Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 15:34, 7 November 2009 [1].

Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award[edit]

Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I was sitting on this nomination for a little while given the FLC nomination freeze, but Dabomb has now lifted that (hence my starting this up while 30 Rock (season 3) is still going). Yes it is a short list with only 10 award winners so far, but IMO it meets all the criteria including comprehensiveness. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Toolbox comments from KV5
  • 2 dablinks: Aaron Hill and Depression.
  • ELs all fine.
  • I won't comment much on the quality of the alt text, but it's there; someone who knows better can check it out.

Will return with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comment - Could explain more about the voting process. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reply would be much appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, sorry about that. I'm not sure what else to expand on. The candidates are named and a fan vote names the winner. What would you like added? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this MLB source, it says that "The 30 Club beat reporters from MLB.com, [and] the official website of Major League Baseball" are the voters, not the fans. Also on this other MLB source, from looking at the voting numbers, it appears that 1st place votes are 5 points, 2nd place is 3 points, and 3rd place is one. Huh! To reply to the message you left on my talk page, it's okay, as long as the matter will be resolved. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, weird, it was definitely a fan vote originally. I'll fix that section up. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There we go, fixed. I really do apologize. As far as I can tell the 05 and 06 awards were clearly fan vote and the 08 and 09 awards clearly with this voting structure. The 07 awards are the only unclear one currently, as the two comeback winner articles focus more on the Players' Choice Award than this. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woot, found the source. 05-06 was fan vote, 07-current is the beat reporter vote. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably comment again tomorrow (no school tomorrow!). Thanks for fixing up the voting section! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • The quote in the first sentence is crying out for a cite.
  • For the first entry in the table, link the word batting to batting average for the benefit of non-baseball fans.
  • Carlos Pena: "and was released on August 16th, 2006." Drop "th" in the date.
  • "and won the Rays first Silver Slugger Award." Apostrophe needed at end of Rays.
  • Cliff Lee: "going 22–3 with a 2.54 ERA and won the Cy Young Award." In this sentence structure, "won" should be "winning" instead.
  • Nomar Garciaparra: Another th to remove in August 5th.
  • Chris Carpenter: Dash needed for won–loss record.
  • The National League table sorting for name is sorting by first name, not the usual last name. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images: Licensing looks fine and alt text is provided. Goodraise 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: Sources are formated properly and seem to be reliable. Goodraise 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
  • What is a "shortstop"?
  • What is "fielding"?
  • We have no article on it. If this was a serious question, not just a request for a link, it's the act of a defensive player (fielder) going after a ball to try and get an out. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't a "serious question" or a request for a link. It's an accessibility issue of the article. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well what else can I do? I'll link to this article, but you can only link to so many things. Yes, it would be useful to know what "fielding" is when reading about baseball. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "fly ball"?
  • "hitting ... 108 runs batted in" - This seems grammatically incorrect.
  • "and made the 2009 All-Star Game" - Does that mean he played in it?
  • "He also underwent major hamstring surgery in August 2004 having torn it from the bone, appearing in 83 games in the 2004 season." - This sentence appears to try to say too much. I don't understand it.

More later. Goodraise 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "pleading guilty to assaulting his girlfriend." - Does that mean he was on trial?
  • As the NYT article says "[he] pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend by choking, bruising and scratching her and tearing out clumps of her hair." Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was elected to the 2007 All-Star Game" - That means he played in it, right?
  • "converted 41 saves in 41 chances" - What does that mean?
  • "First place votes are worth five points, second ..." - This is too abrupt a change in the line of thought from the previous sentence.
  • "Six players were elected to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game" - They were elected to play in it, right?
  • This goes to your other two posts as well. GENERALLY you play in the ASG when elected. I'm not sure, but I believe all these elected All Stars played, yes. But the sourcing I provide is simply to the ELECTION to the ASG, because that is what indicates some level of performance (being elected president shows your popularity, even if you are shot the day before election day and never actually serve as president). Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This goes for the other two cases as well. I don't have an issue with what you say, but how. They were't elected to a baseball game, they were elected to play in a baseball game. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but no, they were elected to the game. There is absolutely no guarantee, other than for the starters (and even they can get injured and replaced) that you will play in the All-Star game. Your election just gets you there, it's the game managers who get you in. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're talking past each other here. "Six players were elected to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game" makes no sense. They don't become the game, they only play in it. This has nothing to do with whether they actually get to play. Goodraise 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's what I'm saying. They aren't necessarily elected to play. They are elected to the game. The same way you are elected to the presidency, but whether or not you actually serve depends on your surviving to inauguration day. I assume the sentence you'd rather see is "Six players were elected to play in the Major League Baseball..." but that would simply be an overgeneralization. Albert Pujols didn't play in the 07 All-Star Game, he's the best player in baseball, and his own team's manager was the NL ASG manager. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are elected to the game." What does that mean? Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are on the roster, available to the in-game managers, and will forever be known as a 19XX/2XXX All-Star. Again, Albert Pujols was named an All-Star in 2007 but did not play one single inning offensively or defensively. The honor is in the title, the playing is a whole other thing. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. That needs to be clarified to the reader. Goodraise 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to sound sarcastic or anything, but should I define baseball as well? This simply isn't confusing as a reader. Six players were elected as All-Stars. Period. That is a fact. If you want to get into the eccentric details of the All-Star game that belongs at those articles, not here. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you write the sentence "Six players were elected as All-Stars." into the article, then you have to explain what an All-Star is or at the very least link it. Anyone familiar with baseball may know what an All-Star is, but our articles shouldn't assume that much knowledge on the part of the reader. Goodraise 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With this, we're back at square one. A person can't be named or elected to a game. It doesn't make sense. They aren't baseball games, they're baseball players. Goodraise 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Yes they can be... "Named to the All-Star Game" returns 5.8 million hits on Google. I can change it to "Named to the All-Star team" if you want, but you absolutely can be named to a game, just like being named to a committee even if you aren't a committee yourself. There's a "to" in there, it's not saying they are named an All-Star Game, it's that they are named to it. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never doubted that, among baseball savvy people, it is common to say so, but to me, as someone who isn't, the phrase sounds plain wrong. As for your suggestion, that would be acceptable, as long as "All-Star team" is explained and/or linked. Goodraise 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carpenter (NL) and Hill (AL)." - Could you convert this construct to prose?
  • Why are the positions given in acronyms?
  • This is a common practice on all the baseball lists to keep the tables uniform sized without wasted space. The alternative is a "key" for the acronyms with the links at the top, but it's larger, messier, and for a table this size a key looks rather silly. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in violation of the MOS. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? And I quote directly from WP:MOS#Acronyms and Abbreviations: "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data." That's precisely what is being done here and being done in dozens of other articles. Like I said, I can add a key if you want but it seems very odd. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS says to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", which the article doesn't. I'd also like to stress the may in your quote. Using acronyms for width reduction is not warranted in this case. Goodraise 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went ahead and did it. I understand, as you said in the Family Guy season 5 FLC, "The name of this page isn't Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/every Featured List in the Simpsons series/archive1," but at some point it becomes silly. Plenty of lists have used this abbreviation style. 00:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Following the MOS is silly? I beg to differ. Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS explicitly says the way it was was fine. I changed it to make you happy, but I quoted direct policy from the MOS page that speaks to this issue going to other way. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MOS explicitly says the way it was was fine." I assume you mean the passage "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data"? This does not mean that you don't have to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence" nor does it mean that it's generally fine to use abbreviations in tables. Goodraise 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the MOS directly stating it may be useful to abbreviate in tables doesn't mean one can? Whatever, it's been changed. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's right. The law may state that it's sometimes fine to shoot people, that doesn't mean I can run around doing it. If the MOS states that "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data", then that means that "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data", nothing less and nothing more. Goodraise 02:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this is the stated situation (in your example a case of self-defense where you can shoot someone), it reduces the width of a table of data. What is a situation where you see such abbreviations as acceptable? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, lets assume for a second that it was the stated situation, then the sentence "it may be useful for reducing the width of an infobox or a table of data" still doesn't free you of the need to "[w]rite out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence", which could happen in the prose preceeding the table. It is only an exception from the general rule not to use abbreviations when they aren't necessary. Goodraise 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Goodraise 12:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I've stricken my oppose. Will give a new recommendation once I get the chance go over the article again. (I'm a bit busy right now.) Goodraise 23:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose for now. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more comment: The position columns currently differ in width. Goodraise 01:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, for some reason it decided to copy my early guess of 14% rather than the 9% I set for the final size. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my pleasure to support this nomination. Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "most overall points" - "most points overall"?
  • What do they actually win?
  • Prize money and trophies are not mentioned in any of the press releases. I doubt there's any real "prize" (that's not common with baseball awards), and as for a trophy if there is one I can't find any sourceable info on it (even in the official MLB press releases on the award). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six players were elected to the..." do you mean six winners of this award were elected... because "in their winning season" could mean something very different...
  • "an intestinal parasite" - just the one? Perhaps "an intestinal parasite infection"?
  • "in just 80 games" to non-baseball players that's a lot of games. Perhaps you could lose the only and add a "out of a possible x games" instead to give us all the context? Apply this to other instances of the "just x games"...
  • "was traded to the White Sox" by whom?
  • First instance of Tigers, spell out Detroit Tigers (once again, for us knuckle-head no-knowledge types) - once again, apply this to other instances of just the nicknames...
  • The software engineer in me is screaming out about the two-digit year format you have in your references.. any chance you'd change them to include the century? Just for me?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note MM-DD-YYYY is not a format used on Wikipedia; please use YYYY-MM-DD or a format with the month spelled out. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:CITE#HOW: "There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent." Staxringold talkcontribs 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DATE#Dates: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose." I find absolutely no policy that says what you are saying. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That citation style note doesn't really apply here, except for consistency. I was referring to the references, which are not prose. "11-01-2009" is a prime example of why we don't use these formats (is it November 1 or 11 January?), because they are ambiguous.
    • Also, see "Do not use date formats such as 03/04/2005, as they are ambiguous (it could refer to 3 April or to March 4)." This applies here, as MM-DD-YYYY is the same as MM/DD/YYYY (or DD/MM/YYYY), but with hyphens instead of slashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Why no ref in the second paragraph?
  • For all these baseball lists, information that in the lead simply summing up what's said in the table generally isn't ref'd. I'll find one for the Carpenter 04 Comeback win, though.
  • Why no lead image?
  • What would it be? I know of no trophy (and certainly no trophy image) and all the winners are listed below. If someone had an image of one of the players clearly pre-Comeback (like when sent down to a minor league team or walking off the field injured or something) that might be useful, but beyond that dunno what to use. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do the ESPN refs say "ESPN" twice in a row?
  • "Major League Baseball" and "ESPN" only need to be linked once in the refs.
That doesn't mean it's right. BUC (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't but why not err on the side of slightly overlinking so someone browsing the site can easily check up on the refs rather than underlink and cut into that simplicity? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no right way, as long as it's consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this list is long enough to be a FL. But if it has gotten this far in prob is.
  • "and won the Rays' first" weren't they still the Devil Rays back then?

BTW "sponsorship agreement between MLB and Viagra" lol is that because the winners are generally old! BUC (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Major_League_Baseball_Comeback_Player_of_the_Year_Award/archive1&oldid=1207833517"