Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples/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 The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [1].
List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples[edit]
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because, after improving the appearance and the references, it meets the criteria. --Coemgenus 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
|
- Support Staxringold talkcontribs 15:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold
|
---|
|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
(outdent)
(outdent) After searching Baseball-Reference and Retrosheet, it's pretty impossible to find when the players hit 100 3Bs. I think the best way of finding them is by searching news sources like NY Times, LA Times, Boston Herald, etc., but that will be too bothersome, so no bother wasting a load of time in one column. Would be nice if you could somehow add additional columns onto the table, since it looks very thin. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Now how about adding the year in which they got the 100th? I would volunteer to insert it if you would like. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Nice job on the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Forgot one comment that I wanted to give above: there should be a note for the year links that says they link to MLB season articles. Without one, readers may think that the links are for articles on years, which aren't of much use. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments nice, I learned some stuff from this list which is a good start! I know nada about baseball so forgive my probably stupid comments...
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_trip1.shtml a reliable source? If I have commented on this in an FLC before, please call me out on it.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I don't know how to address that. Is there something that makes you think it's unreliable? WP:RS doesn't raise any red flags for me as applied to this website -- it's the same data I could've gotten from baseball-reference.com, but it's arranged better for the purpose for which I cited it. --Coemgenus 04:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This did come up in an FLC I was involved in, but never got resolved one way or the other since I was able to easily replace the reference. This one is a bit trickier, since the first few pages of a Google search I tried didn't yield anything as direct as Baseball Almanac. Maybe it would be worth posting to the Reliable Source noticeboard, since Baseball Almanac does sometimes have useful information. My own view (when I originally used a B-A source in an FLC) was colored by the Baseball Almanac that was published annually in book form through at least the mid-60s. But I am not sure the on line site has any connection with that book, so I am not sure myself whether it meets RS guidelines (although I have never noticed any significant accuracy issues).
- That said, I am not sure that should stand in the way of this particular item. Although it may border on synthesis, I believe that simple arithmetic, counting and table look ups are allowed under WP:V and WP:SYNTH, and Baseball-Reference's Sam Crawford page clearly shows his AL/NL split. Since I don't think anyone disputes that Cobb and Wagner spent their entire careers in the AL and NL respectively, it is pretty clear from the Baseball-Reference Triple Leaders page that they lead their respective league in all-time triples. So maybe include the B-R Crawford and Triple pages in addition to the B-A reference to demonstrate that even if B-A is not an RS in general, the relevant information in the concise table is reliable.Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list already has 174 citations. I'm reluctant to add anymore without a good reason. Is there any reason to believe the information on Baseball-Almanac.com is inaccurate? Coemgenus 15:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to address that. Is there something that makes you think it's unreliable? WP:RS doesn't raise any red flags for me as applied to this website -- it's the same data I could've gotten from baseball-reference.com, but it's arranged better for the purpose for which I cited it. --Coemgenus 04:07, 17 October 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.