Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Diego Padres team records/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 15:39, 1 July 2011 [1].
List of San Diego Padres team records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Next team records article... probably get all of them to FL quality. Albacore (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Reworded.
Done.
Consistently width="60%", done. |
- "All statistics in this section are drawn from the following source.[29]" reads odd too. There is no following source. There's an inline citation.
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could just have: Source:[x] indented by one colon in front of each table? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the single-season and career records, Batting statistics;[4] pitching statistics.[5] would do. Albacore (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't like the original sentence. The multiple refs are fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Albacore (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"No Padre holds a Major League Baseball or National League record for any of the below statistics." Then two sentences later, we hear about how Hoffman is the all-time saves leader. If I were a person without much knowledge of baseball, this would be incredibly confusing to me. I understand why it's not indicated as such, since he played some for other teams. However, there does need to be some further explanation of why he's not an MLB record-holder as a Padre alone; maybe a note would be the best option.
- Note added. Albacore (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the first table, "Extra–base hits" should have a hyphen and not the dash. Same for On–base percentage.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.
I know that per WP:ACCESS, colored items need matching symbols. Along the same lines, wouldn't the items with symbols here need colors?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, per User:RexxS and this comment.
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that all applicable comments from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Seattle Mariners team records/archive1 have been applied to this article as well. Albacore (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does "[last update]" mean in the refs? Is that really necessary?--Cheetah (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes up automatically in the Cite4Wiki tool; it's probably not necessary but doesn't really hurt or violate anything. Albacore (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What if the webpage is updated in 2012, will it automatically update the date to 2012 to stay true to its words (last update)?--Cheetah (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, removed. Albacore (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What if the webpage is updated in 2012, will it automatically update the date to 2012 to stay true to its words (last update)?--Cheetah (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Cheetah (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
These are all things I probably should have seen and brought up in the Mariners' FLC, as re-reading that I see the same issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Would it be better to add the references in the Record column? Looks unprofessional as "source:[*]". Afro (Talk) 17:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Albacore (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've implemented where I think they'd be best suited, feel free to revert if you disagree. Afro (Talk) 18:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undone, I don't see how Source[1] doesn't look professional. Albacore (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well to me it'd be different if it was the information was derived from said source (like I've seen in many articles), but since its just Source and citation italicized it seems so out of place. Afro (Talk) 21:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undone, I don't see how Source[1] doesn't look professional. Albacore (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've implemented where I think they'd be best suited, feel free to revert if you disagree. Afro (Talk) 18:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ fake ref