Talk:Collegiate summer baseball

	Baseball portal This article 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.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject College baseball (assessed as Low-importance).

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Improving the Page

This list of collegiate summer baseball leagues is, in my view, essential to the collegiate summer league area of WikiProject College baseball. I think this page could be improved in two major areas, organization and additional information.

Organization- I do not think that the page's current organizational structure (by NACSB, NBC, and other leagues) is optimal. I think the leagues should be organized by caliber, with top leagues (the Cape, Northwoods, etc.) listed first and lesser talented leagues listed last. These would be organized in groups. This could be determined either by a group of editors with knowledge of collegiate summer leagues or consulting an expert (an email to Andrew of the Summer Ball Blog jumps to mind). I am certainly open to other suggestions, but I do not think the current format is sufficient.

Additional information- I think more information, most likely in table form, is needed for the article. Things like region of operation (either by text or an image map similar to the List of NCAA conferences page), number of teams, year founded, abbreviation, etc. would be beneficial to the reader. What else could we include?

Other improvements?- Is there anything else we could include? Would you like to help? Please comment on my thoughts for the page.

Kithira (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with listing them by some perceived quality ranking is that it's subjective, and therefore original research. Even the current list of top leagues in the intro is weak, as it synthesizes multiple sources. (And I'm not so sure about OSC as a good source, to be honest). oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]