Talk:2009 Pittsburgh Pirates season

Baseball Low‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pittsburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations[edit]

The citations I updated are far more thorough and accurate. I'm not going to revert your edit due to three reverts, but I would like to state my case for why my edits improve the article.

I properly utilized all fields (see: Template:Cite news#Usage). I placed the name of the source in the "work" field because that is what is supposed to go in that field, which is automatically italicized. The "publisher" field is reserved for the company who publishes the news source. I filled in all previously ignored sourcing fields, such as "location".
I replaced dead links as well as some sources whose links regularly expire, such as Yahoo! Sports, who only host articles for about six months before purging them.
I found archived stories where necessary.

The edits I made were all accurate and improved the verifiability of the article. You wrote on my talk page that you've never had a problem before and use the "most commonly used fields" section, but I've also upgraded citations in this fashion on many other articles as well and never had an objection. By using more than just the most common fields I am improving verifiability and documentation. I would like to contribute to a quality article, and this is this fashion in which I sometimes choose to do it. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you using the archieved urls, etc. and I was unaware that the work field was the name of the publication; either something changed at some point or I misread it way back when. What I don't like is things like using the location field when the info is coming from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The location of that is obvious, and in an article of this size, and with the number of citations it will have in a few months it's just taking up unecessary space. I also do not like linking publications every time that they are used in the intrest of WP:OVERLINK. Sports seasons are often picked on for being "too long" and even though it's only the prose size that should count, we don't have to stretch it. My apologies for the other stuff, I will revert my edit (though I might alter what I mentioned above at some point) and try to use a format closer to yours in the future. Thanks. black ngold29 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will most definitely concede to the overlink argument. Maybe I can go back and only leave a source wikilinked the first time that it is cited or the first time that an article location is cited. A lot of the citation templates have been upgraded or altered over time, so it's an understandable mistake. Although the Post-Gazette is based in Pittsburgh and many articles will be written there, many game-related articles will be written in the city where the Bucs are playing or the news is originating, depending on the source, so I think it is still a useful field in that regard. Not all PG articles have the location cited at the beginning of the article anyway. Anything that is written for MLB.com or is picked up by the AP will usually have the location as well. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding. Let's make a great article, and hopefully we'll get to see a great season, too! It's been a long time... JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem already, per Template:Cite news, location is place of publication, meaning Pittsburgh even if it was written in Bradenton or New York, etc; no matter where it was written it was published in Pittsburgh. So, that field of the citation needs cut out for most of them. Grsz¹¹ 11:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. I must have mistakenly read the usage on that field. I'll try to fix my errors and not continue to make that mistake. Thanks. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of automatic game-day update[edit]

Hello! This is a friendly notice from OgreBot of upcoming automatic update of this page. Information is located WT:BASEBALL#Bot ready; please feel free to comment! OgreBot (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Players[edit]

This is something I brought up last season. Is there a way to have an easy table to show which minor league players joined the team in a season? Something to say who came up, when they came up, and how many games they played in? With all other roster and transaction information, it would be nice to follow which minor players appeared and disappeared during the season.NeuGye (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]