Talk:2008 St. Louis Cardinals season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spring training game logs[edit]

Since I've been accused of vandalism--of an article I've signed up to be responsible for, no less--I thought maybe I should explain why I edited out the spring training game logs. Reasoning:

1. Other team pages do not have the game logs. 2. Spring training results do not count in the standings. 3. Spring training games do not count in the statistics. 4. Spring training games feature a great many players who will not appear for the '08 Cardinals: minor-leaguers who will head back to the minor leagues, non-roster invitees who will not get a job with the big-league club, etc. The same is true of every team the Cardinals will play, of course. 5. The article, if it is fully filled out, will already contain a great deal of material, including a 162-game regular season log and season statistics. I have to question further cluttering the article with spring training games that don't count. Vidor (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can make the game logs collapsible so they barely take up any space. I don't see anything wrong with them.   jj137 ♠ 22:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is how Wikipedia article go bad; people add piles and piles of crap and nobody ever thinks about knocking it off. Vidor (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't piles and piles of crap --  jj137 ♠ 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree... if they can be collapsed, then it is not a big deal. Spring Training games, though meaningless statistically and in the standings, should have a home somewhere on Wikipedia, and where if not here? Also that tiff with Katydidit is a little silly. Vidor, you are above that. Roscoestl (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Training games, though meaningless statistically and in the standings, should have a home somewhere on Wikipedia Why? What part of "these are meaningless exhibitions that do not count" is unclear? The format is standard and has been used for many, many articles over recent seasons. I invite people to look at any other season article for any other team. Also that tiff with Katydidit is a little silly. Perhaps if you hold this Katydid person to any standard of behavior, and if she apologizes for calling me a vandal and a creep, then I'll take that under advisement. Vidor (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to hold her (presumably a her) to the same standards as everyone else. I see a lot of her edits, since we apparently have many common interests. They tend to be a little too glossy, especially in St. Louis-related WP pages, and often missing cites. This is not an attack on her, just my observation of her writing style. An apology from her is irrelevant, relative to something's notability. Comparing this situation to other WP pages for team seasons shows a trend in editing, but it does not necesarily govern what is not notable. For example, compare this scenario to the NFL preseason, where those records are reflected on team season pages. Roscoestl (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this situation to other WP pages for team seasons shows a trend in editing It shows a unanimous (except, unfortunately, for this single article) consensus. Nowhere, in any of the dozens and dozens of articles, are there spring training game logs. Why? Because--and it seems this is not getting through--spring training games are exhibitions and do not count. I try to hold her (presumably a her) to the same standards as everyone else Then since you chose to use this discussion page to call me out personally, I assume you will soon be using this page to call out Katy personally. An apology from her is irrelevant Not to me it isn't. Although it is irrelevant as far as the article goes, I suppose. The spring training games will be gone by March 31 regardless. Vidor (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little food for thought on why season articles don't have spring game logs: the Yankees let a 60-year-old man play. Vidor (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should remove it within the next few days, as agreed.   jj137 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive footnotes[edit]

There are 55 footnotes and we aren't even through June. I'm going to look through the article again and take out statistical footnotes verifiable from all kinds of sources, like, say, the fact that Kip Wells had a 5.70 ERA for the 2007 Cardinals. Vidor (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Draft Picks[edit]

I have been adding players to the draft picks section. Is this worth it? Maybe we should cut it off there? Maybe every player drafted should be listed. What do you think?Topgun530 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 St. Louis Cardinals season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 St. Louis Cardinals season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_St._Louis_Cardinals_season&oldid=1196523517"