Template talk:2007 NL East standings

Is there a particular reason that date of the standings are not included? Something like Standings for all games through June 30, 2007 would be very helpful. I am going to add it to this template now, using the last edit date. - BillCJ 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

WHere has it been discussed that dates can't be displayed? Please give me a direct link to the section on a Baseball project discussion page the forbids this. - BillCJ 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright, the link is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles#Division standings. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I don't see anyhting there saying we can't put a date on the template. Granted, it's a long discussion, but I couldn't even find "date" in a word search. I'll have to go out, will be about 2 hours before I'll respond. Please LEAVE the dat on until then. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. I gave you the wrong link. I corrected it above; it was the wrong section I directed you to.

Anyway, here is what it says:

They have been kept up to date ever since this was the agreement on May 12. Last night was the only day it wasn't kept up to date, but the only reason for that was because I was not able to update the standings template until today. --Ksy92003(talk) 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the reasoning for not having a date. I can see harm bing done without it though. What damage does it do to have it? If someone were to see it was out of date, they might be able to update it for you. ANyway, given that this is date-sensitive material, it should have a date. I have brought up both questions from today at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, and would like to take up the discussion there. Thanks - BillCJ 21:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Consider this: if all 6 division standings templates have a date shown at the top of each template, then when they are all transcluded into 2007 Major League Baseball season, that notice is gonna show up 6 times.

As for right now, as the templates are, in fact, being kept updated, and have been every day for the past 1½ months, I don't think a notice is necessary. If updating them eventually becomes a problem and the templates become out of date for a couple days, then perhaps it would be necessary. But as for right now, the templates are being updated daily and again have been every day for at least the past 1½ months, there isn't any sort of problem currently present about them becoming out of date. I don't think that anything should be changed right now, as they are being kept up to date. --Ksy92003(talk) 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

But no one will know for sure if they are up to date without a date! That's my point here. Most standings I've seen online and in print have a date and time - I'm not even asking for the tiem here, at least not yet! As to the dates showing up on the standings, it would be useful in knowing if one of the templates is outdated.

One more thing: this is not the first time you have quoted some "mystery consesnus" on an issue to me, but not been able to produce said discussions. I'm not accusing you of bad faith here, as I know it's hard to keep up with what was disccused where, and I have had that problem myself. But when you claim a consensus, you HAVE to be able to back it up! Untill you actually show me the consensus, I have no proof there is one, and no place to respond to contest it. If you can't find the discussion soon, I will assume the discussion does not exist, and I will ask an admin to step in here and restore the dates on all the templates,and protect them if necessary. - BillCJ 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

If it doesn't say anything, then somebody looking at it would then assume that it would be up to date. --Ksy92003(talk) 00:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Just so you know, I ALWAYS check the date when I look at sports standings, and I don't see how this should be an exeption. It's standard media practice, and you haven't given a good reason for ignoring that in this case. - BillCJ 00:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I told you what was said, and what the agreement was. It's that quote up above. The link to that discussion is up above, and I gave it to you when you asked for it. --Ksy92003(talk) 00:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, sorry, I eventually did find it! LONNNNNNNNG section! ANyway, I stll disagree with the basic premise for not including it, and will re-open the issue there. - BillCJ 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am copying some of this to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles page. - BillCJ 00:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm just going along with what we originally had. We haven't had a problem with it for 1½ months; I don't see why now it should be a problem again. But I was just going to suggest that you re-open the discussion if you really have a problem with it. I don't think it's gonna make much a difference, and I still think it would be rather redundant to have a date posted on pages like 2007 Major League Baseball season 6 separate times if the standings were all updated on the same date.

As for Yahoo.com and MLB.com, mind that those notices are added automatically by the computer, not by the person who edits the standings for the respective websites. And the reason why they have the computer do that is because of server lag, an issue that Wikipedia doesn't have to worry about. MLB.com and Yahoo.com are their own separate websites run by paid officials, and that note is added by their computer. The standings are updated ASAP by those officials and the automatic note is added by the computer in the case of server over-usage. But that isn't a problem that we have to deal with.

As the old saying goes: Don't hate the player; hate the game. Don't argue with me because we've reached an agreement on the matter. Here's another saying that shows my opinion on this: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There isn't a problem with the standings being out of date now, so I don't think it's necessary to add a note to the top of the template that is needed, albeit a minor priority, only when the templates are out of date. Again, they haven't been out of date in 1½ months, so that's 8 weeks of not having any sort of problem like that. From the quote that I gave you from the link, it says "[I]f people are able to keep up with the updates and prove the note is not needed then we can remove it later." We have done a good job of keeping them updated, so I don't think it's necessary to re-add the note if it's being updated every day. --Ksy92003(talk) 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't "delete" them, I moved them, whole, and asked you to respond there. I'm not going to discuss this issue on this page, as I've put most of our discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles page, where you're so-called consensus was reached. So if you don't want me declaring a new consensus without you, you might want to respond there. If you don't, you could be seen as not wanting to continue the discussion. Also, I'd have really appreciated if you hadn't reverted my constructive edits (4 times!) today, so I guess we're even! - BillCJ 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply