Template talk:2008 NL Record vs. opponents

Editing inquiry
This is more or less directed at HouAstros1989 (talk), due to this edit, but I encourage others to chime in with their thoughts as well. I honestly don't see what the problem is with editing the records of anyone's favorite team, or just any team for that matter, once the results of those respective teams' games become final. Why should anyone have to wait to edit this template until all of the games are over? It doesn't have any sort of relative effect, such as what happens when editing the standings of each MLB division (although, I don't really have a problem with people editing the standings over those same motives as well). I'm just wondering what's the reasoning behind why everyone needs to wait to edit this template until all of the games are finished. -- Luke4545 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe to make sure edits don't get duplicated? It makes sense to me... I wait until all games within a division are over to update standings when I do it too. KV5 (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, but you could always check the revision history to see what records have been modified. I guess maybe some people would consider that an unnecessary step to take; so, in that sense, I could see a reason behind waiting.  In my opinion, though, that particular step isn't that big of deal, but if others feel otherwise, then I have no problem going along with what HouAstros1989 (talk) said.  I just wanted to see what other people thought about this.  -- Luke4545 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS compliance
OK, so I have been running around like a maniac on Wikipedia every day trying to make sure that all the divisional standings contain the correct formatting, using en-dashes vs. regular old hyphens. Really, this chart should have them as well, but the formatting of it is going to take a really long time, and it would make the chart quite a bit larger, width-wise, than it is now. I'd like to get opinions on whether it would be preferable to comply with the manual of style or to leave it the way it is for ease of reading and size concerns, per ignore all rules. Comments welcome (indeed, necessary!). KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

cubs-phils record is wrong
this says as of aug 10, but as of that date the cubs were only 1-2 against the phils, not 4-2. as of 8/31 the actual record is 3-4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.197.248 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Template question
I really don't understand this. I made this template good for Sept 23. And expected this template to get updated on the wikipedia pages where it was used from. Of the 16 National League teams' 2008 wiki articles, all but 2 refer to this template (or at least display what looks like this table): Philadelphia Phillies & St Louis Cardinals. Of the remaining 14 which do, only 5 have displayed the updated version. These are: Cubs, Rockies, Astros, Dodgers, Brewers. All the other pages continue to display the August 10th version (for example, Mets). Why? If I click on the 'edit' link under the table on the 2008 New York Mets season page, I get taken to the page to edit the template which I did edit. It doesn't make sense, seems to be screwed up to me. Nejd (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Phillies article does not link to this template for two reasons.
 * It was not being updated consistently, so I removed it from the Phillies page in favor of the style used in American League articles (and we should be using a standard and easy to read (which this isn't) format across all articles).
 * I am going to be attempting a PR with hopes for GA with the Phillies season and already have several other templates linked on the page. One more makes it even more complicated. KV5  •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  12:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not complaining about (or asking why) Phillies article (was) not using this template (but appreciate the info). What I was asking was how does the template get realized in the main articles which are using it. For some articles the revised version here is shown. Other articles the old version is shown (for example, New York Mets page) even though it is being referred to correctly (i.e., "  "). But I just tried the Mets page again and now it is updated.  Now, that would seem to indicate that the template does not get realized in the main article until it is re-edited, and someone has reedited that article since I updated the template. The trouble is, as of this writing, the Houston Astros page is showing the new version of this template now and it was last edited on September 18th ((cur) (last)  22:23, 18 September 2008 HouAstros1989 (Talk | contribs) (49,985 bytes) (→Game log) (undo)}! Thus, that blows that theory out of the water.
 * As far as the template goes, I like it and disagree about it being hard to read. And am disappointed you don't use it on Phillies page (being a Phillies fan myself :)) Nejd (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)