Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles

message: Hi, I've added this page to the contents list of the Baseball WikiProject, it'd be better for this page to be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/2007 MLB team articles, so that the page is kept under the project and for more people to feel they are able to edit it.
Please consider this --Borgarde 08:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration with Baseball WikiProject

message: Should we create a standard form for the 2007 team articles. For example, should we include the team roster/team infobox on each page? Fbdave 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the team roster should be included. After all, the article is about the season, not just the results. --Borgarde 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the team rosters should be included. Fbdave 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we wanted to use templates for the standings. I created Template:2007 NL East Standings. That eliminates the chances of having five different versions of the standings. Fbdave 23:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea. It'll make it a lot easier to edit and keep up to date. --Borgarde 03:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The season articles should have the season roster, not just the current roster. —Mike 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Response from User:Ksy92003:"Hello, Michael Greiner. It isn't a really good idea to include the rosters as the information changes (not added onto, but changed entirely). Plus, at the end of the season, what roster will you put here? Because of this, a current roster isn't gonna be of any use to anybody looking at the article 20 years from now. Do you catch my drift? Ksy92003 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that the info changes but the info is current as this is the current season. At the end of the season, the template would be removed and the names of the players on the roster then plus any other players who made the active roster (25-man) during the season would be moved. (I'm willing to go through and look at previous changes) Michael Greiner 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it doesn't make hardly any sense to include something if it's just gonna be removed at the end of the season anyway.  Ksy92003 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be removed, just made permanent. (Template would be replaced by the text of the template) Michael Greiner 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Hockey League season articles include the current rosters. See 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season. I would follow their lead. Fbdave 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like you decided to remove the rosters.Fbdave 01:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As somebody who used to work on the NHL articles, I know this.  On those articles, it's a template, which is updated whenever any changes to the roster are made.  Like the NHL rosters, the MLB rosters are only good for the current rosters, and after the season ends, they don't do any good historically.  If, for example, we keep the template in a 2007 article, then in 2010 that template is gonna be updated as of that date in 2010.  We can't use rosters like that for historical information, as it's always updated, regardless of which season's article it's in.  --Ksy92003 03:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard form 

message: I'm really glad that we have at least gotten all 14 American League teams up and running, and three of the NL's 16 teams.  I wasn't expecting there to be this much of a turnout on this project.  My congratulations go out to everybody contributing to this project! Ksy92003 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Job! 

message: Hey everybody, I just realized that the link for the player stats is only for the 2006 stats, as 2007 hasn't begun.  When the 2007 season begins, it is not known whether the links already on the articles will be the links for the new stats.  Please be aware for any changes to these links. Ksy92003 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't check whether anyone changed anything, but I did a little exploring a while ago and the 2007 season should automatically go to this link. There is a link directly to the 2007 season which I might go through and change them all manually later so when the season is over they do not need to be changed again. --Borgardetalk 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player stats 

message: Why are we having redundancy? Should we not use internal links only once per series? Kingjeff 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Game Log

message: I have come here to seek consensus for non-objection for me adding extra innings to the game logs.  I initially did this and was reverted for the ARI-COL game on April 3.  I added the innings to the score in parenthesis in what I believe is a very unobtrusive fashion without adding a column to the table.  To see what it looks like, please see these diffs  .  Is there any serious objection to this?  I realize that the extra innings do not change the score of the game or have any actual bearing on the season standings, but as I mentioned on User talk:Ksy92003 when I was reverted, it doesn't damage the table or negatively impact the readability, so I would really like to do this. --After Midnight 0001 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks fine and is a good idea. ESPN and whatnot always note extra innings next to their scores in pretty much every sport. Don't see why it should be removed.++aviper2k7++ 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, ESPN.com doesn't list extra innings in the game logs.  --Ksy92003 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree that we should note in game logs when games go to extra innings. Vidor 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Innings  

message: *I would like to suggest a poll at this point.  I think that keeping this in template space is probably not an option, so I think that the two options remaining are: 1) subst it into the article and then just edit the article in the future or 2) move it back into the article space and continue to transclude it into the article. I'm going to lay out a format, please feel free to add pros to it as well as any other comments. --After Midnight 0001 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hey, what about the third option of just leaving it as a template, the way it currently is?  --Ksy92003 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think that option 3 would be depreciated, per the quote I used above from Wikipedia:Template namespace.  I won't fight any consensus that arrived at, but I think that option 3 could be objected to by the larger (than this project) community. --After Midnight 0001 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: Subst the current game log templates onto the articles and just edit the articles in the future.
===== Pros =====
*Watchlist shows article updated to indicate change in log.
*All season updates made in one place.
===== Editors preferring this option =====
*Borgardetalk 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 1 

message: *Borgardetalk 23:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors preferring this option 

message: Move the templates back to article space and continue to transclude them onto the articles.
===== Pros =====
*Game log can be updated without filling up history of the main article.
*Watchlist of article does not show these changes allowing editors who do not care about these changes to not be disturbed with them in their watchlists.
===== Editors preferring this option =====
*--After Midnight 0001 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option 2 

message: *--After Midnight 0001 20:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors preferring this option 

message: It appears there are a few disputes and disruptions going on regarding these season articles (see User talk:MisfitToys#Problems with WP:Baseball).  Can anyone shed some light on these disputes before they become more disruptive?  Should there be a central location for discussions or is this sufficient?  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes 

message: Alright.  Now, I know that we said that we would wait a week before reaching a consensus.  However, in the past couple days I have gotten into numerous disputes with other users about the stats.  Since it is completely pointless to have argument about it, I've just decided that we have reached our consensus about this and I will go ahead and remove the stats from the pages.  --Ksy92003 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the discussion is pointless and I do think we should wait a week. For example, my proposal only had 3 hours for users to read before you decided that this discussion was pointless. I applaud your initiative, but I move to continue the discussion. The season pages are very bear without the player stats. Asian Animal 05:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you feel the pages are "bare" without the stats.  However, we are in the process of adding a season summary in each of the articles (see 2007 Cleveland Indians season, 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season, and 2007 Milwaukee Brewers season for examples), which will make the pages not seem as "bare".  Just "bear" with us (no pun intended) until we can get summaries for all articles.  --Ksy92003 05:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My main concern is that from start to end, this discussion lasted only 30hours. Most editors do agree that the stats do contribute to the page and should be kept as long as there is a viable way to keep it reasonably updated. I've made a suggestion to do so, but my suggestion only got 3 hours of time to be read before you took out all the stats. I feel we're deciding too quickly. I would just like to take a moment, ask editors if they would use my script method, if so we would only need a few people doing this to keep it reasonably updated. Ksy92003 would you this script and keep some pages updated if this script existed? Asian Animal 05:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I don't have the slightest clue how to use a script.  But I guess it can't do any harm.  However, might I ask that we don't, as of right now, re-add the stats into the articles?  That would take a lot of time, and I don't want anybody to have to do that work if we still decide to remove the stats in the end.  Just leave them out of the article for now, and if it is decided that we keep them, we can re-add them.  I took about 10 minutes of my own time, when my hands were frozen solid, to remove those.  I don't want that to be reverted just yet, at least until we have our final FINAL verdict.  But yeah, it wouldn't do any harm to see if people want to use your script idea.  --Ksy92003 06:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't believe people don't have time to update the stats everyday while they're fine about arguing about it for ages. It only takes me usually 5 or 6 minutes to do the batting stats, pitching stats and the relief pitching stats on the Detroit Tigers one. Its easy! Can I undo you're deletion and update the stats from yesterday's Toronto v Detroit's game please? Fahima07 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh well, I'll do it anyway. By the way, if anyone's counting the votes, i vote them to stay. or at least the one's that are getting updated regularly. Fahima07 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't have to keep all the pages the same you know. For the pages that are going to be updated regularly, keep them there, what's wrong with them? If they're not being updated, then delete the stats. Fahima07 12:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you not seen that most of the articles have fallen behind on the stats?  2007 Baltimore Orioles season had fallen so far behind, the only player listed in the stats as of April 10 was Melvin Mora.  And articles, such as 2007 Seattle Mariners season hasn't even started (granted I said I would work on that article).  2007 Kansas City Royals season had only David DeJesus and Tony Peña.  2007 Pittsburgh Pirates season didn't have any stats listed, either.  That's at least 3 articles (that I haven't been working on) that haven't had updated stats.  There may even be more.  It is extremely tedious to have to go onto the internet to find everybody's stats, then come back to the article, then change the stats.  It's even more tedious to have to do that every single day as the stats change.  And I still don't see how it would make any sense to have about 5 or 6 pages updated regularly and have the rest of the articles take up space in the article by not being updated at all.  --Ksy92003 13:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It would add more information to those 5 or 6 pages which gets updated regularly. Those who edited those pages put effort into adding that data in. Also I don't see how having pages behind on the stats hinder anything. The reader knows that this is an ongoing event and the data might be outdated, and entice the reader to enter in new data. To the editors, just try your best in keeping it updated. Asian Animal 04:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For pages with stats that won't get updated, leave them out. They don't have to be the same for every page. Creating these instructions is instruction creep.++aviper2k7++ 04:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision:

message: Alright, right now it doesn't really matter what we do.  I suppose that if somebody wants to work on updating the stats every day, then fine.  However, I do ask that you try to update the stats for all articles, especially the ones that are drastically behind.  --Ksy92003 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'll readd them for the Dodgers stats. I'm happy to keep updating them. Hornberry 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats

message: Is there a model article out there that shows what you are trying to discuss? Fbdave 15:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Model article

message: If anyone contributing to this happens to attend games this season. Please take photos that we can use on this project. Photos always make an article look nicer. --Borgardetalk 01:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I periodically go to baseball games.  The game that I went to April 2 between the Rangers and the Angels, I thought about this, but I didn't bring my camera =(  nor do I really know how to upload pictures to be legally used on Wikipedia.  My next game is June 1 between the Angels and the Orioles at Angel Stadium of Anaheim.  What pictures would you like me to take?  --Ksy92003 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not after anything in particular. Just putting a notice if anyone happens to go to a game ;) --Borgardetalk 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've done my part - see User:Wknight94/Gallery#Baseball people.  Although I see one of mine was removed today.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some photos of the Angels vs. Indians game at Miller Park in Milwaukee. Also I took photos at opening day and caught Billy Hall hitting a home run :Image:Billyhallhr.png. I may see where that Indian Angel game fits in. I don't really have any closeups of the players. They didn't come out to sign autographs like yesterday :X Anyways, I've been trying to take pictures!++aviper2k7++ 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Stats can now be linked in the yearly team template. Just go to this page and look up the three character name of the team you want to add. Hover over the link and find the three letters. The Milwaukee Brewers are "mil" or the Texas Rangers are "tex". Most you can figure out on your own even. Then add "| espntn = abc" to the template or whatever the three letters representing the team were. See this page for an example of exactly how this works. It's pretty simple!
I will promptly add baseball-reference also, because they have a helluva lot of stuff and they date back very far.++aviper2k7++ 22:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to stats in the template 

message: God, I thought I was gonna die when I looked at 2007 Milwaukee Brewers season and saw this here.  Are we really gonna include this standings table in our articles?  It's horrendously long and pointless, especially two weeks into the season.  I saw that HouAstros1989 created this template this morning, and... gosh, after looking at that template and seeing it in the articles, I'm left completely speechless.  I'll just shut up and please, somebody else say something about this.  --Ksy92003 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you probably know, Ksy, I logged on today, to the Dodgers season and saw this standing table in the article. I'm sorry, the Wild Card has no meaning right now. Feel free, to add it, uh in late August or so, when it really matters. Two weeks into the season? Uh, you could say that every team, even the last place team could win the wild card. Really, anybody who would like to comment on why we need this, please do, otherwise it should be nominated for deletion. Hornberry 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the template needs to go, but templates are deleted through TFD not AFD. Michael Greiner 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've noticed and I'll nominate it when I get the chance. Hornberry 22:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:2007 NL Wild Card Standings]]}} 

message: Please see the discussion that I am reopening above. --After Midnight 0001 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template discussion 

message: What is the format for displaying an extra-inning game within the game log, if there is any? --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game Logs 

message: I propose another format of noting extra innings.  What I suggest is a format like this:
# 	Date    	Opponent	Score   	Win          	Loss       	Save	Attendance	Record
20	April 24	Tigers  	9 - 8 10	Moseley (2-0)	Jones (0-1)	    	36,055    	10-10
as opposed to this way:
# 	Date    	Opponent	Score     	Win          	Loss       	Save	Attendance	Record
20	April 24	Tigers  	9 - 8 (10)	Moseley (2-0)	Jones (0-1)	    	36,055    	10-10
I feel that the latter format takes away from the score itself.  Having the "(10)" there all big takes away the attention of the game log itself.  The most important thing of the game is the score, not how many innings it takes to complete the game, right?  Can't we all agree that that is the most important thing of the game?  Well, having it as "10" doesn't make a drastic change to the log.  The score itself remains the important thing in the "Score" category without being overshadowed by how many innings long the game was.  Plus, information like the extra innings should be included as a little side note.  Your thoughts on this, everybody?  --Ksy92003 15:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The superscript looks weird.  Looks like eight to the tenth power.  Don't like it. Vidor 06:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Much better. Vidor 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I actually like this subscript much better than the superscript.  So, is it decided then?  We go change all game logs to reflect this?  --Ksy92003 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. I'll get started on it by using AWB. --Michael Greiner 22:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done. Feel free to check my edits to make sure I didn't miss any. I also noticed two things. 1. The Mets game log did not list extra inning games (I noticed since I was watching Wednesday's extra inning game after the Yankees lost). I added two games but there may be more also other teams might be doing this as well (6 teams didn't have any extras listed) 2. The Twins game log is listing the Twins score first (other teams might be doing this as well, but I didn't notice) --Michael Greiner 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra inning notation proposal 

message: I am coming here to ask about the writting in the season summaries on the articles.  How much writing should we put in the section?  Look at 2007 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim season to see how much writing I put there.  I'm not sure if this is too much or not, if it should be shortened or not, so I am coming here to ask everybody what they thing about this.
Also, please see my previous comment about extra inning notation, directly above this secion.  Thanks.  --Ksy92003 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks a little wordy to me.  Might not want to include commentary on every series.  I try to concentrate on particularly notable games, and stretches of games ("the Cardinals won 10 of their first 12 after the All-Star Break"...).  Then again, there is no need to have every article have exactly the same amount of information.  Use your own judgement on how much information you think the article should have. Vidor 07:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that same thing.  What I was thinking was that, since the season is only a month old, that I would try to stretch it out as much as I can for four weeks of play.  But as the season progresses, for instance, I can simply say "The season started with the Angels going 5-2 on their first homestand of the year, however dropped below .500, going 1-7 on their first roadtrip.  The Angels came back home and went 6-1, and eventually improving their record for the month of April to [12-10]..."  But now, that doesn't look wordy enough.  There needs to be some sort of guidelines to determine how much wording gets placed.  While I do believe that the Angels season has too much stuff on there, I think that we should still include a small, short summary for each individual series and season-changing events.  For instance, the Angels losing Howie Kendrick to the DL wouldn't be included, but the death of Josh Hancock would be included on the Cardinals' article because that affects the season and is a major event.  I think a small summary on each individual series should be enough for these articles.  But still, I want to know what everybody else thinks before I remove some information that we eventually decide could still belong there.  --Ksy92003 06:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season summary 

message: Which should be used for the player stats?  SO is misleading, as SO is used even more commonly for "Shutouts" than "Strikeouts."  "K" is the universal symbol for Strikeouts and doesn't have an ambiguous meaning.  Can't we all agree that SO is used for Shutouts more than it is used for Strikeouts?  So, shouldn't we follow suit and use K to annotate Strikeouts as opposed to SO?  --Ksy92003 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: mlb.com uses "SO" for "strikeout" and "Sho" for "shutout".  See this.  There are no statistics that are designated "K".  Seriously, is this a topic that needs a group discussion for?  I think people are concentrating too much on small details than on improving the baseball articles on wikipedia.  X96lee15 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This deserves discussion simply because you and I have different opinions.  I understand your point that MLB.com uses "SO" for "Strikeouts," but in your honest, and I mean HONEST, opinion, which do you, X96lee15, believe looks better?  Please answer honestly, as it would help to resolve any conflicts that we have.  --Ksy92003 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer K for strikouts and SO for shutouts. -66.191.148.67 01:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strikeouts: "SO" or "K"? 

message: I wondered what everyone's thoughts were on italicizing players on the disabled list. It would be done in the players stats section, because that is where all the players' names are (on the pages with stats). I had been doing this on 2007 Washington Nationals season. I propose that the stats section would look something like this:
Player      	G 	SV	ERA 	SO
Jesús Colomé	21	1 	2.36	16
Chad Cordero	17	4 	4.15	15
Jon Rauch   	23	3 	3.63	15
Saúl Rivera 	19	1 	2.70	16
Ryan Wagner 	14	0 	5.74	9
Italicized players are on the disabled list.
Fbdave 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the New York Yankees Article, I haven't been doing anything special. I would think that the only thing that needs to indicate injury is on the roster template. (which I have lobbied for inclusion in the season articles) Michael Greiner 03:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds ok to me -- I have no problem italicizing DL players.  The more info in the articles, the better, IMO.  X96lee15 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the player's name needs to be italicized in the stats tables.  The tables are for the statistics of the players, and whether or not a player is healthy doesn't affect his stats.  That's my reasoning behind this.  --Ksy92003 07:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Players on the [[Disabled list]] 

message: I just wanted to let everybody out there know that I have personally made sure that all the game logs / division standings are updated tonight.  The final game has just ended, a 9-5 Brewers victory over the Dodgers, and I have updated all the game logs for the 6 games that weren't updated already (excluding the Yankees/Red Sox and Indians/Mariners games).  I have also updated all 6 division standings templates.
The only reason why I'm leaving this message is because I recall a user a couple weeks ago saying he was "cynical" about these being updated every day.  I want to say that I have been able to update all of them tonight, and (barring any extreme circumstances) I will be able to continue this for the coming weeks.  I promise everybody that all of these WILL be updated before I go to sleep every night.  I'm not saying that I'll do all of them, but I will do whichever I can whenever I can, especially if some other users are unable to update them for whatever reason.
In fact, just to throw some numbers around, I have made the last 26 edits in the project.  Not trying to say anything about anybody else, but I want to prove to everybody out there that I am very dedicated to this project.  And I can promise you that everything (except the player stats) will be updated the night of the game.  They will be updated by no later than 11:30 PST (2:30 am EST) nightly (minding the super-late 18 inning games we might occasionally have).  So if anybody has any more concerns about these being updated nightly, I want to let all of you know that I will make the effort every day to update everything if needed.  --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[May 21]] games 

message: I have created a new template, .  Along with , it looks like:

Looks exactly the same, but the links are to the game logs as opposed to the articles.  This template (obviously the one on the bottom) I have created is for navagation between the game logs, as well as to compliment .  I created it so I could navigate between them easily from my user page.  
Is it somehow possible that the template could be included in the game log template without showing up on the season articles when it's transcluded?  If so, could somebody tell me how so I can work on that?  --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template !!! 

message: I'd like to request permission to add the  template to the 2007 Atlanta Braves season page. I am making text additions to that page now, and would like to be able to see the standings without having to hunt for it. I know some of you think it's to early to worry about the Wildcard race, but how does including it harm antything? - BillCJ 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wildcard standings

message: Some individual decided to wipe out the entire article for "St. Louis Cardinals 2007 season" and redirect it to the main St. Louis Cardinals page.  I would fix this if I could but frankly I do not know how. Vidor 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been undone by the user who made that edit. --After Midnight 0001 00:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Louis Cardinals

message: As I have withdrew my name from the 2007 Los Angeles Dodgers season, there is nobody actively contributing to that and someone will need to fill in. It appears both of the other editors who have their names up, are both on extended wikibreaks. Thanks. BrianY 03:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawn name from Dodgers

message: It looks like alot of work needs to be done for the Jays season pages. Im starting my way up from 1978 by adding stats and standings now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hockey (talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jays 

message: Doing this kind of page for 2008? Some of the 2008 pages are already up... BrianY 22:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall we start...