Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Baltimore Orioles managers

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 User:Scorpion0422 23:27, 30 December 2008 [1].

List of Baltimore Orioles managers edit

I am nominating this list because I think it meets all the criteria, and because parts of it have been sitting in my sandbox for several months. I figured it was time to get it done, and I was due to go through another nom. Modeled on my other two managers FLs, List of Philadelphia Phillies managers and List of Minnesota Twins managers. Cheers to all. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

  • The Baltimore franchise began its life as the Milwaukee Brewers (not to be confused with the current National League team of the same name) in 1901. - life sounds awkward, how about began operation as the Milwaukee Brewers or just began as the...
  • Done. This was taken from the Twins managers list, but I like this wording better. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Browns remained in Missouri until the end of the 1953 season, when Major League Baseball's owners elected to move the franchise to Baltimore, Maryland, where they were renamed the Orioles, after Maryland's state bird. - in the first sentence of the lead, add an acronym to the Major League Baseball (MLB) so in this sentence it can just be stated as MLB's
  • I dislike using abbreviations unless they are needed many times. In this case, there is no reason to shorten it, especially because it helps the prose to flow rather than breaking it with an abbreviation. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weaver, Hank Bauer, and Joe Altobelli are the managers who have won a World Series championship with the club: - how about adding only before managers
  • I did remove the word "only" when I was rewriting this, so I have re-added it. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • including Frank Robinson,[10] the first African-American manager in Major League Baseball, - if my suggestion is taken, you only need to state the acronym, MLB
  • See above.
  • In the key, the column headings should be in bold since the tables column headings are in bold.
  • In some of the coaches, there are more than 4 references in the little ref column. Is it necessary to link to the source about the post season games? Does it tell anything else that the profile of the coach doesn't, if not, it should be removed because it makes the table less appealing, a criteria of FLs.
  • They do serve a purpose, because the general manager references do not provide records for playoff appearances. The only way that I can find to do this while still using a reliable source is by linking each series that the manager... well, managed... in the playoffs. To facilitate a proper table width, I did break up the references at every two. To change the visual aspect of the row height, it could go every three. Let me know your opinion. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--SRX 00:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think expanding it for three refs in each would do better IMO, 2 just makes the row expand too much. Other comments check out alright.--SRX 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - issues fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "In its 108-year history"-->In its 108-year-long history...
  • This is grammatically incorrect. In addition, the addition of "long" is redundant, which is discouraged. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are probably right, I was a bit hurried in reviewing this. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seven managers have taken the Orioles franchise to the postseason, with Earl Weaver leading the team to a record six playoff appearances. " The with + -ing sentence structure is ungrammatical.
  • I can't find anything about it being correct or incorrect. Can you elaborate? I have a correction in mind, but I don't know that it needs to be changed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a note about each year being linked to an MLB season. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All sports lists that have been promoted in the past few months have used this method. At the Date Linking RfC, it has been agreed that those type of hidden year links should be explained in the key. Alternatively, you could rename the column header "Orioles season". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24
Comments
  • I think there still is the discussion on MOS about the year being linked to something else rather than the actual year itself. I suggest you not wikilink it.
  • "After one season in Wisconsin..." Some readers may not know Milwaukee is in Wisconsin.
  • I know, that's why I said it. It was already specifically defined that they were in Milwaukee, so now they know that Milwaukee is in Wisconsin. Saying "Milwaukee" twice is redundant. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, there are sentences that some readers, mostly outside of the US, are confused about. Some readers may not know that St. Louis is south of Milwaukee.
  • "Earl Weaver led the team to a record six playoff appearances." team or MLB record?
  • postseason should be spelled post-season.
  • does "won" really need to be wikilinked?
  • But in the article, I think it is only explaining about the Win column for pitchers, not for the team itself. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The longest-tenured general manager is Roland Hemond, who served in the position for eight years, from 1987 to 1995." what has this got to do with the article?
  • "...(1968–1982, 1985–1986)..." That is in a prose, so it should be like "(1968 to 1982, 1985 to 1986)"
  • There's no comparative text (i.e., the word "from") to force using the word "to"; within parentheses, the dash is acceptable. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...including Frank Robinson,[10] the first African-American manager in Major League Baseball,[11] and Rogers Hornsby, who was a member of the cross-city rival Cardinals during the franchise's tenure in St. Louis." Why are you only including those two in the prose? I suggest you delete that part.
  • I included them because there were notable facts about them that were worth mentioning. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant is there a reference of them being more notable than the other managers? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Interesting. I would say that the criteria for inclusion within an article are less stringent than the criteria for inclusion within the 'Pedia, and I would additionally argue that these two managers are more notable than the others for this particular article because of the reasons I listed. I would say that Frank Robinson's first in MLB feat makes him more notable than Hornsby for the purposes of this article and have provided a reference for that, and I believed as such when I wrote it; however, I didn't want to just have one name there. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to reply with what Matthewedwards said to me on my second FLC nomination, "Surely every player picked is notable?" So this is what I'm going to say, "Surely every manager is notable, so why not include all of them?" I will ask Matthewedwards about this minor problem. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue at the Lakers list was that there was a sentence, "Many notable first round draft picks from the Lakers include <list of a few names>." and I was asking what makes these ones more notable than the others that weren't mentioned in the sentence because there was nothing to show that they were more notable. In this page, it explains that Robinson was the first black manager, and that Hornsby played for the franchise's rival local team. I think the sentence could be slightly restructured though. Without the refs, "Eight Orioles managers have been elected to HoF, including Frank Robinson, the first African-American manager in Major League Baseball, and Rogers Hornsby" could be read as though the first African American manager is not Robinson, and is discussing three people. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that you should remove that part of the sentence, but I just want to get this over with. :D -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 22:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use postseason in the prose, but you use playoffs in the key. Choose one or the other.
  • "Number retired by the Baltimore Orioles franchise" There isn't a reference for the retired numbers.
  • Why not include the managers who spent their entire MLB managing career with the Orioles?
  • Because it would require excessive color-coding or addition of symbols and would detract from the visual appeal of the table. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the addition of more colors and symbols, and because this list is so much longer than many. I've never felt it necessary to explicate this particular fact, especially because the chance of a manager leading only 1 team is so much higher in baseball. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for redirects in the article, as I just clicked on some redirects.
  • But they should have been wikilinked to the original article, but this doesn't matter. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't a category for Category:Baltimore Orioles lists. Also, Category:Baltimore Orioles is a super category of Category:Baltimore Orioles managers.

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 07:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since this is a article about only managers, I suggest you only list the Baseball Hall of Famers who have been elected as a manager. Just look at this list.
  • I have seen the list, but I believe that it is important to list all Hall of Famers who have managed a team, since being a member is inherently a notable fact. As I said, this is modeled on the two above FLs, which list all of the managers in the Hall of Fame, for playing or leading. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to this, I do feel that it is necessary to note that the lead is intended to be a summary of the article, or in this case, list; therefore, no information should be provided in the lead that isn't covered or explained in later detail within the list. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you at least note which managers were inducted as a manager and which ones were inducted as a player? -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 22:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table doesn't note it, so it shouldn't be written in the lead. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will you could just note it on the table. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that it makes a difference. Hall of Famers are Hall of Famers. It's one building, one honor, one place. That's why I don't differentiate. Anyone who has made a big enough impact on the game to be inducted is honored equally. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said before, this is a manager list, and should include information related to the managers, so it's actually good to point out which ones were inducted into the HoF. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And... I did. Any person who managed this franchise who was inducted into the Hall of fame is noted as such. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant as a manager. LOL. Also, can you reply to the above comment please, thanks. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ←Which one, the others seem resolved. As to this current issue, there's no policy-based reason why this needs to change. I think that this is a difference of opinion about what's necessary for inclusion in this article, and I think we probably need a neutral party. I will request one or two of the members of WP:BASEBALL to take a look. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asked for two project members' opinions: Baseball Bugs and Blackngold29. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is tricky. I can see both sides of the argument and can't say that I really have a clear-cut conclusion. Does anyone know how many of the managers elected were in fact elected for their managerial roles? If all eight were elected as players then it would make sense to note that, but as it stands now I (though notably as a baseball fan and familiar that players and mangers can both be elected to the HOF) don't find the designation misleading to the extent that it prevents the list from meeting the FL criteria. Don't get me wrong, close scrutiny like this is exactly what should happen to FLCs, and it could probably improve the list, but I don't see it as vital. blackngold29 23:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per concerns here, I have made a few minor changes to indicate differences between players and managers, though I believe no distinction is necessary. If this method of identification is unacceptable, then I will revert to the earlier version. Because there is no distinction whatsoever between inductees to the Hall (you are in or you are out), these shouldn't be separated by color or other large differences, so I have tried to keep the distinction as subtle as possible. Please comment. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The duties of the team manager include team strategy and leadership on and off the field." reference?
  • But is it referenced? Also, drawing sentences directly from a Wikipedia article doesn't mean the sentence is true. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware of that, but this wasn't a problem on any other FL noms. I know that's not an excuse, but why is it an issue now? Otherwise, do you have a reference for that, because I can't find one. It's certainly just common sense. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would this reference be available? It's got some information as to the duties of the manager, but only abstractly touches on my two points. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it'll work. It's common sense to most of the Americas, but not in Europe, Asia, or other countries not familiar with the sport. Though I recommend you remove that part of the sentence, I won't worry about it too much. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There still needs to be a reference for the definition of a manager. Just put a dictionary reference there, as there is none. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 21:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...they managed the team while still being signed as a player." reference?
  • I still don't see the point in putting it on the article though, since like you said, you already wikilinked it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly does relate to the article. It's an important part of the history of the game that player-managers existed in the game, as no one with a passing interest today would know since they don't exist anymore. Many of the edits that you ask me to make involve clarifying things in the article; with this edit, you are asking me to make something less clear. I see no logic in removing it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. That was a bad explanation. It certainly does relate to the article, but you don't have to put the description of player-manager onto the article. The readers can easily click the wikilink of it. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 23:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as possible, we should try to keep the reader in the article they are reading. The perfect article should be nearly self-contained, readers should not have to branch out to find out information needed to understand the article's subject matter. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earl Weaver is the only Orioles manager to have been elected into the HoF in the Managers category. KV5, the comment from Dabomb87, which states, "As far as possible, we should try to keep the reader in the article they are reading. The perfect article should be nearly self-contained, readers should not have to branch out to find out information needed to understand the article's subject matter." You are currently branching out information about what a manager is, and what a player-manager is. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my opinion: If knowledge of what a player-manager is vital to readers' understanding of the article, then having a short description of the job/position in the article is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ←SRE.K.A.L.24, I believe you have misread or misunderstood this comment. As I read it, Dabomb87 is saying that not including this information induces people to click on the link, which is not the goal of the "perfect" or featured article/list. I will ask him to confirm. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's alright, I am watching this FLC. I am saying that if readers need to know what a player-manager means to understand the list, then a short explanation in the lead is necessary in addition to the link. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as you put a reference from a dictionary reference, I will be fine with it. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 21:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no dictionary references for this, but I went to Baseball-Reference's Bullpen and found the stub there on player-managers. I noted the book that was used as a reference for further reading, found it on Google Books, and it verifies the information. Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. This is why I don't cite books. I have no idea what that is. I think I found it though. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Finally a job well done. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RyanCross (talk)
  • In the table in row 29, the references are currently in this order: [9][42][43][44][7][45][46][47][48][49][50]. References should be in numerical order, so put the [7] in front of the [9].
  • This has come up before (see here under "Resolved comments from The Rambling Man") and, actually, the references don't have to appear in numerical order (they don't have to in a featured article), and there's nothing in MOS to support it. The current setup keeps the references for the postseason in chronological order by postseason series so that they are easily accessible for the reader to see the records.
  • In row 30, it is currently in this order: [51][52][8]. Same problem as above.
  • See above.
  • For ref 2, the publisher is actually MLB Advanced Media, L.P. and the work is MLB.com. Same thing for refs 4 and 13.
  • Done with a minor change to state explicitly that these come from the Orioles site, not the MLB main site. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "External links" section, put a bullet (*) before the external link.
— RyanCross @ 00:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Comments were resolved to meet WP:FL? for me. RyanCross @ 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Baltimore_Orioles_managers&oldid=1126717708"