Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Manager of the Year Award/archive1
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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 Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
Another baseball award-related list. Comments will be addressed by me. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Good work on fixing the issues. Looks like a great list overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Don't use parentheses in the captions. Say "Joe Maddon, 2008 AL Manager of the Year" or other.
- For what reason? This is a common format; nothing wrong with it as far as I can see. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Parentheses are to set text apart from others, usually subsidiary and less important. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but they signify the parenthetical text to be excess. Just being set off by a comma keeps that info important. Parentheses signify "John Maddon (Oh, and by the way, he was 2008 Al Manager of the Year)", whereas a comma says, "This is John Maddon, and he was 2008 AL Manager of the year". Punctuation really does make a difference.
- According to the article you link to, "parentheses … contain material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence … [and] to add supplementary information". Noting when they won is redundant to the table; it's purely supplemental and merely a helpful reference. Therefore, it can be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the parentheses aren't wrong, but a single comma is much cleaner.
- I'd rather the formula for the scoring be in the lead, not a note. Also, don't make it mathy, just say 5 points for first place, 3 points for second, and 1 point for third.
- The formula was removed from the lead because it broke up the prose. Since it is a formula, it's mathematical by nature, which is why it's shown as such. The same thing is done with ERA and other elements that require calculation in other baseball lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I don't think you really need to include a formula at all and especially not in that formatting. Neither reference given does it that way: one is 5-3-1, and the other gives it in plain words. "five points for first-place votes, three points for second-place votes, and one point for third-place votes." is a lot simpler than "The formula used to calculate the final scores is Score = 5F + 3S + T, where F is the number of first place votes, S is second place votes, and T is third place votes." People really don't want some math formula; you're just making it more complicated. I think that info is vital to the text and shouldn't be a note; honestly, when I first read it I wondered how the score was tabulated - it just went from voting to the highest score without any indication of why. When I noticed the note, I was like "Oh, why the heck didn't he just say it up there?" Reywas92Talk 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I copied the references, it would be plagiarism. Speaking to "what people want" isn't objective. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say to copy the references! But that doesn't mean it hs to be more complicated. Isn't it simpler to just tell them, not have a separate note for an excessive formula?Reywas92Talk 02:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your last edit, making the above changes before consensus is reached isn't cool. That's why we are discussing here, to make a decision. This isn't the place to make unilateral changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything else looks great. Reywas92Talk 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; article meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:44, 6 June 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.
Hidden category: