Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/All-Star Final Vote

All-Star Final Vote

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. --Crzycheetah 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 Days Ends July 25
Current Opinion	User
Support	Golbez
Neutral	Circeus
Support	Pats Sox Princess
Support	Geraldk
Support	Colin

Support as nominator. I am nominating this as a list in its current form. I think it is probably better to have separate sections for each year of the list rather than one contiguous list. Thus, this is an unorthodox featured list candidate, but I think a good one. It is verifiable and complete and follows all other WP:WIAFL guidelines. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Consider removing extraneous links from the "teams" and "position" columns. Circeus 17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These were all recently done by someone trying to help. I have reverted them. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ since my effort to fix blacklinks was reverted. They aren't "duplicate links", every table is an island unto itself. It's different when dealing with prose; I shouldn't have to hunt for a link to click. It also looks unprofessional when you have, for example in the 2005 table, only a single table linked. --Golbez 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I have fixed links so that duplication is considered section by section. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support as long as the additional linking I just put in place remains. --Golbez 01:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I have posted a possible reformatting of the table on the talk page. I want to know what you think about returning to a side-by-side. It could even facilitate a continuous chart (as a completely separate consideration so that the linking problem is lessened).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply (copied from User talk page) I like the side by side one. I also like condensing the teams and positions to letters, but I'm not sure if I like it enough to do it. =p That is to say, I don't mind it, but others who are less familiar with the topic might be unhappy with it. I don't know. Lemme check something real quick... I was checking Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres to see if it does that, and it uses the full names plus abbreviations, then drops to only the abbreviations. That doesn't answer my question, though, so. I dunno. I suggest you ask the FLC about dropping to only the acronyms. But I like moving the table to side-by-side. --Golbez 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ The tables of winners seem good to me as they are, but I do have an issue with two of the images. First, Johnny Damon was not a Yankee when he was voted in, and if possible a picture of him with the Red Sox should be used. Second, Nomar Garciaparra was a Dodger, not a Red Sox, when voted in and if possible a picture of him with LA should be used. This is written from a baseball fans perspective, and not a very experienced wikipedia user. Pats Sox Princess 16:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I chose the pictures as the best for the player regardless of affiliation. Neither player has really good contemporaneous pics. Will change for consensus depending on feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply yes I understand that finding non-copyrighted images may be difficult, thats why I went neutral and not oppose. Pats Sox Princess 16:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ReplyIf someone echoes your opinion I will change to the other pics, but I don't like them as much. Are you aware the table formating issue raised above is something that would be implemented throughout the page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply I like the formatting as is right now. However, I suppose that int he future having the tables on top of each other may make the page too long. And the full team names should be used considering that Wikipedia is for all, and not just sports fans. Pats Sox Princess 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply The other featured baseball list uses abbreviations (List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame by date of induction). I presume abbreviations are O.K. even for teams. WP:ABB seems to suggest abbreviations are acceptable at times. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply feel free to use abbreviations then. Pats Sox Princess 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply I have changed the Nomar image, but I don't like the Damon image with all his team mates for this page. I could be convinced to change, but am not keen on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What should this page be called? Lists of All-Star Final Votes, possibly Lists of All-Star Final Votes (2002-2009) (setting up decade by decade lists). --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyThe term baseball or MLB should likely be in the title. Pats Sox Princess 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contest is named the "X All-Star Final Vote" where X is a sponsors name and not the "X Major League Baseball All-Star Final Vote". There are multiple All-Star games so MLB is needed in the name of the game, but not the contest. If it is unambiguous the league is not necessary. E.g., Pro Bowl does not have National Football League in front of it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBased on two veteran votes (plus my own) for side-by-side abbreviated (including one from the article talk page) and one newbie vote against. I am converting to the abbreviated side-by-side.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't "notes" be called "references" Buc 18:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't think so, but if I am misinterpretting Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices_and_descriptions let me know. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I saw the other Damon image, and basically it sucks. No other problems with the page. Pats Sox Princess 20:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great list. Geraldk 13:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great list. I agree the "Notes" section has no notes and only contains references so should be called "References". If it has both, you would call it "Notes and references" but most people like to split these. In the "Team success summary", why are none of the teams linked? The first sentence of "All-Star selection" is missing a "(" and the "for decades" is imprecise. The MOS recommends you be accurate rather than hand-wavy. Can you find a date? The "with guidance by the baseball commissioner’s office" clause should probably be inside commas. I assume the bright yellow is meant to be gold? It is a bit in-your-face. Could you make the yellow/brown a little most pastel? Finally, check out WP:MOSNUM for guidelines on spelling out numbers and ordinals (e.g. 1 and 2nd). Colin°^Talk 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WRT, notes vs references, I provided the link above. Here is the applicable quote: "Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). "References" is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). I am using footnotes, so the proper title is notes as I understand it. I will be traveling tomorrow so I may not get all of your changes made until Friday. I will try to get to as many as I can.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wish the MOS was clearer. The part in parenthesis indicates only that these are explanatory footnotes (which are often, these days, done with letters and the old ref/note system). Colin°^Talk 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is a color palette from another page. Which of these do you like best? If you don't like any they are just a few of the possibilities.
    - WRT MOS, I believe a player search page is a reference and an actual player page is a footnote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

I've added some more. How about 14? Colin°^Talk 08:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you wanted both colors changed? If not which do you want changed?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought the yellow was too bold/bright. That's the worst of the two. I'd have chosen a slightly lighter brown, but it isn't too bad. It is a personal choice. You decided. Colin°^Talk 17:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the shade of yellow.

- I have followed all of your suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]