Talk:Golden sombrero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Portal	Baseball Portal Golden sombrero is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit ° history ° watch ° refresh) This is the type of item that doesn't need to be an article. It should be (and already is) an item in the List of Baseball Jargon. IMO it should be deleted as a separate article; I know that recommendation was already considered with a decision to keep, but I don't think it recognized that there are at least two other ways for such glossary terms to be listed on WP. Also, I am deleting the suggestion that an image be added. What image? 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Non-MLB list 2 Too many to list 3 AfD precludes unencyclopedic?!? 4 Work to be done

[edit] Non-MLB list

I'm not fond of this section. All that's here is the same few college softball teams over and over again, probably added by fans of those particular teams. A list that truly is "non-MLB" would include the minor leagues, colleges, Little League, Joe Wikipedian who plays for his over-35 team at work, etc., etc. It would never be a complete list, and if it's going to be kept around, at least with this title, I think it should be tagged as such.

Really I'm not big on any of the "golden" lists just because so many of them occur in a year. By the '08 or '09 season, this article is going to get unwieldy. Not to mention if it were ever expanded backward. There's gotta be an external link on something like Baseball Almanac that would have the same info.

Anyone else have thoughts? Dakern74 11:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it. Per what you said, it's probably already way way out of date. I'm sure far more walk-on college players have had 5- or 6-strikeout games. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Little leaguers and Johnny Nobody of the Assbackwards, Ontario Beer League softball will never have reliable sources, and really can never be included. I'm not sure there's a problem with having minor league occurances. WilyD 13:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many to list

While we're at it, what is the point of listing every 4-strikeout game for the last two seasons? There's too many to be of any use. It happens several times per week on average. I'd prefer to see a list of multi-homer games - there'd be fewer of them and it would be more impressive. I'm going to remove those and leave just the 5+ strikeout games unless there's a strong objection. The 5-strikeout section isn't even being maintained because people are so busy keeping the 4-strikeout section up to date. I'll bet neither of them is complete now. It's better to have one complete section than three incomplete sections. I'm also removing the non-MLB section which I'm sure is about 2% complete at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. Three more got added just in the last two days. Of course, you will probably have to keep re-removing them since a few people are in the habit of adding them every night. On the other topic, I have the MLB record book, and could do a list of 3-homer games if one doesn't already exist. Although there would be 448 players on it. Not counting any this year. Gulp. Dakern74 05:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the strangely-named MLB players who have hit 3 home runs over consecutive innings as well as MLB hitters with two or more 3-home run games in a season. As far as the size of articles, we have Top 500 home run hitters of all time with 500 people and New York Mets all-time roster (created by me) which has around 800. I think a slowly-growing list of 400-500 people is perfectly acceptable. Don't be surprised if you meet some resistance though... You might even want to combine the first two articles I mentioned into an overall list. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's more like it, Dakern74... get the existing content up to date and accurate before we start adding in more sections willy nilly. Keep it up!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First it was only the heading of "20th century" that threw me. But apparently whoever did the original list forgot to look at the playoffs (cuz they're separate sections in the record book). Oh well, back to my hundreds of home-run hitters..... -- dakern74 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Busted. Guess my book only lists the 6's in extra-inning games, not the 5's. I checked the boxscore, and the recent re-addition of Ben Grieve is correct. -- dakern74 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the word "recently," from the Hafner entry, something unacceptable for Wikipedia articles.

[edit] AfD precludes unencyclopedic?!?

If there is in fact a WP that AfD supersedes placement of the unencyclopedic warning tag on a page, then I apologize and I'll remove the tag myself... but I would like that WP cited, please. Groupthink 03:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I based my removal of the template on the very text of the template:

If you agree that it is not encyclopedic, consider proposing or discussing its deletion.

Based on that sentence, it sounds like the proper procedures is to: 1) apply the template; 2) nominate the article for deletion. In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to nominate an article for deletion then apply the template. If the AfD discussion determines that the article should be deleted, then, obviously, the article and the template will be gone. If the AfD determines that the article should not be deleted and is encyclopedic, then the unencyc template should be removed. X96lee15 04:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read the text of the template again, this time with my emphasis added: "If you agree that it is not encyclopedic, consider proposing or discussing its deletion." Nothing in that template precludes or even implies that it cannot be added after an AfD request. In fact, the AfD text specifically permits editing post-request. Now I respect that you don't like that I made this AfD req, but wouldn't you be better served by advocating against deletion in the AfD discussion instead of splitting hairs like this? Groupthink 04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an article can continue to be edited after it's been proposed for deletion. I just think that it's overkill to put the template here after the fact. It's obvious that the encyclopedic value of the article is questioned based on the AfD template. Well, upon further review, it's not totally obvious unless one goes to the deletion discussion page.

Anyway, it's ok to leave it here. Do you agree that it should be removed if this article "survives" the AfD discussion? X96lee15 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If the AfD determines that there's a firm keep consensus, then yes. If the finding is lack of consensus, then no. Groupthink 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the unencyc tag is redundant or useless, but I'm not going to belabor the point, either. Tag removed. Groupthink 11:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Work to be done

As promised, I have removed the unencyc tag. AfD has determined that the subject is encyclopedic; although I disagree with that decision, I shall respect it. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the article should stand as-is, and I have placed appropriate tags in places that need improvement. Groupthink 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I did quite a bit of editing/adding/cleanup on this article last fall. I have a copy of the Sporting News official MLB record book, which, granted, isn't online and thus can't be conveniently cited with a link. It's possible to go to Baseball Reference [1] and create your own query for occurrences of 5 K's, although their database only goes back to 1957. I've always had this problem with Wikipedia, that if something is in a print source but not online, people remove it as "unverifiable" or "unsourced" or "not cited". Is it enough to just cite the ISBN for this book (which I'd certainly be willing to do)? Or does that still not meet someone's "standard"? I'd love to hear how/if other people have handled this situation. -- dakern74 (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a great question, and after perusing the WP guidelines, I can't find anything that directly addresses that dilemma. I'd be surprised if anyone thought that the SN MLB record book didn't meet the standard of a reliable source in this context. The problem is that sources have to also be verifiable -- more than that, they have to be easily verifiable by any editor. So can one call a print-only source like the SN MLB RB "easily verifiable"? You could argue that if a full citation is given, anyone can go to her/his local library or bookstore and cross-check the article against the print source, but if that demand is repeatedly made, doesn't that add up to an onerous burden? Plus, wouldn't it be so easy for inaccuracies to creep in, either by carelessness or via malicious edits?

I do have a solution to this dilemma, but it cannot be implemented in Wikipedia (at least Wikipedia as it currently is). The expedient solution would be to appoint a qualified and credible baseball statistics expert as gatekeeper and guardian of stats for this article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a deep anti-credentialist and anti-meritocratic streak. There's no such thing as expert qualification on Wikipedia because any jackass can claim to be anything and everything, and there's no easy measure of credibility because there's no formal peer rating system.

Lord Jimbo has asserted that one of the consequences of the Essjay debacle will be that if editors claim certain credentials, they'll be required to prove them (although AFAIK, no formal credential challenge system has yet been implemented). So I suppose someone could volunteer to be vetted as a qualified baseball expert and be given responsibility for maintaining this article's stats, but there's nothing to enforce that arrangement. Even if that were enforceable, wouldn't it be unfair to other qualified and credible users who wanted to make stats edits? Plus, what if the "stats czar" lost her/his credibility down the road?

I empathize with your frustrations, Dakern74, but in this case, I think you very well might be wearing the platinum sombrero. Groupthink 00:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)