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 22:44, 6 February 2010 [1].

---

List of National League pennant winners[edit]

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured list candidates/List of National League pennant winners/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured list because it was requested as an addition to the MLB awards featured topic. That topic nomination is on hold, but quick reviews on this would be greatly appreciated, and I will address all comments as expediently as possible. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I see no problems. Nice job! Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NuclearWarfare

• Overall, this article is quite good, Just a few comments, and then I'll be happy to support.
  • The article starts off rather oddly, I thought. Maybe it would be better if it went something like "The National League pennant is won annually by a team in the National League, which makes up Major League Baseball along with the American League. The National League pennant denotes the champion of this year's league and gives the team the right to play in the World Series against the winner of the American League pennant." Or something like that; what I wrote was probably atrocious. I don't know why, but I didn't really like the intro paragraph as it currently stands.
  • "The current National League pennant-holders are the Philadelphia Phillies, who won the league in back-to-back seasons (2008–2009) for the first time since the 1995–96 Braves." I'm not sure if that means that was the first time in 12 years that anyone went back to back, or the first time in 12 years that the Phillies went back to back. Do you think you could clarify please? Thanks.
• That really seems to be it. If you could respond to those two points, I'd be happy to support. Oh, and images are good. NW (Talk) 02:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See if the changes I made work for you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)`[reply]

• Excellent. Happy to offer you my support. NW (Talk) 02:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from rst20xx (talk):
  • Would it be worth noting in the tables which divisions each of the teams came from?
  • Would it be worth mentioning the unique format of the 1981 playoffs?
  • For 1981 and 1995 onwards, would it be worth linking to the article on the NL Division Series? It would be more informative to name the other two teams involved as well, though that might be a bit too unwieldy.
  • Should the C and T in the Key should be superscripted, as they are when used?
• Impressively quick work! - rst20xx (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quickly address these: I also considered linking to the NLDS, but the table did become huge and bulky-looking, so I took it out, and it's why I included the link to the NLDS in the "See also" section. The "C" and "T" are merely superscripted in the tables because they are indicators; I left them full-size in the key so as to be easier to read. I could probably construct a notation to show the divisions, but I definitely don't want to make the table wider by adding more columns. I'm indifferent on the 1981 playoffs, but a footnote is easily added if you'd like to see it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions now indicated by superscripted "E", "C", and "W" in the second table; Chronicle-Telegraph Cup was changed to "C-T" to compensate. Footnotes now exist for 1981 and for the realignment in 1995. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - OK, I still think it's worth adding an extra column to link to the NLDS details, it wouldn't be a very wide column and would make these articles much more accessible to the reader. But thanks anyway - rst20xx (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments To begin with you've got some mis-marked Temple Cup winners. According to Temple Cup Baltimore won in 94, 95, and 96 and Boston in 97, but this list only matches that in 1896 (has the runner up marked in 94, 95, and 97). Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think you misread that. The results that you wrote above are the final league standings (e.g. "Baltimore 1st, New York 2nd" from the Temple Cup). After that, it shows the result ("New York won Series, 4 games to 0") of the actual Temple Cup series. The pennant-winner only actually won the Temple Cup once; the other three years, the pennant runner-up won the series. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha, yeah, you just beat me (got an edit conflict) was gonna strikeout that, I'm dumb. My bad. I'll give a fuller review once I get through the AL. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• K, if you need a hand, let me know. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nothing to change here. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Also known as Philadelphia Quakers and Philadelphia Blue Jays (unofficially)" - does this mean they were unofficially known by both names, or only the second? If the latter, I suggest a change to "Also known as Philadelphia Quakers and unofficially as Philadelphia Blue Jays"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link (one of the baseball-reference.com links comes up as a 403 forbidden). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixing now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Found no issues when I looked at the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments What's NLCS? You use the abbreviation before saying what it means... Not so far as I see. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm guessing I was looking at an old version of the page, my apologies. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] "by that margin on" - "by the same margin"? It's only happened once; that wording would lead me to believe it happened more than one time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Tsk, my mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] What's pre-CS? Is that pre-NLCS? Yes, sorry. Fixed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] " after their owner refused to take part in the 1904 World Series." is this referenced somewhere? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] GA col doesn't sort for me. I knew there was a problem with the ((sortfrac)) template. It has never worked right past the first two sortings, but the developer never tested that far. I'll do it manually. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The "NCLS details" link in every line looks odd to me. In other similar lists where there are two relevant year articles, the year is repeated under a different heading. I personally think that the duplicated year links look ugly and repetitive. If you really feel it should be that way, I'll change it, but that's just my opinion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well I think the repetition of NCLS details on every line but linking to a different article is poor too... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] I thought it was clearer, since the year is explicitly defined by the left column and the piped link tells you what you're going to, rather than having it in a key. Either way... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Moved to ((nlcsy)) templates and moved column. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorting by LW, not sure why the colspan note sorts between the 0's and the 1's... No idea... this has worked before. Why do these things work for others and not for me when I steal their code...? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, I implemented a workaround for this; it's inelegant but it works for now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] What's the relevance of (NL) next to the Orioles? There's a current team also named the Baltimore Orioles. The teams are unrelated and played in two different leagues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could you add a note to that effect please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work, particularly on the areas I noted. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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