Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of FC Barcelona legends/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 21:15, 25 March 2010 [1].

---

List of FC Barcelona legends

List of FC Barcelona legends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of FC Barcelona legends/archive1

This list was through FL in quite another form (List of FC Barcelona players which I'm thinking of nominating aswell). It's now completely referenced, all who qualify are definitely on the list. All comments appreciated! Cheers! Sandman888 (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

*Which nationality was Gamper? Says in list. I'm talking about the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Swiss mentioned. A bit misleading to say "the most successful club" (linking it) then to say "after Real Madrid". You need to be honest up front and say "the second-most successful club". hardly misleading when it's in the same sentence, but changed. Why isn't Real linked in the lead? linked "and the most successful club in Spanish football after Real Madrid" you've already said that. Oops! Avoid linking the same thing more than once. a link removed. "official major trophies" what, exactly, is an "official major trophy"? removed official if that's unclear Sorry I meant major. Now what is a "major trophy"? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC) official trophy it is. Wasn't the Inter-Cities Fairs cup the predecessor to the UEFA Cup, not the Europa League? That came next.. To be exact here would make the sentence cumbersome. "ICFC was the pre to the UEFA Cup which was the pre to the Europa League" "was also one of the first football players the club had " reads poorly for me. Perhaps "was one of the club's first players"? changed "for most goals in one match, with nine goals scored" no need to repeat goals. nine scored it is. "13 years after the..." MOS says we don't start sentences with numerics. right you are "13 years after" then " the club in 1912 " you don't need both. not logically, but it keeps ppl up to date. Some a priori knowledge can be handy to receive a posteriori (like large primes) No, just stick to one nice and clear part of English prose. The Rambling Man (talk) Changed, but not for the better. "Today..." caught in time. You should specify when. Done "In the 100 years since Alcántara joined..." you said he joined in 1912 - it's only 2010... almost it is Nope, we're an encyclopedia. "almost it is" isn't good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 98 years then "seven FIFA World Player and Ballon d'Or awards, making it the club with most FIFA World Player of the Year awards" as far as I know, they don't add World Player and Ballon d'Or together to make most "POTY" awards. No, seven FIFA = most FIFA awards So why say "and the Ballon d'Or awards" because that's nothing to do with player of the year at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reversed so Ballon dor & fifa "and had a record 6 of it's players along" - six, and no apostrophe thanks. Done "This list include all 50 players " not grammatically correct. "The list include all of the 50 players rego..." is that better? What is the "Campionat de Catalunya"? Done "Players are listed according to the date " - initially perhaps. what do you mean? The table is sortable so you should say that the list is "initially" sorted the way you made it. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Done Why doesn't Piera have an article with way over 300 appearances for one the most successful clubs in Europe? Because Spanish football is seriously neglected on the English wiki (everything non-English is) Make an article then! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Done Enrique "Quini" Castro links to "Quini" while Deco's full name isn't linked to. Why the difference? same now. What does bold text indicate in the table? record. Is that noted in the key? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Yes What is the "Pyrenees Cup"? No idea Well if you have no idea, then I'd suggest you shouldn't nominate an article that talks about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) It doesn't talk about, it's mentioned in brackets in a footnote. Talk about pointy. Not really pointy, just I didn't have a clue what this competition is. It's mentioned and not linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Done Why not include the details of the records in the notes? E.g. how fast was the fastest hat-trick? E.g. How many goals did Ronaldo score in one season? Good idea. Done. See WP:DASH for how to use en-dashes rather than spaced hyphens. Apply this to all references. dabomb87 did this. Web refs should have, as a minimum, title, accessdate and URL. Done Surely the publisher of the majority of your references is FC Barcelona, not fcbarcelona.cat etc? Okay, changed. Don't mix date formats in the references. Done FC Barcelona (as a cat) is unnecessary if you have FC Barcelona players as a category. Done Are these players "Legends" or "Mythical players"? Ref. follow the format of the source. They are referred to as both by FCB I think you should either say that in the lead or remove references to one of them to remain consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Done How did a Philippine player (Alcantara) come to join Barca? Immigrated? Explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Why is the nationality of Alcantara relevant? I imagine that a normal reader would be surprised that a legend (myth) of a Catalan club has, as one of its legends, a player from the other side of the planet in the earliest stages of the 20th century. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC) FIFA wrote about him here and didn't mention how he got over, I take it that it's irrelevant "had several of the worlds greatest players " your opinion. Stick to the facts. FIFA world player = world greatest player, hardly controversial. No, "worlds greatest players [sic]" does not equal FIFA player of the Year. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Done " friendly matches" - really? friendlies are included here? That's unusual. perhaps What does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Perhaps it is unusual, dont know what to say.

• At some point you ought to state what a "club legend" is, how it was determined etc.
  • FCB choose these players into a hall of fame. But as to FCB's criteria, that's not stated.
    • This list is incomplete if it doesn't describe how people are added. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't agree. If the criteria > 100 national caps was used, should it then state how the coach determine who gets a call-up before it is considered complete?
        • No, I'm just wondering how the club choose them. I.e. do they vote? Somebody must make the decision... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Some information added.
          • The article now says: "After a player has stopped playing at Barcelona, the club decides if he is worthy of being included as an official club legend.[6]" I don't see anything along these lines at reference 6; running the only text on that page (""Aquesta secció es completarà progressivament amb les biografies de més jugadors històrics del FC Barcelona") through Google Translate I get "This section will be completed progressively over the biographies of historical players of FC Barcelona." So is this an official accolade of the club, or merely a partial list of former players that the club's website's editor has got round to profiling? Bencherlite^Talk 23:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
            • It's common usage on all Spanish football sites Real Madrid. If an English site had a "Hall of fame" wd you believe it was the website's editor who just put some random players in there? Historical shd translate as notable/legendary Sandman888 (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
              • I'd come here to ask the same question as Bencherlite. The difference is that an English club Hall of Fame is a formal structure officially organised by the club to honour past players or staff, with a selection procedure publicised in the media and (since the arrival of the internet) on the club website. When a club first initiates a Hall of Fame, there's a major announcement in the local media, and the initial induction is celebrated at some sort of well-reported ceremonial. Often (usually?) fans are invited to vote for the inductees, either with a free choice or from a list selected by the club. There's often some sort of physical acknowledgment at the club's stadium, like names on an honours board or photos displayed in a special lounge. New inductees go through a similar formal procedure and again, it's well reported in the media.
              • That's very different from a set of bios of former players on the club website. English clubs have those as well, but with no formal involvement from senior levels at the club and no selection procedure beyond a discussion in the editorial office along the lines of "shouldn't we do a page on so-and-so next..." The impression I get from the note quoted above, in the absence of any other evidence, is that Barcelona's legendary players are an example of the latter. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• What makes bdfutbol.com a WP:RS?
  • widely used in Spanish football articles.
    • No, please tell me why it's reliable. I don't care if it's used elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • It's an easily accessible version of lfp.es, which only show season-to-season stats.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quini sorts at the top of the list, above the "A"s, that doesn't seem right........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • He was chg for some reason. solved now Sandman888 (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons that Struway gives above: on present evidence, there is nothing to suggest that this is a formal designation in any sense by the club or any organisation connected with the club. If this was a proper "Hall of Fame" grouping of past major players, I'd expect the list to be able to give references on when it started, who was added in which years, and who chooses the new additions. In the absence of all this, the list seems to be a pure content fork from the main list of players based purely on the fact that the website currently has a list of some former players and calls them "legends". Bencherlite^Talk 20:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see which FL criteria that has been violated - it seems arbitrary to deem an official list insufficient criteria and then gladly accept custom criteria as "players with 100 or more appearances or those who have received international caps while at the club or hold a club record." Sandman888 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Content forks breach 3(b) of the criteria. And please stop calling it an "official list" unless you can show that it is an official list in the same way as a proper Hall of Fame list of players and officials, of the type explained by Struway. So far, all you've done is (a) point to a list on the club's website, which as I think we've established by now has no indication of who chose the names or when, let alone whether this list might even be there, or expanded or reduced, next time the website is updated; (b) allege that "After a player has stopped playing at Barcelona, the club decides if he is worthy of being included as an official club legend" but failed to give a proper reference for the sentence - worse, you've purported to verify the sentence by using a webpage which doesn't say this at all. A list based an official Hall of Fame is fine. A list based on a set of objective criteria about appearances, international players and club record-holders is fine, as you yourself have recently recognised at the FLRC for the Ipswich Town list (at least, you didn't raise it as an issue; incidentally, that Ipswich list includes a good example of a club's HoF if you still don't get the point). A list based on the fact that the club website calls them "legends" is not fine, because it is too shaky a basis; it is not an official designation. Bencherlite^Talk 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
    • On stand-alone lists "Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" Most people wd say, yes this are famous footballers associated with Barcelona. Please say why this list fail to be a stand-alone list?
    • "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject" Players does not equal legends. This isn't forking, at least you havn't established that.
    • It's official, yes. Regarding proper hall of fame that's an English custom. FCB doesn't have a town meeting and vote, that doesn't make it less official. Whether something is official or not does not depend on the way it is made (e.g. vote or not), but on the messenger, who says it.
    • "worse, you've purported to verify the sentence by using a webpage which doesn't say this at all." Really? Please explain why not.
    • "still don't get the point" - WP:CIVIL
    • The list is not "shaky", it has included the same players for at least 2 years now (since I first remember seeing it) (save Eto'o). You simply don't know this to be true. Cheerio! Sandman888 (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
      • We don't do "lists of famous players associated with Club X", we do lists with proper entry criteria such as Hall of Fame members, 100+ caps etc. "Currently listed by the club website as a legend" isn't in the same category as these. If this means that you have to restructure the list, then do that, rather than expect the standards to be varied.
      • Please give a reference that "legend" is an official club designation, as opposed to being a title used to describe some former players in a section of the club's website.
      • As for your request for an explanation of my complaint that you've purported to verify a sentence using a webpage that doesn't back up what's been written, can I refer you to my earlier comment, above? The article now says: "After a player has stopped playing at Barcelona, the club decides if he is worthy of being included as an official club legend.[6]" I don't see anything along these lines at reference 6; running the only text on that page (""Aquesta secció es completarà progressivament amb les biografies de més jugadors històrics del FC Barcelona") through Google Translate I get "This section will be completed progressively over the biographies of historical players of FC Barcelona." So is this an official accolade of the club, or merely a partial list of former players that the club's website's editor has got round to profiling? Perhaps if I'm wrong, you could explain why that webpage verifies the sentence in the article I've quoted?
      • Wasn't being deliberately uncivil, apologies if it came out that way. In my over-compressed way, I was pointing to what a Hall of Fame structure / set of references / news stories would look like if it was a concept with which you were unfamiliar, as your comment "If an English site had a "Hall of fame" wd you believe it was the website's editor who just put some random players in there?" suggested that you might not have understood the difference between a list of biographies on a website and an official hall of fame.
      • I'm not particularly interested in how long you tell me that website has been up, because that's not the issue. If it's not an official designation, then the website's list could change or disappear at any time as the website is revamped. In contrast, a club's Hall of Fame, with nominations and inductions etc, doesn't depend on the vagaries of the club website's structure. Bencherlite^Talk 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Found the book that is at display at camp nou.Cotrina, Jordi; Finestres, Jordi (2005). Mites del Barça - Mitos del Barça - Legends of Barça. Angle Editorial. Barcelona. ISBN 8496521036. Hope this satisfies your 'stability' criteria. The book contains the pics, bio and stats on legends before 2005. Cheerio Sandman888 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Presumably the book describes how the legends are selected then. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, that looks promising at least. I look forward to seeing (properly referenced) additions to the text of the list to address my concerns, then. I'm sure you'll be explaining the status of the book and / or its authors in relation to the club, so that the list isn't just a "list of Barca footballers who are called legends in this book". Bencherlite^Talk 10:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - nominator has not edited either the article itself or this FLC in nearly a week, suggest closure as he appears to have lost interest...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Nominator has still to address the content fork issue properly - why do we need a List of FC Barcelona players with 100 caps/club records etc, and a different list for those called "legends" when (assuming it is an official position) this honour can be marked in the list of players? Bencherlite^Talk 11:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The nomination will have been running for ten days by around 5pm this afternoon. I will revisit it then and make a decision on whether it should be closed. After all, it can always be renominated once the existing issues are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, two comments: 1. The book is not easily accessible, currently waiting for feedback from fcb and other sources. 2. Is the reference and description of how the list was made the only outstanding issue as of now? Sandman888 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If the book is not easily accessible, then I suggest you withdraw this FLC so that it doesn't clog up the page. Bring it back when you're ready. As for what other issues there might be, there's still the (rather basic) issue of whether the legends list should exist at all, or whether it's an ineligible content fork derived from the main list of players. I haven't reviewed the contents of the list yet and don't propose to do so unless both these issues are resolved. Bencherlite^Talk 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments I'd also been holding off doing a full review until the above matters were sorted. However, here's a few bits to be going on with, whether this current nomination continues or whether you resubmit later.

• Lead section: I'd expect it to go into rather less detail about how many trophies the club won, and rather more detail on what a legend is and how a person becomes one. And to say at least something about a few of the legendary players.
  • First part equals the above, last part I'll do later.
• The list of trophies won by the club needs referencing, particularly where record numbers of titles are claimed. Likewise the "unprecedented sextuple", and the "record six players" in the 2009 UEFA Team of the Year (the cited source doesn't mention it being a record).
  • Reffed.
• Ref #2 just goes to the member associations page of the UEFA website
  • UEFA.com is horrible. found archived version.
• Best not to include statements that date, like how many years since Alcantará joined (see WP:DATED)
  • Years don't change quickly.
• In the sentence about Alcantará's and Migueli's records, could you use the actual letters of the relevant notes (B and G) rather than asterisks. Also only link Alcantará once
  • Done
• Key: It's reasonable to link the competitions again here. Copa del Rey should have a small d. Please include European Cup in the list of comps: UEFA might want us to believe it's always been called the UEFA Champions League, but it hasn't :-)
• References: Web references should have at least: title, work and/or publisher (not just domain name), author if any, publication date if any. If the webpage isn't in English, the ref should say what language it is in; there's a cite templates parameter language=
• The LFP refs seem to have the player's DOB in the publication date field...
  • handy, right? rmvd.
• Is there any reason why you use the Catalan- rather than the English-language general reference (currently ref#6)?
  • no, chg'ed.
• The FranceFootball ref doesn't actually say that Suarez was the first Barcelona player to receive the award.
  • Other ref incl.
• What's the source for the captaincy dates?
• Could you check through the Notes to make sure that their cited source(s) verify all the information in each note. At the moment, there are several which don't.
• Date format should be consistent: in the refs, you use day-first, apart from ref #2, but in the article you use month-first.
• Could you consider using normal font size for the Notes.
  • Yes.
• Image captions which are complete sentences should have full stops (periods) (see MOS:CAPTIONS)

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – If this is not an official club hall of fame, then this is a content fork of the players list and therefore fails criterion 3b. For a major club like Barcelona, there figures to be some press coverage if this is an official designation, and none has been presented so far. Even if such information is in the book, we can't wait indefinitely for it to be read and used as appropriate. Either way, this honor, if official, can be signified in the players list with colors and symbols, as Bencherlite says. I see no need for a seperate page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - "(...) this honor, if official, can be signified in the players list with colors and symbols", for consistency this should be applied to all player of the year/hall of fame lists and then be removed from featured status. Is that your proposal? Sandman888 (talk) 08:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Standards change, and sure, there may be lists that don't 100% meet today's exacting standards. The same can be said of numerous featured articles. However, your role in this discussion is to try to get this list promoted, not other lists demoted. Or are you trying to make another point? I think you need to address the reviewers' concern which is whether this list is official or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to get a consistent answer - I've started making the list because there was a precedent for POTY lists. Now POTY are suddenly content forks. And no, the reviewer isn't concerned whether the list is official or not, as he clearly states in the two last sentences. Sandman888 (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I said "reviewers". Read the opposes, they are generally related to this not being an official hall of fame. I asked you to show me how the players are selected. Your only reference in the lead (currently 16) is misleading as it doesn't prove anything other a page on the FCB website with some "legends". There's not a word of text on when they're selected (you state when they stop playing, where is that cited?) or how. Address that concern before you look to demote other's work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
        • That's 3 reviewers. But Giants2008 wd still oppose nevermind the sources I quote (as far as I can tell). I'm trying to get a consistent answer from him. Sandman888 (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
          • If there was evidence that the designation was official, I would probably let the 3b concern slide, to avoid setting a precedent that would endanger other featured lists. But there is still nothing telling any of us that this is official. Yes, that is my main concern, and no, I don't see why player of the year lists are being mentioned when this isn't a POY list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• It shouldn't matter if other lists are endangered or not.
• I'm not able to obtain a copy of the book and have not received any information from FCB, so I withdraw the nomination or you can let it fail as it stand. Sandman888 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

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