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 [1].

List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

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)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • I just thought that the sections should be more consistent.—Chris!c/t 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it to a table, and I think it does look better. Coemgenus 02:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images require alt text—Chris!c/t 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
  • "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)[reply]
  • "...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)[reply]
      • Yep. This can easily be source from Baseball-Reference, or elsewhere. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Could anyone beside Coemgenus comment on this? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Cross that out. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some older sources give Crawford's career total as 312." Which other sources? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hall of Fame still does, for example: [2]. 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)[reply]
      • 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.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • Cross the first part. What about the second? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

(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.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure. I think it verges on original research. Does anyone else have an opinion? Coemgenus 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • You should denote what the columns mean, since readers may not understand. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I revised the headings -- should be clearer now. Coemgenus 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "with neither the benefit of a fielding error not with another runner being put out on a fielder's choice." Remove the second "with", since it's doing nothing but making the structure awkward.
  • "249 of them were with the American League." "with" → "in".
  • "making 2008 the first season since 1885 in which no active player has more than 100 triples." "has" → "had". We're now in 2009, after all.
  • For the photographs of Sam Crawford, Jake Beckley, and Tris Speaker and Harry Hooper, the date of publication needs to be established. Publication is what counts for public domain status, not merely creation.
    • I replaced the Speaker/Hooper pic. The Beckley pic is from a baseball card, and such cards are published soon after the photo is taken. I replaced the Crawford pic with a baseball card that was certainly published during his career. Coemgenus 23:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 3 could use an access date. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accessed it today, so there you go. Coemgenus 23:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot one comment that I wanted to give above: there should be a note for the year links that says they link to MLB season articles. Without one, readers may think that the links are for articles on years, which aren't of much use. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you mean I should add a footnote in the heading, or a sentence at the top of the list section? Coemgenus 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either will do, though I would add a footnote if I was working on the list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments nice, I learned some stuff from this list which is a good start! I know nada about baseball so forgive my probably stupid comments...
  • by "Deeper fences" do you they were further out, i.e. the in-play area was larger? Not sure "deeper fences" is exactly what we're looking for... but no biggie if a reword proves too hard.
    • "Deeper" is baseball-talk, but "more distant" is probably a better explanation. I changed it. Coemgenus 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link the hall of fame twice in quick succession, no need.
  • "249 of them were in the American League" - this may be significant or mean something of note to a baseball expert but I'm not sure what its relevance is to, say, me, a total non-expert?
    • I think my original language got a bit mangled. I moved it to a footnote to explain why Crawford is not the AL or NL record-holder, but is the MLB record-holder. Coemgenus 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • American League is linked but National League is not. Is this deliberate? And American League appears to be linked twice in quick succession.
  • "hit 200 or more triples." not overly keen on this turn of phrase, you could safely say "hit at least 200 triples"?
  • Are these triples all from just league competitions? Or do play-offs etc (should they exist!) count as well?
    • Only regular-season games count for records. I think that's true in all sports, so I didn't include it in the description. Coemgenus 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm no so sure. I don't think it would do any harm to make that clear, a simple one-line statement? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, it doesn't hurt to add it. You made me curious about who has hit the most post-season triples, so I added a parenthetical about that, too. Coemgenus 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the Cobb+Jackson image caption needs a full stop.
  • "Mike Marshall" links to Mark Mitchell - which name is correct?
    • Fixed -- it should be Mike Mitchell. Thanks for catching that! Coemgenus 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, forgive my ignorance, but does any of the "active player"'s references state that they're actually active?
    • The refs show that the players played last season, and (unlike inactive players' refs) don't show a date for their last game. Coemgenus 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 needs fixing for accessdate field.
  • Keep format of dates in references same, so don't mix human-readable and ISO formats as you do, say for 10 and 11. All ref dates should be in one format or the other.
  • There appears to be an MLB statistics category, is this better than plain baseball statistics?
    • I know next to nothing about the hierarchy of categories -- if you say it's better, I'll be glad to take your word for it. Should I change it? Coemgenus 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if you're happy that this is really a list about MLB baseball statistics (which I think it is!) then yes, a more specific cat would be useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "Only 249 of Crawford's triples were in the American League." What does this mean? Did he hit 249 of those against AL teams?
    • It explains why Crawford is the major-league leader in triples, but the AL or NL leader: he hit some of his triples while playing in each league. I clarified the footnote some, I think, to better explain this. --Coemgenus 03:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make more sense to link to MLB season articles where possible.
    • I thought I had done this for just about every year linked. I'll see if I missed any. --Coemgenus 03:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need "black-and-white photo" in the alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I took it out. The I haven't done the alt-text thing before. --Coemgenus 03:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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