Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Burnley F.C. players (50–99 league appearances)/archive1

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 The Rambling Man 17:43, 13 September 2010 [1].

List of Burnley F.C. players (50–99 league appearances) edit

Featured list candidates/List of Burnley F.C. players (50–99 league appearances)/archive1

Nominator(s): Big Dom 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the FL criteria. The list is an accompaniment to the List of Burnley F.C. players (100+ league appearances), but contains those players who played between 50 and 99 league games for the club. Anyway, the table is fully sortable and the use of colour and symbols meets WP:ACCESS. Dablinks etc. have been checked. Thanks in advance, Big Dom 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, but before TRM gets here, I'll go ahead and point out that when ordering by games played, they should be subsequently ordered by goals scored. The reasoning being that those with higher score are better or something. For an example see List of Athletic Bilbao players. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 09:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but that sounds odd to me. How can one compare a goalkeeper and striker who have played the same number of matches, and come to the conclusion that the striker was better because he scored more goals? Big Dom 09:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple valid ways to sort players with the same number of apps - my own lists sort players on the same number of apps by the dates when they played. There is no reason why the list must use number of goals as the second sorting criterion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list is created in alphabetical order rather than number of games, hence the secondary sorting key is surname, rather than number of goals. Big Dom 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I agree it's odd and since the two of you are against it, I'll join the bandwagon. However if we do have a secondary sorting system it should be somewhat consistent across lists and not be a mix of alphabetical/chronological/goals scored Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support all checks out fine. Sandman888 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Big Dom 20:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I would list notes and references in separate columns but its just a matter of taste. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Link "friendly" for our non-experts.
"with the exception of the 2009–10 season when they played in the Premier League." I imagine this would be mildly confusing for non-experts. Perhaps a note is needed to ensure (a) people realise the Prem is higher than the Football League, and (b) that it's independent of the FL (for branding).
"Burnley achieved promotion to the First Division in 1913" perhaps "back to the First..."?
Maybe consider linking to 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season with a subtle reword, e.g. "it was beaten by Arsenal who went unbeaten in 2003–04"?
"The club spent remained in ..." obviously an issue here!
"with a last-day victory over Manchester City winning the title" reverse, "winning the title with a ..."
"Five years later, the team competed in the Fourth Division..." how? Just happened to, or got relegated again?
In '87, were Leyton Orient really referred to as just Orient? I'd be explicit.
Not sure of the relevance of the last para of the lead because you're talking about players who aren't actually in this list.
I'm not sure you need spaces between the references and notes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. Replies:

Linked friendly match
Added a note re. Premier League/Football League
Changed to "back to the First..."
Reworded the Arsenal sentence but used "undefeated" to avoid repetition of "beaten"/"unbeaten"
Removed "spent"
Changed the Man City sentence.
Added a bit about a further relegation to Div 4
They were called just Orient from 1966 until the end of the 1986–87 season; the Burnley game was the last they ever played under that name.
Just added the last para for a bit of extra info, but will remove it.
Removed spaces

Cheers, Big Dom 19:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

"Burnley went on to become one of the 12 founder members" Founding members? Or am I getting so old and so confused to EngVars that this is proper British English?

"In the 1920–21 campaign, Burnley were crowned champions of England for the first time." As a casual fan of football, I thought the FA Cup winners were champions of England? What did they win that year?

"Selected to represent the Football League while playing for Burnley." Sorry, but what does that mean?

General ref; publisher and location.

Refs 5 and 6 need publishers

Courcelles 01:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

I think "founder members" is fine, but have changed it to "founding" anyway
They won the First Division, so I've added that
"Selected to represent the Football League" means that they played for the FL representative team (the best players in the Football League) against, for example, the Scottish League team. The team doesn't exist any more and there's no Wiki article about it so I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. Have changed the wording slightly, does that help?
Added location/publisher info to the first two. For the Lancashire Telegraph article, I only have a small cutting from the paper and I don't know who the publisher was in 1987 (it doesn't seem to be anywhere on the internet before 1995).

Cheers for taking the time to review. Big Dom 06:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For info, the FA Cup winners have not been considered champions of England for at least 100 years. The Premier League winners (and the winners of the Football League First Division prior to the creation of the PL in 1992) are the champions of England..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Courcelles 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*There's at least one (probably only the one) capped player without a colour/‡.

Why up-to-date as at 22 August? i.e. after the first few games of the season. Do you intend to update after every match?
On the basis we catsort names beginning with Mc and a capital as if they were spelt Mac and a small, i.e. McKenzie catsorts along with Mackenzie and before names like Matthews, should we do that in sortable lists as well, or would that be taking consistency too far?
Is the format 2008–present what we use now for an open date range, rather than 2008– ? MOS:NUM says nothing on the subject.
Soccerbase is a work published by Centurycomm, rather than a publisher.

Assuming you meant the missing international was Willie Donachie. Fixed it.
Was going to update it pretty regularly yes. In fact, I have just updated it again and had to remove Clarke Carlisle as he made his 100th appearance last weekend.
Always just thought the "Mac/Mc" thing was for categories, not lists.
Removed all the "present"s
Fixed the Soccerbase refs.

(Unmarked international) was actually Tommy Hutchison :-) in which case, do you suppose there still more
(Regular updating) Fair enough, in which case remember to update the Soccerbase accessdates as well: you're currently referencing apps on the 28th to sources last accessed on the 19th...
There's a typo in Charlie Fletcher. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010(UTC)

(Internationals) Have checked them all now!
(Updating) Have updated the accessdates and will do so every time from now on.
Fixed the typo.

Comments

By criterion 2, the lead section is supposed to provide an introduction to the subject. Given that the subject is Burnley players 50-99 apps, shouldn't it say at least as much about the players in the list as it does about the history of Burnley F.C.? Or at least something about some of the players in the list.
Did you consider using the FB/HB/IF/OF/CF positions, as used at List of Watford F.C. players, for players from the days when formations were different? Saves on guesswork for centre-halves, if nothing else. I was thinking of converting the BCFC lists, if I ever feel brave enough.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies:

Not sure what to write in the lead, do you have any suggestions? There's no precedent for this type of player list where none of the record-setting players are included and the ones who are there have mostly just had generally mediocre careers.
I didn't consider doing that, but I can if you would prefer.

Thanks, Big Dom 10:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Lead) Do any of the following apply to players in this appearance-range (please bear in mind I know nothing about Burnley F.C., their awards or their record-holders): youngest/oldest player; first Burnley player capped for anybody; first (any?) capped for England while at Burnley; played in the title-winning sides; played in the Cup Final sides; Player of the Year; any of your footnoted top goalscorers also divisional top scorer; went on to manage the club. That sort of thing.
(Positions) Up to you. I was convinced by User:WFCforLife's argument on the subject at the Watford list FLC re halfbacks, sources and original research. Though I'm not sure where his 1965 as a "changeover" date to modern positions comes from.

Replies:

(Lead) Youngest player: Tommy Lawton (25 apps), Oldest player: Jerry Dawson (522 apps), First international (was also first England international): Jack Yates (29 apps), so none of those are included, and AFAIK Burnley don't keep a record of their Players of the Year (it's not in the official history book, on the official website or even on any of the fansites). However, I will add some information about the players in the cup-winning/title-winning teams and managers etc.

Cheers, Big Dom 08:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I have no objection to the playing positions not being converted to pre-post 65; left thread open because WFC's passing comment would otherwise make no sense. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment: Judging by player appearance records at the end of Watford Season by Season (which I am temporarily without), 1965 appeared to be the approximate time of the switch from 2-3-5 to 4-4-2, although I wouldn't submit it for a second FLC until I had a more concrete answer on the year (or alternatively, until I cross-referenced every pre-1998 position to that book, citing Jones' designation as what the list is going by). --W F C-- 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"and the following year they won the FA Cup for the only time ~~in 1914~~". That's a pretty obvious prose redundancy.
I'm going to agree with something I saw above, in that the lead really has little relation to the subject of the list. It's not like nothing could possibly be included on these players, either. Subjects like capped players, players with 99 appearances, and top goal-scorers among those on the list are but a few possibilities.
Reference 5 should include a note that the link is in PDF format.

Replies:

Removed
Ref 5 - is the PDF icon not enough?

Cheers, Big Dom 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to complete the lead at the moment, I just don't have time. I might merge this list with the 100+ players and re-submit the larger list at FLC at a later date. Otherwise, I may get round to writing something for this one and nominate it again. Anyway, thanks to all the editors who left comments in this nomination and helped me to improve the list. Cheers, Big Dom 17:42, 10 September 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.