Talk:List of American League pennant winners
 | List of American League pennant winners is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
 | List of American League pennant winners is part of the Major League Baseball awards series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on April 1, 2019. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 7, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Major League Baseball's Milwaukee Brewers won an American League pennant in 1982 before moving to the National League in 1998? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured list | |||||||||||||
| This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Boston Pigrims
editI changed Boston team name from the Pilgrims to the 'Americans'.
Research has shown the name 'Boston Pilgrims' was not used in the early 1900s, and was invented sometime after the fact. See Boston Red Sox for links to the research of papers of the day. The team was simply known as 'Boston' or the 'Boston Americans' (to distinguish from the NL Boston team). The team was named the Red Sox before the 1908 season. Econrad 16:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
LAA - which name is correct?
editAny particular reason we're using "Los Angeles Angels" to describe the team from Anaheim in the 2000's? Shouldn't we use the full name of "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim"? I normally am very much the take charge/be bold-type and wjust change it, but since it's up for FA status, I don't wanna start an edit war over something that, while I see it should be fixed, is trite in the whole aspect of the project. EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- That edit definitely could be made (have to add a note in the 2nd notes section as they were once simply known as the "Los Angeles Angels"). The issue I have is they are almost universally known simply as the Los Angeles Angels. For example, ESPN. Or their abbreviation is simply LAA (Los Angeles Angels), not LAAA (Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim). I see this as something like House (TV series) being at that location and not House M.D. (TV series) because that is what the show is universally known as. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the team's website calls them the long-form, as well as Fox Sports, NBC Sports, and Baseball-Reference.com, in addition to other sources, I'm sure. That being said, I'll let the group decide, because once again, I don't want to screw up something others have been working hard over my issues with it. (Oh, and you're welcome about the Bosox thing; I just noticed the Yanks messed up, too, and am going to correct that in a sec. ;-) )
EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)- Apologies about the mismarkings. I copied the skeleton from the NL version of this list to build off of, there may be some accidental holdovers. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- LOL, no worries! We're all human; I'm just glad I could find them before the final verdict. And I'm thinking I'm going to change and note, since the committee doing the FL could probably want the full and real name instead. Let me know if something changes!
EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 13:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the team's website calls them the long-form, as well as Fox Sports, NBC Sports, and Baseball-Reference.com, in addition to other sources, I'm sure. That being said, I'll let the group decide, because once again, I don't want to screw up something others have been working hard over my issues with it. (Oh, and you're welcome about the Bosox thing; I just noticed the Yanks messed up, too, and am going to correct that in a sec. ;-) )
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
_2019.jpeg){kind=link}
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Style change: Winner's background colour
editI was bold and changed to 'light red background', for the winners on this list. Seeing as the 'light blue background' is used for the winners at the List of National League pennant winners page. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Table Suffers From Color Chaos
editThe tables presented here have a basic flaw. It stems from the attempt to group consecutive pennants in a single cell and assigning a “Won World Series” color to that cell. E.g., the New York Yankees won three pennants 1926-28 and two World Series, but their block is uncolored, suggesting no Series wins in that period. Yet the ‘41-43 Yankees do get the color treatment despite losing one of their three series. (Also, Boston got credit for not losing the nonexistent 1904 Series.)
It’s also visually misleading because a team gets the winning color for a one-year pennant, while another team is denied the color for one series loss in a 3-year pennant run. At first I figured that the color scheme was designed to highlight the impressive dynasties, but it’s more an artifact of someone combining the cells for “esthetic” reasons.
If you want to flag Series winners, it would be best to NOT combine the cells vertically at all, or at least limit that display to the true winning streaks. I’d suspect similar problem with the “Divisional Era”, just mitigated a bit because consecutive titles are less frequent here.
It appears that the table was okay in this regard until 1 January 2024, when an unnamed user enacted a merge (automated?) that made up some rules for coloration of merged cells. A rollback would be in order.