Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game/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 02:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game/archive1

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First comment The table is ordered by RBI, but all entries are 10, 11, and 12. I think it would make more sense to order the table chronologically (my preference), or alphabetically (also acceptable). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current order of reverse chronological fine? I used it because List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 18 strikeouts in one game FL also orders its table that way. Then again, it's not set in stone and chronological is fine by me as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are more entries in the 18 Ks page than the 10 RBIs page, and I think the difference between 18 and 20 Ks is bigger than the difference between 10 and 12 RBIs, so in this case I would prefer to see the tables sorted differently. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sorted chronologically now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As a non-expert, the sequential linking of "bases loaded walk," confused me. Would it be acceptable to say "walk with bases loaded" or is that simply not how it's referred to?

Actually, that's a brilliant suggestion. I just realized the bases loaded part refers to both a walk or a hit by pitch, but the original wording was unclear. I've now reworded it to make it less confusing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"hit more than twelve" + runs.

Fixed. Changed to "RBIs" instead of just runs.

"won their milestone games" it wasn't really a milestone game for the teams was it?

I think it would also be a milestone for the team as they'd have their own player tie a single-game record, just like in the two grand slams list. However, I'm open to changing it if the wording is confusing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would link grand slam on its own to start with then the list when you say "most grand slams in one game".

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A perennial issue for me, sorting the score, I would think that 25–2 would be a "higher" ranking score than 25–4, i.e. the margin of victory is higher, but currently it appears to sort by total.

Fixed (finally!). Used the hidden sort template to rank the larger margin first. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have two cats, but Records is a more refined cat of Statistics, so do you need both?

Removed Statistics cat. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support a very nice list, meeting all the criteria as I see them, and a pleasant editor to work with too. All good. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couple comments Overall very nice list. Three questions:

(1) Was there a discussion of the phrasing used (in the title and prose) "List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs"? I've been a severely absentee WP:BASEBALL member for a while, so I may have missed it. But that seems like a very awkward way of saying "List of Major League Baseball hitters with 10 runs batted in in one game"? The stat is, after all, runs batted in. Rephrasing it to "who have batted in . . . runs" seems like an unnatural phrasing. As a result I'm fearful that this article will be difficult for people to naturally come across through natural language searches (not that baseball lists get high viewership to begin with). I get that my construction puts "in" twice in a row "runs batted in in a game", but that seems correct to me. If others disagree, I'll happily relent.

Staxringold – It was discussed here a few weeks ago, although only one user proposed it. The consecutive "in" is problematic, which is why I decided to consult with WT:BASEBALL. Y2Kcrazyjoker4's suggestion sounded fine to me, so I decided to go ahead and use it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I bow to the wisdom of WP:BASEBALL. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Should it be "List of MLB hitters" or "List of MLB players"? I've just realized there is a split, even amongst FLs that I myself have worked on (compare hitters with 4 HR in one game vs. players with career .400 OBP). Players seems like the better choice, IMO (and we should shift one of the two lists I just described once we set a consensus). Players are generally referred to simply as "players", not the task they are performing in setting that record (except maybe "pitchers"). I.e., Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the NBA player with the most career points, not the NBA shooter with the most career points.

For FL on single-game records, it's clearly towards dividing between pitchers and hitters (four home runs and two grand slams vs. 18 strikeouts, striking out three batters on nine pitches and four strikeouts in one inning. For the two grand slam list, one of those listed (Tony Cloninger) was actually a pitcher. In my opinion, "player" is too generic, and there shouldn't be an exception for pitchers. As far-fetched as it may sound, a position player might some day achieve one of those milestones. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, this really bugs me. Why are you a hitter/pitcher for single game records but a PLAYER for career/season-long records? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staxringold – Ask Babe Ruth (jk). Honestly, the whole title wording arrangement is actually very random. Some single-game records don't even use pitcher or hitter if the event itself supersedes the person who achieved it (unassisted triple plays – well, if a separate MLB list is ever created for it) or if it is a team effort (i.e. perfect games and no-hitters). But I can see why a list covering career/single-season records would use "player", as there are other (but less well-known) cases like the Bambino who can both hit and pitch proficiently. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I'd be interested in what others think because it seems silly to me. You're right, both pitchers and hitters can do things in their career. But they can also do things in a single game. Staxringold _talk^contribs 11:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked WT:BASEBALL. No consensus was established. Looks like the status quo stands. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of two people responded. I still think it's just wrong, I'll remain Neutral. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Much smaller note. "Every team which had a player hit 10 runs batted in won their milestone games." Should be something like "won those milestone games." I know this is mimicking the sentence in the 4-HR-in-a-game list, but the subjects of the sentence in that article are the actual players (so it is correct to say THEIR milestone games). Here the subject is "every team" but we're talking about the milestones of the individual players, so I believe it's wrong to say "their milestone games". —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above my resolved comment with TRM. I used this wording in the two grand slams list – the "their" actually refers to the team, and it would be milestone for them as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise likely to garner my support! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't see any issues here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets the criteria, as near as I can tell not being an expert on them, and is interesting, an added benefit :-). I did make a few minor copyedits, any of which you are free to revert. Go Phightins! 00:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reviewed, can't find any issues. Seattle (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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