Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball managers/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 The Rambling Man 15:11, 21 February 2010 [1].

List of Major League Baseball managers

[edit]
Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

My first independent FLC nomination in a while. I know this article was just created, but it's been built in my sandbox over the course of the last couple months. I believe that it meets the criteria, and I hope you enjoy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Reywas92Talk 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*I'm pretty sure this is an article, not a list. I see all prose but no table; a table listing only the current managers would be nice though. Good luck at WP:FAC! Comment: The lead should be about managers, not the history of MLB. Reywas92Talk 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is still organized as a list and should not be sent to FAC imo. Also there are other baseball leagues in the world and manager (baseball) should cover managers of those leagues as well, not just the MLB.—Chris!c/t 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the list of MLB managers from the manager article. As Chris says, there is a lot more baseball in the world than just the MLB. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, guys. Yes, this is still a list, in the style of List of Major League Baseball awards. It's just a bit longer, because there are a lot of teams. A simple table doesn't do near as much to lead a featured topic as a text list like this, and since that's the eventual goal, that's the route we decided to take. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine, but I do think a table at the end of the page would be very useful to more easily point out the current managers. Reywas92Talk 18:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a table would be unnecessary duplication of information that's already in the article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a legitimate summary in table form. No one wants to sift through each section to see the current managers, especially when most of them are stuck in the middle of the paragraphs among others. Anyway, that's incorrect because the Orioles, Marlins, Tigers, and Athletics lack mention of the current managers. Reywas92Talk 23:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was an oversight on my part which will be has been corrected, but the summary is still redundant. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be cognizant that a list is still a list even if it's not in a table. Just because there's not a defined block-by-block "list of current managers" doesn't mean that this list is any less valuable. It has a broad scope. It also is not entitled "List of current Major League Baseball managers", as it's meant to be an overview of the managerial history of each team, not a block-by-block list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a good point, but it's still a courtesy to the reader who only wants to know the current managers. Nice job with the list anyway. Reywas92Talk 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a good point, but it's still a courtesy to the reader who only wants to know the current managers. Nice job with the list anyway. Reywas92Talk 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold
*Comments I agree that a text-list is fine as opposed to a table. For a subject such as this it does help, as it lets you go into history more easily. However I do agree some form of pattern would be nice, perhaps leaving the current manager sentence to the end of each paragraph. Even if it means then putting other factoids (like how historically great Scioscia is relative to the Angels franchise) after it, it would lend some serious readability IMO. Then some smaller things:
  • Age estimation is one thing, but phrases like "dark skinned" and "brown skinned" in the alt text is a little... :/ for my tastes.
  • It might help the people who can't see the image to know what they could be looking at. The guideline for alt text says that "race can be a sensitive area" (paraphrased), but I don't mention a particular race there, simply a skin color, which I consider to be an "immediately noticeable major attribute" (per WP:ALT).KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The all-time managerial wins list factoid in the lead could use a cite.
  • Not all of our lists make that distinction; I've always been of the opinion that a Hall of Famer is a Hall of Famer regardless of why they're in, but that's just me. The major reason is because the references that they are cited to don't give that information. They just say "HOF". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, however, available at both the individual person's page John McGraw "Inducted into the Hall of Fame by Veteran's Committee as Manager" and at the HoF voting results page (1937). I suppose my issue just goes to the Dickey example. In the same way we don't mention positions that someone played for only a short short while (I did not include a "Pitcher" designation for Ted Williams on the .400 OBP list even though he appeared in one game as a pitcher) because we understand the difference between a true position and one of quick happenstance. I see a similar issue here. As a list of managers, I see a difference between a Hall of Fame manager and a Hall of Fame player who just happened to manage (just as Ted Williams was not a Hall of Fame pitcher, but merely a Hall of Fame left fielder who played pitcher once). Staxringold talkcontribs 02:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm aware that the player pages have the info, but that means that I would have to go through the entire list and individually reference each person who is in the Hall of Fame. I guess my only qualm is: is all of that really necessary? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To paraphrase: You're killin' me, Stax! All right, I'll have to get to this after my trip this weekend. I'll get started during my lunch break today, but after work today I'll be out of commission until Saturday night. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – This includes the lead and NL teams; I haven't gotten to the AL clubs yet. Not finding that much in the first half of this unique list:
  • Atlanta Braves: "while the current manager is Bobby Cox. Cox...". Would be better to avoid that repetition.
  • A similar situation exists in the Phillies section. Might be good to quickly check for that elsewhere.
  • To two: When I do that, it's to avoid confusion because there are two managers listed in the previous sentence. Changing it to a pronoun could be ambiguous. Do you have a suggestion?

KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleveland Indians: Try not to have the one sentence start with the number 40.
  • "the last major sports championship for both the franchise and the city of Cleveland." The 1964 Browns won the NFL title. Even though the Super Bowl didn't exist yet, that still counts as a major title.
  • Minnesota Twins: They've won two World Series in Minnesota, not win. I think Tom Kelly was the manager for both, if memory serves. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Looks good after the adjustments. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • Not directly relevant to this list, but I think List of current MLB managers and List of current Major League Baseball managers should be redirected to the appropriate article, as it is a plausible search term.
  • This won't affect my eventual support, but I do think Reywas' comment about adding a table of current managers somewhere in the article (probably in the end). I understand that it does not fit into the article title exactly, but current managers are still managers, and a reader looking for a list of current MLB managers (which as demonstrated above does not exist in article form) would not know where to go. I understand it would be slightly redundant to the navbox at the bottom of the list, but that's acceptable per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.
  • To the above related comments: this is not intended to be a list of current Major League managers, as the daughter lists are not about the current managers only. I understand the relevance of WP:CLN here, but this list is serving a different purpose than being a list of current managers. All current managers are mentioned in this list since they are linked in the navbox, but the purpose here is to be a summary of the managerial history of Major League Baseball, hence the title. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinks now blue; wondering if I should create a hatnote for the template for those people looking exclusively for current managers (a la "This list is about all Major League Baseball managers. For current managers only, see Template:MLB managers by team").
  • I'm curious as to why you don't abbreviate Major League Baseball (apologies if this has already been discussed).
  • I'm not a big fan of abbreviations in prose; I think they start to look sloppy because once you use them once, you have to use them every time. There are a lot of places where I would rather see the prose than the abbreviation, so I just choose not to use the shortened forms. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major League Baseball is the highest level of play in North American professional baseball, referring specifically to the organization that operates the National League and the American League." The sentence order is a bit wonky; it looks like "referring specifically" is modifying "baseball" rather than "Major League Baseball". Perhaps "Major League Baseball is the highest level of play in North American professional baseball, and is the organization that operates the National League and the American League."?
  • "It is currently composed of 30 teams." Rm "currently"; it is a dated word and the number of teams doesn't change frequently enough for the word to help.
  • Caption: "Connie Mack holds the records for most wins (3,731) and losses (3,948) by a manager in Major League Baseball history." A bit verbose, could be "Connie Mack holds the records for most wins (3,731) and losses (3,948) by a Major League Baseball team manager." (or something like that; my main beef is that "history" is redundant)
  • "The last player-manager in Major League Baseball was Pete Rose, who began managing the Cincinnati Reds in 1984." Not sure what you mean by "last". Is Rose the only one left?
  • "Since that time, the team has" "Since that time" seems redundant to me.
  • "managerial ejections" No link for ejection?
  • "During the regular season, Gene Mauch leads the franchise in both wins and losses (646–684)." Could be "Gene Mauch leads the franchise in regular season wins and losses (646–684)." (I took out the "both" but feel free to put it back)


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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_managers/archive1&oldid=1141921439"