Portal talk:Baseball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PortalBaseball is part of the WikiProject Baseball, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to baseball on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to baseball. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

NA

This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Archives
Archive one

[edit] 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)