Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/March 2015

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 archived by Crisco 1492 14:27, 8 March 2015 [1].

List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all of the standards per WP:WIAFL and I have tried to correct all mistakes or issues from the first go-round. The biggest concern was the cutoff of 300. It in the forefront seems fairly arbitrary, but in various references found in the article about active players achieving said feat, the notability of 300 SB is made clear. That said, I will be out in the mountains tomorrow, so if any concerns are left for me, there may not be a response until Friday morning. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - First of all, there's an open discussion on the talk page about the use of individual player references, which multiple users have expressed concern over, myself included. The individual player stat pages don't provide any additional information, so having 171 references when about 162 of them aren't needed is my first issue.

Secondly, the prose needs a copyedit and I feel more information can be added. It's a very short prose for the list size. Also remember that references should come right after text, not after a space after text.

Done

Leaving this un-struck as the prose is still poorly written. G loss 03:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are capitalization issues "Current Year", "Years Active".~~

Done

I still don't agree with adding in the amount of stolen bases from the current season. That would need to be updated every single day during the season and we shouldn't just assume someone will do that. Updating it to the most recent season and adding a note about when the stats are updated until would work much better, in my opinion.

Done

~~The "Rank" column is probably not needed. It'd be fine to just list the players in order without giving them a Rank #.~~
~~For players who are still active, write "present" instead of leaving a blank space "e.g. 2003– ".~~

Done

~~Surely for the size of this list, more images could be added than only four (alongside the table).~~

Done

More can be added, I'm sure. Generally, it's nice to have images down the entire right side of the table when images are available, and with such a long list of players, more images are surely available. G loss 06:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss: I've added five more images and it now spans down practically the whole right side, so Done. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The caption for the Davis image should be adjusted. He won't be the most recent player to reach 300 once the season starts and someone else reaches the number. So it's better to be safe and give his image a different captain so it doesn't sit there as false information if nobody updates it once someone new hits the milestone.

Done

~~The title of the section being "List" needs to be renamed to something more specific. "Players" maybe?~~

Done

~~Table needs a table title per MOS:DTT~~

Done

~~The line underneath the header isn't needed. We know what the list is by the title and the prose.~~

Done

I guess that's a start of where my issues with the list begin. I've been keeping an eye on the list, I know you've wanted to re-nominate it, but I can't help but feel you rushed it and should've waited a bit longer, especially until the discussion on the talk page played out a bit more. G loss 04:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix the smaller issues on Friday when I return from my vacation. With regards to the references, verifiability is not an option. As I said, the individual refs are for the years the players were active, which is again verifiability. The discussion is around nothig. It's that same user who was causing trouble with a now-blocked sockpuppet. I'm a bit amazed that this is actually being discussed. I'll talk it out, but the reality is WP:V supersedes WP:GENREF. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gloss:, with regards to the "updates eveyday", I think we simply should get rid of making updates mid-season. I think the current SB season thing should be removed as it only compromises the list's stability and does not enrich it at all. Also, as I finish tasks, I will cross them out just as an FYI. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my point about the "current SBs". And please just write "done" underneath each comment so I can cross them out as I feel they've been fully completed. G loss 05:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see we're on the same page. I'll add more images once I have my computer again. For the prose copyedit/expanison, I may have a fellow baseball editor (e.g, EricEnfermero or Go Phightins!) work on that. I'll also get the title added and the rankings removed upon my return. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK @Gloss:, I've finished everything on your list except the prose copy edit. For that, I may have another editor help me out there, as I'm not the world's greatest copy editor. With regards to your biggest issue (the references), they are not to verify the player or the number of stolen bases they've accumulated, but to verify the years they've played. Although theoretically, you could just click on their corresponding Wikipedia article. However, there are two issues. First off, it's much easier just to have the verification right there on the article instead of having to go to another article to find it. Second off, an more importantly, some of the players' articles are a mess. They lack proper citations, etc. and may not necessarily be the most reliable source of information. Plus, the practice of using another Wikipedia article as verification is generally discouraged. That's where we are now. I'll ask some of my fellow baseball editors to help out with the prose, but otherwise, it is in pretty good shape. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through the ones you completed that I'm good with now. More needs to be done though. The regular dashes (-) need to be changed to en-dashes (–) in the Seasons column. In the footnotes, you say "MLB.com credits...", the needs to be reworded. It's not the website that recognizes these things, it's the league. So probably just remove ".com" G loss 06:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both things listed in your comment above are

Done Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the references for the individual players are only to source their seasons played, there doesn't need to be a separate column for them, they can be connected to the year's and be placed in the seasons column as well. G loss 22:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss: The individual references serves primarily, but not just for that purpose. That said, I tried to add it like you suggested last year, in the same column, but with it in the same column, it looks really messy. Having it in a separate column is a little more convenient and makes it look a little more organized. With that, I'm going to try to add some more to the prose myself. Got any ideas for content that could be added? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball is not something I have too much knowledge on, so no I don't have any ideas. I just know that for the size of the list it's a little too small. But I am going to stick by my last comment. There's no need for a completely separate column for references when the reference is only there to support their seasons played. You say it's not just for that purpose, but it is. If you take out the seasons, the rest of the article is sourced by the main sources and the individual refs could be taken out. G loss 22:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss: I found a progressive stolen base leaderboard, which allowed for me to add some info to the prose. I can't really think of anything else that would need to go in that section, so that's where we are now. Also, I understand your comment pertaining to the location of the references, but to keep things more organized, I think continuing to give them their own columns are slightly easier and makes it more organized. If there are further concerns, let me know, but I think we basically have a FL at this point. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to disagree. My oppose still stands, but I'll wait to comment further until others have reviewed. G loss 05:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have had this page watchlisted since I reviewed it, so you don't need to keep pinging me :) G loss 05:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather you not eschew additional comments about this list, as classes start back up for me next week and I may not have much time (if I have any at all) to make changes, so please speak up if you will. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forcing me to continue a review I began voluntarily isn't going to help you much here. I've stated my opinion on the reference column, and that is something holding me back from reconsidering my oppose. So as I said, I'd like to wait for others to comment to reconsider further. This was opened three days ago and FLC's take generally upwards of three weeks, so worry not. G loss 06:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is preference that you wouldn't hold back your queries, I'm not going to make you say them or continue the review. I find it a little silly that the a reference column is hindering you supporting this FL, but I'm not going to quarrel with you about it either. I'll give it another 5 days for others to comment and if no one else comments at that point, then I may like to here your further comments. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that I have further suggestions for improvement? I haven't said that. I currently don't feel this list meets the criteria for a featured list. It's very poorly written and the table issue with the reference column is a problem in my eyes. Perhaps I should leave it at that, since you keep thinking I have more to say. G loss 20:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, calm down. I misread your original comment. That said, I respectfully disagree. Per this, I think it most certainly meets the criterion. If the prose needs another copy edit, that's cool and I can get a fellow editor to help out, but if I didn't think it had a chance of making it, I never would have bothered. Sorry you see a non-existent problem as well, but let's see what other editors have to say. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly calm, thank you, and I'm well aware of what the FL criteria entails which is why I'm opposing here. "Let's see what other editors have to say" -- if only I'd thought of that three comments ago. G loss 00:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm going to expand the prose some more and copy edit it. Give me 5-7 days to get that done and then it should solidly be a FL. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm going to quote vebratim from the last failed FLC, as my point of opposition has still not been addressed: "WP:LISTN should be demonstrated with prose from WP:SECONDARY sources, not from stats sites which are more like WP:PRIMARY sources." Culling the prose from stats sites and setting an arbitrary 300 SB cutoff is original research of sorts.—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an easy one. I'm expanding the prose a bit still, but I indeed have found secondary sources for 300 stolen bases (including one already in the prose), so like I said above, give me about a week and then it should have more secondary sources as well. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 11:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Bagumba, here are some secondary sources for 300 stolen bases. This is one example, which is actually already in use in the prose. This is yet another secondary source coverage of 300 stolen bases. The fact that a secondary source is not only reporting on a player stealing their 300th base, but also a player closing in on such a milestone indicates notability. I'll find some more links for some more athletes on other sites, but this is a start. Hopefully, I can begin to incorporate that into the prose within the next week or so. I hope this also addresses your concerns regarding notability. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN advises that the grouping should be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ...". I don't see the group discussed in those links, just the individual player reaching a round number of 300. I'm sure there are also articles that talk about players reaching 400 and 200 SBs too, so more needs to be demonstrated to show 300 is a notable cutoff. Both of your links are to Bleacher Report, which is a mixed bag as far as being considered a reliabile source. In the past it was open to anyone to write, and wasn't considered reliable. They have hired some high-profiled writers of late, which individually could be considered reliable. However, your articles are by generic "Bleacher Report Milestones , B/R Staff", and I'm not sure if I trust B/R's general editorial oversight (yet) for content quality vs content aimed to generate web traffic. They do still host all those slideshows designed to generate clicks. I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which is a general thumbs up on B/R. Perhaps you need a more recent assessment there, or even at WT:BASEBALL.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I forgot that Bleacher Report can be quite a mixed bag. I had kind of incorrectly presumed that because the articles were newer that they would probably be reliable for an article like this. What came up on my searches was the 300-300 club, of which 300 stolen bases is a part of. 300-300 is covered on a wide variety of news networks that would be considred secondary sources. When you think about it, a lot of these MLB stats lists, some of which are FLs, are notable primarily because they are parts of very famous stat clubs. 300-300 is one covered by a lot of networks and in the larger scheme of things, this is how notability is really proven with these kinds of lists. Although 300 SB looks arbitrary from the forefront based on the given discussion from a while back, I'm sure the editors that supported 300 as the cutoff didn't just randomly select 300 just because. It's probably because 300 has some outside notability. I apologize if my explanation is a bit of a mess, but I hope this addresses your notability concerns. If it does, then the prose can get cleaned up and hopefully, this can be a FL pretty soon. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(It's on my watchlist, so save a few keystrokes) 300 SB was just a first pass to be more discerning than the list's previous 500 entries. Having participated in that discussion (mentioned in the prior FLC also), 300 SB wasn't seen as being incredibly notable, just a start at improving from an unwieldy list of 500 people. I'm not sure about the 300-300 analogy (would need to see the sources too). 40–40 club exists, but I dont think we want a list of 40 HR or 40 SB seasons. I know WP:OSE with FLs, but perhaps those belong in Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. At any rate, I'm just one !vote. Perhaps other !voters will sway me.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is one example of mentioning of 300 stolen bases as part of 300-300. This is another example of 300 stolen bases being considered noteworthy. Despite it being from MLB.com, it's a secondary source per the definition at WP:SECONDARY. As I said above, 300 stolen bases does have its notability. With regards to your WP:OSE rebuttal, there is a 50 HR in one season page, which isn't far from 40 HR in one season. I guess by showing that 300-300 is certainly notable, it means that independently, 300 stolen bases does have a significance/notability beyond some arbitrary cutoff decided per consensus. You guys could have said top 100 players in terms of stolen bases, but that would've made just as little sense as 500 entries. 300 stolen bases has some outside significance (and keeps the list at a reasonable size). I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated 300 SB's notability. If I haven't, then I'm running out of ideas to demonstrate notability. I really hope this satisfies your queries so we can move on, copy edit the prose and add some material so this can become a FL. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles support 300/300, but I wouldn't use them to establish notability for 300 SB on their own. I'd actually be more comfortable with top-100. People like round numbers like top-100; arbitrary sure, but possible an accepted arbitrary cutoff as opposed to a more random 300 SB. Not sure how other's feel.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about this. I believe I said it in the last FLC as well, or somewhere else, that I was concerned about the 300 cutoff for the same reasons you are, Bagumba. G loss 03:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, SB Nation is probably as suspect as B/R, if not more. Not sure about that specific editor though. Got a fancy sounding title at least.—Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the linked discussion, I believe a performance-based cutoff is preferable to a top-X list, as it will be inclusive of everyone who has attained a certain level of accomplishment. isaacl (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was under false impression that other sports had top-XXX list that was FL. Agree that a performance cutoff is preferable, if it is natural and is a grouping that is discussed. I'm not feeling it here yet. Striking my earlier suggestion.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have expected top-xxx articles to be FLs, as those are just insignificant, arbitrary cutoffs. With regards to this list: what exactly do you want to see to satisfy your notability concerns? I've shown you through outside, secondary sources that 300 SB is something notable besides an arbitrary cutoff (certainly is more than just an arbitrary cutoff), which is what WP:LISTN wants to see, which I have satisfied. Now, tell me how your concerns would be satisfied so we can move upward and onward with this FLC. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two of us have likely reached an impasse on LISTN. The guideline reads: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." I take that to mean the group needs to be discussed in sources, including some mention of a few— though not all—of its members. If I understand, you think mere mention of the 300 SB milestone is sufficient. While I have no problem with the list existing in Wikipedia, I feel that an FL is a higher standard which needs more coverage on its grouping, allowing text to be written about its significance.—Bagumba (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that we have definitely reached an impasse. I can grab some good sources and write about it, but I may collect sources first and then write because the prose is going to need a decent amount of work in itself. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what I would expect is at 500 home run club. The sources in the lead for Sheffield and Rodriguez talk about the 500 club itself, and some of its other members too. To me, this shows it's a fairly notable milestone, as opposed to writers just finding any round number achievement to talk about.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one ref. Not as strong for 300 SB notability, but good for some other stuff with the prose. Here is a slightly better example using Derek Jeter. Here is one more example of 300 SB having some notability. And here is one more. This is just some preliminary links. I think they could be used in the prose and are similar to what 500 HR club has in its prose. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I felt with the earlier sources, I wouldn't use them to establish notability for 300 SB on their own. They are all articles on a combination of 300 SB with some other statistic, not a 300-club per se. I admire your persistence, but please try to filter out questionable reliable sources in the future like the blog, retrosimba.com. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recognizing my persistence, albeit I am running out of steam. I really want to see this pass since I've worked so hard to improve the list to such status, in addition to figure out the notability concerns. It would be a shame if this were to fail, since the sources have made clear that 300 SB is not 100% arbitrary and has some merit, but independently proving significant notability has proven to be a humongous challenge. I'll see what I can do and perhaps have you or someone else assist in this, as I could use all the help I can get. After all, I don't WP:OWN the article, so anyone's help would be greatly appreciated. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SBNation, I've found their articles to have genuine analysis and news coverage, as opposed to Bleacher Report, which often is just passing on links to other sites. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Isaac up above. Top 100 is far more arbitrary compared to 300 SB. With regards to actual notability, I've shown the significance of 300 SB and why it is notable through secondary sources (and I will find more). I'm not sure what else I can do to prove notability. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: @Gloss: Do you think the two of you might be willing to assist in addressing the notability issue. Some of the right ideas are there, but they don't quite add up to satisfy the two of you. Once we can come to an agreement and acceptance of notability, we can then re-write the prose (which shouldn't be too difficult). After that, it should be a shiny spanking FL. Are you guys willing to help? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not something a copyedit can address. I have not been able to find sources that demonstrate WP:LISTN for the 300 threshold.—Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Multiple issues have come up in this FLC and you've answered almost all of them by either denying they're a real problem, not giving a full answer, or promising a copyedit that has still not come. The prose is short and messy, I share Bagumba's concern, and I overall don't feel this list is featured list quality. G loss 01:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with this! I cannot believe I wasted my time trying to improve this list and have it amount to nothing. Someone please put me out of my misery and just close this thing, as there is clearly no chance of this passing. Thanks for the help, Bagumba and Gloss, I really appreciate it. So much for hard work... Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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