Wikipedia

Talk:2007 Milwaukee Brewers season

Latest comment: 12 years ago by JeffGBot in topic Dead link 6
Learn more about this page

Removing stats edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per the strong consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles#Keep_or_remove_player_stats, I am removing the stats from the page. There are no good arguments to keep the stats and no editor to update these on a daily basis. Stats being out of date generally isn't helpful at all and can be achieved at a site like Sportsline or ESPN. I (or someone) should try to edit the season template to include stats by an external link. Much easier and it will include every stat.

The stats will be readded at the end of the season.

For reference of what the stats looked like and what should be re-added at the end of the season: Talk:2007 Milwaukee Brewers season/stats. ++aviper2k7++ 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Despite the fact that there is currently a strong agreement to remove it, we have decided that we are not going to act on the situation until after a week has passed. On April 18, we'll remove them if that remains the consensus. Until then, please leave the stats tables in the article to avoid anybody not familiar with the discussion from reverting you and we don't want anybody missing time working on this project because of a Three-revert ban. --Ksy92003 04:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Season summarizing edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that someone deleted a couple of sections that were being used for organizational purposes. The offseason has a good chunk and it was blended into the Intro. Please see WP:LEAD. Things that go into details should generally not be in the lead, and things mentioned in the lead should also be in the article. I'm thinking the lead should go something like this:

  • Explanation paragraph with the anniversary mention, what they finished, and what place they got.
  • ?Offseason (kind of short, not sure about this one. For now it is merged with the first because the lack of information in the first paragraph.
  • Regular season (possibly split in two for each half)
  • Playoffs (assuming the Brewers win the World Series)

This should give a good summary of the article. Of course as the season goes on, more will be added. Right now it's hard to judge what will go where, but this is a general idea that came to mind.

Also in the main article, for now === is given for subsections, but once the second half starts, it will be broken up with ===First half=== ====sub-subsection==== then ===Second half=== and then playoffs will be in ==Playoffs==. But again, as the season goes on we can order this more. Currently there has only been 9 games played. Opening day is important, as well as the Cubs matchup. The rest of the month may be summarized in a paragraph. So opening week may be an important header. It may be wise to leave the summary chunked in months. Six months would bring six headers. FA Germany has around 20 different sections with information. I guess we'll figure this out more farther into the season. And please discuss changes!++aviper2k7++ 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would have to say that opening day is important. And the Cubs' matchup is important also. And how about the Marlins' series and the upcoming Cardinals' series? They're important. And you know what? Why don't call the series with the Reds July 23-26 important as well?
If you didn't notice already, I'll say right now that my last paragraph was all sarcasm. How can you say that one series is more significant than another? Besides, in the article I already made good mention about opening day, how the Brewers dropped three in a row at home, and how they won 2 of 3 against the Marlins. I have made some more changes to the article which I feel are sufficient enough to give a good explanation of the first 9 games of the season without stretching it out too far. If anybody feels they can add a little bit more detail to that paragraph without giving an entire game summary (which I didn't do), then go ahead and make those edits. --Ksy92003 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for deleting everything I did without even explaining it. Thanks for adding days old stats that nobody is ever going to edit and creating a strong instruction creep on all of these articles.
"attempt to bolster their lineup to fight for a playoff spot in the competitive National League."
"complete game two-hitter by ace Ben Sheets,"
If you're additions were worthwhile, I wouldn't be so angry.++aviper2k7++ 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussion please edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Instead of removing half the article for a reason that links to a different page, please discuss here. What you're doing is an awful way to settle this dispute. Please see WP:LEAD. Things in the lead should be in the article. Also see WP:FA as to the guidelines of a featured article.++aviper2k7++ 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, discuss here before deleting an entire section and merging it with the lead, which is very sloppy and goes against WP:LEAD.++aviper2k7++ 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
What do you not understand about the discussion page? Information in the lead is to have the reader read the article and give a summary. The lead should not go into detail ($$$ would be considered a detail) and should not mention things that aren't mentioned in the article.++aviper2k7++ 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
And if you did read it, you would notice to avoid linking before or during the bolded part.++aviper2k7++ 23:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
We don't even need to put in the article how much their payroll increased, do we? This version is good enough. There are hardly any differences in the text of our edits, save for the mention of a stupid bobblehead give-away. My version is just as good as your version, so please stop reverting. --Ksy92003 23:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've edited a bit. I'm not sure why you're so inclined to delete everything. It's two paragraphs, which is an adequate size (if not, small) for a section. This article is well under-sized and will develop as the season progresses. If it gets too large, we can trim it. After all, it is Wikipedia.++aviper2k7++ 23:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Lead summary... article details. Whatever, I'm sick of dealing with your unmitigated opinions on everything. Edit this on your own then. Good luck bringing it to featured status. Which I am certain you are incapable of contributing anything worthwhile to this article.++aviper2k7++ 23:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Fine, if I have to edit it on my own then, that's fine. Why is your version better than mine? They're the same, only mines is shorter and doesn't have the useless crap about the bobblehead or the video that yours does. You don't have to edit it if you don't want to. --Ksy92003 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
then take the part about the bobble-heads out. Oh wait, I already did! But you would rather delete stuff for the sake of deleting it to make yourself look important or something. Actually, I'm not quite sure why you're removing everything. I mean, I did have a pretty good lead, which gave a summary of the article, but you went from having everything in the lead, to having the offseason and nothing else, and then having basically nothing, and of which isn't mentioned in the article. You're one of the most stubborn, controlling editor I've ever dealt with. You're reverting for the sake of reverting. I've added sourced information about contracts and sourced information about how they announced they were going to be celebrating the 1982 season. But hey! That's way to much information!? Two sourced paragraphs, MY GOD! Do I need to explain every sentence I added? Alright, what the hell! I'll do it.
  • This sentence is the first sentence in the lead. I believe at the end of the season it will say the results first, but for now I put in an interesting piece of information about how this was their 25th anniversary. This is sourced and should be noted in the lead.
  • As I have already stated on this talk page, I believe the most important information of the season is A. General introduction B. Offseason C. Regular Season D. Post Season. The reader is eased into the off-season and is informed of these resignings. I believe these signings are very important as Bill Hall is arguably the Brewers best player and Capuano is their 2nd-3rd starting pitcher.
  • Not going into greater detail for the lead, this sentence also explains some of the free agents that were signed in the offseason. This is important because all of these players are starters, and it informs the reader what the Brewers tried to do to improve their team. If this is taken out, vital information is taken away. It is interesting to say that the Brewers tried to improve their team by signing players from other teams.
  • The Brewers began the season with a victory on opening day, with Ben Sheets pitching a complete game two-hitter.
  • This is vital to the lead because it explains a very important opening day, which was the first complete game two-hitter for an opening day game in so many years. A complete game two hitter is pretty rare, especially on opening day and it is interesting, making the reader want to read the article.
  • This informs the reader of how they are doing right now, which I would say would be one of the most important things in the lead.
  • The Brewers headed into the season celebrating their 25th anniversary of their American League Championship.
  • Just gives a brief introduction on to what the paragraph is going to be about
  • They prepared for the season by hosting reunions and premiering a video of the 1982 team at the Pabst Theater.
  • This informs the reader that this is a big deal. This gives the reader that there was a buildup to the season and that the celebration of the 1982 team was actually going on.
  • The Brewers announced they would celebrate the 1982 team on "Retro Fridays" by having fan give-aways relating to the pennant-winning team.
  • Again, this tells the reader exactly how they would celebrate this. This tells that the Brewers organization really wanted to celebrate this and wanted their fans to celebrate this team and the anniversary.
  • Milwaukee also celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Milwaukee Braves victory in the World Series.
  • This notes that Milwaukee (the home of the Brewers) was also celebrating the 50th anniversary of Milwaukee winning a world series. The source states that they did celebrate this, and this was related to the Brewers organization, because they are in Milwaukee.
  • During the offseason, the Milwaukee Brewers increased their payroll from US$54.5 million to $68 million.
  • Gives a detail of how much the Brewers increased their payroll. This is pretty important in this era of free agents and salaray.
  • The Brewers resigned free agents Bill Hall, whom received an increase from $418,000 to $3.5 million, and Chris Capuano, whom received an increase from $450,000 to $3.25 million.
  • This gives a detail of how much their star players received. Going from 450,000 to 3.5 million dollars is a pretty big deal. These are also two of Milwaukee's star players, and Bill Hall was first in just about every stat last year. Signing their best player is a big deal.
  • Hall signed a four-year, $24 million contract which is the largest on the Brewers team.
  • States how important this was and how long he got signed for.
  • This tells that the Brewers were busy in free agency and signed a player to a large contract.
  • This sentence states how the Brewers built their team, and how they were signed. These players are starters, which means that signing them is pretty notable.

I'm assuming you'll still completely ignore any form of communicating and just revert back to "your way". Oh but "there the same" you've said countless times! But of course, if it's the same, it still has to be "your way" amiright? I think it's time that you take a break from Wikipedia. Your edits have disrupted many, many editors and you show no signs of improving your skills to work with other people. I saw in one of your edit summaries that you called someone a "stupid anon" and reverted them countless times over something so stupid as a couple of spaces, before telling him that he's not supposed to be editing that article. This just shows your intentions on Wikipedia to control everything you edit. Well, that's not how this works and you have to learn to deal with it. I suggest you take a break from editing.++aviper2k7++ 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright, now let me do this...
  • Alright, this is fine.
  • This can actually be easily combined, as they are all free agents. This doesn't need to be broken up into two separate sentences, anyway. I suggest something like "During the offseason, the Brewers re-signed free agents Bill Hall and Chris Capuano and also acquired free agents Jeff Suppan, Craig Counsell, and Tony Graffanino from free agency." Then, in the offseason heading, we can go into detail about their contracts and whatnot.
  • The Brewers began the season with a victory on opening day, with Ben Sheets pitching a complete game two-hitter. They are currently tied for first place in the National League Central with a record of 5-4.
  • This shouldn't be in the lead. The lead is something that gives an intro to the article. Stating that they began the season with a victory on opening day doesn't give a good intro on the article. Also, a complete game two hitter on opening day is not more rare than a complete game two hitter in the middle of July.
  • This is fine, as well.
  • The Brewers headed into the season celebrating their 25th anniversary of their American League Championship.
  • First of all, you say in your explanation "Just gives a brief introduction on to what the paragraph is going to be about". This section is, as its heading suggests, for the offseason, not the celebration of the 25th anniversary of their American League Championship.
  • They prepared for the season by hosting reunions and premiering a video of the 1982 team at the Pabst Theater.
  • Again, not part of the offseason. If this were to be included, however, I would suggest more detail, as myself, somebody from Long Beach, California, can't completely understand what that sentence means, since I haven't heard anything about it. What kind of reunions, for example?
  • The Brewers announced they would celebrate the 1982 team on "Retro Fridays" by having fan give-aways relating to the pennant-winning team.
  • Milwaukee also celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Milwaukee Braves victory in the World Series.
  • This is just repeated from the lead, it doesn't give any additional information about the anniversary other than simply repeating what is stated in the lead.
  • During the offseason, the Milwaukee Brewers increased their payroll from US$54.5 million to $68 million.
  • This isn't that important in an era in which teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets, etc. have payrolls above $150 million-$200 million. Maybe say something like "During the offseason, the Brewers drastically increased their team payroll with the acquisitions of free agents Jeff Suppan, who was signed to a four-year deal worth $42 million, Craig Counsell, and Tony Graffanino, as well as signing Chris Capuano and Bill Hall, each who received an increase in salary from the previous season."
  • I already explained this in the previous one.
As you can see, there really aren't that many differences between what we want to say. From what I can see, the only huge differences are that I feel that you include information about something that isn't related to the season, like the reunions/video and promotional give-aways. Just saying that they celebrated the anniversary should be enough without having to go into detail to say how they celebrated it if it's something like a fan give-away. Also, in the offseason section, I simply feel that saying that a player's salary increased from A amount of money to B amount of money isn't that necessary; I think it would be better if we put just their salary today, like "the Brewers signed Bill Hall to a contract worth $X million" or something like that. Alright, that's all from me for now. I hope we can come up with a compromise soon. Ksy92003 04:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It seems like we're discussing two things. The 1982 celebration and how much detail we should leave in the offseason. The lead is fine now, even maybe a bit undersized, but this will grow in time. The 1982 celebration I've added two more sources, so it definitely is notable and important. I can add more sources if you need? And this belongs in the offseason because they announced this before the season. In the 3rd reference I've added, it was under the new things you'll see at Miller Park. Since they've developed this in the offseason, it should belong there. I don't think this will fit in the regular season and gives a good introduction to the season before it has started. And the salary issue, I'm not sure why you feel it's necessary to trim the paragraph down to basically nothing. If you're worried about size, two paragraphs won't do anything and certainly a measly sentence is not going to matter. I think the numbers give an idea of how much they worked on the offseason. The total salary is notable because it shows that they've did a lot of work, but still are a smaller market team. Should we mention the average salary of each team?++aviper2k7++ 04:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
You know what? I'm not really gonna worry about this that much anymore. I still think that the paragraph explaining the offseason free agent signings can be modified a little bit. There's a little more than 7 lines of text on the article, and there are 8 mentions of dollar amounts. One thing I've been meaning to ask you, however, is I don't get Bill Hall's contract. It says he received an increase to $3.5 million, but he signed a 4-yr deal worth $24 million. That should be $6 million a year, which doesn't equal 3.5. It seems like these two figures contradict each other and, for several days, have confused me. Second, it doesn't make sense to me why the mention of Hall signing a four-year, $24 million contract is separated from the mention of Hall signing with the Brewers. That's separated by the mention of Chris Capuano. I did some minor tweaking to fit those together. And also, it's "re-signed", not "resigned".
In addition to this, I've made some more minor changes to the offseason section of the article, which I believe is a very good summary of the offseason. I left the mention of the reunion and whatever else it was, since obviously you feel it is an intricate part (I hope I used the word correctly) in the Brewers offseason, and you do seem to know a lot more about the Brewers than I do, as I'm an Angels fan. So actually, I believe we have reached a compromise now. I haven't taken any information out at all (as far as I'm aware), and I believe that I have worded it stronger than it was previously. If you make any other changes, I will not revert them. --Ksy92003 05:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


They did not sign Tony Graffanino they had traded for him last year and re-signed him this year.


free agents edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Several of the players mentioned as "free agents" were, in fact, arbitration-eligible (Hall, Capuano) or accepted arbitration (Graffanino). Players in the arbitration process are considered signed and are not free agents. The two free agents signed were Suppan an Counsell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.128.237.26 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

alright, i have a problem edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

you told me to come to the discussion page if i had a problem, aviper. well, yeah i do. the sections were already broken up month-by-month. why change a format that's been in use for 2 1/2 months? the other format was already used and you changed it for no reason. then, you reverted ksy92003 for no reason. and i saw the message he left at your talk page, and i have to say i agree with him. you've been going back and forth and do appear to be contradicting yourself. you told him to make an edit instead of discussing something. but when he made one single edit to this page, you only said, "revert- please discuss on talk page rather than deleting my hard work for no reason." you didn't give any reasoning behind why you reverted him, only that he should discuss it on the talk page instead of making the edit. but why would you say this if you recently told him not to discuss stuff and make the edits? you are a very confusing individual, and based on how you've treated the situation and how you've treated ksy92003, i'd have to say that he's pretty pissed off at you. that's just my opinion, but you can't blame him for feeling that way. you've literally treated him like crap just because he made a minor edit, one single little edit to an article that you were working on. he was being bold in his first edit to the 2007 milwaukee brewers article and gave a reason for the edit that he made. but, because it was an article that you had made the previous edit on, you reverted him for no reason, only telling him to discuss it here. you gave no reason, he did. you had absolutely no right to revert him. his edit was perfectly reasonable and valid. your's wasn't.

i believe, based on the comment left by ksy92003 at your talk page, that he's really frustrated and upset right now. please don't revert another user for no reason, especially when you don't give a reason for reverting an edit made by another user, and even though ksy92003 gave a perfectly valid reason for the edits you made. you had no right to revert him for no reason when he had a reason. i think you should apologize to ksy92003.

It's kind of ironic that a new editor knows everything about the situation without any previous edits. Why do you think that this article should be organized by months? It has no flow! A month doesn't have anything to do with the season. A lot of the games even are in the middle of a series after the month. If it's organized by logical parts of the season, like where they were doing good, where they hit a slump, etc, it has flow and it's broken down into parts where the reader can jump to. "It doesn't make any sense" is not a valid argument, as I don't think arranging the article by months makes much sense.
One thing you editors seem to get wrong about Wikipedia; everything doesn't have to be the same one article to another. This limits my editing. Even if it were a rule, I could ignore all rules because it prevents me from creating a better article. Right now the arguments for arranging the sections by month is because we've been doing it for 2 and a half months. The argument for arranging the sections by respectful events or trends in the season is because it gives the article flow and it would not restrain the article if the end of the month is in the middle of the series. Also, arranging the section this way helps the reader in case he wants to read only about a certain part of the season. He couldn't jump right into their slump if he doesn't know where it is.
Again, I've come under so much fire when editing this article, without any opposing arguments. I'm trying to bring this to featured article status after the Brewers win the World Series. It's pretty hard to edit when an editor is wiki-stalking me and undoing changes because it doesn't match with other articles not even close to the level this one is at.++aviper2k7++ 17:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Come on, the Brewers aren't gonna win the World Series. There are at least 6 teams in MLB better than them. That's the same thing I'm trying to do; look at the sections I've written at 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season. I'm trying to make it a featured article when the Angels win the World Series. In fact, I'll take a stab in the dark and say that you're a Brewers fan. Obviously, I'm an Angels fan. To be honest, I would like to have some sort of discussion with you in which we can discuss our two teams and say why we think they are the best, you know, analyze them and say why they are gonna win the World Series. This is completely unrelated to Wikipedia, but I would like to have a discussion with you about that.
Anyway, that aside, I do appreciate you finally giving a reason for what you did. It would've been better for you to have at least done that instead or reverting me, giving me no reason at the time. I do, however, still believe that organizing by sections would be difficult. For example, there are teams like the Orioles or Devil Rays that might have a season long slump. Would they only have one section for their slump? There are some teams like the Angels and Red Sox, who have been doing good all year. Would they have only one section for season long success?
And I know you're gonna say "all articles don't have to be the same." All 30 articles still have a lot of similarities, at least 4 that I can think off right off the bat.
  1. All articles have the team infobox
  2. All articles have the same format for the division standings
  3. All articles have the same format for the game logs
  4. All articles have the same format for the stats (or at least the selected few that have them)
Whether you realized it before or not, all 30 articles have at least those same exact similarities in between them. Has anybody complained about those being the same format? No. Why is one article any different? I'm not saying that they have to be the same, but why does one have to be different?
Anyway, please get back to me with that discussion. --Ksy92003 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, I could care less about the 2007 Baltimore Orioles season. The article is similar to this one, but it doesn't even give a summary of the season. What I want to do is bring this article to featured status, and by doing so I need good headers and a good flow. It's not so much that I need it to be different, it's that it can be different, and the best way goes. What matters is that it works for this article and it's the best for this article. It may not be good for others, but it's good for this one. It would be one thing to take out the info-box, but for arranging sections? It's very minuscule and should be decided on an article-by-article basis.++aviper2k7++ 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
And I've yet to read a valid argument about why the sections should be arranged by months, other than other articles do it.++aviper2k7++ 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that's fine. I just wanted a perfectly valid reason behind why you've decided to do this. Now that you've given me a perfectly valid reason behind why you reverted me, I'll step aside.

All I wanted was an explanation. I wanted to know why you reverted me, why you preferred your way and why you feel that was a better way. I'm not going to say if I agree with your way of doing that or not; I'd rather keep my opinion to myself so I don't get in another conflict with you. But, I will say that I accept your way because you've given me an explanation behind that and an explanation behind reverting me. Keep up the good work in the article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dead link edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dead link 2 edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dead link 3 edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dead link 4 edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dead link 5 edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dead link 6 edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Milwaukee_Brewers_season&oldid=1196501790"