Talk:Portland Beavers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week. | ||
| Start | This page is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article is rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
Portland Beavers is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
[edit] "Historically questionable" notation Est. 1903
I'm removing the phrase "historically questionable" as applies to the "Est. 1903" sleeve patch, because it's editorializing. I'm not really disputing the validity of the claim, but unless you can find an outside source making it, it's OR.
Perhaps interestingly, it's not uncommon in baseball - the Washington Nationals, who moved to DC in 2005, have "Established 1905" on the sleeves of their jersey. SixFourThree (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- Which is equally fraudulent, as well as inaccurate in any case. However, I don't need an outside source to point out that the current Portland franchise has no connection to the 1903 franchise, as the article itself does that sufficiently. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agree that it's a stretch at best, but I think "fraudulent" is a strong term. I also tend to think the article makes the point clear without the editorializing, or the reminder in the last sentence. We don't need it pointed out twice, and it's stronger to include the notation in the opening paras, isn't it? SixFourThree (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
-
-
- Okay, I reworked it to make the point clear without editorializing. What do you think? SixFourThree (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- The immediately previous version didn't editorialize either. But your version probably makes the point sufficiently. This kind of problem exists in other articles as well. For major league teams, usually there is a separate article for each. For minor league teams, it doesn't really seem justified, as the minors are much less stable and there have been countless franchise shifts in countless minor leagues over the years. However, there have been other Portland teams. The Portland Mavericks have a separate article. The only justification for doing things that way is that the Mavericks were in a different league. But all of them were different clubs. I would argue that they should all be in a single article about Portland professional baseball. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the Portland Rockies have a separate page as well. Ideally, I'd like to see four separate articles created, one for each incarnation of the Beavers, but that doesn't seem likely (nor, given this article's size, a good idea). There probably should be a History of baseball in Portland page to cover the complete timeline. Glad the compromise satisfies you. SixFourThree (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- I raised this issue on the baseball project page. The only opinion expressed so far is to separate them into 4 articles, as per your suggestion. I also like the idea of a page that summarizes a city's professional baseball history. I wonder if you'd be willing to add your comments to that page? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the Portland Rockies have a separate page as well. Ideally, I'd like to see four separate articles created, one for each incarnation of the Beavers, but that doesn't seem likely (nor, given this article's size, a good idea). There probably should be a History of baseball in Portland page to cover the complete timeline. Glad the compromise satisfies you. SixFourThree (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
- The immediately previous version didn't editorialize either. But your version probably makes the point sufficiently. This kind of problem exists in other articles as well. For major league teams, usually there is a separate article for each. For minor league teams, it doesn't really seem justified, as the minors are much less stable and there have been countless franchise shifts in countless minor leagues over the years. However, there have been other Portland teams. The Portland Mavericks have a separate article. The only justification for doing things that way is that the Mavericks were in a different league. But all of them were different clubs. I would argue that they should all be in a single article about Portland professional baseball. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I reworked it to make the point clear without editorializing. What do you think? SixFourThree (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree
-
[edit] Portland Baseball
I'm planning on working on improving the articles for Portland Baseball and/or the Portland Beavers. I'd be willing to put together a comprehensive article on the Baseball in Portland. The information I have includes some pre-1903 info as well as info about the Rockies & Mavericks. T-75|talk|contribs 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
