Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster/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 Giants2008 20:06, 18 December 2011 [1].

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster[edit]

Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster/archive1

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 13:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is it. The final list of the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster series. This has been a huge undertaking and I thank you all for your support and patience. My current nomination has three supports and no open comments, so hopefully we can bang this one out and I'll get out of your hair for a while as I search for my next undertaking. Cheers and good health. — KV5 • Talk • 13:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Don't like starting a sentence with numbers, as is seen at the start of the last two paragraphs of the lead.
Not convinced that the symbol key for the individual lists are relevant to this page. It has no relation to the table here, and it includes links to notes that don't appear in this list.
Regarding the second photo caption, it isn't techinically true that one player per year gets into the Walk of Fame. That isn't counting Harry Kalas and Paul Owens, who weren't players. It would be more accurate to broaden the definition.
The 1887 Phillies caption could use a cite.
Ref 15 doesn't verify that the Phillies made consecutive trips to the World Series, or that it was the first time they did so.
Refs 10 and 11 are the same and can be combined. Ref 19 looks the same as well.
Refs 9 and 20 are also duplicates. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs combined. Numbers fixed (bad MOSNUM habit). 2009 photo caption fixed through removal. Key also removed. 1887 photo caption added (Baker Bowl originally known as Huntington Grounds, the name given in source). WOF definition corrected. Should all be done. — KV5 • Talk • 02:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Great, great, great work on this series. Very well done, again. It's been a pleasure to review all of these lists. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The (horizontal) TOC has a link to Table key, which doesn't appear to go anywhere.
The TOC also links to External links, but the page has no such section.
No user/reader would care, but the repeated ! scope="row" style="text-align:center;" | markup on the rows is overdone and could be reduced to ! scope="row" | (the table is center-aligned by default).
Down at the Key subsection of Footnotes, the "a" note ("For the purpose of this list...") seems like it should link to something, but it doesn't.
I usually prefer enabling adaptable columns for refs (e.g., {{Reflist|25em}}), but the page insists on 2 columns ({{Reflist|2}}). Not a deal-breaker for me, but I'd like to push us to support varying widths of displays.
My browser's print preview tells me the printed version of this article will be a mess, mostly due to sub-optimal page-breaks and an overlapping of images and tables, but I think this is a WP-wide problem (Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (W–Z) stretches to 42 pages on paper), and anyway, I don't have any suggestions on how to fix it. I mention it mostly because I saw it, and also in the faint hope of somebody else knowing what knob to twiddle.

And that's all I can find to whine about; good work! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the key (leftover problem from removing the second key in Giants' comments above), the EL section (I had one in the TOC intending to use it but it never became necessary and is now hidden), and the footnote (again, from deleting the second key). I agree with you on the print preview thing, but that is why we have WP:BOOKS, I suppose. The text-align deal is because this list used to be classed as "plainrowheaders", then I decided I liked it better the other way. Since it doesn't hurt anything, I just left it as it was. As to the adaptable columns, I'm on the other side of the fence; I don't like that they change differently for each article, especially because it seems whenever I set them, they are not long enough for some of the wider citations that sometimes occur in certain articles. I've always been a fan of the 2-column reflist and I would prefer to continue using it. All should be done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain my preference for the adaptability of ref columns depending on users' displays, but it's not enough to make me want to withhold my support for promotion. And verily, good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congrats on finishing this project, KV! Looks good to me, I tried to get nit-picky, but you've clearly got these lists down pat by now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – yep great work!.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not at all keen on the bold links in the column headings. Since they're already linked in the key, there seems no real need to link them again, immediately afterwards. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easily rectified. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 02:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alrighty then, I'll do the right thing here and support. Good luck at WP:FTC! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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