Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Malmö FF 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [1].

List of Malmö FF players

Featured list candidates/List of Malmö FF players/archive1

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfils the Featured List criteria. The list is complete with references and any information the reader would want to know from available sources. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments by Arsenikk ^(talk)

The key should not be in boldface
- Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit concerned about the international apps list. As far as I can tell, it lists each player's total caps; this is a bit misleading as I would expect to see the number of caps which they claimed while playing for Malmö. Are there for instance players who have been capped, but never capped while playing for Malmö?
- Yes, the list show the total amount of the players caps, not just the caps while playing for Malmö. The vast majority of these caps were won by the players while playing for the club but of course there are exceptions. Is it enough if I specify this in the key section or do you think the caps should reflect only the caps won while playing for Malmö? For the references I have, the books (one which is published by Malmö FF themselves) indeed count all of the caps, not just while at the club and that is why I chose to do the same for this list. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am very in favor of stating who has had international caps. I would have preferred a "caps while at Malmö" solution, but that of course requires sources. If this way of presenting the information is the best that can be references, then it is good enough for me. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't mind flagicons in sports-related articles, but in this case it is excessive. The international list contains only Sweden and the nationality list contains only two non-Swedish players. Had a quarter or half of the players been foreign, I would not have reacted to this at all, but given the Swedish dominance, I find the use of flags distracting and without practical use.
- I'll see what I'll do about the flags. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK so I removed the flags from the nationality section but not from the international selection section. Is this better? --Reckless182 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to dictate you on the issue, just expressing my view. Flags are a contentious issue and there will never be a "correct" way of doing it. The current solution is perfectly acceptable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS specifies that countries should not be linked without due reason, so I would recommend that "Sweden" etc be delinked in the table. (The MOS permitting repeating of links in the table only applies to entries which should be linked in the first place). This does not apply to the national teams. Interestingly, the one place I would have linked "Sweden", in the lead, is not linked.
- I agree, I will de-link Sweden in the table. Where would you link Sweden in the lead? --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last reference uses ISO dates instead of regular dates that the rest of the refs use.
- Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise a nice list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support well-crafted list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Does the appearances include European matches etc? If so would mention the relevant competitions in the first bullet point
- No, they only include league appearances as is already stated in the key section. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of including the note about utility player I would use this link
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ref 7 the dashes should be end ashes
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Arsenikk suggested the removal of bold from the key. Personally i have the opposite view I think the bold should remain as I believe it is helpful to reader. states that definition lists are allowed to use Bold, I would classify a key as one of these lists so I would rebold the words.
- I'm not sure what to do about this, I'll think about it. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if my interpretation of MOS:BOLD is the same as yours. It is only the headers that are in bold text in the example for definition lists. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says bold can be used for definition lists, as they are essentially the headers in the key than they should be bolded. NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done now. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three players are not sorting correctly by name
- Do you mean Ågren, Öberg and Österlin? They are indeed correctly sorted as the Swedish letters of Å, Ä and Ö are sorted after Z in the alphabet, it would be very confusing for a Swedish reader if they were sorted under A and O. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was also my initial reaction for Æ, Ø and Å back when I started making featured lists. However, this is the English Wikipedia and we tailor to people who speak English. They see Å, Ä and Ö just as diacritics and will find it very confusing when those letters are not sorted with A and O. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you know if there is any guidelines to this in MOS? I can't seem to find anything on it. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a bit of thought, think it would be best to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump what policy is. Like you I can't find anything about, and as the letters are not in the English alphabet, I'm a bit more confused. I think a few more opinions are needed on this. NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a post here, hopefully we'll be given some advice. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I got a response from a user who suggested that we should use the European ordering rules. He says that "I believe that would mean sorting (the whole name) according to the notional base letters and then sorting the whole name by diacritics (so that Müller immediately follows Muller).". I think that it makes sense to follow something like that. Do you think this is acceptable? --Reckless182 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sorting should be OK from this perspective in the table now. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would include the third bullet point in the first section in this list
- Do you mean "Statistics correct as of match played...", this sentence is already featured in a more fitting place (in my opinion). --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the link didn't work, I meant the bullet point that starts: "Positions are listed according to the tactical formations..." NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly keen on the international section in the table, I don't see the point in it being included. Fundamentally, this is a list about Malmo players including international caps is redundant as it is not related to Malmo. I'll bow to consensus if there is for it, but preferably I would like to see it removed
- I added this to the list to add more facts about they players as I didn't have references for subs, and total caps which can be seen in other FL of these sorts. It is relevant to the specific players but as you say not to Malmö FF. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you added it, i Just don't think its relevant to the list. Its a list about Malmo players as far as i'm concerned there should only be statistics about their time playing for Malmo anything else is superfluous. NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, should I remove the column altogether or save information about caps that were made while at the club? I could use eu-football.info for this if you consider the source to be a reliable source? --Reckless182 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I removed the columns altogether and added total apps and total goals instead. Hopefully this should be sufficient. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not keen on the see also hat note, would reformat manually and pipelink so to avoid cross-namespace and hashes.
- OK, will do. I have one question though, how do I link Category:Malmö FF players in a wikilink? --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure you can just do a pipelink like normal, so Malmö FF players? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Standard note, you have pre-1960s and post-1960s, but what about the actual 1960s?!
- I have used 1960 as the breaking point, thus it's essentially pre 1960 and post 1960. Should I change the note to reflect this? --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you've used 1960s which is a decade, hence my question! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I mean is that I have used the old names for player playing pre 1960 and the new names for players playing post 1960. I have reflected this in the note. Do you still find it confusing? --Reckless182 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand, but your key say pre-1960s and post-1960s so the question is what happens in the 1960s decade? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. In the table below I've used the old position names for players starting their careers pre 1960, so year X until year 1959. I've then used the new names for any players that have started their career post 1960, so year 1960 until present year. I could just remove the "s"'s in the key and it would be less confusing? --Reckless182 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well "post-1960s" means after the 1960s i.e. 1970 onwards. Pre-1960s means before the 1960s, i.e. 1959 backwards. So my point is what happens between 1960 and 1969? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Your question is answered in the key: "Positions are listed according to the tactical formations that were employed at the time. Thus the change in the names of defensive and midfield reflects the tactical evolution that occurred from the 1960s onwards". I've removed the "s"'s so that it says Pre-1960 and Post-1960 in the key now. --Reckless182 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Appearances and goals are for first-team competitive league matches only" vs " The number of games played in all games for the club including friendlies." so friendlies count or not?
- Friendlies only count in the "total" collumns, I'll clarify the first mentioned note. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Symbols key, the Meaning notes don't need a full stop.
- Removed. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think (and this may be just an instinct) that instead of a pretty much empty notes col, you should place the notes next to the player's name?
- Agreed, I'll fix this. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Bo Larsson made the fourth-highest number of appearances for Malmö FF." not according to the table, unless you mean "league" appearances.
- Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"during his ten seasons with " his table entry says 1957–1968, 1970, is that ten seasons or 12?
- Fixed. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a lot to ask for but is there any kind of English language sources you might be able to add here?
- I'm sorry, all written sources I have are in Swedish. It shouldn't be a problem. I've used English language sources where available for online sources. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure the comment at the end of the lead regarding Patrik Andersson's 96 caps between 1992 and 2002 is really relevant now the caps column has been removed. It's also more than a little misleading given that he left the club in 1992, and didn't come back until 2004. Other than that this looks to be shaping up into a very strong list. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good that you noticed. I've removed it from the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support, meets standards now in my book. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cheers man! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well writen lead and list, belive it meets the standards.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The footnotes section should utilized this style, since this is the most up-to-date style for a list that embeds references within footnotes (and only uses each footnote once). All you have to do is place the info of the footnote in the refcontent section of the markup. You can ignore the "name" section, while the group name in this case would be "upper-alpha" (since all your footnotes right now are upper case letters). Follow the instructions on the page and just ask me if you need any help. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for pointing this out! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm happy to be of help. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets all 6 FL criteria. An extremely impressive list. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Hatnote at top: "This list is about Malmo FF players with at least league 100 appearances." Flip 100 and "league".
Don't need multiple Allsvenskan links in the lead, or for "the highest tier of Swedish football" to be repeated from the material in the second paragraph.
Key: "and" is needed before "Division 2 matches."
"the player with the most goals scored are ranked higher if two or more players are tied." "are" → "is".
The List of players heading would be better as just Players. The readers are smart enough to figure out that it's a list by its appearance. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All done! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The italicised opening sentence ought to be indented, and I'd also remove the pipelinks, so "Category:Malmö FF players" instead of "Malmö FF players" and "Malmö FF#Current squad" instead of "Current squad".
- Sentence is now indented. I disagree with the links, the current way seems to be the more clear alternative. The issue was discussed and dealt with under The Rambling Man's comments. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For me it makes more sense to show what is being linked to, as it makes it more apparent to the reader what they're accessing. Also, displaying the full links seems to be common across other lists of this type. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you on the category as that needs to be specified, but I think "current squad" is self explanatory. --Reckless182 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Total appearances and goals are for first-team matches only, including all competitive and friendly matches" - I thought we tended not to include friendly matches in official statistics?
- The reference I have for total amount of apps include friendlies, I have no other sources that omits friendlies, therefore it is friendlies or no total apps column at all. With that in mind I think that we can include friendlies. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Players are listed according to the total number of games played" - it appears to me that players are listed by league appearances, not total appearances.
- Corrected. --Reckless182 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.