Talk:Boston Red Sox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Stephen Ewen (→Infoboxes: no one need go through the proposal system for templates that do not effect the entire system.) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→rewriting: a good start!) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
::I am a member of SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) and it has been written about *extensively* there. I have 30 years of their books but I don't feel like digging through them right now -- why don't you accept the Atheneum article? It seems pretty authentic to me, and only repeats what I can find elsewhere.... | ::I am a member of SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) and it has been written about *extensively* there. I have 30 years of their books but I don't feel like digging through them right now -- why don't you accept the Atheneum article? It seems pretty authentic to me, and only repeats what I can find elsewhere.... | ||
::If you read the articles about How to write for CZ, or How we're different from WP, you will find ample evidence that CZ articles are NOT laundry lists of facts. It is the first thing that ex-WP contributors have to learn. It took me a while to do so, for that matter. Here, the goal is to write a *well-intergrated* article, the way it would be written for a finicky college professor or maybe the editor of the New Yorker. It is *not* journalism, where we have a lede, then put in paragraph after paragraph of decreasing value. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:30, 24 February 2008 (CST) | ::If you read the articles about How to write for CZ, or How we're different from WP, you will find ample evidence that CZ articles are NOT laundry lists of facts. It is the first thing that ex-WP contributors have to learn. It took me a while to do so, for that matter. Here, the goal is to write a *well-intergrated* article, the way it would be written for a finicky college professor or maybe the editor of the New Yorker. It is *not* journalism, where we have a lede, then put in paragraph after paragraph of decreasing value. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:30, 24 February 2008 (CST) | ||
==rewriting== | |||
A very good start! Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 14:18, 10 March 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:18, 10 March 2008
I'll bet you're still working on this, Andrew, but it's too short even for a "microstub" and so, unless soon expanded, should be deleted. See CZ:Stubs. --Larry Sanger 08:30, 22 February 2008 (CST)
- Sorry Larry, i'll expand it more right now. Andrew Sylvia 08:43, 22 February 2008 (CST)
political pressure
Well, not at a national level, of course. But locally, if you read the article I attached. That could be made clearer, I suppose.... Hayford Peirce 12:44, 24 February 2008 (CST)
- Works for me. We can't escape politics unless we escape the differences in people. Guess it'd just have to be more specific. Andrew Sylvia 13:05, 24 February 2008 (CST)
Willie
I think they were interested in him around 1949 but didn't do much about it. Hayford Peirce 14:12, 24 February 2008 (CST)
Infoboxes
There has been discussion about them, and a couple have been tried in various articles, but by and large they are not used.... Hayford Peirce 15:03, 24 February 2008 (CST)
- Certain people don't like infoboxes so we hardly use them. The merits are weak, I guess. Plus they have to go through the proposal system and yadda, it's not worth the effort. --Robert W King 15:18, 24 February 2008 (CST)
- Wow. "Certain people"? I'm beginning to wonder if this place is so different than Wikipedia...Andrew Sylvia 15:22, 24 February 2008 (CST)
- In point of fact, no one need go through the proposal system for templates that do not effect the entire system. Andrew is free to make them, including for this, and others are free to improve them or collaborate to create alternative means of presenting the same information. Stephen Ewen 15:52, 24 February 2008 (CST)
1945
While seems likely, it's still only supposition that 1945 was the first tryout. Until we get definitive proof in the article 1945 doesn't seem appropriate. Also, please provide where CZ doesn't like brevity. Andrew Sylvia 15:21, 24 February 2008 (CST)
- I am a member of SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) and it has been written about *extensively* there. I have 30 years of their books but I don't feel like digging through them right now -- why don't you accept the Atheneum article? It seems pretty authentic to me, and only repeats what I can find elsewhere....
- If you read the articles about How to write for CZ, or How we're different from WP, you will find ample evidence that CZ articles are NOT laundry lists of facts. It is the first thing that ex-WP contributors have to learn. It took me a while to do so, for that matter. Here, the goal is to write a *well-intergrated* article, the way it would be written for a finicky college professor or maybe the editor of the New Yorker. It is *not* journalism, where we have a lede, then put in paragraph after paragraph of decreasing value. Hayford Peirce 15:30, 24 February 2008 (CST)
rewriting
A very good start! Thanks! Hayford Peirce 14:18, 10 March 2008 (CDT)