This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
I think an all-time roster should be a list, and the article about the team it refers to should be about the team. That there are examples showing otherwise doesn't mean that's the way it should be...I can find plenty of all-time rosters that are just lists (as they should be), including many in this template: {{MLB All-Time rosters}}. All of the MLB teams are just lists (although they could be cleaned up to be in similar formats), and the vast majority of the defunct teams (that have rosters at all) are also just lists. Frank | talk 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding it difficult understanding your viewpoint on this. All stand-alone lists should have a lead explaining in detail the content of the list, and should be put into a table to look professional. These all-time rosters that I have been able to promote to FL status are following WP:LIST faithfully. All you need to do is look at the FLs on wikipedia, and you'll see that this is the case, not just all-time rosters. The only thing that I add to my lists is a short little narrative after each player, giving a very quick overview of their time with the franchise. These are much better than just a drab list with no other detail.Neonblaktalk - 23:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list, not an article, meeting most if not all of the featured list criteria. Since the eventual goal of all Wikipedia content is to be featured, there is no problem that I can see with the construction of this list as it stands now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST, but that's really beside the point. What I am saying is that if it's a list, it should be a list, with background information linking back to the main article it refers to. As it's written now, there are essentially two articles about the Philadelphia Athletics (1890–1891), and there is only some overlap between their contents. It's not really relevant how many of these sorts of list are featured; if that isn't a true example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't know what is. My point is about content. Saying that it follows guidelines in WP:LIST, while perhaps largely accurate, misses the point that the information really should be located elsewhere. It's a sub-article to Philadelphia Athletics (1890–1891) - or at least, it should be. That doesn't preclude it being featured, and it doesn't say anything about the quality of the article. It's the content I'm interested in. And, let me say, the content is better than the original article. I just think it should mostly be moved (not copied) there. Frank | talk 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since we both agree that I am following the list guidelines; maybe you think that the guidelines need to be changed? I believe that the leads that I have created incorporate all that is relevant to the players involved, and that this type of list is much more reader friendly and professional, in its appearance, than the Cincinnati Reds all-time roster. The Reds list isn't sortable, contains no further information, thus cannot assist the reader in locating a player they may or may not know the name of. I can always add statistics to the table, cut out the notes, and maybe that would be more useful. The team article can be expanded much further than this list can, but because it hasn't been, shouldn't take away from this independent list.Neonblaktalk - 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting a single one of the MLB rosters approaches the quality of this list at all! I like this list. It has a lot of value and probably deserves to be a featured list. I just think that WP:LIST isn't the only thing to consider. I personally am a believer that information should largely be maintained in one place (only) with summary elsewhere when it's useful. So what I'd love to see is the prose at the beginning reduced to a one-paragraph summary, and the rest of it used to expand the article about the team, which where I really think the information belongs. I don't know if there's a policy somewhere that supports (or opposes) my view; it just makes sense to me. Frank | talk 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Frank, criterion 2 of the FL criteria says: "It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." (emphasis mine) It was decided a couple years ago that simply introducing the list as "This is a list of X...", while adequate, was not an engaging start for featured material. So now we require featured lists to provide context to the reader as well. Now, I agree there are a few details that could be excised from the list (in particular material the second paragraph) because they are not important enough to note here. However, I strongly disagree that we should gut the lead entirely. I think the larger issue is that Philadelphia Athletics (1890–1891) simply needs more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment on this subject preceded its nomination as a featured list, or at least my knowledge thereof, and in fact has nothing to do with that nomination. I am focusing on the content of the article itself. Frank | talk 18:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. As I said before, I agree there are some things that could be completely moved to the article (see the FLC nom for my opinion on those), but I don't think we should be deleting entire paragraphs, which (at least that is what it seems) is what you are advocating. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am advocating removing all but the first paragraph. It is perfectly sufficient to engage the reader and contains a link to the main article for the team, which is where the other three paragraphs should be merged to. One man's opinion, I realize, but there you have it. Frank | talk 01:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could agree to that if we retain the second halves of the second and third paragraphs, which contain mostly relevant material. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me as well, if the remaining information were incorporated into the main article. This is good info; I just think it should be in the best place. Frank | talk 12:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted and moved much of the disputed content to the main article, as well as coppied most of the rest as well. Tell you the truth, I find the last line that was inserted distracting and redundant. I don't think it needs to be stated due to the list's clear intent is that this is an all-time roster.Neonblaktalk - 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MLB?
The MLB article states that it started in 1901 or so. Would this team more properly be referred to as a professional baseball team than an MLB team? Frank | talk 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Baseball just had a discussion on this very topic, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#List of Major League Baseball batting champions. We still do not have a defined standard as when MLB began, or even what it means. I believe that it actually means the entity called Major League Baseball, and it starting in 1903 with the national agreement between the NL and AL. However, the other 19th century leagues: the AA, PL, and UA are all considered "major" leagues. I have no issue with changing the wording of this particular list, but at the same time, trying to find consistency with respect to the Project as a whole.Neonblaktalk - 14:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
