Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Yankees no-hitters/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 02:18, 11 July 2010 [1].

List of New York Yankees no-hitters edit

List of New York Yankees no-hitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me apologize now for starting 2 FLCs at once. First off I'd actually meant to nom the above Tigers list last night when I finished but I forgot. Also I thought this little Yankees no-hitters project would take a while, but I ended up spending all day on it and just finished it in one go instead. I promise this is it for a bit, anything else will take quite a while to get done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5

I guess since I wrote the model, I have no choice but to comment. :-D

  • "was thirteen runs" - should be 13 (MOS:NUM)
  • "The Yankees first perfect game" - Yankees'
  • Perfect game linked twice in lead
  • "pitched by a left-handed pitcher" - maybe thrown or hurler (with a link to glossary of baseball) to avoid repetition?
  • "game five" - aren't these usually Game 5 (I know that doesn't jive with MOS:NUM)?
  • "in MLB postseason play" - link Major League Baseball postseason
  • "Coincidentally" - comma after
  • "entering the ninth inning at home - comma after
  • "they did not bat" - comma after
  • "following rules changes in 1991" - comma after
  • "for his career" - should be in his career
  • "Reynolds two no-hit victims" - Reynolds'
  • "multiple Yankee no-hitters" - comma after
  • "for Red Sox in 1905" - should be for the Red Sox
  • Any way to {{nowrap}} the names in the table so the symbols don't bounce to a second line?
  • The model was wrong until just now, but it should be "General reference" instead of "General references", since there's only one.

Hope this helps. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think there was an FAC or GAN a ways back that determined that "Game 5" and such were appropriate regardless of MOS:NUM (IAR, I suppose). — KV5 • Talk • 18:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support because Stax is the man (ok, because this meets WP:FL?). — KV5 • Talk • 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • 11 items seems very, very small. Per 3.b cd this not reasonably be combined with other lists of no-hitters.
    • quite a long lede.
  • Actually, reading those reviews, as far as I can tell none of them were delisted for having less than 20 items. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that this can be a SAL, namely because it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". A list of all no-hitters from all teams would be extremely long, and the lead of that article couldn't go into the detail this one goes into. Mm40 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that was the rationale that led me to create the Phillies list in the first place. For teams that have a very small amount of no-hitters (even the Phillies' 10 is large, and is obviously contingent on the franchise's long history), information on 3 or 4 can be included in the franchise's main article. But these are really daughters of the main articles that, as Mm40 said, can't reasonably be included due to the length of the leads and the wealth of information that's available on these special games. Additionally, the traditional unofficial cutoff for featured lists has been 10 items, not 20. — KV5 • Talk • 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it would be long can easily be accommodated by a split. Whatever the random cut-off point might have been, I do not see why these lists cannot be merged, apart from the argument about vasts amounts of information which is supposedly essential to the list, but then it should really be an article (which is the focus) with an supplementary list. Sandman888 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your argument. These are not split from articles about no-hitters in general; they are split from team articles. All of that information that's contained here could not reasonably be included as part of the team's main article. A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long, as 267 have been thrown in MLB history, and to list them by player wouldn't make any sense either, because it's only the rare pitcher who throws more than one in his career. By team is the division that makes sense, especially since they are split from the team articles. — KV5 • Talk • 11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. It is perfectly possible to make a list of all no-hitters and then split it due to size; "List of no-hitters" & "List of no-hitters II" or whatever convention one might like. See also here which discussed the merits of keeping information in one article. Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And maybe I didn't make myself clear, as I just said "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long". If you want a list of all no-hitters, you can find one at Retrosheet. We're trying to build encyclopedia articles about baseball teams, not specifically about no-hitters. Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles. I can't stress that point enough, and I don't know how I can make it any clearer. — KV5 • Talk • 11:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument I: "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long", see this for a long FL. You have not said why it cannot be split in two (rather than 15+ articles). Argument II:"Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles." that no-hitters somehow does not belong together is quite odd. The criteria clearly states that "and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Can a list of all no-hitters be made? Sure, you have linked to one yourself. The last remaining reason is that you want to write about "baseball teams" and not "no-hitters", I'm rather perplexed about how that is supposed to relate to 3.b, which does not have a qualifying ("unless you are aiming for a featured topic, then you can create all the small articles you'd like"). Sandman888 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that other FLs of length exist; I worked on restoring one. This list, however, meets both parts of criterion 3 in full because: a) "It comprehensively covers the defined scope", which is this team's no-hitters (not all no-hitters), and b) it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", because there is no list of no-hitters for all teams on Wikipedia, and we don't need one because its utility is limited. The utility of these team articles is greater because they are part of team histories. — KV5 • Talk • 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NatureBoyMD
Comments from NatureBoyMD
  • "The longest interval between Yankees no-hitters was between the games pitched by Larsen and Dave Righetti's no hitter on July 4, 1983, encompassing 26 years, 8 months, and 26 days." (No "s" on "games" since Larsen pitched one game."
  • "Notably, Reynolds two no-hit victims in 1951 were the Red Sox and the Indians." - apostrophe after "Reynolds"
  • Souldn't umpires be sorted by last name, not first?
  • I'm confused about the frequency of linking to no-hitter and perfect game in the table. "No-hitter" appears in the first entry (1917) three times, and only the first and thrid occurances are linked. For 1956, "perfect game" is linked, but "no-hitter" is not. Those are just two examples. The main point is that the linking of those terms doesn't seem consistant (multiple linkings in one entry, selective linking in others, no links at all in others).

Other than these, the list looks great. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great list, nice work. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "as the "New York Highlanders" and the "Baltimore Orioles",[1] pitchers for the Yankees" no, the pitchers weren't known as the NY Highlanders etc, the team was...
  • Fixed, also the fact was slightly off. It was 10 pitchers throwing 11, since Reynolds had 2. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three teams in Major League Baseball" worth context for non-experts. Three out of how many?
  • "Because the White Sox were winning entering the ninth inning at home, they did not bat," I guess this is like an honour system. But to non-experts it needs some kind of explanation.
  • Not sure how to best explain this one easily without going into baseball rules. Maybe you can help as an outsider to the game. Essentially it goes like this: The home team always bats in the so-called "bottom" of the inning (aka after the road team bats). The result of this, however, is that if the home team is already leading after the road team bats in the ninth inning then the home-team's 9th inning batting is useless (if they're already winning 1-0, for example, they could go up and poop on home plate, it wouldn't matter, they'd still win 1-0) so in such situations the bottom half of the inning just isn't played. See, for example, the box score of today's Yankee game. The Yankees took a 4-2 lead in the bottom of the 8th, the Mariners didn't tie/retake a lead in the top of the 9th, so the Yankees won. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's perfectly clear. I think the only thing I was unaware of was that the home team always bats in the bottom of the innings. After that, it's obvious that if they're leading going into the bottom of the ninth then no further play is necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You define what a perfect game is waaay after using it about three paragraphs beforehand.
  • "Smallest margin of victory in a Yankees no-hitter (tie)" do you mean "Tied for the smallest.."?
  • Where is Steinbrenner's birthday referenced?
  • Where is the hangover noted? And is it really encyclopedic?
  • I think it's very notable that one of the 20 (21 counting Armanda Galarraga's sad one) most dominant pitching performances in MLB history occured in a less-than-perfect mental state. That the thing Doc Ellis is most notable for, eg. As for the citation: "I know it's been written that I was drunk the day I pitched the perfect game, but I wasn't. I went out the night before, and now it says I'm drunk that day. I wasn't. I took some aspirin and had a headache, but what I read said I was drunk," Wells said. "How would that look? It would look bad for the organization, it would look bad for me. I had a headache and was a little hung-over. That's all it was. Hopefully it will be written the way I said it instead of in your own words."

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede, "This feat was achieved by Larsen in 1956, David Wells in 1998, and Cone in 1999. David Wells later claimed he was a "little hung-over" while throwing his perfect game.[4]" Courcelles (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stone the crows. Good job it's the weekend. Thanks Courcelles, sorry Stax... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my half-witted nonsense dealt with patiently and expediently. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:*Comments
Never even occurred to me this shouldn't be a SAL- 11 is plenty, and there is a wealth of information here that just wouldn't fit into New York Yankees.
Ref 11- check your title, you've got a typo.
Is Hawkins the only Yankee to lose a no-hitter to the rule change?
As a purely stylistic question, is it necessary to link No hitter in the table 10 times?
  • Since the table is sortable, it's impossible to know which occurrence of no-hitter is going to be the first one at any given time. Also, WP:REPEATLINK says "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including... tables, as each row should stand on its own". — KV5 • Talk • 11:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any Yankees who pitched nine innings of no-hit baseball, but the game went to extras, so aren't included? (That's just me thinking aloud... don't spend too much time digging into it.)

Courcelles (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I misread your question, according to the list Hughes went extras and lost a no hitter. No Yankee has ever had an extra-inning no-hitter. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try again-I think I asked a different question that I was trying to ask- has someone ever pitched nine-innings of no hit baseball, and then had it broken up in extras? I don't think Mussina's needs mentioning, as he only got through 26 outs without yielding a hit, but if someone got through 27, I think it'd be worth mentioning. Courcelles (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then like I said, the original list mentioned Tom Hughes though I have no cite currently. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, see, good you found that source, the date listed so long on the page was wrong. Adding now. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – First, let me say that I think the notes are just enough for this to be an exception to 3b. I would hate to see what a table with every no-hitter ever would look like with those notes.
  • I don't see why the old team nicknames need to be in quotations. Also, the Orioles nickname should probably go first since that was what the team was called in its first couple of years.
  • In the last couple sentences of the first paragraph, Larsen and Cone don't have first names, and David Wells has his first name given twice. Was this moved from later in the lead? I ask because I notice full names and links later.
  • Larsen was a righty, not a lefty, at least if Baseball Reference is to be believed. I have the perfect game on DVD if anyone wants a quick check.
  • I may not be certain of Larsen off the bat, but I know that David Cone wasn't pitching left-handed, as I watched him many times, including the perfect game.
  • This is really sad. I mixed up the perfect game and lefty symbols and I completely forgot about Cone's handedness. Fixed.
  • Reference 5 probably doesn't need to be repeated twice in a row in this instance. Just having it at the end of the paragraph would be fine.
  • En dash needed for 5-0 in third paragraph.
  • This is already a long lead, so I don't want to suggest too many additions, but there is one interesting fact about umpires that I can think of off the top of my head: Larsen's perfect game was the last game Babe Pinelli umpired in MLB. There's too much on the umpires for my taste, but this may be worthy of a note. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 4 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_New_York_Yankees_no-hitters/archive1&oldid=1143879280"