Talk:Mickey Mantle
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mickey Mantle Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Message box".[[Category:Script error: No such module "good article topics". good articles|Mickey Mantle]] Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Message box".
"In popular culture" section
Is this section necessary? I ask because it seems more trivial to me than anything else. Should I remove it entirely or should I merge the more important info of the section it with another one? -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content has suggestions. This IPC has gotten out of hand and I support cutting it down. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Great. I'll see to it. Also, I believe this section is the last remaining major issue in an otherwise well-written article. You think it's possible to renominate it for 'Good Article'? It's improved a lot since it lost the distinction in 2007.
- Edit: I have edited the article, rewritten some oddly phrased sentences, cut out extraneous or repeated info, etc. More importantly, I've cut of most of the 'In popular culture' section. It is a subsection of the 'honors' section now.
- I think I will nominate it for 'Good Article'. I went through the criteria and, to me, it meets the standards of one. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Good article status
It happened a week or ago but better late than never!
Mickey Mantle has regained its good article status, over sixteen years after it was delisted. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this article during that time to help make this possible. Special thanks to Billsmith60 who helped me straighten things out over the last two weeks.
And, of course, continue to edit and improve! -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. After all, you did the hard yards! The article required a significant amount of work to bring it up to GA standard again as it went through an extensive QR. Let's hope Mantle remains a good-quality article Billsmith60 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Additional Mickey Mantle Baseball Card Info
Hello: I think it would be interesting, and improve the article about Mickey Mantle by adding the following information to the legacy section paragraph about his baseball card. Thank you! MBCollectFanatics (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
At the time of the 2022 sale, the Mickey Mantle card was considered the most valuable card of the modern era.[1]
The 1952 Mantle card was released as part of a 407-card set during that MLB season. This series was created by Topps employee Sy Berger and publisher, Woody Gelman and is considered by collectors as the first modern baseball card set.[2] This set introduced cards with full-color photos, facsimile autographs, and the inclusion of statistics and bios printed on the back.[3] Mantle’s card, No. 311, was one of three double-printed cards in the high series along with Jackie Robinson (No. 312) and Bobby Thomson (No. 313).[3]
The ‘low number’ cards issued in the spring of 1952 sold very well. Sales of the ‘higher number’ cards issued that summer, which included Mickey Mantle, plummeted causing Berger to have cases of leftover cards dumped in the Atlantic Ocean.[4]
The Mickey Mantle baseball card was the first ever sports trading card sold at auction for eight figures.[1] MBCollectFanatics (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Template:Reftalk
- Template:Respond I implemented part of the request. The information about the set itself would be considered WP:COAT in my opinion. I would consult with the relevant project page as the card itself and possibly the set may qualify for standalone pages in Wikipedia (although I have not done enough research to say that definitively). CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)