Wikipedia talk:Noted players

Inclusion Criteria

I am not convinced that

"Have been the subject of recognition in multiple sources with regard to outstanding exploits over multiple seasons while serving as a player for the team"

can meet WP:V, is this used successfully anywhere? Fasach Nua (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an idea to meet the concerns of the sort below where there exists no official hall of fame or other such device for establishing merit. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we take someone, say George Best, how would you quantify that he met this standard(assuming that he does)? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By referencing some of the numerous sources that state he was an outstanding player over multiple seasons (I presume you meant for Man U). MickMacNee (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Best is easy, I think that was a bad example Fasach Nua. But borderline cases would be far more difficult to argue for/against inclusion. The wording is too non-specific and open to too much opinion. I could argue for Lee Mills to be included to Bradford City because he was top scorer the season we won promotion to the Premier League. However, what about Darren Moore or Robbie Blake who were equally as effective the same season, or Ron Futcher, who was top scorer the season we didn't quite make it to the top flight. Peanut4 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all sound too 'recentish' for a club with the history of Bradford. Hence the 'multiple seasons' part of the media recognition bit. For yo-yo clubs, noting efforts based soley on the fact it was a promotion season, could become quite large, if not taken as a multiple season career at the club. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my concerns it is too open to opinion. To me, the criteria should be very black & white. Peanut4 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would merely repeat the tactic then of comparing Lee Mill's efforts with other BFC players through history, as he clearly wouldn't pass any appearance limit. If you end up coming up with a big list of people who were top scorers in a promotion season, then there is obviously a problem there saying he was special to the club as a whole (rather than, as is mentioned in the guideline, a noted player for a particlaur season which should be mentioned elsewhere). Then again, he might still make the section as a club record signing. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of fame

I don't see how this can be used as a set guideline. Not every club or league has a hall of fame or such, this is a particularly American concept. Some organisations in the UK have adopted this, but not many. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in Aston_Villa#Notable_players, it is not unreasonable example of something quantifiable, and ideally the guidelines should be applicibale to all sports Fasach Nua (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They exist outside of America, they just might not be called a Hall of Fame. There are a few clubs who have official 'Legends' lists into which players are inducted in the same way as a Hall of Fame. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third party substitute for Hall of Fame

Assuming a club or league doesn't have a hall of fame, would it be appropriate to use a verifiable third party source instead to include a player who wouldn't qualify under other metrics? To cut the story short, the example I am thinking of is my own club and a particular player, who is generally accepted as being an all-time top player, even though he "only" played 77 league games, captained the team for about a season and was manager for all of two months.

On List of Hibernian F.C. players I have listed players with >100 league appearances, and players capped by their country while at the club. The latter criteria catches players (such as James McGhee) who were very notable, but played before the club entered the Scottish football league system. The weakness of this, of course, is that it then includes a whole bunch who won a cap for some other country who weren't particularly good players.

The sum of what I am saying really is that I think the "hall of fame" criteria is reasonable, but I think there needs to be scope for substitution by a third party source where no such official entity exists. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular source, I can't see a mention on his article. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding exploits

What does "outstanding exploits" mean? That is very open to interpretation. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be discussed on the individual article's talk page what it means in the context of perticular teams/sports, as the guideline says. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Jmorrison. On the one hand, we've discarded X number of games because it's arbitrary, while added "outstanding exploits" which is arguably far more arbitrary. And surely once an "outstanding exploit" has been achieved once in a club's history, the sources won't account for such exploits in future seasons since it has been achieved before. Thirdly, in the modern internet age, we have far more sources available to account for player's achievements. This doesn't make past players' achievements any less notable. Peanut4 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The internet is a general problem for wikipedia, there is nothing to stop people using paper based sources just like for any other claim. And I don't think demonstrating a player made "outstanding exploits" is arbitrary at all, I don't realy understand the point. It should be quite easy to source whether somebody has on balance been outstanding for a particular team, in any particular era. Anyone obviously putting an undue slant on this basis would be shown up by comparing other contemporary players in that team. Again, if you have an alternative wording, feel free to add it, this is after all only a draft. MickMacNee (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary data

I disagree with the assertion that setting a bar, such as 100 league appearances for a association football club, is arbitrary. 100 league appearances means that the player must play almost three full seasons. By definition the player must perform to an acceptable standard in order to retain his position for that length of time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Jmorrison230582 on that Fasach Nua (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of players who play for three or more seasons at a club who never rise above the classification of 'workmanlike', these players are not particularly noteworthy with respect to a team's entire history. Likewise, there are many players who excel for a short time at a club and would never qualify for these sections under an arbitray number criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content using "arbitrary data" as the main inclusion criteria:

List of Arsenal F.C. players: 100+ Appearances (sole criteria)
List of Aston Villa F.C. players: 125+ appearances, (exceptions: club founder members, players from the club's pre-Football League days, when they played fewer matches in a season than the present day, players holding a club record)
List of Birmingham City F.C. players 100+, (exceptions: players from early days, significant contribution to club)
List of Gillingham F.C. players 50+ (sole criteria)
List of Ipswich Town F.C. players 100+ (exceptions: international cap(s), club record, hall of fame)
List of Liverpool F.C. players 100+ (exception: significant contribution to the club's history)
List of Manchester United F.C. players 100+ (exception: significant contribution to the club's history)
List of York City F.C. players 100+ (clubman of the year, club record holder, international cap(s))

If these articles reached featured status using "arbitrary data" as the main inclusion criteria with club specific (non-general) criteria to allow the inclusion of selected players with fewer appearances, I can't see why we can't use a similar approach for noted player sections. E P 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lists above are standalone lists of players, this guideline is intended to cover noted player sections within team articles, not Lists of people. To illustrate the issue, Paul Gascoine played just 90 games for Newcastle, and is arguably one of the most famous players in their history, whereas Andy O'Brien played 120. I very much doubt you will find any credible source that says these two players are of equal fame/stature/noteworthiness for Newcastle United F.C., or even that Andy O'brien was a remarkable player for NUFC in any way at all. If you insist on putting an arbitrary figure in the criteria, then nobody could stop someone from adding Andy O'Brien, plus the sections would become huge, defeating the while point of having them. MickMacNee (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the stats table on Gazza's article he played 104 games for Newcastle. Claiming that use of appearance data is "incorrect" as this project page currently does, seems to be based on your opinion, it was not discussed at all, and there is clearly no consensus on the issue. The whole idea of defining criteria that apply to every club and national team in the world is futile. Why should teams without official halls of fame or a tradition of holding testimonials have fewer noted players than a British team? If you don't want Andy O'Brien on the Newcastle list, start a discussion on the Newcastle talkpage and try and reach consensus with Newcastle fans for Toon specific criteria not by trying to prevent everyone else from using appearance/goalscoring data without any consensus to support you. E P 20:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal, discussing it is what it is here for. I have given my personal opinion with example of exactly why an arbitrary measure is not appropriate for a noted player section, I am not talking about standalone lists of players. I am quite sure the Gazza/O'brien example can be found for any club when setting arbitrary numbers, so I don't think it is clearly an issue just for the NUFC article (if you look at List of Newcastle United F.C. players, it uses an arbitrary 100 figure, so clearly 100+ would not be a sensible figure for a noted player section in the NUFC main article, if the idea is to get Gazza compliant with it). I am just not with you on your issue over halls of fame at all, as said before, this is not the only criteria, if you have another way of doing it without producing an arbitrary figure that either excludes worthy candidates or produces sections that would be way to big, you are welcome to air it. If your objection is just to the existence of a proposal at all, well that's fine, this can be marked as historical and people can find another way to answer Fasach Nua and others concerns, because he clearly isn't going to go away and he clearly doesn't agree to having it decided on each article without any outside guideline at all (which was my initial position too). Several others called for a guideline, this is a proposal to meet that. MickMacNee (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're setting arbitrary standards per my comments regarding "notable achievements" then why not X+ number of games? Secondly, the proposals are for more than one set of criteria. Just because Gazza didn't play 100 games doesn't mean he isn't included. Peanut4 (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline merely attempts to point out that relying on an arbitrary limit on its own would not necessarily produce a meaningful section, for all the reasons I have so far given. There are multiple criteria because of this. In the example of Andy O'Brian, the only reason he would make the section on NUFC would be through the inclusion of an arbitrary appearance limit criteria, he was an extremely unremarkable player in the context of NUFC. Therefore, not having an appearance limit doesn't preclude people due to the other criteria existing, but having one could end up unremarkable players being added on that basis alone. I don't really want to get into a complicated merit system just to avoid that possibility. MickMacNee (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable is your POV. I suggest that a player who has played a significant number of games plays a significant part in a club's history. Maybe 120 isn't enough, but I would suggest all those with a set number play a more significant part and are more noteworthy than the current proposals. Peanut4 (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is my POV, but it is based on the sure knowledge that he doesn't meet any of the other criteria. If you can prove otherwise, then show it and maybe I will have to change my opinion of him. But then that is the whole point of the guideline, to take POV out of people's assemesment of players. If you merely raise the bar until it is high enough to exclude all unremarkable players, then you just get into the business of excluding many other players who fall under it, but can be shown to meet the other criteria easily, then having the limit becomes pointless. I would say the only time merit based soley on appearances comes into play is when a player reaches the testimonial point. MickMacNee (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I'm not preaching to replace all the criteria with an arbitrary number of games (although my own thoughts on the essay are shown below), but if we are to have this guideline, I would canvass for "X+ number of games" or "Y+ number of goals" to be added to the inclusion criteria as an additional item. Peanut4 (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could only support that (appearances) if it has to be combined with another of the criteria and does not qualify a player on its own (as the other criteria work currently). It would probably be easy to set the goal limit high enough, but it would probably then become redundant to other criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would have it as an individual criteria. Like I say O'Brien's 120 games may not be high enough. It may be 300+ games. But to me, anyone playing even 200+ games has made a very significant impact on a club. Peanut4 (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think 5+ full seasons (rather than 190+ games) would be reasonable as a standalone criteria then. This also brings with it a recentism problem, as pre-war and even afterwards many players made 300+ games no problem, purely as it wasn't the done thing to keep moving club, whereas today that is a pretty big feat (nearly 8 seasons). MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but a player moving from club-to-club whatever the reason or culture, is less likely to make a significant impact on a club, rather than one who players for several years. It's nothing to do with pre-war or post-war. If a player decides to leave after his contract expires after two years, he has done less at a club than a player who spent the best part of his career with the same club. Peanut4 (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but it's just going to make the sections look biased to older generations, if appearance is a criteria on its own. MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I'm not going to argue for appearance data on its own. I would rather have one of the criteria as 200+ games.

I personally think theses lists should be done on a club-by-club basis, but also think there is some value in having these lists as 100+ appearances, 50+ goals and limiting it there, but I won't argue that at this point. Peanut4 (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different note, I would prefer top X caps, or top X goals, not all leagues play the same number of games, and internationals are lucky to get a dozen games a year. It would add a degree of uniformity, and minimise the variations between clubs in big leagues and small leagues, as well as older and newly founded clubs Fasach Nua (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might actually agree with that. I also just realised, I've obviously forgotten this essay would cover all sports and it's impossible to compare the number of games across all sports. Peanut4 (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most sports generally follow these guidelines already, and I dont think they need stated explicitly. Soccer is the only area with major non-compliance (There is a lesser problem in American football and baseball, but nowhere on the scale of Soccer). Fasach Nua (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite easy to transfer this concept to other sports, they all have equivalents to appearance/goals/caps, setting the limit (if numeric criteria limits are to be used, which I don't agree with) . The point about new teams is exaclty why I don't see the need to set limits on this page, this is what should be discussed on individual articles.

As for compliance on other sports articles, even with no issues right now, it surely is better to make sure now that this is will be workable to all sports, rather than start creating different ones as/when other disputes arise, or extend it ad-hoc to areas who weren't given an opportunity to comment from the get go. Accordingly, I will now notify WP:SPORTS of it, something I overlooked before, assuming they would see it throught the temlate, (which btw Fasach you yourself have added to non-soccer articles, so you obviously think this issue goes further than soccer). Either that, or we have to say right now this is a soccer only guideline (not worth it in my view). MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't any of the criteria listed be considered just as arbitrary as 100 appearances anyway? matt91486 (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the sense they can be verified as the arbitrary judgement of external sources, the player's club/peers/the media etc. Relying on an arbitrary limit decided internaly by wikipedia is what is truly arbitrary, I know of no external system other than the testimonial matches where an arbitrary limit is automatically given recognition, and even so, testimonials occur at a much higher limit than has so far been proposed here. MickMacNee (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to nullify guidelines

As per my comments at WT:FOOTY, I think this suggested guideline is taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. These sections are already ridden with POV, and the current guidelines here are even more so. While, I applaud some effort to close the problem which has started to arise, we have several featured articles which don't see the need for such sections, or have esablished their own guidelines. I would suggest each club can establish any guidelines on their own talk pages, leaving such a policy/guideline, as totally redundant. Peanut4 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a standalone essay like this is useful while the POV lists remain common place, as they currently are. It really should be merged into the MoS at some stage, when the extent of the problem has subsided. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some FA's and articles don't have sections is down to there not being a guideline, while the ones that do, the criteria had to be worked out individually because there was no guideline. There is a clear will for these sections on wikipedia articles, FA status or not. It should not be just down to the FA system before these sections get properly defined, any editor has the right to know what is expected of these sections if he wants to start one/ or add/remove players. None of the drama about these sections recently resulted in a constructive discussion on an individual article's talk page that I saw, and there was clearly no admin will to treat the drama making without entering into individual talk page discussion as disruptive.

If you can find an FA that has players that would not meet this guideline, I would like to see it, so that the guideline can be modified accordingly. I don't see their prior existence through talk page discourse as an argument to bin the guideline at all, the ration of FA's to normal articles is miniscule, going over the same discussion from scratch on every talk page would be pointless waste of effort. The same could be said about a lot of guidelines that are redundant to talk pages. I will repeat, this is not the be all and end all for each article, it is a starting framework. If you think it's POV, the correct procedure would be to attempt to fix it, not scrap the whole thing after barely anybody has commented on it. MickMacNee (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A <not so> fine example of WP:CREEP

I checked the Golden Generation that was somehow promoted to noted list criteria - what a shame. The instruction was supposed to reduce POV and bias in picking the names, but itself references an extremely biased, incomplete "tertiary source" that anyone can manipulate. If that reference list was a featured list, maybe, it could be worth considering, and still be a violation of WP:RS. Why not rely on basic rules - verifiability and consensus? NVO (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the numerous ANI threads, the Rfc, the vandalism warnings, edit warring and huge threads with no conclusion at WP:FOOTY and elsewhere over how to improve these sections, for exactly why relying on the basic rules has so far failed. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely: if basic rules (or their implementation) fail, how can a second- or third-level regulation make it any better? NVO (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines exist to further interpret our broad catch all basic rules in the precise context of the applicability of the guideline, in this case, how to verify the contents of Noted Player sections. The number of eyes on the dispute so far has been enough to show there was no consensus on how to interpret the basic rules (or that a significant majority were willing to ignore them). If this guideline were adopted, it is clear that future disputes would be easier to mediate/rule on. But if you have other constructive suggestions of how best to proceed to end the issue once and for all, please give it. Doing nothing isn't an option, this issue has had a historical habit of re-emerging repeatedly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt, I agree with the editor downtopic; the failure of one Wikiproject to reach a consensus on notability criteria and team page formats doesn't mean that other sports Wikiprojects have all met with similar failures. Plainly some of us have managed. Ravenswing 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Golden generation" criterion

Could this one be dropped? The term is, at this point, almost meaningless for a majority of teams. If a team had a golden generation their exploits should be covered in prose outwith a "noted players" section anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable player sections

At the hockey project concensus was to completely remove anything called a notable player section and to rename it "Honoured Members" and only list those players who entered into the Hall of Fame or had their number retired. This way its fact based and doesn't rely on any kind of inclusion criteria that would be opinion based as some of this proposed guideline would have. By not calling it Notable players (or equivalent) you avoid having drive by editors throwing on anyone they like. You avoid POV disputes and the like. The minute we at the hockey project instituted this way of doing things on hockey teams all POV disputes disappeared and we no longer had random drive bys every day. Personally I think the way around the issue is to just not have sections named in such a way that it invites POV. Even this criteria has a time limit for some things and the opinon that having a club record makes you more notable than another guy on the team etc etc. That being said we also have a seperate section of award winners. Calgary Flames is a good example of how we handle it and it is an FA. -Djsasso (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I realise Hall of Fame is a North American way of looking at it, but there are numerous equivalents of lists that you can draw on that would be fact as opposed to opinion. -Djsasso (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of English / Scottish clubs are starting to adopt Halls of Fame, and this was one suggestion myself and at least one other editor suggested. If not a Hall of Fame, then at least some other fact-based section is far better than trying to adopt inclusion criteria, which as can be demonstrated above, is hugely based on POV sections anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a specific example of how a player would satisfy one of these criteria and still be a POV assertion? Nobody is coming up with any specific examples so that the wording can be considered and changed if it is actually wrong, all opposition seems to be rather generalised, and I can't work on that because I don't know what the specific objection is. I can't get inside your head and know exactly what scenario you are thinking of where this guideline would fail to ensure an included player was verifiably worthy of note. And as for hockey, if it worked, fine, the point being for soccer outright removal has been rigourously oppposed. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And from a quick scan of Calgary Flames notable players and award winners, every player on there would meet this guideline, and I doubt it would exclude anyone else of note. So where is the problem? MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Specifically:

Hall of famers meet the hall of fame criteria.
Captains:usually listed elsewhere (longest serving would qualify)
Draft picks:analagous to club record signings which would meet a reworded stats criteria
Top scorers:meets stats criteria
Awards and trophies:meets honours criteria

MickMacNee (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you have opinion based criteria and are making guidelines when one doesn't need to be created. Its a case of instruction creep. I am not concerned with players making or not making the cut. It's about the fact that most of these criteria do not meet NPOV. Bellow are some examples.

See above for response to instruction creep. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have been a statistical record holder for the team for either for more than one season, or for all time - Who says someone who held the record for one season is more notable than someone who held it for one season minus a day.

This is splitting hairs. And who collates team records on the basis of a feat held for a season minus one day? Football certainly doesn't. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are missing is that the cut off amount is arbitrary. And I also have a feeling what we call a record is different. A record in North America anyways is someone who scored the most goals ever in a season for example. So a player may break that record one week but another player on the team could then come along and a week later catch up to him and break his record. Therefore the first player only held the record for a week. But breaking a team record is still an amazing feat even if someone else came along and broke his record only a week later. -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have been part of a "Golden Generation" or other such phenomena recognised by third party sources - Who says such phenomena makes a person more notable than another. Any third party sources would be the opinion of the writer unless some governing body actually had a "Golden Generation" list or something of the like.

Reporting external sources is standard procedure for wikipedia, I don't see the problem. All sourced material is deemed POV on that basis, WP:POV means POV by editors, not the views of external sources. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was what is a golden generation, in looking at the article for golden generation I would almost put it up for afd as a neologism. Nevermind using it as a criteria. -Djsasso (talk)

I don't propose using that article as part of this guideline, it could be unlinked and the concept explained here: the important issue is the concept that Golden Generation type phenomena do exist, and are sourceable. See the reply further down. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have been the subject of recognition in multiple sources with regard to outstanding exploits over multiple seasons while serving as a player for the team Why multiple seasons? A player who was the most notable on the team could have only played for the team for a season or less. I don't know soccer well enough to provide a soccer example. But Wayne Gretzky for example only played for the St. Louis Blues for less than a season but is probably the most notable player in history. (yes he would be included via other criteria you have but in this case I am just showing this specific one). This doesn't even begin to try and determin what an outstanding exploit is. Outstanding exploit is about as POV as you can get.

The wording is intended to exclude flash in the pan media hype which happens season to season but include long term contributors that do not meet other criteria. I emphasise, this is a draft, wording can be changed. Anybody who made an outstanding contribution in one season that honestly needed including would probably meet one of the other criteria. Does this Gretzgy guy? MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is no matter what cut off point you pick there is going to be one person slightly on each side of the cut off point and nothing really makes one person more notable than the other. No matter where the cut off is. Which is why WP:ATHLETE doesn't use such criteria for notablity, you either played pro or you didn't (in a sport with a pro league). -Djsasso (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said for a Hall of Fame, people will come either side of the cut off point, that's no argument for scrapping the hall of fame. WP:ATHLETE is related but not directly corollary, see the opening text. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But actually you can't. If you claim the section is people who were officially elected into the Hall of Fame, whether or not someone was almost there is irrelevant as they weren't officially elected. There is no POV. There is only fact, either they were or they weren't. It's the calling of any section "Notable Players" that I mostly object to as every player on wikipedia is notable per WP:ATHLETE and if they aren't they should be deleted. Quantifying the amount of notability is and always will be POV. I can never really accept any guideline that encourages the creation of such a section. Just because your sport can't come to consensus to get rid of them does not mean a guideline should be created encouraging a section that shouldn't exist in the first place. -Djsasso (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point, this guideline was always intended to be factualy and verifiably testable, due precisely to complaints about WP:V and POV in these sections. Hecne the inclusion of all the criteria you use for your sections. But frankly, even WP:ATHLETE quantifies notability from a POV, it just does it in a very straightforward and transparent way, but it is still a POV agreed by consensus on wikipedia, and does not come from anything that was decided externally. If we can't agree the POV of this guideline by consensus that's one thing, but don't pretend that even WP:ATHLETE isn't a form of internal POV for considering who gets recorded on wikipedia and why. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not saying strip the players out if it didn't work in your particular sport. I am just saying change the names of the sections to make it less POV on who should be included. -Djsasso (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section name is unimportant if its content is backed by a guideline. c.f. See Also/External Links/List of X/Category:Y. These have supporting guidelines, so fly-bys don't get far arguing on the basis of simply what the name is. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I object to a portmanteau guideline that the backers seek to apply to all team sports. As the "Hall of Fame" North American-centric criticisms indicate, it's damn near impossible to find a single set of criteria valid across the board, and there are many areas already where people seek to apply similar infoboxes, sections, templates and notability criteria to widely disparate sports with divergent cultures and traditions. Second, these criteria are far too loose. Who defines "outstanding exploits?" Does a batter leading the Boston Red Sox in strikeouts two seasons out of ten qualify for "statistical record holder for the team for either for more than one season?" How many sportswriters have to talk about a "Golden Generation" to make all cited players (or anyone who played with them, possibly) notable? Djsasso's right: over on WP:HOCKEY, we had the same "Not To Be Forgotten" sections other sports did, and I was even the creator of the (quite subjective) working criteria for them. Unfortunately, as he cites, they became dumping grounds for the currently favorite players of every anon IP who came down the pike, and were more reversion than they were worth. Now we have just the Hall of Famers, anyone whose number has been retired, the top ten career point scorers, team captains and first round draft choices - zero speculation or interpretation required. Ravenswing 18:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, football is definitely deadlocked such that this is the only proposal barring removal (that has never succeeded), or arbitrary limits (meaningles re. note to a team so might aswell be removal). You will have to ask Fasach Nua about other sports, but I made it general as he had started expanding the issue to other sports by templating other articles, and I didn't see the point creating separate guidelines for each sport, especially when, apart from the issue over outstanding exploits, the hockey sections would appear to meet this guideline. I personally find the argument for excluding information based on the fact people don't follow the rules requiring reversion rather weak. This is a wiki after all, you should be communicating with the anons, or protecting the article if it becomes a serious issue, not bowing to vandals/POV pushers. MickMacNee (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "golden generations", is it honestly too much to ask that a dispute over the use a term like that if people actually doubt the quality/amount of sources being presented by someone, be worked out on the specific talk page? This is a guideline, a starting point, it cannot handhold for every single issue. That is the real issue over instruction creep, editors expecting the guidleine to be so specific as to tell them everything they need to know, rather than using the standard procedures of TALK, DR, CITE, UNDUE etc to solve article specific disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Trying to decipher the debate above, I will try come back with three points on my thoughts on some of the ideas.

If we stick with a "Hall of Fame" or similar independently chosen criteria, it removes any possible POV from editors and leaves the decision about who to choose or leave out in the hands of other, outside, independent people, e.g. club officials, mass fan choices, or a panel of experts. It isn't in the hands of one editor who thinks X or Y should or should not be in the list.
"Outstanding exploits over multiple seasons" is as POV as you can possible get. Who chooses how outstanding it should be? Over how many seasons? Four? Five? Ten? The cut off points are too arbitrary.
"Part of a golden generation" Surely that means the team is notable rather than the individual? How about one player who manages maybe one or two games in a team that was highlighted as a Golden Generation. Does that make him notable? Not in my book. So how many games does it make him notable for? Ten? 20? Again an arbitrary cut off point. These Golden Generations are rubbish anyway. England Football's World Cup winners weren't labelled a Golden Generation. Yet a few years of underachievers who never got past the quarter-finals of a tournament but got paid pots of gold were labelled a Golden Generation. Peanut4 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following Mick's comments, I see a paradox. On the one hand, you propose criteria to be an official guideline that covers every team sport. On the other, you think that every fuzzy ambiguity should be laboriously hacked out over talk pages. Frankly, we're doing that already, and the sole rationale beyond notability criteria is to provide a solid framework dividing that which is and is not noteworthy. What's the point of creating criteria with built-in points of dispute? Right now there are far, far too many editors (many of us included) who spend more time in content disputes over such things than in building the encyclopedia, and I'll vigorously oppose any proposal that provides that much more fuel for talk page wars. Ravenswing 22:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 criteria removed

"Golden generation" and coverage for outstanding exploits. I thought these were verifiable to a reasonable standard without too much potential for lawyering, but in the interests of moving on I have binned them. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary appearance number criteria

I strongly disagree with this as a criteria as per past comments, it adds nothing meaningful, and worse, makes a POV statement that over a set number of appearances on their own equals a significant contribution without any other recognition, (as only 1 criteria needs to be met), but in the face of opposition, I suggest a formulaic approach:

In the top X list of players of all time by number of appearances in the team

or, to redress the problem of changing lengths of service, such as pre/post war soccer teams:

In the top X list of players by appearance per decade

This at least ranks a players appearances amongst his peers at the club to give some idea of whether this was exceptional. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Championship-winning team

Have been part of a/multiple championship winning team(s)

Again I disagree with the inclusion of this criteria on similar grounds to my above disagreements with Golden Generation criteria. Some players may only play a handful of games, and do nothing spectacular, for a club yet meet these criteria, e.g. Ronnie Wallwork at Manchester United, Alex Manninger at Arsenal, and any World Cup / European Championship, etc squad winning members who never played in that respective tournament and may strictly never win a cap. Peanut4 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree it shouldn't be in. These sqauds are also available through links to articles such as 1999 UEFA Champions League Final, reachable throught the club's honours list. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New criteria

Where did these three new proposals come from? They haven't been discussed anywhere on here?

Have been named in an official team/player of the decade/century for their club
Have been named in an official team/player of the year/season for their league
Have been given a civic honour for their sporting achievements. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 3 were already included, I just added number 2 as a reasonable extension, to cover the likes of the PFA Players' Player of the Year award where players get recognition for one year out of an entire league (as opposed to a club player of the year). MickMacNee (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all proposed inclusions for criteria should be talked about on this page. I certainly disagree with gaining a civic honour. The way it's worded would imply the player is notable for every club he plays for, irrespective of what he did for those clubs. Some if not most players gain honours for their entire career rather than individual constituents of their career. Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BRD has a reasonable role to play in developing the guideline, e.g English Peasant made these changes [1] which I partialy reverted some explained above, and kept what I thought was ok. It's not like any of aren't going to notice changes to the page, or start edit warring over an unadopted proposal. The proposal template at the top of the page gives fair warning the page is in flux to anyone coming here from the template or noticeboards. MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is a flaw of the objective criteria side of things. It was an argument I lost over at WP:HOCKEY, but if you list every player who played for a team who subsequently made the Hall of Fame, then some teams have players who only played a handful of games for them ... or even just ONE game (it's happened). Ravenswing 00:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Hall of Fame's that are not team specific, an addition could be added to the criteria that specifies the hall of famer must have played the majority of his career games for that team. MickMacNee (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That then has the issue of where to draw the line. You seem to not follow that whatever arbitrary criteria you pick it will be POV. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking the issue of the threat/damage from POV to the pedia to the extreme. See above comments, even using WP:ATHLETE to denote who gets included in any article is a form of POV. POV inserted into guidelines when backed by consensus and following logical reasoning is definitely not the same as a POV asserted by one editor against a guideline. All policy and guidelines represent the POV of consensus based agreement. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not taking the issue nearly seriously enough, because the archived talk pages of damn near all the sports Wikiprojects are jammed with such debates, and even the seemingly most settled of fights (and settled as much out of exhaustion as any other factor) boils up all over again six months down the road when another new bunch of editors reopen the old cans of worms. Ravenswing 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, look above for the motivation for this proposal, this isn't something I just decided to do one day, it is in response to exacly the ongoing and recurring drama you seem to think it will cause - it is still happening in bucketloads, and not just on the project pages, but at ANI and Rfc, but your hockey specific approach of outright removal of the sections is not preventing that drama from happening at other projects such as football. If you want to speak for the entire hockey project and opt-out, feel free to make that proposal here and at WP:HOCKEY to gain consensus for that (but it you do intend to do that it would be more sensible to do it once there is an agreed wording at least). I am not particularly interested in turning this proposal's talk page into a battle of jurisdiction over who does/does not intend to adopt the proposal if/when it reaches an accepted wording. MickMacNee (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the approach of adopting criteria with zero subjectivity been tried over on WP:FOOTY? (Come to that, of what sports Wikiprojects are you familiar?) That aside, I certainly have no authority to speak for the WP:HOCKEY project, any more than any other editor does for any Wikiproject; my observations are my own. Ravenswing 17:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Please read this entire talk page because I am starting to repeat myself a lot here in respone to your queries. I am familiar with the footy dispute particularly, where the approach of blanking or enforceing adherence to the standard wp:ver policy failed, repeatedly. I crafted this as a general guideline (see note) because the tag related to the dispute, template:famous players was being added to non-football pages as well as football pages. I also dont't see that there is a sensible content based reason not to apply a standard to all sports, "noted player" is not a football specific term. As said below, if particular projects think they have a standing consensus that nullifies the need for this to solve disputes, they can reach agreement to opt out, and this can be added to the What this guideline does not cover section. Note-(my expertise is football so I generally converse in those terms, but others are free to contribute their knowledge of other sports, and indeed already are) MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is getting too intrusive, this will vary from sport to sport and league to league, the improtant point we are trying to get across is that the reason for inclusion needs to be stated and verifiable. This guideline should just be giving guidance, not instruction.

I dont think it needs to be team specific, George Best's youth teams was Creagagh boys club, he did nothing remakable there, and on the outside chance, the team gets an article, I see nothing wrong with including Geordie there, discovering one of the greatest footballers ever is not small feat (and possibly the only notable thing this club ever did). Simarly if a third division team have a future England captain on there books, it is notable that they nurtured this talent, or if some third rate MLS team can attract big names past there sell by date to pull in big crowds then that is notable. There are too many variables to be so prescriptive Fasach Nua (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the current text, I don't realy agree. Sure, George Best's early teams are worthy of record, but this would be recorded elsewhere in their articles as a separate unique fact, rather than including him in a section as a noted player for that team. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the point, amount of notability is subject to each individual editor, I would expect to see someone who is top of his particular sport listed on every single team he played for. Just because he wasn't notable when he played for the team doesn't mean he wasn't a notable player who played for that team. -Djsasso (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about making sections based on general notability, hence why any player with an article is not included (read the whole text of the proposal). But if needed, perhaps we need to specify two sections, "Players noted for this team" and "Notable players associated with this team". MickMacNee (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary data paragraph

"Editors are discouraged from using arbitrary data for criteria, such as number of appearances, as incorrectly setting this criteria for a team may arbitrarily exclude worthy players from these sections, or include non-noteworthy players." Err. Quite aside from that this isn't a terribly intelligible sentence, who decides? Isn't the decision to describe certain criteria or stats as "arbitrary," well, arbitrary? What divides "worthy" players from "non-noteworthy" ones, beyond the general criteria of WP:ATHLETE? This is looking increasingly a mess. Ravenswing 13:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning behind it is explained further up the page with a specific example. I would respectfully ask that if you have nothing more to add other than general attacks of the entire concept behind this proposal, then can you please leave the talk page to those who do. You can register you distaste for the entire concept if/when we reach an agreed version that we would like to put forward for adoption/rejection (marking as historical). MickMacNee (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "planning" stages is exactly when it should be attacked like he is doing. Because if its not done now, the logical argument becomes. Well no one complained when we were making it. I would even go so far as to suggest you notify all the sports projects that are out there about this discussion as they all have a vested interest in it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the complaint is merely of the form "I oppose this proposal completely", then the proper time comes at the stage if/when it is attempted to get it formalised. Anything else is borderline disruptive to those who do want to be constructive, and not in the spirit of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. The particular criticism to which you are responding is a specific one. That aside, as does any other editor, I enjoy just as much right to comment more than once on the problems I see as you do to reiterate that there's no particular worry and that talk page consensus will of course settle everything amiably. Likewise as can any other editor, I will continue to comment as long as I see things upon which I wish to comment. Ravenswing 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to "This is looking increasingly a mess". You are entitled to make any constructive contribution you wish of course, if you don't recognise the sentiments above with regard to the effect of repeated, generalistic, non-constructive contributions, that's fine, it is your perogative to do so. MickMacNee (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Just FYI, I've notified WP:NBA, WP:BASKETBALL, WP:NFL, WP:BASEBALL, WT:WPF, and WP:CFB. It strikes me that the people on the various team sport Wikiprojects might have some thoughts on all of this. Ravenswing 17:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Players who are noted for things they do at other clubs (or "Small Clubs with Big Players")

First of all, I applaud the efforts to bring things into some sort of formal order; but I have a question. What about the small clubs? We're all looking at the notable players list from the POV of big clubs who win things, who have international players, who have players who recieve lots of coverage for the exploits with the the team; but what happens with smaller clubs who have players who are only notable in the context of their world and not in the wider-world, or who are more notable for developing players who graduate on the big leagues, or who have big players come to play for them as their careers wind down. I apologize for this being very USA-centric, and also for being somewhat United Soccer Leagues-centric, but these are the areas where I make most of my edits.

Example 1: Jurgen Klinsmann finished his career playing for Orange County Blue Star in the USL Premier Development League. While at Blue Star, he did not recieve any international caps, played a handful of games, scored a handful of goals, and won no honors. Under the guidelines proposed, he would not be considered notable; however, from the POV of Blue Star, he is HUGELY notable beause of who he is, and what he did BEFORE he played for the team, and in my opinion should rightly be included in their list of notable players.

Example 2: Jay DeMerit began his professional career playing for Northwood FC in the English non-league system. While at Northwood, he did not recieve any international caps, played a handful of games (the majority of them pre-season), and won no honors. Under the guidelines proposed, he would not be considered notable; however, from the POV of Northwood, he is HUGELY notable beause what he did AFTER he played for the team, the circumstances surrounding his discovery by Ray Lewington and Watford FC, and in my opinion should rightly be included in their list of notable players too.

The problem with things like this is that there's really no way to *prove* they are notable. You just *know* that they are if you are familiar with the history of the club and the circumstances surrounding the career of the player in question. How do we try to encapsulate instances like this into a set of guidelines? --JonBroxton (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point and believe that players such as future 1978 World Cup winning captain & manager of Argentina should be included in the notable player section of Club Atlético Sarmiento despite having only played 39 games for the club between the age of 18 and 20. He is clearly the most notable player ever to have worn the green shirt. There are countless other examples of why the guidelines need to allow a certain amount of flexibility as long as the information is presented in a verifiable manner. To answer your question I would say that the sections should have verifiable inclusion criteria such as 100 caps, hall of fame or whatever combination. Any players that fall outside these clearly defined criteria should be of such importance that they are mentioned elsewhere in the club article (Jimmy Glass in the Carlisle United F.C. article for example with an explanatory footnote). E P 22:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Jon Broxton, see here [2] for the rationale about notability before/after a club. The guideline does cater for small clubs, all clubs have a comparable honour or record/statistic, be it a tin cup or a plaque on the clubhouse wall. If this cannot be proved, then that is not the fault of this guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To EP, I personally think the statement "He is clearly the most notable player ever to have worn the green shirt" is actually hugely disrespectful to the players of the club in question who should be recognised for their efforts for that club, but that's neither here nor there. For the guideline, I have no objection to their recording under a separate section to distinguish the two qualities of notability, but the original purpose of these sections was for exploits while at that club, because that is after all what the actual article is about, the club, not the man. And people have previously removed such players from Noted Player sections on the basis that pre/post fame is irrelevant to that team, so I don't think this is an automatic assumption made by every editor. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who knows anything about Sarmiento know that they are immensely proud to have produced the first player ever to lift the World Cup for Argentina. Anyone familiar with the club would tell you that the greatest/most famous/most notable player ever to come through their youth system is Passarella. Perhaps you have a greater knowledge of the club than I have, maybe you could name some of the players I have "hugely disrespected" by stating that Passarella is a more notable player than they are? I think you will find that any of the players you come across on English Wikipedia during your search will have been written, maintained or improved by myself. E P 10:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this argument is conversely you can have big players who played for big teams but asserted no notability with that team, e.g. Peter Beardsley, was at but never played a game for Manchester United. He went on to win a civic honour – an MBE for his services to football – and won 59 caps. Those two, particularly the first per the current guidelines, could make him a notable player. But I don't think you would find one person, who would say he was a notable Manchester United player. Peanut4 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man argument, the examples above concern household name players who played for small clubs, Man Utd are the richest club in the world. The idea is to give a bit of flexibility to allow inclusion of perhaps the most famous player ever to play for a smaller club with a footnote explaining why, not to allow inclusion of a player that only played one game for a giant club (Beardsley @ Man U). If anyone was ever daft enough to add Beardsley to the former players section of the Man U article with a footnote saying "won 2 league titles with Liverpool abd played 59 times for England", it would be reverted by anyone watching the Man U page. You can't use a contrived example like that to rule out including someone like Mario Kempes on the Instituto article. E P 10:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an Associated Noted Players section

See here for the change. Although I am not sure how this would go down with regard the Peter Beardsley/Man U example just given. MickMacNee (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, well it's been reverted, but you can see the intended change in the diff above. MickMacNee (talk)

Sorry, yeah, I reverted it, though for the same reason you were unsure about it. Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size of noted player sections

One of the stated reasonds not to include 100+ appearances as a criteria was that the "the sections would become huge, defeating the while point of having them". I can't see a problem with the sections becoming larger, once they become a certain size, verifiability and comprehensiveness they can be split off into a seperate article such as this featured list. As I noted before, this type of content has much more general criteria than the ones proposed here ("generally, this means players that have played 100 or more first-class matches for the club. However, some players who have played fewer matches are also included; players who fell just short of the 100 total but made significant contributions to the club's history"). Why shouldn't these sections become stand alone articles following a similar format to the one mentioned above. The section of this featured article leading to a well structured and sortable list like this featured one would be much better than some of the useful but extremely poorly structured section like this. This page should try to encourage editors to follow a similar format to sections and lists that have been recognised as excellent by the community, not to try to exclude certain methods of defining criteria (such as X caps or X goals, X number of major honours) for these sections/fledgeling stand alone articles. As long as the information becomes more verifiable and user friendly I can't see any reason that the guidance should discourage the use of number of appearances, let alone state that the use of this data is "incorrect". I removed this disputed statement once, because it clashes with the methods that gave us so much featured content and is not really compatible with "Have been a statistical record holder for the team for either for more than one season", but it came back again. E P 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, clubmen of the year (whatever that actually means - first problem) I presume would mean they all meet this guideline. Second of all, the statement "players who fell just short of the 100 total but made significant contributions to the club's history" is of a form that is being disputed above, so given the opposition here with regard POV, I don't know how that gets determined any better than the criteria here.

Secondly, this guideline is precisely for sections. If you set criteria that means a list then gets forked, you pretty much void the whole purpose of it, and you deprive the article of a decent summary section. But I gave my response in Wikipedia_talk:NOTED_PLAYER#Arbitrary_appearance_number_criteria when I removed it. I am not opposed to a proper ratio, but an arbitrary limit, be it 100/300/500, seems merely to be a blunt tool to satisfy FAC editors, and is possibly meaningless to a reader from an editorial judgement perspective. I certainly don't know why 100+ appearances should be a FL criteria in terms of assisting the reader - the only reason I can see for it is pure practicality of stopping those lists from becoming huge. MickMacNee (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this page off my watchlist now as it is clearly owned by Mr MacNee, who dismisses any ideas that are contrary to his own view on how these sections should be structured. Addressing the concerns that these sections are not verifiable (which was the original problem raised by Fasach Nua) seems to be a secondary consideration. I maintain that the criteria for inclusion should be determined on a club by club basis and that as long as there are clear inclusion criteria and the sections are verifiable the encyclopaedia would be improved and Fasach Nua would be satisfied. I also see no problem with these sections eventually being split off into standalone lists, how hard is it to click a link? E P 11:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is not meant to cover Lists of people, which have completely different guidelines. You do know that there is no policy preventing the listing of every player with an aricle? The 100 appearance limit is a pure stylistic cut-off point. If not, then by your assertions Croatia have a long way to go before they qualified for a Featured Players list. As for splitting out, have you never been pissed off to go to a team article and see a single link in the "history" section because it has been spun out into a standalone 10 page long article, when all you wanted was a few summary paragraphs? It's the same principle, to show the reader in a short summary list section who was most important in that club's history in one section without having to read a huge list that has been compiled in the main purely as a WP:STATS exercise, where the threshold of inclusion means nothing bar a statement of 'over x games = good player, it is thus'. That is even apart from the issues of history raised above. Goals or other stats are obviously a different matter entirely, although they still need putting into some context, i.e. top 10 all time goalscorers for the club. I am not owning this page, I have raised proposals in sections above in response to your concerns, if you don't want to discuss it there, no problem, just quit the ad hominems and leave it to those who do. If, as in the example given far above, you can explain to me why Andy O'Brien is a more notable player for NUFC than Paul Gascoigne based on just appearances, I would change my mind. I don't think it can be done, because it is inherently meaningless beyond its face value of being a bare stat. MickMacNee (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree on a sensible "club-by-club basis" model, with each one talked about by editors on the respective talk page. I don't see much point in any of the critiera other than perhaps offer a guideline of what ideas could be adopted and leave it fairly open:

Players with more than X games.
Players with more than Y goals.
A club's hall of fame inductees or a similar idea.
Internationals while at that club.
Players of the year. Peanut4 (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have pretty much described how the guideline as phrased is supposed to work, the guideline gives the minimum framework criteria with which editors can work out in detail on a talk page using club specific criteria. I've repeatedly explained a lot of that over and over above. Judging by your list, you aren't far from the current proposal right now. If we can stick to discussing the specifics in proper controlled sections maybe we can get somewhere. I have explained time and again why a team by team approach with zero guidelines in my opinion is doomed to see a restart of the problems which sparked the creation of this proposal, because I do not see the remotest possibility of the same discussion being started from scratch on every single article currently tagged template:Famous players to come to a conclusion, let alone on all team articles, and I don't see the problem going away if nobody does anything at all. I can see including people for just being an international being a big problem, but like I said, can we discuss these points in specific sections? MickMacNee (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, EP has a point there, and given that there isn't a single editor commenting besides Mick who's come out in support of these, it seems like a dead letter in progress ... Ravenswing 12:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth looking at sports articles, who have compiled lists without guidelines:

proves editors are perfectly capable of compiling verifiable lists about the subjects they are familiar with without instruction, the problem is a purely cultural one in WP:FOOTY, that seems to believe that unverifiable WP:POV lists are acceptable Fasach Nua (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]