Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Major League Baseball awards/archive1

Major League Baseball awards

Support as co-nominator This has been a long-coming project of WP:MLB to bring the MLB awards list up to snuff with the already featured NBA and NHL topics. In sum total all of these editors deserve credit and co-nom status for their roles in finished off this topic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I knew it would get done eventually, but I never expected this huge amount of help from so many valuable editors. Cheers, everyone! Support as co-nom — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nom for work on the MVP list. There are no gaps, as proved by MLB's list of awards in the dropdown menu [1], all articles contain {{MLB awards}}, all but one are featured (with the other being a GA), and the topic is well-defined. Mm40 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Congratulations are in order for your excellent work. Pity Commissioner's Trophy (MLB) isn't at FA-level to make this a fully featured topic, but the topic is excellent as is. NW (Talk) 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, original intention there was a featured list, but it was considered to be a content fork, failing FL criterion 3b. I'm good with the GA. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Wonderful job! Just a couple consistency concerns: Some have the Key within the winners section, but others have a separate section for it. Some lists have the section title Winners, but others have List of winners or Award winners. Also, some have National League winners and American League winners as subsections of Winners/List of winners/Award winners, but others have them as the top-level sections. I don't care which, but pick one and be consistent. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's a topic criteria, though setting a consistent format would be fine. The articles have all passed their FLCs with the format they have. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly identical formatting isn't a requirement for a featured topic, per WP:FT?. The structures and formatting are "similar" as recommended by the optional criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not an absolute requirement, but the same section titles is recommended. Individually, of course, they are fine, but this is really easy to take care of. Consistancy is a very important part of looking professional, and I believe that the prestigious FT should look professional. Reywas92^Talk 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not too bothered about the different section headers, since several awards articles have different layouts according to their contents. I did remove "List of" from one article where the more concise "Winners" sufficed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Reywas92 here. Just because the topic criteria doesn't require consistency, that doesn't mean we should stop at making the topic better and more professional.—Chris!_c/t 05:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as co-nominator Awesome job guys! --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Except for the Commissioner's Trophy, which was a GA, I have had the pleasure of reviewing or promoting (only when there was sufficient consensus to, of course) the FLCs for these lists in the past 14 months. This FT is an example of the Wiki collaborative spirit at its finest. Kudos to everyone involved in making this achivement possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - can't fault the topic. I only wish there were equivalent awards in association football so that WP:FOOTY could work on a similar topic....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This is off topic but) you could make an Awards in English football article that includes a summary of all the awards in English football awards and then go about and get them up to scratch. Or a trophies topic with Premier league winners, Championship winners, First Division, FA Cup, League Cup, etc - rst20xx (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An even better one: FIFA awards. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA only awards player of the year, so, that doesn't work... unless you had something else in mind? rst20xx (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - great topic! As an aside, I do think Reywas92's concerns are valid. As WP:FT? says, while the recommendations are not mandatory, they are, err, recommended. And addressing his concerns in a constructive manner, as opposed to dismissing them as unnecessary, will improve the quality of the topic., Nobody has even attempted to argue otherwise - rst20xx (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but to me, this basically sounds like "Just do it, even though it's not necessary". Whether the concern is warranted or not, the criteria are fulfilled. Many of the lists follow different formats; that's what comes from collaboration. We have a bunch of different editors with a bunch of different editing styles here, and it's previously been debated ad nauseum that articles and lists don't have to march to an absolutely identical drum when meeting FA/FL/GA criteria. If the aforementioned criteria are met, then I don't see the logic behind changing the lists, especially when several of them follow different formats. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why the lists have got to here with different formats. Again, you're just appealing strictly to the criteria, and not thinking about what is best for the reader. I supported because a strict reading of the rules earns a support. However, I also suggested you should consider Reywas92's points because I felt that addressing his issues would improve the quality of the topic. The identical drum has maybe been debated ad nauseum AT FA/FL/GA, but we are not at FA/FL/GA, we are at FT. The difference here is that you are presenting the articles together, not one by one, so it is much more useful here for the reader to have a unified structure/presentation. Obviously unifying the lists won't always be possible simply because they'll have different types of content, but that's fine and I only said I felt that his concerns should be addressed in a constructive manner (i.e. it should be discussed as to whether they can be unified, especially when it requires little effort). But at any rate, I did support, so keep your hair on, lol - rst20xx (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unrelatedly to the discussion above, I change to oppose, sorry. I realise there is a pretty glaring gap in this topic, and a second more subtle one. The more obvious gap is the lists of the pennant winners are not included, either through List of National League pennant winners and List of American League pennant winners, or through Warren C. Giles Trophy and William Harridge Trophy (which could be expanded to include those lists). So these two trophies are awards without their winners listed in the topic. Compare this to the other similar topics. The NHL topic includes Clarence S. Campbell Bowl and Prince of Wales Trophy, which are directly comparable articles to the MLB pair. The NBA topic does not include a List of Eastern Conference (NBA) champions and List of Western Conference (NBA) champions, and maybe it should. Though as far as I can tell, no trophies are awarded for the winners of the conferences, so this is slightly less comparable.

The second more subtle issue is that the list of MLB winners only goes back to the start of the World Series, in 1903, and not to the founding of the MLB in 1869. List of pre-World Series baseball champions, Temple Cup and Chronicle-Telegraph Cup should hence be part of the topic (though the last two are probably mergable into the first). To compare again with the NHL and NBA topics, they go all the way back to the founding of their leagues - rst20xx (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MLB does not recognize those championships, as evidenced by official championship counts for the Athletics, Red Sox, and Cubs (White Stockings) who all won championships in those earlier forms. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realise your inclusion criteria for lists in this topic was those officially recognised by the MLB, which is a good criteria, but I think this one list is in a bit of a greyer area than others. I'm reminded of the History of the NHL FT nom, where there was a dispute over official history vs actual history. At the time these games were played, the winners were no doubt considered MLB champions, with any championship games actually deciding the MLB champion. It is only subsequently that the MLB has decided not to count these wins in team totals etc. But these were still wins at the time, and the list still says these were the champions. (Are you saying there were no MLB champions before the World Series? In which case, you're directly contradicting this article's name!) Hence I'd prefer to see this list included - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying they are not currently MLB champions so do not belong in an MLB awards article. When the NCAA makes a team vacate wins (like this) because of cheating they are taking what were at the time wins, but making them not anymore. Including those articles would be like including those wins on the USC Trojans season. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the 2007–08 USC Trojans men's basketball team article, if it were well written, would still list the scores of those matches, would it not? There would just also be a note stating that the wins were later vacated. Similarly, I feel that here, the winners of the MLB pre-World Series should be listed, again with a note that the results are no longer taken into consideration for championship counts etc - rst20xx (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not the same thing. The World Series is, without controversy, recognized as Major League Baseball's championship. Other championships may or may not have been recognized by all leagues. These are not part of Major League Baseball's championship history, they are not awards presented or recognized by Major League Baseball as a sanctioning body (which is the most basic criterion for inclusion in this topic), and thus they are excluded. You mention above that the NHL and NBA topics go back to the founding of their leagues. This one does too - because MLB was not founded until ~~1901~~ 1903. Before that, all components of the league were separate entities. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the MLB were not founded until 1901, then I wouldn't have a problem here. But the Major League Baseball article says "For its founding year, Major League Baseball (the current official organization) uses 1869—the year in which the first professional team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings, was established". Therefore we have a contradiction - rst20xx (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that is written in a section tagged for possible original research and without any reliable sources. The National Agreement of 1903 solidified the American League as a major league (see page xv of the Introduction). 1901 is the American League's founding date, and the two leagues have existed since that time, but there was no formal consolidation of the governing body Major League Baseball until 1903.

I find it interesting that you say the topic must only follow the official line, but then link to an unofficial book to show that the MLB was founded in 1903. Where does it say that anyway? All I can see is it explains the history, but not when the MLB officially considers it was founded. Unless I'm missing something? I think we need a citation here - rst20xx (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide a citation; the link above is a published reliable source. Page xv in the introduction section of that source says "The leagues came to an understanding in the National Agreement of 1903, which ratified the AL's major league status." This was further solidified in 1921 with the ratification of the Major League Baseball constitution.1 I can't locate an "official source" (meaning a source published by the league) at the moment, but self-published sources are not always tantamount to published scholarly third-party sources, especially according to WP:RS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...but your source does not say that this is when the MLB was founded! Just that something very significant in the history of the MLB happened at this time. The notion that this is the start of the MLB is ambiguous. As the (yes, unsourced) MLB article states, there is debate as to when exactly the MLB was founded - 1869 is the earliest candidate date. Hence I think the best approach is to take this earliest date, and by doing so all other possible later dates for the start of the MLB will be covered. If however we take a later date, then we are saying that all earlier dates are wrong, which it seems not everyone agrees with. And I was only querying the use of an official source because it is only official sources that are being used to decide the inclusion criteria of this topic, which seems a little bit hypocritical - rst20xx (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't appreciate being called a hypocrite, I will say again that I cannot locate any official sources at this time. Thus, we use the sources at our disposal, which point to the early 20th-century establishment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, Rst, but this is ridiculous. MLB was founded in 1903. Period. The inclusion of earlier dates because some members existed back then or because whatever is like including Presidents of the Continental Congress under List of Presidents of the United States or something. The Temple Cup is not an MLB award. Period. It has no place in any MLB awards topic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, again, what matters is what MLB recognizes, and they do not recognize those championships. This is the same reason things like the Warren Spahn Award are not included. Many awards are presented by third party bodies, like this award, so that's not what defines MLB-ness. It is recognition by the league. And again, pre-WS champs, the Temple Cup, etc, etc even occured before the organization existed. MLB founded 1903, 1903 National Commission, etc, etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think it's worth clearing up here that I think this topic has enough consensus to pass - I'm just arguing this to its conclusion first of all. With that said, I just find it strange that you're now all lining up behind 1903 when the primary article in your WikiProject contradicts this - rst20xx (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I mention the other factor, recognition. It doesn't matter if MLB was founded yesterday, they don't recognize those titles. As such they are not MLB Awards. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows why the article says it... it's obviously contested as there's an OR tag on it. That's not the project's main article either... Baseball is. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status here? Rst20xx himself said there is enough consensus to pass so I'm not sure why this is still open. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was kind of wondering the same thing myself... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry, I need to promote this, I'm just having an incredibly busy week. But don't worry, it's coming - rst20xx (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, and related to the NL/AL championship trophies: there is not significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant separate articles for the Giles and Harridge trophies, which is why they are included in the main list article only. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the trophies are notable enough to merit their own articles, but there is certainly enough coverage to give List of American League pennant winners and List of National League pennant winners their own articles - they have them already! And these need including. I was just suggesting that you give the trophies articles as logical places to put these two lists, a bit like the NHL topic has done (here and here) - if you did that, then the trophy articles WOULD be notable enough - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"if you did that, then the trophy articles WOULD be notable enough" - No, they would not. The trophies themselves have not received significant coverage in reliable sources, whether their winners have or not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ARTICLES, not the trophies, because the articles won't then just be about the trophies! Whatever the names of the articles are, the scope of the articles will be the trophies AND the lists of winners. And trophy details + list of winners = notable list - rst20xx (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but obviously you and I differ in our opinions of what makes an award notable, especially considering that we can't establish how long these particular awards have been presented. Agree to disagree; others can comment at will. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think List of National League pennant winners 1876–1968 and List of American League pennant winners should be merged/deleted to List of World Series champions, per this conversation. Clearly they are redundant because the winners move on the World Series and are listed there. However, I still stand by my consistency concerns. Although not required, it is recommended and expected, and I see no reason to dismiss something so simple to do. Yes, these passed FA/FL by themselves, but here they are together. I don't care at all how it's done as long as there is some uniformity. Reywas92^Talk 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In their current form, they're redundant, but they shouldn't just list the winners, they should also list the runners up, win numbers and match scores - rst20xx (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point to listing the runners-up to early pennant-winners, as they are simply the teams with the best record in the leagues. I don't know what you mean by match scores, unless you're referring to the teams' records in the NLCS and ALCS, which did not exist until 1969. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, once the playoff matches were being played. Look, if these two lists are not notable, then I think you should put your money where your mouth is, and get them merged or deleted. Otherwise, they should be added, as this topic is currently violating WP:Overview topics: there are two sections of the lead with direct subarticles that are not included in this topic - rst20xx (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What he's saying is that prior to the LCS introduction all we will have is just a list of pennant winners, because the best record won the pennant period. The trophies (awards) are not notable enough for heavy coverage, hence their simple inclusion in the main awards article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got that, but after the LCS introduction there's still other stuff to list. At any rate, as I said before, it boils down to: either the two lists are not notable/redundant, and so should be merged or deleted. Or they are notable/unique enough to merit existence, and so then they should be included - rst20xx (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear moving forward, the two lists you want added are NL and AL pennant winners? I suppose we could have that with pre- and post- LCS sections so you can have differently formatted tables for each area (maybe like "Next closest team in standings" for pre-LCS). Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is correct, and multiple tables as you suggest would be the best way forward. Or the lists could be moved to cover the trophies that go with them as well - rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kk, then KV5, as we discussed you wanna take the NL and I'll take the AL? Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, this list is not in violation of the criteria for overview topics. The main sections in the article that are about awards (the scope of this topic) all have main articles, while the lists of pennant winners are merely "See also" links, as the pennants are not an award. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they? Why not? The winner gets a trophy! The Warren C. Giles section of the lead article calls this trophy an award! rst20xx (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're making the Warren Giles trophy and the National League pennant the same thing. They are not. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trophies are not notable enough for their own article, so are merged into the main awards list as is proper. The pennants are notable enough. Lets just do List of American League pennant winners and List of National League pennant winners (with merges of the NLCS winners) and be done with it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this nomination be placed on hold, or must it be tabled and renominated? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You're making the Warren Giles trophy and the National League pennant the same thing. They are not." What exactly is the difference? Quote lead: "The Warren C. Giles Trophy is presented annually to the champion of the National League." And my understanding was that the NL champion is the pennant winner (e.g. quote: "the National League champion (the "pennant winner")...") Is this wrong? rst20xx (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your above statements are correct, but the pennant (a flag that signifies a championship in a division, league, or World Series) is separate from the trophies (a relatively recent invention that is presented to AL/NL winners only). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...but in this case, the pennant and the trophy are awarded in exactly the same circumstances. (Or, at least, have been since, the 60s?) So the only difference between them, then, is that the trophies have only recently started to be awarded. Is that right? rst20xx (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know when the trophies began to be presented, as we can't find any verifiable sourcing for that. At the moment, both a trophy and a pennant are presented for winning the NLCS, but there are also pennants presented for winning the division and the World Series. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, given that the trophies haven't always been presented, I can see that it'd not be appropriate to cover all the NL/AL pennants going back to the start in an article on the trophies. But I still think a pennant is a form of award so the lists should be included, and certainly the winners since the trophies began have won an award. It might be appropriate to duplicate the trophy coverage in the two lists as well - rst20xx (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent) Well, I've already started work on the list of NL pennant winners, having merged information out of the NLCS article. That should be ready within a couple of days. My earlier question about the status of this FTC is still unanswered, though. Do we need to table this nomination and start over, or can the candidacy remain on hold until the lists of pennant winners are finished (I think Stax is going to handle the AL list)? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I'm happy for it to remain on hold. FLs don't take that long. rst20xx (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm on it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NL pennant winners is now at FLC. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to rst20xx: Writing an FL usually doesn't take too long, but because of the backlog and lack of reviewers, most FLCs these days last at least three weeks. I promise I'll review the NL list ASAP and the AL list when it comes to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the NL pennant list has been promoted to FL status. However, the AL pennant list is still open and needs reviews. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the book will need updating with these pennant winners added. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The AL pennant list has been promoted. Good work. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A citation needed tag in the main article needs to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one from the WS MVP article. Mm40 (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb has promoted AL pennant winners! We should be ready to restart! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:52, 05 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]