Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 51

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Cbl62 in topic Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NRIVALRY
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51

Mass change from ballpark to home field

Latest comment: 5 months ago28 comments10 people in discussion

There was a recent change to several ballpark articles changing the word "ballpark" to "home field" by Fred Zepelin. This editor unilaterally moved Ballpark to Baseball Stadium a couple of years ago, but it was never discussed further.[1]. This is being discussed at Truist Park| since I noticed the change there, but generally speaking isn't home ballpark/stadium preferable to "home field" when describing ballparks? There was discussion about baseball stadiums vs. ballparks a while back the loose consensus lead to most ballpark articles opening with "baseball stadium" and then using ballpark later on in the lead article as another word for baseball stadium. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Home field is a common enough idiomatic phrase when describing which team is hosting the visiting team. However in the context of a stadium article, I agree it's more precise to use the term ballpark to describe the function of the stadium. Thus I feel "ballpark of (team X)" is a better summation of the role of the stadium. isaacl (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
"Home ballpark" is likely the best phrasing for what Fred was trying to accomplish. The real problem is once more removing the link to the specific ballpark article in favor of the more general stadium article. Yes, ballparks are a type of stadium, but why would one link only the broader article when the more-specific and specialized article exists? oknazevad (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I really think we don't need "home" before ballpark... "ballpark of team x" is pretty self explanatory... it would clearly be the home stadium without needing to specifically say that. Spanneraol (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Fred Zepelin just made more mass changes after they've been reverted. Nemov (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I saw that... He mass reverted an IP that seemingly was making correct revisions based on current consensus. Spanneraol (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
And the IP got blocked for it. Drmies, I see that IP has been warned for disruptive behaviors, but FZ is the source of the disruptions on this and is ignoring discussion. I warned against edit warring yesterday and they reverted it and today they're right back at it. Nemov (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It's self-explanatory but it's not idiomatic. Like seriously unidiomatic to the point it sounds awkward. At least to my ear. oknazevad (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
How is it not idiomatic? The ballpark of the atlanta braves sounds perfectly fine. .. adding home before ballpark doesnt make it sound any better. Spanneraol (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
One might say "the team's ballpark",indicating ownership, but not "the ballpark of the team". The latter is awkward, because it doesn't indicate the specific relationship with regard to the team. A spring training ballpark could be said to be "the ballpark of the team" as well, but it's not their full-time home ballpark. It's much more common to include the word "home" than not in writing. See also the various other sports' stadia articles across Wikipedia. It's not just a baseball thing. But also look at he sources and how they phrase it. The "the ballpark of the [team]" construction is absent. oknazevad (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
You took the words out of my mouth. "Home ballpark" or "home field" is the way I would expect any article on a baseball venue to read. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Ballpark or home ballpark I understand, but making a mass change to "home field" to several parks under the claim "no one has ever said that" is weird. Nemov (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
"Home field" is sometimes used, but usually in terms of home field advantage instead of describing a team's home ballpark. oknazevad (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course, but that's not really being discussed in this context. Nemov (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not wrong, per we, but it's not a specific term. And again, removing the ballpark link is unacceptable. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
My first inclination was to suggest that the phrase be written as "the home ballpark for (team X)", as I think that avoids implying an ownership relationship (though that would appropriate for some venues such as Dodger Stadium). But in deference to the possibility of regional variation, I think "ballpark of (team X)" is clear enough for all readers. isaacl (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I thought the differences were regional, à la "soda" v. "pop," but an internet search turned up nothing. "Ballpark" is described by most dictionaries and wiktionary as baseball specific whereas home field is generic. I'd lean to using ballpark in the above context, with "home" being used sparingly dependent on the sentence structure. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think "home field" is fine, especially because some stadiums are used for more than one sport, like Yankee Stadium, which is how I just stumbled into this. Really I don't see the problem with "home field". I've always thought of ballparks as smaller venues. Yankee Stadium isn't a "ballpark". JimKaatFan (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Except baseball stadiums are rarely described as fields... while ballpark is the pretty much uniform designation for them. Yankee Stadium is absolutely a ballpark. Spanneraol (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean... it's a stadium. But anyway, why not just say "It is the home of the (whatever team)" and have "home" link to Home (sports), avoiding this kind of silly argument? JimKaatFan (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
They don't actually live there.... and they are ballparks. Spanneraol (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Home (sports), in this context, is a rather meaningless and unhelpful article. A better descriptive article would be ballpark. Just sayin'. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with saying "the home of". Disagree that Home (sports) is unhelpful - it's a perfect definition. But I need to clear up two falsehoods about me that have been repeated multiple times:

  • 1. It has been said that I made unilateral mass changes to these articles, and that was pushed by an IP editor that claimed, while rapidly making mass reversions, that I was "the first person to rapidly edit every Major League Baseball stadium article to home field without reaching a consensus in talk." Not true. I was undoing the actual first mass reversion: these edits, done over a span of 2 days, changing the leads of every single MLB stadium to their preferred wording, unilaterally, without a discussion. I undid those and now this IP is pushing a false claim about me. The stable version, for years, of those articles was the one BEFORE those edits I just pointed out. So please stop saying that I was making some mass change on my own, when the actual mass changes were someone else.
  • 2. It has been said that I claimed no one uses the word "ballpark". That is absolutely not true, and I've pointed this out more that once. What I said was, no one uses the phrase "it is the ballpark of". Take a look at two Google searches:

"it is the ballpark of" MLB
"it is the home of" MLB
The first result is literally just these Wikipedia articles and mirrors/copy-pastes of these Wikipedia article (check the surrounding verbiage, it's exact). The second result is millions of hits, from all kinds of different sources. It's very clear that "it is the ballpark of" is not a common phrase, and "it is the home of" is. So please, stop using those two fake claims about me in this discussion. It's very misleading. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that your undoing a mass change a year later is a bit much especially when those changes weren't all the same. You installed your preferred version again and again even when they had been challenged. Please stop changing these articles until there's consensus. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Yea, you should wait and seek a consensus, sometimes can be tyiring wait to get a consensus but is the best for everyone, since it stopps edit wars.
That said, i think you people should try use "Home Ballpark of *The Team* " , field is more used for Gridion football, and as far i know, different sports use different terminollogies.
For exemple: a field in Soccer/Association football is called a Pitch - Meganinja202 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I support ballpark. It is what virtually every piece of baseball media I have seen refers to these stadiums as. There is even a "MLB Ballpark" app. Seems as though Fred Zepelin has been changing a few articles back to his preferred wording without consensus again. 76.167.122.195 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I also agree with Nemov that it is disingenuous for Fred Zepelin to claim that changing year old edits that went unchallenged until their own is fair. Please wait until we finish our discussion and reach consensus, before reverting "back". 76.167.122.195 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure there's a consensus here for any term, but there's significant enough support to justify using "ballpark." I'm noting this in case someone attempts to make a mass change again. This can be handled locally on each baseball park article. Nemov (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It is very weird that Wikipedia pages for MLB players are the only pages without a table of season-by-season stats

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure why the MLB pages are the only major sport on Wikipedia to not include season-by-season statistics for the players. If we can do it for football, soccer, hockey, and basketball, there's no good reason why MLB should be special and excluded. All the data for those sports are pulled from other sources, so "baseballreference.com" has it isn't an explanation. People don't come to an encyclopedia because they want to be directed to other sources. That's what a search engine is for, not an encyclopedia. Angryapathy (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I find it weird that anyone would spend so much time and effort creating and maintaining stats tables on Wikipedia when sites like the aforementioned baseballreference.com do that already and the strength of Wikipedia is narrative prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to point out, there is no such thing as "official" baseball history

Latest comment: 5 months ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Executive Summary: Nobody gets to say that their "official" versions of historical events carry extra weight, baseball games and seasons are historical events, and using the term "official" in any of these discussions is not helpful and instead just muddies the issue. (And if there was a source of baseball history which we would consider "official" it's arguably the Hall of Fame rather than MLB.)

Detailed Exposition:

I'm not saying this about any particular case, I am not against the Negro Leagues being considered major leagues or anything like that (I haven't studied the matter). I just wanted to point out that what MLB says about that doesn't mean much of anything and should be pretty much ignored.

MBL is a business organization, run for profit (or the profit of its members). It makes the schedules, sets the rules, negotiates the labor contracts, and like that. It is not an academic institution, nor is it run by baseball experts, historians, enthusiasts, or, for all I know, people who even care all that much about baseball per se. It can say that its statistics are "official", but so could I or SABR or anybody.

MLB does employ the Elias Sports Bureau, which is also a for-profit company, which provides the statistics used on MLB's website. Elias does employ historians and statisticians, but their methods are entirely secret, and they are generally despised for various reasons including trying to claim ownership of historical facts (i.e., baseball statistics) and insisting that statistics other than their own should be discounted (I don't know if they still do this).

But, there is no such thing as "official" statistics for historical events, that we have to pay any mind to. If the Official History of the Napoleonic Wars published by the French Government says there were 25,000 French Casualties at Waterloo, we are not obligated to say "Welp, that's the official number, so we have to go with that regardless" or even not just blow it off, and so forth. Baseball history is history. We don't have to pay any attention to MLB or Exxon-Mobile or any other organization when reporting history, and in fact often look at information provided by interested parties with some skepticism.

And MLB is an interested party. Their actions are designed to put fannies in seats and in front of TVs. (This can include benign actions of course and actions to make them look good because they are good, and they are interested in the long-term viability of the business of baseball I'm sure. But they are an interested party,)

Case in point, MLB still says that Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average is .367. MLB holds by that number for political reasons (to gruntle the boomers pretty much) and basically said so. Elias is the actual provider of that number, and since their methods are secret, I assume that their method here was "Well, that is the number the client wants, so that is the number the client gets". This does not give me confidence in anything else they say.

I presume that MLB has said the Negro Leagues are major leagues for political reasons: for public relations in being nice and up-to-date and against racism. That doesn't mean their decision was wrong (it quite probably wasn't). It doesn't mean that the people at MLB aren't personally ethical and against racism.

But it was a business decision, not made because Elias studied the matter in great depth using advanced techniques or whatever, reported to MLB that Negro Leagues were of major-league quality, ans MLB said "Welp, whether or not this causes us hassles and controversies and maybe boycotts in the South or whatever, the truth is the truth and that comes before mere business".

What SABR and Baseball Reference and similar entities and the Hall of Fame (which is not an arm of MLB) and individual baseball experts and historians say, that is what matters. I think they are on the bandwagon for allowing the Negro Leagues as major leagues, and that is fine. We should go with what they say, yes, if there's a clear consensus among them. Herostratus (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

ok Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I've decided that what I say is what matters... to heck with all those people. lol. Spanneraol (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
[[Dude, there's no need to laugh at me, sheesh. You could have said nothing. Herostratus (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The WP:BESTSOURCES policy says:

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Right, and MLB is not independent, right? Technically, that would put into question whether we should use anything they say at all, at least without tagging. I'm not advocating that for practical reasons, but I don't think we should necessarily take everything they say at face value. Herostratus (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
We should go with what they say, yes, if there's a clear consensus among them: Even if they don't come to a consensus, their views should be reflected based on WP:WEIGHT. —Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Before MLB.com was updated to include Negro Leagues stats, some people used the argument "why would we consider the Negro Leagues stats as part of MLB history when MLB.com itself doesn't even do that?" That argument is now gone. Taking it a step further, is there any major sources, primary or secondary (something that is continually updated, not a reference book from before 2020) that doesn't include the 7 major Negro Leaguers alongside the American, National, and other major leagues. Jhn31 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
"MLB.com itself". That is argument from authority. We don't do that, and no Wikiproject is supposed to do that. We do not use "the Pope himself said so" when deciding whether or not to state as a fact that St Bernadette's body remains incorrrupt. Tho at least the Pope cares about the matter. So ideally we would just blow off people who use the argument from authority.
Of course many of the Negro Leagues were major-league quality. Why do I believe that? One strong reason is because SABR says so, on the basis of extensive research of pretty much academic quality. here, here etc.
Of course we are going to include them as major leagues now. The question is, what about the stats? The stats aren't complete. Baseball Register is including them it seems, and Baseball Register is a good source and that is an important data point. There is a good argument for not including them tho: they're incomplete. That matters. I want to see what SABR and the Hall of Fame have to say about that. Tetelo Vargas is reported to have hit .471 in 1943 which would be the new record. It's not so much that that is in only 30 games, 121 at bats. It's more that he didn't actually hit .471 because we don't have a complete record. Maybe in the missing games he hit better than .471, or maybe worse. Who knows? Nobody. Since he didn't actually hit .471, we should not state "he hit .471" to the reader. We could hedge that ("incomplete stats") and I guess we will, but really the Negro League stats -- not the Negro League teams and players themselves -- are just not in the same category as when we have complete stats.
It's a terrible shame. Of course the way America has treated African-American people from the slave trade forward is a world-historical crime, a terrible one and one of the worst in all history maybe. Of course we want to make up for that as much as we can. But we can't say things that aren't true. I would like to see what SABR has to say about all this. Not what Commissioner Rob Manfred, a businessman and lawyer whose remit is running an profitable enterprise and probably doesn't care all that much about baseball on the field or its history and certainly isn't going to study the matter. I don't care what he says about anything, and people just shouldn't. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ty Cobb -- change back to .367?

Yeah OK.WP:WEIGHT, "what I say is what matters", I hear you. So...

Right now, we give Ty Cobb's batting average as .366. At time editors have written that it is .367. but we don't go with that.

But MLB gives Ty Cobb's batting average as .367. It's discussed at length -- essentially by me; that's me all over, oh well -- at Talk:Ty Cobb#It's time and past time to fix the batting average thing and Talk:Ty Cobb#RfC: What should we give as Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average?. I'm not asking anyone to read all that. It's there if you like. So, if MBL has some WP:WEIGHT, or maybe a lot if you consider them official, should we revisit this? There's a number of ways we could present the info, like say:

  1. Ty Cobb's batting average was .366.
  2. Ty Cobb's batting average was .367.
  3. Some sources give give Ty Cobb's batting average as .366, some as .367.
  4. According to Major League Baseball, Ty Cobb's batting average was .367. Many non-official sources claim that it is .366. [N.B. I say "many" but not "all" because some books say .367. -ed]

If you say #1, that'd be an exception to giving any WP:WEIGHT to MLB. Is it impossible that there could be other exceptions to giving them any weight? Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the horse is dead, and a third bite at the apple will be fruitless. Feel free to reply with your own maxims/puns as you desire, but I doubt the community has any appetite for revisiting this matter yet again. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes I agree, as long as we are not going to be like "We give weight to MLB.com on historical matters, except when we don't want to" (like here). That's not excellent. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Strike zone and Base on balls opening image crop request

Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Was going to create and redirect "Low and away" to Strike zone ('Strike Zone' probably should be uppercased, no?, which is now taken by the name of a Star Trek novel and, come to think of it, I'm going to boldly go and change the name and redirect uppercase to the now lowercase Strike zone to see if it sticks). A request, can someone here who is good at cropping images tackle the opening image at Strike zone and Base on balls and separate the strike zone data from the advertisement for Goodyear? Thanks. This would also enlarge the important page-pertinent details. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also created 'High and inside' and redirected it to 'Strike zone'. Moved the uppercased page to Strike Zone (book) and redirected Strike Zone to Strike zone. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a heads up: there is a disruptive IP address editor who is reformatting pages of Hall of Famers in a way which is unhelpful at best. They give no explanation for their edits either and have been at it for a few weeks now. Just keep a lookout and report them if possible. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC on integrating non-AL & NL leagues into MLB season page infoboxes

Latest comment: 5 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion

How should non-AL & NL leagues (namely late 19th century major leagues, 1914–1915 Federal League, and seven 1920–1948 Negro Major Leagues) be integrated (as previously agreed, in regards to the Federal League) into MLB season page infoboxes? Is my attempt a good solution or should it be different? Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Requested move at Talk:Tony Kemp (baseball)#Requested move 8 June 2024

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tony Kemp (baseball)#Requested move 8 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Dalton Rogers

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have proposed that article Dalton Rogers be merged into Boston Red Sox minor league players. I initially made a WP:BOLD merger, but another editor objected. Editors are welcome to offer comment here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:MLB standings look a bit broken now

Latest comment: 4 months ago40 comments5 people in discussion

So it seems Wikipedia is updating their default formatting again, this time by increasing the font size. Now, even less content fits horizontally. This text size increase has lead to all instances of the Template:MLB standings to be twice as tall, due to the Home and Road columns taking up two lines now. The best example of this can be seen with the current season.

This is only in regards to the current table format. There's many other formats built into this template via Module:MLB standings that would need adjusting:

There's a few ways we can go about this. We could shrink the font in the table by adding "font-size: 90%;" in the style header. We could do some minor adjustments to the columns: decrease the width for the team names (and let that be the column that may end up on two lines *cough* Los Angels Angels of Anaheim *cough*), rendering the percentage somehow so there is no leading 0 before the decimal. To avoid the two-line team, we may want to slightly increase the width of the table. Here's two examples with the 2021 NL West with the division winning 2014 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (it's with these teams that we see 3 digit wins and losses, a long name as a division winner, and a games back stat with "½").

Increasing width from 535em to 550em, removing leading 0 from %, and adjusting width % for each column:
Status quo but simply applying 90% font size:

I'm sure there's other ways to remedy this but I at least want to get this discussion going. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the best approach to respect the readers' choices for font size/zoom level is to stop displaying two tables side-by-side and display them one below the other. The table can then be made a bit wider to better accommodate variation in font size. isaacl (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, it should be possible to wrap the American League and National League sections with a <div> element that uses CSS flexbox layout so that the sections will be next to each other if there is space, and wrap below if there is not. I'll have to experiment a bit. isaacl (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I added testcases for displaying the league standings next to each other. I made changes in the sandbox to increase the width of the division standings table and adjust the column width allocations, and used CSS flexbox layout at Template:MLB standings/testcases § Testing sandbox template: standings on MLB season page using flexbox layout. For me, though, they only go side-by-side with the settings set to small font, wide display, and a 100% zoom level.(Note it also depends on browser window width.) isaacl (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
You guys would know better than I do, does the reduced font size version adhere to MOS:SMALLFONT? It looks less than 85% to my naked eye. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no clue on the size issue but we can probably remove the "of Anaheim" from the Angels since the season page doesn't use that name anymore and it was always kinda funky. Spanneraol (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
It's still present on season pages when that name was in use by the franchise. I put it in the testcase so the longest name can be tested. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
In terms of widest or longest, you may also want to test the templates with the seeding indicator (1) or if a team is ½ a game back. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 05:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Please feel free to add more testcases! I've made some updates. isaacl (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been thinking of other options but I think the flexbox layout is the way to go! More specifically, almost exactly as you have it on this section of the testcase page. The minor adjustments I'd do are seen here in my sandbox page.
Those minor adjustments would involve either formatting the percentages without the leading 0 and/or widen the table just enough so "(2) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" fits on one line in the "Standard" text size. Wikipedia's "Standard" width will (at least on a 1080p monitor) always force the tables to not be side-by-side, but at least the "Small" & "Standard" text size with the "Wide" width will keep the standings side-by-side. I've made the Home and Away columns wider so that the Win/Loss doesn't wrap around into two lines when the text is set to "Large". It should be noted that, on a 1080p monitor, the widest these tables can be so that they are side-by-side in Wikipedia's "Wide" width is 614em. Admittedly, the Home and Road columns are awkwardly wide when the text is "Small" but it needs to be so that when text is "Large" it doesn't wrap around.
Also, any other side-by-side formatting (that involve the col-start/2/end templates) forces the tables to go past the designated "Standard" width and overlaps the Appearance sidebar. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's different on your sandbox page, so I'll walk through the changes I made to the sandbox template, and perhaps you can walkthrough what is different?
  • Division table:
    • increased width from 535em to 555em
    • reduced percentage allocated to team name from 50% to 48%
    • increased percentage allocated to home and road records from 10% to 11%
  • Win-loss only table (used for division leaders table):
    • increased width from 390em to 405em
  • Wild card table:
    • increased width from 390em to 405em
The "V·T·E" links bump up against the headings at larger font sizes, which is why I started testing width increases for all tables. They're still not wide enough at present; more tweaking or a different adjustment may be needed. It's possible to write code to strip the leading 0 from the percentage, but personally I'd prefer to get by without writing more code if possible.
Forcing a side-by-side display was always a bit of an accessibility issue (it creates left-right scrolling for me, as I browse at a slightly enlarged zoom level), so I think using flexbox layout is preferable. Changing all of the season pages, though, needs some willing volunteers (I think it should be feasible to use AWB to semi-automate the changes).
I'm not clear on your use case with "other side-by-side formatting". Can you add a testcase using the sandbox template with the flexbox layout to provide an example? isaacl (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "other side-by-side formatting", I'm not sure if there are other methods to have two tables side-by-side aside from the current (col-start/col-2/col-end) templates and flexbox, that's why I said "other"... so I guess ignore that.
I've only tested changes on the division table, not the win-loss or wild card table. I have two versions of proposed changes (which keeps percentage as "0.123"). One is so that, even in large text, everything fits on one line. The other allows team names in large text to be in two lines. Both versions resolve the issue of the Home and Road records taking up two lines.
  • Version that keeps everything on one line, even if text is set to Large:
    • increased width from 535em to 700em
    • increased percentage allocated to team name from 50% to 52%
    • decreased percentage allocated to Win, Loss, & Games Behind from 7% to 6%
    • decreased percentage allocated to Win% from 9% to 8%
    • increased percentage allocated to Home and Road records from 10% to 11%
  • Version that allows team names to fit on two lines when text is set to Large:
    • increased width from 535em to 614em
    • decreased percentage allocated to team name from 50% to 45%
    • decreased percentage allocated to Win & Loss from 7% to 6%
    • increased percentage allocated to Games Behind from 7% to 8%
    • increased percentage allocated to Home and Road records from 10% to 13%
In the context of Wikipedia's "Large" text appearance:
By making the table wide enough so everything in a row fits on one line, the table must be increased to at least 700em (this would eliminate the purpose of wrapping tables to be side-by-side, whether by flexbox or 2-column layout, even if the Width setting is set to "Wide", as the table is simply too wide to wrap).
By allowing the team name to be in two lines (while still being on one line when the text appearance is set to "Small" or "Standard"), the table must be increased to at most 614em to allow the table to wrap in the "Wide" width. (These tables will never fit in Wikipedia's "Standard" width side-by-side unless team names and home/road records take up multiple lines).
I'm focusing on the fact that if the table is only increased to 555em, the Home and Road records don't fit on one line and effectively double the height of the table. Also, making the tables as wide as I'm proposing should eliminate the V·T·E overlapping with the Division name.
Also, I've been (slowly) adding more information (schedule section/table of teams, stadiums, & managers/map showing team locations/etc.) to every MLB season page going back to 1901 (currently finished 1901–1936), so I'll gladly volunteer to apply the flexbox format (unless of course AWB can do the job!) I hope I've cleared any confusion! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I've changed the sandbox version of the module to specify a width of 614em for the division table and the column percentages you listed. There is still overlap with the template navbar for the American Association and Players' League standings tables. (There's overlap too when the full American/National League division names are used, but I believe none of the current MLB standings templates use the full names.) Thus a wider size would be needed to accommodate those uses. On a side note, I don't get a side-by-side layout with any combination of font size/page width settings; I'm guessing your screen width is larger than mine. isaacl (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
My screen is 1080p (which is 1920 pixels wide). It seems anything that's at least 1440 pixels wide or smaller negates any use of the Standard or Wide widths. Formatting the standings to be side-by-side via flexbox would only benefit those with a higher screen resolution. I can't test for anything between 1440 pixels and 1600 pixels, but I know there's a difference at 1600. Regarding the current 535em tables, they'd only go side-by-side via flexbox with a display resolution of 1680 pixels or more.
I highly recommend that any instance of the endash "–" be replaced with the template {{nbnd}} ("‍–‍") immediately. This would prevent the Home and Road columns from populating multiple lines, in the same way "& n b s p ;" (with no spaces) does. (I now need to test the width % of each column again and adjust percentages... I wish I knew about this before!)
It may be that the side-by-side formatting just ends up being a luxury for those with wider monitors. Much depends on whether we want team names to strictly appear on one line, or allow for the team names to appear on multiple lines.
Regarding the V·T·E, what if we added a line above everything for the name of the division/league? An example of what I'm talking about can be seen here (an added bonus could be color coding American League and National League with red and blue, respectively, as well). The V·T·E would fill the box where the division/league name used to be. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, perhaps we don't necessarily need the tables to be a defined em width? The tables could be formatted so instead of the table at large being defined, the columns themselves could be defined (as is the case with the NFL standings templates). That way, the changing text size doesn't create unnecessarily wide boxes. Basically, if the text is smaller, the box is narrower. If the text is larger, the box is wider. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the change I'm talking about, changing the table from table defined by an overall table-width to a table where columns define the width. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
From an accessibility point of view, not specifying a width is best. I think it would mean forgoing a side-by-side display (I don't think it can be done with CSS alone unless a width is specified, and Javascript is overkill for this purpose and so wouldn't get approved). For that reason I hadn't floated that idea before (I didn't want to get into an argument with those who might prefer that layout). With the introduction of the readability tools to Wikipedia, though, I agree that getting rid of the fixed width should be considered. It would also mean that the division tables and the individual columns may have different overall widths when stacked on top of each other, unless the tables were set to fill the full available width. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I changed the sandbox module by removing the table widths, and added a test case without any columns or flexbox layout. The flexbox layout test case still allows for side-by-side layout, but there's no attempt to avoid line breaks within the cells, as the browser will squeeze the columns narrower as needed to try to fit the tables next to each other. And it seems the squeezing still happens even if the second block of tables has to overflow to below the first block. So I think the new testcase is the better approach if removing the table widths. isaacl (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
If we allow squeezing to happen, ideally, we only want it affecting the team name column (hence my desire to replace all instances of "–" with the template {{nbnd}}. The output is the same ("‍–‍") but it forces the "##‍–‍##" to stay on one line.
I'm in the middle of testing different column widths here to try and minimize table widths as much as possible without making the table needlessly wider.
Also! I know I wrote a lot in my previous comment but how do you feel about adding the header row on top of the table? That would resolve the V·T·E overlap. Alternatively (and I can't format it correctly), have the V·T·E in the top row with the division/league name, and have it so "Team" is the column header. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I found a near-solution to the differing column widths. This will result in tables that are only 1 or 2 pixels off in Small or Standard text and up to 4 pixels off in Large text. The GB column will be the same, regardless of if there is "½" or not. 

  ! width="245" | Team
  ! width="24" | [[Win (baseball)|W]]
  ! width="24" | [[Loss (baseball)|L]]
  ! width="35" | [[Winning percentage|Pct.]]
  ! width="27" | [[Games behind|GB]]
  ! width="39" | [[Home (sports)|Home]]
  ! width="39" | [[Road (sports)|Road]]



  ! width="245" | Team
  ! width="24" | [[Win (baseball)| W ]]
  ! width="24" | [[Loss (baseball)| L ]]
  ! width="35" | [[Winning percentage|Pct.]]
  ! width="27" | [[Games behind| GB ]]
  ! width="39" | [[Home (sports)|Home]]
  ! width="39" | [[Road (sports)|Road]]

Basically, the "W" and "GB" each have an instance of &nbsp; before and after it, while "L" has &numsp;, since "L" is narrower than "W".

Within the brackets, it would look like this: "Win (baseball)|&nbsp;W&nbsp;", "Loss (baseball)|&numsp;L&numsp;", and "Games behind|&nbsp;GB&nbsp;". (I hate trying to show examples of html text as it would look in an edit!) Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

With table markup, I think the only choices are to specify the cell width in some manner, or let the browser's layout algorithm do its work. (If something like grid or flexbox layout was used instead of the table, more control can be asserted on what is allowed to shrink/grow, but I think that would be too obscure to allow for easy maintenance.)
I'm not a fan of having a cell span the entire width of the table, due to semantics: it would essentially be a caption, and so I would prefer using a table caption for better accessibility. I can try mocking something up later with a table caption. (I do not like changing the default background colour, as it means viewability and colour contrast has to be considered across different skins and dark mode.) isaacl (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the last example, if the table width is going to be allowed to expand as necessary, then we shouldn't specify fixed column widths. Pixel-perfect layout isn't a goal to strive for with a responsive design. isaacl (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
But it is possible to set slight restrictions within the bounds of a responsive design, no? Here are two examples. One which features the NFL-division style header (here) and one which maintains the current MLB format (here). Regardless of the change in text size, each division table both grows with the text size, and also maintains a near-consistent column width. The cell-spanning-the-entire-width to me, is a decent solution to resolve the V·T·E overlap. Alternatively, in keeping the current table format, instead of spelling out "National League" or "American Association", their abbreviations "NL" or "AA" are simply used.
Also, regarding the visibility with the red and blue colored headers (not that I'm necessarily in favor of this either), the colors (as well as the colorless darker gray that outputs by using ! instead of | in the tables) don't change with dark mode. Regarding other skins? Outside of Custom CSS or Custom JavaScript skins, the color contrast remains consistent with the current Vector default skin and all other options that are selectable in Special:Preferences. However, I didn't check different browsers. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 18:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Specifying the width in (CSS) pixels for every column isn't a slight restriction. It locks down the widths just as much as specifying the width of the entire table and allocating percentages to each column. Using a font-related unit is also more amenable to handling changes in font size.
Regarding dealing with other skins and dark mode: the appearance of the cells against the main background should be considered. I'd rather just use the skin/dark mode defaults that have been tested. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
<syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> is a good way to show code examples. For example: [[Win (baseball)|&nbsp;W&nbsp;]] (See mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight for more details.) isaacl (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I was trying to get it to appear in the proofreading format I had above, but I lost my patience in trying to get it to work! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the sandbox module to use table captions and to put zero-width joiner characters around the en-dashes in order to prevent line breaks. You can see the results on the testcases page. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I changed the testcase using flexbox layout to provide additional guidance on how the two blocks of tables can be expanded/shrunk to fit the available space (now that the table is no longer a fixed width). It now shows a side-by-side layout at narrow window widths than before. (Note increasing the font size effectively narrows the window; with the change, a side-by-side layout appears with the text size set to large and the width set to wide.) isaacl (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The headers as you have it are great, especially with the V·T·E no longer being able to overlap. I think the rest looks great, aside from Large text (at least on 1920 pixel width), but that's by virtue of teams taking multiple lines of space. It's unavoidable if the goal is to always have two columns. I adjusted the percentages slightly (the Home and Road are now 10% each and Teams 51%. Previously this was 13% each and 45%, numbers I had used before I knew there was a way to code the endash to restrict breaks).
Is there a way for there to be no breaks between the seeding # and team name? That's part of the problem with the large text. On 1080p at least, with Large text and Standard width, for example, the AL East looks like this (unlike here, it is centered in the table):
(1)
Baltimore
Orioles
(4)
Tampa
Bay
Rays
(6)
Toronto
Blue
Jays
If there were no break, the table could be a bit shorter and the AL & NL columns' hieght would be aligned a little better.
(Side note: I wish I knew what I was looking at with the module. I'd spend the extended amount of time to write the code myself to get rid of that leading 0 if it meant the Team text could have just a little more room! Maybe I'll spend some time to figure it out).
Aside from what I mentioned, I think this may be the way to go. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 23:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I changed the space to a non-breaking space, so the text should not break at that point.
Part of my not wanting to write more code than necessary is that I'm not sure if there are any other editors interested in baseball who know Lua, so I didn't want to make the code more complicated if it wasn't needed. However, I see I already convert the percentage to a string for formatting, so I guess what's a little more string manipulation... I've coded a change in the sandbox module. (The other part is that it doesn't seem like it should be necessary to strip out "0" to deal with a table layout that is much, much wider than a single character. :-) isaacl (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you beat me to it (by a lot... I was still trying to find what I was looking for here xD ) That's much better! I personally think this could be the version. Thanks for hearing out some of my ideas and allowing me to (basically) badger you to update the Module! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 01:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

To summarize, the following changes are being proposed:

  • Table widths in MLB standing tables (division, division leaders, and wild card teams) are no longer fixed in width. The percentages allocated to the columns are tweaked based on trial-and-error testing. This allows the browser to shrink the width of the table as needed to keep it from being wider than the main content area.
  • The table title is moved out of the heading of the first column and to the table caption (along with the mini template navigation bar). This provides better accessibility for those using assistive technologies, and gives adequate space to fit the title with an adjacent template navigation bar.
  • The markup on MLB season pages used to display the standings for the American and National Leagues is modified to no longer enforce a two-column layout. Two columns will be used if the browser is able to lay them out within the available space, given the browser window width and other display choices configured by the reader (both Wikipedia settings, and browser settings). This respects the reader's configuration while still supporting a side-by-side layout if there is space.

Template:MLB standings/testcases § Testing sandbox template: standings on MLB season page using flexbox layout has an example of the MLB season page layout. Feedback is welcome! If there aren't any objections, I will update the MLB standings template, and Spesh531 has volunteered to update the MLB season pages. Template:MLB standings/testcases § Testing sandbox template: standings on MLB season page using columns shows how the tables will appear after the MLB standings template has been updated, but before a given MLB season page is modified as proposed. isaacl (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, it looks good to me! Simply waiting for the MLB standings template to update and I'll make the changes on all of the season pages! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 01:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm considering making a template for the flexbox portion of the markup, so if something needs to be adjusted, it can be done in one place rather than having to edit all the season pages again. (It would probably be something like {{Flexbox}} but with a Lua implementation similar to {{Flex columns}} to allow for an arbitrary number of blocks.) I'm still struggling with how to describe the intent of the template conceptually and how reusable the template should be, though even if it's just used on MLB season pages, that would be plenty of uses. The standings template can still be updated in the near future (I'm still waiting to see if anyone else comments). isaacl (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
There were some limitations with implementing it in Lua, so I changed the usage to be similar to {{col-float}}/{{col-float-break}}/{{col-float-end}}. I've updated the test case to use the new template I created, {{flexbox wrap}}. isaacl (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the MLB standings template with the proposed changes. isaacl (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm working through the seasons now. I won't have time to finish today. I do have one question: is there a reason why, such as in 1956 Major League Baseball season, the American League and National League standings are of a different width? Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 18:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed why it happens! Whenever a team has triple digit wins or losses, the table gets wider. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligent work! Yes, the consequence of getting rid of fixed-width tables is that when the contents of a cell gets wider, the cell and thus the whole table gets wider, provided there is enough horizontal space for the browser to lay out the table cells without needing to introduce line breaks. Using percentages for the cell widths means the Wins and Losses columns in a given table will stay the same size even if just one of them has to expand to fit their contents. Once the browser does have to shrink the cell widths to fit them in the available space, then the relationships between the column widths can change from the specified values. isaacl (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - Would adding a GP (games played) column, be unnecessary? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC on league leaders tables

Latest comment: 4 months ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Should the League leaders tables be formatted differently? Some users have suggested changing the tables to be more compact, so I have four different ideas as to how they could be formatted. (1, 2, 3, 4). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I think the league leaders table is just fine the way it currently is. I believe the saying “if it ain’t broke…” is appropriate here. Leave it alone is my vote. Pewtey (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Cumulative win-loss record for head-to-head rivals

Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have started a discussion at Talk:Major League Baseball rivalries#Relevance of head-to-head win-loss records regarding a recent set of changes that introduced the cumulative head-to-head win-loss records for pairs of rivals, over the entire history of the teams. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I had previously added them to each section due to it already existing on the Angels-Athletics section, and I was trying to keep some consistency from section to section, though I'm indifferent regarding keeping or removing the head-to-head records. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 16:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
To briefly summarize what I said on the Major League Baseball rivalries talk page, I think fans talk about pennant races and playoff series wins when they talk about rivalries. I don't think cumulative head-to-head win-loss records for the regular season and for the playoffs really captures what fans are thinking about with rivalries, even if these are numbers that broadcasters like to trot out. Thus I think the records should be removed from the rivalries article. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding (or removing?) stats to League leaders sections in season pages

Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, hitting and pitching leaders tables each have 6 stats each. I'm of the belief that OPS should be added to hitting leaders and less so adamant that WHIP be added to pitching leaders. Why OPS? It seems that most of the league at this point focuses more on OPS than AVG. Why WHIP? Though not as focused on compared to ERA, it portrays a pitchers effectiveness against batters and is typically on even smaller pitching stats tables (such as CBS Sports, which for pitching stats, shows Wins, ERA, Saves, Strikeouts, and WHIP). Plus, adding WHIP would keep both hitting and pitching leaders to show 7 stats each.

I know I read somewhere in the talk page someone had suggested reducing the stats listed. I personally disagree but I wanted to mention it.

Regarding an addition or removal, I'm willing to go through all 124 season pages to update them. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Creating pages for Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City Athletics, and Washington Senators (1961–1971)

Latest comment: 4 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion

In my sandbox, I have created pages for the Milwaukee Braves, Kansas City Athletics, and Washington Senators (1961–1971). I'd like to copy/paste the content to the redirect pages or move the sandbox page itself to proper articles (with admin support, as I cannot do that myself), but I wanted input from other WikiProject Baseball users before doing any sort of implementation. I've modeled these pages mostly after the Boston Braves article, but most mentioned below follow a similar format.

Mind you, there is heavy precedent for having separate pages for the same franchise but of different locations, such as:

Some of these teams existed longer in previous locations (Braves, Giants, Dodgers, Expos) and some existed for only one season (Seattle Pilots).

These three pages would simply complete the set of prior locations of current MLB franchises. Much of the content is largely taken from existing articles (as are stated at the top of each of the three sandbox articles at the moment), but each have been expanded with Infoboxes, and "Legacy", "Notable [Team Name players]", "Uniforms", and "List of [Team Name] seasons" sections. Some areas of the articles have been expanded within the already existing-from-other-articles sections. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

For the Milwaukee Braves I believe the History of the Atlanta Braves article is the best place for covering the franchise history in Milwaukee, especially since the franchise wasn't in Milwaukee for very long. This probably opens up a can of worms but the Boston Braves article pretty much covers the exact same information that's already included in the Atlanta Braves article what's left could be put in the "History of..." article as well. Nemov (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe there already was an RFC held a few years ago, on how to handle relocated MLB franchises. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yep, here's the RFC. Nemov (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
A 2022 request for comments discussion resulted in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) § North American sports teams being modified to state that if there is sufficient content, keep an article at the old franchise name. Otherwise, the old name is redirected to either the appropriate section in the new franchise article or the "History of new franchise" article. So it's up to editorial judgement if these former franchises have enough content for an independent article. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm definitely new to the discussion history regarding this topic, but my understanding from reading through the past discussions on this talk page, mainly Archive 41 from 2015 and Archive 47 from 2022 (in which the next section was to the RfC related to sports team names), I get the sense that the initial solution to this reoccurring question was to split each teams history in a previous location to its own (for example) "History of the Boston Braves" page, though in some cases, there weren't any splits (such as with the Milwaukee Braves, as the history was not long/detailed enough to warrant its own page).
Then, that decade-ish long consensus had the rug swept out from underneath when the RfC on naming conventions took all of these dedicated "History of [FORMER LOCATION TEAM NAME]" articles and removed the "History of", making it so the 9 of the 12 previous-locations-of-current-franchise pages (excluding the three team iterations that sparked this section) now all had separate articles, when before that wasn't the case. The "history of..." seemed to be a compromise between keeping all team history in the current franchise "History of..." pages and simply breaking off each previous-locations-of-current-franchise pages.
I'm coming into this only now (and just read the archives while typing this comment). I made these three sandbox pages because my thinking was "well if these 9 articles mentioned above can exist, why not the other 3? Especially considering a page like Seattle Pilots only covers one season".
Personally, I'm of the belief that while the franchises are technically the same, I'd argue simply being in different cities (especially of considerable distance as Boston>Milwaukee>Atlanta or Philadelphia>Kansas City>Oakland) is enough to warrant their own articles (again, see Seattle Pilots). For example, the Milwaukee Brewers and Philadelphia Phillies celebrate other franchises' histories, with the Milwaukee Braves Wall of Honor and Philadelphia Phillies Wall of Fame (which includes many Philadelphia Athletics players), respectively. There's a history of baseball in that location. Though of course, at the same time, these histories are celebrated by the Atlanta Braves and Oakland Athletics franchises, respectively. These two simultaneous views on how to look at these now-relocated teams, to me, warrants their own articles.
Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 18:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Based on the RFC, Milwaukee squarely falls into the "not enough history to justify an article" camp. The Atlanta Braves and History of the Atlanta Braves covers that period well. Nemov (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I think there should be enough history in thirteen seasons to have a separate article. If editors like Spesh531 are interested in developing more coverage of the Milwaukee Braves, then I think it's reasonable to have a standalone article. (If there is no interest at the moment in expanding coverage, then I'm less opinionated about spinning out the Milwaukee history.) isaacl (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I too fail to see how one season of the Seattle Pilots and eight seasons in the late 1800s of the early-era Milwaukee Brewers (1894–1901) are both worthy of articles, but thirteen seasons of the Milwaukee Braves, thirteen seasons of the Kansas City Athletics, and eleven seasons of the Washington Senators (1961–1971) somehow are not. If editors are eager and willing to work on developing articles for those three teams, I say go ahead and do it. After all, the history of those three franchises in those three cities would most definitely meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I do agree if new content laser focused on the Milwaukee Braves is created I wouldn't object. However, a new article simply covering the same exact content found elsewhere it's not necessary. The Boston Braves article could be improved a lot in this regard. Nemov (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The RfC didn't address whether or not an article should exist -- it only covered if it did exist what the title should be. Basically, you shouldn't have a "History of the Brooklyn Dodgers" unless you first have a "Brooklyn Dodgers" article. IMO, Spesh531 could have created these articles per WP:BRD. I always figured someone would eventually fill in the blanks and turn the redirects into articles one of these days.

It looks like the 3 redirects all meet the "minor history" requirement so you can probably tag all 3 with {{Db-g6}} and an admin can complete the page move. (You can't copy/paste your Milwaukee article because more than one user has edited the page.) Also since you copied content from the old History article, be sure to give proper attribution by putting {{copied}} on the talk pages (see Talk:St. Louis Stars (baseball) & Talk:St. Louis Stars (1937) for {{copied}} examples). Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Placement of Wildcard races

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Since the League/Division standings are no longer side-by-side, but rather one under the other. Where are we going to locate the wildcard races, once it turns September? GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have two ideas. It should be noted that the standings are side-by-side, but only when the screen resolution is wide enough. If they're not, then the National League wraps around to be below the American League. There are 2 ways we can do this. Either have it so the AL Division standings & AL Wild Card standings wrap together (FORMAT 1), or to have the Wild Card standings entirely below both AL & NL Division standings (FORMAT 2).
FORMAT 1

American League

AL East
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
New York Yankees 94 68 .580 — 44‍–‍37 50‍–‍31
Baltimore Orioles 91 71 .562 3 44‍–‍37 47‍–‍34
Boston Red Sox 81 81 .500 13 38‍–‍43 43‍–‍38
Tampa Bay Rays 80 82 .494 14 42‍–‍39 38‍–‍43
Toronto Blue Jays 74 88 .457 20 39‍–‍42 35‍–‍46
AL Central
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Cleveland Guardians 92 69 .571 — 50‍–‍30 42‍–‍39
Kansas City Royals 86 76 .531 6½ 45‍–‍36 41‍–‍40
Detroit Tigers 86 76 .531 6½ 43‍–‍38 43‍–‍38
Minnesota Twins 82 80 .506 10½ 43‍–‍38 39‍–‍42
Chicago White Sox 41 121 .253 51½ 23‍–‍58 18‍–‍63
AL West
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Houston Astros 88 73 .547 — 46‍–‍35 42‍–‍38
Seattle Mariners 85 77 .525 3½ 49‍–‍32 36‍–‍45
Texas Rangers 78 84 .481 10½ 44‍–‍37 34‍–‍47
Oakland Athletics 69 93 .426 19½ 38‍–‍43 31‍–‍50
Los Angeles Angels 63 99 .389 25½ 32‍–‍49 31‍–‍50


American League Wild Card

Division leaders
Team W L Pct.
New York Yankees 94 68 .580
Cleveland Guardians 92 69 .571
Houston Astros 88 73 .547
Wild Card teams
(Top 3 teams qualify for postseason)
Team W L Pct. GB
Baltimore Orioles 91 71 .562 +5
Kansas City Royals 86 76 .531 —
Detroit Tigers 86 76 .531 —
Seattle Mariners 85 77 .525 1
Minnesota Twins 82 80 .506 4
Boston Red Sox 81 81 .500 5
Tampa Bay Rays 80 82 .494 6
Texas Rangers 78 84 .481 8
Toronto Blue Jays 74 88 .457 12
Oakland Athletics 69 93 .426 17
Los Angeles Angels 63 99 .389 23
Chicago White Sox 41 121 .253 45

National League

NL East
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Philadelphia Phillies 95 67 .586 — 54‍–‍27 41‍–‍40
Atlanta Braves 89 73 .549 6 46‍–‍35 43‍–‍38
New York Mets 89 73 .549 6 46‍–‍35 43‍–‍38
Washington Nationals 71 91 .438 24 38‍–‍43 33‍–‍48
Miami Marlins 62 100 .383 33 30‍–‍51 32‍–‍49
NL Central
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Milwaukee Brewers 93 69 .574 — 47‍–‍34 46‍–‍35
St. Louis Cardinals 83 79 .512 10 44‍–‍37 39‍–‍42
Chicago Cubs 83 79 .512 10 44‍–‍37 39‍–‍42
Cincinnati Reds 77 85 .475 16 39‍–‍42 38‍–‍43
Pittsburgh Pirates 76 86 .469 17 39‍–‍42 37‍–‍44
NL West
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Los Angeles Dodgers 98 64 .605 — 52‍–‍29 46‍–‍35
San Diego Padres 93 69 .574 5 45‍–‍36 48‍–‍33
Arizona Diamondbacks 89 73 .549 9 44‍–‍37 45‍–‍36
San Francisco Giants 80 82 .494 18 42‍–‍39 38‍–‍43
Colorado Rockies 61 101 .377 37 37‍–‍44 24‍–‍57


National League Wild Card

Division leaders
Team W L Pct.
Los Angeles Dodgers 98 64 .605
Philadelphia Phillies 95 67 .586
Milwaukee Brewers 93 69 .574
Wild Card teams
(Top 3 teams qualify for postseason)
Team W L Pct. GB
San Diego Padres 93 69 .574 +4
Atlanta Braves 89 73 .549 —
New York Mets 89 73 .549 —
Arizona Diamondbacks 89 73 .549 —
St. Louis Cardinals 83 79 .512 6
Chicago Cubs 83 79 .512 6
San Francisco Giants 80 82 .494 9
Cincinnati Reds 77 85 .475 12
Pittsburgh Pirates 76 86 .469 13
Washington Nationals 71 91 .438 18
Miami Marlins 62 100 .383 27
Colorado Rockies 61 101 .377 28
FORMAT 2

American League

AL East
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
New York Yankees 94 68 .580 — 44‍–‍37 50‍–‍31
Baltimore Orioles 91 71 .562 3 44‍–‍37 47‍–‍34
Boston Red Sox 81 81 .500 13 38‍–‍43 43‍–‍38
Tampa Bay Rays 80 82 .494 14 42‍–‍39 38‍–‍43
Toronto Blue Jays 74 88 .457 20 39‍–‍42 35‍–‍46
AL Central
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Cleveland Guardians 92 69 .571 — 50‍–‍30 42‍–‍39
Kansas City Royals 86 76 .531 6½ 45‍–‍36 41‍–‍40
Detroit Tigers 86 76 .531 6½ 43‍–‍38 43‍–‍38
Minnesota Twins 82 80 .506 10½ 43‍–‍38 39‍–‍42
Chicago White Sox 41 121 .253 51½ 23‍–‍58 18‍–‍63
AL West
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Houston Astros 88 73 .547 — 46‍–‍35 42‍–‍38
Seattle Mariners 85 77 .525 3½ 49‍–‍32 36‍–‍45
Texas Rangers 78 84 .481 10½ 44‍–‍37 34‍–‍47
Oakland Athletics 69 93 .426 19½ 38‍–‍43 31‍–‍50
Los Angeles Angels 63 99 .389 25½ 32‍–‍49 31‍–‍50

National League

NL East
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Philadelphia Phillies 95 67 .586 — 54‍–‍27 41‍–‍40
Atlanta Braves 89 73 .549 6 46‍–‍35 43‍–‍38
New York Mets 89 73 .549 6 46‍–‍35 43‍–‍38
Washington Nationals 71 91 .438 24 38‍–‍43 33‍–‍48
Miami Marlins 62 100 .383 33 30‍–‍51 32‍–‍49
NL Central
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Milwaukee Brewers 93 69 .574 — 47‍–‍34 46‍–‍35
St. Louis Cardinals 83 79 .512 10 44‍–‍37 39‍–‍42
Chicago Cubs 83 79 .512 10 44‍–‍37 39‍–‍42
Cincinnati Reds 77 85 .475 16 39‍–‍42 38‍–‍43
Pittsburgh Pirates 76 86 .469 17 39‍–‍42 37‍–‍44
NL West
Team W L Pct. GB Home Road
Los Angeles Dodgers 98 64 .605 — 52‍–‍29 46‍–‍35
San Diego Padres 93 69 .574 5 45‍–‍36 48‍–‍33
Arizona Diamondbacks 89 73 .549 9 44‍–‍37 45‍–‍36
San Francisco Giants 80 82 .494 18 42‍–‍39 38‍–‍43
Colorado Rockies 61 101 .377 37 37‍–‍44 24‍–‍57


American League Wild Card

Division leaders
Team W L Pct.
New York Yankees 94 68 .580
Cleveland Guardians 92 69 .571
Houston Astros 88 73 .547
Wild Card teams
(Top 3 teams qualify for postseason)
Team W L Pct. GB
Baltimore Orioles 91 71 .562 +5
Kansas City Royals 86 76 .531 —
Detroit Tigers 86 76 .531 —
Seattle Mariners 85 77 .525 1
Minnesota Twins 82 80 .506 4
Boston Red Sox 81 81 .500 5
Tampa Bay Rays 80 82 .494 6
Texas Rangers 78 84 .481 8
Toronto Blue Jays 74 88 .457 12
Oakland Athletics 69 93 .426 17
Los Angeles Angels 63 99 .389 23
Chicago White Sox 41 121 .253 45

National League Wild Card

Division leaders
Team W L Pct.
Los Angeles Dodgers 98 64 .605
Philadelphia Phillies 95 67 .586
Milwaukee Brewers 93 69 .574
Wild Card teams
(Top 3 teams qualify for postseason)
Team W L Pct. GB
San Diego Padres 93 69 .574 +4
Atlanta Braves 89 73 .549 —
New York Mets 89 73 .549 —
Arizona Diamondbacks 89 73 .549 —
St. Louis Cardinals 83 79 .512 6
Chicago Cubs 83 79 .512 6
San Francisco Giants 80 82 .494 9
Cincinnati Reds 77 85 .475 12
Pittsburgh Pirates 76 86 .469 13
Washington Nationals 71 91 .438 18
Miami Marlins 62 100 .383 27
Colorado Rockies 61 101 .377 28
Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but with the current Template:Flexbox wrap format, I think these are the two options. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I've wondered.. why do we have the division winners are part of the wild card templates? They are usually on the same page as the division standings templates so it seems redundant. For what it's worth.. format 2 looks better than format 1 to me. Spanneraol (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Trois-Rivières Aigles (2013–)#Requested move 1 August 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trois-Rivières Aigles (2013–)#Requested move 1 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ernie Johnson Jr.#Requested move 5 August 2024

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ernie Johnson Jr.#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Page move regarding A's/Giants and the Bay Bridge Series

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've started a discussion regarding the move of Bay Bridge Series to Athletics–Giants rivalry here. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)

Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This baseball specific guideline is in a standalone page, but a copy of it is also at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) § Baseball. Is there a reason to maintain two copies, and risk having them go out of sync? There might have been a historical reason, but is it still viable? Any objections to redirecting to the general sports page? —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the standalone page predates the common page, personally I prefer removing the content at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) § Baseball, leaving just the pointer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). This will keep the history of changes in one location. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Spanneraol (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguating people with multiple roles

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's Tom Williams (outfielder/pitcher) (from an RM) and Rick Anderson (pitcher/coach), among others. Are slashes in parenthetical disambiguation a thing for baseball? If so, why do we settle on Dave Roberts (baseball manager), who also had a long career as an outfielder? And what is the criteria for adding "coach" to the titles of all these ex-players turned coaches? —Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Cleveland Guardians vs Cincinnati Reds Ohio Cup

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there, just wanted to give a heads up that the Cleveland Guardians vs Cincinnati Reds “Ohio Cup” Rivalry Wiki Page in season by season results does not show who won the annual series year by year (1997-present day) They appear blank. It’s the last part of the Ohio Cup Wiki Page. It’s blank.

Thank you! Hope you have a good day. Be safe AhBigKev (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Steve Boros and His Apple II.png

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 August 20 as to whether or not the above image has sufficient importance. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment on shading of MLB rivalry tables

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In late 2023 and early 2024, User:Spesh531 modified rivalry tables by adding team colors to home/away results columns and overall series columns of the table. Previously, only the individual season series column was shaded After some WP:BRD edits today, I believe it should be examined by the the Baseball wikiproject to gain some consensus moving forward. Below is an excerpt from the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page, in two versions. Frank Anchor 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Version 1

2021 Red Sox 10‍–‍9 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Red Sox, 6‍–‍4 Yankees
1233‍–‍1018‍–‍14 		Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series.
2021 ALWC Red Sox 1‍–‍0 — Red Sox, 1‍–‍0 Yankees
1233‍–‍1019‍–‍14 		First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012.
2022 Yankees 13‍–‍6 Yankees, 8‍–‍2 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Yankees
1246‍–‍1025‍–‍14
2023 Red Sox 9‍–‍4 Red Sox, 5‍–‍1 Red Sox, 4‍–‍3 Yankees
1250‍–‍1034‍–‍14 		Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season.
2024 Red Sox 4‍–‍2 Red Sox, 2‍–‍1 Tie, 3‍–‍3 Yankees
1254‍–‍1039‍–‍14 		Four games remaining in New York.

Version 2

2021 Red Sox 10‍–‍9 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Red Sox, 6‍–‍4 Yankees
1233‍–‍1018‍–‍14 		Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series.
2021 ALWC Red Sox 1‍–‍0 — Red Sox, 1‍–‍0 Yankees
1233‍–‍1019‍–‍14 		First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012.
2022 Yankees 13‍–‍6 Yankees, 8‍–‍2 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Yankees
1246‍–‍1025‍–‍14
2023 Red Sox 9‍–‍4 Red Sox, 5‍–‍1 Red Sox, 4‍–‍3 Yankees
1250‍–‍1034‍–‍14 		Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season.
2024 Red Sox 4‍–‍2 Red Sox, 2‍–‍1 Tie, 3‍–‍3 Yankees
1254‍–‍1039‍–‍14 		Four games remaining in New York.

Discussion

  • I support Version 2 as nominator. The first version uses TOO MUCH color. Only having the individual season series shaded allow it to better "stand out" since it is more relevant information (most of the tables are in a section entitled "Season-by-season results" or similar). Whichever team won more games at home is in a given year trivial, as is who led an ongoing series after each year (the overall series is summarized at the end of each table, using team colors). Frank Anchor 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I support Version 1, as the editor referenced in the intial RfC in question here.
    First off, there was no consensus prior to my edits of adding this table to all rivalry pages. Some tables existed as Mets/Phillies (Version 1), while some existed as Yankees/Red Sox (Version 2) (which in this case, didn't even feature an 'Overall series' column). Both linked versions are prior to me ever editing either page (save for a single minor edit in 2022 where I changed the "i" in the last names of Joely Rodriguez and Edwin Diaz to "í" on the Mets/Phillies page). By not shading the (for this example) 'at New York', 'at Boston', or 'Overall series' columns, at least to me, the information becomes noise. IMO, everything colored in Version 1 is relevant to the season-by-season results. It's information that becomes less accessible if colorless. Also, the section of the article isn't called "Season series results", it's "Season-by-season results", so there isn't anything explicit about the table that says "only Season series results is relevant".
    Here are the tables with the column headers, as above examples have no context.
Yankees vs. Red Sox Season-by-Season Results
2020s (Yankees, 39–32) (with each column colored)
Season Season series at New York Yankees at Boston Red Sox Overall series Notes
2020 Yankees 9‍–‍1 Yankees, 7‍–‍0 Yankees, 2‍–‍1 Yankees
1224‍–‍1008‍–‍14 		Season shortened to 60 games (with 10 meetings) due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Yankees win 12 straight meetings (September 2019 to September 2020).
With a .900 win percentage, this was the most one-sided season series for the Yankees in the history of the rivalry and the most one-sided season series for either team since 1912.
2021 Red Sox 10‍–‍9 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Red Sox, 6‍–‍4 Yankees
1233‍–‍1018‍–‍14 		Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series.
2021 ALWC Red Sox 1‍–‍0 — Red Sox, 1‍–‍0 Yankees
1233‍–‍1019‍–‍14 		First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012.
2022 Yankees 13‍–‍6 Yankees, 8‍–‍2 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Yankees
1246‍–‍1025‍–‍14
2023 Red Sox 9‍–‍4 Red Sox, 5‍–‍1 Red Sox, 4‍–‍3 Yankees
1250‍–‍1034‍–‍14 		Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season.
2024 Red Sox 4‍–‍2 Red Sox, 2‍–‍1 Tie, 3‍–‍3 Yankees
1254‍–‍1039‍–‍14 		Four games remaining in New York.
2020s (Yankees, 39–32) (with only season series columns colored)
Season Season series at New York Yankees at Boston Red Sox Overall series Notes
2020 Yankees 9‍–‍1 Yankees, 7‍–‍0 Yankees, 2‍–‍1 Yankees
1224‍–‍1008‍–‍14 		Season shortened to 60 games (with 10 meetings) due to COVID-19 pandemic.
Yankees win 12 straight meetings (September 2019 to September 2020).
With a .900 win percentage, this was the most one-sided season series for the Yankees in the history of the rivalry and the most one-sided season series for either team since 1912.
2021 Red Sox 10‍–‍9 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Red Sox, 6‍–‍4 Yankees
1233‍–‍1018‍–‍14 		Red Sox win 8 straight meetings (September 2020 to July 2021) immediately following Yankees' 12-game winning streak in the series.
2021 ALWC Red Sox 1‍–‍0 — Red Sox, 1‍–‍0 Yankees
1233‍–‍1019‍–‍14 		First meeting in the Wild Card Game since the round was added in 2012.
2022 Yankees 13‍–‍6 Yankees, 8‍–‍2 Yankees, 5‍–‍4 Yankees
1246‍–‍1025‍–‍14
2023 Red Sox 9‍–‍4 Red Sox, 5‍–‍1 Red Sox, 4‍–‍3 Yankees
1250‍–‍1034‍–‍14 		Schedule structure modified this season to allow every team to play one series against every interleague team. This reduced the number of meetings from 19 to 13 per season.
2024 Red Sox 4‍–‍2 Red Sox, 2‍–‍1 Tie, 3‍–‍3 Yankees
1254‍–‍1039‍–‍14 		Four games remaining in New York.
Keeping in mind that each collapsible section of the table is a decade, and in the case of this series, there are 13 sections of 10 seasons each, it's hard to parse through the results of the series specifically in NY or in Boston year-to-year if they are entirely colorless/shaded gray. It's impossible to see trends of how, say, the Yankees performed at Fenway Park from year-to-year. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to look at the headers of the table and understand what's happening in each column. As arguably the most important information, the 'Season series' columns are immediately to the right of the 'Season' column. It doesn't get lost because other columns to the right are colored; there's no separation between the season year and season result. The ability to see the information isn't reduced. The focus is already on the 'Season series' by virtue of where it is in the table.
Regarding the idea that this is WP:TRIVIA: I want to note that showing the home and overall column data is not in question here. Simply the coloring of said information is. I'm not sure how coloring suddenly makes the information WP:TRIVIA. If it is trivia, then remove the 'at New York', 'at Boston', and 'Overall series' columns completely (which I'm not in favor of). The 'Overall series' column shows legitimate historical context to the history of the rivalry and having said information colorless in an expansive table of colorless information, again, renders it as noise. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The coloring is supposed to highlight the main component of the table, which is “season-by-season results” as is the title of the section for many of these charts. The home/away games and the overall series to that point are secondary information and do not need to be as prominently displayed. I would not be opposed to removing this home/away information as trivia, but having it displayed less prominently is acceptable as well. Thank you for adding the column headers on the tables. Not including them was an oversight on my part. Frank Anchor 22:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I don't support using any custom background cell colour. It's long been an accessibility issue, and its legibility needs to be tested with all themes and reading modes. Plus I don't feel it has sufficient utility in the current format. A separate table with just indicators for the season outcome and no text (beyond a single letter to distinguish between the two victors) would be able to better illustrate the trends over the entire history in a more compact format. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am inclined to think these tables are overloaded, and that they probably shouldn't be coloured at all. The colours just reinforce one particular attribute of the data; they do not (and must not) tell us anything the numbers don't. But drawing the reader's attention in this way is an editorial decision: we are saying that the most important thing is which team won more games from some subset. Note that there are other things a reader might be interested in which are equally present in the data but ignored by the colour code: it doesn't matter, for example, whether the Yankees won 8 of 10 games or 5 of 9 games; the colour is the same. And extending the colour code to the rightmost column seems egregiously uninformative. If the Red Sox win every game for years to come, the column will remain blue. Just give the reader the data and let them decide what is important or interesting about it. Regulov (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Cubs Win Flag

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cubs Win Flag has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCBASE "decade" disambiguation

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recent RMs at Talk:Javy Guerra (baseball, born 1985) and Talk:Billy Hamilton (baseball, born 1866) saw the community strongly opposed to the "decade" disambiguation. An earlier discussion at Talk:Joe Smith (pitcher) also failed to move the article to Joe Smith (2010s pitcher) (although that one also involved a WP:PDAB aspect.)

Naming conventions should reflect established consensus. Should we consider striking this "decade" disambiguation from the guideline? 162 etc. (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear from those RMs alone, as the arguments there cited exceptions like the particular players overlapping in decades, or one being more of a primary topic, even though it's already parenthetically disambiguated (WP:INCDAB). —Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the MLB an independent source for an article about a player?

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:Main_Page/Errors#Independent_sources, for a discussion about this.

--2603:7000:2101:AA00:F804:C954:1D4C:5D11 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

National League categories

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There is an ongoing CFD on National League categories here. My own view is that since the National League is the primary of the two categories of the same name - the other being Category:National League (English football) which is already disambiguated - there is no need to disambiguate this one as it is much more high profile than the comparatively smaller football league in England.

@Spanneraol, @Muboshgu, @Yankees10, @Nemov, @Spesh531, @Bagumba (pinging just to bring attention to this). Just to make you aware. I think its a convo worth having since the main article was disambiguated a while back and someone speedied two other categories despite a previous Cfd saying only the main category (Category:National League (baseball)) should be dabbed (and even there I'm on the fence, TBH). Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Does MOS have guidance on this? Or any help pages that cover categories. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@Muboshgu, I can't find anything on it but I do know that primary topics usually takes precedence over non-primary ones and, in this case, there are two categories with the same name and MLB's National League is the definitely primary; the other one with the same name is a fifth-tier/minor English football league (the equivalent of Single-A level, basically). So even the main category doesn't have to disambiguated in this case; its also not necessary for the category and article name to match always; its case-to-case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey guys, would like some response here or at the Cfd. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Reminder that the Cfd is still open. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

When teams are eliminated from post-season race

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Looking at the current MLB season page. Don't we delete the teams from the Wild Card races, that are eliminated? GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so it can be shown that the Rockies were 20+ GB in 2023. It would be an improvement to change, but people should then remove the templates from the eliminated teams' pages.—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Restore them after the regular season ends. Maybe, we could put an "x" next to the eliminated teams, until the regular season ends. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
That's extra work.. and are you gonna add a legend that explains what the "x" means? Spanneraol (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, there's no existing explanation on what the current green shading at 2024 Major League Baseball season § Standings means either. Took me a while to figure out why Houston wasn't shaded. —Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
In the meantime, the team pages that have the wild card templates don't see the team listed anymore, and should ideally be removed (and then added back after the season?) Not that the currrent system is flawless either. —Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Until the regular season end, adding the reddish shading for those team eliminated, is an idea. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for George W. Bush

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

George W. Bush has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Help resolving a conflict between two articles

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A non-editor friend of mine pointed out a conflict between the articles Dead-ball era and Live-ball era. I've outlined the problem on the talk page. Any assistance is appreciated! Axem Titanium (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

RM for Oakland Athletics?

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion

After this season, what will we call'em? GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The Las Vegas Athletics of Sacramento via Oakland, obviously /lh Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Whatever MLB and the team itself call them. Spanneraol (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
They have already said that they will be known as the "Athletics" without a location name while they play in Sacramento. I suppose we move it over Athletics (baseball), which now redirects to the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
yea... but that can always change.. which is why we should wait until they officially rebrand themselves. Spanneraol (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I did mean after the rebrand happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Chicago White Sox's 121st loss

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Is 2024 Chicago White Sox's 121st loss necessary as a standalone article? Echoedmyron (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
No.. that particular game is not notable. The season article is sufficient for noting this "accomplishment." Spanneraol (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Shouldn't exist. I doubt we have a "1962 New York Mets' 120th loss" page. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I can't think of an article I've seen that warrants deletion more than this one. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Muboshgu has nominated it for deletion. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders for deletion

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Should this years Mets-Braves series be included at List of Major League Baseball tie-breakers?

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Obviously its not a tiebreaker in the traditional sense, but the way the game is being treated it essentially has become one. Thoughts? Esolo5002 (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Classic ballgame, hope everybody had a chance to watch it. But that was game 161, so 100% not a tie-breaker. 162 etc. (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
No. Not a tie-breaker. Great game.. but no. A write-up on the Braves and Mets season pages is warranted though. Spanneraol (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Weren't a tiebreaker, but only the Mets & Braves 161st & 162nd games. MLB no longer has tie-breaker games. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 MLB playoffs

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Be on the look out. Some IPs & Mobile editors (who I've since reverted) messed up the 2024 Major League Baseball postseason page. Bringing it out of sync, with preceding MLB playoff year pages. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Haven't examined the merits of this in depth, but if the disruption is as bad as you're making it sound, it may be worth asking an admin familiar with this topic to protect that article. Left guide (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Font color for HOF headers in Infobox baseball biography

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the mobile web, the font colors, including the wikilinks, in the Hall of Fame headers of the {{Infobox baseball biography}} template seem to have been changed from their previous color of white, and now they're black (or blue) against the dark blue and red background, which is not enough contrast. Can someone look at this? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Hadlock_Field#Seeking_consensus_on_image_deletions

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a disagreement about which images to include at Hadlock Field. If you could take a moment to weigh-in, it would be appreciated.--User:Namiba 13:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NRIVALRY

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For those interested, there is a pending discussion to change the above guideline. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_51&oldid=1259051087"