Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Latest comment: 3 days ago by GoodDay in topic MLB Draft or draft?
WikiProject Baseball (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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 Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Requested Move on National LeagueEdit

You may be interested in a conversation on the National League talk page. Skipple 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi folks, I stumbled across an article for the Philadelphia White Stockings and I want to expand it. Question: Is considered a reliable source for baseball articles on Wikipedia? I poked around to find the answer, but for some reason couldn't find anything definitive. Maybe I'm overlooking something. Thanks! Vivatheviva (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not its BR Bullpen page, since it is WP:USERGENERATED.—Bagumba (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, however, it's a wonderful place to find additional references, such as the page you just linked. Skipple 18:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's not a lot of guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice § Reliable sources, but Baseball Reference is one of them (with a note about the lack of reliability of the bullpen section). Interested parties are welcome to add more reliable sources to the section. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see Fangraphs is not listed there. Beyond that, there aren't any other resources that come quickly to mind. Maybe the Baseball Almanac? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't appear that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Style_advice#Reliable_sources lists any third party websites as reliable sources, but here are a few that come to mind:
There are obvious ones that could be added as well. ESPN, CBSSports, Yahoo! Sports, etc. Skipple 01:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a note that the various sports news sites probably don't need explicit listing, since there isn't any contention about their reliability. In the interest of saving the effort in trying to make an exhaustive list, I suggest focusing on sites where there may be some uncertainty of the degree of editorial control (though of course it's no big deal if some sites don't fit this description). isaacl (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally consider SBNation (and Bleacher Report, SI's FanNation, etc) to be too bloggy. If it's important enough, the same information should be sourceable somewhere else.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SB Nation pays their writers and has an editorial staff, i've found most of it's reporting to be pretty good. Spanneraol (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, everyone! This is great stuff. Looking forward to digging in to see if there's anything to help expand the Philadelphia White Stockings article. Vivatheviva (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SB Nation is a tricky case. It's an attempt to monetize the value of sports blogging through building a network of many blogs across many sports. It's part startup journalism, part crowd-sourced content, part community-of-fans building. For straight facts it's typically fine, though as Bagumba says, in those situations it'll be just one of many usable sources. But in a world where local sports beat coverage is becoming extinct due to a lack of profitability, thanks to so much free content being provided in audiocasts, blogs, and other media, we may need to figure out how to evaluate non-traditional sources in a more nuanced manner. "All SB Nation bad/good" is probably too broad a brush. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On SB Nation, I've tended to take the approach of the main site is generally RS, but the team-specific sites not so much. If the KC Royals one I read regularly is of any indication, the articles there are under less scrutiny than at the main site, and tend to be more things like upcoming series previews, opinion pieces, and routine transaction notices that aren't either all that useful for article writing or would be covered in better outlets anyway. Hog Farm Talk 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of my biggest complaints on the quality of a lot of those sites is that they just dump random stats with not much insight otherwise. And the stats-inclined WP editors continue the cycle and cite those sources for their own random stat mention. About a decade ago, some notable print writers went to some of those sites, and I'd selectively say those writers' work would be exceptions to the rule. But I think those reputable writers now have moved on, some to the Athletic, start their own Substack, etc. so these bloggy sites seem to be less reputable again. —Bagumba (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is essence of the problem moving forward: if traditional local beat writing is no longer around to burnish reporter reputations (with cutbacks at local newspapers, the Athletic, sports radio networks, and so forth resulting in more self-published content), then Wikipedia editors will face an increasing burden in identifying appropriate reliable sources through discussion. The world of self-publishing removes filters between the reporter and sports fan, which can be good for spreading the word quickly, but isn't helpful for Wikipedia editors who rely on those filters to provide editorial oversight. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see the problem as more about filtering unreliable sources, as a lot of editors seemingly cite online sources without regard to whether it's reliable. It'd be good to have a sport-specific version of WP:RSP. —Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the point is that "unreliable" has traditionally determined through the degree of editorial oversight, and typically newspaper editorial control for local sports beat writing. But as this fades away, it can't be used for the new modes of sports coverage. And "this person used to write for a newspaper" will only go so far, both due to a lack of new beat writers and because past editorial oversight is no guarantee that future self-published writing will be reliable. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am in full support and would be willing to assist with standing up a reliable source entry over at WP:Sports. I know WP:VG has one that I use all the time and would love to see something similar for the sports world. - Skipple 23:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon SeyfriedEdit

You may be interested in the deletion discussion on Gordon Seyfried. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Career section in biographiesEdit

At the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice/Sample biography, the sample heading "Career" was changed to "Professional career". As based on my sampling of articles there is a wide variance in the headings used, I restored the "Career" heading and provided some guidance on using other headings as suitable. This change was reverted. Does anyone have any views on the guidance that should be provided? isaacl (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it honestly depends on the article. "Career" might not be specific enough. If the person had distinctive amateur or collegiate careers that warrant having their own main sections, then perhaps it makes sense having a "Professional career" section. But the change to the guidelines was also made by an editor with relatively few edits, so take that into account.
Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 16:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked through baseball FAs, and more seem to use "Professional (baseball) career" than not, whether or not there was also a college or minor league section. I tend to prefer uniformity, but exceptions can make sense depending on a specific bio's circumstances.—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My quick survey of articles such as Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, Steve Trout, Vladimir Guerrero, and Vladimir Guerrero Jr. revealed a variety of styles. Note though that the sample biography is just a sample for an imaginary generic player. For a real player, more tailored headings can be more appropriate. As such I chose the most generic heading, and my recent edit added further guidance. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For best practice examples, I tend to look at FAs and GAs, as they are (in theory) the project's better works. —Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I did that when I first wrote the player style advice. Let's see — two I did look at now but forgot to list: Babe Ruth says "Professional baseball"; Jackie Robinson says "Playing career". Those two FAs are in the top importance category. Looking at FAs in the high and mid importance categories: Bob Feller, Derek Jeter, Jim Thome, Sandy Koufax, Bob Meusel say "Professional career". Harmon Killebrew, Mariano Rivera, Ozzie Smith, Stan Musial say "Professional baseball career". Doc Adams says "Playing career". Rogers Hornsby, Thurman Tucker have "Minor league career" and sections for their various major league teams. Lee Smith (baseball), Moe Berg say "Major league career". Stan Coveleski, Art Houtteman have team-based headings. Orval Grove has "Minor league career", "Transition to majors", "Prime years", and "Later career". I've mostly skipped over players who became managers, but here are a couple of examples: Casey Stengel has "Playing career", "Early managerial career", and sections for his Yankees and Mets managerial tenures. Billy Martin has "Playing career" and "Managerial career". So excluding Stengel and Martin, just over half have "Professional career" or "Professional baseball career". Although personally I still prefer a generic heading (with guidance notes) for an imaginary generic player, it's a reasonable option to show the shorter commonly-used heading, "Professional career". isaacl (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also worth noting that many players, after they are done with baseball, move into other fields and professions (e.g. Randy Johnson becoming a photographer), but those parts of their lives are likely to be segregated from their baseball careers into separate sections. That's why I thought "Professional baseball career" was a preferable option for how to title the baseball section, so there would be no confusion about whether details about other jobs/careers would be found in that section. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, although there's more (in the real-world sense) notable post-playing options today than before, most players still blend into the large number of undistinguished jobs/pastimes after retirement. For those who do have a notable career in another field (or another aspect, such as managerial or executive), certainly modifying "career" appropriately is reasonable. The sample biography is just a bare skeleton to be enhanced as needed. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MLB Draft or draft?Edit

Howdy. I may have missed it, but was there an RM on "Draft" pages? Were they created with "draft" in the title, or "Draft" in the title? If the latter, where/when was the RM held? GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this the article your referencing? Looks like it was moved here.[1] Nemov (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Year pages, 1965 Major League Baseball draft to 2023 Major League Baseball draft. I noticed that the capitalised "Draft" was in many of the intros & so got to wondering if an RM had been held to lower-case those page titles. Moments ago, I began matching the intros, but then stopped. I wasn't sure what the entire situation was, concerning usage of "Draft" or "draft". GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reckon you can include the Major League Baseball draft page, too. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently I see 87 instances of "Major League Baseball (MLB) draft" and 53 of "Major League Baseball (MLB) Draft" in articles (I'm sure there are other contexts with similar inconsistency). Thank for starting to move toward consistency. I'd be happy to help, using JWB. Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed over-capitalization on some of those in 2014. Books and news mostly use lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sawol: moved some in 2015 – at least the 1965 one I checked (but looks like didn't do the cleanup edits to lead). Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll leave the pages-in-question alone for about 24-hrs. If folks are alright with the current (lower-case) titles? Then I'll complete matching the intros to those titles. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If even ESPN is using lowercase,[2] this seems straightforward. —Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made the intros in sync, to the page titles. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]