Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Louisville Colonels managers/archive1

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 15:02, 14 November 2009 [1].

---

List of Louisville Colonels managers

Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Featured list candidates/List of Louisville Colonels managers/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, and while there are many baseball related featured lists, few involve 19th century teams. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I missed that one in the caption. It's no longer a dab link. Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Use non-breaking spaces where appropriate (i.e. 38 wins). Note a does not have brackets around it yet note b does. Looks like one is using {{note label}} and other other {{ref label}}. May want to ensure you are using these correctly. As I continued to read through the list, I noticed another a reference in the WS column of Jack Chapman. Clicking the unbracketed a in the lead takes you to Jack Chapman-WS column and vice versa, but neither take you to the actual a footnote. You say the number of regular seasons games managed may not equal the sum of wins & losses due to ties. Why don't you add a tie column? In college football (of which I'm most familiar), the winning percentage is calculated a bit different due to ties since ties are considered half of a win. Are you sure it is not the same for this? Why is the # column not sortable? If I change the sort order on another column, the only way I can go back to sorting by # is to reload. Sorting by Seasons doesn't work either as apparently there were three coaches in 1889. —NMajdan•talk 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I found all the non-breaking spaces and fixed the ref labels. I also made the # sortable; it seems to be working. As for ties, baseball records work differently than football. Team records do not show the ties, and the ties do not count in the standings or in determining the winning percentage. Similarly, none of the reliable sources for managerial records include ties in the record. In baseball ties work (or worked, I think they changed the rules a couple of years ago to avoid ties) as a result that doesn't count, although all the player stats from the game do count. So ties aren't really relevant to the manager's record and adding them would just clutter the list. Rlendog (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Mm40 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments, Mm40 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) "…with each team winning three games and one tie game." can be taken out of the note because it is already said in the lead. Twice in the lead, references are out of order. The ones with the lower number should come first. (e. g. "by John Kerins.[12][3]" should become "by John Kerins.[3][12]") The above is also done in the table entry for Jack Chapman. Per FLs List of New York Mets managers and List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, there should be a "total" row at the end of the managerial table. In ref 7, two "p"s are needed because multiple pages are being referenced. I've also made some minor fixes of my own. After these issues are resolved, I'll gladly support. Mm40 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I took care of everything. On the "backwards" references, I had them the way they were becauce the first ref (with the higher number) was the primary reference, but it does look better this way. I actually don't think totals are a good idea for active manager lists (and not all manager FLs include them), since they can easily get stale and it is hard to tell when they do, but they are a good idea for defunct teams like this one. Rlendog (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note on alt text The alt text is well done, except for one detail: phrases about the provenance of the image are unnecessary (e.g. "black and white photo"). The baseball card phrase is fine though. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Also, the "#" is over-explained—there's a footnote about it as well as a row in the key explaining it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I think I have addressed them. I admit I am surprised about the alt text comment (this is my first FLC since that became an issue). I would have thought that whether something was a black and white photo or a color photo would be important in describing the image. But I am fine taking it out. I guess I have some work to do on a couple of other lists that included this in the alt text. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The Colonels' first manager was Denny Mack. Mack...". Try to reword to avoid this needless repetition. Another example: "managed the team in 1882, his only season managing the team". "he led the Pirates with its former Colonels stars to three consecutive league pennants...". This confused me when I read it. How about "he led the Pirates, with the former Colonels stars, to three consecutive league pennants..."? Now that I think about it, the meaning of pennant in this context won't be obvious to non-baseball fans. Perhaps a link to Pennant (sports) will help? "with each team winning three games and one tie game." The with+-ing sentence structure is often considered awkward by prose reviewers; see this for further details. To fix this one, try ";each team won three games, and there was one tie." Fred Clarke photo: The Library of Congress link isn't working for me. Without that, it becomes difficult to verify that the photo is in the public domain. Jim Hart photo: I see no evidence on the New York Public Library page that this was published before 1923, and the site's terms leave it unclear as to whether this is a true public domain image. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I think I addressed the phrasing comments. As for the photos, Jim Hart died in 1919 [2] so the photo must be earlier than 1923. The Clarke photo is more difficult, but the same photo is used in List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers, and was at the time that article was at FLC.[3][4]. That FLC noted several problematic photos, but this was not one of them (see image review of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners). So I am pretty sure the description of the photo being in the public domain is accurate. Also, Clarke would have been 51 years old in 1923, and this does not appear to be a photo of a 50 year old (although I realize this is not proof). Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I followed a search from the LOC site to find this photo. The link is here. I think this confirms that the photo was indeed published in 1903 and is thus a free image. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Clarke photo is okay in that case. As for the Hart photo, the standard for public domain status is publishing before 1923 (in this case), not merely creation. There's no guarantee that a photo of someone deceased before the cut-off date was actually published before that date. Unfortunately, many uploaders don't know much about the details involved in whether an image is PD or not, and it frequently leads to issues at the featured content processes. Also, one image review won't necessarily catch every problematic image, and FLC image reviews are nowhere near as thorough as FAC reviews to begin with. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC) I admit that I am not an expert on these issues and I don't have a problem removing the photo if it is problematic. But I'll take one more crack at sparing it. The card the photo is on is signed, purportedly by Jim Hart. So (barring a fake signature) the photo must have been published before Hart died. Rlendog (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) On 2nd thought, I just removed that photo. It would be good to include, since few baseball fans know what any of these managers looked like, but I suppose I can't prove that the photo was published before 1923. Rlendog (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. By the way, the Hall of Fame link now works properly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "when it was considered a Major League from 1882 through 1891" - de-capitalize major league
• An explanation of "player-manager" in the lead would be nice so that readers don't have to leave the article, especially since this is from the era when player-managers were both relevant and common.

All in all, well done. Clarification of these two issues will allow me to support this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks! I took care of the capitalization issue. For the "player-manager" issue, I did not want to sidetrack the narrative with a defintion (which is relatively self-explanatory) so I added a comment that Clarke played as a Colonels' outfielder while he served as their manager. See if this works. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Perfect. Wholehearted support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like they just changed that link on me. I updated it. Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The HOF is going through a site revamp right now; thus, every link from that site at the moment is now dead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.