Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame/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 Geraldk 20:11, 21 October 2009 [1].

Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame edit

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is one of the few lists related to the Phillies that I haven't brought to FL yet. The main reason is because the old format wouldn't have been able to pass through the metal detector here. However, I completely revamped the format (just today!) and I think it's ready. The only concern that I have is that I have not been able to find another written source on the web that verifies the members of the Centennial Team. I know that they are correct, in my head, but my head is not a reliable source. There are also quite a few pictures out there that show what's on the current plaque at Citizens Bank Park and what was on the old plaque at the Vet. HOWEVER, I could use some help from reviewers on finding a source. I bet that it's in the "New Phillies Encyclopedia", which is a resource that I would love to have at my disposal, but my local library does not have it, and I have never been able to get my hands on it. Online versions that I've found don't show the info because it's not available as a free or limited preview source. Anyway, aside from that issue, this should be ready to go. I'll address everything and anything I can as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I'm not a reviewer, but I noticed that this image doesn't have a description. Suede67 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Diaa
  • Comments
Images
  1. Move "Phillies Wall of Fame.jpg" below the TOC and have it as as a panorama view or 250px or something. Go over to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phillies_Wall_of_Fame.jpg please and add notes saying what each Plate belongs to with a Wikipedia link of their name.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clean up the images description pages.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Move File:MLB-Ed Delahanty.jpg and File:Phillies-Parade Harry-K crop.jpg to commons.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Could u extract an image of each plate from File:Phillies Wall of Fame.jpg and add it in the table? If you live in Philadelphia I would suggest taking a picture of each plate alone with better quality...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To all of the above image comments – I do not live in Philadelphia and have not been able to go to a game all year. The individual plaques are not of high enough resolution to be extracted from that image. As far as I am aware, moving images to Commons and cleaning image description pages, as long as they meet the minimum requirements, is not a prerequisite for featured content, and I wouldn't be able to move the images to Commons even if I wanted to. I have no idea how. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content
  1. Reference the last part of Paragraph 2 of the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no single reference that states this explicitly. The table confirms this information, and the individual references for each row contain the necessary info. There is no reason to expect that the last sentence should contain nine references to communicate one fact, and that the penultimate should contain a copy of every single reference in the article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why isn't the paragraph in Philadelphia_Baseball_Wall_of_Fame#Centennial_Team referenced?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned this above in my initial comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The whole see also section can be found in the Phillies Template. Remove the See also section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These were put in before this was even thought of for featured content, so I pretty much ignored it. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Could u use another sign than the cross? It's used more to denote the death of a person and not their inclusion. Maybe using a star would be better. At the same time using the cross to denote the death of this player.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's used in most of the other baseball FLs to denote members of the Hall of Fame. The dagger does not always mean death; it's commonly used to denote a footnote, as shown in the linked article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I requested from a flickr user an image from each plate and he promised to do so in three weeks or so.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that's fine, but I don't want to replace all of the images with plaques. Might be better if I double the images, with the person's photo next to his plaque. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I'll create another column with "Plaques" as header displaying for each inductee his plaque. I'll leave the images on the side be.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The list is of featured quality and has a very well written prose with a good table style.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – List looks clean, except for these few comments. To address a couple of the above comments: quality of images/media is not a criterion in any article review processes I know of (we are dealing with free content, and beggers can't be choosers most of the time), and inline citations are not required in the lead if general references or cites in the table cover facts.
  • Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "21 members of the Wall of Fame are also members of the Baseball Hall of Fame."
  • The Ed Delahanty photo offers no proof that it was published before 1923, not just created. The sentence on the photo page is dead wrong about the licensing requirements.
  • I agree with you about the sentence definitely being wrong. I don't know how to verify the source since none is given. It's been used in several other baseball FLs to this point. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a source can't be found, I recommend replacing the image with one of another inductee. There should be enough to choose from. The photo situation is unfortunate, but I find it best to lean on the conservative side regarding image licensing. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done so, but I really wish I could find info on that image. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could expand the Juan Samuel caption to give the year of induction, like the others. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops again, was too focused on the alt text. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to support, but ran into one OR concern on a second look: the "possibly due to the Phillies' win in the 1980 World Series" bit in Centennial Team cries out for a cite. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know; as I mentioned in the header of the FLC, I haven't been able to locate one. The Centennial Team can't be removed, as it's an essential part of the PBWOF, but the only sources I can find that show the info are pictures. I wish they were reliable, but they aren't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked around at WT:BASEBALL? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think I would have done that by now... I've been kind of peeved with some people over there so I didn't really think about it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any luck, or is the present form the way it's going to be? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for sources, and the only editor to provide any input at all only had a reference that verified the team's existence. The potentially WP:OR statement has been removed; hopefully, the remainder is uncontroversial. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)re[reply]

Support – Thought about this one more than I usually do, and think that the one section in question is uncontroversial enough to be all right as is. Rest of the list looks fine. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "mounted on a brick wall in the Ashburn Alley section of Citizens Bank Park" Why are there two links to the same article here?
  • If you don't think the context that the section link provides is worth linking to, I'll remove it. The point of the park link is, I assume, obvious. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made great contributions to the organization" The "great" repetition in this sentence is grating (heh), perhaps "significant contributions"?
  • I was confused as to what you meant until I re-read the whole lead. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Phillies have inducted three players for achievements at first base, four for their careers at second base, five third basemen, three shortstops, one utility infielder, two catchers, twenty-one outfielders, eighteen pitchers, seven managers, one general manager, one coach, two team executives, and two sportscasters." The phrases "for achievements at" and "for their careers at" seem redundant given that you've already explained that why players are inducted (in any case, it's fairly obvious), and disrupts the paralell structure of the list.
  • If by parallel structure you are referring to that which I call redundancy or repetitiveness, the disruption was intentional on my part. I wanted the reader to be drawn slowly into the sentence rather than just flying down the list of 1 of this, 7 of that, blah blah etc.. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that, and the current phrasing does sound better in spoken English, but in written language it's just grammatically strange. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you suggest removing the sentence altogether (I was trying to summarize from the list) or just removing the additional wording at the beginning?
  • Just those extraneous phrases (i.e "additional wording"). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the club with which they had arguably the largest impact." This is quite subjective; isn't there a more concrete criteria that can be used to determine this? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is none. The team simply inducts the players/figures who they feel are most worthy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how can one decide if a player had more impact with (say) the Phillies than the Athletics, but wouldn't it make more sense to list them with the team with which they played more? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I knew the answer, I would probably be on the WoF committee. Haha. Just as a hypothetical, if a pitcher threw 11 years with the Phillies (who played miserably for a large part of their history) and then won three World Series with the A's (I don't know if it's possible, but just suppose), wouldn't you expect him to be inducted with the A's? It's really a toss-up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could list both teams for those players, and use a hidden sortkey with {{sort}} so as to not mess up the sorting. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the players were not inducted for their achievements with both teams. The Wall of Fame is not like the Hall of Fame, measuring the sum of a player's career. It only measures careers with the Phillies/Athletics. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get the feeling we're talking past each other. Let's start over: if a player played for both the Phillies and the Athletics, why not list that they played for both teams instead of having to judge which team they were more influential on? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because we're not judging it; the induction committee already has. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with KV5 on this point. The induction people decide on their influence, not us. So, listing both team is incorrect.—Chris!c/t 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I didn't realize that they were listed as such on the website. Sorry for the trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To alleviate further confusion, I clarified the statement in the footnote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Support "Once Veterans Stadium closed in 2003, the wall plaques used to recognize the members were moved to Citizens Bank Park; however, the Phillies no longer induct notable Athletics." needs a source or two, one for the move and one for the no-more-Athletics (though that could be in a common source). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the general ref verifies the second, as no Athletics have been inducted since the close of the Vet. I will try to locate a ref for the move of the plaques. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the general ref is going to serve as the reference for that fact I think the sentence needs rewording so it doesn't sound like there's a verified/sourced policy shift. Something like "No Athletics have been inducted since XXXX". Staxringold talkcontribs 16:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I like the current wording, I've added another ref from the A's Historical Society to supplement the general ref. This should cover both facts. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only worried about "arguably". That's pure original research. If there's a quote you can use then fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea why the discussion moved, but again I say: there is no reference. If all it takes is removing "arguably", I'll do it, but it invites argument. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was addressed below under TRM's resolved cap. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "Once Veterans Stadium closed in 2003, the wall plaques used to recognize the members were moved to Citizens Bank Park; however, the Phillies no longer induct notable Athletics." - I'm not sure the second clause is related to the first.
  • It is, but it was missing the fact that it was the Phillies' plaques that were moved. Done now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " is most remembered for his managerial career" - prove it.
  • "retired a number or honored a "P" " I like it but it doesn't help non-experts understand what on earth "retiring a "P"" means.
  • That was why I linked it; an explanation of the process doesn't seem germane. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, no big deal, just know that no-one outside the States would have a clue what this means so the link may just about cover it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a large portion of the list is given over to the Centennial team, and it's highly relevant that 1983 had no inductees per the regular methods, you should discuss this year in more detail in the lead.
  • All of the information that I have on the topic is located in the appropriate section of the article; if you prefer, I can move it to the lead instead, but I don't want to say the same thing twice. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want you to move anything, just explain in the lead why 1983 was different.
  • Centennial Team - odd order - once you've reordered it you can't get back to the original listing.
  • What do you suggest? Neither the name nor the position will get you back to the original, but numbering them seems pointless. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Order them differently to start with. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The baseball fan in me doesn't like the positions being out of their "numerical" order, but it's done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "The Centennial Team plaque is placed to the left of the image." - no, it's on the left hand side of the image, not left of the image.
  • Done.
  • Footnote A has no reference and contains the word "arguably" - dodgy ground.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then what do you want me to do with it? We already discussed it above, and there's no reference available. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find a reference. Statements like "arguably" are WP:OR and should be discouraged. And it is currently unclear exactly what this note is doing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've said, there is no reference. The note is serving only to clarify that players who were members of both teams were only inducted for their achievements with one or the other. There's no WP:OR about it, because, as I mentioned to Dabomb87, no one here has made any determination about their worthiness to be included with one team or another. The induction committee has already done that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps I'm not making it clear enough. Stating a fact and then saying "arguably" is inherently problematic. You must see that, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not. Any man, entitled to his own opinions, may argue any point he wishes. In this case, John Doe may hold the opinion that the career of Player X was more influential to the Athletics than to the Phillies; however, the induction committee thought otherwise, and inducted Player X as a Phillie instead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh well. I believe that anyone writing in an encyclopedia would consider a statement such as "arguably" to be inherently problematic. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't want this to be a "never mind" kind of issue. I respect your work, TRM, and I know the community does too; otherwise, they wouldn't have asked you back as director. I'd like to work to a consensus on the issue, but I don't understand your point of view that this is original research. As I said above, if this is simply a matter of removing the word "arguably", I can do that; I just don't want its removal to invite arguments from outside parties. When we say "Wikipedia's best work", I strive to meet that goal, but in this case I'm finding it difficult to see your point of view. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, "arguably" is inherently POV, no matter how you look at it, e.g. "one could argue that the sky is light blue, not blue". The note says " the club with which they had arguably the largest impact, as judged by the induction committee." so if you are stating the induction committee had a policy or made a decision that came to a conclusion that a certain player made a more significant impact then you should be able to reference it. Otherwise, where do you get your information that suggests the committee made the decision based on your published statement? All I want to see is evidence that the "arguably the largest impact" statement is actually true rather than just a supposition based on original research. The clause should not be removed - it should be referenced and then its application made more specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get that. However, there's no information out there, at least not in sources that I've been able to locate, about who the induction committee is, why they do what they do, how they do it, etc. I will try to find something, but I don't know if I can find any further info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found some refs but I had to change some things to make them work. Let me know if it's good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Geraldk (talk) 20:12, 21 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Philadelphia_Baseball_Wall_of_Fame/archive1&oldid=1141920518"