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 Dabomb87 22:42, 28 February 2011 [1].

List of New York Cosmos all-stars[edit]

List of New York Cosmos all-stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, clear and simple. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • NASL all-star years should be changed to NASL all-star appearances. The Abbreviations in the key aren't needed as you explain NASL in the lead, also you don't need MVP as its probably better to abbreviate this in the lead when mentioned. Afro (Talk) 12:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to make the suggestion you use the country name for the Nationality rather than the name for the ethnic group. Afro (Talk) 17:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already had this below. I really don't see what having the name of the country rather than the denonym adds; it is perfectly possible to access the country by clicking the flag if you don't know that "West German" means, for example. On the other hand, having "English" rather than "England" just looks more tidy to me. I'd agree if we were going to link to national teams (Have "United States" link to the US national team and so forth). I don't see how this is ethnic groups though; it is nationalities, surely? I'll use myself as an example: By citizenship, I am defined as "British", but I do not take this as any ethnic indicator. By the same token, I don't quite see how Werner Roth (for example) being described as "American" disqualifies him from being of a Yugoslavian background. This is all just my opinion, of course. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • -cough-Ethnic group-cough- Anyway I think MOS:FLAG applies specifically "Accompany flags with country names", though lower on the MOS it does state "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." although I'm not entirely sure the latter applies. Afro (Talk) 20:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's made clear in the text what the flags and nations given refer to, I don't see how any confusion can arise from the status quo. On the subject of "ethnic group", read Google's definitions back to yourself. From those definitions, you could define Britishers, Australians, Rhodesians, New Zealanders, white South Africans, Canadians and even Americans as the same. I don't think it means the same thing as "nationality", and the link you've given actually strengthens my point. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no interest in getting in a what defines an ethnic group debate when it has nothing to do with the nomination. I don't see how it strengthens your point "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags" is there a country on Earth called English or Bermudan? Afro (Talk) 21:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eh, what difference does it really make? Okay then. I've changed it now. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - I have no problems with the list and it appears to meet current FL standards. Afro (Talk) 04:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Comments I would rewrite the nationalities to, simply, the name of the country in the "Nationality" column and rewrite the column header to "Country", as it can confuse the reader, like me, if you mean with it, that the players played for that football club (players with mulit-nationalities for example), or something else. I looked at other FL at the Football WikiProject; an I found for example this list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • I think you need to go further and rename the list per Harrias above. This isn't a list of players, this is precisely the list of all-star players. And if so, the lead needs a re-work because you should be explaining the inclusion criteria early on before starting to talk about the list members.
  • "by the formidable financial " - formidable is a little POV.
  • "The side declined..." what does this really mean? The success declined? The results declined? Can you be specific?
  • "erstwhile" is that a quote? or is it your POV?
  • Are you deliberately sorting Ozdenak by his first name? Otherwise the Ö of his surname is upsetting your surname sort.
  • Daily Telegraph is actually The Daily Telegraph.
  • Ok, with respect to Ozdenak, footnote B needs reference.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a list of all-star players because that is the only criteria I could find for judging whether a player was "notable". I remember it used to be done judging by number of appearances, but that is somewhat unencyclopedic as a player could make fewer than that arbitrary number and still be notable; more to the point, any number decided on as the number needed for inclusion would surely be original research (who decides what number would be notable and what wouldn't be?). I therefore went for all-star inclusion as what was required for this, as it denotes both that the player performed well and that he was recognised as having done so. Can you think of any other ways to do this?
"Erstwhile" just means "former", doesn't it..?
The rest is done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still think the list needs moving to "all-stars", and while "erstwhile" does mean former, it's a little archaic. Not over-stressed about the latter so feel free to leave it! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, are you happy with "List of New York Cosmos all-stars"? "Erstwhile" was just my attempt to avoid using "former" twice in a sentence, by the way... I didn't mean to get into some sort of argument over it. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy with the suggested list name, yes. Avoiding repetition is essential for me (as most of my FLC reviews will testify to) so I do appreciate that. I think the issue I had was that every time I've ever mentioned "erstwhile", it's always been "my erstwhile colleague" which probably should have been "my esteemed colleague" or similar. No arguments, no stress! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, should be sorted now. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments –

Okay, all done. Cheers Giants – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 01:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Comments
I'm somewhat concerned, and almost tempted to oppose, on grounds that this is a content fork of a list that ought to exist and doesn't of yet, the complete list of Cosmos players.
"unprecedented crowds for American club soccer" Source, explanation?
"Former Italy forward Giorgio Chinaglia holds many of the side's records pertaining to individual performance, appearing in the most matches, scoring the most goals and points," Sources?
Section/page for ref 4.

Courcelles 05:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Response
This was originally meant to be the list of notable Cosmos players, judged for inclusion by the awards, but has become "all-stars". I'll get working on the complete list soon.
Okay, all done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't anyone who played for the Cosmos notable under WP:ATHLETE? Courcelles 22:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, perhaps "notable" isn't the right word. On the English player lists I've worked on, we used to narrow it down by number of appearances, record holders and so forth; the reason being that otherwise the list would simply be too long. In any case, a complete list is on its way, and that shouldn't affect this one. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Comments from Harrias talk

Glad to see that the name issue has been resolved. A minor point about a list that looks in pretty good shape:

Otherwise I'm reasonably happy with the list. Harrias talk 13:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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