Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples/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 18:39, 24 October 2009.

List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples

 * Nominator(s): Coemgenus 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after improving the appearance and the references, it meets the criteria. --Coemgenus 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment
 * The leaders section has too many images, resulting a large white gap between the section
 * It actually has too few on my monitor. How many should I take out to make it work for your display?  I took out two.  Coemgenus 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't the closest active players section in table format?
 * With only four, it didn't seem worth it. I'd be glad to make it into a table, if that would help the nomination.  Coemgenus 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just thought that the sections should be more consistent.— Chris! c / t 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to a table, and I think it does look better. Coemgenus 02:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All images require alt text— Chris! c / t 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is my first featured anything nom since the alt-text thing came about, but I think I've now added it correctly. Let me know if it's not right.  Coemgenus 14:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support — Chris! c / t 01:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Staxringold talkcontribs 15:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The last section of the lead, dealing with the notability of no currently active 100+ triplers should include Steve Finley who also had 100+ triples and also retired in 07 (especially since HE is the active leader for 07 in the B-Ref source given), so something like "Since the retirement of Kenny Lofton AND Steve Finley in 2007". That fact is notable enough to keep, IMO, even past the 2010 or 2011 season if Rollins and/or Damon cross 100 (that 08-?? was the first time in more than a century no active player had 100+).
 * I listed Lofton as the last 100+ active player because his last game was in September '07, while Finley's was in June '07. Coemgenus 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of images looks fine to me. As with your display they stop well before the table does.
 * I think the alt text is ok, but could use a bit more expansion (the idea is for people with screen readers, so perhaps mention the uni colors and such).
 * I added some colors and what not, where applicable. Coemgenus 18:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The See Also section needs a bit of trimming. You don't need ALL those other baseball lists.
 * I agree, I just didn't want to provooke an edit war by trimming it. I'll cut it down and see what happens. Coemgenus 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Random idea, but given any thought to at least short mentions of other triples records, such as the MLB-single-season (Chief Wilson's 36 is a big chunk of the 100 to make this list) and maybe other league's career records? Yutaka Fukumoto apparently holds the Nippon Professional Baseball league record with 115. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I put Fukumoto in the see also section -- I couldn't really think of a way to work him into the main prose. Wilson's record is mentioned in his picture along the side -- do you think I should add more about it?  Coemgenus 13:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just some ideas. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from --  SRE.K.A.L. 24 [c]

(outdent) Could anyone beside Coemgenus comment on this? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Deeper fences in old ballparks, such as Pittsburgh's Forbes Field and Detroit's Tiger Stadium, also produced fewer home runs and more triples on well-hit balls. As a result, most of the players on this list have been retired for decades." - Needs reference
 * I'll see if one can be found. Do you mean a reference that the ballparks were bigger, or that the sized caused more triples?  The former is easy enough, but the latter seems self-evident.  --Coemgenus 03:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I found a cite that should work for both.  --Coemgenus 03:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  03:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...his Detroit Tigers teammate..." Needs reference
 * You mean I need to reference the fact that they both played for the Tigers at the same time? --Coemgenus 03:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. This can easily be source from Baseball-Reference, or elsewhere. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  03:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it needs a reference. Would anyone dispute it?  A look at either man's article would show that they were teammates on the Tigers from 1905 to 1917.  --Coemgenus 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Laugh out loud. Referencing Wikipedia article are not allowed. You have to reference everything on the article, and all the references need to be cited on the References section. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  04:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Laugh all you want, I still maintain that not every fact in an article needs a reference. The featured list criteria certainly don't require it.  --Coemgenus 13:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is certainly true, but having a source is better than not having one, as readers can reference check. Like I said, Wikipedia articles cannot be sources for Wikipedia articles. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  17:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Cross that out. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) After searching Baseball-Reference and Retrosheet, it's pretty impossible to find when the players hit 100 3Bs. I think the best way of finding them is by searching news sources like NY Times, LA Times, Boston Herald, etc., but that will be too bothersome, so no bother wasting a load of time in one column. Would be nice if you could somehow add additional columns onto the table, since it looks very thin. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Now how about adding the year in which they got the 100th? I would volunteer to insert it if you would like. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Some older sources give Crawford's career total as 312." Which other sources? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hall of Fame still does, for example: . MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com both give the updated total, arrived at after statistics were given a more thorough review.  Should I add that to the footnote?  There's quite a bit of citation already.  Coemgenus 01:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be like "Some sources, like the Baseball Hall of Fame, give Crawford's career total as 312." or something similar with the citation after it. Could you find any more reliable sources that indicate 312? That will be great! --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the HOF page to the cite. It's hard to find a more reliable source for inaccurate information.  Coemgenus 01:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, the rank column should be taken out, as it is the same as the number of triples column. Would it be possible to tell when the players got their 100th triple?
 * It does arrange the list in the same way, but I think people would like to know where players rank, not just how many triples they have. --Coemgenus 03:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cross the first part. What about the second? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  03:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I haven't found a book or website that lists it. Perhaps by looking into box scores day by day, one could figure it out for the players in the modern era (when better records exist) but even that would probably be original research, and would certainly be more work that I would want to do. --Coemgenus 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  04:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it looks thin, but to have sortability it must be all in one column. I couldn't think of anything relevant to add that would widen it, and I didn't want to add extraneous information just for appearances (not to mention that it might only appear too thin on some monitors and not others).  If you have any suggestions of relevant info, I'd be glad to consider it.  Coemgenus 01:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think inserting the years of which they completed the 100 triples is definitely possible, as it is on all the players' Baseball-Reference pages. Any thoughts? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  02:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I think it verges on original research.  Does anyone else have an opinion?  Coemgenus 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether we choose to add another column of info or not, do you think the list meets the criteria? Coemgenus 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You said to me you used that ref to show a player was active. Perhaps just include their last active year in the list if there's a consensus to include a "timeframe" for when these records were achieved.  It's relevant as you said in the lead how it used to occur so much more back-in-the-day than it does now?  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes good sense. Should I just add their last year, or would the MLB debut year make sense, too?  Coemgenus 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)  I added both years.  Coemgenus 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You should denote what the columns mean, since readers may not understand. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I revised the headings -- should be clearer now. Coemgenus 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think it's borderline original research, and now that their career dates are added, I'm not sure how much it adds. Coemgenus 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Nice job on the article. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_trip1.shtml a reliable source? If I have commented on this in an FLC before, please call me out on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to address that. Is there something that makes you think it's unreliable?  WP:RS doesn't raise any red flags for me as applied to this website -- it's the same data I could've gotten from baseball-reference.com, but it's arranged better for the purpose for which I cited it.  --Coemgenus 04:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This did come up in an FLC I was involved in, but never got resolved one way or the other since I was able to easily replace the reference. This one is a bit trickier, since the first few pages of a Google search I tried didn't yield anything as direct as Baseball Almanac.  Maybe it would be worth posting to the Reliable Source noticeboard, since Baseball Almanac does sometimes have useful information.  My own view (when I originally used a B-A source in an FLC) was colored by the Baseball Almanac that was published annually in book form through at least the mid-60s.  But I am not sure the on line site has any connection with that book, so I am not sure myself whether it meets RS guidelines (although I have never noticed any significant accuracy issues).
 * That said, I am not sure that should stand in the way of this particular item. Although it may border on synthesis, I believe that simple arithmetic, counting and table look ups are allowed under WP:V and WP:SYNTH, and Baseball-Reference's Sam Crawford page clearly shows his AL/NL split.  Since I don't think anyone disputes that Cobb and Wagner spent their entire careers in the AL and NL respectively, it is pretty clear from the Baseball-Reference Triple Leaders page that they lead their respective league in all-time triples.  So maybe include the B-R Crawford and Triple pages in addition to the B-A reference to demonstrate that even if B-A is not an RS in general, the relevant information in the concise table is reliable.Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This list already has 174 citations. I'm reluctant to add anymore without a good reason.  Is there any reason to believe the information on Baseball-Almanac.com is inaccurate?  Coemgenus 15:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Verifibility to reliable sources is what's key; blogs and hobby sites can be accurate too but that doesn't mean we should use them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, what do I have to do to make the statement in question reliably sourced? --Coemgenus 00:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I found out how to sort the stats on MLB.com by league, and I linked to that instead of Baseball-Almanac.  --Coemgenus 01:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.