Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Birmingham City F.C. players

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 15:46, 20 January 2008.

List of Birmingham City F.C. players

Self-nom. This list is of similar format to previously featured lists of football club players. It has had a peer review which unfortunately didn't attract a great deal of comment. I believe it satisfies the featured list criteria and would appreciate your views. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry for missing the PR. It looks pretty good and I'll give a full review later but one thing that does spring out, is that I'd like to see a note on why those with less than 100 appearances are included, e.g. Eddy Stanley the first on the list. Peanut4 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the first few players in the list come under the category "Some players who have played fewer matches are also listed; this category comprises players from the club's early days, when they played fewer matches in a season ..." as mentioned in the opening paragraph. Those early players listed each played many more than 100 first-team games for the club, but before 1889, there was no league football and the only national competition was the FA Cup, so it wasn't possible for players to fulfil the basic criterion of 100 or more first-team matches in national and international competition. For instance, Stanley was in the club's first team for ten years, but they didn't play league football until his last season before retirement.

Would you advise adding a note along the lines of the italicised sentence above? Struway2 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think each player with less than 100 games would benefit from a note. It isn't currently clear which are on for breaking records or other reasons cited. I like the notes for Morris, Charsley and Abbott and they help to annotate the list. I just feel they should also be included for the rest with less than 100 games - only another three that I can count. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes added – what d'you reckon? Struway2 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll take a look at the rest later but that was probably the most necessary addition I'd spotted. Peanut4 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cracking list with plenty of good references and notes.

My only final comment would be whether it is necessary to bold nationalities to show players capped while at the club. Any player who was capped while at Birmingham has a figure in the caps column anyway so I don't think the bolding is necessary. Peanut4 (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary but I think it is helpful. The reasoning being, if the reader wants to know who was capped while at the club, the bolding lets them do so by looking down only the one column rather than two at once. Or if they're looking to see if a specific player was capped, he's easier to pick out if his name is bolded. Thanks for your suggestions and support. Struway2 (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'll try that again, with brain connected this time. No idea why I was thinking of name rather than nationality.

An early version didn't have number of caps at all, and the nationality was bolded as the only indication of a capped player. When I added number of caps in a separate column, the bolding remained. I'd agree it isn't now necessary, but still think it's better with than without, though would remove if there was a general view against it. As I said before, thanks for your suggestions and support. Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my comments at the PR were mainly dealt with and now all <100 appearance players have good explanatory footnotes justifying their inclusion I'm more than happy to offer my support. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comments at PR and for your support. Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Begrudgingly, this Villa fan will support this. Couldn't see any problems, though I amended the image per WP:MOS#IMAGES. (Had to do something ;)!! Great work, well done. Woody (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing the image and for your support Struway2 (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dweller

Sorry I missed the PR. Been neglecting football recently, in favour of cricket. I'm doing a mild copy-edit; feel free to disagree with any of my changes. I'll list anything I think may be contentious or more major here:

"less closely followed" I know what you mean, but it's ugly English. Can it just be disposed of? The reader can do the maths for himself.

I'll post here when I'm done. It will probably be after the weekend - hope that's OK. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm done surprisingly quickly. As I'll be off-wiki pretty soon, I'm happy to support on the assumption that the above will be dealt with. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyedit, couldn't disagree with any of your changes and have removed "less closely", and thanks for support. Struway2 (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.