Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of American League pennant winners/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 23:07, 16 February 2010.

List of American League pennant winners

 * Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 17:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would never nominate a new list this close to my Dodgers nomination below, but as with the National League version of this list this is an emergency job to satisfy requests at the Featured Topic Candidacy for MLB awards. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to B-Ref, the Tigers were second in 1967.
 * If you look again the Twins had precisely the same record. And, since being 2nd carried no particular benefit, I do not believe there were any tiebreak methods for naming a particular team the official "second". Staxringold talkcontribs 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did see that. How do we interpret the source? I didn't even look for teams with identical records on the NL list. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have to list both as I did. They are both second, and at least in this case are simply in alphabetical order. I'd like to find another example to see if that's true in general. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'll check it out. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1896 National League shows the Senators above the Brooklyn Bridegrooms for 9th place. Same scenario, same teams in 1897 for 6th place. 1900 has the Cards above the Cubs (or St. Louis before Chicago, don't know which way to look at it) for 5th place. Perhaps most relevant: the Pirates are ahead of the Giants for second place in 1908. All of these are for teams with identical records, and I haven't found any consistency as to who's first when. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Going to leave it with both for now until we figured this out. Both the Twins and the Tigers are 1 game back. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have discovered what we believe to be the solution: Retrosheet's standings for the 1967 season shows the Tigers ahead of the Twins, as does Baseball-Reference; although they have the same win-loss record and the same winning percentage, the Tigers achieved that record in less games because they had only one tie and the Twins had two. Since ties count as a half-win and a half-loss in the standings, this has no effect on the winning percentage, and there is obviously no effect on the pure win-loss record; however, this means that Detroit accomplished their winning percentage and record in less games that Minnesota, ranking the Tigers second and the Twins third. I'm leaving this comment uncapped so that other reviewers can see, but this list definitely deserves my support, if for no other reason than that Stax puts up with all my crap. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, removed the not-a-tie. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick question: In the NL list, I have the "playoff appearances by franchise" table sorted by number of pennants won, since the list is about pennant winners. This one's sorted by playoff appearances. For standard's sake, which one do you want? KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the subsection is about playoff appearances I assumed it should be sorted as such. Either one is fine with me, though. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A fair point. NL list sorted to match AL list. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - my concerns were addressed when reviewing the near-identical NL list. Though "The format of the ALCS was changed from a best-of-five to a best-of-seven format" - delete redundant use of the word format? Also, as per the NL list, I think that it's worth adding an extra column to link to the ALDS details, it wouldn't be a very wide column and would make these articles much more accessible to the reader. But I'll support nonetheless - rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the format...format thing. As for DS results, that really deserves it's own list at that point if anything. The results are currently at the (poorly structured) ALDS and NLDS pages. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link (one of the baseball-reference.com links is showing as a 403 forbidden). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixing now, I guess B-Ref decided to put the Rays team history at their longer-known name (TBD for Tampa Bay DEVIL Rays as opposed to TBR for Tampa Bay Rays). Staxringold talkcontribs 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support thanks for taking care of my nit-pickings...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


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