I am nominating this list after a complete overhaul. Editors who have reviewed other lists of baseball managers will notice the inclusion of general managers and owners in addition to the basic manager list. I included this partially because they were already present on the list when I began my revisions and unlike other franchises, I had sources available to use. I have discussed the extra inclusion with a few editors as well as the Baseball Wikiproject and I feel that the list meets the FL criteria with the inclusion of the said material. I will address any comments or concerns to the best of my ability. Thank you! blackngold29 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The sorting in the "Modern day franchise" table is messed up by the rowspan in the ref column. That reference should just be named and reused.
En-dashes should not be spaced for indicating ranges; this is only to indicate a sharp break, like an em-dash.
Use two columns for your reflist.
You mention some statistics in the lead but provide no numbers to corroborate them, so readers have to search in the table. To make the lead a proper summary of the list per WP:LEAD, I suggest adding numerical values for most wins, most losses, etc..
"Neal Huntington is the Pirates current general"→"Pirates'", and add "manager" after general.
Section header #4: "General Managers"→"General managers" per WP:HEAD
There should be mention and notation in the tables of which managers are in the Hall of Fame, whether as players/managers or whatever. Your choice on that.
"The Pirates first manager"→"Pirates'"
It's funny you mention this. I had never done this in the past until I read a Stephen King book in which he said you should always use 's even after an s. Obviously he's not infallible, but I can't remember learning that it is incorrect to do. Is it alright as it stays consistant throughout?
Actually, it's grammatically incorrect to not show the apostrophe; it signifies possessive plural for words ending in S. Since the franchise (with a plural name) is possessing the manager, the apostrophe is necessary to maintain case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Sorry, I was looking at the wrong one.
Pirates's now appears 7 times in the article, where before it had originally been fixed. Replace all with Pirates'. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Done I still don't think "Pirates's" is technically incorrect, but I think I got 'em all.
Yeah, that has come up on a few other articles. According to the Pirates Encyclopedia cited in the list and the official website it's "Alleghenies". I guess we could say "Alleghenies (sometimes spelled Alleghenys)" if you want.
One last comment: Picture captions using the word "from" to designate a range of years should not use en-dashes, per WP:DASH and WP:MOS; rather, they should use the word "to". In addition, captions that are complete sentences should end with periods/full stops. I think Bill McKechnie was the manager, too...KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The table should be able to be sorted into pure chronological order, so managers with more than one term should have more than one entry and a footnote should be added to indicate (see List of Minnesota Twins managers).
If you sort the chart with the "Years" column it puts the managers in order by their first appearence. The reason I didn't list them like most have is because the sorting feature becomes pointless if we split them up: If I want to know who has the second most wins as Pirates's manager and the list is split up it would be a pain to figure out what Danny Murtaugh had accomplished, but the way it is now I know instantly. I do realize that it is a little different from most list styles in the past, but I don't think providing the totals causes the list to not meet the FL criteria.
I would tend to agree with you, except that this prohibits us from knowing in which orders the managers served. I certainly don't think that this make it fail WP:WIAFL, but I think that knowing where a manager served in a given season is important (for example, if one manager served for 20 games and was fired, then his replacement led his team to the playoffs). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I understand what your saying better. I'm trying to figure out some way that we could keep the list the way it is, but also state the order of managers in a season with multiple managers. What if we added footnotes and said something like "In 1947, Billy Herman was manager for the majority of the season, but left prior to the last game leaving Bill Burwell to coach the season's final game." Would that work? We could even add their stats for each term in the footnote.
Could work, I suppose, but I still think that not having the chronological order available might have problems. Try it out and I will check again when it's done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I added the info as footnotes. Like I said, if we include the sortable columns (pending we can figure out what's wrong with them) it wouldn't be fair to sort the list with some managers having totals and some only part of their stats. blackngold29 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I like it, looks good. However, due to the width of the column and the whitespace issue it causes, I would rather see line breaks in between terms to make wider rows, rather than commas which give us huge columns all through the table. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I broke Murtaugh's years, I don't think much would be gained by breaking everyone elses. Unless the whitespace you're referring to is something similar to the Firefox/IE thing below, that is.
I'm still on the fence; I'm coming back to this every day to look, and every day I reformulate my opinion. Agh. Confusing. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
It's really up to you. If you want to break all the years so it looks right to you, I could take a look and see what that looks like. We could also add the
A serious support from me for putting up with all my crap. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SRX
Comments - good list, few problems however
The Pittsburgh Pirates franchise has had 38 managers in its history. - this should not be the opening sentence, the opening sentence should state what they are what they do where they play etc.
The team began play in 1882, under the name the Alleghenies, as members of the American Association. --> The team began play as the Alleghenies in the American Association.
Clarke, who won (1422) and lost (969) more games than any other Pirate manager, also had the longest tenure as manager in his 16 years in the position.- there no need for the data to be in parenthesis
The sortability in the American Association table does not function, it also doesn't work in the modern day franchise table
I don't know what the problem would be, both work perfectly fine for me.
Caption:Fred Clarke, manager, 1900–1915 - this caption needs to flow more Fred Clarke was the Pirates manager from 1900-1915, this also applies to the other captions-
Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL, with the exception of the firefox glitch.--SRX 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The sortability still does not work. If you sort something in the tables you are redirected to the top of the page, there must be something wrong with the coding of the table.--SRX 00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Every column sorts fine for me, I don't know what would be wrong. Is this happening to anyone else? blackngold29 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone try to figure out what is wrong? I have two computers and it's sorting fine on both. Thanks. blackngold29 02:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Guys it is all a glitch. The glitch is only on Firefox, so if you go to for example Internet Explorer, the sort will work perfectly. -- signed bySRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24(spell my name backwards)at 04:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) A glitch for me too, probably a Firefox thing as SRE said above. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That would make sense as I have IE. Is there anyway to fix it? I assume it has been brought up before somewhere. blackngold29 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay, its probably compatibility issues.--SRX 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Although images have not been checked, they seem to look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The numbers in the closing page nos. should not be single numerals, for example ref 19 should be "Finoli, Ranier 2003, p. 440–41" instead of "Finoli, Ranier 2003, p. 440–1".
Can you turn off the linking trick with the Harvard citations? It isn't necessary with only one reference, and it adds a lot of unnecessary blue to the reference section. You can do this by adding Ref=none to the end of the template.
Done Never knew about that, thanks.
File:Pie-traynor.jpg needs a fair use rationale, and is it even necessary with all the free pictures on the page?
Removed Didn't realize it wasn't free, I'll look for a replacement.
About the general managers and owners, shouldn't they also ===Table key=== --> ==Table key==? -- signed bySRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24(spell my name backwards)at 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Done Sorry missed that one.
The reason why my tables don't put managers with multiple terms into the same row is because readers have to find which one came after which (hope you know what I mean). It could be great if you seperate the terms, and to the table like on List of Washington Nationals managers.
Done As per the footnotes section discussed above with KV
Could mention which managers had their numbers retired with the Pirates.
Since this is a sortable table, you could link all the years, ignoring WP:OVERLINK.
Though I would like you to only include HoFers who were inducted as a manager, I don't want to start a huge discussion about something so little (just look here).
This is specifically mentioned in the lead. What if I changed the color of shading for those elected as players?
Instead of another shade, just note it. -- signed bySRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24(spell my name backwards)at 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there a wikilink to Modern day franchise?
Not sure I know what you mean, the franchise is just Pittsburgh Pirates. I was thinking of changing that section to "National League", would that be better?
Removed for now. I am not too experienced with pictures, and though I did look for the needed links I could not find them. If anyone with more knowledge of the subject would like to look for them it would be appreciated, but overall I think the pictures look fine. Thanks. blackngold29 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
We need to fix up these images. Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.