Comments
- WP:LEAD would seem to indicate that four paras in the lead is the accepted max...
- It does, indeed. The lead section of a long list of this type, where there's no prose other than in the lead, is rather different in kind to the lead section of a non-list article. I don't like the minimalist approach to prose at the top of a list, i.e. get it over with and get on to the nice easy table, but I do admit to a tendency to write more than strictly necessary when the topic interests me. So where do we go? As you say below, the paras are long-ish already, so sticking two together won't really work. What do you think to a genuine lead section, say consisting of the current 1st para with a little more information as to what's included in the table, as per WP:SAL#Lead, and move the rest to an introductory section?
- I have seen lots of your other work, it usually involves a LEAD-esque lead and then plenty more afterwards in a section that introduces the table. I'm not going to force you one way or the other, it's not my position to do so. But I'd prefer us to stick to the MOS (that's a criterion, not an opinion) where possible... (cop out, I know...) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "after their playing days" a bit wistful perhaps? Maybe "following their retirement from playing" or similar.
- "including the first million-pound player" suggest you contextualise the record, i.e. Britain's first million-pound transfer.
- will do. Remember thinking about doing so at the time, but clearly never did
- Ref 3 is dead for me.
- works for me, though takes some time to load
- "Others set club..." new para, lost the context, so "Other players set ...." at the least.
- "holds the records for the most goals scored in a season" records? not record then? The run-on is too much for my small brain to handle.
- tis 2 records: league goals scored in a season, and goals scored in all comps in a season. will try and clarify
- I thought you hated transfer fees.... I can find RS saying £6.7m Sky and £6m CNN easily. What makes your £6.5m "more right"? Just because that's what bcfc said? Maybe attribute the fee to bcfc and job done...
- I think what makes it "more right" than news reports from the day of the transfer is that the club ought to be more likely to know what they received than Sky or CNN, and (more importantly) that it's what they've published after the event as their club record, which is the fact we're citing. Whether it's right is another matter entirely... I'll attribute
- Attribution is ideal. As a shareholder at ITFC with annual accounts at my disposal, I see that the transfer fees aren't necessarily those advertised, even by the club website (which incidentally is appalling in ITFC's case....) .... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eight men in this range" again, we're four long-ish paras in, do we remember what "this range" really is?
- I do; didn't you? If we go with a brief lead and an introductory section, some of this stuff will disappear; if the reader is still keen enough to continue with the intro after reading the lead, I think we could expect them to have grasped what they're reading about
- I have a very short attention span, so apologies. I'd just perhaps reinforce what the "range" means unless the rewording you're intimating makes it obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "No player has ended his Birmingham career with 99 appearances." surely that needs an "as of...."
- Not sure: it says in the key that all stats are correct as of..., and IMO that applies to those in the lead as well?
- Not sure either. Ideally I shouldn't have to read all of the article to understand the currency of any fact in the lead...? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just found WP:YEAR in the MOS, it suggests you don't add the century the second time in a range. It may not be the case here for seasons but I thought I'd ask the question.....
- Just??? could have sworn you'd come across it before... My answer remains the same (c&p'd): The problem arises from using what looks like a year range to indicate years of first and last appearance. There's no logical argument for year of last appearance being less legible than year of first appearance, and without the century it would be. The alternative would be to have two columns, one for first app and one for last, but that'd get very messy with ... people with more than one spell at the club. I think I'd invoke the word "normally", as in "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits", to suggest this should be an exception to the norm.
- General question, about "utility" players. You have Mark Yates marked down as a "U" but his own Wikipedia page mentions nothing of the sort (not that it's reliable, of course) and it got me wondering where "utility" is defined for these players?
- General reference Matthews (2010), as for all playing positions for players up to that date (probably Soccerbase thereafter). will add somewhere appropriate
- Sounds like you have some work on your hands to update the individual player pages to make them consistent with the list..... (should you dare to accept such a mission.......!) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Positions in this list are those occupied by the player during his career with Birmingham, regardless of where they played elsewhere. Yates began at BCFC as a kid, and he played wherever they put him; in his later career, he settled as a midfielder. Any suggestion of adapting said mission to update each player with detailed analysis of the evolution of his role with his various teams will not be appreciated :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I probably won't be able to do much on this until after the weekend, unless it snows so much we don't even attempt to go to the football. If you find time to address the WP:LEAD/layout question before then, it'd be appreciated, but if you don't, I'll go with the introductory section idea and hope it's acceptable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, as ever. Have a safe weekend in the "snow". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Journey to Birmingham was fine; walking downhill away from the ground on icy pavements less so... Lead section is now MoS-compliant. I took the first few bullet-points out of the key and made them into a 2nd para, put a section heading above the rest of the prose, and tweaked some of the wording. Ref for playing positions now in general refs section. If I've missed anything, or if the prose is still unclear, I'm sure you'll tell me. Again, thanks for taking the time to review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|