![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- PKirlin 04:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
I have a few things to say here.
OK everyone, tell me what you think here. Thanks jj137 ( Talk) 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello, all!
Please go here for a renewed discussion on relocated sports teams. Thanks! BigSteve ( talk) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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:
I'll get on those suggestions right now. Thanks for your help.-- Djrobgordon 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- PKirlin 04:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
I have a few things to say here.
OK everyone, tell me what you think here. Thanks jj137 ( Talk) 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello, all!
Please go here for a renewed discussion on relocated sports teams. Thanks! BigSteve ( talk) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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:
I'll get on those suggestions right now. Thanks for your help.-- Djrobgordon 03:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)