Talk:2007 St. Louis Cardinals season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Player Stats[edit]

I'm not going to tell someone not to do it, but one has to wonder about the utility of updating player stats on a daily basis. Wikipedia is not a sports news site. Vidor 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vidor you're right...but wikipedia is a consortium of information, and baseball stats is information, however trivial it is... Asian Animal 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it is already a week out of date and we are only a week into the season. If it isn't updated after every game, then it needs to be removed. --Holderca1 12:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the stats being updated, it would the job of the page editor and those intrested in the page to keep it updated. From time to time the page will get updated. Like any other current events and the nature of wikipedia, things are never as current as they can be. As for your concerns I urge you to discuss them in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles page. Asian Animal 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That page lists Vidor as the page editor and he is the one that brought the subject up. --Holderca1 16:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be me. I can't see the utility in updating statistics every single day. There are a hundred websites out there where one can get up-to-date statistics. That being said, I'm not going to stop anybody else if they want to come to this page from time to time and update the stats. The article is by definition a work in progress and will likely change quite a bit between now and the end of the season. Vidor 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further discussion, I've changed my mind and removed the stats. Too much time and work for no real purpose. Links are provided to stats at ESPN.com. The stats can be added at the end of the 2007 season. Vidor 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further further discussion, it has been deemed necessary we wait one week. Vidor 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template now includes a link to stats.++aviper2k7++ 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No lead?[edit]

There is no lead in this page. It seams to all be one chunk of stuff. See WP:LEAD. This article needs a lead and then needs to be organized in proper section, not just all jammed together.++aviper2k7++ 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other editors who shall remain nameless are responsible for that. I will write a little more about the Cardinals' poor start once the month of April is over. Vidor 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, let's talk[edit]

I titled the April heading "April: sluggish start". This was removed for being "POV". I do not think it's POV to call a 10-13 start "sluggish" and I think any rational person would agree.

I wrote that the Cardinals were not hitting well as a team, thus causing the poor start, and I illustrated this by giving the batting averages of several of the everyday players (bad) and noting that on April 29 the Cards stood thirteenth in the league out of sixteen in runs scored. This was also removed.

I wrote that Hancock and Kile are the only two baseball players in the last quarter century to "die" during the course of the season. This was changed to "pass away" because the other user evidently has some kind of issue with the word "die". I don't even know how to respond to this other than noting that if the other user is determined that every single vocabulary word in the article meet his approval, then he might as well write it himself.

Finally, I at various times deleted the "season summary" and "Josh Hancock" subheadings because I think they look ugly. Too many subheadings makes the article look bad. The "Josh Hancock" paragraph is listed under subheading 1.1.1.1 in the current format. Additionally, the "Season Summary" heading is useless. I cannot think of any reason to have a heading that says "Regular Season" and then have another heading saying "Season Summary" underneath it before beginning the text of the season. As for standard formats, most of the articles don't seem to have anyone writing in them, and at no time have I heard a rational explanation for why each article must have exactly the same format.

In closing, if other posters are determined to dictate the content of the article down to the last comma, then I see no reason for me to participate in writing it. Vidor 04:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go over all of these right now, but the sections are very painful. There's no need for a season summary header when there already is "regular season". I mean, you don't need an "article summary" header for anything because it's inferred that you're summarizing the article. The 1.1.1.1 is insane. You don't need to subdivide April if there's only one thing to divide in there. It looks pretty silly and cramped. I'm removing them.++aviper2k7++ 05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Vidor 05:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit history: "die" and "April 29" are used earlier in that paragraph. please try to avoid unnecessary repitition, as using synonyms/alternate wording to avoid repitition improves the article ....It's pedantry like this I have a very hard time dealing with. Much in the way I can't deal with the repeated use of "later that night" to describe the Cubs game that was scheduled for 17 hours later. That there is terrible style. Vidor 23:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a "sluggish start" isn't a good way of heading it. For example, whereas 10-13 would be a sluggish start for a team like the Yankees, it wouldn't be a bad start for a team like the Royals or Devil Rays, would it? This is why it's POV. There are different ways of classifying a sluggish start. If the same record wouldn't be considered sluggish for teams like Kansas City or Tampa Bay, then don't include that wording.
Second, apparently I'm blind, Vidor. Where is "later that night" repeated in the article? Because I surely couldn't find it anywhere. Anyway, "April 29" is already used to describe the incident, so it would be bad writing/word choice and unnecessary repition to say that the game was also "April 29" when it could be said as "later that night." The same thing goes with the word "die." We should always make a strong attempt at avoiding repitition.
I'm sure if anybody would know about "terrible style," you would, as it's something that you can't seem to avoid, Vidor. In fact, I'd say that you seem to be attracted to it and maybe you're addicted to it. --Ksy92003 23:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Later that night" is bad because it wasn't "later that night". Josh Hancock was killed at 12:30 a.m., in the middle of the night. There was that night, then the day of April 29, then the NEXT night, the night of April 29, when the game was actually scheduled. I didn't say "later that night" was repeated, I said it was being used repeatedly in your edits. It's bad writing. In any case, shorter is always better, so saying "the April 29 game against the Cubs" is better than "the game against the Cubs scheduled for later that night". It's bad for two different reasons. But you've appointed yourself as the editor of this article, so whatever. Vidor 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. First of all, 12:30 AM on a Sunday is "Sunday morning". The game was on Sunday night. Therefore, the game was "later, that night." The AM is considered morning, not the previous night. Would you consider 8:00 AM on Sunday to be Saturday night? No, I don't think so. Any way is better than simply repeating the date already mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Oh my gosh. --Ksy92003 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Morning" starts at sunrise, chief. And the game was not "later that night" because "that night" ended at sunrise. Which, you know, was at least 12 hours before scheduled game time. Saying "later that night" is simply wrong. Unless you think the Cards and Cubs were set for first pitch at 3 a.m.? Vidor 03:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sunrise has different times, "chief". For instance, if sunrise is at 5:31 in Long Beach, California and an event occurs at 5:30, and the same event occurs at the same time in San Francisco, California, which might have a sunrise time of 5:29, would the event in Long Beach be considered a "night" event and the event in San Francisco be considered a "morning" event? I don't get that, "chief." --Ksy92003 03:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the Farmer's Almanac, but I am betting that the sun was not up at 12:30 am CST anywhere in the contiguous 48 United States. In any case, the front page says "later that night", and that is quite obviously wrong. Maybe somebody else can fix it. Vidor 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Logs[edit]

just wondering how you edit/update the game logs. thanks. Lindell005 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow... nevermind. that's confusing. Lindell005 01:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Also, is there a way to make those minimized to start? 162 games is just a big chunk of space to take up if the reader isn't looking for it. Phyrkrakr (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 St. Louis Cardinals season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_St._Louis_Cardinals_season&oldid=1196505047"