The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 16:26, 31 October 2009 [1].

List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: WP:BASEBALL, Spangineer, Katydidit

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the criteria. It should have been nominated when the merger occurred, but still better late than never.

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in keeping with the majority of recent baseball lists, it's been moved into the key. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done --Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These were moved into the key. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the explanations are too long for the "key"?--Cheetah (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally? Yes, I do. I didn't put them there. But I think it's pointless to make all of the daggers clickable. It would make more sense to remove the daggers, replace them with em-dashes, representing blanks, since that's truly what they are, and add a footnote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's too long and that the daggers should be replaced and given a footnote. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done --Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done --Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "percent of vote" is not sorting properly still.--Cheetah (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking out those symbols as discussed above would take care of that problem. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Cheetah (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – This article is now fully within the current FL standards. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was getting there :-D! Hope I've learned a little something since my first attempt. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason that this is not included is due to the sometime arbitrary nature for which teams are selected. As the Hall, not the player, has the say over with which team a player had the most impact, and because their decisions are sometimes contentious for the players, the info isn't included. It's arguable, for some players, which team he should have been inducted with; he may have pitched 7 seasons for one team and won a lot of games and then won a World Series in two seasons with another, and thus was chosen to be inducted with the second team. Because of the possibly contentious nature of the information, I don't think it's necessary, and could cause stability issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I wish I had seen that reply earlier, because I added teams. You can roll it back if you think it should be pulled, but I do think it's worthy of inclusion as it is the Hall's standards. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that since most of the players are inducted as wearing a specific team on their cap, it's information that should be available in a list detailing inductees to the hall. While you can argue that Reggie Jackson should be wearing an A's cap, in the end he's in the hall with a Yankees cap, and this is indisputable. Redwolf24 (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be preferable to change it to inducted as, or something along those lines? Redwolf24 (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be preferred. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've made the change. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was my bad. Next I'm going to add ((sort)) to the percentages to make them sort correctly, just as soon as I can. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I added a couple inlines and another general reference, and plan on adding a few more cites when I get time. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Does anyone object to the multi-lining of dates to reduce the width of this table? I want to get specific line-by-line references in the table for each inductee. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So how do we fix the percentages? We need to take those symbols out, but then a footnote goes in? Does that mess with the sorting? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't hurt the sort because all em-dashes will sort the same way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But do we insert a link for the footnotes? Would that interfere with the sort? --Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are using the ((ref label)) and ((note label)) templates, it shouldn't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for pointing that out. I'll read up on the use in a bit then put it to use. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, we know. We're still working on it. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, motiviating factor... this fell off my radar for a little bit but we can still finish off the fixes. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still been on my list of things to do but I've been very busy. I'll try to push it back to the top of the heap. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update on sourcing issue for footnotes

OK, so I've considered the sourcing options. If we are indeed sourcing all of the individual rows to their HoF page (as we should), then the notes for percentage of voting do not need to be sourced. The rows source themselves. Thus, we can just put in the em-dashes in the blank cells with their footnotes and be done with that part. The second half of note 1 ("In some years, voting was done by order of preference, with one or more candidates receiving greater weight than others with the same number of votes; also, the committee would sometimes move to make a selection unanimous once the necessary number of votes was attained for a particular candidate.") is at this point unverifiable and unimportant. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Obviously sourcing everybody like that is the way to go, but it's tedious and will take some time on our part to finish them all. As far as the unanimous selection thing, we'll have to do something as in the case of Lou Gehrig, and anyone else who might've been allowed in by unanimous consent, as the page doesn't specify it clearly. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those inducted by special election likely will not have released percentages either; that seems to be a pattern with the HoF. If it's out of the ordinary, they don't release voting details. A pattern, unfortunately, isn't a source, because I've found one and not the other. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Negro League Committee vote totals for 1972 were apparently released publicly, at least if you believe the Spokane Daily Chronicle. Not sure about the other years yet. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here, please let me know if you need help sourcing the individual players. This is the kind of work I enjoy doing. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do; we'd love all the help we can get. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your sourcing the individuals is much appreciated. I don't have the time or patience for that job right now, so thank you. --Muboshgu (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About half the players are now individually cited. Also, I found a book on Google News that uses the term "pioneer contributer". Would this be acceptable as a source if the key entry was shortened slightly? Giants2008 (17–14) 17:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fine source. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually two and all fixed.—Chris!c/t 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead image could be bigger.
  • Only place its location is mentioned appears to be in the caption. Can we put this info in the opening sentence of the lead and then split the current stuff off into a second sentence?
  • We have an "As of July 2009" - can this now be updated? Minor point.
  • "Under the 2007 revised rules..." you've already said these are the current rules, why do we need to repeat this?
  • "Over the years" whistful indeed.
  • Any non-American winners? Worth noting?
  • NLC key - should that be Negro League?
  • Why so many unreferenced with no boxes?
  • Percent of vote - isn't Percentage more generally accepted? You could even say % if you liked. And that column doesn't sort for me in Safari.
  • Method of Induction, minor point but why is Induction capitalised?
  • Same with "Primary Position"?
  • UMP is not in the key - its not really a position is it?
  • Blanks in position would be better as en-dashes.
  • Be consistent with decimal places on the % - Appling is just "84%" while Foxx is "79.2%" and everyone else appears to be two d.p.s.
  • Frick's range of dates - why -1951 then 1951-?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made most of the changes suggested, and have comments below for the ones I didn't make:
  • I made the lead image 250px. See if that works, or if it can be larger.
  • Missed the Negro league capitalization one. Will go back and do it when I'm done here.
  • There are no sources I can find that talk about how many non-Americans are in the Hall. From what I can tell, they aren't lumped into their own category by the American media.
  • Frick: I'm guessing that's because he changed jobs in 1951, from National League president to Major League Baseball Commissioner.
While I'm here, why not remove the note with the cite tag in it? Is an explanation really needed for why there are no figures, considering that it's all original research without a cite? This appears to be the last major obstacle to keeping this. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note on Negro leagues: the "Negro leagues" are correctly referred to with "league" in lower case. The Negro leagues were a collection of leagues, none of which were actually named "Negro League" (there were the Negro National League, American Negro League, etc). The committee considers careers of players from all of these leagues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • decimal places still not consistent.
  • % col still doesn't sort for me in my Safari browser.
  • I'd like to see a note for Frick as to why his dates show -1951 and then 1951-...

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: the cite tag is gone because I removed the part of the note that was uncited as false. Several of the vote totals were released, as a look at the newspaper refs I added confirms. I'm on Internet Explorer and the sorting works for me, so I won't be of much help with sorting on Safari. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use IE8 and the sorting is all messed up in the % col. The "100%" and "-" cells don't sort properly. The only solution is to use the sorting templates. Giants2008, try sorting 4 times, and you'll see that it sorts differently every time.--Cheetah (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serves you right for using IE8!  :-p The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, I have problems with that col in Safari. So per Cheetah, it needs fixing... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:44, 26 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