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 11:45, 8 April 2012 [1].

List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): U+003F? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list as part of a fun mission getting the Tranmere family of articles to a better standard (than the team). This list recently had a positive peer review, and seems of a comparable standard to the recent list on Watford (unlike the team). Hope you enjoy the read! U+003F? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
 Done U+003F? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done U+003F? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Shame, nice photo. The list is short on images now, I'll dig out some more. U+003F? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a few more pics in there now. U+003F? 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's about all I could find. I haven't checked that all the links point to the right articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment
 Done U+003F? 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Not convinced that Second World War needs one link in the lead, much less two.
 Done U+003F? 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold highlighting for table entries is discouraged by the Manual of Style. Italics are used frequently, and would be an appropriate substitute here if you're so inclined.
 Done U+003F? 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the table caption read "List of players with over 100 appearances" when players with exactly 100 matches played are included? It would make more sense to have it read "List of players with 100 or more appearances".
 Done U+003F? 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The all caps in ref 35 shouldn't be there.
 Done U+003F? 10:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop.
 Done U+003F? 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could expand the lead a touch, describe maybe the first, most recent, most capped player?
 Done U+003F? 11:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1992–93" maybe "in the 1992–93 season."
 Done U+003F? 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 32 should expand the month fully.
 Done U+003F? 09:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Encouraging to see that this list had a decent peer review.
✗ Not done I agree that it should read "club" rather than "team". But use of singular or plural is discretionary. Whilst I don't think either form (singular or plural) is more correct, I tend to prefer Tranmere/the club/the team are. I don't know if this carries any weight, but this and the other Tranmere articles (such as the list of managers) consistently use the plural. U+003F? 12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discretion comes in being able to use either form depending on context, rather than in choosing one form and then sticking to it. When you're talking about TRFC the team, as a collection of players – "they were relegated" or "Tranmere are winning" – the plural comes naturally (and correctly) to a BritEng speaker. But in the opening sentence, you're not just talking about the players on the pitch, you're talking about the business, rules, structure, directors, deciding what pitch the players are to play on, whatever went to make up TRFC the football club founded in 1884. That's a singular entity so takes a singular verb. Have a look at this on the BBC's Learning English subsite. Struway2 (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'm not sure about this. But I won't lose any sleep over the is, so have changed as suggested. U+003F? 18:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that continual use of "appearances" gets repetitive, but I'm not sure the word "caps" is appropriate for club appearances. To me, "most-capped player" implies "player with most international caps".
 Done U+003F? 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Players. Don't like using the word "competitive" as a definition of what you're including. It implies the Lancashire Combination and the Central League weren't competitive. Maybe something like "players who have made 100 or more appearances in nationally organised first-team competition" would be a little more precise.
 Done thanks, nice clear definition U+003F? 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done forgotten, rather than excluded U+003F? 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "the three games in 1939, immediately prior to the Second World War" could be clarified? something like "the three games in the 1939–40 Football League season abandoned because of the Second World War"
 Done U+003F? 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Position key. If the left column is for positions before the 1960s, and the right column is for positions after the 1960s, what positions apply to players in the 1960s? Perhaps it might be worth adding an explanatory note, to the effect that over time, the names of defensive and midfield positions changed to reflect changes in playing formation, and these changes were largely complete by the 1960s. Maybe link to Association football positions#Tactical evolution. And then head the columns something like "Pre-1960s" and "1960s–". Centre all the columns, so it's clearer that Goalkeeper and Forward apply to both old and new. A better wikilink for Half-back might be Formation (association football)#2–3–5 (Pyramid), which has a (very) brief description of the function of full-backs and half-backs and the dual role of the centre-half. Have a look at List of Liverpool F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)#Players: the same comment was made at that list's recent FLC.
 Done U+003F? 19:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table. What does the International column contain?
 Done U+003F? 12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure that someone like Mathias, who made his debut in 1967 and played into the mid-1980s, should have a pre-1960s playing position?
 Done changed for everyone who made their first start in the 60s (for consistency) U+003F? 19:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes #4. Are you sure about "dual internationalists"? would have thought "dual internationals" was more common usage. Maybe add a few words of explanation, as at List of Watford F.C. players note d.
 Done U+003F? 12:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References General. Soccerbase is a work, and has a publisher, which you'll find after the copyright symbol at the bottom of all its pages. So long as you include the publisher in its description here in the general refs, you don't need to repeat it in all the specific Soccerbase refs.
 Done U+003F? 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References Specific. In #5, what makes The Cowsheds a reliable source?
 Done replaced source U+003F? 09:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • #21 typo
 Done U+003F? 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • #45 month needs spelling out in full
 Done U+003F? 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • #46 typo
 Done U+003F? 11:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll get to work on these. U+003F? 11:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments'
  • "...1946–47 season" wikilink the season
 Done U+003F? 09:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jimmy Moreton paragraph is a bit odd to me, the first sentence doesn't really fit in, not sure we need to know he was signed from Cammell Laird. Perhaps try "Jimmy Moreton made 148 Football League and 22 FA Cup appearances, as well numerous first-team outings in the lower Lancashire Combination and Central Leagues." Should read better with this change.
 Done U+003F? 09:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I would have the position column sorting by position, instead of alphabetically, reflecting the table above.
 Done U+003F? 09:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why only the players that have made international appearances have their nationality made apparent? Would be useful for the reader to know what nationality players were.
I don't know what the "right" approach is here. Looking to the two recently featured lists mentioned above, Watford follow the same approach as is currently used here, namely that if a player did not compete internationally, no country is denoted; meanwhile Liverpool give a nationality for all players. Would it be more useful for the reader to know all players' nationality, or to know which players had received international recognition? U+003F? 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to MOS:ICON#Use of flags for sportspersons, "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." So to attribute a flag, and by extension a nationality, accurately to a player who hadn't been selected for international football, we'd have to know and source his representative nationality, which involves knowing the international selection criteria at the time he played, his birthplace, his legal nationality, the nationality of his parents or grandparents, whether he'd declared for any nation, maybe more... FWIW, having read that bit of the MoS and seen the Watford list, I adopted the Watford approach and converted the Birmingham player lists to have an International selection column instead of Nation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooer, that seems a strict interpretation of the MOS. You feel that this list should only have nationalities for those capped internationally, right? Which is fine, that's the way I'd edge too. But does it not also mean that (almost) all of the players in the squad list should have their nationalities removed too? U+003F? 09:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do tend to exaggerate to make a point, sorry. But (genuinely) I'm not sure we're supposed to attribute representative nationality by birthplace alone, which is what tends to happen. If what's in the reliable source(s) can reasonably be assumed to be the player's representative nationality, there's no problem with using it. Which means your squad list's fine: it's sourced explicitly to the squad profiles pages at TRFC, most of them list a nationality, and it's reasonable to assume the info comes from the players themselves.
As to this list, either approach is valid. Personally I feel more comfortable with listing international selection, whether just senior as you have or including under-age as well as per Watford. But if the general view is that readers would want to know the nationality for all the players, just omit it for the ones that can't be reasonably sourced (though it's probably safe to ignore my extreme interpretation above :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, was not aware of that bit of MOS. If you can reliably source the nationalities of all the players in the list then I would include them, but if you can't then I wouldn't bother, would look a bit odd to have nationalities for some players and none for others. NapHit (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think. I must confess I wasn't entirely sure what was wanted here. Are those descriptions sufficient, would you say? U+003F? 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
((PD-UK-unknown)) can only be used if "the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." At this point, I'm not convinced that you have exhausted all reasonable means. Somebody may still hold the copyright for these pictures, and that's not acceptable. Then again, I'm not an expert on UK copyright law. You could ask (for example at Commons:Village Pump) for input from someone more knowledgeable. Goodraise 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As suggested, I've brought it up there. U+003F? 15:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There was no clear consensus over on commons -- some thought ((PD-UK-unknown)) appropriate and some not. Thus I've duplicated the images locally, using ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) which is definitely acceptable. U+003F? 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited. Goodraise 16:33, 4 April 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.
More