Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological)/archive1
List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological)[edit]
Ran across this list and found a reference for it, so here's the nomination. If there's consensus to reformat it with {{prettytable}} I will, but I thought I'd wait and see. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Update – A test of a table format can be found on the talk page. Is there any more info that should be included before I do the rest? --Spangineer (háblame) 13:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Another Update – The table is finished. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - this is excellent as it stands. No need for tables. Good spot. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- PS - some years (1930s, 1940s and 2004 only) have links to articles on the balloting (e.g. Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1936). It doesn't bother me too much, but are the missing ballots going to be added? There is also a complementary List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (alphabetical). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- None of the other years have articles on their balloting, at least according to the category. I won't have time to create 60 stubs for the purpose of filling the table. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I wonder if someone else is planning to add pages for the ballots. Query whether we should add redlinks. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably should. If people think that that's too many red links (it will amount to about 60, out of a total of 300-350 distinct links in the article) for it to be featured, I'll work on it and renominate the list later. --Spangineer (háblame) 13:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I wonder if someone else is planning to add pages for the ballots. Query whether we should add redlinks. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- None of the other years have articles on their balloting, at least according to the category. I won't have time to create 60 stubs for the purpose of filling the table. --Spangineer (háblame) 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
WeakFull support Comment – I would prefer a neat table. I think it looks untidy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)- Compare Wisden Cricketers of the Year: is that untidy? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- WCotY is much neater as all the winners are named in a single row without those ugly brackets which are present here. I did also question the layout of the WCotY at that time too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Like I said, I'm fine with turning it into a table, especially since including the information requested by Dsmdgold will make the list even messier if it remains in its current format. ALoan, are you opposed to such a change, or do you just think it unnecessary? --Spangineer (háblame) 11:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- WCotY is much neater as all the winners are named in a single row without those ugly brackets which are present here. I did also question the layout of the WCotY at that time too. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Table is much better. I would prefer the "primary position" demystified. Add some info in the introduction as to what each letter stands for. This will help those not familiar to baseball player roles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a sentence to the introduction describing what the primary position refers to. Personally, I think someone who doesn't understand the individual positions should just click on the links to find out more, because I think the majority of people who look at this list are going to understand what "CF" means. In my mind, it's like explaining what a cricket captain does on one of the Cricket lists – I certainly have no idea what they do (because on this side of the lake, we play baseball), but there's a link available so that I can learn. Adding info on all the different positions will probably require another section or table, since the intro is getting pretty long. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- You can add info at the bottom of the page if the lead is too long. I agree the text is hyperlinked, but having to hover over each of them is a bit of a pain for a first time reader. Besides, there is no description or link for pioneer. You can link the table from the text Primary Position using footnote styles. There's no need for an explanation of each role, just a collated expansion of what each letter states will suffice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I still think it's unnecessary, but I've added a list of the player positions to the bottom. I'm not sure if that's what you mean. --Spangineer (háblame) 16:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- You can add info at the bottom of the page if the lead is too long. I agree the text is hyperlinked, but having to hover over each of them is a bit of a pain for a first time reader. Besides, there is no description or link for pioneer. You can link the table from the text Primary Position using footnote styles. There's no need for an explanation of each role, just a collated expansion of what each letter states will suffice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a sentence to the introduction describing what the primary position refers to. Personally, I think someone who doesn't understand the individual positions should just click on the links to find out more, because I think the majority of people who look at this list are going to understand what "CF" means. In my mind, it's like explaining what a cricket captain does on one of the Cricket lists – I certainly have no idea what they do (because on this side of the lake, we play baseball), but there's a link available so that I can learn. Adding info on all the different positions will probably require another section or table, since the intro is getting pretty long. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Compare Wisden Cricketers of the Year: is that untidy? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment
I think that there should be some mention of the criteria for election and eligibility, especially as there are several years in which there was an election and no one was selected. Also I understand most of the position notations except "builder". It also would be interesting, but not crucial, to see when those selected were active, or at least how long they had been eligible before they were elected.Dsmdgold 02:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)- Thanks for your comments. I've added a paragraph to the lead related to the criteria. Builder is probably a bad term; looking at the individual examples it seems that it refers to "pioneer" or something similar. I'll do a bit more research and then change that. It would be possible to include each player's first year of eligibility, but I think to do so would require that this be converted to a table (which is fine). I think I might also include the percentage of ballots approving the player. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I like the new paragraph, thank you. The builder/pioneer thing is still a bit cryptic, but I can live with it, I like the table on the talk page, I assume that the cross mark in the percentage column will point to a foot note that explains why no percentage is available. Support the current version or the table, but would prefer the table. Dsmdgold 22:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I checked it out -- it's "builder" in the sense that they made a large impact on the game off the field, so people like owners and league executives/visionaries are included in it. Re the missing percentages, yes, I'll put in a note on that. It turns out that players selected by the Veterans Committee don't have their vote made public, but those selected by the baseball writers do. I'll be sure to add a note on that once I finish the table and move it into the article. --Spangineer (háblame) 00:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I like the new paragraph, thank you. The builder/pioneer thing is still a bit cryptic, but I can live with it, I like the table on the talk page, I assume that the cross mark in the percentage column will point to a foot note that explains why no percentage is available. Support the current version or the table, but would prefer the table. Dsmdgold 22:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I've added a paragraph to the lead related to the criteria. Builder is probably a bad term; looking at the individual examples it seems that it refers to "pioneer" or something similar. I'll do a bit more research and then change that. It would be possible to include each player's first year of eligibility, but I think to do so would require that this be converted to a table (which is fine). I think I might also include the percentage of ballots approving the player. --Spangineer (háblame) 11:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
neutral for now, as the table is much easier to read and I suggest that it be made the main article. Also perhaps a definition of what a builder is. With those changes I would support.Much better now, and has my full support. say1988 21:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)- Comment I also think the list would be greatly improved with a table. Will probably support after one is added. --Sophitus 07:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Question Thanks for adding the table. Regarding the following sentence: "a total of 260 individuals have been selected, including 212 players, 17 managers, 8 umpires, and 23 pioneers and executives", some members of the Hall of Fame were both players and managers or filled other dual roles. How are they accounted for in this breakdown? --Sophitus 17:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Basically, when inducted into the hall of fame, everyone was given a "primary position". So everyone is only recognized once, and what they are recognized for is determined somewhere in the process of putting the person on the ballot. It also happens for people who never managed but played more than one position, for example, Paul Molitor – he played 3rd base a lot, but is recognized by the hall for being a designated hitter. On the old list, there was some confusion about what position the player was recognized for, but in the table I only listed the player's primary position (according to the Hall). --Spangineer (háblame) 17:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, great work on this. I now Support --Sophitus 17:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Basically, when inducted into the hall of fame, everyone was given a "primary position". So everyone is only recognized once, and what they are recognized for is determined somewhere in the process of putting the person on the ballot. It also happens for people who never managed but played more than one position, for example, Paul Molitor – he played 3rd base a lot, but is recognized by the hall for being a designated hitter. On the old list, there was some confusion about what position the player was recognized for, but in the table I only listed the player's primary position (according to the Hall). --Spangineer (háblame) 17:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I added rowspan tags to the year column. Great list -- Ian ≡ talk 05:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The "Year" numbers in the table don't line up correctly with the inductees. For example, the 1946 inductees appear to run from Tommy McCarthy to Frankie Frisch. The actual inductees are Jesse Burkett (5 players above McCarthy) through Ed Walsh (2 players above Frisch). See http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/lists/inducted.htm Krakatoa 23:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Er - it looks fine to me - the date is centred, and there should be a horizontal line above Jesse Burkett and below Ed Walsh. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Looks OK to me too. Here's a screendump, using Firefox. Maybe you have a browser issue. Ian ≡ talk 09:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Er - it looks fine to me - the date is centred, and there should be a horizontal line above Jesse Burkett and below Ed Walsh. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
