Portal talk:Baseball/Archive 1

Introduction

Hi! This is where we can discuss new ideas for this portal. I particularly like User:MusiCitizen's idea of a "This day in baseball" section. Anyone else have ideas? Also, let's start a voting system for featured article and featured picture. I think we can consider changing them once a week. What does everyone think about that? Danny 04:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Change the color maybe?

The dark green background + black text in the textboxes do not look good at all. Maybe someone talented can come up with a better color scheme.User:Komsomolets 1.18.06

I agree, this page looks hideous. 71.198.153.155 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please change the color! I don't know how to do this, but would really like someone to try, the page looks terrible. Chart123 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh!

Make sure you look at this page in Firefox. Needs some massive reformatting, things are all over the place. ℬastique▼^talk 03:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, reformatting the entire portal to be pleasing to multiple web browsers is a must - it doesn't look good when viewed in Apple's Safari, either. Plus, the teal-navy blue color scheme is perhaps not particularly pleasing.Xinoph 20:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I Changed some of it a bit so the text stays in the blocks. I'm not sure what to do about the color I don't like much,maybe baseball field green?Jackalsclaw 20:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking the plate

Hey, I didn't notice much activity in Wikiproject:Baseball, so I thought I might post this here. Would someone please copyedit/expand/fact check Blocking the plate? —Sean κ. + 22:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this dead?

--PKirlin 04:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's completly dead but it's on life support. Yanksox 16:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Style Issues

I would like to start an important discussion on the stylistic nature of this portal. Any one reading the portal can certainly pick up on the approach used by the portal’s maintainer User:Jahiegel. And said approach, while certainly encyclopedic in the Britannica sense, is sometimes archaic in its wording. This I believe this contributes to a lack of readability; a quality championed in all featured portals and featured articles of Wikipedia.

While I acknowledge the current style’s encyclopedic merit, and I appreciate the work that jahiegel has contributed to this portal since late May/early June, I think a generally more readable structure to the page would take it to the next level.

Let me say that some elements of the portal should remain the way they are. For example the definition of baseball is perfectly acceptable the way it reads now. It defines what the sport is in “black and white” rulebook language.

However there are some parts of the portal that should remain less convoluted than they currently are, and have been. For example:

(Copied from the “Did you know…?” section, 8-14-06) Did you know… “that, as ascribed to a Major League Baseball rivalry, Subway Series, a locution derived from New York City's use of a rapid transit subway, was first used to reference the rivalry between the New York Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers, which teams, between 1941 and 1956, contested eight World Series, and the matchup of which teams is the most common in Series history?”

Did you know…“...that, whilst seven Major League Baseball players—Christy Mathewson, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Sandy Koufax, Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, Lefty Gómez, and Roger Clemens—have, by at least twice leading either the American or National League in earned run average, wins, and strikeouts in a single season, achieved multiple pitching Triple Crowns, only two Saint Louis Cardinals second baseman Rogers Hornsby, pictured, and Boston Red Sox left fielder Ted Williams—have, by twice leading one league in home runs, runs batted in, and batting average in a single season, achieved multiple batting Triple Crowns?”

While these are two brief examples, other parts of the portal (including the news section) are also unnecessarily complex at times in its syntax.

We need to ask ourselves, are we writing to the general public in a professional, yet clear style? Or, frankly, are we writing to Herman Melville?

In order as this to be a general introduction to a conversation, I’ll simply bullet some of the general points I’d like to make.

• Baseball in the English Wikipedia should generally default to American English in its wording. As per the recommendations of WP:MoS#National varieties of English, I think this fits best for most English articles on baseball. The game as its known today grew up in the United States, and has its jargon steeped in American English. While the game is described in some corners of the world in British English, Canadian English or Australian English, the majority of articles you will find on baseball are in American English. This portal should adhere to same style.

• Verbs should not necessarily be confined to the basic “rulebook terms”. Words like “slug”, “crush”, “snare”…etc. are not jocular but are part of the very fabric of baseball and the way it is described. These words do not lack encyclopedic merit, but are probably more appropriate in describing events that occur during the game. Yet, these terms are constantly removed from the portal to preserve some antiquated style the portal was overwhelmed with earlier this year. As all editors are aware of there are always exceptions to the rule.

I certainly have assumed good faith in the edits that have been made, and I do not assume that the maintainer is attempting to own the portal. Still, I am a bit dismayed that a small grammar error here or there, needs the entire submission to be entirely reworked, into said forced style.

I hope that this post can begin a discussion from several editors who are both involved an uninvolved with Baseball on Wikipedia. I also hope this will lead to an overall resolution to an issue where attempted compromise has not been successful.

Wxthewx99 18:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll address the issue—one that certainly merits a discussion—more generally in a bit, but it should be observed that slug, snare, and crush are, as used here, IMHO, emphatically unencyclopedic (toward which, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NoseNuggets). In any event, I'm quite glad that Wwthewx99 has so decorously begun this discussion, and I look forward to the community's discussing the issue (even as I fear that Wwthewx99 and I might be the only ones ever to come to this page). Joe 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This certainly is topic that should be discussed, as in it may set some sort of example for other sport portals as well. I also read your purported example of NoseNuggets RfC, and could not find how the contributions in question begin to feign the clearly NPOV exampled used by the RfC

(Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NoseNuggets, 8/14/06)

• "An example of the user's refusal to write in "encyclopedic" style (from Dec. 5):

'Seattle Seahawks 42, Philadelphia Eagles 0: The Eagles retired Reggie White's number 92 at halftime, the home team was pretty much retired before that. The Seahawks used three turnover returns for touchdowns — two of them by Andre Dyson — and two Shaun Alexander touchdowns to thrash the "Beagles".'"

(Copied from Portal:Baseball/News 21:28 13 Aug 2006 post by WxtheWx99, 8/14/06)

• "Cleveland Indians designated hitter, Travis Hafner, connects for his sixth grand slam of the 2006 season, as part of Cleveland’s 13-0 victory over the Kansas City Royals. Hafner’s first inning grand slam off of Royals starting pitcher Luke Hudson, ties the major league record for grand slams in a single season. Former New York Yankees first baseman Don Mattingly has held the mark since the 1987 season. Earlier this year Hafner set the record for most grand slams before the All-Star break with five."

All editors with an opinion are urged to partcipate. Wxthewx99 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that Wxthewx99's edits shared the deficiencies of those of NoseNuggets about which the RfC was taken; they surely do not. I meant, though, to suggest that connects for, slugs, crushes, and snares, though frequently used with respect to baseball, are plainly unencyclopedic, consistent with the Wikipedia is not "SportsCenter" proposition toward which I understand the RfC to go. Let me undertake to address quite clearly the questions Wxthewx raises.

• I think it correct that we ought generally to use American English here, and I recognize that I've occasionally eschewed such usage; it's a problem on which I'll work.
• A portal serves principally to present quality articles in order that a prospective editor, having happened upon the portal, will conclude that Wikipedia doesn't suck and that he or she ought to join the project. Ancillarily, though, portals serve to present thematic articles on which editors might work, in view of which I often craft lengthy DYK entries, attempting to include copious links in order that an editor might, having followed one of the links, find an article that he might improve. I think the syntax employed in the DYKs adduced is exceedingly simple and altogether encyclopedic; I do, it should be observed, use whilst in place of while, and that ought to be redressed.
• I do not seek to impose my (idiosyncratic) style on the portal, but I do, as ought any editor, try to cleanup certain additions. I have not, to my recollection, edited any Wxthewx contribution exclusively in view of stylistic concerns, save for on those occasions when certain formulations were plainly unencyclopedic. When I do cleanup grammar and syntax, though, I might happen to rework text, but I think such reworking to be altogether reasonable. The MoS principle that Wxthewx adduces supra ought, I think, to extend to this issue; where an editor has made a substantive contribution that otherwise meets encyclopedic standards, another editor should not undertake to rework text solely because he prefers a different style. Here, though, each time I've revised the style of an entry, I've done so either in an effort to comport such entries with encyclopedic standards or only tangentially in an effort to remedy grammatical and syntatic problems. Where my work is replete with solecisms, I expect that other editors will undertake to improve my work, and I accept that they may make certain stylistic revisions—revisions that would not be justified were my initial work devoid of error—in pursuance of such improvement. In the Hafner edit, there were two minor errors—Hafner was inappropriately set off by commas and the Hafner's...Hudson phrase was inappropriately followed by a comma—and several other minor problems (Major League Baseball to have been capitalized [here as a league rather than as a descriptor, in view of the global nature of the portal], for example), and concomitant to the cleaning up of such edits I may have made stylistic revisions, which I think to be understandable. I suppose I ought to set out clearly what principle I think ought to control: Where user A prefers to write in style A and user B prefers to write in style B, where style A and style B are equally appropriate for encyclopedic text, and where user A makes a given substantive contribution first, user B ought not to edit that contribution exclusively to impose his style but understandably may make stylistic changes passim when he undertakes to address grammatical and syntactic problems. Is that an idea with which most agree? Joe 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the principle you just outlined, if only that were the way it was being treated. My entire goal is for a compromise of some sort between styles. Unfortunatly this has been unattainable at this point.

If this portal had been styled in such a fashion since its inception, I would not have a whole lot of ground to stand on. But this is not the case.

And whether the "SportsCenter style" (you've unfairly and unceremoniously tagged my writing fashion) is not encyclopedic is simply your opinion jahiegel. I don't believe the style I have introduced is similar to some Sports Talk drivel, nor do I believe it to be that far from an acceptable encyclopedic entry. Also, I've laid out my defense for a less verbose style, and that still has not been addressed.

Take a look at any featured portal, whether it introduce athletics or not. I think that these styles are what we, in time, should try to emulate. But I fully respect a blend of the two styles that are being discussed.

Anyways since Jahiegal and I do not see eye-to-eye on this subject, hopefully in a few days we will have some more opinions. Supporting or opposing POV to either side are welcome. Wxthewx99 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Wxthewx's contributions are altogether of the SportsCenter style; it is, I think, quite fair to say that snagged, crushed, and snared are unencyclopedic and fair to ascribe the appellative SportsCenterish to such locutions, and I can't imagine that anyone would quarrel with such ascription.

As to the less verbose style, I apologize for not having better addressed the issue; I think the "verbose" style I use to be neither better nor worse than the less verbose style for the use of which Wxthewx advocates, and I don't think it appropriate that either of us edit the other's contributions solely toward the imposition of another valid style. Once more, though, were I to make a contribution that employed terms that were plainly unencyclopedic (consider, for example, the blockbuster formulation of the Lee, et al.-Mench, et al., trade) or that were marked by grammatical or syntactic error, I'd think it appropriate that others edit my work and would understand if, in the course of such editing, those users made stylistic changes.

There is, to be sure, not one reversion or revision of Wxthewx99's work that I undertook that served only to change the style in which such work was written. I'm not certain that there's any better understanding to which we might come than that prose that is perfectly encyclopedic ought not to be rewritten solely for stylistic reasons. I make plenty of errors here, but I don't know that one can point to any plainly unencyclopedic or ungrammatical edits in the DYK or news items Wxthewx presents.

Perhaps we ought to put the issue succinctly (a first for me): Do the editors of this portal agree that neither of the two styles here discussed is superior to the other, such that there is no need for one to rework edits that are otherwise encyclopedic in tone and syntax? If so, I think we've no problem. Joe 06:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Revival

Am I right in assuming this Portal's been abandoned. I'd like to revive it in time for Opening Day. I'm planning on looking through the other portals and seeing what choices they've made that we can steal, so if anyone's still watching this and is married to some content or design element here let me know. Or just leave a note if you're interested in helping me revive this. I prefer to decide things by consensus, but I'll go ahead and start making unilateral decisions if no-one else shows an interest. --Djrobgordon 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the portal and at your sandbox. Dropping the background color was a good move -- much easier to read. Also the smaller sections work well -- not so overwhelming.--Kathy A. 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at your sandbox as well, it looks nice. Smaller boxes are nicer than the large sections, and the colours work well, better than what's their now. Good work. --Borgarde^talk 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. --Djrobgordon 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of notes, for anyone who's paying attention to this portal: 1) The archives are not permanently gone. They're necessary for a portal to be featured, as I hope this will be at some point. Right now I'm looking at how some featured portals have formatted their archives in order to figure out how best to do the ones here.

2) I'm experimenting with queuing future content using variables. It should cut down on the need for regular maintenance, and in particular will enable us to update "Did you know..." daily. With the obvious exception of News, I think all of the content sections could benefit from this.

The downside is that the method requires a bit more know how on the part of editors. One solution could be to provide links to the queued article on a nomination page (also in the works), as Portal:Architecture has done here. That way any editor will be able to find future articles, without figuring out our naming scheme.

I'll leave more notes as I think of them. Any questions, here's the place. --Djrobgordon 01:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you're interested in how I'm setting up the archives, check out Portal:Baseball/Did you know/Archive. This one will be the most complicated, since it's the only section that automatically updates daily. Again, all comments are welcome. --Djrobgordon 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Australian Portal has Portal:Australia/Featured_article/2007 for featured articles. So like you have with a template. I think it's alright. --Borgarde^talk 04:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

A few things...

I have a few things to say here.

• There was not a selected bio, article, and picture for the month chosen. It said to choose one immediately, so I went ahead and picked a picture. If you don't like it, go ahead and change it.
• Baseball is a huge category. WikiProject Baseball and this portal have lots of potential. I am willing to work at this and even maybe eventually make this a featured portal. That would be very nice.
• I think it would be cool to eventually change the monthly picture, article, and bio (or just article and bio, or just one of those, whatever works) to a daily thing. I could pick one of them for each day if nobody else is willing.

OK everyone, tell me what you think here. Thanks   jj137 (Talk) 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're having problems in finding content or time to update this portal, you could consider adapting it to use {{random portal component}} as used by Portal:Association football and others. This template chooses a random article/picture/bio from a subpage for display on every page view and keeps the portal content fresh without having to queue up content for months in advance (see also Portal:Association football/Instructions/Advanced and Portal:Association football/Selected article). 86.21.74.40 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting exchange! AdjustShift (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal Updates

I'm not going to go against the flow just leave a couple of passing comments. The DYKs could be randomized so they same ones aren't always up, same with the quotes. Finally the news section could be automatically imported with the WikiNews Impoter Bot. Very nice color scheme by the way. §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 20:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Before We Knew It, a new article started by me, appeared on DYK. Will it be mentioned in this portal? AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just let you know for future reference, just click the edit button and add it in there.—Borgarde^talk 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal work

FYI, I'm giving the portal some work with User:Durova to try and get this bad boy up to featured portal quality. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal on Naming Conventions

Hello, all!

Please go here for a renewed discussion on relocated sports teams. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

News section

That news section is mostly out of date (aside from the Cardinals entry). Is there a better way to have the bot bring the news than the current method? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

Baseball

In the Quotes section, the quote link is going to the list of players, not quotes: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Category:Baseball_players That is confusing. Is that what you want?

---

I've been working for the last few weeks on reviving Portal:Baseball, and I'd love some notes on how it's progressing. There are a few things I'm still not happy with (the "Topics" section, for instance), but for the most part I feel pretty good about it. Thanks in advance.--Djrobgordon 02:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have a few comments.

• I would recommend rotating content for the Article, Picture, and Biography sections.
  • Portal is currently set up for all material to be rotated out weekly.
• Your current article as well as some of the archived ones have been rated start class, I would recommend only displaying Wikipedia's best work, preferably FA-Class or GA-Class.
• The bold article name in each section should be a link to the article you could still use the more option at the end.
  • Linked all article subjects.
• Your selected pictures need an image credit.
  • Added credits to current and future selected picture.
• A few of your topics are categories and should be moved to that section.
• In your quotes section I see no reason for there to be an external link for each quote this would lead people away from Wikipedia.
  • Links removed, as per explanation below.
• Some of the links to your Associated Wikimedia lead to create pages on the sister projects the should either be correctly linked or removed.
  • Redirected dead links.

These are just a few off the top of my head. Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 03:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. If you don't mind, I have a couple of question about your suggestions:

• As of now, there are only fourteen articles under WikiProject Baseball listed as good or featured articles. In addition, one is a list and two are only tangentially related to the sport. On the nomination pages for selected bios, I have the lowest acceptable class as B. Is this acceptable, when there is a lack of peer-reviewed articles, or would it be better to rotate the few top-quality articles in more frequently?

That is a matter of debate. Personally I believe that all Portals should have FA or GA class articles for the selected article, however you will find some reviewers that don't have a problem with a B-class article. The problem that you will run into is; when you put the portal up for featured you will need support from all kinds. So I would recommend rotating the better articles and working to get more featured or GA class articles.

• The reason for the external links in the "Quotes" section is that there are very few baseball quotes on Wikipedia or Wikiquote, so I had to get them from outside. Is it necessary for me to source the quotes, or is it okay to let them stand? I could add the sourced quotes to the applicable articles, but I don't really have the time to integrate them properly, and creating a "Quotes" section for one quote seems tacky. Perhaps I should add them, with refs, to WikiQuote?

There aren't really any portals that cite quote references, having a link to the quotes author is adequate. Not to mention that having an external link in the quote section could draw people away from wikipedia and since a portals purpose is to be a "portal" to certain parts of Wikipedia then having those links defeat the purpose.Cheers — WilsBadKarma ^(Talk) 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on those suggestions right now. Thanks for your help.--Djrobgordon 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, as well.--Djrobgordon 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)