Discussion History Main / FangThpeak

Idk, I like the players list as an informal index for further reading (and there\\\'s something intangible that I find mentally satisfying about it). My ambivalence is on splitting it. The \\\"current\\\" section makes some sense, but there are only a few teams that it would even apply to, and those would move only one or two names.

I don\\\'t want to get rid of the year established section, just the \\\"oldest/youngest\\\" ranking, which seems to be pretty self-explanatory.

Idk, I like the players list as an informal index for further reading (and there\\\'s something intangible that I find mentally satisfying about it). I think the \\\"current\\\" split makes some sense, but there are only a few teams that it would even apply to, and those would move only one or two names.

I don\\\'t want to get rid of the year established section, just the \\\"oldest/youngest\\\" ranking, which seems to be pretty self-explanatory.

Idk, I like the players list as an informal index for further reading (and there\\\'s something intangible that I find mentally satisfying about it). I think the \\\"current\\\" split makes some sense, but there are only a few teams that it would even apply to, and those would move one or two names.

I don\\\'t want to get rid of the year established section, just the \\\"oldest/youngest\\\" ranking, which seems to be pretty self-explanatory.