This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that List of Burnley F.C. players (50–99 appearances) be merged into this article. Although I've been trying to keep that article updated, I don't see the point in it, as I think it would be better to have only one list with (former) players. The benefits would be less updating and a clearer overview of the club's (former) players. The pageviews of the 50-99 apps list are also notoriously low, so "it won't be missed". I suggest we follow the example of e.g. Aston Villa or Ipswich Town here, where only players with at least 100 apps are included and/or players who have made special contributions (record holders, HoF inductees, founders of the club, et cetera). --WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Problems I can see here:
The merged article would be huge (this is why most clubs have the player lists split)
The concept of including "players who have made special contributions" has been deprecated for many years because it's hard to quantify in a non-OR way..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Thanks for your input, Chris. I understand your arguments, so I guess this is a lost cause. This list is, however, still a bit of a pain in the butt. There is no ""List of Burnley F.C. players (1-49 apps)" (I don't see the perks of creating one, mainly because of the low pageviews, redlinks, updating, et cetera) so it's odd to have two lists. I also don't think the 50-99 apps list would be successful at e.g. AfD. Is there still a way to remove the 50-99 apps list and to have one list with only players included who have made at least 100 apps? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily a lost cause, lots of people might disagree with me....... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman Thanks for the response. I know that a few clubs have three lists with all the players from their history categorized, but I really don't see the point. Who is genuinely interested in players who have made between 1 and 24 apps for Burnley (I understand/support lists with players with at least 100 apps only)? Not to mention all the redlinks, low pageviews, updating. There are also much faster ways on the internet to find out who has played for Burnley. If I or Nfc123 (the only other user who updates the lists) decide to retire or leave the site, not one but three lists will be dilapidated. So I'm against creating a third list for Burnley (1-24/49 apps), and that's why I thought deleting/partly merging of the 50-99 apps list to the main one would be a better idea. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ChrisTheDude, the point of the separate articles is to have a complete list of players across multiple, manageable articles. GiantSnowman 11:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
