Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Watford F.C. players/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 Dabomb87 23:00, 12 March 2010 [1].

List of Watford F.C. players

List of Watford F.C. players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): WFCforLife (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status as I believe it meets the criteria, and it has received a review. Discussion about the linking (or not) of players is likely to come up, and indeed I invite it, although I ask reviewers to read my comments on the matter at the peer review. WFCforLife (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I'm in the

• Oops. I missed the league system. I meant Association football during World War I up above not the war but that might be bordering on overlinking.

• Do the images need summary tables? I recall someone mentioning a proper description for images to meet featured criteria.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you may be talking about flags. There should be a key if is used, but it's not required if  Turkmenistan is spelt out (or has been previously spelt out). WFCforLife (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I wasn't clear. A couple of the images do not have Template:Information. File:AndyHess2009.jpg is a example. It has a summary that might be sufficient but I am under the impression that the template is standard.Cptnono (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I admit to knowing very little about the template. But judging by Awadewit and Eubilides' comments here, I don't think they're compulsory. WFCforLife (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2

• The sourcing leaves quite a bit to be desired. I'm happy with the book source covering the players up to 1996, and with Soccerbase for club appearances and goals thereafter. However, for players whose career runs after 1996, there aren't any sources for international appearances, or for specific playing positions, e.g. Helguson as Centre forward / Right wing where Soccerbase just has Forward. Ross Jenkins the younger is noted as an England youth international, but the note [nb 7] is referenced to the 1996 book, when Mr Jenkins would have been starting school. Similarly Scott Loach as an under-21 international, where note [nb 4] is referenced to the book.

• International sourcing should be fine now, for both senior and youth players. Helguson is a case in point (he played right wing under Vialli and the start of Lewington's reign, and that does need sourcing). Where we're giving multiple positions this should be sourced (and if it cannot be sourced, removed), but if a player has one position I think it's unnecessary. WFCforLife (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the many disappointments of the FA's website is that they can't provide proper profiles of their international players, the way the Scandinavian countries and others do, giving full details of appearances at all levels. It'd make life much easier... I might have added individual references for the under-21s to the notes column, rather than expecting the reader to click on the string of links at the end of note [nb 4] to see which one applied to a particular player. As to positions, possibly one reason why previous player lists stuck to the basic GK/DF/MF/FW positions was to avoid sourcing/OR issues.

• I take your point that I should go along with the sources, and have therefore changed post-1996 ones accordingly.

• You raise a wider issue though. For an editor to call wing halves "defenders" or "midfielders" involves a degree of original research. Some would consider them analogous to modern day attacking full backs, others that they were midfielders, others still that it depends on the formation a "wing half" played in. Similarly, deciding whether wingers are midfielders or forwards can depend on the system used ("The Pyramid"/2-3-5 vs 4-4-2), or even on what an individual decided to call a 4-5-1/4-3-3, which can depend on whether the writer wants to criticise or praise the team fielding that formation. For these reasons, I don't think I can roll the change out for other players. Unless the sources of previous lists made the decisions for them, they were wrong to ignore these issues. WFCforLife (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have no problem with that. And the wider point is one I had considered, particularly in relation to centre-halves of the past. If someone were to write an article called
  Half-back (association football), I'd be more comfortable with linking centre-halves to that, than calling them the anachronistic centre-backs. Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Even if that's all sorted, I'm going to have to Oppose on the number of redlinks. Although I've never understood what redlinks have to do with "visual appeal", much preferring the concept of "usefulness" which disappeared when the criteria were revised,
  current criterion 5(a) says there should be a "minimal number" of them, and 40% of the notable players (~100 out of ~250) isn't minimal. I think your stated approach of creating the player articles gradually, going for quality rather than speed, is absolutely right, and would respectfully suggest you bring this list back when the number is rather closer to "minimal". (Disclaimer: depending on what other reviewers think about "minimal" redlinks, obviously; wouldn't be the first time people have disagreed with me.....) I know saying "there's no hurry" doesn't always go down well, but there is no hurry. And sorry again for not having got to the PR. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• With regards to criteria 5a, which I will get my claws into below on the
  WT:FLC.WFCforLife (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In my day, we weren't allowed redlinks, at least we knew where we were with that :-) but I'll leave the procedural arguments for those who like that sort of thing. If my interpretation of "minimal" differs from how it's understood by the community, then the directors will doubtless disregard that part of my opposition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Sorry about the long-winded nature of my reply. Far more important than this FLC, or even FLC itself, are suggestions that help improve our content. I really appreciate your feedback, it was excellent. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a pity you felt the need to remove the longer part of your earlier reply. Makes my response to the part that remains sound a bit sniffy, even for me..... Struway2 (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dude, as someone who would is leaning heavily towards supporting you still come across OK!Cptnono (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked at the list myself to maintain neutrality. However, I believe the criterion was left ambiguous so that reviewer consensus could decide what constituted "minimal" in each case. Let's see what other reviewers think about the redlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This falls within the balance of both meeting protocol (which is vague in this instance) and the need to provide thorough information to the reader that I referenced up top. I personally don't have a concern with the amount of red but I am not as familiar with the history like Struway is.Cptnono (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for clarification of the numbers, so we're sure what we're on about. Surely criterion 5a applies to the listed items, in this case the players, not to total links. There are as I write 109 redlinked players, which is a third of the items on the list. Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For consistency, either all or none of your RSSSF refs should have accessdates. Also, that abbreviation should be spelt out on first use.

• Expanded the abbreviation on first use. Accessdate usage is consistent though- record appearances are subject to change, whereas past results are not. I've also corrected the title for the Northern Ireland results.

• Fair point. <rant warning>Though I do struggle with the time taken up in discussing things like the precise circumstances under which accessdates are not required, or whether citation templates are evil because they make copyediting prose more difficult, time which could be better spent in improving the encyclopedia, and discussions which generally come down to one or two editors with bees in their bonnet. A cynic might wonder if the decision to include or exclude the accessdate was original research...</rant> ;-)

• I don't know if you intend keeping the current players' appearances up to date after each match (I wouldn't, if it was me :-), but if so, you'll need to update the accessdate for Soccerbase 2009/10 in the general references list each time. It's out of synch at the moment. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing that out. Going forward, I plan to update whenever a player reaches 50 (Don Cowie is on 41 right now), at the end of a season, end of the calendar year(ish), and a few days after each international. As we've just had an international, I'll do an update on Saturday evening or Sunday (by which time I hope the Icelandic football association will have caught up), and I'll fix the accessdates then. WFCforLife (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• There are a lot of redlinks in the table here. I won't oppose over it, but I'm not sure I feel comfortable supporting when so many of the notable players don't have pages. Some other editors, and I count myself among them, would have gone on a stub-creation spree before/during the nomination process. Your seeking to spend more time on each article is admirable, but unfortunately it is difficult as a reviewer to go off of anything other than the list's present condition.

• I understand. As I said previously to Stuway I'm disappointed, but if made to choose between the success/failure of this FLC, and the creation of stubs that I probably won't to return to, I'd choose failure. All I'll add is that I see your last two sentences as both an understandable interpretation and a damning inditement of 5a.

• The reason access dates have been used in references is to make finding links easier when they go dead. I normally push hard for their inclusion, but can understand leaving them off of links to printed publications, where removing the link and adding a page number leaves a perfectly valid citation. The question I have is whether these club/association pages have good archival systems or not (you'd know better than me). If there is a good chance that these pages will be gone soon, then I would suggest the access date for ease in finding a correct version. If they will stay, I won't complain too much. I do find it odd that you don't want the access dates for some of the news stories from websites, since they strike me as more likely to disappear than RSSSF pages and such.
• Prose looks very good overall, though I'm not a fan of "whilst" as a replacement for "while". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll consider your other comments later. Ironically the plan for the next few days is to spend my wiki time this weekend creating a few articles :-) WFCforLife (talk) 23:59, 5 March 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.