While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
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
See WP:WIAGA, you could renominate at WP:FLC if the issues of the last review have been addressed. I have removed the GA nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That you for the info, I did not know so. – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why 25 matches? Strange number. Maybe change it to 20? — Corwin of Amber (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too little of a number, And even tho it was the first of its format to be created, other English clubs followed with similar articles in this name; Bristol, Fulham, Stoke City, Bolton Wanderers. – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but as you can see those examples run in 2 articles format (–50,50+), while the other format are in 3 (1–24,25–99,100+ || 1–24,24–49,50+). You will not find article with "(fewer than 20 appearances)" but you will find "(fewer than 25 appearances)", If we add the 1–9 article, it will damage the article even more. Remember, no matter what you do, the first article will include atleast 420 players (twice more then the other two).
Also view WP:FOOTY archive, Here, and see it was talked before related on the issue of how many we should include. – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's the problem with having 3 articles: 1–9, 10–99 and 100+ matches? How it can damage any article? I counted the numbers, so if we make 1–9 matches article it would consist of 315 players, in 10–99 matches will be 344 players. It is much more even than in current articles (439/220). —Corwin of Amber (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but don't you think 1–9 is too little? I am not talking about the amount it includes but the name. It will not last long before someone will request for a merging to become two articles. or even a delete. – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For amateur it may seem too little, but we can always explain that there are much more footballers who played several matches and left the club than players with at least 10 matches (it can be demonstrated statistically by comparing the numbers like I did above). So such potential request for a merging or deletion will be objected by strong basis. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you, It was already talk about the number of kb and number of players the article should include, we now need to be same as other articles. – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it was just the suggestion for improvement, I know that it's hard to accept changes and when you work with the articles for a long time you think that they are great & nothing should be changed because you get used to it. But I respect your contrubutions for Manchester United related articles and agree that you deserve the right to decide such questions. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's all well and good saying that we might be getting stuck in our ways, but what makes you think things need changing? As far as I can tell, the current boundaries allow for similar numbers of players in each list. – PeeJay 21:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I can't understand why it's 25, not 10, 20, 27, 30 etc.? 100 games is understandable, but 25? We discuss this question in Russian wikipedia, and there are many people who find 25 number rather strange. Reader opens the article and sees the certain list: 25–99 players, and thinks: what does it mean? Is it some special category of players? Does players with 25 matches form some group? But as far as I know there are no reliable sources verifying number 25 in context of separating players groups. So to my mind it's only the question of making 2 balanced lists with about even numbers of included players. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being so difficult? 25 is a nice round number that creates a list of similar length to the other two. This matter is closed. – PeeJay 12:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25 is a nice round number that creates a list of similar length to the other two — that's simply not true, but I see that you don't want to change anything so I stop this pointless discussion. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
