Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Baseball's Sad Lexicon/archive1

Baseball's Sad Lexicon

Baseball's Sad Lexicon

4 articles

Frank Chance

Johnny Evers

Joe Tinker

Contributor(s): Muboshgu

Baseball's Sad Lexicon was a 1912 poem that immortalized the double play combination of "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance". All three were inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. --– Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. You've proposed a GT on the poem, so I sort of lean oppose without Franklin Pierce Adams (the poem's author) being included. Courcelles 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I hadn't thought about it like that. I was actually proposing it on the "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance" grouping who were popularized with the poem, and admittedly gave no thought to improving FPA. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A similar question was brought up at WP:FTQ#Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) where I, PresN (talk · contribs) and Nergaal (talk · contribs) all agreed that the artist (in that case Norman Rockwell) did not have to be included.--十八 01:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the difference there is that you had an article on the series of paintings and then the four actual paintings. This isn't quite such a natural grouping, despite the famous line, as the three players' articles are largely independent of the poem. This isn't "parts of artistic work", this is "people closely associated with artistic work", which, IMO, needs to include the author -- or a new article created on the "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance" combination more directly. I suspect this is one where opinions are going to vary widely, though. Courcelles 02:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think actually this fits that Norman Rockwell example well. Many of the citations involved in the articles suggest that it was this poem that made these three teammates more famous and have a greater legacy than they would've had without the poem. That was where I was coming from with this GT nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the author were to be included, then the topic would have to be on his own work. I believe such a topic could exist where this one would be a subtopic. Nergaal (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Comment It has now been a month since the nomination was opened with no supports or opposes. If the nomination remains much longer without any activity or discussion, it may have to be closed as no consensus to promote. @Courcelles:, @Nergaal: Would you like to add any further comments? --十八 05:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artist shouldn't normally be included, but in this case is the author famous for anything else? Nergaal (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Franklin Pierce Adams was a notable newspaper columnist, but I don't believe he had any other works reach the level of this poem. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case it is a bit tricky. In principle, if this topic could be included within an overview topic of the author, then everything would be fine. But if the guy is really not known for anything else, I think most people would be happy to have him included here instead. Nergaal (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as-is without the author. We have the poem, which is the subject of the topic, and the three people about whom the poem was written. That's a neat little group by itself and isn't missing anything, per WP:FT? ("a well-defined topical scope"). Sure, we could have the author; we could have the New York Evening Mail or the Chicago Cubs too. But we don't need them in order to have a "a well-defined topical scope". By way of further example, when we have a GT on an album, we want the album and the songs to be at GA status - we don't say that the band/the artist has to be at GA status too, because that's not part of the topic. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month since someone made a comment on his nomination. While there isn't any opposition to result in it getting closed, the lack of conversation is troubling. GamerPro64 23:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with passing this topic but I hope the author would at least consider adding the author into the topic in the future. Nergaal (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna consider Nergaal's comment as a Weak Support as he wants the author of the poem to be considered for the topic. As such, I'm requesting some input from @Muboshgu: to hear further thoughts on the situation. Because adding the author to the topic in the future means that the topic is incomplete so we have to take care of this now. GamerPro64 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to work on FPA's article, but I can't promise to do it in the near future. I've become a lot busier at work, and haven't done much GA work in a few months. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic certainly has been up for a while. Since there is no clear consensus on the topic as a whole, whether to add Franklin Pierce Adams or not, as well as said article not being a Good Article anyway to be part of the topic, I'm going to have this Closed with no consensus to promote. The nominator can nominate this topic again in the future. - GamerPro64 13:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely fair, and I appreciate all of the feedback. When time permits, I'll take a look at the FPA article and consider if I want to take it on or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]