Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/50 home run 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 The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [1].

50 home run club

[edit]

50 home run club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 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) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<font=white>Resolved comments from – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Babe Ruth was the first to achieve this, doing so in 1920. By reaching the milestone, he also became the first player to hit 30 and 40 home runs in a single-season, breaking his own record of 29 from the 1919 season.[4] Ruth also became the first player to reach the 50 home run club on four occasions, subsequently achieving the milestone in 1921, 1927 and 1928.[5][6]" - Something about this text, starting with the second sentence, just doesn't do it for me. It's important here to stress that Ruth was the first true home run hitter in MLB, and while this sort of gets that point across, I think it just slightly misses it.
  • Seems odd to mention handedness in the second paragraph but not include it in the table.
  • Yeah. I just didn't want to clutter the table with semi-trivial info that would be more appropriate to include solely in the lead. I know you previously stated that "the other FLs aren't sacrosanct," but they do provide a good example of what should be included or left out. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New York Yankees is the only franchise to see - I guess "Yankees is" is grammatical, but it still sounds weird, especially with them "seeing" the players reach the milestone. What does "see" mean? It strikes me as a bit colloquial. Can we rephrase to something like "Only the New York Yankees have had..."
  • "their 50 home run club season" --> "their 50 home run season"
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "...achieved their fourth 50 home run season in 1999 and 2001." not sure you need 50 home run season, you've already established what it refers would change to "matched his feat in 1999 and 2001."
  • "MVP award" you use an abbreviation without identifying what it refers to. I would spell it out on first use, so the reader (especially ones who are sports ignorant) understand what it means
If this is to be classed as among wikipedia's best work, then I would expect the reader to not to have click the link to find out what the abbreviation means. The fact that MVP itself is a disambiguation page means that the abbreviation needs to be spelt out. NapHit (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to SHOUT in refs, write them out normally
  • I've never understood the point of including quotes in refs personally I would remove as I'm not sure what purpose it serves
  • I only included quotes for sources that a quite long. Basically, it makes it easier for the reader to find the section that verifies any claims made in this list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:ACCESS, it is best not use semi-colon for bolding as is done in the reference section. Screen-readers don't pick them up very well apparently so best to use the three apostrophes instead

NapHit (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments by Arsenikk (talk)
  • If I was writing the article, I would have linked years to the appropriate MLB season article.
  • Years are already linked in the table. The reason why I didn't link years in the lead section is because under WP:MOS, overlinking would make the lead "hard to read." Will MLB season links in the table suffice, or is it absolutely necessary to link them in the lead as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention in the lead who has the highest number of home runs in a season.
  • Has the number of games per season increased through the league's history, and could that explain the increasing number of members?
  • It increased from 154 games to 162 in 1961 (the same year Maris broke the single-season HR record). But that does not explain why there were only 3 members from 1962–1994 (33 full seasons). As mentioned in the last sentence of the lead, many club members are found to have used PEDs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the key table there is no need to bold the first column, as they are automatically formatted by the software.
  • I notice the main table uses the formatting |scope="row"|, which aaccording to WP:DTT should be !scope="row"| (replace | with !).

Arsenikk (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wow, lots of early support, good to see. Nevertheless, to be addressed...
  • "Two of these players " of which players? Last set of players you talked about were switch hitters.
  • Two of the entire group of players I mentioned in the last sentence (i.e. not just limited to the last group). The context is two out of all the batters mentioned previously, regardless of handedness. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not good prose because it's no longer clear which group "these players" are any more. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • It's actually pretty clear. It wouldn't make sense if "Two of these players" were to be derived from switch hitters, since there's only one S.H. As with the next point below, I expect common sense to prevail. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps just worth explaining what the 500 home run club is (i.e. I guess it's 500 career home runs, but that's not clear given this is the 50 home run club and it's 50 in a season).
  • All other baseball stat club FLs mention 500 home runs only by name, without going into detail. I think the wikilink here suffices, as I wouldn't want to stray off focus here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sticking with the standard established by all other baseball FLs. It wouldn't be good if the style and formatting for this list deviated from other FLs, would it? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty obvious here. Hitting 50 home runs in a career is shameful and it's impossible to hit 500 home runs in a season (unless one has completely ODed on PEDs). Explaining will either require a footnote (i.e. back and forth) or be included in the lead (thus disrupting the flow of the article with explanations). Again, "References on style...do not always agree." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do consider my global audience. And I wouldn't treat them as idiots, as I know they have common sense to differentiate 50 is hit in a season from 500 hit in a career. I also know they can piece 2 and 2 together and figure out that achieving an average of ten 50 home run seasons will get you to the 500 home run club (and not vice versa). As I previously said, the wikilink here suffices. If (in the unlikely event) a reader was really unsure about 50 vs. 500, he just needs one click of the button to find out. How hard is that? This list is here to explain 50, not 500. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could note the Fielder family record?
  • I actually deleted mention of this when I was cleaning up this article, as I found this not very significant or notable. In contrast, the reason why I included Barry and Bobby Bonds in the 30–30 club list was because they both share the record of joining the club the most number of times. For Cecil and Prince Fielder, both are "one-hit wonders" (at least for now). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Father–son relationships should be mentioned only as a footnote to a greater accomplishment. As I previously stated, Barry and Bobby are listed only because they achieved a record number of 30–30 seasons. If it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't have mentioned them as father–son at all. Mentioning Cecil and Prince Fielder in the lead only because they are father and son (and for no other reason, as they don't even have multiple 50 homer seasons) is completely nonsensical and only glorifies triviality. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not "completely nonsensical" at all, the ESPN ref you use is titled " "Prince hits 50, but it's 52 he wants to 'shut up' his dad"" so it's directly relevant. Perhaps your own reference glorifies triviality but I'd like to think it actually provides some additional and useful info. You know what, this is more relevant and interesting than knowing that Barry Bonds was 37 when he "joined the club". Seriously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's in a name? You can't just take an article's title and blow it out of proportion. It looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree then. You're fully entitled to your own opinion and so is everyone else who has participated in this discussion. I'm adhering to an established standard and I'm sticking to it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I thought it was equally interesting that Bonds was 37 and that a father-son combo are members of such an exclusive club. I'm not blowing anything out of proportion. In fact, I'm beginning to not understand most of what you write here. It's not "completely nonsensical", it's not "glorif[ying] trivialit[y]":, it's not "blow[ing] it out of proportion". I'm also bemused by your direction to "an established standard", what exactly is that standard you refer to? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "established standard" I'm sticking to is the same one used in the 30–30 club. Familial relations are mentioned only because of significant achievements and records achieved by them, not just because they are related to each other. As I had previously stated, Bobby and Barry Bonds are mentioned as father and son only because both of them share the record number of 30–30 seasons. We can see that their unmatched, sublime standalone success truly "runs in the family." On the other hand, both Fielder father and son have only one 50 homer season to account for. One. Does that merit any mention? No. In a modern society, no one should be expected to be mentioned simply because of their birth. Being born into a baseball family does not give you the right to be automatically called "significant." It's a person's outstanding achievement that should take precedence. Do the two Fielders hold the most 50 homer seasons, either overall or consecutive? No. Do they even have multiple 50 homer seasons individually? No. So that concludes this argument. Do Cecil and Prince Fielder deserve to be mentioned in the lead as father–son (just because they are father and son)? No. As I previously stated, let's agree to disagree then. Even the FLC page stated, "References on style...do not always agree." You can hold your own opinion regarding this list and I completely respect your view. I even respect your protest that you're "beginning to not understand most of what [I] write here." I'm sorry to hear that, but four other people (soon 5+) have openly expressed understanding to what I write, the current version in place. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I respect his opinion, but why you couldn't add "(after his father)" or something in the lead, like three words, which would actually enhance the engagement with the reader, particularly the reader who isn't an MLB expert, is beyond me. Still, the "golden standard" apparently exists for you which precludes making this interesting rather than purely statistical (like most baseball lists sadly). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't just add "after his father" as Prince Fielder is mentioned only once in the lead (as the youngest). It wouldn't make sense, after saying Prince is the youngest, to add on "after his father." Cecil was never the youngest (Mays was), so mentioning it will confuse the reader even more. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it was just a conceptual suggestion, i.e. that you could just "tag" the relationship with a simple couple of words which would make the prose engaging and interesting to non-MLB fans, so it wasn't just a wall of statistics (per your golden standard). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just don't think trivia deserves any mention whatsoever. Giants2008 agrees with this stance, so at the end of the day, it simply won't be added (no matter how long you continue to argue with me over this point). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to achieve this, doing so in 1920" not sure you need "doing so" here, seems redundant to me.
  • I feel it's necessary to keep the sentence like this. If I said "Ruth was the first to achieve this in 1920," that would make it sound like he was the first player in 1920 out of many others to get 50 home runs (causing confusion to whoever reads this). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "replicating the achievement" prefer "repeat" to "replicate".
  • " Barry Bonds hit the most home runs to join .." you should say he holds the record for most home runs in a season.
  • Is there a reason why José Bautista doesn't have his diacritic in the lead? He does in the table.
  • "players to achieve the 50 home run club " in the lead caption - I don't think people "achieve" a "club", they "join" a club.
    Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you need ref 6 and 7? Ref 6 seems to do the trick.
  • Ref 7 is a specific source from MLB documenting Bautista's recent achievement and providing coverage for all previous 50 home run seasons. I don't want to keep using BR ad nauseam. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "plate" appropriately.
  • " one active member of the 50 home run club" reference for "active"?
  • Think you should explain the "Mantle and Maris" (M&M) thing, i.e. why you would relink the pair, perhaps say "known as the M&M ..."?
  • Bonds doesn't have a "days" in his age when he achieved the feat unlike the youngest.
  • Unfortunately, the NYT source (the only reliable source I found for Bonds' age record) does not provide a "days" in his age. It's better to leave it in it's current state than to make an unverified claim. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "back in 1954" no need for "back in".
  • "home runs in that year" you mean season?
  • "The statistics are updated through July 18, 2012" needs a period.
  • To make the next sentence read more enjoyably, I'd rephrase "to hit 30 and 40 home runs " to "to hit 30 and then 40 home runs..."
  • "He remained the sole leader" what do you mean? You mean he was the only player to have hit 50+ four times right? Rephrase.
  • If I were to rephrase the current wording, this section would become extremely repetitive. "Ruth...became the first player to reach the 50 home run club on four occasions" followed by the new sentence "he remained the only player to achieve 50 home runs in four seasons" and ending with McGwire and Sosa "becoming the only players to achieve four consecutive 50 home run seasons." Basically, it'll be a repeat of 50 in four ad nauseam within two sentences. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of the points you brought up, and you still oppose. Great! A one-man opposition against the majority. We all know where that's heading. History has shown that you cannot derail the majority when they have spoken. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the only reason why you oppose is because we disagree on style. As WP:FLC clearly states, "References on style...do not always agree." Why don't you just respect that and move on. The changes you proposed were made after all four support votes came in. And you want to oppose this FLC just because you don't get your way. Wow! What's really unfair and unjust would be the majority kowtowing to the whims of one person. Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you're entitled to impose your style and your ways on others. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to just relax a bit. I get back to most FLCs in due course, and this will be no different. I add comments as an editor, not an admin (prove me wrong, I dare you!), so your comment about me being an admin is entirely irrelevant. I'm very pleased you have so much support right now, quite unusual for a list here these days (and more so considering the various issues you've corrected as a result of my review), but I'm also entitled to my opinion, and if I wish to maintain an oppose, then I will, and I'm sure the closing director will take all arguments into account as they always do. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess. You're one of the closing directors, aren't you? You are listed under WP:FLC as one of the 3 FL directors who "determines the timing of the process for each nomination." Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised that, even if I get 6 votes of support against your lone opposition vote, that this list will still not be promoted (and definitely not by you!). Would you have the guts to promote this list should it get the 6–1 overwhelming consensus, even if you don't completely get your way? It's the only way for you to prove you "add comments as an editor, not an admin" (i.e. whether you're impartial as opposed to biased). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to check your facts. If you paid any attention, you'd know that I usually review just about every list here. I rarely give a position but when I do, it's for good reason. If I do place a !vote, I will usually redact myself from closing the list. Asking me if I "have the guts" to promote anything is quite rude. Being a director is nothing to do with being an admin so your last statement is completely inaccurate. I suggest you go over your comments and strike out those which are completely baseless as right now you're not doing yourself any favours. In fact, until you do so, this conversation is at an end. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What goes around comes around. It's extremely rude on your part to "dare [me]!" openly earlier. Glad this conversation is over. I offered you to agree to disagree twice and twice you refused it, instead taking on an aggressive stand to impose your views on all of us that only escalated. Oddly similar to this incident here. Why am I surprised? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you've lied about my edits, my motives, abusing my position. So you need to rethink it all and redact the lies. I won't "agree to disagree" if I think you're wrong. I have no aggression here. You said my position was "completely nonsensical", that I wanted to "glorify triviality", that "Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you're entitled to impose your style and your ways on others", that "And you want to oppose this FLC just because you don't get your way", that "It's the only way for you to prove you "add comments as an editor, not an admin" (i.e. whether you're impartial as opposed to biased). ". "It's extremely rude on your part to "dare [me]!" openly earlier" so go ahead and show me where I abused my position as an admin in this FLC? Please. All lies. Pure fabrication. Completely revolting. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"History has shown that you cannot derail the majority when they have spoken." I can't speak to what the standards were in 2007, since I wasn't here. In 2012, FLC is not a pure vote, and an oppose coming after four supports is just as valid as one at the start of an FLC (you'd be amazed at how many blatant glitches I detect in lists with multiple supporters). Will it "derail" the FLC? It depends on what the complaint is. If someone complains about terrible prose or copyvio issues, it doesn't matter how many supports something receives; it's not getting promoted until it's fixed. I actually agree with you that the Fielder stuff doesn't need a note (seems trivial to me as well), but TRM's other points seem reasonable enough. He's got more experience than anyone here, and he's trying to help your list be the best it can be. Why not listen to his advice? And please don't say him being an admin, or an FL director, has anything to do with this. TRM doesn't carry a supervote based on his positions, though many of us will consider his views carefully because of his vast experience. In reality, he's just a reviewer like this rest of us, and his opinions will be weighted in that light. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing things up and reassuring me that TRM is "trying to help [the] list be the best it can be," as his recent comments suggested otherwise. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, you've resorted to more below the belt tactics now. The claims you made about me are completely false. And you're now calling me a liar? Let's see:
  1. You falsely claimed that I "lied about....abusing [your] position." Wrong! I correctly pointed out that you are one of the closing directors. That's all. Not once did I say anything about abusing position. In fact, the only time this has been said throughout this conversation is from you.
  2. You falsely claimed that I "lied about [your] edits." Wrong again! I merely asked you a valid question. Are you going to "promote this list should it get the 6–1 overwhelming consensus, even if you don't completely get your way?"
  3. You falsely claimed that I "lied about [your] motives." I merely pointed out facts. Never before have I ever been openly "dared" by another WP user, ever. The fact that this is completely unprecedented gives the impression that this is indeed an "aggressive stand."
  4. "I won't "agree to disagree"" – that just proves your aggressive stand. I even stated "I completely respect your view." Yet, you refuse to negotiate and insist on a "my way or the highway" approach, even after I made valid points explaining why I prefer my style (which is also preferred by the majority).
  5. You falsely claimed that I "said [your] position was "completely nonsensical and glorifies triviality"" – once again, false. I said mentioning Cecil and Prince in the lead (only because they are father and son) is completely nonsensical and glorifies triviality.
  6. My quote "you want to oppose this FLC just because you don't get your way" is completely true. Other reviewers have commented on the list, have voiced their opinions and I have actually rebutted some of their points and stated why I'd prefer to use the current version. This is exactly what I've done with you. Yet, instead of opposing, other reviewers have compromised and know that in life, you just can't get your way 100% of the time. You, on the other hand, openly chastised me by saying "I think you're wrong." Again, who's opinion is this based on?
  7. Your quote "I have no aggression here" is completely false. First, you "dare[d] [me]" and then proceed to call me a liar. Too bad I've proven your claims to be false. So much for no aggression.

Judging from the use of words throughout this, I've actually been very positive ("I respect your view," "I'm sorry to hear that," "let's just agree to disagree.") while you've used the most negative terms to talk to me ("you've lied," "All lies. Pure fabrication. Completely revolting."). From above, I completely blew your argument out of the water with regards to your claim that I lied. Who's the liar now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saw above. All that means is that Cecil and Prince will not be mentioned. In the meantime, answer the question. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. One should really mean what they say and say what they mean. I take back not even one iota from the above conversation. On the other hand, you stated that "this conversation is at an end." Why isn't it? Instead, you proceed to call me a liar (which I have completely disproven). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until you tell me where I've abused my position as an admin and redacted those lies, I see no purpose in this discussion. I'm still entitled to my position, I'm sure your list will be promoted in due course (as Giants has noted, he disagrees with me but in a manner that is becoming to normal discourse) but your unpleasant manner has really spoken volumes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously stated, I never said you "abused [your] position as an admin." So stop using that as an argument, as it's invalid. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. "It's the only way for you to prove you "add comments as an editor, not an admin" (i.e. whether you're impartial as opposed to biased). ". Utter rubbish. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who said you "add comments as an editor, not an admin" (and proceeded to dare me to prove otherwise). I simply stated that your actions will prove that statement (as actions speak louder than words). —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said " (i.e. whether you're impartial as opposed to biased)" which is a pure lie. I can (and always do) edit as both editor and admin and be impartial. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely taken my quote out of context (again!). I simply stated that your actions will prove that statement, which means your actions will indeed prove whether you're impartial as opposed to biased. That's completely true. The whole quote is dependent on what you do. Once again, you've resorted to unjustifiably calling me a liar. This violates WP:No personal attacks under the clause of making "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." In fact, you've gone one-up and made false accusations that not only lack evidence, but are completely baseless. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It's entirely in context. The "whole quote is dependent on what you do"? Rubbish and pure lies. I won't do anything. I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm sticking with it. Such a shame that you'd sideshow a perfectly good FLC. It was going fine and then you launch an attack on me. How odd. It'll still be promoted, but now I know the kind of editor I'm dealing with, I'll be sure to remember that in future. This really, really is the end of discussion. You go ahead and have the last word, be my guest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"You launch an attack on me." Excuse me, but you definitely have all your facts mixed up. You openly "dare[d] [me]!" to prove you wrong. That's where it all started. I finally pinpointed the origin of when this discussion began to escalate. And it all started with you, not me. Go ahead and think whatever you want, but as one person brilliantly summed it up to you here in this discussion, "[y]our continued passive-aggressive harassment speaks for itself." —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the rare occurrence of the 50 home run club," the club's occurrence isn't rare, but the entry of people into it is. And check the position of the ref here: "home run club[8]) " The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) editor and admin[reply]
  • Can I instead say "low membership of the 50 home run club" (i.e. just like I did with the 20–20–20 club? I know membership is starting to grow rapidly, but relatively, it's low considering the number of years the MLB has been around for. And I'm guessing ref 8 should go at the end of the sentence, right? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "due to infrequent addition of members to the 50 home run club" or something like your suggestion. Don't mind really, it's just not right at the moment. And I would move the ref to the other side of the punctuation, i.e. the other side of the closing parenthesis. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "The New York Yankees is the only franchise to have four different players reach the milestone while on their roster". "is" → "are" for plural tense, which is what's usually used with nicknames and matches "their".
  • "Mantle is the only player to have earn the Major League Triple Crown". "earn" → "earned".
  • I see a couple uses of "50 home run club season" in the key, which I've never heard used before. Is there any reason we shouldn't use the more common "50 home run season" instead? Most intelligent people will realize from reading the lead that a 50-homer season gets someone in the club.
  • Is it Sports Reference or Sports Reference LLC? The references should be made consistent one way or the other; I've seen the latter method used most of the time.
  • Another inconsistency with ESPN and ESPN.com, and the latter one shouldn't be in italics anyway.

Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If you explain to me how a reader can easily figure out which palyer had the most/the second most/ etc. 50+ HR seasons then I will agree that such a table is redundant. Nergaal (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Players with the most 50+ HR seasons are already noted in the first paragraph of the lead. The player with the second most (i.e. A-Rod) is already listed in the table with (3) denoting the # of seasons he's had. My hunch is that the reader would have at least read the first paragraph of the lead before proceeding to the table. I'm also assuming that the key would play a part in them understanding that the small number beside a player's name would denote the # of HR they had accomplished at that point. The table is sorted chronologically, so reading the number beside a player's name makes it pretty easy to figure out which players have the most (i.e. whoever has the highest number has the most). These are reasonable assumptions, aren't they? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 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/50_home_run_club/archive1&oldid=1227538049"