Talk:Texas Rangers (baseball)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Texas Rangers (baseball) 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-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. |
|||
 Archives |
| 1 |
Can someone with some knowledge do a writeup on the Texas state lawmen? -- Zoe
Well, we now have an article at Texas Rangers (law enforcement). Perhaps this should be made into a disambiguation page, with the sports team moved to something like Texas Rangers (sports)? Or is the sports team now so very much more famous than the law enforcement agency that I'm the only one who would think that this was the place to find something about the legendary lawmen? -- Infrogmation 21:07, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Is there some reason no mention is made of George Bush's connection with the team? MK 05:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- That surprised me too. I do think it is worth noting. --68.12.101.60 03:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How come no mention is made of Tom Vandergriff's role in bringing the Rangers to Texas?
Contents |
[edit] External links
Why is it not allowed to add blogs/sites covering the Rangers when other team pages allow it? I've attempted to add the Newberg Report, an excellent Rangers resource, as well a couple other sites. 70.254.47.73 03:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that it's "not allowed," but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collections of links either. I'm also a little skeptical of these additions because the first add was just of a blog at MVN.com, which doesn't appear to me to be the best choice; Newberg Report would be a much better link to add, since it's far more well-known. Tell us why you think each of those links belongs here - something about the sites' popularity or readership, or the quality of their writing. I'd also like to know that your purpose here isn't just to promote the MVN link. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Newberg Report is basically the go-to resource for Texas Rangers baseball (especially the minor leagues) with frequent reports by Jamey Newberg, as well as a very active forum. Lone Star Ball and Baseball Time in Arlington are moreso blogs on the Rangers, with LSB being more of a general news resource and BTiA more of an opinion blog with more in-depth articles. In particular, all three links are listed on Evan Grant's blog, who is the Rangers beat writer for the Dallas Morning News. That's what I think makes all three links notable. 64.219.109.103 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why not link to Grant's blog then? There needs to be a line somewhere, although I think you are saying you agree with that. Would you be OK with including Grant's and Newberg's for now? | Mr. Darcy talk 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio
The section on the renaming of the park back to Rangers Ballaprk appears to be directly lifted from the Rangers' web site. [1] -- Gridlock Joe 02:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Casey Abell, for rewriting that section. I would have done, but was very busy last night. -- Gridlock Joe 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Your welcome. Casey Abell 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nickname
One of the things that have become a major part of the baseball articles has been the nicknames. They've ben added to the leads as well as the infoboxes. However, the Rangers are one of the notables not to have one, at least not one mentioned in the article. What nicknames do the Rangers go by? I'm sure they are not known only as "The Rangers". - Silent Wind of Doom 18:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- As a lifelong Rangers fan, they have pretty much only been known as the Rangers. I have never heard them referred to as anything different (well, nothing different that you can say on TV...)Kirobaito
[edit] 2007 season section
I've removed this section again. It's unencyclopedic, contains original research, and is POV as well. I don't see any sources to justify saying that the team has "stumbled," or that "the starting pitchers have been particularly disappointing," or that "the offense has been inconsistent," or that Young and Teixeira have "struggled badly." Those are all inappropriate for Wikipedia. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should say the team has "triumphed" with a 15-25 record and a last-place position. Or that the starting pitchers have been "wonderful" with a 6.00 ERA, the worst in the majors. Or that Young is hitting "fantastically well" with his .640 OPS so far in 2007. None of this is original research - the sorry facts are available at mlb.com, espn.com and dozens of other locations on the Internet.
- Okay, I can see the point about more encyclopedic language. But any honest evaluation of Texas' 2007 season to date has to be negative, to put it mildly. I'll rewrite the section with less charged language, but I completely reject the WP:OR criticism. Anybody who pretends that the Rangers haven't stunk so far in 2007 would be doing very original research. Casey Abell 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- You don't understand the "no original research" guideline at all. It's not a question of whether the content is correct; it's a question of whether it comes from outside sources or whether it's the writer's own thoughts. And this content is clearly the writer's own thoughts. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not the writer's own thoughts that Texas' starters have the worst composite ERA in the majors in 2007. It is not the writer's own thoughts that Michael Young has poor offensive numbers in 2007. You might as well say that "the earth revolves around the sun" is the writer's own thought and call it OR. I've rewritten the section in more encyclopedic language and footnoted it extensively. There isn't an ounce of OR in the section. Casey Abell 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Saying that the pitchers are "disappointing" without a source is OR - disappointing to whom? Did someone think it would be good? Saying that the offense has been "inconsistent" without a source is OR - what defines a consistent offense? This is all pretty obvious stuff. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, rather than taking offense when someone points out flaws in your contributions. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- TO back up MrDarcy, writers generally concede that the readers should decide whether or not to be "disappointed" or any other cognition or emotion. To be objective, you present sources and verifiable evidence... keep any language that suggests your own cognitive or emotive appraisal out of your writing and you'll be fine. I think you're right, it was a disappointing season, but I also think that anyone reading this page will understand your point without you using that rhetoric. Trust your readers. ILoveConcerts (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- You must not have read the revised section. None of the comments you object to are currently in the article. I have revised the section to resolve your complaints on unencyclopedic language, even though last place in starters' ERA is disappointing by any standard, and the Rangers offense has been inconsistent due to slow starts from some key players. At any rate, the article now makes statements of statistical fact, backed by footnotes to completely reliable sources, about the performance of the Rangers in 2007. There is not a bit of anything that could possibly be called "original research" in the section. Casey Abell 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I found an excellent all-round evaluation by an experienced baseball writer on the Rangers' season so far. I've included the quote, which supports the 2007 section very well. Casey Abell 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- My comments above were written well before anything was revised, and were all in reference to the old text, which you insisted (incorrectly) wasn't OR. The new text is fine, as it's properly sourced and avoids original research and doesn't include the writer's own opinions on the subject. Was that so hard? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Except the section, even before the rewrite, was not original research but was supported completely by referenced information from reliable third-party sources. In fact, the revised text differs mostly in style. The substance of the comments is almost exactly the same: the starters stink (they've been disappointing) and the offense hasn't fired on all cylinders (it's been inconsistent). Casey Abell 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Why haven't these these sections been moved from the main article to the individual season articles? I feel it would cut down on the article length considerably and group this information in a pertinent manner. Furthermore, the 2006-2006 Offseason and 2007 sections contain verb tense errors, out of date information, and wordy/unnecessary sentences (such as the sentences in the 2007 section about Wes Littleton's 30-3 save). Are there any objections to moving this text to the pertinent season articles (including the offseason preceding the actual season), and removing/rewriting this text? Siward (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Archiving
I set up archiving on this page, because there are some comments over three years old. jj137 ♠ 01:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
