• You use the phrase "home run" before you link it...

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hall hit 5 home runs" why not "five home runs"?

• Fixed, I'd just gotten used to the double-digit numbers. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "22 season" would hyphenate.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "mark of 60 stood for over thirty years until Roger Maris hit 61 " that thirty could be 30?

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " Finally Barry Bonds, who also has " - Not keen on "Finally..."

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to "Most recently". Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " lead a major league was 4, "
  • Four
• You have "player" and "runner-up"
  • Why not "winner"?
  • In both cases there appears to be multiple winners, so surely "runner(s)-up" for instance.

• Changed both. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Babe Ruth's caption:
  • En dash not hyphen.
  • Four not 4
  • Same for Pike & Hines caption.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Schmidt's caption - home runs 8 times - eight times.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What constitutes a "major league" in this context?

• A league with major-league-level records recognized by Major League Baseball, as sourced by the inclusion in the Major League sections of Baseball-Reference. The Texas League and the Grapefruit League are parts of MLB but not "major" (in the sense of highest level of professional sport, they are minor/training leagues) and Nippon Professional Baseball is the highest level of Japanese baseball but is not a part of MLB. And I fixed the 4. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a note with a reference or a link you can use to stop me asking the question again? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not directly. Take Al Spalding. He is listed at a similar FLC right now, List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions, as he led the National Association in several seasons. MLB.com doesn't always list this league, for example their no-hitter page only discusses the NL and AL. However Spalding has a player page that recognizes those seasons, and he is listed in his place with the third lowest career ERA. Would you accept this? Hardball Times is a pretty well-recognized source, they put out annual books, etc, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely a good start. I think my basic question is "how do you define what you consider to be a "major league" when most of us non-experts just associate that with "Major League" if you get my drift..." Anything based on RS which supports your choice is fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, no more complaints from me on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text

• You should not describe things that aren't actually shown in the image, like the writing on Barry Bonds' uniform.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Same goes for the writing on Babe Ruth's cap. (The characters are so small that I had to open the file's page in order to read them.)

• Ok, but it is there... Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "he is holding a baseball upward." - This is supposed to be a baseball bat, right?

• Yeah, fixed, many of these alt issues come because I largely just grabbed the image code from other FLCs and stuck on new captions. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, the character on Jimmie Foxx's cap is really hard to read. If a detail is not prominent on the picture, it should not be prominent in the alt text.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "looks out having taken a left-handed baseball swing." - This is more of an interpretation than a description.

• In what way? He's a left-handed batter in the clear stance which follows a left-handed swing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That he is "a left-handed batter" and that he is standing "in the clear stance which follows a left-handed swing" are two pieces of information that I wouldn't have derived from that picture even if I had stared at it for hours. The alt text goes even a step further by stating that the man "ha[s just] taken a left-handed baseball swing". Could he not have stood there for half a minute, posing for photographers? Is there no other way he could have gotten into that stance? Goodraise 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Altered. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "A Hispanic man walking while shouting at someone out of the picture." - Misses a comma after walking. What follows after that comma is, again, too interpretative.

• Fixed, another copied alt issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "holding both hands up preparing to catch a ball." - Missing a comma after up. Suggest adding "as if" after the comma to avoid interpreting the image.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On his picture, Mike Schmidt is wearing a cap. Whether or not he has a "receding hairline" is not visible.

• Fixed. Yay alt copying! Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The bat is behind him over his right shoulder." - From what I can tell, it's above his left shoulder.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "the back of his jersey reads 'McGwire'" - See above.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "His white uniform reads "Orioles" across the chest (obscured)." - See above. Adding "(obscured)" doesn't make the alt text any better.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Baseball card of a man in a white baseball uniform, black socks, and black shoes holding a baseball bat against his chest." - The picture is monochrome. What if the actual uniform was gray and dark-blue?

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Text on the bottom reads 'CONNOR, N.Y's.'" - This sentence leaves the reader who has to rely on the alt text with the false impression that there is no other writing on the bottom of the card than this.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I strongly suggest and ask that you read WP:ALT before fixing these issues.)

• Several alt texts suggest that the person shown is African American. That is something that cannot be seen on a picture. Goodraise 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General

• There are several links to disambiguation pages.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Links to the corresponding "year in baseball" or "Major League Baseball season" article" - This strikes me as very awkward. I think you should describe what is in the column, not where the text links to.

• Removed all-together. "Year" is self-evident. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In "Philadelphia Athletics (NL)", what is the "(NL)" denoting? Whatever it is, if it is worth noting, is it not worth noting in prose form?

• It is to separate the short-lived National League team (NL) from the very old and still existing Philadelphia Athletics (who have become the Oakland Athletics). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see, but why use this cryptic form over an explanation in prose form? Goodraise 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Better? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The American League was established in 1901, and Hall of Fame second baseman Nap Lajoie led that league with 14 home runs for the American League Philadelphia Athletics." - No comma. Suggest changing the sentence to "In 1901, the American League was established and led by Hall of Fame second baseman Nap Lajoie with 14 home runs for the American League Philadelphia Athletics."

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The most recent champions are Albert Pujols in the National League with Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira sharing the title in the American League." - Suggest changing to to "The most recent champions are Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira, sharing the title in the American League, and Albert Pujols in the National League."

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "29 (1919) then 54" - Missing a comma before the then.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Most recently Barry Bonds" - Misses a comma after recently. Also, "Most recently" is somewhat redundant to the "current", which appears later in the sentence.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "more home runs-Greg Vaughn" - Use an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash instead of the hyphen.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hate to be overly pedantic, but you used an unspaced en dash. Goodraise 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Giving it another go, the various dashes are one thing that still tend to trip me up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times, with 24 of these seasons occuring since 1990." - Suggest changing this to "A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times. Of these seasons, 24 occurred since 1990."

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns on image licensing and the sources are looking good too. However, I'll oppose for now. Goodraise 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to neutral. Going to give the article another pass before supporting. Goodraise 13:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of the alt texts insufficiently describe "what the person looks like."

Weak support. Though the alt texts have room for improvement, the list as a whole meets the criteria. Goodraise 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly have no idea how to meet that alt text suggestion. I mean, look at the first example of improved alt text, "serious and dignified woman in her forties". How is that not interpretive? You don't know her age, and serious and dignified are 100% interpretations. Plus about 90% of these photos are just guys in baseball jerseys, not sure how to delineate based on things you can see in a thumbnail. Fixed your other comment. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ALT#Neutrality may be of help. Goodraise 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, that just doesn't make any sense to me. The so-called "flawed" alt text is a far more NPOV statement of the image than the "improved" one. Stating it's the artist isn't something you see in the picture, nor is his youth, nor the "ill-kempt" nature of his hair, nor the nature of his expression. The so-called better alt text is filled to the rafters with the exact problems you just had me remove of interpreting the image. If you can provide specific examples of pictures you want fixed, great, but this is just making the whole thing more confusing to me, not less. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• May I ask you something? Have you actually read WP:ALT? I mean, have you read it from top to bottom? Goodraise 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read lots of it, but not all. I'm happy to fix up alts, but this is how I've always written them so more specific pics you take issue with would help. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Goodraise. I don't consider myself an alt text expert by any stretch of imagination, but I think I've mastered it to a pretty good extent. I looked at the alt text of each of the images, and found only one glaring error, which I've fixed (see WP:ALT#Provenance). I too think that at this point it would be helpful if you could offer advice for specific alt texts. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry guys. If my EPD (edits per day) was as high as it used to be, I'd be happy to indulge you, but seeing as it's not and considering that I'm already in support of this nomination, I'll only say this: Go and study WP:ALT. Unlike some other guidelines, ALT is actually worth reading. Regards, Goodraise 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think having another column indicating the number of games played would complement this list nicely. I don't think it would apply to the ERA column since ERA is already an average of sorts. If other editors disagree, then I'll support but I'd like to see a broader discussion.—NMajdan•talk 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But what does it tell you? If anything it's more pertinent to ERA because you have no idea what time period that ERA is over (is a 2.99 ERA over 150 innings more impressive than a 3.00 over 250?). What does playing time tell you about who hit the most home runs in a season? That is the only question asked, and thus the only question addressed by the list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I could go either way with the ERA list, but that's for there not here. Something to indicate the frequency that the player in question hit home runs at (so showing games played or at bats/plate appearances) would be very useful. Having the runners-up listed seems to me to make it even more important: it either offers further proof to the winner's dominance by having the same or fewer games to reach his total, or (like with comparing winners from different seasons with differing schedule lengths) raises the possibility that had the runner-up had the same number of opportunities perhaps they would have been the winner. If at bats instead of (or in addition to) games, differences in schedule lengths might be counteracted by the reduction of at bats a guy got because he was hitting with so much power that he got walked more often. It establishes context, and provides a more meaningful basis for comparison.
• Without adding that extra column there would be room for interpretation such as "Player X hit 50 homers when he won, but Player Y only hit 25, so X was twice as good as Y", when the number of games for the respective players was not the same; X might have been three or four times as good because he had fewer games, or he might have been only slightly better or perhaps even worse because he had many more games. (Obviously I'm using "better" and "worse" as very simplistic judgments here.) I've generally found the difference between data and information to be context.  Afaber012  (talk)  00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also the difficulty of implementing this, though. There are numerous ties, for example, but not tied in playing time. It seems like all of this would be complex, time-draining, and ultimately only tell you something related to the list, not anything about the subject (who hit the most home runs). Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think the simplest way of implementing it would be to have the numbers listed as "HR (GP)" or "HR (AB)". That way where there are ties, the extra context can still be supplied without a major overhaul of the entire table structure, just an extra row to the key at the top. By your argument, excluding the info because its related to the list and not about the subject, the team they played for, the runners-up and how many they hit should be removed as well. We're talking about this potentially being a featured list, and in my opinion without the context of the number of games played or at bats faced, the list would not truly meet WP:FL? 3A: "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items".

• So are you saying put the data in parenthetically in the HR column, or a new column? Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Parenthetically. That way there isn't as much hard work in adding two extra columns of data to each table, and keeps the format simple for when there are ties in leaders or runners-up. So it would look something like this:

• And I've been thinking about the possibility of using at bats, plate appearances, or even something like their batting or slugging average as alternatives to games played: I think games played would be the best to use because it provides a way of comparing the results that doesn't itself introduce another concept that would need to be explained for non-baseball people. If someone doesn't understand the concept of a game played by a sports-person, then they will likely have difficulty with a lot of other concepts, whereas an at bat is something that even some baseball players need to have explained. (The number of guys and girls I've played with who didn't understand why their batting average didn't go up when they walked all three times they went to the plate in a game is pretty big.)  Afaber012  (talk)  03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but games played are wildly inaccurate. You appear as a defensive replacement and you get a full game played even if you never bat. Plate appearances are perfect, but AB are the traditional measure and the requirement for other batting stats, so I'll use AB. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I'd make sure that in the key when you add in that part, you explain what an at bat is: "every time you go to bat, but don't walk or sac". (Obviously a slightly better prose form would be needed.)  Afaber012  (talk)  04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, walks and sacrifices are excluded from at bat counts? I didn't know that. Well, that kinda changes things for me. With that, I think the proportion of home runs to at bats will be more disproportionate than it actually was. Even more so that counting games. Obviously, most home run leaders aren't usually just coming in for a defensive series.—NMajdan•talk 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At-bats are the traditional measure of playing time. They are the qualification for batting titles. AB/HR is a common stat tracked by B-Ref. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]