Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Luis Aparicio Award/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 Giants2008 21:12, 04 May 2014 (UTC) ].

Luis Aparicio Award

 * Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Both Santana (2006) and Cabrera (2012) are the only award winners to also earn the pitching and batting Triple Crown, respectively, in the same season" - pretty sure the "both" isn't needed here
 * "The date marks both the feast [....] as well as the anniversary of Aparicio's professional debut" - is "both....as well as" valid in AmEng? In BrEng we would say "both....and"
 * Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed both comments. Thanks for the review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say that per WP:RELTIME, wording such as "the most recent recipient" should be avoided. Otherwise looks good. C679 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've utilized "most recent recipient" for all my award-related FLs, most recently in Premier League Golden Boot. The very nature of these lists – an award bestowed annually – necessitates the constant updating of the list.  I'm pretty sure that anyone updating the list to add the new winner of the award will make the corresponding changes to the prose as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course someone can update it, but not all people who have access to this information have live versions, e.g. offline versions, mirrors, etc. and it could easily be worded as "the 2014(2013?) recipient/winner". C679 14:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've already mentioned, the "most recent recipient format" has already been approved of in all 6 of the award-related FLs I've nominated; the latest was promoted less than a month ago. It's an unfortunate situation that not all people have access to live versions.  But everyone using WP has the live version, and WP readers and users are the only audience that I have to cater any FLs to. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – doesn't meet WP:RELTIME; the previous FL you mentioned has nothing regarding time-dependent clauses in the review; although you feel it is not important, as "anyone updating the list" will "will make the corresponding changes to the prose as well", I disagree. C679 21:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a valid oppose. WP:RELTIME isn't an FL criteria, MOS isn't policy, and it clearly stipulates that common sense needs to be applied, which clearly isn't being done in this case.  I've already proven that this is one trivial point that's already been overruled by past precedent in recently-passed FLCs, but unfortunately the reviewer is demonstrating a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ICANTHEARYOU.  I appears that the only other reason for his opposition is because of his participation in the WikiCup, which I'm also competing in. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the "past precedent" you refer to. I found no mention of such details in the link to the article you provided. I think the article is great, and very close to FL status, but your unwillingness to comply to RELTIME leaves me no other option. I admit I found a link to this discussion through the WikiCup but I have no interest in helping you obtain points in the contest, or preventing you front doing so; rather I am commenting on the content. C679 23:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rubbish! By using a minor trivial point that isn't even FL criteria which I have already disproven to oppose, it's pretty obvious that you're only trying to disrupt this FLC in order to prevent me from getting WC points, demonstrating a clear conflict of interest.  Even you acknowledged that you found this through the WikiCup, so I find it extremely peculiar how someone – who has never nominated a single FL and hasn't been through the FLC process – suddenly decides to pop in, give his two cents worth on one trivial point and oppose?  Have you even read what the FL criteria is?  Are you trying to say that every reviewer who supported my previous 6 award-related FLCs were completely wrong and that you're the only one that's "right"?  Anyway, I'll find enough support votes to force this FLC through, because one lone oppose vote based on fallacy isn't going to be taken into account by FL directors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fifth point on the Featured list criteria is MOS compliance. RELTIME is in MOS. You claim "past precedent" without any visible discussion in the previous FLC thread. Nowhere did I call any other reviewer "wrong", and your of my comments is not appropriate. C679  08:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 2014 FLCs – Featured list candidates/Premier League Golden Boot/archive1, Featured list candidates/Marvin Miller Man of the Year Award/archive1. All passed unanimously, not a single mention of your insignificant point.  As for MOS, you clearly didn't read the heading above about using common sense in applying the rules.  And RELTIME only says "Prefer specific statements of time to general ones";  it does not say, "One must use specific as opposed to general."  Therefore, MOS on RELTIME doesn't apply here due to your incorrect interpretation and application of it.  And your resorting to Wikihounding is not appropriate. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bloom, even if you feel that C679 is incorrect about what the MOS requires (which I don't think is nearly as clear as you think it is), would it really be so bad to change the text in the appropriate place? C679 has identified the problematic text, explained the reason he considers it problematic and suggested alternative wording. This seems to be pretty solid reviewing; I think you are perhaps being a little unfair to him here- he has remained perfectly civil, and I think the suggestion that he is hounding you is incorrect. J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I never notified him of the note I left on your talkpage. The only way he could've gotten that diff is by sifting thoroughly through my contributions.  If that's not called hounding, I don't know what is. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be bad to change the text. Readers are more interested as to who the most recent winner is, as opposed to who the [insert specific year] winner is.  The format is used in Premier League Golden Boot, Marvin Miller Man of the Year Award, Tip O'Neill Award, Lou Gehrig Memorial Award, etc.  His civility isn't the issue here – it's his incorrect reasoning in opposing this FLC and his refusal to get the point even after recent consensus has been established and shown to him.  —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't something like ", the most recent recipient is..." work? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That works. Thanks Crisco! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as my concerns have been addressed. C679 11:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support meets the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 21:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Post-closing support Just noticed this nomination existed. Whoops. I took a look at the page before coming to the review page and I concur that this currently meets FL criteria. Well done! – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 11 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.