Template talk:MLB
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Expos franchise
Since the article on the Expos franchise is still at Montreal Expos, shouldn't we keep the link to that, rather than to the nascent Washington team? john k 05:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- How about we leave it with a note about expos through 2004, until something more official comes of the Washington article. —siroχo 10:10, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Divisions?
Should the teams be sorted by divisions instead of alphabetic order? --KHill-LTown 17:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reversion without discussion
Linnwood (talk • contribs) reverted the most recent changes to the template, declaring the previous version "easier to read"; instead of reverting that reversion, I thought I'd do what s/he should have done, which is get a sense of what the community thinks.
Here's version 1, the one that Linnwood prefers current template:
Here's version 2, the version Linnwood reverted purposed change:
Which is better? IMHO version 2 has three advantages:
- it's two-thirds the size of the old version, without sacrificing any information;
- the phrases at the boom (e.g. "World Series") are larger and therefore more legible; and
- the links for Championship Series and Division Series are next to the leagues they apply to instead of at the bottom in the form of
TLAsFLABs such as NLCS.
IMHO these three advantages, particularly the first one, outweigh the one advantage that version one has, which is that the AL and NL divisions form a nice grid.
I'm interested in hearing what others (including Linwood) think. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
- IMO, I prefer version 1. It may be a tad bit larger, but it also appears to be a much cleaner looking template with the organization within it being a little more defined. Gateman1997 15:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer version 2 as well as any future attempt to make this smaller. --Locarno 18:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- First off, our anonymous editor is the one who made major changes to a widely used template with out getting "a sense of what the community thinks." Reversion without discussion is what happened, and why I reverted it. What is posted now on the Talk page is what should have been done to start with. Don't make this personal, as you are doing right now by stating "Linnwood this" and "Linnwood that." Now as to the Template redesign, I find that version 1 is much easier to read. There no need to make it smaller. It contains quite a bit of information, and the column make it very easy to look through the divisions to find a team. The tiny amount of space saved vs. much more cluttered to me is not a good trade off. Please keep version 1 — Linnwood 19:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I prefer "version 1" as it is easier to read and more organized in appearance. Yadin twelve 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- While it is larger than I'd like, version 1 is much more flexible with regard to window width: it looks much better in very narrow and very wide windows. I do suggest trimming the number of links below the teams, though – in that one area, I version two is nicer. ×Meegs 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a better option. I agree that version 2 loses any advantage in a narrower window. What about decreasing the amount of text--you can click on the team locations to get the name of the team, etc. Here's Version 3. Locarno 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
