Talk:List of Brisbane Roar FC players

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Brisbane Roar FC players. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304035802/http://stateofthegame.co.uk/2006/09/19/what-an-uproar-in-queensland/ to http://stateofthegame.co.uk/2006/09/19/what-an-uproar-in-queensland/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Spitting the players in appearances

I made an article: List of Brisbane Roar FC players (1–24 appearances) and now it's in a candidate for deletion. Why? I did the same thing with Adelaide United FC's player articles and there was nothing wrong with them. In fact, the Brisbane apps/goals pages have more citations than the AUFC player articles.

Additionally, there is nothing else to add. Those two citations in my List of Brisbane Roar FC players (1–24 appearances) created page represent the ENTIRE list. There's no specific citations to add to the page. I researched for about 10 minutes, and there was nothing. I reckon this page can stand and I can move on with the 25–99 and 100+ appearances pages.

If I can't find anything to help make this article stand, then maybe some of you guys could help me as well.

--FastCube (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)FastCube

It's not about completeness or citations. The only reason you would need to split is per WP:TOOBIG. In fact, I think there is a strong argument in favour of keeping this article as 1 list rather than making an arbitrary split by number of appearances in the middle unless really necessary.

Currently, the combined list is just under 50kb. Per WP:TOOBIG, this means it is almost at "may need to be divided" level. I'd strongly suggest waiting until this list is significantly larger as, for the reasons raised above, splitting is just a less informative way of dividing what is essentially a single list. We don't need to create another list for the sake of it. Macosal (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

But it IS a large list! It's double the size of the original page. I did the same thing with AUFC, and there's nothing wrong with it. What kind of sense does that make. Plus, the AUFC player articles had more citations than BRFC. FastCube. And yes, it is helpful. It's easier to find players when it's split. If it's all one list, there's gonna be like 600+ players on that list. It's too much! If I submit my draft once again, it's gonna be declined guaranteed! What's the point? But my real question is, what's the problem with splitting these. There's a lot of split articles for English, Spanish, Italian etc. etc. teams. Brisbane Roar is like 40 years old. Those lists can be split! --FastCube (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a reasonably large list. But as I say above, Wikipedia has guidelines for how large a page should be to be split, and this page does not meet those guidelines. We don't need to split the page into two, so why should we? It just seems aribtary and unhelpful. A lot of what you're saying is literally WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (including other stuff that you yourself have done...). And I put it to you that splitting this list would make it harder to find players. Take for example, Fahid Ben Khalfallah. Off the top of my head, I wouldn't know if he played 24+ games for the Roar or not. So now I would have to check 2 pages to find where he is? Or if I wanted to compare his stats against someone from the other page, I'd need to open both to do that? This just would be an arbitrary and unhelpful split that we shouldn't do until it is necessary under WP:TOOBIG. Macosal (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I know I gave up this discussion about 10 months ago, but I still disagree. If we add all players in the NSL days (as Brisbane Lions, 1977-1988), the page would essentially be more than 100 kB, so according to WP:TOOBIG, the article should definitely be divided. So to prove it, I would then add all NSL players and then split the article into three. --FastCube (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)FastCube

@FastCube: looking at it, I suppose I agree. My restraint was on the basis that Brisbane did not previously refer to themselves as the same club as the old NSL entity, however, from their website it appears that they do. I do think there is still a relevant question about whether the old Lions club truly is the same club as the Roar, but on the basis that they themselves claim to be, I guess I have no issue with you splitting to allow inclusion of NSL stats. Macosal (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But Brisbane Roar does have the same history as the NSL club Brisbane Lions. The club basically split into two teams: Brisbane Roar and Queensland Lions. --FastCube (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)FastCube