Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gold Glove Award winners at pitcher/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 12:08, 29 August 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I've finally finished it. The last few weeks have been so busy that I've fallen severely behind on this list, but now it's done. It should meet all the requirements, and is the final list in the proposed Gold Glove Award featured topic, which will be a subtopic of the MLB awards FT. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead is unusually short. Did you forget to write a paragraph summarizing the list? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Yes! Hold, please.KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]Lead is there now; refs forthcoming.KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]- All right, done. Hit it! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I somewhat wish full SB/CS data was listed and not just the %age (since 50% CS means something very different over 10 attempts versus 100), but definitely enough. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly would like to put it in, but this table is at its maximum width without screwing up the visual aspects of the top row in a 1024x768 by squishing the table more. I appreciate your comments and support. Can I have a nap now? I will fire the missiles afterward... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AHH MOTHERLAND! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resloved comments from Staxringold
|
---|
Two minors comments though. First, have you considered including balks? Baseball-Reference tracks them (BK), and while they may be rare (so maybe don't need to list all the winning pichers who threw none in the lead, though the most in a winning season would be interesting) they are still significant given the limited number of ways a pitcher provides fielding value. Second, any consideration of mentioning how many GG winners also win the CYA that year? Doesn't matter as much with the pitcher GG, since the voters seem to like giving them to the same player for a long stretch, but often times you see a player having a good year get a random GG even if there's no particularly amazing fielding. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment. My edit to make this page more WP:ACCESSIBLE to visually impaired readers by replacing the math-mode image "" with the text "CS÷SBA" was reverted by Killervogel5 with the edit summary "this was already discussed in the FLC for the catcher's award, which passed". There must be some confusion here, as I found no mention of how to display the equation at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gold Glove Award winners at catcher/archive1. I assume there's some better explanation for the revert? If not, I suggest that the edit be reinstalled. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it wasn't this catcher list; it may have been in one of the other featured lists in this topic. Regardless, the topic has been discussed before, and the list has passed. "CS÷SBA" doesn't really help either, because it's much smaller than the other. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through every Gold Glove FLC, and there was no discussion of the equation. Many of those lists were promoted before the alt text issue emerged, anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually didn't mean the Gold Gloves, I meant the baseball awards as a whole. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since no other baseball award lists have passed FLC since the alt text requirement was instituted (or at least started being enforced), I think that's a moot point. Accessibility is important, and I would be happy to help amend the other lists as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's important, but I'm getting awfully tired of seeing WP:ACCESS superseding the rest of the MOS. Like MOS:MATH and other things in MOS:NUM regarding formulae. Seems like we're turning into WP:PAPER. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that most likely the older discussion is obsolete now. Unfortunately I don't know exactly where the "baseball awards as a whole" discussion was; do you have a wikilink? I could read the discussion and check.
- As for MOS, I don't quite understand the importance of the style currently used. Currently, the article mentions CS and SBA one using unkerned texfont italics (which looks horrible) and once using kerned texfont roman (which looks OK, but why is it so important to use a font that differs from both the main text and the math-mode fraction?). Perhaps if I understand the style issues better I could suggest a better solution that is also accessible to the visually impaired.
- Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been quite a few baseball awards lists promoted. There is not one discussion. Honestly, I'm not going to argue with it. I'm so tired of looking at the Gold Glove lists. I don't want to see them anymore. I hate the use of the Unicode division sign, and I think it looks ugly, plus it's too small to read. And I am a sighted person who doesn't find the current usage ugly. But whatever. What about using {{frac}} or {{frac2}}? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the reluctance to not re-discuss a topic that's been beaten to death, but from my point of view it's a bit frustrating to be told that the subject has been discussed, without being given any pointer to any part of that discussion. Anyway, if "÷" seems ugly to you, "/" is also fine, so I did that. Or if you'd prefer to use {{frac}} that'd be fine too, as far as WP:ACCESSIBILITY goes. There are many other solutions as well. We could even bring back the math mode picture so long as it has alt text (but we'd have to fix that ugly unkerned layout :-). Eubulides (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem putting alt text on the image; I just had no idea how. I viewed it with the {frac} template, and I like it, so I'll put that in the catcher's list too. Pleasure doing business with you! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the reluctance to not re-discuss a topic that's been beaten to death, but from my point of view it's a bit frustrating to be told that the subject has been discussed, without being given any pointer to any part of that discussion. Anyway, if "÷" seems ugly to you, "/" is also fine, so I did that. Or if you'd prefer to use {{frac}} that'd be fine too, as far as WP:ACCESSIBILITY goes. There are many other solutions as well. We could even bring back the math mode picture so long as it has alt text (but we'd have to fix that ugly unkerned layout :-). Eubulides (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been quite a few baseball awards lists promoted. There is not one discussion. Honestly, I'm not going to argue with it. I'm so tired of looking at the Gold Glove lists. I don't want to see them anymore. I hate the use of the Unicode division sign, and I think it looks ugly, plus it's too small to read. And I am a sighted person who doesn't find the current usage ugly. But whatever. What about using {{frac}} or {{frac2}}? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Only minor issue I saw is a couple instances of out-of-order references in the lead. That aside, it's another great entry in the series, and I'm sure this and the math formatting will be taken care of. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note to Giants2008's comment about reference order, I place the references in the order they are in because they verify facts in the order they are listed; this is so the references don't break up the prose any more than is necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- CS% column needs fixing on first table. When sorted to find largest Kenny Rogers 100% is second bottom not top. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved, and barring any sudden issues on this list, congrats on your second baseball awards FT. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 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.