Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year 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 Dabomb87 15:34, 7 November 2009.

Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award

 * Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was sitting on this nomination for a little while given the FLC nomination freeze, but Dabomb has now lifted that (hence my starting this up while 30 Rock (season 3) is still going). Yes it is a short list with only 10 award winners so far, but IMO it meets all the criteria including comprehensiveness. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment - Could explain more about the voting process. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A reply would be much appreciated. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that. I'm not sure what else to expand on. The candidates are named and a fan vote names the winner. What would you like added? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this MLB source, it says that "The 30 Club beat reporters from MLB.com, [and] the official website of Major League Baseball" are the voters, not the fans. Also on this other MLB source, from looking at the voting numbers, it appears that 1st place votes are 5 points, 2nd place is 3 points, and 3rd place is one. Huh! To reply to the message you left on my talk page, it's okay, as long as the matter will be resolved. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, weird, it was definitely a fan vote originally. I'll fix that section up. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There we go, fixed. I really do apologize. As far as I can tell the 05 and 06 awards were clearly fan vote and the 08 and 09 awards clearly with this voting structure. The 07 awards are the only unclear one currently, as the two comeback winner articles focus more on the Players' Choice Award than this. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Woot, found the source. 05-06 was fan vote, 07-current is the beat reporter vote. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would probably comment again tomorrow (no school tomorrow!). Thanks for fixing up the voting section! --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - no major issues that I see. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  04:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Images: Licensing looks fine and alt text is provided.  Good raise  01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources: Sources are formated properly and seem to be reliable.  Good raise  02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to support this nomination.  Good raise  05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note MM-DD-YYYY is not a format used on Wikipedia; please use YYYY-MM-DD or a format with the month spelled out. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CITE: "There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent." Staxringold talkcontribs 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DATE: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose." I find absolutely no policy that says what you are saying. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That citation style note doesn't really apply here, except for consistency. I was referring to the references, which are not prose. "11-01-2009" is a prime example of why we don't use these formats (is it November 1 or 11 January?), because they are ambiguous.
 * Also, see "Do not use date formats such as 03/04/2005, as they are ambiguous (it could refer to 3 April or to March 4)." This applies here, as MM-DD-YYYY is the same as MM/DD/YYYY (or DD/MM/YYYY), but with hyphens instead of slashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is YYYY-MM-DD any less ambiguous on those dates than MM-DD-YYYY. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I changed the style. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * Why no ref in the second paragraph?
 * For all these baseball lists, information that in the lead simply summing up what's said in the table generally isn't ref'd. I'll find one for the Carpenter 04 Comeback win, though.


 * Why no lead image?
 * What would it be? I know of no trophy (and certainly no trophy image) and all the winners are listed below. If someone had an image of one of the players clearly pre-Comeback (like when sent down to a minor league team or walking off the field injured or something) that might be useful, but beyond that dunno what to use. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do the ESPN refs say "ESPN" twice in a row?
 * They don't, one is the work and one is the publisher. This is Goodraise's work. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Major League Baseball" and "ESPN" only need to be linked once in the refs.
 * This is how I've done up several baseball lists before it. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it's right. BUC (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't but why not err on the side of slightly overlinking so someone browsing the site can easily check up on the refs rather than underlink and cut into that simplicity? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no right way, as long as it's consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this list is long enough to be a FL. But if it has gotten this far in prob is.
 * WP:FL? criteria 3 (Comprehensiveness) requires only that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" (which it does) and "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists" (which it does). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers or List of Tampa Bay Rays seasons. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "and won the Rays' first" weren't they still the Devil Rays back then?
 * Right you are, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW "sponsorship agreement between MLB and Viagra" lol is that because the winners are generally old! BUC (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's partially a play on the term "comeback". Gnome-face-wink.svg Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


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