Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H)/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 Giants2008 18:14, 17 May 2011 [1].

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H) edit

Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H)/archive1

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next Phillies roster list, following after the promotion of "G". Comments addressed as always. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I know it's my fault this exists in the first place, but could we change "team[H])" to "team)[H]"?

I wouldn't, just because the "H" note only applies to what's in the parens, not the whole line including what's outside the parens. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, looks funky inside the paren. Can we arm-wrestle over this? I'm sure our readers can handle the one-character displacement, and aesthetically it's waaay superior... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's in the key, at least I don't have to change all the lists. I tried a compromise. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but when you say "also a major league record", I'm not sure you've linked to mlb beforehand (or a similarly relevant link).

MLB is linked in the first sentence. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just wondered if it was therefore supposed to be Major League rather than major league (I know there have been discussions over other "major leagues")... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood... when we use "major league" as an adjective it's traditionally uncapped. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend you directly cite Bob Hall's 30% in the caption. As a non-expert I can't see it, even if it's in the baseball-reference.com link. Sorry!

It is in the B-Ref link, but some "routine calculations" as outlined by WP:NOTOR are required. If you'd prefer I duplicate the link, I will. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that, but also (even if it's just for my benefit) how you use the baseball-ref page to calculate that? I am a baseball newbie so it would be instructive for you to help me interpret that page! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I arrive at that is simply an average. If you look at Hall's statistics page, the "Standard Fielding" table shows the number of games played per position. Using only the Philadelphia games, I take an average of the games played for each position shown. In this case, it's 20 at 3B, 15 at SS, and 11 at 1B. 46 total games = 43% at third base, 32% at short, and 24% at first. Hope that helps. — KV5 • Talk • 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallahan's caption ditto. And perhaps go for "in a single season" rather than that awkward "in 1 season" (MOSNUM trauma for me).

I'll change the wording in Hallahan, but the cite easily covers the 22 strikeouts - not sure how it's unseen. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was the "1 season" I had the biggest problem with... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pitcher Earl Hamilton lost his only decision with Philadelphia." this is quite mystifying to a baseball newbie. Any chance you could make that clearer to a dunce like me?

Would a link to the article on the decision work? I was trying not to be repetitive - "X won Y games, Z won A games", etc. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. To the rest of the non-baseballing world "los[ing] his decision" can mean a world of things. Again, it's down to me reviewing it as a newbie. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — KV5 • Talk •

Hansen caption has typo.

Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 27 needs an en-dash.

Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support job done again, good stuff! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 21:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support plus a couple of questions
- Why don't you write 2010-present for active players instead of 2010-2011? When I see 2011, I first assume that he's done with the Phillies in 2011. On second thought only, I start checking what the italics are for. Maybe since in NBA-related articles, we write present, that's why I assume this.
  - "Present" would imply that the player is on the roster. Not all players who have made a 2011 appearance are on the roster; hence, the use of 2011 instead of present. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, since you're using 2011 and not present, it means that Roy Hallaway, for example, made an appearance in the 2011 season, but is not currently on the roster?--Cheetah (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, if you're talking about Roy Halladay. The "2011" indicates that he has appeared for the Phillies in 2011, and the blue text and italics indicate that he is currently on the roster. — KV5 • Talk • 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's the problem I see. The "2011" indicates that he played his last game for the Phillies and is not on the roster anymore. THEN I see the blue background and italics and get confused because I see a contradiction. As a wikipedian, I am used to seeing the word "present" for the players who are actively playing for their teams.--Cheetah (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, for one, not all Wikipedia sports articles are alike. For two, there is no contradiction because 2011 does not indicate the last game; it doesn't say that anywhere (and in any case, the last game may have been the game that the team last played, so it's still correct). Lastly, "present" requires constant updating; if a player makes his first 2011 appearance, then it can stay the same for the entire year and this is more stable than changing back and forth all the time. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not only in sports-related articles, it's also in biographical articles that in year ranges first year means the beginning and the second year means the ending. By your logic, we should write in the Roy Halladay article 1977-2011 because he's breathing in 2011.--Cheetah (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, by my logic, his infobox should read "2010-2011", with which there would be no problem. You've falsified my argument by implying that it should apply to birth and death dates, which I never said and disagree with. — KV5 • Talk • 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not implying anything, I am stating that universally whenever there is a year range like "2010-2011" or "1888-1999", the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end. That's it.--Cheetah (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There are exceptions to every rule, so "universally" is misleading. And even so, if "the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end", 2011 currently is the end because this is the last year the players have currently played for the team. I'm not going to be changing to present because of the horrible complications it creates during the offseason. — KV5 • Talk • 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For pitcher statistics, you have "record, earned run average, strikeouts". For two pitchers, you have "earned run average, walks, innings pitched". What I'm asking is why not write "innings pitched, earned run average, walks" for those two pitchers. Innings pitched implies that those two pitchers lack a win-loss record; walks imply lack of strikeouts. This way, the order is maintained. I know it's a huge nitpicking on my part, but I believe it would be neater.

--Cheetah (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I really don't think that distinction is big enough to worry about, especially since it means going back to pick apart all the previously promoted lists and then adding yet another thing to check before future FLCs. The order of the statistics isn't really that important, as long as it gets the message across. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets standards. Courcelles 15:11, 8 May 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.