User talk:Entirelybs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Vallejo, California

Can you please explain what I did wrong in my revision to the Vallejo article? I want to learn better what is or is not allowed. Thank you. Brad (EntirelyBS).

hey...welcome to wikipaedia! unfortunately, the way you posted your links to the Vallejo, California article is considered spam. it's one thing to list off-site items, but another thing altogether to provide inline links to them. e.g. California Maritime Academy takes readers off-site, whereas California Maritime Academy takes readers to the article in wikipaedia for that subject. this is a particularly sensitive matter when the sites are commercial websites. hope this helps...cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vallejo, CA edits

ok, understood. but instead of simply removing the section (reverting), can the links simply be taken out of the new content? Or is it now for me to do as my next step (putting them back in but without the links). Thanks, Brad.

yes, you'll have to edit the content back in. if you try reverting, all subsequent edits will be lost. also, don't forget to sign your edits to talk pages by appending four tildes to the end of your communication. e.g. “~~~~”. --emerson7 | Talk 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Barry Bonds

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Entirelybs! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Series

I added some of the deletions back, albeit hopefully in a more useful and/or clear way. The "Pittsburg" spelling item really belonged with the fake "1903" poster. The point of the 1919-20 situation was not so much that it had anything to do with the Soxes or the Cubs not winning, but merely that it marked a point in time after which many things changed in baseball, with or without the Black Sox scandal. Also made the All-Star point less wordy. I didn't like my sentence construction very well, as it was overanalyzing. Suffice it to say the AL has had home field for five years in a row (so far). The All-Star based home field edge began in 2003, but it just happened the AL also had it in 2002. Baseball Bugs 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polo Grounds, Sportsman's Park, etc.

I'm not convinced that relabeling these now-extinct parks by Roman numerals really adds anything to the World Series articles. I've reverted a few of them, but not all yet. They each point to the same article anyway, respectively, and the Roman numerals are a retro-fit... they were never known that way in their time. Baseball Bugs 17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The article on the Polo Grounds does reference the differences, and has them broken out by section. I wonder if I could/should be linking directly to that section? Can that be done? Otherwise, your point is taken, although I've seen it done with/without so I was trying to standardize the formatting. Also, I've seen the usage on others (such as at St. Louis, I think). But, I'll defer on this to your point until a better solution presents itself. Entirelybs 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, a link to a section can be done. I think it's overkill, but you're the one expending the effort. :) However, I'm not sure if a double-layer will work, and if not, you might have to tinker with the ballpark article itself until it works. Example: Polo Grounds. Baseball Bugs 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it took it to the top. A single layer might work. I have to "save" each time or I lose the contents when I link from a not-saved page: Polo Grounds. Baseball Bugs 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that worked, going to just the second level instead of three levels. Maybe the editing guide will explain somewhere how to go to three levels, or if it's even possible. Baseball Bugs 18:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • maybe I'll revisit that on another day when I have extra amounts of time. For now, I'll go generic and link to the main article, as you suggested. Thanks. Entirelybs 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Pilgrims

Thank you for the links to disprove what I saw. I saw the links for 1903-1907 said Pilgrims, so I could only base myself off of that. I will read the baseball-almanac article, and go ahead and remove all Pilgrims links. And, it may be meaningless, but I actually like Pilgrims more than Red Sox. Soxrock 17:58 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to read the SABR writer's investigation into the matter, which I think is linked from the Red Sox article. There was really no "official" nickname until 1908. "Pilgrims" was seldom used, but it kind of fit the early team, which wore dark blue as its color. Baseball Bugs 18:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
To "rename" an article, there's a "move" process, so that the history will follow it. As far as the project goes, nobody's asked me. d:) They probably think I'm too ornery. >:( Baseball Bugs 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to answer your "Pilgrims" question. You see, I have a problem with the whole idea of using nicknames. I'm old school. It should be "Boston American League" for ALL seasons. It could be linked from a page called "Boston Red Sox", but the article should be more formal. I think that's how the Baseball Almanac site does it for the individual team years also. Anyway, that's my opinion. Maybe it would be good to see how the Toronto Maple Leafs handle indivual season, assuming such articles exist. They weren't always called the Maple Leafs, you know. And what about the New York Yankees, who were called both Highlanders and Yankees for 8 or 9 years? Baseball Bugs 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
True - but the Yankee's season pages from 1903-1912 reference the "New York Highlanders" AND list them that way in the standings. I note that on the Boston Pilgrims seasonal pages (such as 1903 and 1904), they are listed as the Boston Americans in the standings. This is my intent: to make them the same / standard (at least).
The problem is the attempt (by many sources, not just wikipedia) to retrofit the modern concept of team nicknames to a different time. The Yankees were called the Yankees as early as 1904, and exclusively (by the Times, at least) by 1908, while others continued to call them Highlanders, which was never an official nickname. Baseball Bugs 19:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Although, I still think it's more accurate than the Pilgrims, and from a standardization standpoint, having them be the same name (even within the same article page) is a good idea. So, unless you think I should desist, I will move ahead with my suggested changes. Thanks. Entirelybs 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late answer. They expect me to work when I'm at work. :) I don't have a problem with it, as "Americans" is more accurate than "Pilgrims". It sounds like Nowlin's investigation has pretty well done away with "Pilgrims" in general. It's always been valid to refer to a team as "Americans" or "Nationals" in the context of the league they're in. The Yankees are another obvious example. I've got a theory that's part of the reason "Nationals" never caught on as the Senators nickname in the early 1900s... because they were in the American League, along with the fact they were previously called the Senators (as well as the Nationals). It works now with the D.C. team because (1) they're in the National League and (2) marketing is better and (3) they don't want to be connected with the Senators, who were stamped as losers. Baseball Bugs 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)