Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award/archive1
- 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].
- 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 |
---|
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]
|
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 –
|
Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no major issues that I see. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 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)
More later. Goodraise 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. Goodraise 23:32, 1 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
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]
- How is YYYY-MM-DD any less ambiguous on those dates than MM-DD-YYYY. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, I changed the style. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 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?
- They don't, one is the work and one is the publisher. This is Goodraise's work. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major League Baseball" and "ESPN" only need to be linked once in the refs.
- This is how I've done up several baseball lists before it. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- WP:FL? criteria 3 (Comprehensiveness) requires only that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" (which it does) and "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists" (which it does). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers or List of Tampa Bay Rays seasons. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and won the Rays' first" weren't they still the Devil Rays back then?
- Right you are, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
- I think it's partially a play on the term "comeback". Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 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.