Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B)/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 23:45, 17 December 2010 [1].

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B)

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

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. The list was recently updated to meet the concerns raised regarding accessibility of lists in table format at the prior FLC in this series, including the addition of "scope=row" parameters and such. I will make every effort, as always, to be as expedient as possible in addressing reviewers' comments. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Why is there no section heading for the list? Afro (Talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the linked prior FLC. This discussion also. — KV5 • Talk • 13:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Since all major comments seem to of been addressed by other users, and I have no objections. Afro (Nice Beaver) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All sources bar one are primary. Sandman888 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How are these primary sources? Baseball-Reference.com is not affiliated with the Phillies, to my knowledge. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spirit of WP:PSTS is to base prose statements on other evaluations, not make novel interpretations based on what is a primary source. The distinction between secondary and primary is not merely on affiliation, but also, and 'primarily', on the analytical level. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There have been no "novel interpretations" made here. The all-time roster is sourced to multiple pages within a a reliable secondary source. I heartily disagree with your interpretation stating that sources are primary based on their "analytical level", as this is not an accepted academic practice. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Luckily there exist semi-official definitions of a secondary source. University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event". my emphasis. Taken from the above link to secondary sources. What you consider an "accepted academic practice" must be taken up to revision. Sandman888 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Princeton adds: "A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. ", again, my emphasis. 1 Cheerio. Sandman888 (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Baseball-Reference is a work that analyzes historical events and phenomena (baseball seasons and games) and is at least one step removed from the event (in this case, Major League Baseball), so thank you for proving that it is a reliable secondary source. — KV5 • Talk • 12:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(OD) the notion that baseball-reference analyses anything is outright ludicrous; it is nothing but a list of stats. Earlier on you said that the definition of secondary sources was not "an accepted academic practice" and you "heartily disagree[d]". When that proved to be wrong you simply tried to force baseball-reference into the definition of secondary sources, but that is not acceptable. Sandman888 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely incorrect in this point, as Baseball-Reference takes statistics provided by primary sources and extrapolates them to categories like Wins above replacement player, just to name one. — KV5 • Talk • 19:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Baseball-Reference is obviously a reliable secondary source, per any/all of KV5's arguments above. Arguing otherwise is simply a waste of everyone's time. I offer this question: in your definition, what is a reliable secondary source for MLB statistics? — Timneu22 · talk 19:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree as well baseball-reference is not a primary source Secret ^account 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, BR is not a primary source. It is independent of MLB and provides sabermetric statistics MLB.com does not. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue with the use of a primary source for statistical information, in any case. From Wikipedia's guidance on primary sources: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Since no interpretation is being done and the accuracy of the referenced information is easily verified, there is no issue. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What he said.oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What they said.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thirded. Stats are stats are stats. Isaac Lin's statement is bang on. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any chance of discussing the list itself now? :-D — KV5 • Talk • 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you discovered it is indeed primary: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." - From the relevant policy. Original emphasis. Sandman888 (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, we agreed that use of primary sources is okay in some circumstances. And I see at least two non-BR references so you cannot say this article is based entirely on primary sources. My emphasis. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, I believe from the definitions of primary and secondary sources, Baseball Reference fits the definition of a secondary source:
        Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.
        
        Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.
        
        Since Baseball Reference is not collecting the basic accounting of events itself, nor is the official agent for those collecting the data, and is getting its information either directly or indirectly from the official agent, it is a secondary source. However, for an article that is a dry recitation of simple occurrences, I believe the most accurate source is the primary source and there should be no bar to making use of it for its information. For example, an article such as the Results of the 1994 Sri Lankan general election by electoral district is best sourced by references to the official documents published by the chief electoral officer. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't part of the FL criteria, but I'd like to see articles created for the still-redlinked players. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An ongoing project. My first goal is to make sure that all of the players who appear in the leads of the articles are bluelinked by the time the list reaches FLC (hence my creation of Frank Bruggy last week). Beyond the completion of the lists, these will basically become linkfarms for me to create the redlinked articles, as it is an eventual long-term goal of mine to have these all be blue links. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (on the list... ;D)

"in 1883, 1,881 players" reads odd to me, but don't add "a total of" because that's redundant too. Is there a better reword where we don't end up with these numbers in quick succession?
Don't think you need to link the letter B.
Pitcher is overlinked in the lead (you linked it from pitching)
"whose career with the Phillies encompassed the 1896 season" pardon my ignorance, but is this significant?
"whose number 14 is the only one retired by the Phillies for a player on this list" (1) for non-experts, what does retiring a number mean? (2) do you mean this B list, or the overall list?
"catcher Mack Burk has the highest batting average, at .500; he had one hit in two career plate appearances with Philadelphia" now then, this is "statistically correct" but what a pity that this pretty much discounts the fact he batted only twice, compared with others who batted hundreds of times. I don't think you can argue with your sentence but it seems such a shame... Maybe resort to that statistic last, and stick with those that reflect the longevity of the player?
What does "player's primary team" mean? Do you mean he played for the Phillies more than any other team combined? For a longer duration?
I would (personally) prefer more engaging image captions than "name, position".
Note a is unreferenced. And since it calls another source into question, it's probably worth sorting that out.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I saw this stuff Thursday morning and haven't had a chance to do anything about it until now because of the Thanksgiving holiday. My (rather lengthy) responses, in order:

I could re-word that sentence, but just so you're aware, it'll need to be changed in all of the sublists. The best suggestion I could make is to move the inception date to a different sentence (e.g., "The team has played officially under two names since beginning play in 1881:..."), and then just have "Since the franchise's inception, 1,881 players...".

Happy Thanksgiving by the way. I hate to say it, but yes, I think I'd prefer this to the current approach. Sorry I didn't notice it before... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And it's no problem. Done now in all 20 sublists. — KV5 • Talk • 18:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind unlinking the letters. Obviously they are common. But I thought that the articles, in some cases, gave interesting insight (like the fact that E is the most popular letter in the English language, and yet there aren't that many players whose names start with it). Again, this is an every-sublist issue, so I can definitely change it; I just want to know in advance of making all 21 changes.

Ok, leave it, if the worst occurs then someone else will point it out! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the doubled pitcher link is done.

Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Brouthers (and all team Hall of Famers), I gave a note about his career. I didn't want to repeat myself (e.g. saying that Bender played for the team for two seasons, and that Brouthers played for the team for one season) by using the same wording. If you feel something different would be better, I'm open to suggestions.

Cool by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a wikilink sufficient to explain retired numbers, or do I need to have a written explanation in every sublist where one occurs? As for lists, it's this list. I could say "this sublist" if it's more comfortable.

A link is fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — KV5 • Talk • 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the statistics, this is, again, a series-wide issue. I did it this way because it's as objective as possible. I'm trying to avoid making any unnecessary analysis to avoid original research accusations. I didn't want to make an arbitrary cutoff, like, the best batting average among players with x at-bats, etc.

Agreed. If baseball stats don't have a traditional cut-in point (e.g. 100 matches) as we do in cricket lists, then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The player's primary team is defined by the Hall of Fame, and they don't provide their definition of what that term means.

Okay, as long as there's a ref that says what you said. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captions are, again, a series-wide issue, and honestly, a lot of the old-time players don't have any more engaging information than that.

I reckon you could create just basic captions that say "x played for the Phillies from a to b, hitting y home runs.", "y was a Phillies player from a seasons, making z catches." for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captions are done. — KV5 • Talk • 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note a is actually referenced by the reference in its row; if you'd prefer duplication, that's easily accomplished.

No need to duplicate, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses. — KV5 • Talk • 14:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that everything actionable is done save for finding a reference for the primary team conundrum, which is confounding me at the moment. — KV5 • Talk • 13:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Don't have anything to add to what TRM gave, except that I don't consider Baseball-Reference a primary source either. By the definition given above by the opposer, any printed encyclopedia that contains statistics for all players in a sport would be a primary source. I don't think so. If all the cites came from the Phillies' web site, or MLB.com (true primary sources), there would be a better case, though I wouldn't have a problem with using them for this purpose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The oppose voter is simply incorrect. As already discussed B-Ref is fine as a source for the statistical information, and the notability of this list is rather apparent. "Philadelphia Phillies roster" returns over 1 million hits, "Philadelphia Phillies players" 300k+, etc. The split to B is a WP:ACCESS thing, that's it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Now that TRM is done, I see no reason the list wouldn't meet FL standards. I already gave my opinion on the oppose rationale above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the least meets the required criteria and consensus is clear that the position of the opposer is a minority one. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.