Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/30–30 club/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 Giants2008 17:11, 4 September 2012 [1].

30–30 club

[edit]

30–30 club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past year and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments:
  • All photos need alternate text
  • Alt text should have something more descriptive than "footnote". For example for the dagger for Hall of Fame the alt text would say "Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame". Albacore (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 5 needs the publisher.

Albacore (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Zepppep (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 17:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments:

All my comments have to deal with the lead, save for the last comment. 1) The lead has numbers, such as 25, then "twelve." Be consistent. 2) A little too much detail for the HOF eligibility, IMO. Also, it's stated 13 of the current club members are "disqualified" for the Hall for the current time being; is disqualified the same as "ineligible" because I think the latter is what should be used. 3) The first sentence of the doesn't seem to be particularly controversial, yet it has 3 references. 4) I just got done reading a full sentence's worth of HOF eligibility requirements (last paragraph), yet I have to have it explained to me when Sosa and Bonds will be eligible? I think the reader would be able to figure it out on their own. 5) Perhaps too much weight given to the club and a player's HOF chances? I think "two of whom made it on the first ballot" is giving way too much credit to this feat and a players HOF enshrinement. There are a number of factors, some even off the field, that go into a player's induction; again, too much weight given to this one club IMO. 6) The lead lists the number of players who accomplished the feat in 2011, yet the caption of the Kinsler picture states he is the "latest." I would make the caption even more specific, stating "the latest of the five players to reach the club during the 2011 season." Zepppep (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) The "unwritten rule" for numbers is this (at least IMHO): if it needs a hyphen when written out in words, then it should be written numerically instead. Otherwise, use words. In this case, twelve can be written out without a hyphen, whereas twenty-five cannot. Hence, the variation, which also featured in the recently passed FL 50 home run club, with the "26 players" and "nine" variation.
  • (2) HOF eligibility is always included in every career stat club list, whether single-season or career (but mainly for the latter). Also, utilizing "ineligible" instead of "disqualifying" would not be appropriate, as this has a completely different meaning in the context of baseball (think of MLB's list of "permanently ineligible"). "Disqualifying" here means that the players aren't qualified yet, but soon will be. Ineligible makes it sound like the players have been banned from baseball (at least temporarily), which clearly isn't the case.
  • (3) The three refs here are used to highlight the notability of the term's usage (as per FL 50 home run club, which only a year before was nominated for deletion). However, as a compromise, I've deleted one of the references (book source that isn't too related to baseball).  Done
  • (6)  Done
  • That's all I have time for now. I'll address the other points later. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the numbers in the second paragraph of the lead section, note the following from Wikipedia's Manual of Style regarding numerals: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words... However there are frequent exceptions to these rules. ... Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Since the first two sentences in the second paragraph are comparing numbers of players, it would be appropriate to use numerals for the numbers. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "He remained only player..." missing a word between remained and only
  • "Of the 18 players club members..." bit confused here never heard of players club members before, not sure if this is a mistake or my being English not understanding the term, either way, think it needs clarifying what is meant

NapHit (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "became the club's fourth member " well, he became the third different member. I have to confess I find the idea of joining a club a number times to be odd, surely once he's in the club, he's in the club?
  • Bobby Bonds actually is the club's fourth different member. Ken Williams (1922), Willie Mays (1956 & '57) and Hank Aaron (1963) all came before the elder Bonds first joined in 1969. And yes, once you're in the club, you're forever in the club. From then on, you can only repeat, not rejoin. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "12 have done so more than once. Of these, "... the "of these" now relates to the 12, not the 37, so reinforce the 37.
  • "power and speed" is repeated in a single sentence, not ideal.
  • "in every season except for two[a] from 1987 to 2012, there has been at least one 30–30 member each year.[4]" not sure you need both "in every season" and "each year".
  • "Carlos Beltran" has a diacritic.
  • As does Jose Cruz Jr.
  • Refs 2, 4, 10, 11 need en-dashes in the title.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • When sorting in ascending order for HR, I would expect it to sort secondarily by the SB.
  • I'm still completely confused about the nts template. Anyways, pressing the primary key (i.e. HR column) first, then holding the shift key for the secondary one (SB column) actually works for me, even with the symbols (the ^, am I right?). It sorts Alex Rodriguez first (who has 42 HR + 46 SB) before Canseco and Bonds (who both have 42 HR + 40 SB each). The caret symbol doesn't seem to affect the table. I'm not sure about others, but it's working for me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clicking on the secondary key first then the primary key should also work. I believe all you need to do to use the nts template is to replace each number with {{nts|number}}. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the addition of the nts template absolutely necessary? Adding the template complicates matters a whole lot further and the current format of primary key –> shift+secondary key works perfectly. My theory is that only when the current format doesn't work should the nts template be added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what is generally expected in a featured article/list; however, I can see how the original commenter might feel that the ability to sort by clicking on the secondary key then the primary key may be important to preserve, given that some people may rely on this and not know about using the shift key. It is after all supposed to be an example of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer. isaacl (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Placed nts template around every HR and SB number. However, it doesn't seem to be sorting properly, as it is placing players who have fewer stolen bases but the same number of home runs ahead of players with more stolen bases. Could one of you guys advise me on how to fix this problem? —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering now if you need to use a hidden sort key, like we do on many cricket lists where, say, hitting 100 runs off 40 balls is better than hitting 100 runs off 41 balls. I know this is all a bit of drag, if you and the other editors here don't think it applies to baseball lists, then I'll defer to you, but if you look at one of the recently promoted cricket "List of centuries..." lists then you'll see how they sort stuff invisibly... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nts template should be good enough, as I understand it, since all that is needed is to mark up the value in a way that extra trailing text won't affect the sorting. isaacl (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's the double click that I haven't ever used before... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to work for me: I clicked twice on the "SB" heading to sort in descending order, then clicked twice on "HR" to sort it in descending order, and players with the same number of home runs are ordered in descending order of stolen bases. isaacl (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem. Because even without the nts template, you would still have to click the SB first before the HR (basically, it's sorting exactly the same way as it would have without the template). What TRM wants here (if I'm not mistaken) is for one to click on the HR list and have it automatically break ties based on greater # of stolen bases. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, exactly that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. Though it can be done with a hidden sort key, personally I wouldn't recommend it, because it would make the table sort in a non-standard way, and so would confuse those who expect to be able to control the primary and secondary keys themselves. (I appreciate that those who know how to control the sort keys may be less than a majority of readers; it is a tradeoff in assisting with making Wikipedia easier to use from an overall perspective through a common interface versus trying to satisfy a specific local need. Unlike the cricket case, the desired sorting can be achieved by picking the right columns to sort.) isaacl (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we can agree that the NTS template does nothing for the table and that we shouldn't use the hidden sort key, can we just leave this table alone and consider this comment resolved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nts template ensures that sorting will work correctly even with the trailing symbols on the numbers, and so I would recommend keeping its use. Regarding the original comment, since The Rambling Man agreed to defer judgment to other editors, personally I think it can be considered resolved. isaacl (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure sorting in a "non-standard way" is a bad thing here. When the secondary sort is just seemingly random, it's unhelpful. For sports (like cricket) where there's a clearly defined secondary sort (and once again, that may not be the case for baseball, but hey...) we should use the tools available to us to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sorting is a "stable sort", meaning that the original table row order is preserved where there are ties in the chosen primary sort key, and so the order is not random. In this case, it means the original chronological ordering is preserved. Adding a hidden sort key to the home run column, for example, that combined home runs and stolen bases would break the stable sorting, and prevent the user from choosing certain combinations of sort keys. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But this "stable sorting" is unhelpful in many cases. I appreciate you telling me how it does sort though, a mystery solved. What combination of sort key would it prevent that would actually be useful? I'm thinking of the reader here, not a scientific approach to tables... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the hidden combined key is added to the home run column, sorting using home runs as a primary key and any column other than stolen bases as a secondary key would not work. For example, sorting by home runs and then by year would not work. Also, it would not be possible to sort by home runs as the primary key in one direction and by stolen bases in the other, such as in descending order by home runs and ascending order by stolen bases as a secondary key.
Stable sorting is what allows someone to sort the table with any number of sort keys, by sorting the table sequentially from the least-significant key to the most-significant one. It's a common technique used by users of, for example, spreadsheets. (Using the shift-click technique is probably more convenient for readers, since they can click on the column headings starting with the most-significant key downwards, but with the current interface, it isn't very discoverable.) isaacl (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(A clarifying note: when I said stable sorting preserves the original table row order, I meant the order before the sort, and not the original order when the page was first loaded. So when a table is first sorted by the secondary sort key and then the primary one, ties for the primary sort key are resolved by the secondary sort key, due to the stable sorting.) isaacl (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. How many general readers know about "shift clicking"? Virtually none of them I'd suggest. I think for certain tables it's much more convenient for our reader to force the sorting. What about Olympic medal tables which should always sort by golds, then silvers, then bronzes, when sorting by each type of medal? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I said, using shift-click isn't very discoverable. The standard technique of sorting by the least-significant key first, and so forth up to sorting by the most-significant key last remains available. Editors do force sorting by organizing the original table in the order deemed most useful (I won't go into details on the medal table sorting here, since it is off-topic). Making a column with one value actually be a combination of two columns for sorting purposes takes away the ability of readers to choose their own sort order. If only one order is ever desirable, then the ability to sort can be removed entirely. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on two grounds. One, I may wish to sort by surname and by "best performance" where "best performance" is defined by most homers then most stolen bases, or most stolen bases then most homers. So removing sorting is inadequate. Secondly, I don't think Olympic medal tables are off-topic. They have a "traditional" sort mechanism, which doesn't follow the "stable" sorting you describe, yet they're just dandy. There's no good reason why other lists with such "traditional" sorting should be denied helpful and intuitive sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it's important to give readers the ability to define their own sort keys. I believe the article should not pre-determine that they must always sort based on a combination of home runs + stolen bases, though. If readers want to sort the table by home runs, then surnames, then stolen bases, they would not be able to do so with the home run column actually sorting based on a combination value of home runs + stolen bases. Or if readers want to see who has the most power while being slow on the base paths, they would want to be able to sort in descending order of home runs and ascending order of stolen bases. I apologize if I've failed to explain the term "stable sort" adequately: it is not a sorting order and so does not relate to the concept of sorting by a pre-determined combination of values. It just means that when you choose a new sort key, ties are not broken randomly, but are based on the current order. You need this to be able to support sorting on surname then another column, as in your example, whether or not the other column has a hidden sort key value.
Regarding Olympic medal tables, I'm not sure that when sorting by silvers, all readers want ties for silvers to be broken by golds, then bronzes. (To be honest, I'm not sure who would sort by silvers anyway.) Nonetheless, it is possible for readers to sort an Olympic medal table using any set of primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. keys. To sort by silvers, golds, and bronzes, for example, the reader first clicks on the bronze heading, then the gold heading, then the silver heading. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there probably is a solution to my issue, just one that needs proper explanation to all readers. Currently the Mediawiki software is clearly not mature enough to achieve what we need without intricate coding. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where the desired sorting is based strictly on the existing columns, and not on calculated values (such as a percentage based on two columns), I think the most beneficial approach is to educate readers on how they can sort on multiple columns. This gives them the flexibility to decide on any ordering they want. In this case, they can first sort the table based on stolen bases, then sort it based on home runs. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, so a % of two cols is okay? Or any other formula? That would be the case here or for the cricket lists I've been talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of making the sort order obvious to readers, personally I would prefer that the result of the actual formula (be it a percentage, or something else) be a column in the table, and then readers can explicitly click on that column and get a sorting based on it. That way it is crystal clear what the sort order is. (I don't want to digress too much in this featured list review, so perhaps we can take further discussion on sorting in general elsewhere?) isaacl (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand. It's really important to the FL community that we resolve this, there are hundreds, if not thousands of lists that use slightly more intricate sorting to resolve the shortcomings of the software, would like to take this further. Your place or mine? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, as per your previous comment and Isaacl's request above, may I please request that this point be deferred to him and me. The issue seems to be more about an overall WP MOS formatting issue that is still unsolved, rather than this specific list violating any existing WP guidelines. In addition, the discussion thread is becoming excessively long for readability purposes (especially given that this is now an FL community issue). However, if you believe this thread must stay, feel free to keep it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Four players are also members of the 500 home run club." This lists five players, not four.
  • Don't need to repeat Ryan Braun's first name in the lead. Unlike with the Bonds family, there's no risk of confusion regarding his name.

Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see support from four users, dating back to August 10. Shouldn't this list be promoted by now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush and I'm sure the next time a director does a sweep of promotions, this will be given due consideration. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I was just getting a little worried as the last sweep of promotions was done yesterday. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, everything will be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reassurances TRM. I'm sorry if my comments come about as complaining or sulking, as this is not my intent. I just find it extremely peculiar how three other lists that have exactly the same amount of support and were nominated later than this one can be passed while this list ends up being simply placed under the "Older Nominations" category. Something's terribly wrong when there are no longer any outstanding issues needed to be addressed and yet this list remains unpassed when it is basically an "equal" to the three that were passed. With all the resolved comments and support votes, I really don't see anything else I can do with this list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was an oversight? Have you asked the FL director who closed the others why yours wasn't closed? I doubt there's a conspiracy... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never asked. I trust you and the other two FL directors in making wise and prudent choices in closing. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should ask. We're only human. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for your helpful advice. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I discussed this matter with Giants 2008 and he stated that he would like to make sure the issue regarding secondary sorting is no longer considered outstanding before he promotes this list. In your opinion, would you still consider this an outstanding issue TRM? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an issue but I'm the only one, so I'm happy for my comment to be considered just that, a comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think Rambling Man's point is very minor. I would think otherhwise if the table would be as large as the current page. Also the system with shift does not work on my keyboard. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GOP. The only problem is, I think you can only vote once, which you did back on August 7th. As a result, only one of your votes of support can be counted —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My error. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:44, 2 September 2012 (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/30–30_club/archive1&oldid=1076192582"