Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boston Red Sox/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.

Contents

Great work so far

Nice job getting this thing set up - i see the categories is red linked - do we need to discuss how to categorize things? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm no expert on the matter. I appreciate your, and everyone else's help. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 00:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good just let me know what I can do to help. I think the majority of articles will fall under the "players" or "seasons" categories and many of the articles give me a headache - so anything we can do to get them up to standards would be great. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 18 September 2007 - expires 23 September
    • Nick Debarr (PROD by User:Jaranda ; Created Dec 2006. PROD nominator states: "nn single-A player, no indication of going anywhere pass single A or doing good in the minors for that matter, like an all-star team") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all

I invited a bunch of people earlier to this WP. It already looks like we've got quite a few new members, so welcome all! Have a look around and see what all's here (I'm afraid this isn't as in-depth as some other WikiProjects, but hopefully in due course it will be). Happy editing,   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Doerr Picture

I found a Doerr card shot from his breakout year here, but I'm not 100% certain on the permitted usage in this case. Shed some light and hopefully get it up there ASAP if you are able to do so. parliamentlights 2 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 08:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Sox Nation

Closer attention should be payed to the article, especially when it comes to unsourced claims. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the invitation, I'd be lying if I said my team is the Dodgers, no need to say LA bleep ANAHEIM. But I love those Sox, fan since '03. Proud member of the Redsox nation. What can I do to help? ~Realm of Shadows

Anything. If you want, you can go here and try to start writing bios on some of those red-linked players.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance Scale

As this WikiProject is fairly young, I think it might be a good idea to lay some groundwork early on so that we do not end up needing to rework things later. One thing that comes to mind is the article importance rating, as I see no guidelines for determining an article's importance within WP:BOSOX. Looking at more established project like WP:MLB, they have thousands of articles without importance values, which I think is largely due to people not feeling comfortable ranking articles so instead they just place the banner. So, what I'm thinking is something more detailed in terms of criteria, without going to an extreme, so people feel comfortable putting in an importance rating when they add the banner. And of course there will be exceptions to every rule and not everything can be covered.

Here's my proposal. It's just a starting point to get the ball rolling. I'm sure I have missed some important criteria somewhere, and I'm sure we will need to shift things around to reach a consensus. Let me know what you all think, then we can move forward working through assessing the unkown importance articles category. AWeenieMan 17:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Importance Grading Scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top
  • Team article
  • Current ballpark
  • Players whose numbers have been retired by the Boston Red Sox
  • Season articles in which the Red Sox were World Series champions
High
  • Retired players in the Baseball Hall of Fame
  • Current players who are yearly All-Stars
  • Current players who have significant popularity
  • Current manager and general manager
  • Charities or organizations with a long history related to the Red Sox
  • Named parts of Fenway Park (and the players they are named after)
Mid
  • Current players
  • Current coaches
  • Current broadcasters
  • Current front office members
  • Current season article
  • Season articles in which the Red Sox won the ALCS
Low
  • Former players, managers, coaches, and front office members
  • Songs related to the Boston Red Sox
  • Other season articles
  • Other charities or organizations related to the Red Sox
  • Iconic players (or managers, etc) should likely be considered top priority. For instance, neither Pesky or Rice has their number retired, but both are well-recognized. Questions on priority should be brought up here. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I also don't see why Epstein is given lower priority than Tito. Just my opinion though. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent point. I don't see any reason we cannot change "Current manager" to "Current manager and general manager" in the High importance class, as Theo probably should be higher up. Personally, I would rather see an iconic players category added to the High importance class than Top class. My reasoning on this would simply be that if we keep the Top importance class fairly small, we will have a better chance at improving those articles than if it is larger (and the word iconic way be considered vague to some, which might promote its use), but it isn't a deal-breaker for me. And I would agree that real questions on priority should be brought up here, but I think a general guideline might encourage more people to fill in importance levels. - AWeenieMan (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we definitely should get something like that. Go ahead and add it, if you like.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I figure I will add it in after a few more people give some input or a few more days pass, just to give anyone who wants to chime in a chance. - AWeenieMan (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I bumped Theo up to High importance. How about we add "Players in the Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame" to the High importance category. That should take care of people like Jim Rice and Johnny Pesky. Thoughts? - AWeenieMan (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
All of this sounds good so far. Where it says "Current ballpark" in top importance, that wouldn't mean Fenway Park gets bumped down to high-importance should they get a new stadium. I think any stadiums they should have (not too sure about Huntington Avenue Grounds) should probably be top-importance. Any thoughts?   jj137 ♠ Talk 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't believe Huntington Avenue Grounds should be top priority, so I would err against writing "Ballparks" or something like that. Also, any descriptive name that currently only encompasses Fenway might prove confusing (as in implying another park falls into the category). How about changing it to "Current and future ballparks"? That should cover all bases (not to mention, we could always change the chart if the Sox get a new park). - AWeenieMan (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good; top-importance will probably be the most well known articles/things, and many people don't even know about Huntington Avenue Grounds.   jj137 ♠ Talk 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Boston Red Sox

Looking at what is left in this category, what do you all think abut adding two subcategories along the lines of Boston Red Sox front office members and Boston Red Sox sportscasters? It would seem to me that both might be useful. AWeenieMan 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, I think that seems appropriate.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Coordination

I realize we have open tasks, and I appreciate the effort that went into making them. But does anyone think we should try and coordinate activities more. Not everyday, but for each month we try to reach a certain goal; like eliminating red links here? ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm going to soon try to write a lot of biographies to eliminate the red links there. Anything should help.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter, possibly?

I suggested this idea at WT:MLB as well, but feel it would be more appropriate here, because the members are more active. Would anyone be up for the (possible) idea of a periodic newsletter? Either weekly or monthly. I would be willing to write at least some of it each time, but of course, anyone can help. Thoughts? --  jj137 ♠ Talk 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to send it to all our members, to keep them informed. Maybe we could post it on WT:MLB as well. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Roster

How come the "Boston Red Sox current roster" text box (and the Brewers) have no 'view or edit' options? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshibshm (talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do. See Template:Boston Red Sox roster and Template:Milwaukee Brewers roster. If you look in the upper right-hand corner, you will see the options "view", "talk", and "edit".   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sox article too long

The Boston Red Sox article is 85kb long. That's 20kb bigger than Massachusetts and 12kb bigger than Major League Baseball. Its time to consider the article. We should consider creating a new article for the team's history. We also need to greatly reduce the amount of space dedicated to the team's last five years (most of which could be moved to the history section). ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We could probably move the history to a new article, maybe History of the Boston Red Sox. That article could probably be just as long with all of the Red Sox' history.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Members list

I think our members list should be changed, to mirror this one (maybe with Javascript for scrolling if we're lucky). If no one objects, I can do it myself. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. I left the comments section, because most people have some.   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Departments?

  • I know we're a fairly small project, but I think we should have departments, like WP:MLB does. I propose we use the following ones:
    • Assessment: Responsible for assessing articles by importance and quality, would also be a good place for questions of importance to be brought up.
    • Article Improvement: Each week, the project would turn its focus on one particular article. Members of this department would participate in editing that page.
    • New Pages: Responsible for creating new pages relating to the Red Sox, and reviewing those made by others.
    • Communications: Primarily would deal with recruiting new members, but also would work with members of other wikiprojects. Would also take charge of the news letter.
  • A person could be a member of as many departments as he/she wants, or wouldn't have to join a department. However, this would help members of the project work together. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. The main departments page could be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boston Red Sox/Departments. We could even have userboxes for each department (I think WP:MLB does).   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I think we should remove the "new articles" section from the main page, as it is now just included in the newsletter each week.   jj137 ♠ 22:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis

There are over 2 dozen 'interwiki' links for Boston Red Sox. In May 2007, on zh, in the course of updating lists of minor league teams for MLB team articles, I updated Bosox' roster from a mid-2006 status. Should there be an Boston Red Sox Department of Interwikis? --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

And, checking a few articles, at this time Fenway Park and Ted Williams have about 10 different articles each and Manny Ramírez has about 5. --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and start setting up that department, if you like. I think that would be great if you could update articles in other languages because, well, I think that is very difficult.   jj137 ♠ 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There you go. Feel free to change anything.   jj137 ♠ 02:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I like to go to zh:Boston Red Sox during the season and practice reading; it would take a native speaker to really take care of the article. Some people writing about the team on it, pt, fr, zh, ja and ko et cetera might be big Sox fans, maybe some kind of interwiki outreach notice would be appropriate. --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. I figure a major interwiki outreach thing would be for other language speakers to set up a WikiProject Red Sox in their own language. Obviously only a native or near-native speaker could do that, and it still is very challenging.   jj137 ♠ 00:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, but I can guess that there would be a good likelihood that Red Sox fans working on interwiki Red Sox-related articles would maybe be bilingual people living in the US, or would be en-1 or en-2. I would also guess that iw:Red Sox fans would gravitate towards this en:Red Sox wikiproject anyway. --Mr Accountable (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably, although unless they manually find it, chances are they don't know it exists. On other languages it is, I think, surprising how many people are at an en-2 or en-3 level.   jj137 ♠ 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut

I just created a new shortcut, WP:SOX. It is the quickest one yet.   jj137 ♠ 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Article creation

A message to anyone who sees it: if you create any new biographies or articles, please list them on the newest edition of the newsletter, add a message here, or leave me a message on my talk page and I'll take care of it. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)