Talk:2009 Major League Baseball season

Encyclopedia?[edit]

Why do these "MLB season" articles all look like scripts for Sportscenter?Shamedog18 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the standings???[edit]

^^ –Howard the Duck 13:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template exist to add them all directly:

They can be added at any time. Borgarde (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO they should all be added to the article... –Howard the Duck 10:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added them right at the top as they were in last season's article. Feel free to move them, but I agree they should be there somewhere. black ngold29 14:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. Thanks. –Howard the Duck 14:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Should I remove Jason Isringhausen from the forthcoming milestones section of this article, as Isringhausen has a season ending injury. Wikidude 57 ^S _B C 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wild card standings[edit]

Can we have a separate table for wild card standings? Like the second best teams per division? –Howard the Duck 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Division Templates[edit]

I'd be content with deleting the 'winning streak' & 'elimination' sections, if it's done for all 6 divisions. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've deleted those columns, as they're irrevelant stats. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season ending date[edit]

Should this be changed since, technically speaking, the Tigers/Twins 1 game playoff is a 163^rd regular season game for both? 70.26.88.209 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably change at the conclusion of the playoffs... If you look at the previous season, the end date is the last game of the World Series... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.146 (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season standings templates[edit]

Per the Manual of Style, we cannot use an unkeyed legend to indicate something. It's already obvious from the order of the standings who won the divisions, and division champions and wild card winners should be indicated in prose. These templates are used on multiple articles, and they cannot be treated like this is the only place they are used. The key means nothing in other articles. If you view 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, the only team season good article to this point, the standings used in that article do not include any arbitrary key, because the division championship is stated in prose, as it should be. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've never liked the letters for any sport because the order is what really matters, especially after the season. If you can't tell who won without further explanation, I'm not sure what to say. black ngold29 15:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Angels 'vs' L.A. Angels of Anaheim[edit]

Howdy ya'll. Am I hallucinating? or is the Angels name being changed perioidically in the Playoffs section? GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"LA" is a common abbreviation, and using it in the bracket is purely a space-saving measure. The team's full name is used in prose and tables, as far as I can see. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So 'L.A. Angels of Anaheim', is the proper usage, here? GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full name ("Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim", and thereafter "Angels"), as I see it, is proper all the time, unless space-saving is absolutely necessary as in the bracket. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the postseason bracket[edit]

How does one edit the postseason bracket? --Snood1 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out the bracket was a template and I was able to edit it. However, shouldn't there be an easier way to edit a template from the main article that uses the template? --Snood1 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Series edit war[edit]

There appears to be a dispute in the offing. As best I can tell, it revolves around whether the time and attendance figures should appear in the World Series results table. The arguments advanced against inclusion appears to be that the results tables for the other postseason tables on the page don't and that it is uglier to include them. The argument for inclusion appears to me to be that other season articles include the information. Frankly, none of the arguments are compelling. We should be asking ourselves whether the time and attendance figures have value, and if so what that value is. If it is determined that the information is valuable, we should then ask whether it is worth the effort to include the information for the rest of the post season as well. -Rrius (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]