Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Special projects talk Resource Library talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (62) talk  → Featured lists (211) talk  → Good articles (559) talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Style advice talk  → Naming conventions talk  → Player style advice talk  → Season article format talk Handling transactions talk Popular pages talk Active editors
Project organization Participants talk Large userbox talk Project userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball Team specific Atlanta Braves talk Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Mets talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk Negro league baseball talk Hall of Fame talk Umpires talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Integration with Baseball WikiProject

Hi, I've added this page to the contents list of the Baseball WikiProject, it'd be better for this page to be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles, so that the page is kept under the project and for more people to feel they are able to edit it.

Please consider this --Borgarde 08:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard form

Should we create a standard form for the 2007 team articles. For example, should we include the team roster/team infobox on each page? Fbdave 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the team roster should be included. After all, the article is about the season, not just the results. --Borgarde 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the team rosters should be included. Fbdave 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we wanted to use templates for the standings. I created Template:2007 NL East Standings. That eliminates the chances of having five different versions of the standings. Fbdave 23:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea. It'll make it a lot easier to edit and keep up to date. --Borgarde 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The season articles should have the season roster, not just the current roster. —Mike 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to change the 2006 Minnesota Twins article to a standard form? I think it is fine like it is, and many of us have been working on that particular article, as well as historic Minnesota Twins seasons for some time now. --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 01:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I cringed after looking at the 2007 Kansas City Royals season article. I hope this isn't going to turn into a "let's just copy the statistics we can get from every other site" kind of article. Users wanting current stats should be referred to MLB's own stats page which will be more up-to-date than these articles will be. Also, the lead sentence should be linking to the MLB season article, not just the general baseball year article (eg. "In the 2007 Major League Baseball season, the Kansas City Royals ..."). —Mike 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Are the rosters included or not? User:Ksy92003 removed the roster from the New York Yankees Article with the message, "we don't need to include this information." Michael Greiner 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from User:Ksy92003:"Hello, Michael Greiner. It isn't a really good idea to include the rosters as the information changes (not added onto, but changed entirely). Plus, at the end of the season, what roster will you put here? Because of this, a current roster isn't gonna be of any use to anybody looking at the article 20 years from now. Do you catch my drift? Ksy92003 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)"

I know that the info changes but the info is current as this is the current season. At the end of the season, the template would be removed and the names of the players on the roster then plus any other players who made the active roster (25-man) during the season would be moved. (I'm willing to go through and look at previous changes) Michael Greiner 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, it doesn't make hardly any sense to include something if it's just gonna be removed at the end of the season anyway. Ksy92003 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be removed, just made permanent. (Template would be replaced by the text of the template) Michael Greiner 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The National Hockey League season articles include the current rosters. See 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season. I would follow their lead. Fbdave 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you decided to remove the rosters.Fbdave 01:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who used to work on the NHL articles, I know this. On those articles, it's a template, which is updated whenever any changes to the roster are made. Like the NHL rosters, the MLB rosters are only good for the current rosters, and after the season ends, they don't do any good historically. If, for example, we keep the template in a 2007 article, then in 2010 that template is gonna be updated as of that date in 2010. We can't use rosters like that for historical information, as it's always updated, regardless of which season's article it's in. --Ksy92003 03:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Job!

I'm really glad that we have at least gotten all 14 American League teams up and running, and three of the NL's 16 teams. I wasn't expecting there to be this much of a turnout on this project. My congratulations go out to everybody contributing to this project! Ksy92003 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Player stats

Hey everybody, I just realized that the link for the player stats is only for the 2006 stats, as 2007 hasn't begun. When the 2007 season begins, it is not known whether the links already on the articles will be the links for the new stats. Please be aware for any changes to these links. Ksy92003 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't check whether anyone changed anything, but I did a little exploring a while ago and the 2007 season should automatically go to this link. There is a link directly to the 2007 season which I might go through and change them all manually later so when the season is over they do not need to be changed again. --Borgarde^talk 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Stats

Is it necessary to include pitchers' hitting stats? Tomdaddy53 21:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? They do hit. --Holderca1 13:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pitcher's stats are not notable enough to be included. They usually don't get many hits, and besides, they fail to pass the criterion for inclusion in the batting stats table; they don't qualify for the batting title anyway, as, since they start every 5 games, they must therefore have 16 plate appearances every game to be qualified. If you're wondering how I got 16, check this out:

A player who is qualified for the batting title must have 3.1 plate appearances per team game. Lets assume a pitcher gets a start every 5 team games. 5 team games time 3.1 plate appearances per game gives you 15.5 plate appearances. Since you can't have half of a plate appearance, that number needs to be rounded up to the next whole number, 16, meaning that they must have that many plate appearances per 5 team games to qualify. It wouldn't be rounded down to 15 plate appearances because 15 plate appearances divided by 5 team games equals 3 plate appearances per game, and 3 plate appearances per game does not surpass 3.1 plate appearances per game.

Does this make sense why they wouldn't be included? --Ksy92003 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So then all players that do not qualify for the batting title should not be included, correct? --Holderca1 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Now of course there are those situations where a player plays every game until July, qualifies for the batting title, but then gets injured for the rest of the season. When something like that happens, I'llWe'll decide how we're gonna go about doing that after that happens. --Ksy92003 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll decide??? Don't you mean we'll all discuss it and come to a consensus? --Holderca1 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. Of course that's what I meant. --Ksy92003 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Game Log

Why are we having redundancy? Should we not use internal links only once per series? Kingjeff 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Extra Innings

I have come here to seek consensus for non-objection for me adding extra innings to the game logs. I initially did this and was reverted for the ARI-COL game on April 3. I added the innings to the score in parenthesis in what I believe is a very unobtrusive fashion without adding a column to the table. To see what it looks like, please see these diffs [1] [2]. Is there any serious objection to this? I realize that the extra innings do not change the score of the game or have any actual bearing on the season standings, but as I mentioned on User talk:Ksy92003 when I was reverted, it doesn't damage the table or negatively impact the readability, so I would really like to do this. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks fine and is a good idea. ESPN and whatnot always note extra innings next to their scores in pretty much every sport. Don't see why it should be removed.++aviper2k7++ 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ESPN.com doesn't list extra innings in the game logs. --Ksy92003 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we should note in game logs when games go to extra innings. Vidor 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are we using articles as templates?

All the 2007 xxx season game log are just being used as templates. These really aren't articles and should be in the Template space.++aviper2k7++ 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll get right on moving them all to templates. Ksy92003 03:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way I can help in this process? If so tell m what I nee to do and I can help speed the task along. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 13:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have already personally moved all of the articles to their respective templates manually, and there shouldn't be anything left to do. Thanks anyway. Ksy92003 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's much better.++aviper2k7++ 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that these templates should all be moved back into the Main space. Per Wikipedia:Template namespace, "Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page." - Each of these is however only used in one article. Mainspace articles can still be transcluded as templates are by using the curly brackets as was done previously. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly suggest if this is done, they be moved into the own article's space, such as 2007 xxxx season/game_log or something like that, because it doesn't belong in its own article, as all its doing is saving use a ridiculously long amount of space the main article.++aviper2k7++ 04:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically articles in Main space do not have subpages. It won't prevent you from creating the page with the slash, but it won't treat it any differently either (ex. it won't give you a breadcrumb like a subpage would in Wikipedia space). I think that the old names are probably most in line with the site guidelines. Besides if someone is typing in an article name, aren't they more likely to type "2007 xxxx season game log " than "2007 xxxx season/game log"? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to think they shouldn't be templates at all and just substituted. After all, they are only used on one article, they may as well just be on that page where you can still edit it. Anyone agree?--Borgarde^talk 12:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really see how it matters that much. In my opinion, as long as the same information is included, should it matter whether it's a template included or an article transcluded? I don't think so. Personally, it's easier for me when I type it in the URL to type it in as a template, as it makes it easier for me to distinguish if I'm going to the season article or the game log. For instance, if I start by typing "wiki.riteme.site/wiki/..." like I always do, if I first put in "2007 Los Angeles Angels...", I know that's the URL for the season articles. If I first put in "Template:2007 Los Angeles Angels...", I know that's the URL for the game logs. For me, having them as templates makes it easier for me to distinguish the season articles from the game logs. But aside from that, it doesn't make any difference to me whether it should be an template included or a article transcluded. --Ksy92003 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• It just seems useless in my opinion of having one template for one article. A template is designed to be spread across multiple articles. If the template if used in the one season, just substitute it and all the code is already there to edit like you would normally. It may take a couple of seconds longer to navigate too, but you can just as easily edit a section as edit a template.--Borgarde^talk 12:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Also, if all the template is substituted into the article, all future changes will be kept within the article page and easier to track for people monitoring certain articles.--Borgarde^talk 12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• You know, at first whwhn the Indians' and White Sox game logs were created as separate pages, I, too, questioned whether or not they even needed to be their own article (or template, as they currently are), After all, as you said Borgarde, we can simply take the code from the template and substitute it in the game log section in the team articles. That makes more sense. But actually, for the recent changes (what links here), it makes sense to me to have them separate. If the code were in the articles themselves, then all changes would show up as on the articles. If they are templates, then the changes show up as templates. This is helpful for me when I'm going back and completing all the articles that fell behind. I did this once, and at least 10 articles were at least a game behind. Not to be a recent-changes patroller sort of person, but having them separated for me distinguishes whether or not a change is made to the article itself or just the game log.

• Now, I'm not saying that this way is best or this way should be used. I'm just saying why I like the current way as much as I do. If we decide to move it, then that's fine with me. I have no true opinion about where they should go, but the way it is currently is a lot easier for me to understand. But what's easier for me might not be best for Wikipedia. So this is the conundrum. I'm 100% behind whatever is done. --Ksy92003 12:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• That could work both ways though, people could add the article to their watchlist and never see any changes to the gamelog appear. If the gamelog is incorporated in the article as it is just substituted, all the changes will appear in their watchlist. Also, when you edit a section, the default edit summary will be "Game log", so you'll see teh game log has been updated. I'm for the templates being substitued within the articles, getting rid of the 'template' factor of it. --Borgarde^talk 13:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll

• I would like to suggest a poll at this point. I think that keeping this in template space is probably not an option, so I think that the two options remaining are: 1) subst it into the article and then just edit the article in the future or 2) move it back into the article space and continue to transclude it into the article. I'm going to lay out a format, please feel free to add pros to it as well as any other comments. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, what about the third option of just leaving it as a template, the way it currently is? --Ksy92003 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that option 3 would be depreciated, per the quote I used above from Wikipedia:Template namespace. I won't fight any consensus that arrived at, but I think that option 3 could be objected to by the larger (than this project) community. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 1

Subst the current game log templates onto the articles and just edit the articles in the future.

Pros

• Watchlist shows article updated to indicate change in log.
• All season updates made in one place.

Editors preferring this option

• Borgarde^talk 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (Note: you want the history in the main article and not seperate, the game log is part of the article)
• Michael Greiner 03:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Would make editing articles after games easier with everything on one article.

Option 2

Move the templates back to article space and continue to transclude them onto the articles.

Pros

• Game log can be updated without filling up history of the main article.
• Watchlist of article does not show these changes allowing editors who do not care about these changes to not be disturbed with them in their watchlists.

Editors preferring this option

• --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Option 3

Leave the game logs as they are, as templates.

Pros

• Watchlist of article shows these changes allowing editors to easily know if a change is made to the game log itself, as opposed to the team's season content.
• Game log can be updated without filling up history of the main article.

Player Stats

Maybe I missed the discussion, but what is behind the stats that are kept? It seems that several important ones are left off, for hitters, runs and stolen bases come to mind. Also, I don't think I have ever seen starter and reliever stats listed separately, you will run into a problem of someone doing both later in the season. Wins and losses should also be included for relievers as well. --Holderca1 13:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, when creating the stats' categories, I used the ones that came to mind, the ones that to me were most prominent. Let me start off by saying that wins and losses I don't feel need to be included in the relievers stats as they don't get most of the decisions.

Second, listing the starters and relievers separately removes the problem of having to list all five starters with 0 saves or holds or whatever stats they don't really get a whole lot of.

Third, I also do think it's a good idea to include things like stolen bases, runs, etc. A general rule I would give of what to include is the stats that are used in Fantasy Baseball leagues. In my fantasy league, the stats are HR, R, RBI, AVG, and SB for the position players, W, SV, K, ERA, and WHIP for the pitchers. When I look at this, yeah, I do think that we should include for the batters Stolen Bases and Runs, as well as WHIP for the pitcher --14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Ksy92003

No need to overdo it on the stats. We provide a link to more in-depth stats.---CWY2190^TC 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Without including stats like stolen bases and runs, players like José Reyes look very average. --Holderca1 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Some middle relievers do amass quite a few decisions. You also didn't address pitchers that start and relieve in the same season. Do we include just the stats for their starts in the start section and relief appearances go in the relievers section, use combined stats? --Holderca1 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... for your last comment, Holderca1, I could've sworn that I answered that question already. I guess it was somewhere else. Anyway, for starters we are doing the 5 pitchers on each team with the most starts on that team and including their total stats. If a player pitches a lot but is then injured, then if they have a significant amount of games started (I will determine what is "significant" later when a situation like that arises) we will also include them in the starting pitchers. Whether starters or relievers, we are including their total stats, not their stats in games they started or relieved. Does this clear it up? --Ksy92003 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, clear as mud. --Holderca1 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, why are players listed in order by batting average? They should be listed alphabetically. Talk about about making a tedious task more tedious. There names don't change throughout the season, but their average does, having to rearrange the table everyday is asking way too much. Batting average is one of the most useless stats to begin with anyways. I personnally think stats should be removed all together. We are not a news service, there are links already that link to the season stats. Does anyone really come here first for up-to-date stats? --Holderca1 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I had them listed by batting average beacuse players are listed based on if they qualify for the batting title or not, which is based on batting average.

But to be honest, recently I've been slacking off on the stats as well. And now, I'm kinda second-guessing whether or not we should include them until after the season. At this point in time, I would say that we shouldn't include them, but I've already included it when I created the format so it would be kind of hard to delete it now. --Ksy92003 18:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually based on plate appearances, not batting average.

Not sure why it would be hard to delete it now. The discussion has begun right here on whether to continue to add them or not. If no one supports keeping them, then we delete them. --Holderca1 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, plate appearances determines who is qualified, but batting average is what determines the winner.

For the player stats, I think we should host a discussion here about its deletion. After a week or so, depending on the consensus, we'll take the necessary actions (if any at all). However, to be safe, if the consensus is to remove them, we have to link the discussion in the edit summary so people who look at the page wanting to revert it have a link to the discussion. We don't want anybody unjustifyingly reverting, so we'll need to be sure to link it to avoid any Three-revert rule violations. I'm busy with other work on Wikipedia right now, so if you want to, you can begin the discussion and I'll comment about it later, when I'm done. --Ksy92003 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be a mute argument pending below discussion.

New discussion started below. --Holderca1 18:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I hate to reopen this discussion, but I'm confused about how we should be sorting player statistics on the team pages. I didn't see a consensus in this discussion and I was pointed in the direction of a user talk page (User_talk:Hornberry#RE:_Stats) about the "decision" that was made, apparently by a single user. This doesn't seem like an official "Project Baseball" guideline if the decision is documented on a user talk page as opposed to here, where the discussion was taking place. I suppose it doesn't matter which way the stats or sorted (since it's a sortable wikitable), but I just wanted to make sure that it's the group's decision and not just a single user. Also, the pitcher stats aren't sorted by surname, so that probably should be fixed at some point. X96lee15 15:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I sorted them by surname was because the table is sortable. Since they can be sorted any way you wish, and they have to be organized somewhere, surname was the most reasonable choice. Surname is something that doesn't ever change, however, the other stats (Batting Avg., HR, G, AB, etc.) change on a daily basis. Therefore, sorting the data by those stats isn't really a good decision as it changes daily and will result in having to re-order the players constantly. If they're sorted by surname, then they stay put. Since you can't have one surname one day and another surname the next (especially for males, as they keep their family names when they get married), it seems reasonable / logical to sort them this way.

As far as why the pitcher's stats weren't sorted that way, that's simply because I haven't ever concerned myself for the pitcher's stats. Therefore, I tend not to look at them, let alone edit them. --Ksy92003 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You can sort by surname. You insert display: none; before the players name. I've added it twice to the Dodgers stats, but someone keeps deleting it for no particular reason.++aviper2k7++ 17:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if there is a way to designate the column that is sorted by default when using a sortable wikitable? Or if you can designate "ascending" or "descending" as the first sort that is performed when clicking on the "sort column" icon. Currently, the initial sort is ascending and I don't think that's intuitive (except for ERA). If we could do those things, it would allow us to have the table in wiki-text sorted by last name and when it's displayed, it would be sorted by Avg or ERA. This would reduce the need to potentially have to manually re-sort but still provide a nice way to display the stats. X96lee15 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputes

It appears there are a few disputes and disruptions going on regarding these season articles (see User talk:MisfitToys#Problems with WP:Baseball). Can anyone shed some light on these disputes before they become more disruptive? Should there be a central location for discussions or is this sufficient? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look here, here and here then you'll see what the issue is about. If you take a look here, I brought the issue up simpy because this isn't worth getting into a revert war. This user blatenly violates ban that was put on him. Kingjeff 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep or remove player stats

Starting this discussion as to whether to keep or remove the player stats from the season pages and add them back at the end of the season. It is extremely tedious to difficult to keep these current. We are only a week and a half into the season and some are a week out of date already. I don't see any real value added to having them, we already have links to external sites that have current player stats. --Holderca1 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I vote to remove. Too wikinews'ish. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove, as well. It's far too much work to keep them all updated, some of them are far out of date, some have no stats at all, and I don't think it's right to have some that are up-to-date and some that aren't. We can add them at the end of the year, but for now, remove them. --Ksy92003 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(A little off-topic but, as far as stats being out of date for some and not others, that holds true for individual player articles as well. For some articles, their entire career stats (in the infobox) are updated on a daily basis, but others are always out of date. It's a bit tiresome.) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not as much of a problem having them out-of-date as it is having some updated every day and some not even updated as of opening day. --Ksy92003 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove ... in both the season pages and individual player articles. --Sanfranman59 01:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing the stats from the season pages. Too cumbersome and labor intensive. Caknuck 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove, to be reinserted when the season is over. I have gone ahead and removed the stats from the Cardinals page. There is a link to ESPN stat pages. That should suffice for now. Vidor 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"I have gone ahead and removed the stats from the Cardinals page." You can't just remove it because you don't want it there. We need to wait for a consensus, Vidor. Not what you want, but what we decide we want. --Ksy92003 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can, and I did. Read this page. There is a consensus, and that consensus is "remove". Everyone, including you, agreed that they are not necessary and should be removed. Vidor 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles#Player Stats. I know that I thought they should be removed, but we're allowing a week for discussion on it. Anyway, if I said I wanted to remove something and gave my input on it, would that be the consensus? We don't have a consensus yet as the discussion is still open.

And you CAN'T !!! --Ksy92003 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The vote is 5-0, including your vote, that the stats should be removed. I do not understand why you would take it upon yourself to reinsert stats after agreeing to remove them. Vidor 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Because a fair amount of time hasn't passed. I don't care it I voted for it or not. We need to give enough time for everybody to voice their opinion. And one day isn't hardly enough time to do that. After a WEEK has passed, meaning on April 18, depending on the consensus, we'll take the necessary actions.

And you needn't worry about my reasons. My reasons for doing things are my reasons, and you don't have to concern yourself with that. --Ksy92003 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. A week it shall be, then. Vidor 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a rather strong feeling that the consensus will be to remove them anyway, but I just want to give people who oppose the removal of the sections in question time to voice their opinion. And I don't feel that one day is enough time to do that, especially because most people might not have been able to get on Wikipedia or whatever other reasons they may have for not being able to voice their opinion. Another thing about this is that most people I suspect aren't even aware that we have been having a discussion about the removal of the stats until the end of the season. So if they don't know about it, then they can't do anything about it, can they? If you feel like it, could you please go to some of the other major contributors of the season articles and suggest to them that they come here and give their opinion on this? I don't want to be responsible for a huge discrepancy between users about suddenly removing the statistics if they didn't know that we had a consensus for it. Thanks for meeting me halfway on something, Vidor. --Ksy92003 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to toss in another vote for "remove" as well, for the reasons already given. Tytrain 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the stats are worth keeping if someone can update it at least one a week. Kingjeff 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend keeping stats to keep them consistent with in-season with the NHL. 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season Fbdave 22:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The season is already over so you can't use that as comparison. --Ksy92003 22:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's too hard to keep up with the stats. Can we just adjust the template to link to stats? I think this is a fair enough consensus and I've yet to see a good argument on the side as to why to keep them in.++aviper2k7++ 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That page is more of a reason to not keep the stats then to keep, see this version [3] from Feb 26th with stats current as of Jan 13th. The NHL doesn't play as many games and that version is over a month out of date. --Holderca1 23:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If an editor from each season article takes it upon him/herself lets say once a week or once a month, then there shouldn't be any problem. Kingjeff 23:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking any side right now, but if they are included there should be a date above them, like Last updated on April 22 or something like that, so whoever reads it knows it's out of date.--Borgarde^talk 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really a good idea to have something out of date, even if it's noted. And I'm working on 4 of the articles, and I don't really want to have to take the responsibility of updating the stats every single game. Nobody really wants to. And once a week or once a month isn't a good solution. That still runs the risk of them being out of date by as much as a month and all of them not being updated at the same time. And it doesn't make sense to put some stats down, knowing that it's just gonna change the next day anyway. --Ksy92003 23:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to do it every game. You can update maybe every Saturday or Sunday or the 1st day of the month or something like this. Kingjeff 03:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we update something that changes every day if we don't update it every day? It doesn't make sense, does it? For example, if Barry Bonds hit home run number 73 of the season one day, 74 two days later, and 75 the next day, if we do it every week then we'll have to ignore home runs 74 and 75 and wait to update it until four more days have passed (a week). It's really stupid to update something that changes every day without actually updating it every single day. Do you get my point, Kingjeff? --Ksy92003 04:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My way is more about common sense more then anything else. Of course you're not going to update it everyday. The fact is the stats are there right now. A common sense approach means that you're doing it in a reasonable way. I think it's really stupid to update it afterevery single game. But it's very brilliant to have something that adds to an article like the stats. so weekly or whatever makes a lot more sense. Kingjeff 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the stats for the Brewers article. This isn't a matter of "week-long consensus" (wherever this comes from?) but a matter of making Wikipedia better. I sure as hell am not going to edit these stats every day. If an editer is devoted enough to do this, fine! Re-add it. But what's the point of it sitting there after 5 games of stats (SLOPPY!) for the next week (we all reaching consensus for some reason...) and then it not being edited at all because we want these articles to look the same? It's so stupid to leave these in if they are not being edited, consensus or no consensus.++aviper2k7++ 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The consensus is to find out if anybody really wants to take the responsibility upon themselves to edit this. The one week is to give enough time for everybody to voice their opinion. We can't just decide to remove something based on your personal opinion until we get a consensus on it. --Ksy92003 04:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is getting so stupid. You don't own these articles. A consensus (even though we have a strong one) doesn't matter if there's no one there to edit it. I'm tired of putting up with your controlling bullshit because you want all these pages to "look the same" or some reason. Thanks for setting all these pages up, but you're hindering me and other editors from contributing to make an encyclopedia. How the hell am I sposed to bring an article to feature status if all you do is revert everything I do? [4]

Can I edit now??? I'm not even sure what the hell you're doing any more. I add an appropriate lead and I discuss in depth on the talk page about the stats, create a page for the unfinished stats in the talk space for future reference, and then explain the situation (which there doesn't appear to be anyone screaming that they'll keep up with this almost every day for 6 months). Why are we even voting on this? If there's nobody to keep up with these stats daily, why the hell do we need to do a straw poll to tell us the consensus that is already here? Straw polls aren't for deciding anything. They just measure consensus, which people seem to already have. It can be possible for a consensus on a page that has a devoted editor that edits these stats every day, reach consensus on that. But when I remove these stats from a page that nobody but I have edited, it confuses me as to why these days old stats need to stay there. I'm not going to edit these stats any more. I think that's what ESPN.com is for. I was going to try to add that to the season template, but it'll probably get reverted anyways! I'm really sick of dedicating my time to the Brewers article, to try and achieve GA (or even FA) status on it one day. Can you please just leave me alone and let me edit?

"We can't just decide to remove something based on your personal opinion until we get a consensus on it." Absolutely false. I've yet to see someone re-add the stats on the Brewers page for a valid reason other than "consensus". If there's someone who is ACTUALLY GOING TO EDIT THESE for the Brewers page then they can add them. It looks awful to have incomplete days old stats for no apparent reason.++aviper2k7++ 06:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather, the man reason why most people do not want to keep the stats is:

1. It's too annoying to copy the information from ESPN to Wikipedia.
2. We don't all have the time to go in and update the pages everyday.

I can appreciate both concern, it's damn annoying grunt copying and pasting and I too am busy and slacking sometimes in my pages. However, I do feel that it is important information, and should be kept. As to being annoying, I can write a script in a day or two to gather the information from the ESPN page and generate wiki code for you to paste. All the editor has to do is type something like python someScript.py Dodgers in the command line and it will generate all the text for you. This solves the concern of problem #1. This magical script will make updating Player Stats no more work than updating game logs(I might want to write a script to auto generate text for this too, hummm maybe... if somebody ask nicely ^_^) I did this same process to make most of the game logs. What do you guys think about this? Then after each day the editor can just run the script and paste the results. Asian Animal 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Decision:

Alright. Now, I know that we said that we would wait a week before reaching a consensus. However, in the past couple days I have gotten into numerous disputes with other users about the stats. Since it is completely pointless to have argument about it, I've just decided that we have reached our consensus about this and I will go ahead and remove the stats from the pages. --Ksy92003 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the discussion is pointless and I do think we should wait a week. For example, my proposal only had 3 hours for users to read before you decided that this discussion was pointless. I applaud your initiative, but I move to continue the discussion. The season pages are very bear without the player stats. Asian Animal 05:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I know you feel the pages are "bare" without the stats. However, we are in the process of adding a season summary in each of the articles (see 2007 Cleveland Indians season, 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season, and 2007 Milwaukee Brewers season for examples), which will make the pages not seem as "bare". Just "bear" with us (no pun intended) until we can get summaries for all articles. --Ksy92003 05:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that from start to end, this discussion lasted only 30hours. Most editors do agree that the stats do contribute to the page and should be kept as long as there is a viable way to keep it reasonably updated. I've made a suggestion to do so, but my suggestion only got 3 hours of time to be read before you took out all the stats. I feel we're deciding too quickly. I would just like to take a moment, ask editors if they would use my script method, if so we would only need a few people doing this to keep it reasonably updated. Ksy92003 would you this script and keep some pages updated if this script existed? Asian Animal 05:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... I don't have the slightest clue how to use a script. But I guess it can't do any harm. However, might I ask that we don't, as of right now, re-add the stats into the articles? That would take a lot of time, and I don't want anybody to have to do that work if we still decide to remove the stats in the end. Just leave them out of the article for now, and if it is decided that we keep them, we can re-add them. I took about 10 minutes of my own time, when my hands were frozen solid, to remove those. I don't want that to be reverted just yet, at least until we have our final FINAL verdict. But yeah, it wouldn't do any harm to see if people want to use your script idea. --Ksy92003 06:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe people don't have time to update the stats everyday while they're fine about arguing about it for ages. It only takes me usually 5 or 6 minutes to do the batting stats, pitching stats and the relief pitching stats on the Detroit Tigers one. Its easy! Can I undo you're deletion and update the stats from yesterday's Toronto v Detroit's game please? Fahima07 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I'll do it anyway. By the way, if anyone's counting the votes, i vote them to stay. or at least the one's that are getting updated regularly. Fahima07 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to keep all the pages the same you know. For the pages that are going to be updated regularly, keep them there, what's wrong with them? If they're not being updated, then delete the stats. Fahima07 12:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you not seen that most of the articles have fallen behind on the stats? 2007 Baltimore Orioles season had fallen so far behind, the only player listed in the stats as of April 10 was Melvin Mora. And articles, such as 2007 Seattle Mariners season hasn't even started (granted I said I would work on that article). 2007 Kansas City Royals season had only David DeJesus and Tony Peña. 2007 Pittsburgh Pirates season didn't have any stats listed, either. That's at least 3 articles (that I haven't been working on) that haven't had updated stats. There may even be more. It is extremely tedious to have to go onto the internet to find everybody's stats, then come back to the article, then change the stats. It's even more tedious to have to do that every single day as the stats change. And I still don't see how it would make any sense to have about 5 or 6 pages updated regularly and have the rest of the articles take up space in the article by not being updated at all. --Ksy92003 13:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It would add more information to those 5 or 6 pages which gets updated regularly. Those who edited those pages put effort into adding that data in. Also I don't see how having pages behind on the stats hinder anything. The reader knows that this is an ongoing event and the data might be outdated, and entice the reader to enter in new data. To the editors, just try your best in keeping it updated. Asian Animal 04:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For pages with stats that won't get updated, leave them out. They don't have to be the same for every page. Creating these instructions is instruction creep.++aviper2k7++ 04:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Stats

Alright, right now it doesn't really matter what we do. I suppose that if somebody wants to work on updating the stats every day, then fine. However, I do ask that you try to update the stats for all articles, especially the ones that are drastically behind. --Ksy92003 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll readd them for the Dodgers stats. I'm happy to keep updating them. Hornberry 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Model article

Is there a model article out there that shows what you are trying to discuss? Fbdave 15:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

If anyone contributing to this happens to attend games this season. Please take photos that we can use on this project. Photos always make an article look nicer. --Borgarde^talk 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I periodically go to baseball games. The game that I went to April 2 between the Rangers and the Angels, I thought about this, but I didn't bring my camera =( nor do I really know how to upload pictures to be legally used on Wikipedia. My next game is June 1 between the Angels and the Orioles at Angel Stadium of Anaheim. What pictures would you like me to take? --Ksy92003 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not after anything in particular. Just putting a notice if anyone happens to go to a game ;) --Borgarde^talk 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done my part - see User:Wknight94/Gallery#Baseball people. Although I see one of mine was removed today. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have some photos of the Angels vs. Indians game at Miller Park in Milwaukee. Also I took photos at opening day and caught Billy Hall hitting a home run Image:Billyhallhr.png. I may see where that Indian Angel game fits in. I don't really have any closeups of the players. They didn't come out to sign autographs like yesterday :X Anyways, I've been trying to take pictures!++aviper2k7++ 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to stats in the template

Stats can now be linked in the yearly team template. Just go to this page and look up the three character name of the team you want to add. Hover over the link and find the three letters. The Milwaukee Brewers are "mil" or the Texas Rangers are "tex". Most you can figure out on your own even. Then add "| espntn = abc" to the template or whatever the three letters representing the team were. See this page for an example of exactly how this works. It's pretty simple!

I will promptly add baseball-reference also, because they have a helluva lot of stuff and they date back very far.++aviper2k7++ 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Reference is done. Just add "| brtn = ABC". The city initials should be the same as ESPN, but capitalized. You can check here to be sure. Again, see the St. Louis Cardinals page for an example. Please add these to your articles!!!++aviper2k7++ 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Template:2007 NL Wild Card Standings}}

God, I thought I was gonna die when I looked at 2007 Milwaukee Brewers season and saw this here. Are we really gonna include this standings table in our articles? It's horrendously long and pointless, especially two weeks into the season. I saw that HouAstros1989 created this template this morning, and... gosh, after looking at that template and seeing it in the articles, I'm left completely speechless. I'll just shut up and please, somebody else say something about this. --Ksy92003 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As you probably know, Ksy, I logged on today, to the Dodgers season and saw this standing table in the article. I'm sorry, the Wild Card has no meaning right now. Feel free, to add it, uh in late August or so, when it really matters. Two weeks into the season? Uh, you could say that every team, even the last place team could win the wild card. Really, anybody who would like to comment on why we need this, please do, otherwise it should be nominated for deletion. Hornberry 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the template needs to go, but templates are deleted through TFD not AFD. Michael Greiner 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed and I'll nominate it when I get the chance. Hornberry 22:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that the template was kept against the community majority (7 support deletion, 4 oppose) I have listed it at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_24#Template:2007_NL_Wild_Card_Standings. Michael Greiner 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Template discussion

Please see the discussion that I am reopening above. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Game Logs

What is the format for displaying an extra-inning game within the game log, if there is any? --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Put the number of innings in (parenthesis) next to the score in the score column. Michael Greiner 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Extra inning notation proposal

I propose another format of noting extra innings. What I suggest is a format like this:

#	Date	Opponent	Score	Win	Loss	Save	Attendance	Record
20	April 24	Tigers	9 - 8 10	Moseley (2-0)	Jones (0-1)		36,055	10-10

as opposed to this way:

#	Date	Opponent	Score	Win	Loss	Save	Attendance	Record
20	April 24	Tigers	9 - 8 (10)	Moseley (2-0)	Jones (0-1)		36,055	10-10

I feel that the latter format takes away from the score itself. Having the "(10)" there all big takes away the attention of the game log itself. The most important thing of the game is the score, not how many innings it takes to complete the game, right? Can't we all agree that that is the most important thing of the game? Well, having it as "¹⁰" doesn't make a drastic change to the log. The score itself remains the important thing in the "Score" category without being overshadowed by how many innings long the game was. Plus, information like the extra innings should be included as a little side note. Your thoughts on this, everybody? --Ksy92003 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The superscript looks weird. Looks like eight to the tenth power. Don't like it. Vidor 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• How about:

#	Date	Opponent	Score	Win	Loss	Save	Attendance	Record
20	April 24	Tigers	9 - 8 (10)	Moseley (2-0)	Jones (0-1)		36,055	10-10

The small text gives precedent to the score and is in line with the score, so no one is confused. For the record, I do not like the superscript.--Michael Greiner 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Vidor 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually like this subscript much better than the superscript. So, is it decided then? We go change all game logs to reflect this? --Ksy92003 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'll get started on it by using AWB. --Michael Greiner 22:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm done. Feel free to check my edits to make sure I didn't miss any. I also noticed two things. 1. The Mets game log did not list extra inning games (I noticed since I was watching Wednesday's extra inning game after the Yankees lost). I added two games but there may be more also other teams might be doing this as well (6 teams didn't have any extras listed) 2. The Twins game log is listing the Twins score first (other teams might be doing this as well, but I didn't notice) --Michael Greiner 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Season summary

I am coming here to ask about the writting in the season summaries on the articles. How much writing should we put in the section? Look at 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season to see how much writing I put there. I'm not sure if this is too much or not, if it should be shortened or not, so I am coming here to ask everybody what they thing about this.

Also, please see my previous comment about extra inning notation, directly above this secion. Thanks. --Ksy92003 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks a little wordy to me. Might not want to include commentary on every series. I try to concentrate on particularly notable games, and stretches of games ("the Cardinals won 10 of their first 12 after the All-Star Break"...). Then again, there is no need to have every article have exactly the same amount of information. Use your own judgement on how much information you think the article should have. Vidor 07:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that same thing. What I was thinking was that, since the season is only a month old, that I would try to stretch it out as much as I can for four weeks of play. But as the season progresses, for instance, I can simply say "The season started with the Angels going 5-2 on their first homestand of the year, however dropped below .500, going 1-7 on their first roadtrip. The Angels came back home and went 6-1, and eventually improving their record for the month of April to [12-10]..." But now, that doesn't look wordy enough. There needs to be some sort of guidelines to determine how much wording gets placed. While I do believe that the Angels season has too much stuff on there, I think that we should still include a small, short summary for each individual series and season-changing events. For instance, the Angels losing Howie Kendrick to the DL wouldn't be included, but the death of Josh Hancock would be included on the Cardinals' article because that affects the season and is a major event. I think a small summary on each individual series should be enough for these articles. But still, I want to know what everybody else thinks before I remove some information that we eventually decide could still belong there. --Ksy92003 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Division standings

There is an ongoing dispute on the division standings about two several points:

1. What should the templates link to?
2. Should Standings for games through [Date] be included?

First, let's look at where the templates link to. Below are two examples of {{2007 AL West standings}}, with the differences in effect. (Note: The "Standings for games through [Date]" is not included in these examples)

NL West	W	L	Pct.	GB
Los Angeles Dodgers	18	13	.581	--
San Diego Padres	17	14	.548	1
San Francisco Giants	16	14	.533	1½
Arizona Diamondbacks	17	16	.515	2
Colorado Rockies	13	18	.419	5

NL West	W	L	Pct.	GB
Los Angeles Dodgers	18	13	.581	--
San Diego Padres	17	14	.548	1
San Francisco Giants	16	14	.533	1½
Arizona Diamondbacks	17	16	.515	2
Colorado Rockies	13	18	.419	5

Looking at the templates, of course you'll notice that they look EXACTLY the same. However, they aren't. Try clicking on Los Angeles Dodgers for both. For the first example, it will take you to Los Angeles Dodgers. However, for the second example, for some bizarre reason, it will take you to 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season. Why do you ask? Well, that's the same question I've been asking myself ever since The Evil Spartan made these changes for no reason.

First of all, The Evil Spartan shouldn't have automatically made any of these changes without first coming here and suggesting them. Because of this, I will change all of these as soon as I can since the changes shouldn't be made just because one person wants to. You may want to make the changes, but you can't until you suggest it here first and then get a consensus on it.

Second, what is the reason for this? Why should Los Angeles Dodgers be linked to anything other than Los Angeles Dodgers? I think this is very misleading and confusing to have something linked to something else completely.

Second, let's look at the note about the updating of the templates.

NL West	W	L	Pct.	GB
Los Angeles Dodgers	18	13	.581	--
San Diego Padres	17	14	.548	1
San Francisco Giants	16	14	.533	1½
Arizona Diamondbacks	17	16	.515	2
Colorado Rockies	13	18	.419	5

Standings for games through May 6, 2007

First of all, thest templates are updated almost as soon as the games are completed, so there's no reason behind putting a note here. Second, look at 2007 Major League Baseball season. You see that with this little note included that it says the exact same thing 6 times?

For AL East, it says Standings for games through [Date].

For AL Central, it says Standings for games through [Date].

For AL West, it says Standings for games through [Date].

For NL East, it says Standings for games through [Date].

For NL Central, it says Standings for games through [Date].

For NL West, it says Standings for games through [Date].

Can't you clearly see that it's really redundant to say the same thing 6 different times right after one another? Because it is updated as quickly as the games end and because of the redundancy of including it so many times right after one another, I believe that it's not necessary at all.

I'd greatly appreciate it if everybody could leave their comments and opinions below. Thank you. --Ksy92003 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On the linking of the standings to this season's article vs the main team article, it seems more beneficial to me to link to this season's article rather than the team page. The standings are more in relation to this season's team than the historical team. Additionally, it isn't going to cause confusion for the average reader as the link to the current season's article from the current season's standing makes logical sense. Not to mention even if the intent of the reader is to go to the team's main article, every season article includes a link to the team article.

On the "As of", I can see it's uses, but cosmetically it looks horrid. It's also redundant to the edit history, IMHO. That being said, the cosmetics are relatively easy to resolve as including <noinclude> in front of the "as of" section and </noinclude> after means that the as of will not display when the template is transcluded. So the redundancy of appearing multiple times on the MLB season article issue is easy to resolve. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the table should link to the current season articles. The primary reason is because these tables only appear on the current season articles and so you would expect to jump from the current season for one team to the current season for another. Each current season article easily links to the main team article at the top of the page anyway.

As for the Standings for games through, I would prefer it to be there, it looks fine, it adds useful information, and it acts as a sort of reference for the table. As for the redundancy on the MLB season article, so what. Each table is updated separately and should show the date separately. A couple days ago I saw the article and it had two tables updated to present, two updated to the previous day, one another day behind, and one had not been updated for five days. So you need to see what info your looking at and the Standings for games through helps that.Timpcrk87 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They've fallen behind mostly because of my difficult schedule. I have made less edits because of all the tests I've taken. But now that they're over, I'll make sure every single day that they're up to date. I promise. And that makes it redundant.

Also redundant is the linking to the season articles. On every single page that the divisional standings templates appears on, there is {{2007 MLB season by team}}, which links to every single season article, not just the ones in the team's division. This is much more useful and easier to read, as it isn't misleading, and does it for every single team, not just a selected few. --Ksy92003 13:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything that Bobblehead and Timpcrk87 said regarding the linking to the 2007 articles for each team rather than the main team article. Also, if we create links to the 2007 season article, then when viewing the 2007 article, the team name will be bolded when viewing the transcluded standings. I think that is a nice touch. And for the future, when it's 2010, for example, and you're viewing the 2007 standings, I think it makes more sense to be linked to the 2007 version of the team.

Regarding the "as of" point, I think that since the standings are updated either 1) once per day at the conclusion of the day's games, 2) throughout the day at the conclusion of each game, or 3) not at all during the day and they become out of date, we need the "as of" indicator. I agree that cosmetically it looks bad, but it's a necessity. Maybe we can shrink the font so that it looks less intrusive. X96lee15 15:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with X96lee15; the bolded part in the template will make it look like it is being linked to the season pages. And if they really wanted the team, they'd click that page and then click on the team. It's a lot nicer linking to the 2007 xx articles.++aviper2k7++ 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I at least think that it isn't necessary to include "As of" if they are up to date. And if not, then somebody can go and add the "As of" note there. But if you edit it to add it, then you could just update the standings then anyway. But either way, I don't think the note needs to be there if it's up to date. --Ksy92003 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm cynical and I don't trust the standings to be updated every day. I suggest a compromise where we include the "as of" note for a while and if people are able to keep up with the updates and prove the note is not needed then we can remove it later.Timpcrk87 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So how does the Baseball Project go about resolving these issues? Seems like most user's that chimed in supported linking the teams to their 2007 instantiation. I do realize that it's not a vote, but it looks like the discussion is pointing towards changing the standings' links and adding the "as of" indicators. What's the procedure here? X96lee15 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee that the standings will be fully updated after each and every night of games if i have access to a computer. Last night I was unable to because I went to a Los Angeles Avengers Arena Football game against the Georgia Force and didn't return until late at night. I assumed that all the templates had already been updated and didn't check. However, Bobblehead backed me up last night and updated them at 1:15 Seattle time. Kudos to him for doing it so late. But from now on, I can pretty much assure everybody that they will be updated before midnight (except in the case of one game extending past that deadline).

I still feel that the standings templates should only link to the team's article, not their season article. And either way, at the very bottom of each season article is {{2007 MLB season by team}}. This template links each and every season article to all the other 29 articles. The standings templates link to 5 other articles (NL Central), 3 (AL West), and 4 (AL East, AL Central, NL East, NL West). Which is better: 29 or 3? 29 or 4? 29 or 5? Obviously, in this case more is better. If you have this navagation template at the bottom of all 30 articles and 2007 Major League Baseball season, then linking the division standings to a select group of articles seems kinda pointless. If you're at 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season and are looking at {{2007 AL West standings}}, you're restricted to only 3 other articles to go to. You can either go to the article for the Athletics, the article for the Mariners, or the article for the Rangers. That really restricts you a lot. But, if you go to the navagation box at the very bottom, you can choose to go to any of the 29 season articles.

If you can't link ALL of them, link NONE of them. --Ksy92003 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus for the standings templates to link to the 2007 articles, with 4 users sharing that opinion and 1 against. So I'm going to update them to that style. The other issue seems to be a nonissue now because the templates have been staying up to date, knock on wood. Timpcrk87 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Strikeouts: "SO" or "K"?

Which should be used for the player stats? SO is misleading, as SO is used even more commonly for "Shutouts" than "Strikeouts." "K" is the universal symbol for Strikeouts and doesn't have an ambiguous meaning. Can't we all agree that SO is used for Shutouts more than it is used for Strikeouts? So, shouldn't we follow suit and use K to annotate Strikeouts as opposed to SO? --Ksy92003 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

mlb.com uses "SO" for "strikeout" and "Sho" for "shutout". See this. There are no statistics that are designated "K". Seriously, is this a topic that needs a group discussion for? I think people are concentrating too much on small details than on improving the baseball articles on wikipedia. X96lee15 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This deserves discussion simply because you and I have different opinions. I understand your point that MLB.com uses "SO" for "Strikeouts," but in your honest, and I mean HONEST, opinion, which do you, X96lee15, believe looks better? Please answer honestly, as it would help to resolve any conflicts that we have. --Ksy92003 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer K for strikouts and SO for shutouts. -66.191.148.67 01:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Stats

Players on the Disabled list

I wondered what everyone's thoughts were on italicizing players on the disabled list. It would be done in the players stats section, because that is where all the players' names are (on the pages with stats). I had been doing this on 2007 Washington Nationals season. I propose that the stats section would look something like this:

Player	G	SV	ERA	SO
Jesús Colomé	21	1	2.36	16
Chad Cordero	17	4	4.15	15
Jon Rauch	23	3	3.63	15
Saúl Rivera	19	1	2.70	16
Ryan Wagner	14	0	5.74	9

Italicized players are on the disabled list.

Fbdave 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

On the New York Yankees Article, I haven't been doing anything special. I would think that the only thing that needs to indicate injury is on the roster template. (which I have lobbied for inclusion in the season articles) Michael Greiner 03:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me -- I have no problem italicizing DL players. The more info in the articles, the better, IMO. X96lee15 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the player's name needs to be italicized in the stats tables. The tables are for the statistics of the players, and whether or not a player is healthy doesn't affect his stats. That's my reasoning behind this. --Ksy92003 07:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorting

How should we sort the players in the tables? Originally, it was sorted by batting average. But since we implemented the "sortable" feature, this doesn't make any sense. I believe that sorting by a player's last name is a fair and just way to sort. However, apparently Fahima07 doesn't think so. He claims that it's "unprofessional" to change styles halfway through. Hello!!! Isn't that what we did when we made the tables sortable? They weren't at first, but after the season started we changed that. Why is this any different? Alright everybody, what are your opinions on this? --Ksy92003 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I say go by last name, it's easier to maintain and makes more sense as name is the first column.Michael Greiner 21:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I say, "who cares?" If Fahima07 wants to sort it originally by batting average, then let him. He's the only one updating the Tigers stats. It looks better being sorted by batting average anyway, IMO. Also, now that we're 40+ games into the season, the players won't be moving up and down as much as they were earlier in the season when they had fewer ABs. This is just another example of the WikiProject Baseball "over-processing" Wikipedia. X96lee15 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Fahima07 may be the only one updating the stats, but I have taken the responsibility upon myself to monitor all 30 articles. While he is the only one editing that particular one, and that's where the disagreement occurs, I constantly check all 30 articles and fix any mistakes/inconsistencies I may find. I'm not trying to own everything, but since I am the one who began this project back on January 13, and since I [believe to] have made more edits on these articles than any other user, I feel that I should be responsible for anything that happens. Therefore, I am always checking the Recent Changes and I look at EVERY change that is made to any season article, template, game log, standings, etc., all 66 articles and talk pages, project discussion pages, etc., and if I see something that is inconsistent with all the other articles or any mistakes or if I see anything falling drastically behind, I always try to correct it.

Long story short, just because Fahima07 is the only one to edit the stats for that particular article, X96lee15, that doesn't mean that he is the only one who even bothers to look at it. I look at everything, all the changes made, and I try to keep everything as uniformed as possible. Fahima07 is the only user to revert me sorting the tables by the player's last name because they feel that I shouldn't change it. Need I remind everybody that I began this project? If I change the style, then I'm changing what I did. It's not like I'm removing the hard work anybody else did. I'm simply editing my own work.

And X96lee15, there still is the possibility for somebody passing somebody else in batting average. However, name doesn't change. They're always gonna be in that same spot for the entire season, regardless of their average or any other stat. --Ksy92003 23:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003, I really think you need to read WP:OWN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.81.75 (talk • contribs)

Ksy92003, first of all please remember to be civil in your talk section posts.

Second, it appears that you are the only one who looks at more than two or three articles in this project. So, what difference does it make if we have 30 articles that look the same? I don't see any reason why they need to look the same.

Third, we should be striving to make these articles the best that they can be. By deleting information from one article because it does not appear in another article means that we are intentionally deteriorating these articles. We should be improving the other articles to bring them up to the standards of the other articles. Fbdave 01:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think I was the least bit uncivil in my comment. If so, kindly point me to what I said that wasn't civil.

Second, this discussion isn't about anything major. It's something relatively small and it's an issue I want to resolve. I'm not saying that every article needs to look exactly the same because of the stats. I'm just wondering how we should sort everything.

Third, I'm not deleting any information, so with all due respect, Fbdave, I don't know where you got that from. I agree that if an article is better than the others than we should improve them to get them to the same quality. But I'm not removing any information at all.

And fourth, I'm not assuming ownership at all. --Ksy92003 01:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fbdave is exactly right. There's no rule that everything has to be exactly the same. In fact, there's a rule against that. It's called instruction creep. And when you said you had to monitor all of these articles: you don't own all them, neither are you control of all of them. Just because you do more work on wikipedia than someone else, doesn't mean that you're the one that decides what should stay in and what should go. Who really cares about what you sort by? It doesn't even matter. Right now you're frustrating editors who are contributing helpful edits to Wikipedia to add edits that just create a long list of rules. I advise you to please take a break from Wikipedia. You have cause so many arguments here without showing any signs of a calm, constructive process toward resolutions.++aviper2k7++ 01:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I had to monitor the articles, I don't think. If I did, it was an accident and I apologize. What I meant was that I spend a lot of time monitoring all the changes on the project. I pay attention to all the minor details and I try to make it as best as I can. I also didn't say that my amount of contributions allows me the right to dictate what should and shouldn't be said. When I said "...I have taken the responsibility upon myself to monitor all 30 articles," I didn't mean that I've taken control over the project. I meant that I look at all the articles and try to make whatever changes are necessary if the articles fall too far behind. When I said "since I [believe to] have made more edits on these articles than any other user, I feel that I should be responsible for anything that happens," I meant that I pay a lot of attention to all the articles and if an article falls drastically behind schedule then it's my fault. When I said that I take responsibility, I meant that it is my fault for anything bad happening, not that it's my job to do anything. And to be honest, looking back on that comment, I can see that I did have a fairly poor word choice in that comment. And I can see how that comment was misinterpreted. I apologize for that, as well.

The edit in question is simply about the sorting of player's names. I admit that isn't a really major issue. To be honest, the only reason I brought the discussion here was because I had gotten into an argument with another user and I wanted everybody else's opinion so we could resolve the conflict between Fahima07 and I. I also admit that I am going against what I set as the standard at the beginning of the project. In the beginning, I said "sort by batting average," and suddenly I changed it to "sort by surname." That may have caused some confusion and problems, as I suppose that I possibly did give the impression that "because I said something at the beginning, I can change it whenever I want." That wasn't what I intended, and I also apologize for that.

Back to the point you made, aviper, when you said, "Just because you do more work on wikipedia than someone else, doesn't mean that you're the one that decides what should stay in and what should go." I agree with you. In fact, all the edits I made to this project were edits that could've been made by anybody else. Therefore, I don't think that it's fair to automatically grant myself the right to decide something just because I have made more edits than somebody else. After all, we are all capable of making the same edits. Some of us, like me for example, probably just have a bit too much free time on their hands, which would explain why I've made so many edits to this project. Somebody else, like X96lee15 for example, might not have as much free time to edit Wikipedia as somebody else would, but would make the same edits if they had the time. Therefore, I don't think that "free time" should determine who gets to call all the shots here. I know I'd be angry if somebody who had worked more than me tried to dictate everything and reverted all my edits because it goes against what they think is best.

Now your last point, aviper. I don't believe that a break from Wikipedia will be necessary. From now on, I PROMISE that I will not try to dictate everything that happens. I PROMISE that I will collaborate with the other users to improve the quality of the project. And I PROMISE that I will try not to frustrate anybody else. If any other issues arise, I WILL work calmly with everybody to improve the situations and resolve the conflicts. I don't want everybody (or anybody) to hate me. While I am not going to take a break from editing altogether, I will stop reverting other people's edits. I will only undo other people's edits if there has been a discussion about the edit in question and there has been a consensus to take whatever actions are necessary.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate everybody working on the project for their many edits they've made to continue the progress of this project. Thank you so much for all your hard work, especially for everybody out there who's unfortunately had to suffer through my edits. But that's all in the past now. I promise that won't ever happen again.

By the way, it took me 45 MIN to write that 5 paragraph response, so I really hope that everybody believes me and forgives me for all that I have done. --Ksy92003 05:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mid-game updates of game logs

User:Soxrock has decided to take it upon himself to start updating the game logs and certain stats in player articles during the middle of games. This makes the articles look sloppy and out of date quickly. He has been updating player pages based on what is happening during that game, not on previous games leading to incorrect stats in the articles. I believe this updating is way too WikiNews-ish, which Wikipedia is not supposed to be. We need to make game updates only after games have finished. --Michael Greiner 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but he's done the same thing to 2007 NBA Playoffs, updating the Pistons/Cavaliers score almost consistently. I'm going to leave a message on his talk page, kindly asking him to stop.

On either side, this is too WikiNews-ish. We are an encyclopedia, not ESPN.com. If somebody wants exactly up-to-date scores, Wikipedia isn't the first place they'd look, right? I believe, also, that the game log information shouldn't be added until the game is over. Look at my post above: If we can't link ALL, link NONE. Same thing here: if we can't include ALL the information on a game, include NONE of the information. --Ksy92003 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

May 21 games

I just wanted to let everybody out there know that I have personally made sure that all the game logs / division standings are updated tonight. The final game has just ended, a 9-5 Brewers victory over the Dodgers, and I have updated all the game logs for the 6 games that weren't updated already (excluding the Yankees/Red Sox and Indians/Mariners games). I have also updated all 6 division standings templates.

The only reason why I'm leaving this message is because I recall a user a couple weeks ago saying he was "cynical" about these being updated every day. I want to say that I have been able to update all of them tonight, and (barring any extreme circumstances) I will be able to continue this for the coming weeks. I promise everybody that all of these WILL be updated before I go to sleep every night. I'm not saying that I'll do all of them, but I will do whichever I can whenever I can, especially if some other users are unable to update them for whatever reason.

In fact, just to throw some numbers around, I have made the last 26 edits in the project. Not trying to say anything about anybody else, but I want to prove to everybody out there that I am very dedicated to this project. And I can promise you that everything (except the player stats) will be updated the night of the game. They will be updated by no later than 11:30 PST (2:30 am EST) nightly (minding the super-late 18 inning games we might occasionally have). So if anybody has any more concerns about these being updated nightly, I want to let all of you know that I will make the effort every day to update everything if needed. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Transactions

What is everybody's take on this? I'm bringing this to attention due to the edit made to 2007 Chicago Cubs season. I have currently removed the section from the article, as we shouldn't add sections that haven't been mutually agreed upon first. --Ksy92003 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk about it there. The discussion is for that article, so talk about it on that article's talk page. You can invite people to discuss it there, but please keep discussions on subjects kept on the discussion page of the article being discussed. Again, see WP:CREEP. Thank you.++aviper2k7++ 03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Have trades in articles, leave out call ups/send downs. Michael Greiner 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

aviper, the discussion ISN'T for that article. This is about ALL 30 articles, not just that one. Therefore, it should be discussed here. True, it occured on the Cubs' article, but that's not the only one in the project. There are 29 other articles, therefore it makes more sense to host the discussion here. Can't you agree with that, aviper? --Ksy92003 (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

For all 30? WP:CREEP++aviper2k7++ 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mr.Greiner... Material trades should be listed. —Mike 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003- Why did you remove final season from under the triubune company? A little bit too picky? -EJThunder

This isn't "instruction creep". This is a project discussion, not a single article discussion. This is a discussion about whether or not we want to include the transactions section in the season articles. This isn't a discussion about the transactions section in the Cubs' season article. Please stop bothering me with the "WP:CREEP", aviper. I am fully aware of it and what it means. And I'm also seriously trying to avoid it. --Ksy92003 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ksy, remember to watch your language. Please look at User talk:Ksy92003/Archive-Apr2007#Disputes. Fbdave 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fbdave, actually I went to my talk-page-archive-"Disputes" section. I think that the language that you were talking about in that section was actually the post by aviper2k7, not me. I'm the one who told him to try to be civil; he didn't tell me. Honestly Fbdave, I think you got me confused with aviper2k7 simply because the post was on my talk page. I'm not trying to say anything bad about Mr. aviper2k7, but he's the one who had the "questionable" language on my talk page, not me. So please rescind the talkpage link from your comment, Fbdave. I should've watched my language, but in that discussion (User talk:Ksy92003/Archive-Apr2007#Disputes), I didn't use any language like that. Thank you. --Ksy92003 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All 30 articles are a part of this project. Therefore, a discussion about the project is a discussion about all 30 articles. Again, no INSTRUCTION CREEP here at all, aviper2k7. --Ksy92003 (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep happens when you start a long list of rules or ways to manage a page. It becomes hard and tiresome to maintain pages that have these long list of rules and list of people who should edit a certain page. This page should be a portal of discussion for all the MLB team articles, not the only place of discussion for articles. The Cubs editing pertains to the Cubs page. It's not mentioned on any other page. The discussion is not appropriate here. It seems like someone makes an edit that you, Ksy92003 doesn't like and then you delete the edit and come here to see if there's approval for the edit. There need not be approval for any edits on Wikipedia. In fact, users are encouraged to be bold. The edit to the Cubs page was not in prose and was rather un-encyclopedic. Delete it, make a comment on the talk page explaining why you removed it and if there's no dispute, it's done. Easy. If there is a dispute, try to come half way or make a deal with the person arguing. Maybe the user would add a summary along with the deals? Then the article would be better, which is optimal.

I just don't want everyone to feel that the season articles must conform to the guidelines of the community, because they really don't have to be the same way across. Whatever makes it the best article! If this is a problem that arises in multiple places, then this would be a good place to talk about it so everyone doesn't start to add the same type of edits. But seeing as this is such an isolated incident, I think it's best if the discussion stays there. Besides, we don't want people to stick beans up their nose.++aviper2k7++ 06:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of what instruction creep is, aviper. The main reason why I brought this discussion here as opposed to the talk page is... well, actually there are two pages. First, I felt that nobody would look at the talk page, but would check here. Second, the Cubs page isn't the only one I've seen this on. I've also seen this on 2007 San Francisco Giants season. I didn't think it was sensible to have this discussion at Talk:2007 San Francisco Giants season or Talk:2007 Chicago Cubs season as this was on multiple articles. "If this is a problem that arises in multiple places, then this would be a good place to talk about it..." That's what I did. I saw this in multiple places, so I brought the discussion here.

And anyway, does it matter where the discussion is? As long as we have a discussion, I don't think it matters. I'm aware of "instruction creep" and am trying to avoid it. But as the edit in question is simply an addition that a user felt was necessary to include, and considering the fact that it just came randomly; nobody had talked about it at all, I thought that the best thing to do would be to come here to get a consensus about whether or not we should include it. After all, nobody had thought about "trades" before. And since I brought the discussion here, several people have stated that trades should be included. They wouldn't have even thought about it if a discussion hadn't begun.

And at least I came to have a discussion about something, rather than just deleting it and leaving it at that. I am holding true to my promise. --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ksy's statement here is either a lie or an omission due to a faulty memory. Adding trades was thought of before. I first added a Transactions section to 2007 Kansas City Royals season on February 9. He proceeded to repeatedly delete it on March 23-24 without providing a good reason and without any prior discussion. I eventually just gave up on editing any of the Royals season articles because I just don't care to put up with any of his crap. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it is a big place and I have enough other things on my list that aren't governed by a dictatorial project editor who is relatively new to Wikipedia. (Flexibility and being open to new ideas are good traits for editors to have.) —Mike 04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003,Why did you delete the section? Did I vandalize it? No. Im a Cubs fan and I thought it would add something to the page. Get off your high horse, seriously. I don't need to discuss something like that before I put it up. If I vandalized the article and you had a good reason to delete it then we wouldnt be having this conversation. - EJThunder

I know you didn't vandalize it. What I did was instinctive. I saw that somebody had instantly added an entire section to a season article, one that I was not familiar with. I removed it because it was unfamiliar. But I decided to come to the discussion page for the project to try to get an agreement or something. I wanted other members working on the project to be aware of the additions you made and I wanted to find out if they believe it should be on the article.

And I do agree with them. Important trades should be mentioned on the article; call-ups from the minors and players being sent-down to the minors I don't feel should belong (except if somebody like Ryan Howard was in the minors on rehab and came up to the Philadelphia Phillies, in which case that information would be better off in the season summary, anyway). --Ksy92003 (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe to someone like you the transactions doesn't matter. I live and breathe the Cubs right now and If there is anyone like me calling up Sean Marshall is a big deal. Calling Up Carlos Marmol and Angel Guzman is a big deal. Thats whay I put it on the page. I dont see any problem with having the call ups and send downs. People might wonder: What happened to Neal Cotts? People can see he got sent down and is now starting at AAA if they decided to take a look at the new section I made. -EJThunder

EJThunder, how about including the transactions, but putting it in a nice prose? I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard, and it'd look more encyclopedic. A simple sentence like "On May 29th, 2007 third baseman Mike Smith was called from AAA to fill the spot of injured Jon Jones." It would be nice to have your contributions here.++aviper2k7++ 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

New template !!!

I have created a new template, {{2007 MLB season game log by team}}. Along with {{2007 MLB season by team}}, it looks like:

{{2007 MLB season game log by team}}

Looks exactly the same, but the links are to the game logs as opposed to the articles. This template (obviously the one on the bottom) I have created is for navagation between the game logs, as well as to compliment {{2007 MLB season by team}}. I created it so I could navigate between them easily from my user page.

Is it somehow possible that the template could be included in the game log template without showing up on the season articles when it's transcluded? If so, could somebody tell me how so I can work on that? --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Standings templates

I hope no one minds, but I fiddled a bit with the standings templates (nothing drastic though - I merely updated them and changed some of the sizes and alignments). I centered the team names, because the tables looked somewhat disproportionate with the names aligned to the left, and I made them slightly smaller. If anyone has a serious problem with it, please let me know! Bookworm1 04:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with the alignment, but the size change didn't look very good. So I moved the size back to the original, but left the alignment.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, on Template:2007 NL West standings... well, all teams in that division have long names (three are 3 words, the other one is the Diamondbacks, and Colorado Rockies is long also). The way that they had been changed to, changing the overall width from 33% to 25%, made them all go to two lines. I like the centering of the team names, but changing the width makes the teams go to two lines, and if only one were like that it would make it disproportionate when viewed on 2007 Major League Baseball season. The templates aren't too big or anything the way they were; I think they can stay their original size. --Ksy92003(talk) 14:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I created any trouble with these adjustments. Thanks for fixing up my mistake! Bookworm1 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I got tired of abusing the tabs on my browser to open up each of the standings template to update them, so I added a navigation bar to the bottom of each one. The navigation bar does not appear when the template is transcluded into an article, so it's purely for navigation if someone is on the template page itself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The way you had it still caused some difficulties; for example, it only limited you to two other templates. And as I've said many times before, 'ALL or NONE. Now, I removed all that from the templates before I saw your post here, Bobblehead; if I had read this comment first, I wouldn't have deleted it, rather come here first, so I apologize for removing that. But I still think it shouldn't be there. For example, you couldn't go from AL Central to NL Central, AL West to NL West, or AL East to NL East.

Second, I think that kinda defeats the purpose of having the template. It kinda seems pointless to add extra information to a template page that's gonna be transcluded into another article, even if it won't show up in the transclusion. To me, it seems really weird to include something and then exclude it when you transclude it. (Kinda catchy, huh?) Again, it's one of those things that I can't really explain, but it's kinda disturbing in a way because you're still really limited to where you can go to.

Now, that template I have above, that template I created for easier movement from game log to game log, and I didn't know how to do it, but what you've done to the standings templates to not include the extra links in the transclusion is what I've been trying to figure out. I think that the template I've created above could be placed in all 6 standings templates and all 30 game logs, with the <noinclude> / </noinclude> so it won't be shown when transcluded. That template links to all 6 standings templates, all 30 game logs, and 2007 Major League Baseball season to make everything easier. Since that one has everything on there, I think that template would be much better in the standings templates, and can also be added to the game logs. --Ksy92003(talk) 07:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'd prefer your template over what I added, go crazy.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 13:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed game log changes

I've just come up with an idea for our game logs in the 2007 MLB team season articles. We could add another column (titled "BR Box") that would have a link to the box score for that game on Baseball-Reference.com. This could provide a link to even more information, without making the size of the table too massive. A reader wondering how many strikeouts the starting pitcher recorded could simply click on the link and find that stat somewhere on the page. I toyed a bit with the original table (don't worry, though — I learned my lesson and did the experiment on one of my own subpages). Please check out the revised table at my laboratory and let me know what you think!
– Bookworm1 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I love box scores. You can "watch" a game by just looking at them. Another option on where to put the link would be to just make the score of the game the link. That would get rid of the extra column. Or maybe someone could implement a vertical "hide" link that makes the column appear or disappear...... I've toyed with the idea for a while now, but never wanted to cut through the red-tape to make it happen. I'm also not a fan of the little arrow icon that comes with external links. X96lee15 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If this does go through, I propose two things.

First, I think that, instead of making the scores the link or another column, I suggest that the link be implemented for the game number. I can't explain it, it just makes more sense to me because, after all, the box score is the "game", not just the score.

Second, Baseball-reference.com is not the best website to use. MLB.com would be a much better site to use because that is the official website of Major League Baseball.

But right now, I'm undecided on how we'd put them in the game log. And I don't think we should add the box scores to any of the game logs until after we decide how we want to include them in the game logs. That would be time-consuming to go back to 30 game logs for 3 months and input a different URL address for each and every game, so the person/people who do that would have to be up to the task. Soxrock and I are working together, and if there are any big projects that he decides to tackle, I'm helping him with those to lower his work-load. If it is decided to implement the box scores in the game logs, and how, then I think that I can get Soxrock and I to do it. I'm pretty sure that Soxrock and I could do it ourselves, meaning nobody else would have to worry about it or waste time to change all the links and include them all.

But all-in-all, MLB.com is a much better source than Baseball-reference; MLB is the official website, and it's easier to navigate MLB.com than Baseball-reference.com because MLB.com has drag-down boxes, can be sorted, and Baseball-reference.com is much more limited to how it can be displayed. --Ksy92003(talk) 07:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I like B-R reference because it is so much simpler than mlb or espn or any of the other media outlets. There is no flash on the site has only a single ad at the top. You're not inundated with ads for "XM" "mlb.tv" X96lee15 14:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter what source is linked to for the box score? There is a requirement in Wikipedia that things have to be sourced, so why not add a "Source" column and then leave it up to the person that is adding the game log to decide which source to leave it up to? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Reference would be the best site to use because MLB.com box scores go away. MLB.com is just awful. And what about seasons that aren't in 2007?++aviper2k7++ 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. My vote is for Baseball Reference - BR preserves game logs for players and teams, going all the way back to 1950 or something. I think Baseball-Reference preserves every game log possible, while MLB.com only shows game logs for this year, making BR a much better choice. MLB.com is more of a news site, BR is a site baseball geeks like me love - it keeps track of about every statistic possible and still keeps you updated to the standings in the MLB. Bookworm1 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's still on this discussion, but I made a very minuscule change to my revised game log - I changed the title of the box score column to read "Box" instead of "BR Box". Also, I think everyone here would agree that if this revision did go through, the changes wouldn't be implemented until next year (so we don't have to go back and fix every table for this year halfway through the season). Again, thanks for everyone's input. Bookworm1 01:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like Baseball-reference because, for me it's hard to navigate. However, I understand that sites like MLB.com and ESPN.com only have their box scores for 5-6 years (maybe only 2 years for MLB.com) and then go away, replacing them with more current box scores.

That said, I think MLB and ESPN would be the best box scores to use for the current seasons, but that causes the problem for after those box scores are removed from their databases. We're not gonna want to go change 4860 references (162 references * 30 teams) which would make B-R the best choice for the long run.

Again, I don't like B-R personally; I go to ESPN or MLB when I want to know stuff for this year, but I can't get this year's box scores 7 years from now. So, since B-R doesn't delete their box scores at all, and I don't know of any other website like that, B-R would clearly be the best choice for the long-term project. I know that it isn't as official as MLB or ESPN, but it is the best for the long run.

Long story short, I prefer MLB and ESPN to B-R, but B-R is the only website of its kind that actually has every single box score going back decades without removing them, so I think B-R is the best to use in this case, despite me preferring the other two.

That said, how would we want to include them in the game logs? I still don't know how to explain my opinion on that, but I still think that it would be easier to link the game # with the reference. I guess if I had to try to explain it, my reasoning would be because the box score is for the entire game, meaning the date, team, score, winning pitchers, attendance, and team records. And referencing the game number seems to me to make more sense than anything else, because it's the game, not just any fraction of the game...

Please, if anybody doesn't understand that last paragraph, please tell me and I'll seriously try to explain it better. I've just gotta sleep on it. --Ksy92003(talk) 06:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wildcard standings

I'd like to request permission to add the {{2007 NL Wild Card standings‎}} template to the 2007 Atlanta Braves season page. I am making text additions to that page now, and would like to be able to see the standings without having to hunt for it. I know some of you think it's to early to worry about the Wildcard race, but how does including it harm antything? - BillCJ 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Standings dates (again)

(starting new topic for ease of discussion) Is there a particular reason that date of the standings are not included? Something like Standings for all games through June 30, 2007 would be very helpful. - BillCJ 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

“ [I]nclude the 'as of' note for a while and if people are able to keep up with the updates and prove the note is not needed then we can remove it later. ”

They have been kept up to date ever since this was the agreement on May 12. Last night was the only day it wasn't kept up to date, but the only reason for that was because I was not able to update the standings template until today. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasoning for not having a date. I can see harm being done without it though. What damage does it do to have it? If someone were to see it was out of date, they might be able to update it for you. ANyway, given that this is date-sensitive material, it should have a date. I have brought up both questions from today at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, and would like to take up the discussion there. Thanks - BillCJ 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: if all 6 division standings templates have a date shown at the top of each template, then when they are all transcluded into 2007 Major League Baseball season, that notice is gonna show up 6 times.

As for right now, as the templates are, in fact, being kept updated, and have been every day for the past 1½ months, I don't think a notice is necessary. If updating them eventually becomes a problem and the templates become out of date for a couple days, then perhaps it would be necessary. But as for right now, the templates are being updated daily and again have been every day for at least the past 1½ months, there isn't any sort of problem currently present about them becoming out of date. I don't think that anything should be changed right now, as they are being kept up to date. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But no one will know for sure if they are up to date without a date! That's my point here. Most standings I've seen online and in print have a date and time - I'm not even asking for the tiem here, at least not yet! As to the dates showing up on the standings, it would be useful in knowing if one of the templates is outdated.

If it doesn't say anything, then somebody looking at it would then assume that it would be up to date. --Ksy92003(talk) 00:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I ALWAYS check the date when I look at sports standings, and I don't see how this should be an exeption. It's standard media practice, and you haven't given a good reason for ignoring that in this case. - BillCJ 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going along with what we originally had. We haven't had a problem with it for 1½ months; I don't see why now it should be a problem again. But I was just going to suggest that you re-open the discussion if you really have a problem with it. I don't think it's gonna make much a difference, and I still think it would be rather redundant to have a date posted on pages like 2007 Major League Baseball season 6 separate times if the standings were all updated on the same date.

As for Yahoo.com and MLB.com, mind that those notices are added automatically by the computer, not by the person who edits the standings for the respective websites. And the reason why they have the computer do that is because of server lag, an issue that Wikipedia doesn't have to worry about. MLB.com and Yahoo.com are their own separate websites run by paid officials, and that note is added by their computer. The standings are updated ASAP by those officials and the automatic note is added by the computer in the case of server over-usage. But that isn't a problem that we have to deal with.

As the old saying goes: Don't hate the player; hate the game. Don't argue with me because we've reached an agreement on the matter. Here's another saying that shows my opinion on this: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There isn't a problem with the standings being out of date now, so I don't think it's necessary to add a note to the top of the template that is needed, albeit a minor priority, only when the templates are out of date. Again, they haven't been out of date in 1½ months, so that's 8 weeks of not having any sort of problem like that. From the quote that I gave you from the link, it says "[I]f people are able to keep up with the updates and prove the note is not needed then we can remove it later." We have done a good job of keeping them updated, so I don't think it's necessary to re-add the note if it's being updated every day. --Ksy92003(talk) 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My problem isn't knowing if it's out-of-date, but it if it up to date! If I assume it is up to date, but here is a date there, then it tells me I'm right. But if I assume it is up-to-date, and it's not, then there is a problem. Having the date avoids the latter problem, but causes no harm to the former case. In general, date-sensitive material should be dated, no matter how inconvinent it might be. - BillCJ 00:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis Cardinals

Some individual decided to wipe out the entire article for "St. Louis Cardinals 2007 season" and redirect it to the main St. Louis Cardinals page. I would fix this if I could but frankly I do not know how. Vidor 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been undone by the user who made that edit. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add Branch Rickey to the list of Hall of Famers under the Cardinals section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvutrombone (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn name from Dodgers

As I have withdrew my name from the 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season, there is nobody actively contributing to that and someone will need to fill in. It appears both of the other editors who have their names up, are both on extended wikibreaks. Thanks. BrianY 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jays

It looks like alot of work needs to be done for the Jays season pages. Im starting my way up from 1978 by adding stats and standings now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hockey (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we start...

Doing this kind of page for 2008? Some of the 2008 pages are already up... BrianY 22:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)