Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Twins managers

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:The Rambling Man 07:03, 20 August 2008 [1].

List of Minnesota Twins managers

I believe this list meets all the FLC criteria. Thanks in advance. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- "...while still being members of ..." "while still playing for" is clearer.
  - I was attempting not to use the word to define itself, but I will change it if you think it's better. Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Four paras in lead for such a short list seems a little over the top, perhaps three max?
  - I was trying to separate by topic, but you are right. Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think linking Washington Senators (1901-1960) is misleading as it just redirects back to Minnesota Twins.
  - OK, should I just de-link it or let it roll over to the dab page? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
    - I'd delink it unless there's a specific section you could link to? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Section linked Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "its life in Washington, D. C. as the Senators, where they played f" - "its life as the Washington Senators in Washington D.C., where they played..."
  - Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a suitable link for expansion team?
  - Apparently so, I didn't even think to check! Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You get to 1960 before mentioning a manager - this is a manager list, perhaps some work on, say, including info on the first ever manager etc could improve the lead and make it more relevant than franchise movements.
  - I wanted to mention the franchise movements because they aren't shown in the table (it explains why all the pictures of managers have "W" on their uniform too). I will try to do a little expansion. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
    - There really isn't much to say about the first manager - his article is just a stub that I created the other day to remove a redlink in the table. Does it need a large amount of information, or could I talk about the Hall of Famers, since they are all Senators-era managers, and since I proposed a DYK related to that anyway? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      - I'm not really insistent on the first manager thing, it was just clear on my second or third reading of the lead that half of it seemed to focus more on the franchise than the managers - I think if it a list of the seasons then the franchise info is more relevant, but for a list of managers, I think the franchise stuff is interesting, worth a couple of sentences and not much more. Hall of Famers is a reasonable idea too because at least that relates to the individuals in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the most in franchise history" their franchise or all franchise?
- "longest-tenured manager in franchise history" ditto.
  - (to the above two questions) Their franchise; this is usually understood as clear and adding the "their" strikes me as redundant. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think perhaps you're right for people who are fully at ease with the franchise system but to me (a good old-fashioned Brit) I think the clarification would not be redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done and Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not surprisingly" -just your opinion I'm afraid.
  - Haha, I didn't think that would make it past FLC, I just spiced up the language a little bit. Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- " number of wins divided by number of games in the season" the table is about careers, not seasons.
  - Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Order refs numerically if possible, unless there's a good reason not to, for example, you have [9][6][21]
  - These refs are used in the lead, which is why they happen to be out of order. The numerical order in the cell is because each manager's first ref is his managerial record, followed by each playoff reference in chronological order. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
    - I know that, but you can reorder the ref names and the new refs such that the refs are in numerical order. If you're stuck, give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I'm stuck... KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
        I'll be honest, there's no MOS guidance on this and you seem to have a pretty answer for their current ordering. I'm not going to get worked up about it, I'd rather see [6][9][21] but what the heck! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting on WS (up) has odd effect, 5 0's, then a bunch of &em-dash, then 1 and 2... surely the 0's should be followed by the 1 & 2?
  - They should, especially because the em-dashes are sorted as -01, but the column won't even sort for me anymore. I think this is a bug with the sorting rather than the code. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "nicknamed "The Big Train" and ranked ninth on the all-time strikeout list," is this cited anywhere?
  - It is now. Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bullet point that external link.
  - Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please review Johnny Goryl's entry (1980-81). The link to the ref is dead but I doubt he managed 458 games in two half seasons. -maclean 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the link and the record - I really don't know how that happened. Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It gives the managers in text in chronological order, but why not in the lead point out 2-3 of the most famous. Like Tom Kelly and Walter Johnson ( just guesses ). I think that is more valuable than the sentence about player-managers which could instead be one of the transition sentences in the history section.Pirate^Argh!!1! 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter Johnson was mentioned, along with Bucky Harris and Joe Cronin, in the historical section about Hall of Fame managers. In addition, Tom Kelly is also mentioned as having won the World Series in 1987 and 1991. I did do a slight expansion for Kelly, mentioning that he is second to Harris is both games and seasons managed. Beyond that, to talk about relative fame is toeing the NPOV line, and I certainly don't want to cross that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crzy cheetah 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- All but two links are from one source; very disturbing
  - It was either that or use official team sources, which is not recommended. I could have gone with a mix of web sources, but Baseball Reference has the best reputation and is the most reputable. Using that USA Today source will help. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Minnesota franchise began its life as the Washington Senators in Washington, D. C. - Any sources?
  - The USA Today source you gave me will reference that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The playoff records are not easy to verify. I am assuming you use those "season statistics" pages as a reference, but they're very hard to use. I suggest you to use this link from a very respectable publisher instead of those multiple pages with a lot of meaningless stats.
  - I added the ref, but I kept the individual season refs as well. I don't consider those statistics to be meaningless; they show all of the playoff records, as well as managerial data and player statistics for the entire season. As long as the information is sourced, there's no reason to be critical of the source itself unless there's a reason to consider it unreputable. Thanks for the USA Today source! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right now, whenever there are more than 2 sources for one manager, it becomes very confusing as to whaich one to use to verify certain information.--Crzy cheetah 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll go on the record and say I don't like removing those references, but I'll do it to get this list to pass FLC. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Bill Rigney's WPct is incorrect~~
  - Y Fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~For the "totals" row, why don't you use ! instead of~~

Support Looks much better.--Crzy cheetah 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - looks very good, just a couple of things.

In the table, WPct, this is IMO sloppy, why not just W%?
- This is the way I've always abbreviated winning percentage; it's still linked and explained, and personally I don't like using symbols in the headers. I personally think that looks sloppy, I think we obviously just have an aesthetic difference of opinion here. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics current through 2007 season - what does this mean?
- Basically, it means that statistics from the ongoing (current) season are not included, per criterion 7. That's standard across featured lists that involve team/personal records that rack up throughout the baseball season, which is very long. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references need to be in order, like [31][2] --> [2][31]
- See comments from The Rambling Man. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S_RX 23:31, 19 August 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.