Talk:Nippon Professional Baseball playoffs

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Nippon Professional Baseball's Pacific League implemented a playoff system for three seasons that resulted in no playoff series being played? Source: "This strange playoff didn't come into play that '83 season as the Seibu Lions finished 17 games ahead of the second place Braves." ([1]), Source: "The system was applied in three seasons until 1985... without having to compete in the unreasonable playoffs." ([2])
  • ALT1:... that Nippon Professional Baseball's Pacific League once implemented a split season playoff system for ten seasons? Source: "Another trick the junior circuit tried was a split season from 1973 to 1982" ([3])

• Comment: NPB's season starts up again on Friday June 19 after being delayed for months because of COVID. If possible to get it on the main page on that day, that'd be great!

Created by Torsodog (talk). Self-nominated at 04:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC).

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Rakkestad

• The article has several maintenance tags which need to be addressed before the nomination can pass. Please see the [citation needed] tags. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - ?
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - ?

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - ?
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article created and nominated on the same day. Article appears neutral in tone and its length is adequate. No photo is used in this nomination, and all images in the article are properly licensed on the Commons. Nominator has less then five DYK credits, therefore QPQ is not required. Article has maintenance tags to be resolved. Article has several close paraphrasing issues as noted here and here. ALT0 is verified by the source, but I do not see it explicitly mentioned anywhere in this article. ALT1 is properly cited, mentioned inline and verified. Flibirigit (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Flibirigit: The nominator hasn't edited since the 11th and has not edited the article since the day after its creation. I will leave them a message but if they do not return soon the nomination may have to be marked for closure as abandoned. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition, per User:Torsodog/DYK, it appears that the nominator actually has 10 prior DYK credits. Normally this would mean they will need to do a QPQ, but given that they have only had two QPQ credits after 2010 the requirement could be waived per WP:IAR. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking into this now. This info was sourced from the JA wiki but I couldn't find sources for it at the time. I intended to search more later. I might have to remove the info for the time being --Torsodog^Talk 17:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please comment here when you're ready. Flibirigit (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I added a reference for one and removed the sentence for another as I couldn't find a reference for it at the moment. Also, I didn't know about the QPQ as it's been quite a while since I've done DYK. Let me know if I need to do this? I'll try to do one when I get a chance in the future either way though! --Torsodog^Talk 19:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I will seek clarification at WT:DYK on whether a QPQ is neeed here. Flibirigit (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Per the discussion at WT:DYK it turns out that the nominator provided a QPQ on their last DYK so one will likely be required here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Torsodog:, are you going to contribute a QPQ? --evrik ^(talk) 18:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I note that Torsodog has edited only a handful of times since his last comment here. I'm fine with waiting a week or so if he's busy, as long as this nomination does not go stale. I'd rather see this nomination pass than be rejected. Flibirigit (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as the QPQ is the only thing holding back the nomination and there are no other issues I'm willing to donate a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The article still has close paraphrasing issues as per the review above. The concern about ALT0 is still outstanding as per the review above. The maintenance tags for citations have been resolved. Flibirigit (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have posted a message at WT:DYK to see if anyone will adopt this. It would be ashame to reject the nomination when it really is not that far away from being successful. Flibirigit (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Flibirigit and Torsodog: QPQ donated for the cause. --evrik ^(talk) 17:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've been moving cross-country, so things have been hectic on my end lately. I've not seen the paraphrasing tool before. What percentage do I need to get it down to to make it not an issue? I've tweaked it a bit to resolve some of the issues. Let me know if it was enough. As far as ALT0 concern, I'm not exactly sure what the issue is? The hook is located at the last sentence of the "Five-or-fewer games separation (1983–1985)" section. Maybe I'm misunderstanding? Also, thanks all for the help with the QPQ! --Torsodog^Talk 04:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Torsodog: I am satisfied with changes to eliminate the close paraphrasing issues. There is no set percentage that passes the Earwig tool. It is a matter of whether the highlighted areas are direct quotes, proper names or too much copied material. In this case the highlighted areas are technical baseball terms and rules of play which are allowed to an extent under WP:LIMITED. I did not see any changes that address the concerns for ALT0. If you want to address that please do, otherwise ALT1 can be approved. Lastly for sourcing, the only question I have is the paragraph before the results table in the "Playoffs (2004–2006)". I hope that paragraph can simply be sourced by copying the correspsonding citation from the table. Thanks for the updates. Flibirigit (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Good to hear about the paraphrasing! As far as the ALT0 hook concern, I'm not really sure what the concern is. Is the concern that the wiki article doesn't explicitly state it? If yes, I believe it does? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, though. I think the first hook is more interesting than the ALT1 hook, but if we need to go with ALT1, that is fine as well. As far as the little paragraph before the results section, I'll get some refs in there by the end of the night! Thanks again. --Torsodog^Talk 19:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
        • ALT0 appears to be a general summary of the article. The concern is that since it is not explicitly mentioned anywhere, its citation cannot be easily verified. It's up to you if you think it's worth the effort to put it in somewhere. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
          • @Flibirigit:, the paragraph now has a source. @Torsodog:, if you really want ALt0, graft it into the lede someplace. Otherwise, Alt1 should go forward. --evrik ^(talk) 20:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Nominated article now meets all DYK criteria. ALT1 is approved as per comments above. Thank you to evrik for supplying a QPQ. If any change are made to support ALT0, please comment here. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
              • ALT0 is explicitly stated in the lead (and again later in the article in more detail): "In the year following their last split season, the PL returned to a single season, however if five or fewer games separated the first- and second-place teams at the end of the season, the two teams would play each other in a five-game playoff series. This playoff system was unpopular and ridiculed by media and fans. It only lasted three seasons with a playoff series never needing to be played." I'm not quite sure how to more explicitly state this fact in the article. Perhaps if I put the year range (1983–1985) in the hook, it would make it more clear exactly what I'm referencing? --Torsodog^Talk 01:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
                • The cited source here mentions that the playoff format began in 1983, but does not mention a duration or end date of 1985. I also have another question. The article is unclear what happened to playoffs between 1985 and 2004. The introduction mentions "After their first two playoff systems were abolished", but I can't find anything similar in the body. It is also confusing since the section "Playoffs (2004–2006)" mentions dates in the 1980s and 1990s. Flibirigit (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • The Japan Times reference isn't as clear as the Sportiva reference, unfortunately. The Sportiva reference lays it out clearly in the first sentence on the page: "結局、この制度が適用されたのは1985年までの３シーズンで、レギュラーシーズン１位となった西武（83年、85年）、阪急（84年）は、最後まで手綱を緩めることなく戦い、この理不尽なプレーオフ制度を戦うことなく、優勝を飾っている。" translates to "In the end, the system was applied to three seasons until 1985, and Seibu (1983, 1985) and Hankyu (1984), who had finished in first place in the seasons, dominated until the end and won without needing to play this unreasonable playoff." Obviously, this is in Japanese though, but hopefully that isn't a problem? And between '85 and '04, there were no playoffs held. I've tried to make that a little more clear in both the lead and in the body. Hopefully it is? --Torsodog^Talk 07:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
                    • ALT0 and ALT1 both approved. Issues above have been resolved. Both hooks meet DYK criteria. Flibirigit (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)