Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of American League pennant winners/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 Dabomb87 23:07, 16 February 2010 [1].

List of American League pennant winners

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/List of American League pennant winners/archive1

Normally I would never nominate a new list this close to my Dodgers nomination below, but as with the National League version of this list this is an emergency job to satisfy requests at the Featured Topic Candidacy for MLB awards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5

"(1901-1968)" in the key needs en-dashes.
"40 pennant winning teams" - in the caption, should be pennant-winning
Redlink in 1985
Broken HTML tag in 1997
Could use File:Boston Red Sox George W. Bush.jpg as an image somewhere, even though it's got two things I don't like in it. Same with File:WhiteSox President.jpeg
Would like to see playoff appearances by franchise in a table.
Sorting seems to be broken for two rows in the ALCS-era table for the losing team column only.

Works fine for me... Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I meant the losing team record column. 1995 and 1998 are sorting out of order for me on the second click. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, had missed a couple sort templates. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was actually going to ask you before the nom started: mind using a shade of red for the pennant-winners, since it's the league color? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this would run into the WS color. I guess we could color the World Series wins in the year and the pennant winners in the team... Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, WS winners is what I meant. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any color is fine, though I think this blue works nicely. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you like blue, I like blue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yepyep, I'm writing the playoff appearance table right now. I'll do those other fixes once it's done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to B-Ref, the Tigers were second in 1967.

If you look again the Twins had precisely the same record. And, since being 2nd carried no particular benefit, I do not believe there were any tiebreak methods for naming a particular team the official "second". Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that. How do we interpret the source? I didn't even look for teams with identical records on the NL list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to list both as I did. They are both second, and at least in this case are simply in alphabetical order. I'd like to find another example to see if that's true in general. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'll check it out. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1896 National League shows the Senators above the Brooklyn Bridegrooms for 9th place. Same scenario, same teams in 1897 for 6th place. 1900 has the Cards above the Cubs (or St. Louis before Chicago, don't know which way to look at it) for 5th place. Perhaps most relevant: the Pirates are ahead of the Giants for second place in 1908. All of these are for teams with identical records, and I haven't found any consistency as to who's first when. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going to leave it with both for now until we figured this out. Both the Twins and the Tigers are 1 game back. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have discovered what we believe to be the solution: Retrosheet's standings for the 1967 season shows the Tigers ahead of the Twins, as does Baseball-Reference; although they have the same win-loss record and the same winning percentage, the Tigers achieved that record in less games because they had only one tie and the Twins had two. Since ties count as a half-win and a half-loss in the standings, this has no effect on the winning percentage, and there is obviously no effect on the pure win-loss record; however, this means that Detroit accomplished their winning percentage and record in less games that Minnesota, ranking the Tigers second and the Twins third. I'm leaving this comment uncapped so that other reviewers can see, but this list definitely deserves my support, if for no other reason than that Stax puts up with all my crap. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, removed the not-a-tie. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: In the NL list, I have the "playoff appearances by franchise" table sorted by number of pennants won, since the list is about pennant winners. This one's sorted by playoff appearances. For standard's sake, which one do you want? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subsection is about playoff appearances I assumed it should be sorted as such. Either one is fine with me, though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. NL list sorted to match AL list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my concerns were addressed when reviewing the near-identical NL list. Though "The format of the ALCS was changed from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven format" - delete redundant use of the word format? Also, as per the NL list, I think that it's worth adding an extra column to link to the ALDS details, it wouldn't be a very wide column and would make these articles much more accessible to the reader. But I'll support nonetheless - rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the format...format thing. As for DS results, that really deserves it's own list at that point if anything. The results are currently at the (poorly structured) ALDS and NLDS pages. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link (one of the baseball-reference.com links is showing as a 403 forbidden). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing now, I guess B-Ref decided to put the Rays team history at their longer-known name (TBD for Tampa Bay DEVIL Rays as opposed to TBR for Tampa Bay Rays). Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~Comma after "has taken place in every season since except 1994."~~

Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold on a second. Now that I've read that, a year is definitely missing.~~

Are you remembering the 1904 World Series hiatus? The pennants were won, but no Series was played. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't read that sentence properly. My fault. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hyphen for "five game" in "played one another in the five game ALCS to determine the pennant winner."~~

Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many pennants do the Yankees have since the ALCS began? I'm asking this not for myself, but for the benefit of the readers (correct answer: a lot).

Actually not nearly as impressive an amount. I make this point to everyone who whines about Yankees salaries, most of the franchise dominance came prior to the institution of the draft in 1965. It was the dominance of the young player market, where you really get talent, that allowed the Yankees to win so much and have their amazing franchise success. From 1921-1965 the Yankees won 29/44 American League pennants and 20/44 (and 20 of their 27) World Series. Prior to the draft every Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Yogi Berra, and Mickey Mantle young talent would end up on the Yankees unless either the Yankees didn't want them or the player really really didn't want to play for them. From 65-09 (and 69-09, to get at your post-ALCS question) the Yankees have won "just" 11 pennants, and 7 World Series (still the most WS wins in that period, but only just, and many of those were more due to talent development and not big money free agents). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I asked because I thought you could add it to the lead in the appropriate sentence. Just be careful if you type that to a Cubs fan. :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Photo caption: "celebrating the Senators 1924 American League pennant". Apostrophe needed for Senators.~~

Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The GA column of the table needs sort templates. It's currently sorting by the first number, which doesn't work for teams that won by 10+ games.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the so-called {{sortfrac}} template doesn't work. The Rambling Man also suggested a change to the format of the NLCS-era table that should probably be implemented here as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go Giants, inserted some forced sorting to make it work. I'll do that style swap in a moment, KV. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You abbreviate AL but then refuse to use it...

Already used once in "AL Wild Card", but used it again. The problem is it needs to be spelled out in American League Championship Series and American League Division Series. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"won a total of 40 American " never really saw a need for the redundant "a total of", and in this case, since you use "total" in the next sentence, I think it'd read better without it.

Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sections - you have a 3.1 but no 3.2, ditto for 4.1..

And..? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't understand why you have single subsections, but there's nothing against in MOS. It doesn't make much sense to me, but there you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you have me alter it? Unite the two notes sections into one larger full section for notes? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest way round this is to just use semi-colon rather than a normal section heading. That way you get bold text like a section heading but it isn't included in the TOC. If that doesn't work for you, don't worry, I need to stop being so nit-picky about these things... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, done. Also, half done with the sorting. Just the post-69 table to sort now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a weird display of fractions in IE7... the bottoms are missing...

That's the {{frac}} template's fault. It always does that in IE but not in any other browser I've tried. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good sorting query: when I sort by total in descending order I get the 32 Yankees on 107-47 before the 31 Athletics on 107-45. Considering they're tied on wins, I would imagine the Athletics should sort above the Yankees having lost two fewer games... this is where {{SortKey}} is your friend...

Right you are, fixing. This'll take a little bit, but I'm doin' it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting's done! Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1994 colspan note should sort before 0, not between 0 and 1 (when sorting LW).

Not sure how to fix that. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My very inelegant solution was to make the zeroes actually sort as "0.1". It's messy, but it solves the problem. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works, done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't most, if not all of your See also links already linked in the lead?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Aren't they still worth noting? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote MOS : "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section"... that's where I'm coming from.. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I checked, actually ALDS was the only one linked in the lead. Removed that, NLCS/NL pennant winners/WS champs are all meaningful lists not otherwise linked. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support thanks for taking care of my nit-pickings...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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