Talk:2012 St. Louis Cardinals season: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
||
{{WikiProject Baseball|importance=mid|cardinals=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Missouri|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject St. Louis|importance=low|wg=Sports}} |
|||
}} |
|||
==Reorganized. Can this become a standard going forward?== |
==Reorganized. Can this become a standard going forward?== |
||
I did some reorganization of Cardinals' 2012 season page. Some redundancies and/or topical misplacements caught my eye: |
I did some reorganization of Cardinals' 2012 season page. Some redundancies and/or topical misplacements caught my eye: |
||
Line 9: | Line 14: | ||
"Schedule and results:" I transferred the "game logs" section from "standings" to a separate topic now headed under "Schedule and results," since the schedule becomes the game scoring log as each game is played. Also, team performance in various situations goes here - a table of team performance outlines results that correspond to an in-game context. |
"Schedule and results:" I transferred the "game logs" section from "standings" to a separate topic now headed under "Schedule and results," since the schedule becomes the game scoring log as each game is played. Also, team performance in various situations goes here - a table of team performance outlines results that correspond to an in-game context. |
||
I would like to see at least the most recent ones refitted with better organization, and see these changes to become a standard going forward, as some of these pages are a ghastly amalgam of information with no sensible alignment. Overall, the content on the 2012 page is satisfactory and is a good reference. ˜˜˜˜Elcid.ruderico 24 March 2013 |
I would like to see at least the most recent ones refitted with better organization, and see these changes to become a standard going forward, as some of these pages are a ghastly amalgam of information with no sensible alignment. Overall, the content on the 2012 page is satisfactory and is a good reference. ˜˜˜˜Elcid.ruderico 24 March 2013 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Elcid.ruderico|Elcid.ruderico]] ([[User talk:Elcid.ruderico|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Elcid.ruderico|contribs]]) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Latest revision as of 01:08, 18 January 2024
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reorganized. Can this become a standard going forward?
[edit]I did some reorganization of Cardinals' 2012 season page. Some redundancies and/or topical misplacements caught my eye:
"Standings:" Records versus opponents and against each division are better fit under the standings topic to give an idea of how each team fared against each other relates to the table of the final standings. All those numbers focus on team's performance in the league-wide context.
"Players and coaching staff:" Why have a different topics for "players" and "roster?" I consolidated them. The former "players" topic only leads the reader to another page, anyway: "See also Cardinals all-time roster". Player statistics should directly follow the roster. The opening day lineup was its own section - Why? It belongs near the roster.
"Schedule and results:" I transferred the "game logs" section from "standings" to a separate topic now headed under "Schedule and results," since the schedule becomes the game scoring log as each game is played. Also, team performance in various situations goes here - a table of team performance outlines results that correspond to an in-game context.
I would like to see at least the most recent ones refitted with better organization, and see these changes to become a standard going forward, as some of these pages are a ghastly amalgam of information with no sensible alignment. Overall, the content on the 2012 page is satisfactory and is a good reference. ˜˜˜˜Elcid.ruderico 24 March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcid.ruderico (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- C-Class Baseball articles
- Mid-importance Baseball articles
- C-Class St. Louis Cardinals articles
- Unknown-importance St. Louis Cardinals articles
- St. Louis Cardinals articles
- WikiProject Baseball articles
- C-Class Missouri articles
- Low-importance Missouri articles
- C-Class St. Louis articles
- Low-importance St. Louis articles
- WikiProject St. Louis Sports working group