Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Series champions/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 22:57, 20 January 2010 [1].

List of World Series champions

[edit]
Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs, Scorpion0422
Toolbox

Assuming the nomination below for Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award passes, this list will be the final piece in a now 4-month project of WP:MLB to create a featured topic for MLB Awards. The list has been touched up by several experienced editors, and I think this last piece is ready! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added note: KV5 just reminded me, Scorpion0422 deserves major credit on this list as well! He really put a lot of work in before I finished this baby up. I'll leave a note on his talk page, but he deserves some of this FL credit regardless.
Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5
  • I'm still at odds with only one league being colored; it should either be all or none. That's just me, and I've felt that way since the shading was originally put in over my objections way back when.
  • This was done as a mix of the styles of List of NBA champions and List of Stanley Cup champions, I think. As in the Stanley Cup list the columns are winner/loser (rather than the leagues) and takes the shading element from the NBA list. I don't really know if the shading is needed, but it really just exists to keep the leagues clear. Stanley Cup gets by without shading (or even a league column, it's just in parens).
  • Yeah, I understand why it was done, but it still looks like one league is being favored. I'd rather just see the colors go because if another color is added for the NL (which should be the blue league to begin with), we're going to end up with Skittlepedia. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I originally tinted the table, let me explain my reasoning, more to give information than to advocate a position. I'd first used the coloring I'd used at World Series and Major League Baseball, but that was reverted as too bold. (There were four editors talking at the time, and since two of them objected, there was no strong consensus either way). The original list went back to 1876, including years when there was no alternative major league (those championships are now at List of pre-World Series baseball champions), and I was trying to be as unobtrusive as possible, so the natural way to highlight a distinction only for the years when one existed seemed to be to color the American Association a light eggshell and the American League a very light pink. To see earlier arrangements and color schemes, see November 5th and December 27th version. This month, the opposite objection arose, that my colors were too faint, so an attractive but much stronger shade of teal (which doesn't match the NL blue/AL red convention) was substituted for American League teams. I wasn't trying to favor one league over the other, just to be economical with the shading. I still think that a shaded table is infinitely more informative and easier to read than a plain gray array of 9 columns over 105 years; the alternative of putting the National League in one column and other leagues in another (which also shows pennant winners in sequence and allows managers and teams to be compared easily for both winning and losing years) ran into awkward difficulties with where to put the score and how to clearly highlight the winning team each year while accommodating color-blind readers, monochrome monitors, screen reading programs and other parts of Wikipedia:Accessibility. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose looks good, and I like the table construction. Also, the sorting works with colspans!... Somehow!... I'm good with that.
  • It's all about putting in sorting values. My one question is if I should change the sorting value from "zzz" (so they sort to the bottom) to "aaa" (so they sort to the top) because currently the first column (winning team) sorts them to the bottom because of that value but then the rest sort them to the top (because they have a null value).
  • The 2010 MLB box doesn't particularly belong on this article, as it doesn't link here. This list is basically a historical record, so it doesn't have much to do with an ongoing/upcoming season.
  • I think we need a note somewhere that years in the table link to the corresponding World Series.
  • I'll put a small key together right now. It'll also explicitly explain the league abbreviations.
  • Finally, as previously discussed at WT:MLB, I think that former FL director, hard worker, and all-round great guy Scorpion0422 should get co-nom credit here, because he did a lot of work before Stax came in and took over to get this ready for FLC.
  • Absolutely right, sorry I forgot to mention that, I'll list that right now.
  • Added: Forgot the toolbox check...
  • 4 dablinks.
  • One dead EL (2003 WS) and one firewalled (which is SI, so that always happens).
Support — Cheers, and hats off to the (hopeful) FT! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those lists that I started working on, but never got around to finishing it off. Why were the references from the MLB website replaced? I know third party sources are usually considered better than official sources, but I thought that in this case, it was acceptable. I can't say that I like the colour coding (though it has since been removed). Is it worth mentioning that the Blue Jays are the only team from outside the States to appear in/win a World Series? Should there be some mention of the pre-Official World Series champions? -- Scorpion0422 19:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I replaced the MLB references because they had far less information about the series', and MLB.com had a couple different formats for the links which left me worried that they would migrate and kill off some of the links. I can add the Blue Jays note, that's a solid point. As for pre-WS champs, I dunno. There is a disambig to them at the top. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • " best-of-seven playoff and is played between " playoff followed by played is a little tiresome. Maybe "is contested by"?
  • Done.
  • "meet with the " I have never seen the use of the word "with" in this sentence! But I am a Brit...
  • Changed, but meeting with someone is definitely a phrase used plenty.
  • What's "the Fall Classic"?
  • The series itself, fixed to make clearer
  • "met with President Barack Obama, " there's that "with" again...!
  • Any reason for the spaces between text and the notes?
  • Done.
  • No reason to bold AL and NL in the key, they're not bolded in the table.
  • Done.
  • Not sure what the slight colour-coding means? Shouldn't it be in the key?
  • Thanks!
  • Minor point but the hatnote links to the pre-World Series list, the title contains the word "baseball" while this list doesn't. Perhaps some consistency here?
  • The World Series is the World Series. The pre-World Series link can't simply be List of World Series champions, however, or it would effectively refer to every sports champion before 1903.
  • I understand that you and I both know that the World Series is the World Series, but since, globally, there are dozens of "World Series", and since the title should be unambiguous (in my opinion), I just think adding the word "baseball" between Series and champions here would do no harm at all. I'm really not trying to be difficult, honest, I promise.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • There is a link to championship ring that could be useful for the second paragraph. It's not the greatest article in the world, so I wouldn't blame you if you declined to include it.
  • I see Major League and major league in the third paragraph. It would be nice if they were made consistent, in either form.
  • "(once as Brooklyn, five times as Los Angeles)." Change both "as" uses to "in", like in the other paranthetical bit?
  • Nice photo by the franchise table! :-)
  • Hidden typo in the alt text for the trophy photo – "one a red platform."

Support – Excellent job with a list I've been hoping would come here for a while (please note that I did add a reference, in case the closers consider me an involved party at this point). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments about naming conventions
*Comment TRM, sorry, but "List of World Series baseball champions" sounds very awkward. Other than the facts that the World Series is the original World Series and the main article is World Series, rendering "baseball" superfluous, the title doesn't even make sense grammatically. You wouldn't say List of Super Bowl football champions or List of Stanley Cup hockey champions. "World Series" is incorrectly being used as an adjective when it's not one. Reywas92Talk 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no opinion on whether "baseball" is necessary or not, but I believe Reywas is correct about the grammar. If you all decide whether "baseball" should stay in the title, the article's name should probably be changed to "List of World Series (baseball) champions". Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to change my support, whatever the outcome, but since we have World Series (disambiguation), I think it's fair enough to assume that not all people associate World Series with baseball. Yes, US readers definitely will, but baseball isn't exactly popular in Europe or Africa. All I wanted was an unambiguous title which defines the content of the list to a non-expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no worries. It just seemed odd to me that the hatnote did include baseball and this didn't. I guess I'm seriously North American-outvoted here! Move along, nothing more to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The difference (I moved the original hatnote) is simply saying "pre-World Series champions" doesn't tell you it's baseball related, there were other types of championships before the World Series. "World Series champions", however, tells you definitively what it's referring to. Moving back per this discussion. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice job! It seems everything has already been taken care of. Reywas92Talk 00:29, 16 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_World_Series_champions/archive1&oldid=1251714990"