Talk:Major League Baseball Season 2006

Revising to redirect to 2006 in baseball; pages which need daily updating to include standard and widely available news results are somewhat impractical. MisfitToys 18:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's needed. Kingjeff 19:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean; the article precisely duplicates material from another article. The reason I redirected was because this article isn't needed. This has been discussed on WikiProject Baseball Talk. MisfitToys 20:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are several articles just like it. It is needed. You just don't come around and change pages to this magnitute. Kingjeff 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, I don't see any standings in the 2006 page. Kingjeff 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the various pages for seasons in other sports, that's a different matter; the creation of the Years in baseball pages some time ago was designed to cover everything for the year, primarily MLB. (Many other sports have seasons spread over two years, so they have a somewhat different situation.) As for the 2006 standings, this was brought up on Talk:2006 in baseball; I agreed that something might be appropriate, though I thought daily updates would be overdoing it a bit (do you update after every game? Every morning? It would be easy for things to get screwed up very quickly with different contributors adding wins and losses in rapid succession.); this is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. As for the magnitude of the article, all you did was to copy a section from an existing article and make a new page with it. The redundancy is unnecessary. MisfitToys 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no standings in the 2006 in baseball article. How can I copy something that isn't there. Kingjeff 20:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my prior comment? I conceded that adding 2006 standings (month-by-month) to 2006 in baseball was reasonable. MisfitToys 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even realize how big the 2005 in baseball article is? So, the size is an issue. Kingjeff 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a lot of the minute details for individual games need to be deleted (not just moved to another page; they form the bulk of the article, and moving them would just shift the same problem). MisfitToys 23:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have already started deleting some little useless information. Kingjeff 00:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the question remains: Presuming the 2006 standings are added to the 2006 in baseball page (and they will certainly be added at season's end, if not sooner), what purpose do the separate pages serve? Material regarding MLB currently accounts for the overwhelming majority (95+%) of the info on the articles for years in baseball, so whet would be different about the articles you're suggesting? Moving all the major league info to those pages, and leaving only the non-regular season data behind, would leave very little material (the postseason series already have their own separate linked articles) and make the existing articles less useful; and it hardly seems ideal to have the pages be essentially copies of one another. And since the standings are readily available on the pages for each year, why would users go to another page to find them? MisfitToys 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say let the year in baseball be the main page but lets limit the article to a maximum of 32 KB in size. This comforms to Wikipedia's style guide. And how about getting rid of all that little garbage that the year in baseball articles don't need. Kingjeff 02:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what "little garbage" you mean (I agree that minute game details are unnecessary, but certainly one or two hundred season highlights are not unreasonable); the main thing I'd like to know is how exactly you think the articles for Major League Baseball Season 2006 and 2006 in baseball would differ? The reason there are separate articles for 2005-06 NBA season and 2006 in basketball {for instance) is that basketball seasons cover two years; if they were confined to a single year (as in baseball), then those articles would be merged, just as in baseball. I think you're trying to make this more difficult than it needs to be; the article for 2006 in baseball will feature the 2006 standings by October, and will also include the postseason results (with links to the articles for each series). There is nothing that you have suggested adding to this article which will not be included under 2006 in baseball. If there are two articles, users will be confused as to which article they should add material to; if they have to add it to both, then there's no point in having both. The listings of current statistical leaders are unwieldy, and would require updating countless times daily for six months at a time; I can't imagine that users would ever consider regarding them as accurate at any given moment without double-checking elsewhere. MisfitToys 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it has to be updated daily for six months? By having 1 main article like 2005 in baseball and linking Major League Baseball Season 2005 to the article along with other little articles will help reduce the size of the main article and not too mention 2005 in baseball is very broad. I'm not saying that's necissarily a bad thing. This is where some other minor articles like Major League Baseball Season 2005 where they can focus more on 1 specific thing with 32 KB to work with. Kingjeff 21:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added current statistical leaders to the page; obviously, that's something which would require constant updating throughout the season, and even letting it go for a few hours would result in it being incorrect. One of Wikipedia's guidelines is that contributors should avoid adding material which requires such constant revision. 95% of what is on the 2005 in baseball article is MLB-related, and regardless of what's added it will no doubt still be the vast majority, so just shifting it to another page would make no difference. The problem isn't that the MLB material is combined with the (minimal) other content, it's that there's just too much minutae. If you really think a separate page could be useful, why not create it in a workspace off your user page, and ask if other users find it an ideal alternative? Please also note that additions to the 2006 in baseball article have been less overwhelming than for last year, and it's unlikely that the page will become as unwieldy in size. MisfitToys 07:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But current events will be updated frequently. You expect current events not to be updated frequently? Kingjeff 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not an event as such, but a statistical update; Wikipedia is far better served by links to news sites which feature daily reports and statistics; player articles, for instance, do not include daily stat updates.

I'll also add that what you're trying to do is change the principal focus of the articles; Look at it this way: The size of the George W. Bush article is currently 69K, more than double the ideal length you cite. Suppose someone were to decide that to reolve this, they would create an article called "Political career of George W. Bush", and move all the content related to his presidency there. Do you not think that this would be controversial, and that the vast consensus would be to revert such a move? After all, his political career is the focus of the article; a better solution would be to move the content not related to his political career, which will be the primary interest of most of the article's readers. As the MLB season is no doubt the primary interest of those visiting the articles for years in baseball, moving that content would likewise be not in Wikipedia's best interest. What should be moved is large sections of content related to non-MLB topics. There are many ways to reduce the size of the 2005 in baseball article (the only one in the series with a particularly large size), and shifting the MLB content is really one of the worst. MisfitToys 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: The category for Years in baseball was added as a subcategory for Sports seasons over four months ago, indicating that the series of articles was regarded as the de facto equivalent of what you're trying to create. MisfitToys 21:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll might allow for every season except 2005. But if I find anymore years that are over 32 kb, then I'm creating a new page. Kingjeff 21:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even considering the issues I've brought up? There are countless pages in Wikipedia over 32K, and this is hardly the most problematic. MisfitToys 21:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are a lot of pages over 32 kb, that still doesn't make it right. Kingjeff 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE see Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting a page, particularly noting the part about there being no need for haste (and also the section higher up about occasional exceptions). And I do intent to get to work trimming the events for the 2005 article. MisfitToys 21:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And congratulations, that's your fourth revert within 24 hours. MisfitToys 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"> 50 KB Probably should be divided" I'm right. Kingjeff 21:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says probably, and there's still the issue of exceptions. And did you note the part about consulting other editors? Nooooo. MisfitToys 21:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one guilty of not consulting other editor(s) and are trying to say you're not guity of the three revert rule?

The part about consulting others editors is directed at those who would remove content (i.e. you) without consulting others, not those who restore what's been removed. And I haven't reverted the article more than three times in a day. MisfitToys 21:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invited comment

User:MisfitToys asked if I'd comment on the above thread. I've taken a look at some of the Category:Years in baseball articles and the pre-redirect version of this article. I think there are two basic issues:

Is an article containing a current list of MLB baseball standings and records appropriate as a Wikipepdia article?

IMO, the answer is no. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, point #5, Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Reporting the standings changes resulting from last night's games seems to be included in this prohibition. I'd include FIFA World Cup results and real time updates showing the latest Academy Awards (while the broadcast is still on) in the class of things that should not be added to Wikipedia. The problem basically relates to Wikipedia:Citing sources. If the current standings (or records or whatever) are included in Wikipedia, someone watching a live event might be encouraged to update this article based on the "truth" that he/she just witnessed on live TV (or in person). This is not what Wikipedia is about. It's about presenting pre-digested information, usually from secondary sources.
Are the current year in baseball articles too long?

Well, yeah, but does this have anything to do with the previous question? In particular, these articles present a whole slew of "facts" with no citation. Again, although "true", without a reference to some source that I (or anyone else) can independently consult to verify these facts there's no way these facts should be included in Wikipedia. These "articles" read much more like current events blog than Wikipedia articles. Would it be way more work to only include cited material in a "this year in baseball" article? You betcha.

-- Rick Block (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles lists the following sources: Baseball Hall of Fame, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Library, Baseball Reference, National Pastime and The Deadball Era. Never been to spain 12:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those sidebar sources (one of which I've just revised to become more year-specific), I'll note that the main articles for years (e.g. 1923) don't usually include any sources/citations. The 2006 article is already 46K, and yet includes only six in-line links (three of which are for the FA Cup final, and two are in regard to the projected date of the U.S. population reaching 300 million), and no footnotes or references. MisfitToys 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]