Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies seasons

• The colours in the key (for World Series Champions, National League Champions, Division Champions and Wild Card Berth) are a bit clashy, and aren't standardised to other "Team name seasons" pages.

I know the colors aren't standardized, but I thought it might be better to represent the team with the colors instead of colors that don't really mean anything. I could really go either way. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Colors now standardized. Killervogel5 (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Should it be "postseason" or "post-season"? I don't know which is correct, but I've seen more of the latter.

Both spellings are correct. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Usually, the spelling "postseason" is used when the noun stands alone. The "post-season" spelling is more common in terms of "post-season (i.e., after-season) play." Since the latter usage occurs in the lead, I have changed that spelling to reflect this. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Second addendum: After further consideration, my brain wants it to be the same in the lead and the table, so who am I to argue with my own mind? I'll utilize the hyphenated spelling because it is the one featured in the article that the link goes to. Killervogel5 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reference ten should be turned into a Key table, like other seasons pages.

The keys that I see on other pages always have looked out of place. Obviously as an encyclopedia, the point is to get across the proper information, but I still think the aesthetics of it are important. Killervogel5 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have moved the keys into footnotes instead of references so that they are done properly. I am going to separate them out into individual footnotes later today. KV5 (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Now individual footnotes for each award and necessary column. KV5 (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I'd move the last line of the first paragraph of the lead to later on in the lead. It just comes completely out of the blue in that position and isn't relevant to anything else in the first paragraph.
    • Done. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't MLB-record by a hyphen not a dash?
    • Fixed. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's a modern Major League record? What era does it refer to?
    • All it means is current record. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It needs explaining and amending in the text. I still don't understand what you mean? Peanut4 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I misunderstood the question. The 120 losses by New York is the record after the dead-ball era. I will clarify it. Killervogel5 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Done! Killervogel5 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Possibly use two columns for the references.
    • I inserted the code to change the reference list to two columns; however, it did not change to two columns. I am at a loss how to fix it. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It works already. Peanut4 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, then it's done. Killervogel5 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any reference for the data in the table? Peanut4 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Each individual season comes from the website Baseball Reference. I have added a link at the bottom of the reference section to the main page of Phillies history. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Nice one. Much better. Peanut4 (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd change this sentence: "At times, the Phillies' search for a championship has been seen as an exercise in futility, due to their long stretches of losing seasons," It seems very POV to me. Who says it's been futile? I'd stick to the facts. Peanut4 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • [1] [2] [3] There are three sources that say it; I did not think a statement like that needed to be attributed to any particular source, because being the first franchise in American history to 10,000 losses would stand to prove in itself that their struggle is futile.
      • I'd put all three of those sources staight after your claim. To me, futile suggests it has been entirely pointless them turning up, yet they have won a World Series. But those references back up that sentence. Peanut4 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Done! KV5 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Looks pretty good now. My only possible suggestion would be to add a references column to the table to put all the refs in. But it's not a clincher. Peanut4 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I'd love to do that if I had the time right now. That doesn't really conform to the other featured lists on sports seasons, though. KV5 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Update: I've made an updated table with individual season reference links in the table; however, I'm not sure if it's really aesthetically pleasing. You're welcome to check it out here in my sandbox. Let me know your opinion. KV5 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Why don't the figures on the table match those to the external link? Peanut4 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you be more specific? KV5 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't go through the full list but these for a start off. 1890 says 78-54 (The ref says 78-53. 1893 says 72-58 (The ref says 72-57. Maybe more. That's as far as I got. Peanut4 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • My fault... it's because I linked the wrong site at the bottom of the page! I don't know why the two sources (Baseball-Almanac and Baseball-Reference) don't match. WikiProject Baseball tends to favor Baseball Reference, but I find their statistics and choice of wording biased at time. Baseball Almanac shows different statistics at times and a different type of list, but the two sources don't always have matching numbers. I've maintained the numbers in the article because two of three sources support the information in the table. I have included the additional sources at the bottom of the table. KV5 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Of those four links, which one(s) has (have) the correct info then? To be honest, I'd ditch those with the incorrect stats. Peanut4 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • One link is for the current standings; it's a different source than the others (the fourth link). It has to stay. The problem that I see is that I may encounter some opposition from people at WP:BASEBALL if I do not include Baseball-Reference as a source, though it is the one that does not match with the official team history. I have spoken with some people at the Baseball-Reference website regarding inaccuracy in their statistics before, but they maintain that their statistics are correct and that the official team history is wrong. I suppose that leaves them in violation of WP:NPOV or gives them a conflict of interest, something like that, so I don't know exactly what the best course of action is. I'll remove the link for now. KV5 (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Okay. So does that mean this link should match the data in the table? Because 1893 data is different for a start off. Peanut4 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
              • • Yeah, that was my bad. Fixed. KV5 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• 1919, 1951, 1974 %age, 1981 GB need fixing. Peanut4 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The first three, fixed. The two season halves are combined in the record on the official page for 1981; however, they need to be separated in the table because otherwise there is no justification to talk about the division series. This is explained in the reference. KV5 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Links fixed. KV5 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Some of your citations are missing author or date information (currently ##2, 9, 11, 26, 28)
  • Sources 9 and 11 do indeed have authors; I will look for dates. I added one for 2 and 26. I'm looking for 28. KV5 (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Citation #10 should use a relevant citation template for consistency.
  • Fixed. KV5 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• You're inconsistent with date formats in your citations. With the accessdate parameter, most use ISO format as per the template documentation but ##26-28 use US format. With the publication date, ##2-4 use international (day first) format but #6 has US format; if you don't want to use ISO format for those, then US format would be more appropriate, and consistent with usage in the rest of the article.
  • Changed date formats. KV5 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Citation #26 goes to a collaborative wiki. Can you find a more obviously reliable source than that?
  • I would assume you mean citation 27, since 26 is an obviously reputable source (ESPN). I've replaced it. KV5 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I did indeed mean 27, sorry.

think that's all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a proper look at the references now, and will try harder to get the numbers right.

Ref. 2 has an incorrect date (should be the date you have on #3), and the publication date is in international (day first) format.

Ref. 6 is absolutely fine and has the publication date in US (month first) format, which I'd say is more appropriate for an article about a US subject. (If you can't see any difference between the two, turn off your date preferences at the "my preferences" tab at the top.)

Ref. 9 is missing the publication date.

Ref. 11 likewise (it's in the URL).

Ref. 26 is missing author and publication date (the year is 2002, it's very unhelpful of ESPN putting day/month but no year at the top of the article, but if you click on Joe Morgan Archive on the right of the page and go through there, you come to it...). Also, this citation has the accessdate in US date format, unlike ##1-25 which use ISO as per template documentation.

Ref. 27 I don't think actually references the Division Series thing, perhaps this or this might do?

Ref. 28 is missing author and publication date (it's in the URL), and has US-format accessdate.

If you'd like me to go through and edit them myself, I'm quite happy to do so; it would have been quicker than typing out all this stuff :-) but I didn't want to risk edit conflicts or getting in your way. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. You're welcome to join in the editing, or not; either way is fine. I'm actually at work right now, so my time at the computer is sporadic. I appreciate your comments. KV5 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you really need the small font in your colour key? That size is difficult enough to read even at high-contrast, but the National League (particularly) and the Wild Card boxes are problematic. I've tried it at the same font size as you use in the table and it doesn't make the colour key excessively wide.
  • The code for these colored boxes was pulled directly from another featured list (literally a direct copy). See St. Louis Cardinals seasons and Chicago Bears seasons. KV5 (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If those lists were up for FLC now then I'd say the same thing, that there isn't any good reason to make the font so small it's difficult to read, particularly against a low-contrast background.
      • How about now? KV5 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a definite improvement. I'm still generally anti-small fonts, but that's an acceptable compromise (translates as "I can read it now" ;-)
          • OK, sounds good. I didn't like the font at full size because I thought it looked cramped in my browser. KV5 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Ref. 28 thanks for correcting my failed attempt at adding a properly-formatted publication date.
  • No problem. KV5 (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• One more thing (hopefully just the one). In the lead, it says The franchise was also the first professional sports team in American history to reach 10,000 losses during the 2007 season. Although no-one in their right mind would believe they'd lost 10,000 times during the 2007 season, perhaps it might read better turned round to something like During the 2007 season, the franchise became the first ... to reach 10,000 losses. Struway2 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. KV5 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

only one remaining is: