates. NapHit (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • WP:LEAD would seem to indicate that four paras in the lead is the accepted max...
    • It does, indeed. The lead section of a long list of this type, where there's no prose other than in the lead, is rather different in kind to the lead section of a non-list article. I don't like the minimalist approach to prose at the top of a list, i.e. get it over with and get on to the nice easy table, but I do admit to a tendency to write more than strictly necessary when the topic interests me. So where do we go? As you say below, the paras are long-ish already, so sticking two together won't really work. What do you think to a genuine lead section, say consisting of the current 1st para with a little more information as to what's included in the table, as per WP:SAL#Lead, and move the rest to an introductory section?
      • I have seen lots of your other work, it usually involves a LEAD-esque lead and then plenty more afterwards in a section that introduces the table. I'm not going to force you one way or the other, it's not my position to do so. But I'd prefer us to stick to the MOS (that's a criterion, not an opinion) where possible... (cop out, I know...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after their playing days" a bit wistful perhaps? Maybe "following their retirement from playing" or similar.
    • will reword
  • "including the first million-pound player" suggest you contextualise the record, i.e. Britain's first million-pound transfer.
    • will do. Remember thinking about doing so at the time, but clearly never did
  • Ref 3 is dead for me.
    • works for me, though takes some time to load
  • "Others set club..." new para, lost the context, so "Other players set ...." at the least.
    • will reword
  • "holds the records for the most goals scored in a season" records? not record then? The run-on is too much for my small brain to handle.
    • tis 2 records: league goals scored in a season, and goals scored in all comps in a season. will try and clarify
  • I thought you hated transfer fees.... I can find RS saying £6.7m Sky and £6m CNN easily. What makes your £6.5m "more right"? Just because that's what bcfc said? Maybe attribute the fee to bcfc and job done...
    • I think what makes it "more right" than news reports from the day of the transfer is that the club ought to be more likely to know what they received than Sky or CNN, and (more importantly) that it's what they've published after the event as their club record, which is the fact we're citing. Whether it's right is another matter entirely... I'll attribute
      • Attribution is ideal. As a shareholder at ITFC with annual accounts at my disposal, I see that the transfer fees aren't necessarily those advertised, even by the club website (which incidentally is appalling in ITFC's case....) .... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eight men in this range" again, we're four long-ish paras in, do we remember what "this range" really is?
    • I do; didn't you? If we go with a brief lead and an introductory section, some of this stuff will disappear; if the reader is still keen enough to continue with the intro after reading the lead, I think we could expect them to have grasped what they're reading about
      • I have a very short attention span, so apologies. I'd just perhaps reinforce what the "range" means unless the rewording you're intimating makes it obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No player has ended his Birmingham career with 99 appearances." surely that needs an "as of...."
    • Not sure: it says in the key that all stats are correct as of..., and IMO that applies to those in the lead as well?
      • Not sure either. Ideally I shouldn't have to read all of the article to understand the currency of any fact in the lead...? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just found WP:YEAR in the MOS, it suggests you don't add the century the second time in a range. It may not be the case here for seasons but I thought I'd ask the question.....
    • Just??? could have sworn you'd come across it before... My answer remains the same (c&p'd): 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 ... 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.
  • General question, about "utility" players. You have Mark Yates marked down as a "U" but his own Wikipedia page mentions nothing of the sort (not that it's reliable, of course) and it got me wondering where "utility" is defined for these players?
    • General reference Matthews (2010), as for all playing positions for players up to that date (probably Soccerbase thereafter). will add somewhere appropriate
      • Sounds like you have some work on your hands to update the individual player pages to make them consistent with the list..... (should you dare to accept such a mission.......!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Positions in this list are those occupied by the player during his career with Birmingham, regardless of where they played elsewhere. Yates began at BCFC as a kid, and he played wherever they put him; in his later career, he settled as a midfielder. Any suggestion of adapting said mission to update each player with detailed analysis of the evolution of his role with his various teams will not be appreciated :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I probably won't be able to do much on this until after the weekend, unless it snows so much we don't even attempt to go to the football. If you find time to address the WP:LEAD/layout question before then, it'd be appreciated, but if you don't, I'll go with the introductory section idea and hope it's acceptable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, as ever. Have a safe weekend in the "snow". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Journey to Birmingham was fine; walking downhill away from the ground on icy pavements less so... Lead section is now MoS-compliant. I took the first few bullet-points out of the key and made them into a 2nd para, put a section heading above the rest of the prose, and tweaked some of the wording. Ref for playing positions now in general refs section. If I've missed anything, or if the prose is still unclear, I'm sure you'll tell me. Again, thanks for taking the time to review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a typically high quality nomination and my comments (where actually helpful) addressed nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from Arsenikk
  • Table needs a caption, per WP:DTT
    • I believe we were once advised by someone active at WP:ACCESS that if the table immediately followed an informative section heading, and if the caption would basically be repeating that heading, the caption was not required. Perhaps I mis-remember (wouldn't be the first time), or perhaps the advice has changed since whenever that was. I'm afraid I know little of the impact of the table caption on accessibility.

      A couple of recently promoted cricket lists have a section heading of "Test centuries" and the table caption immediately after reads "List of Test centuries scored by Player Name". Would something of that form – "Players with between 25 and 99 competitive appearances for Birmingham City" – be correct? Perhaps you could advise.

      • I say this because the issue has been pointed out to me at my own nominations. The rationale can be read here (I do not know more about the issue, but it seems to be an issue with screen readers, a device I have never used). I think a heading such as "Birmingham F.C. players" might be short enough, although again I am no expert. Arsenikk (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief Constable" is not a proper noun (titles are only capitalized if they can only be held by one person simultaneously, per MOS) and should be decapitalized. And is this really a worthy fact of inclusion? Seems rather trivial to me.
    • Mr Charsley's later job isn't directly relevant to his playing football for Small Heath, certainly, although it does follow on from the first half of the sentence, which mentions his service as a police officer during his playing career. But a little bit of "trivia" can sometimes make the prose a little more engaging than what all too often comes across as a tedious recitation of "Player A did this as Foo F.C. won competition 1. Player B did that as Foo F.C. won competition 2." If you do feel it's inappropriate, I'll remove it.

      On capitalisation, one might argue that, although there are many chief constables, "Chief Constable of Coventry" is a post that can't be held by more than one person simultaneously. But the Guardian Style Guide says it's a job and not a title, and the BBC sometimes cap and sometimes don't, so if the sentence stays, I'll de-cap it.

      • You are correct that "Chief Constable of Coventry" should be capitalized (given that is the official title), while "Chief Constable of the Coventry police force" is a description and should not be capitalized. I feel the issue is too trivial, but on the other hand this is probably a matter of taste rather than following guidelines. If you feel it adds personality to the article, then it is fine with me. Arsenikk (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent list and I'll be happy to support once the two issues are resolved. Arsenikk (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review, and for your thoughtful comments. I await your replies with interest. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've looked at the table in the edit window, I see that all the image-related code comes between the section heading and the table, so a caption clearly is needed for the benefit of the screen-reader user. Thanks for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (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_(25–99_appearances)/archive1&oldid=1084312683"