Portal talk:Baseball/Baseball news/Archive/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

News

(Moved this from Portal talk:Baseball, since its a subpage specific concern. Joe 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)) I plan on removing events older than a month from the news section of the portal. I think we can find enough news worthy events to make this section long enough to do so.

Any objections? I'll leave it be for a few days. BTW, is there anyone "in charge of this portal"? I'd like to help with its upkeep.

--Wxthewx99 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from Wxthewx99's talk, at which I originally replied.) Apropos of your talk page comment, in trying to maintain the portal I do update the news with some frequency, but the portal news section ought not to be styled as Current sports events, 2006 in baseball, or N:Portal:Baseball, the latter itself in some disrepair. The news page, IMHO, ought to serve to cover broader themes, such that older news need not be relegated for less-significant newer news (most trades, for example, and even as the more significant topics, especially those on which we have stand-alone articles, might be covered in ostensibly trivial detail); a style such as that which you propose was essayed when first the portal was created but was quickly disfavored as duplicative of Current sports events, etc., and unnecessarily restricted for a portal that seeks only to present baseball generally, in order that new users happening upon the portal from the main page might undertake to edit (toward which proposition, see, generally, Portal:American football/News, which, though noting some trades and the like, nevertheless refers to seminal events several months old; Portal:Basketball/News; and Portal:Ice hockey/News. If you should think extant practice to be lacking, though, I'm sure a discussion on the talk page would be warranted.  :) Joe 23:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

HoF section

I urge editor Jahiegel to identify the exact point of my oŠ“riginal news section post on the 2006 Baseball HOF induction, to see where it does not fit into the "overall style" of the News section. Other than the possible fact that he does not want anyone else to contribute to the baseball portal (which seems rather likely in that he's completly deleted all of my work now), I do not see a glaring styling issue in my writing, other than the fact the Jahiegel did not write it. Am I wrong to assume Wikipedia is a collabrative project? --Wxthewx99 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've deleted any of your work at all (I imagine you're referring either to this or this); I've simply reworked some text and, on the occasions that you've noted that I've omitted something, thanked you, as one does any editor, for your observing such omission. My concern as to your style is that it tends toward the unencyclopedic (viz., as exorbitantly jocular), but I certainly haven't reverted any of your additions cursorily. Wikipedia is, to be sure, a collaborative project, which means that you ought not to submit your writing if you do not wish that it should be edited. Certainly nothing here is immutable (as WP:POLICY well observes), but there are conventions to which one ought to consider adhering (WP:MoS); it is well settled that, pace Wxthewx supra, Portal:Baseball/News, consistent with the idea that Wikipedia (cf., Wikinews) is not a news outlet (save, for example, I suppose, at Current sports events and the like) and in view of the purpose of portals, should not contain otherwise insignificant news and should, instead, preserve news up to two months old where such news remains important (consistent with the formulations at any number of other sports portals). I don't see that there's much of a problem here, and I expect that we'll be able to collaborative civilly toward propitious encyclopedic ends (this is, to be sure, likely a matter better addressed at user talk, but I thought I ought to leave a reply to Wxthewx here as well). Joe 05:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)