User talk:Punx.django

Welcome!

Hello, Punx.django, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1962 Houston Colt .45s season

I wanted to let you know that I have been working for some time on a project to standardize all MLB team-season pages, starting in 1876, and I am currently working on 1962. I noticed you doing a lot of work on this page, but in order to bring it back to standardized form I will have to undo and a lot of that work, or at least modify it substantially. I just wanted to warn you that this was coming so you don't go ballistic when it happens :) . -Dewelar (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your second question first: Tie games do not count in the standings, therefore they have been removed from the standings template. They can be noted on the individual team-season pages, but because they are not official games, they do not belong on a template which reflects official standings.

As for your changes, the reason most of them will have to be undone is that it appears you have been using the current Astros season as a model for the '62 Colt .45s season rather than a completed season. Ongoing seasons are treated differently from ones that are completed. I haven't looked too closely, but it appears the stat tables are the biggest thing that will need fixing. The game log is OK as it is, although the Baseball WikiProject has pretty much decided that they're not going to be creating them for past seasons. I'm not sure what else on the page is yours, so if you have any questions feel free to ask. -Dewelar (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Like I said, I wanted to give you fair warning before I just went ahead and did stuff. As Satchel Paige might say, that sort of thing can really anger up the blood. It shouldn't be a major change anyway - I won't be removing any information, just changing the layout, moving things around, and generally cleaning the article up.

Anyway, the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season got FA status at least in part because it was written before the standardization project really got underway. I'm not sure the FA committee was aware of the internal project guidelines. It's an excellent article, and I've talked to KV5 about working on standardizing it, because it'll be at least a couple of months before I hit 2008.

As to 5 tables vs. 2, that was originally devised by Soxrock, and I believe it was modeled after the team-season pages over at Baseball Reference, with some tweaks ("Other pitchers" are those who pitched substantially as both starters and relievers, for instance -- we decided against using the term "Swingmen" or something similar because casual readers would be unlikely to know what that meant). I think it's better because the tables are smaller and more manageable, but of course YMMV.

If you'd like to discuss changing the standards, or anything else baseball-related, I'd like to invite you to come over to the project's talk page, because as you probably know, in the world of Wikipedia, nothing is ever set in stone :) . -Dewelar (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...I've already been working on it :) . There was some other stuff that needed fixing anyway. I should be finished in a few minutes, so just let me know if you have any other questions after I'm done. -Dewelar (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that should do it. Hopefully painless :) . -Dewelar (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that little table glitch. I was trying to be quick so that you could get back to making more edits if you had any, and missed that. And welcome to Wikipedia! -Dewelar (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're using sortable tables, order really doesn't matter a whole lot. I generally order them by number of at bats because that's how my primary source lists them, and I can keep track of the ones I've already entered. It makes sense, because it's the most direct reflection of playing time (just as IP is for pitchers), unless we want to start adding plate appearances to the tables as well. -Dewelar (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]