Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Active discussions
WikiProject Baseball (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Archive

Player Archives


1 2 3

Usage of standings templatesEdit

As a reminder, here is how the various standings templates in the form of <year>_<division or "Wild Card">_standings have been used historically, as documented in Template:MLB standings § Creating an MLB division standings template and Template:MLB standings § Creating a wild card standings template:

  • The division/wild card standing template is implemented using the {{MLB standings}} template, as shown in the documentation.
  • When the template is used within a team season article, it is used using the "highlight" parameter set to the team name. For example, in the 2019 Washington Nationals season article, the following is used: {{2019 NL East standings|highlight=Washington Nationals}} and {{2019 NL Wild Card standings|highlight=Washington Nationals}}
  • In the MLB season article, the "seeds" parameter is used for the division standings template to specify the seeds when known, and "highlight" is used to specify teams that have clinched playoff spot but their seeding is not yet known. For example, in 2019 Major League Baseball season, the NL East standings template is currently used as follows: {{2019 NL East standings|seeds=2:Atlanta Braves, 4:Washington Nationals}}. If, for example, Atlanta had clinched a spot but no seeding had been determined yet, then the following would be used: {{2019 NL East standings|highlight=Atlanta Braves}}

Hardcoded values for the "seeds" and "highlight" parameters are not included in the standings templates themselves, in order to allow the articles transcluding the template to decide what should be highlighted. In a team season article, this is the corresponding team.

Of course, consensus can change, but this is how the standings templates have been historically used, and I think it is a reasonable approach. I just removed hardcoded seeds and highlight values from the 2019 division and wild card standings templates. I trust for 2020, should there be a desire to make a change from historic practice, that a discussion will first be held to establish a new consensus. isaacl (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The Baseball Cube linksEdit

I've spent a fair amount of time correcting the Baseball Cube links in the stats template at the bottom of our player biographies, but I'm increasingly dubious of whether the Cube is a resource worth including in our articles. In my opinion, Baseball-Reference is both more reliable and more professional. Thoughts? Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I had WP:LINKFARM concerns at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_43#Baseballstats_template in 2018, when we already had Cube problems. Delete it (if not others too). Many sites do reorg and don't redirect old URLs. Not worth the effort (and the FARM concerns).—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The Cube links actually do redirect if you click on them from one of our articles, but we still have the ugly red text at the bottom of about four hundred articles. The mess has mostly been cleaned up, but I tend to agree that we should probably just go through and delete the Cube links from all of our pages. I'd like to get a consensus here before I do that, however. Lepricavark (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm for deleting it.. Cube doesnt provide anything that the other links dont already have. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree - should be deleted. I regret that people had to spend time messing with these links, but I don't think this site provides much value not covered by sites like B-R. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
So we have four in agreement and zero in disagreement. Is that enough for me to get started on the removals? Lepricavark (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you need to remove it from each of the articles or would just editing it out of the template do the trick? Spanneraol (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure. The latter might work. Lepricavark (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I see you removing Cubs from articles,[1] but it's still on {{Baseballstats}}. Is that by design? I can remove from the template.—Bagumba (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Feel free to remove it. I don't think that will break anything. Lepricavark (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if anyone sees any issues.—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It looks like there are 6,000+ articles that use the |cube= parameter. Primefac operates a bot that can remove those parameters and their values from articles, if you are interested (and if Primefac is willing). – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the actual total is still over 9,000 articles, but the category is depopulating itself for reasons that are beyond my technical understanding. Lepricavark (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed all Cube-related code, including the ones that track. Any template editor can reinstate the tracking code if useful (the removal process already taxed the limits of my template comfort).—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, leaving the |cube= in articles is not harmful; it's just ignored. Bots generally are not run solely to remove things that dont change reader experience (but can piggyback on other "useful" edits).—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, it kind of depends. If you're doing a param check (e.g. populating Category:Pages using baseballstats with unknown parameters) then the 9k pages in the category resulting from |cube= existence would be worth removing. If you're not tracking parameter use, then there would be no reason to remove a parameter that doesn't do anything. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Harry Davis (1900s first baseman) , Early Life last sentence cleanup.Edit

Hello and good day. Go to above player, go to Early Life section, last sentence. Tried to take out unnecessary information, please clean up so it goes to his SABR page. Have a good day.2601:581:8000:BDC0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I took care of the broken reference formatting, but I would love for someone to verify that the reference itself is structured okay. I can't remember the standard (if there is one) for how we phrase things on a SABR BioProject reference. (Do we just go with "SABR" as the publisher? Or is Society for American Baseball Research usually written out? Is there mention of BioProject or Baseball Biography Project somewhere in the reference?) Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Asterisk appropriate for the Astros World Series 2017?Edit

Do we need to put an asterisk on the Houston Astros page by their 2017 World Series win after the announcement today? TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

TheBigMan720, no, full stop. Not unless MLB vacates the championship or something, which they won't. Adding an asterisk to the 2017 Astros is like when vandals add an asterisk to Barry Bonds' home run total. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you for clarifying that, because LlamaWhoKnives keeps telling me on his/her talk page that his edits on the asterisk were "correct" which they weren't. I discussed that on his/her talk page and they didn't get the point of view. Plus I am not the one putting an asterisks on the Astros page. TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

TheBigMan720, the "asterisk" for a tainted record comes only from Ford Frick holding Babe Ruth's home run record up despite Roger Maris' 1961 season, but he never actually put an asterisk in the history books. He simply denoted two different records: Ruth's 60 home runs for a 154 game season, and Maris' 61 home runs for a 162 game season. Then, the record books later dropped Ruth's 60 and kept Maris' 61, until McGwire. An asterisk has never been used for a "tainted" sports record. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again. TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
@TheBigMan720: Looks like the case where you were both sorta correct. They were arguing that asterisks are used in sports, you seemed to be arguing that it was WP:UNDUE (which is probably the general consensus).—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we get some page protection for List of World Series champions also? Spanneraol (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Spanneraol,   Done – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Asterisk? Absolutely not and I just removed it from List of World Series champions....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the baseball notability guidelineEdit

I have started a discussion on a change made to the baseball notability guideline, which changed the following footnote, Articles that are not sourced to published material providing significant coverage of the subject (beyond just statistics sites) may be nominated for deletion., by adding the words "or sourceable". Participation is welcome. isaacl (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I should have also noted there is also a proposed change to the wording regarding other criteria that can be used to determine if English Wikipedia's standards for having an article have been met. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

MLB.com as reliable sourceEdit

In the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Change to baseball notability guideline, there has been some discussion of MLB.com as a reliable source. To try to keep that discussion focused on discussing the changes that had been made to the guideline, I would like to continue the discussion about MLB.com here, if everyone is agreeable. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

To summarize the discussion: Muboshgu stated that MLB.com is "editorially independent of the MLB franchises themselves. [MLB.com] is a reliable source." SportingFlyer responded that there are "beat writers who I believe have independent editorial rights, but they're thrown in with videos and other media that might not be completely independent," and that MILB sites are a greater concern. isaacl (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that we can't make a blanket statement about MLB.com being a reliable source, for a couple of reasons. First, as noted by SportingFlyer, there is content provided by the teams on the site. Second, although there is editorially independent content, it is still sports journalism, which has a certain promotional aspect behind it, particularly on MLB's official site. For factual reporting, MLB.com is a reasonably independent source for purposes of verifiability. For establishing if the standards for having an article are met, it may not necessarily qualify as a non-promotional, independent source, depending on the specific pages being cited. isaacl (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd say that it should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I would consider MLB.com's reporting on transactions, game summaries, notable events, etc. to be very reliable. However, MLB.com also produces some other content, such as "Who you should vote for on the All-Star Ballot" or "10 Greatest Second Basemen of the 2010s." I don't think there is any way that you can make a blanket statement about the reliability of the output of MLB.com, given the wide variety of output the site produces. These case calls for editorial discretion, although a lot of the time, the classification of reliable/not reliable is probably common sense. Hog Farm (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Isaacl, the beat writers are among the best in the game. I should definitely clarify that there is promotional content and there are videos and photos that are not public domain. Teams do put out press releases on MLB.com, which are still useful as sources if properly attributed. There's also fan-centric content like prospect rankings and comparisons of pros that we wouldn't want to publish either. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I agree (with newspapers getting rid of their beat writers, MLB.com was an obvious destination). Just wanted to clarify that all of the promotional content you just listed is there, too. Press releases are fine as sources for what a team is saying, but not necessarily a good source for determining if an article should exist on a topic (English Wikipedia notability), for instance. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Does MLB.com still have the boilerplate about being independent? I thought it used to be at the bottom of an article, but now I dont see it. Disclaimer aside, I still was never sold on how truly independent it was if they were being paid by MLB and their teams. I'm not questioning their reliability though.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the beat coverage it has would be fine, but I'm guessing the choice of story that it pursues would be constrained. For example, I wouldn't have expected it to break the sign-stealing story. isaacl (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
And I would guess they have a vested interest to write more about minor leaguers than say ESPN would, so I wouldn't use them to establish notability. Facts and verifiability are fine.—Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's part of the promotional nature of sports journalism: it tends to promote what its audience is interested in. The hometown paper is going to give more extensive coverage to its local team, and often write in more optimistic tones about its players and probability of success. In a similar manner, MLB.com presumably is interested in good news stories about its players and future prospects, and not as eager to break negative news stories. isaacl (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, it used to have it at the bottom of their articles, but not any more it seems. MiLB.com still has the disclaimer: "This story was not subject to the approval of the National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues or its clubs." And that's a negative news article I linked. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, purely factual stories that affect the day-to-day operations of clubs will certainly get covered. But will there be, for example, an in-depth investigative story on how drug pushers infiltrate their way into minor league teams? A piece on how the subservience of the minor leagues to the major leagues hampers its success in many markets? I have my doubts. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it reliable? Yes.. the articles that it publishes are factual. Is it independent? Not entirely... but it is still a good source for factual information. Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Baseball".