Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with 400 doubles/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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC) ].

List of Major League Baseball players with 400 doubles

 * Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after a substantial re-working, I think it meets the criteria. The edits I made were largely based on List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples, which I brought to FL in 2009. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments – —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A whole lot has changed since 2009, and if that triples list was at FLC now, it wouldn't be passed.
 * Firstly, scope rows and cols are required for the table per WP:DTT. The scope cols are for the column headers, while the rows are for the players' names.
 * Turn the key into an actual table to improve WP:ACCESSIBILITY. It'll also require scope rows and cols.
 * Add table captions to both the key and full list.
 * See 30–30 club and 50 home run club for recent examples on these new changes.
 * The introductory prose needs to be more detailed. In addition to the above two FLs, see 300 win club as a good example of thoroughness.
 * Is there any explanation as to why 400 doubles is important? Why 400 and not, say, 300, 350 or 500?  This FLC just got failed because it couldn't establish why 300 was used as the cutoff point.


 * You're right, there have been quite a few changes since I last nominated something for Featured List. I doubt my skills are up to the task.  This nomination should probably be withdrawn.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if my comments were in any way discouraging. It's just that I, myself, was hit with the same surprise when I nominated the above two FLs in 2012.  All the best if you do decide to renominate this list in the future. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to sound negative: your comments are fair. I just know that, having looked at the new standards, I won't have time to teach myself how to code them, let alone to then rewrite the whole table.  And as to 400 being arbitrary: it is.  I can't really justify that, it's just how I found the list and it seems like a good round number.  So, I'd recommend that the delegates here fail this thing and maybe I'll bring it up again next year some time.  --Coemgenus (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note – Request for withdrawal: the nominator has indicated above that he'd like this FLC nom to be closed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 20:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


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