Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A)/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 23:41, 16 November 2010 [1].

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A)[edit]

Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A)/archive1

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to meet all of the criteria. This is list 1 of 21 in a series; the main list will be nominated last and is accessible by following the hatnote at the top of this list. Cheers to all reviewers. — KV5 • Talk • 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Terry Adams is a dab, it should be Terry Adams (baseball) see here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. None of the dab tools are working for me right now. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support:i think its k for FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do you mean Support, not Suppose? I don't mean to canvas by any means, but I'm confused by the above statement otherwise. — KV5 • Talk • 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment – The only thing I see that is even a minor issue for me is one of those sentences that start with a number ("1,500 plate appearances are needed..." from note R). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's a toughie, Giants. I don't know what's worse: the fact that that sentence is in every one of these lists, or that I have no idea how to fix it. I could subsume the two sentences into one by changing the period after "Baseball-Reference" to a semicolon. What do you think? — KV5 • Talk • 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to make it "A total of 1,500 plate appearances is needed", which is probably wordier than the ideal, the semi-colon seems like the best solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: your solution implemented. — KV5 • Talk • 23:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Confused by the light-blue year in the key, I don't see any of these?
And do you mean "current" roster? Needs a ref.
Any reason Ashby's image is narrower than all the others?

The key is a template used in all 21 tables in case they all need to be changed. The 25-man roster is part of the current roster, so no, I don't necessarily mean "current" roster. Major League Baseball teams have a 25-man and 40-man roster, which are both the current roster. That's why the clarification is needed. I can add a citation easily. Ashby's image isn't fixed narrower; the file is just that narrow at full resolution. I don't want to force a fixed width. I suppose I can do number of games if I must; that just means 1,881 more entries... I don't see it as particularly useful to this list because you can find it at the reference, but that's just my opinion. — KV5 • Talk • 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow " The 25-man roster is part of the current roster, so no, I don't necessarily mean "current" roster." is really confusing for a non-expert! As for number of games, yes I think it'd be very interesting to have it added. You've cherry-picked facts, but without a number of games, they may be meaningless (like batting average for a player who has made 1 appearance is going to be far less significant than a batting average for a player who's made 100...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: All Major League Baseball teams have 40-man rosters, of which their 25-man roster (the players on the team's available roster for each game) is a part. Those are the "active" players, per se, but the players on the 40-man are still part of the team's current roster. If you prefer, I could say "active (25-man) roster". As to the games played... well, I'll get to it tomorrow, I suppose. — KV5 • Talk • 19:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On both counts, it's just my opinion. I would rarely oppose on anything like this. The roster thing is a non-expert issue, so I think it ought to be clarified. The games played is a personal preference to help me put your Notes into some kind of context. But that's personal. It may be that I'm the only one in the world that considers that important. And I understand it's a big job, so probably best to hold off for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think number of games would be a really useful addition to the table, particularly when you have %'s.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have clarified the roster for non-experts, as I agree with you that it should be accessible to those folks. I'll wait to see others' input on games played. — KV5 • Talk • 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from RexxS

I've marked up the table with row headers to improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But now the "plainrowheaders" attribute has gone awry — that is to say, it's there, but it's no longer doing anything. The unnecessary bold text and dark background have returned, and I must say that I hate the way it looks, in addition to the fact that it forces a violation of part of the MOS to be in compliance with another part. If this is going to be the case, I'll be removing these extra attributes and proceeding with the FLC as if this testcase scenario never happened. — KV5 • Talk • 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried clearing your cache again? Seems okay to me now I've recleared....The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it, but it looked good for me yesterday on this same computer. — KV5 • Talk • 14:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that did it. — KV5 • Talk • 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The darker grey background has returned. I don't have a problem with this, as long as there are no complaints about the red overriding the grey when it's used as part of an indicator. Honestly, I think it helps the red stand out more, so if we are dispensing with the extraneous bold and centering and just going with a grey background for row headers, I can easily live with that. — KV5 • Talk • 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and it may just be me, but the caption says "season(s)" while the heading is "tenure(s)" and the caption says "selected statistics" when the heading indicates "notes". Is this not confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the "notes"/"selected statistics" is confusing; to me, that just explains what the notes column contains. Also, there are a few players in some of these sublists who don't have statistics, as they didn't accumulate any in their brief tenures. I see the "seasons"/"tenures" the same way; the column notes the tenure of the player, and the header explains that those are seasons and not just plain years. As always, though, O director my director, I'll make the change if you think it would be for the better. :-D — KV5 • Talk • 12:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I don't really want you to change it, I was just questioning it from an ACCESS point of view, if the caption describes the columns differently from the headings, and that's what some people are relying on to tell them what's in the table, would it be confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. An interesting question. What do the ACCESS people say? — KV5 • Talk • 12:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the access folks will say, but the caption only needs to give me an idea of what's there at a glance. A JAWS user would get the detail when they have the actual headers read to them, and might only use the caption to identify the table if they wanted to go directly to it. A complex table would have an invisible summary containing instructions on how to use the table, but I really don't want to complicate the issue unnecessarily. Simpler is often better for a caption. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KV5, if you wish to continue to use scope etc, you should be aware that there's now a move to undo the change to Common.css, which would result in bold row headers, as it did originally. As for complicating things with the caption, feel free to use whatever caption you see fit. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did happen upon that discussion this morning, with a mixture of horror, shock, confusion, and TLDR. As it stands, I see no reason not to make this list as accessible as possible, but I won't compromise Wikipedia's other standards to do it. So, as I mentioned above, if the bolding and background-changing of row headers return, I'll just remove the changes and continue on my way. Thanks for the heads-up. — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My only concern is that the Ashby pic doesn't line up with the others due to its size. Personally, I'd prefer a replacement, but if there's no alternative anyway then no harm leaving it in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm indifferent on a games played column. It would certainly be interesting info, but it gets at effectively the same idea as the tenure by year column (how long were they a Phillie). Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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