Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Rangers first-round draft picks/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 03:22, 23 June 2010 [1].

List of Texas Rangers first-round draft picks[edit]

List of Texas Rangers first-round draft picks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wizardman 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because there aren't enough first-round draft pick lists up right now. In an attempt to get a draft pick list featured topic down the road, I an nominating this because I feel it meets all FL criteria. That and it's draft season so working on the list got me excited to watch it tomorrow. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5
  • "finished second in the MVP voting"
  • Why one "right fielder" and several "outfielders"?
  • Force sorting on the "no first-round pick" rows so that they don't sort as "n" in the name column. They should ideally end up at the bottom.
  • I assume the blank cells will be filled in by the time this FLC concludes...?

And that's pretty much it. — KV5 • Talk • 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is tonight, so they will be filled in in roughly 6 hours. Doing the other points now. Other points fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support pending the conclusion of the first round of the 2010 draft. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Players updated. The Canadian threw me for a loop, I didn't know how to template that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe just do it like the others; The {{city-state}} template will handle Langley, British Columbia, the same way as the U.S. states, and I don't think Canada is necessary in the table, as the article on Langley undoubtedly makes clear that it is in Canada. The header row doesn't say "city and state"; it says "Location", so I think that would be fine. — KV5 • Talk • 11:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport Would like to know if there is a script/easy way for capping comments Sandman888 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is this amateur site a respectable source?
  • Baseball-Reference has been determined reliable for nearly every piece of featured content in baseball. See this FA nomination for more information. — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything about BR in that FAC. Am I missing something? Sandman888 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. I just pulled that from Ealdgyth's FAC cheatsheet. The data on Baseball-Reference, however, comes from Retrosheet, another reliable site. Why, may I ask, do you say that the site is an "amateur site"? — KV5 • Talk • 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. On this page it's quite clear that it's some guy uploading stuff. If retrosheet has the original info, why not use that then? Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing on either of the links you provided that implies or states that Baseball-Reference is "some guy uploading stuff". Here is the information on the parent company Sports Reference LLC, which establishes credentials in statistics for the website's executives. — KV5 • Talk • 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See here, where it's clear it's compiled by some guy called Sean Forman. I'm not sure how that's reliable. Anyone can say they have a Ph.D in math on their own homepage. Per WP:RS "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see that's the case here. Sandman888 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Baseball-Reference is a reliable third-party publication. Its director is a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, the site itself is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, its core data is drawn from SABR, its game data is drawn from Retrosheet, and the website has been cited as "a powerhouse in the baseball information world" by Sports Illustrated. — KV5 • Talk • 19:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sports illustrated link establishes WP:RS nicely. Sandman888 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cd you use another indicator then §? It's mildly confusing. ¤ perhaps.
  • This follows the rest of the articles in this series; could you clarify why you think it's confusing? (I do think the § should be superscripted, though.) — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because § has a standardised meaning, especially in the context of numbers. It would make more sense to use a symbol devoid of meaning when you're using it to define something new. E.g. it would be an equally bad idea to use $. Sandman888 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The symbol you suggest also has a defined meaning (it's the generic symbol for currency). Most symbols we use for indicators have a defined meaning outside of their context; however, that's why we have table keys. — KV5 • Talk • 18:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of course talking about a common understanding of the symbols, which is the logic used here. Better use the symbol with a less condensed meaning. Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not following you here. The section symbol wouldn't be used after a number anyway. I truly don't understand your concern. — KV5 • Talk • 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any other concerns besides the symbol? I don't really see a problem with it either, it helps for those who wouldn't be able to differentiate the colors used. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notwithstanding the above. Thanks to KV for making the definitive RS argument for baseball-reference, and the symbol thing does seem a bit random. Couple tiny things.

  • I would note, as I did on the Padres list, that one of those outfielders (Julio Borbon) was taken in center field for those who might not realize CF is an OF.
  • 2 DAB links found by the tool.
  • Although no longer required, alt text would be nice.

Good job though! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; issues fixed. As for the symbols, I just use them since they've been commonplace throughout all the baseball lists. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support –

  • Little inconsistency in the lead, regarding "Rule 4 draft" and "Rule 4 Draft".
  • De-capitalize Location in the table heading.
  • External link section is currently empty. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 16 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Texas_Rangers_first-round_draft_picks/archive1&oldid=1089078570"