Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

New York Yankees official colors

Hello, I sincerely believe the official HTML or HEX color code for the Navy blue color used by the New York Yankees is #132448. My sources come from MLB.com, found here (right-click on the left part of the MLB batter logo and select Inspect Element (Q), and here (see .primary Bg about 24 lines down the page). I'm currently in an edit dispute over Module:Baseball color/data with Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk), who believes that the HTML or HEX color code is #1C2841, which he claims comes from Arc90.com. Arc90.com has a disclaimer (found here) that says "EPL, MLB, MLS, NHL: These leagues’ teams and colors are currently approximations". I am seeking an editor who has access to the New York Yankees Style Guide, which is found on this website to resolve this dispute. I have contacted the Yankees' PR Department on Twitter (message found here), as well as Paul Lukas of Uni-Watch, also on Twitter (message found here). I am seeking a dispute resolution as soon as possible. Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad you are seeking out all these sources, but I don't think we should be having a team-specific conversation here. The question of what source to use should be a universal decision, not "I think Arc90 looks right for this team, but I think MLB.com looks right for this team". Picking and choosing where to reference team colors from is not how we should be approaching this issue. I also need to stress how web graphics or HTML code is not a reliable source for team colors, no matter if they are on the team's official website. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Given that neither are a source for an official colour representation, I don't think it's within policy to choose just one or the other as a sole source. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, personally I think for consistency it's best to extract the colour values from appropriate team graphics used within the article. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what additional assistance you are seeking beyond the previous discussion on this topic. Given an absence of official sources, there isn't much else to say on the topic. I recommend to all interested parties that they leave the colours alone if they look sufficiently close to the official team colours from the club uniforms or logos, and wait until official sources emerge. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeking an editor who has access to official color information for the Yankees. Also, I'm requesting that Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) please STOP undoing my edits, and also to NOT comment on my talk page anymore. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You were both edit warring, which is wrong, but you cannot tell people to unconditionally leave your edits alone. It's contrary to WP:BRD, and we operate on consensus. There is no ownership, which I had already reminded you. Per WP:NOBAN, however, it is your prerogative if you don't want someone to edit your talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This isnt specific to the Yankees.. but it is really annoying that people keep changing the team colors over and over again on all the templates.... cant we reach a consensus on here and just leave them the frick alone? Spanneraol (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox: Regular season Division titles being linked to LDS.

Isn't it misleading, to be wiki-linking teams Division titles to ALDS & NLDS articles? They should be linked to the teams 'regular season' articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Leading your division after 162 regular season games has nothing to do with a postseason series played subsequent to that. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
To help clarify, here is an example of this type of change. There seems to be mixed usage; the New York Yankees article only links to the corresponding playoff series, where they exist (always for the World Series, to the league championships after divisions were introduced, and to division series when three divisions were established). The Los Angeles Dodgers article also links to these, but all other titles are linked to the corresponding Dodger season. I think it is reasonable to link to the corresponding championship series for the World Series and the league championship. The question is what seems apt for division championships, and seasons that pre-date divisions/wild cards? Is it unexpected to have some links go to post-season series and others to team season pages? isaacl (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I would opt for linking to the regular season team articles. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with GoodDay. LDS is not a "division championship". Use the regular season article for that year or leave it unlinked. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I started to write a reply regarding any potential non-intuitiveness of the link destinations, but while composing it, I convinced myself that a reader will likely expect a link to an article with more information about the title won, and so the season articles seem like suitable choices for division titles, as well as for league championships that pre-date divisions. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed the pre-1969 League pennant winners should be linked to the regular seasons, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the League pennants, Division titles & Wild Card berths linkages. If anyone sees anything I've blundered or missed? please do the honours. Sadly, someone will come along & revert my corrections :( GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with article for Pensacola Blue Wahoos owner

Hi, two weeks ago I left an edit request on the Talk page of Quint Studer (owner of the Pensacola Blue Wahoos), asking for feedback on new article drafts I prepared. Because I have a COI, I don’t want to make these edits myself. The drafts include missing information related to Studer’s baseball team ownership and other local investments. I should note that I have prepared the drafts on behalf of, and with input from, Mr. Studer as a paid consultant to The Studer Group. If any editors here are interested, the full request, including changes I’ve made, can be found here. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:MLB Playoff Summary

Don't know if anyone is checking that template. Right now it says "Series tied, 0-0", which is silly. Can we disable it under that condition and have it show up as "Series tied, 1-0" after Game 1? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, wouldn't the series not' be tied if it's 1-0? (Just busting your chops) Anyway, it's valid to say it's a 0-0 series until the first game is over. That said, it's also valid to say something along the lines of "series not started". Don't know if that's technically possible, though. oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
D'oh. It was late and I was sleepy when I posted that. You guys know what I meant. I don't think a series is "tied" if it hasn't begun. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I introduced a sandbox version and some testcases. If the winner, leader, and score1 parameters are not specified, then the template will display the string, "Series not started." I also changed the template so the first two game rows are optional. Feedback is welcome! isaacl (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was thinking! This should work, we can revert if somehow it doesn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've copied the sandbox version to the production version. If anyone sees any issues, feel free to revert. isaacl (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Montreal Expos partnership agreements

I started a discussion on some recent edits regarding the partnership agreements for the Montreal Expos. Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Ownership information in team articles

There is an ongoing discussion on the Toronto Blue Jays discussion page regarding the ownership information displayed in the infobox for a team article. Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

In particular, the discussion is regarding whether or not the chairperson of Rogers Communications, the parent company owning the Jays, should be displayed in the infobox. Help in resolving this question is appreciated! isaacl (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The rules have changed

I know it's the end of the season and there's so much more to do, but I just noticed something. Before the beginning of the season, MLB actually reorganized the official rules, meaning any reference to a specific rule number in an article is now outdated. See the pdf of the official rules here. While this year's edition published the rules under both numbering scheme to aid in the transition, the new numbering order is the actual official order now, and is the one that rulings need to refer to. So articles like designated hitter, dead-ball era, and in multiple places at the glossary of baseball need to be updated (or removed, as the specific number rule mention is probably unneeded outside of the reference). oknazevad (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fun! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Intercounty Baseball League

Thought I would drop this here for input. The Intercounty Baseball League in Ontario had been around for nearly 100 years, and the article could use a lot of work. Lots of redlinked stuff (many former teams have no articles and info on them is sparse) and in general the article needs a ton of research and updating; long gaps in history and the odd piece of recentism. Also note that it does not get mentioned in the article Independent baseball league as being one, and am curious what the criteria for inclusion may be; hoping someone could weigh in on that. If there were specific guidelines anyone cared to point in my direction that could help it would be appreciated; I'm more up to speed on hockey criteria than baseball's, but would like to see this article get cleaned up some. Thanks! Echoedmyron (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Intercounty Baseball League appears (from its own website) to be an amateur league, while the independent baseball league article refers to professional leagues. Also the content on the Intercounty Baseball League page seems to be a direct copy of the text on the league's website,[1] which is a copyright violation. Spanneraol (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh geez, I hadn't checked for that. Sigh. It's going to require a bigger overhaul than I had hoped, in that case. Thanks for clarifying on the amateur/pro aspect. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I do have a book that discusses Canadian baseball history, but won't really have much time to edit or work on that article in the next little bit. Perhaps ping me in a couple weeks if nothing else happens. At the very least, the sources I do have might help frame an outline for the league. Resolute 19:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page problems

Would someone mind taking a look at Talk:Nellie Fox please? YahwehSaves and his IP address are removing old comments from discussions there, potentially leaving other comments out of context. When I have encountered out-of-process edits from this user before, I find that it is not easy to point to policy or reason. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this the edit in question? As there was no response previously, I'd consider it fair per WP:REDACT in this case if they wanted to modify it. Is there a particular reason you feel that this should not be the case?—Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As I read the history, Bagumba is right, except I think the redaction date should appear. Perhaps by appending one line as I have done. Comments solicited here. --P64 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with the addition of the new date.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem. We have a long history of not seeing eye to eye on prominent baseball biographies, so I probably overreacted. Sorry, everyone. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Nah, overreacting would be edit warring. You did the right thing to seek other's opinions.—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Walk-off win

Moved to Talk:Walk-off home run § Requested move 28 September 2015
 – After initial query, it's probably best to just comment at the WP:RM discussion directly, and form a clear consensus there.—Bagumba (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This page is marked for deletion so that Walk-off home run can be moved to this article title but it wasn't clear to me what the basis of this decision was. Since a walk-off home run is such a commonly used term, I wanted to check and see if the WikiProject agreed with this move and change of title of the article. Liz Read! Talk! 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A walk off win isn't always a home-run. So it is probably correct to move the article. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, the way it is tagged, the Walk-off win page will be deleted and Walk-off home run will be moved/retitled Walk-off win. Since you say that a walk off win isn't always a home run, I'm not sure if an article focused on home runs should be the main article on walk off wins. That was why I hesitated with the deletion and move and I'm not knowledgeable about baseball so I thought I'd ask here first. Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I am not 100% convinced on where the final article should be. But I think redirecting the more specific term to the less specific term would probably be better than redirecting the more general term to the more specific term. But I am sure others will pipe up. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually it looks like there is a Move Request now open for it which is currently opposed to so probably should not be speedied yet. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a certain amount of controversy over the terminology. It is true that anything that causes a game-winning run to be scored in the last half-inning -- a hit with a runner in scoring position, a walk or hit-by-pitch with the bases loaded, a wild pitch or passed ball or balk with a runner at third -- is typically termed a "walk-off". But there are those who contend that in those cases, technically, the event that ends the game is not the hit or walk or wild pitch or whatever, but the failure of the fielding team to make a play at the plate. That's nitpicking, in my humble opinion, since the end result is the same, the game ends, and everybody "walks off" the field. But I agree that if the move is made, the lede should be rewritten to make clearer that other events beside home runs can result in "walk-off" wins. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Without commenting on the controversy (which I hadn't heard of), technically, any forced advances should be completed, not just the scoring run. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed color changes

At Module talk:Baseball color, @Charlesaaronthompson: has proposed several changes to Module:Baseball color/data. I have created a table of the proposed changes. The left is the current colors, right side is proposed colors. Joeykai (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Color 1 Color 2 Color 3 Color 4 Sample 1 Sample 2 Proposed 1 Proposed 2 Proposed 3 Proposed 4 PSample 1 PSample 2
  Arizona1   Arizona2   Arizona3   Arizona4 Arizona Arizona   Arizona1   Arizona2   Arizona3   Arizona4 Arizona Arizona
  Baltimore1   Baltimore2   Baltimore3   Baltimore4 Baltimore Baltimore   Baltimore1   Baltimore2   Baltimore3   Baltimore4 Baltimore Baltimore
  Colorado1   Colorado2   Colorado3   Colorado4 Colorado Colorado   Colorado1   Colorado2   Colorado3   Colorado4 Colorado Colorado
  Oakland1   Oakland2   Oakland3   Oakland4 Oakland Oakland   Oakland1   Oakland2   Oakland3   Oakland4 Oakland Oakland
  San Francisco1   San Francisco2   San Francisco3   San Francisco4 San Francisco San Francisco   San Francisco1   San Francisco2   San Francisco3   San Francisco4 San Francisco San Francisco
  Seattle1   Seattle2   Seattle3   Seattle4 Seattle Seattle   Seattle1   Seattle2   Seattle3   Seattle4 Seattle Seattle
I don't know that black-on-orange is a good idea. Otherwise they do look like improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
As I have mentioned previously, I prefer changing the navboxes to use colour borders and to not change the background colour of text. With this change, the legibility of a primary team colour against a secondary team colour becomes moot and it would no longer be necessary to change any colours for that reason. isaacl (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm indifferent on whether to stay with the current approach to text/background colors or go with a more contrast-friendly one (whether that's doing color outlines instead of colored text, or doing black/white text only). My main concern is just unifying the color selections (and updating all of the relevant infoboxes/navboxes so that the colors are no longer hardcoded into them). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Y2kcrazyjoker4: I've been trying to get all the navboxes to use Template:Baseball primary style and Template:Baseball secondary style, which take the colors directly from Module:Baseball color/data so that any changes to the colors would automatically be implemented to all the navboxes. Joeykai (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
My problem with those templates is that instead of just pulling the HTML color codes, they also add some HTML code, meaning they can't be used in all the places I would like to (e.g. Template:New York Yankees roster or any other team's equivalent) Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Any color combination at a minimum needs to meet WP:CONTRAST. There's tools there to narrow down options on what is acceptable.—Bagumba (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest doing it similar to how the hockey project switched there's. The white background with strips on the top and bottom that are in the team colours. It is much better from an accessibility standpoint and I personally think it looks a lot more appealing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I hate the way the hockey project does things, to be honest. A white background for all cases does not look appealing to me. The default colors for a wikitable, various shades of gray, are preferable to me to the "nearly all white" look. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You could do that as well, but it would look bad with some colours. The idea with white is that it is neutral and looks good with all colours. The hockey project's went through pretty large accessibility discussions with people who are into making sure things are accessible to come up with that scheme while still keeping the colours obvious. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
For those editors (@Muboshgu:) who are worried about black text on orange backgrounds, I have used Snook.ca's Colour Contrast Checker to determine if they are WP:CONTRAST-compliant. (For a reference, here's the link to Snook.ca's Colour Contrast Checker.) Anyway, here's how Snook.ca checked the contrast for the Baltimore Orioles. As you can see, that particular color combination is compliant for WCAG 2 AA, WCAG 2 AA (18pt+), and WCAG 2 AAA (18pt+), but not WCAG 2 AAA. Here's how Snook.ca checked the contrast for the San Francisco Giants. The results for the Giants are similar to the results for the Orioles. Anyway, the colors in the table that @Joeykai: created are all WP:CONTRAST-compliant (meaning I checked the color value combinations to determine if they met the criteria, and they all did). I agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions), in that the colors do need to be unified throughout all MLB team templates. I also agree that all of the relevant infoboxes/navboxes should be updated so that they no longer have a need to be hardcoded. It's tedious/unnecessary (in my opinion) to continually hardcode the colors in the infoboxes/navboxes. Finally, I will agree to use the MLB team colors found at Arc90.com until colors from official sources (read: MLB.com) emerge, as explained here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
For the orange and black you're ignoring the part that says "Are colours compliant? NO" Joeykai (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe it was explained to me that the only requirements at WP:CONTRAST that matter are WCAG 2.0 AA and AAA. Here's the link to the explanation. @Joeykai: I suggest talking to @Bagumba: for clarification about the WP:CONTRAST guidelines. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:CONTRAST is only a minimum. Black on orange is still really hard to read. I suggest using white as the 4th color for the Orioles and Giants. Joeykai (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm willing to compromise on the 4th colors for the Orioles and Giants. Apart from that, though, would any editor object if I went ahead and updated the color strings for the Arizona Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Oakland Athletics, and Seattle Mariners? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Colorado 3/4 may be misentered - I think 4 was meant to be white, based on what you presented as your example. So long as 4 is pure white, I have no objection to that. Seattle 3/4 is not AAA compliant, so I object to that color scheme. Seattle is a AAA alternative. ~ RobTalk 00:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rob (Talk): I have a copy of the Seattle Mariners' Style Guide (that's the only one I have). The official color information says the Northwest green color is   006C67    (so it should read Seattle), so that needs to be in Module:Baseball color/data, since it is official. I'm not allowed to post it here (per the instructions in the e-mail), but I know what I'm talking about. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Charlesaaronthompson: No, we don't have to use a color set that's non-compliant. As per the WMF's non-discrimination policy, which cannot be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies", we cannot discriminate against users on the basis of their disability. Those with visual difficulties will have trouble seeing color combinations that are not AAA compliant, which falls afoul of the non-discrimination policy and WP:CONTRAST, which derives from it. If the worry is that using a slightly darker shade is not accurate, we can do away with that color combination entirely and use only the primary one. ~ RobTalk 01:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way, you can see the difference between the color you claim is official and my AAA compliant alternative here: [2]. You'll notice that the difference is essentially undetectable. ~ RobTalk 01:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, the orange color schemes are not even AA compliant with white, and aren't AAA compliant with black. A darker (if we use white) or a lighter (if we use black) orange is needed. ~ RobTalk 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
All the colors in the table at the top of this section are compliant. I don't see why we can't go forward with implementing the color changes as I have outlined. I'm not trying to claim ownership; I'm just saying I've checked to see if they are compliant, and they are not only that, but should be as approximately official as possible (The Mariners' colors are official, and also WCAG 2.0 compliant, as seen here and here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That second link, which is the color combination I took issue with, says "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant: NO". That's the issue. They're not AAA compliant. ~ RobTalk 01:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the guidelines at WP:CONTRAST state that "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". The color combination seen here reaches the minimum of WCAG 2.0's AA level. That's the minimum required. Even though it doesn't reach WCAG 2.0's AAA level (but it does reach WCAG 2.0's AAA (18pt+) level), I still sincerely believe that the colors need to be official. I don't want to use inaccurate color information. I have official color information from the Mariners. I sincerely believe those colors need to represented at Module:Baseball color/data. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It is feasible to use a slightly different color that achieves AAA status. The color I proposed looks visually identical when not comparing the two side-by-side. Additionally, we've yet to see anything that verifies that your color codes are official. ~ RobTalk 02:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, since you don't believe that my colors are official, here is the .PDF file of the Seattle Mariners Style Guide: file:///C:/Users/Charles/Documents/Charles' Documents/2015_SEA_Style Guide.pdf#page=5 (I can't make it a link, so to view it, just copy and paste it into your browser). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a file path on your computer. I can't view it unless you upload it somewhere and provide a link to the website where you uploaded it. I'm not accusing you of lying about their official colors, and I'm willing to assume good faith that you have that information, but that doesn't change the fact that the color scheme doesn't have to be used at all to represent text. We should seek AAA compliant colors or just use only their primary color set (the darker blue version that you linked). ~ RobTalk 03:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'll compromise. I propose using the Mariners' Northwest green color from Arc90.com. I checked it using Snook.ca's Colour Contrast Checker. It's compliant on all 5 levels, including WCAG 2 AAA Compliant, per [3]. Other than that, do you have any other objections about my MLB team color proposals, @BU Rob13:? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your flexibility; I do understand that the contrast policies can be frustrating at times, but I've also spent a lot of time reflecting on the frustration that must occur for visually-impaired users when they attempt to read text that is non-compliant, and we have to take that into account in light of the WMF's non-discrimination policy. I have no issues with the Seattle colors you proposed. The oranges still don't meet AAA for black text or even AA for white text. I don't have time to look at alternatives at the moment, but I'll do so tomorrow. I'm guessing a slightly lighter orange with black will be compliant (and easier on the eyes). ~ RobTalk 06:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of using colour borders in the navboxes and keeping black text on a light background, so there are no longer any accessibility issues regarding the choice of primary and secondary colours? For example, see Template:Montreal Canadiens. isaacl (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for it. I'd rather have the templates be similar to the way they are for National Hockey League (NHL) team templates than what Wikipedia currently uses for MLB. I'm especially for it if Wikipedia can use the Seattle Mariners' real colors (#002B5C for Navy, #006C67 for Northwest green) in the colour borders. This way, accessibility issues are rendered moot, in my opinion. Having a white background colour with black text and team colors in the borders will make it easier for everyone, in my opinion. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I like the way how the game log is set up at 2015 Toronto Blue Jays season. The black text on white background is very easy for all readers to see, and the strips on the top and bottom still show the team colours. Canuck89 (talk to me) 20:10, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
2015 Game log
Yup this is basically how I was suggesting. I would be all for this method. It allows for using the actual colours of the team while rendering accessibility issues completely moot. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
That seems like the most extreme approach to take in the name of accessibility when it probably isn't even necessary. If there's a team with color contrast issues, like the teams with black and orange, you put white text on a black background and have an orange outline. Or an equivalent scenario for a team with different colors. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Previously you had indicated you were indifferent to using colour borders. Over the years this approach has been discussed numerous times and the participants seemed generally amenable. In the interest of moving forward, I believe using colour borders can garner consensus support (that is, something most people can manage with) and I hope you remain open to this format. isaacl (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the way the conversation has turned to potentially having all white backgrounds for all teams, I am open to almost any alternative to avoid that. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: Do you have any objections if I go ahead and update the color strings for Baltimore and San Francisco to black backgrounds with white text (in San Francisco's case, it would look like this: San Francisco), with the 3/4 colors being orange and black? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

White text on a black background typically needs to set in bold to improve legibility, and I'd as soon not have to tweak navboxes on an individual team basis based on their team colours. Given the support from multiple persons on using colour borders, I would prefer to pursue this approach. isaacl (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not wild about the white with colored borders approach from the above example.. think it doesnt look as good as the current system. Spanneraol (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
We don't need it to be white with colored borders. We could create something that was white text on a black border with another color as the outline. For the record, I think white backgrounds with two color borders (as mocked up above) looks unappealing, but I won't object to it. I've been uncompromising with regard to accessibility, so I'll go with the crowd when it comes to an accessible alternative. As long as it's AAA compliant, you can consider me at least neutral on the idea. ~ RobTalk 23:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
If the whole point of using colours is to represent the team colours it doesn't make much sense to have some teams deviate from that, or to use 3rd or 4th colours instead. Personally I would drop to not using colours at all if each one does not adhear to the actual team colours. But I still think the white with borders is the best option. But I know getting people to change from the status quo is always an uphill battle, just look at how much people complain when facebook changes some minor thing. -DJSasso (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I did a test run of all 30 teams here just so everyone can see what it would look like. Colors were taken from the team page rather than the MLBModule. The only thing that would need to be done is to make the accessory navboxs align with this if this is what the consensus is to go to. –B2Project(Talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This only reinforces my opinion - I really hate the white look. I strongly urge us to find an amenable solution that closely adheres to the current color style but one that is contrast-accessible. If for the Baltimore Orioles, neither black text nor white text looks good against an orange background, then we have a black background with white text and an orange border around the template. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Look again at the first 3 and see if that's a better option. (WP:HOCKEY guys see if you'd like to consider this change as well). –B2Project(Talk) 17:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the solid lines personally as opposed to those gradient lines, but either is miles ahead of the eye sores that most of the navboxes are currently (and I don't just mean from an accessibility standpoint). -DJSasso (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The gradient doesn't do a lot for me. It looks much cleaner with solid colors. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:B2project for the legwork! Could you add a bit more white space padding above and below the text for the gradient examples? isaacl (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Adjusted the spacing.–B2Project(Talk) 11:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any difference. To illustrate what I meant, I tried to adjust the top and bottom padding for the team title between the two gradients, but I wasn't successful, and I saw a note in the navbox template saying that adding padding doesn't work, so I'm not sure how straightforward it is to do. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As with all visual style changes, it will be difficult to have something that everyone will like. Of course, "I like it" rationales aren't as important as objective reasons, but understandably personal preferences will inevitably play a role in this type of discussion. I think in the interest of maximizing legibility, it is simplest to just choose very high-contrast background and foreground colours for the header cell text. Black and white are an obvious option; the background colour could also be some very pale tone. From a practical standpoint, I think having a common colour combination simplifies matters, so the accessibility question doesn't have to be re-discussed each time a team changes its colours, or someone decides that the particular HTML colour code being used in the corresponding templates needs to be changed. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I have provided a screenshot of the Seattle Mariners colors, according to the Style Guide I have access to: It's found here. However, according to MLBPressbox.com, this is their style guide for the Mariners. Just thought I'd provide both screenshots for comparison. Also, does anyone know if there's a way to gain access to MLBPressbox.com? I've given up hope of gaining access to MLBStyleGuide.com, as it seems MLBStyleGuide.com is for business partners/credentialed media partners of MLB only. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Modified navboxes

Here's an example of a pale background colour that can be used for the table heading cells in conjunction with the colour borders:

In the interest of making the navboxes easy to read for everyone, can the interested parties manage with an approach using a fixed pair of high-contrast text and background colours in all navboxes? isaacl (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I say stick with the black-on-white. This makes it look like the light purple is a team color. Which it's not. The color bars look good (and I kinda like the gradient version) if we have to use something other than just team colors for accessibility, but we shouldn't use any colors not part of the team color scheme. Black on white is as high contrast as one can get while still being neutral to team color schemes, and is readily apparent as to not be part of the team's colors. oknazevad (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I chose a pale blue to echo one of the background colours in the cells of the navbox (the other colour used is a shade of grey). A pale grey is a potential option that would be more neutral. I trust though that regardless of the specific colour used, you are amenable to adopting a fixed set of text and background colours for all teams, using the team colours as border colours? isaacl (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
pale grey would probably be okay, but I don't see any reason not to just use white. All MLB game have a white uniform, so it's a classic baseball color. As for the bars, while I didn't like them when they were first introduced for the hockey navboxes, they've grown on me and are a reasonable method for balancing the need for color with the need for accessibility. oknazevad (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see why we need to pursue this extreme. What is wrong with the below approach? How is it contrast unfriendly? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Colour contrast is not the only consideration for best typographical practices. For example, with light text set on a dark background, for legibility, the text is better off being bold, and set with a bit more spacing. Given that most contributors would rather focus on updating content than the style with which it is presented, to avoid rediscussing all of these considerations each time there is a need to change the team colour codes being used, it is easier to gain agreement on a fixed colour combination that can be re-used across all teams. In terms of satisfying the personal preferences of most readers, a more neutral style that makes sparing use of colour is more likely to be amenable to more persons, and is also in alignment with best graphical design practices for text layout. isaacl (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Well my biggest complaint with it would be that it is really hard on the eyes to read. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Since so far only personal preferences have been raised against using fixed text and background colours, I suggest that we can move forward with this proposal. I appreciate this approach will make some unhappy, but the current approach also makes some unhappy, in addition to being problematic from a usability standpoint. isaacl (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:B2project, if I recall correctly, you earlier showed interest in working on converting the appropriate navboxes and templates to align with a revised colour scheme. Are you still interested? I suggest trying a very, very pale grey: something almost white, but just a bit different from the page background colour, so the table heading cells won't just look like holes in the table. isaacl (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Isaac1, I redid them all with the background color from the body of a wikitable. Some color clarity was lost but looks decent. –B2Project(Talk) 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As there hasn't been any further feedback, User:B2project, would you like to start deploying the changes into articles, using the appropriate templates such as {{Baseball primary color}} and {{Baseball secondary color}}? isaacl (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Baseball pool?

I notice we have football pool and hockey pool, but we don't have a baseball pool; we do have fantasy football (association) and fantasy hockey, as well as fantasy baseball. Shouldn't we also have a baseball pool article? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not heard of baseball pool... i dont know if it is a thing. Spanneraol (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe the Betting pool and Fantasy baseball articles cover the topic adequately. isaacl (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with hockey pool, but that article implies it is different than fantasy hockey. Whatever it is, I'm not sure the equivalent in baseball exists. The OP can provide reliable sources that demonstrate its notability if they think an article is warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
"Hockey pool" has no references, may not meet GNG. Resolute might a better idea on that than I. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The football (soccer) pool article is largely unsourced or sourced to a potentially unreliable or primary source as well. Personally, I think an article could be had, but there is no great need for separate articles on hockey or baseball or basketball. They are all the same thing in the end. Resolute 17:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Whats the difference between these pool articles and the fantasy articles? Isn't hockey pool the same thing as fantasy hockey? Just a version of it?Spanneraol (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah they could probably be redirects. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The article hockey pool presently covers nothing distinctive and should be redirected to fantasy hockey, aka fantasy hockey league, perhaps after merge of any extra content. I made the suggestion, with explanation, at Talk:Hockey pool, also with cross-reference to this baseball talk section.
The article football pool is not about fantasy league football.
Neither article is relevant here, except as illustrations to ask of anyone whether "baseball pool" betting is well established anywhere as the one or the other, fantasy league baseball or pool betting on the outcomes of multiple baseball games at once.
If the latter is important, then the article betting pool should say something about the important baseball instance. --P64 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, "baseball pool", if it exists, is not prevalent. I personally don't know of any office pools, etc. to pick all the week's winners. I don't even think there is the equivalent of an NCAA hoops bracket for the playoffs. Maybe there are some niche gambling's sites?—Bagumba (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
A fantasy baseball league can be considered a betting pool, since it follows the model of combining participant fees into a prize pool. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
For those daily leagues, perhaps, though it needs to play out if they are legally labelled as such, as that's what determines if they need to be regulated like gambling. Unlike NFL football, I don't think baseball gets as much daily league business. I wouldn't generalize fantasy baseball as a pool unless there are sources that show most leagues are of the paid/prize variety.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I left out the adjective "paid"; obviously any competition not involving fees and prizes isn't a betting pool. I don't really see much difference from a gambling perspective between a hockey pool and a baseball pool. isaacl (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In a dictionary such as wikt, baseball pool belongs in at least three senses

I don't know that fantasy baseball would belong there although the hockey example suggests a cross-reference would be appropriate.

Regarding the vagaries of regulation and its terminology in one jurisdiction and another, I don't believe wikipedia must or generally should reflect such things in its pagenames and lead paragraphs. One-day fantasy leagues --derived from MLB or any other actual sporting competition-- may be covered in the details of both fantasy and pool articles with changes only "down there" when and if legal regulation and terminology change. --P64 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It would need to be balanced by WP:DUE and WP:OR. Fantasy's association with pools should reflect the extent it is connected in reliable sources. It's not WP's place to draw its own analogies. If the association is weak, a "see also" would be the most that would be warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Naming question

information Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Long Beach State Dirtbags baseball#Official vs. Common nickname regarding the name of the article. Thanks! Corkythehornetfan 20:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Active leaders

It's perfectly acceptable to mention the active leaders in the prose of leaders articles like 300 save club, right? User:Taffe316 is trying to convince me it isn't; but he's way off-base, right? pbp 22:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you mentioned at Talk:300 save club that "It's not like the prose section is overly long or anything." Are there other compelling reasons to add it?—Bagumba (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Because people want to know it? Because many record books have active career leaderboards in addition to all-time career leaderboards? pbp 22:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
But the tables say who's active with color shading and the double dagger (I think, I haven't clicked on one of these pages today). Why does it have to be added in prose? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Conversely, if a table tells you all you need to know, why have any prose at all? Here's why: some people read just the prose and skim or skip the table. Also, if anybody wants to FL this, it'll have to meet a certain floor of prose. Frankly, I don't understand why this is controversial. pbp 00:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
List articles are expected to have a good amount of prose in them at the beginning to set context etc. As mentioned, it could never be featured without it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
100% agree. We need more prose, not less. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Since the discussion is ongoing on this page, perhaps you should put a link to it from the the discussion page for "300 save club". I think it is reasonable to list the current active leader in the initial section of the article. In this case, as the top two are relatively close, I think both of them can be fairly mentioned. I'm more ambivalent about the third player, who is further back. isaacl (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course note that anything in prose in a featured list such as these requires inline citations. As far as whether or not to do it, I don't care much either way. It was the edit warring that was unbecoming. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't follow the featured content nominations, so I'll take your word that this is the general practice for featured lists. Personally, though, I don't see the utility in having an inline citation for a non-controversial fact that is identified and sourced in the table immediately below. isaacl (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
What we who follow MLB closely take as matter-of-fact is unknown to the general lay reader who doesn't know MLB. Featured content is supposed to be unimpeachable in its content for the lay reader. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Muboshgu:@Isaacl: Any of the active leaders facts I have added could easily be cited from the same sources as the table, or from a website that has an active table. For example, the active leaders mentioned in the article 300 save club can be cited from this website. pbp 18:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That would work for me. There's no valid reason to oppose this as long as it's sourced, as far as I can see. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with domain-specific knowledge; I just don't see the need to repeat the identical citation that is used to source the table. (I wouldn't bother to take it out if someone added it, but it seems redundant.) isaacl (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

2015 Japan Series

Hello. The 2015 Japan Series is now concluded, and it's at WP:ITN/R, meaning it gets posted to the Main Page as long as its quality is sufficient. Please help me get it there. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Greatest comeback?

What are the greatest comebacks in the history of baseball? I am asking for an article (Comeback (sports)). Cheers! bd2412 T 14:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If you mean team comebacks? For MLB it's the Red Sox defeating the Yankees in 7 games in the 2004 ALCS, after trailing 3-0. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
In terms of single games, I've always been partial to this one :) Wizardman 15:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both. I had not thought of a comeback occurring within a series rather than an individual game, but that is just as useful to point out. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
What is or isn't the greatest comeback, is a POV and there is the policy WP:NPOV. This type of article is a problem child because it can be the catch all for editors putting in their own views and doing WP:OR. Look at the state of San Diego sports curse before it got made into a redirect per an AFD. I am a veteran correspondence chess master but never won the United States national cc chess championship. Maybe it was due to the San Diego sports curse rather than my poor moves on the board. I lived in SD for two years back in the 80's....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The article itself is not on "the greatest comeback", but on the concept of what constitutes a "comeback" in sports (as opposed to a "comeback" in music, or in an exchange of insults). I am asking about incidences that could be called the "greatest" comeback as a way of illustrating what a "comeback" is in various sports. bd2412 T 03:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel there is any significant distinction between the different sports, and so I don't believe anything beyond a dictionary definition on Wiktionary (i.e. succeeding after having been in a disadvantageous position) is required for this term. I don't think there is a need to describe the myriads of different disadvantageous positions in all sports. isaacl (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Statistics would indicate otherwise. I created this article after fixing numerous disambiguation links to comeback that intended the missing meaning of a return from disadvantage in sports. In any case, even in the lede, there is more encyclopedic content than could be accommodated in a Wiktionary entry (I know this because I am also one of the leading editors at Wiktionary). Cheers! bd2412 T 04:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of single-game baseball comebacks should incorporate (game or series) win probability as one way to measure the size of a comeback, namely the lowest win probability achieved during any game (MLB game, World Series game, etc) or series by the eventual winning team. Vaguely I recall that the 1986 NY Mets held and the 2002 Anaheim Angels surpassed the greatest World Series series comeback by that measure --back from low probability to win the series, achieved at the low point late in game six.

Baseball-Reference play-by-play shows game win probability at that level of resolution where pbp is available, with roundoff to the nearest integer percent. Three World Series game examples: 2015 KC Royals comeback from 5% to win game five; 2002 Angels back from 3% to win game six; 1986 Mets back from 1% to win game six. Those three game win probabilities were 6%, 4%, 8% at the start of the relevant half-inning. --P64 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In the very first now-called "major league" game played by the Detroit Tigers --and first by the original Milwaukee Brewers, and first at Bennett Park (Detroit)-- namely, opening day of the 1901 American League season in Detroit:

  • Milwaukee led by nine runs, 13–4, in the middle of the ninth inning. Detroit scored 10 runs in the bottom of the ninth to win. See the linescore at Retrosheet Events of Thursday, April 25, 1901, with daily standings that show one game played for both teams.

(Detroit and Milwaukee were established clubs from the 1990s Western League but the American League declared declared independence of the major National during 1900/1901 off-season and MLB follows that definition.)

The basketball section Comeback (sports)#Basketball should not define boldly second-half and fourth-quarter comebacks (and no others), then use for its examples a different measure --number of points behind at any moment in the game, evidently. --P64 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox highlights order

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Player_style_advice which advises the highlights to include, but there is no guidance on the order. User:Yankees10 and I were discussing Tony Gwynn, and where his batting titles should be listed. On the one hand, All-Star seems to de facto listed first on articles. In Gwynn's case, I'd argue that his legacy is more synonymous with his 8 batting titles than his 15 All-Star appearances, and should be listed first, even if there is a general rule to list AS first. The basic questions are:

  1. Is there a consensus that All-Star appearances should generally be listed first in the infobox highlights?
  2. If All-Star is generally listed first, should exceptions be allowed, such as in Gwynn's batting titles?

—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • My opinion: list All-Stars first for every player. It is the most basic and common highlight for all players. It also helps avoid edit wars on difference of opinion of what is more notable or not. Just using Gwynn as example, I'd say 8 batting titles being more notable than 15 AS's selections is honestly just based on opinion. Just listing AS's first would avoid these issues. That's how I see it away and how i've gone about it for these years.--Yankees10 00:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Difference of opinion isn't necessarily a bad thing if it improves Wikipedia (WP:IAR). People that are inclined to edit war are going to do so even if there is a rule. I will say that Gwynn is probably the best litmus test, because if this isn't worthy of an exception, I can't imagine any other case warranting one either.—Bagumba (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Ozzie Smith's 13 Gold Gloves and 15 All-Stars is another candidate, though there's more tradition and attention to batting titles than Gold Gloves.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • When the matter was discussed three years ago, no consensus was reached on the order of the achievements. I gave my suggestion then for an order that took advantage of the two most prominent locations in a list: the start and the end. But due to the differing opinions on what types of achievements should be listed, a general agreement was not achieved on the order. isaacl (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for linking the prior discussion. In the absence of prior general consensus, do you have a personal opinion on how to handle Gwynn?—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Personally, I believe in listing individual achievements first, in roughly descending order of importance and reliability as an indicator of skill, followed by giving the list a grand finale with signature achievements—post-season play, All-Star selections, and post-career recognition such as number retirement. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, for players with a key, defining, signature achievement, I suggested listing it first. So in the case of Gwynn, this would mean listing his batting titles first. isaacl (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually, in this case, the key, defining, signature achievement criterion wouldn't have to be invoked, since the top individual achievement is already Gwynn's batting championships. isaacl (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: A notice of this discussion has been left for the prior participants of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_32#Order_of_achievements, the last related project discussion, as well as at Talk:Tony Gwynn.—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I know it won't matter since consensus is clearly against me but since I was invited I should say that I still believe that achievements should be removed from the infobox except the Hall of Fame. As you see far to much POV is going into something that is really just clutter in the infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
In agreement with Djsasso. The inclusion of these additional achievments is a recipe for disaster. It'll cause endless disputes over which to include & in what order. GoodDay (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Poll for Gwynn infobox

Which highlight should be listed first in the infobox for Tony Gwynn?

8× NL batting champion
  1. His NL-record 8 batting titles are his lasting legacy, as they embody his skill. Look at any obituary of his. The AS appearances don't tell us what kind of player he is, just that he was real good.—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but the reasoning is sound. No need for them all to be exactly the same. Spanneraol (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  3. I prefer that All-Star selections be saved for the end of the list, and Gwynn's top individual achievements are his batting championships.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaacl (talk • contribs) 02:29, 22 October 2015‎ (UTC)
  4. This is what he is known for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
15× All-Star
  1. For reasons I stated above. Way too much effort being put into such a minor issue. I mean we needed a poll for this? Really?--Yankees10 02:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    Either of us could have left it, but neither of us have. Is there another alternative to WP:TALKDONTREVERT?—Bagumba (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  2. I think since World Series championships and All-Star selections are basically the two most universal accolades/accomplishments across all player positions/roles, they should go first (e.g. only batters are expected to win batting titles, rather than pitchers; only pitchers can win Cy Young Award, rather than hitters). I also hold this opinion because most references to players in news articles, press releases, etc. seem to mention these items first. As much as batting titles define Gwynn, I think we need some kind of universal standard to apply across player articles and not make exceptions like this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
  • You are an excellent editor Bagumba, but this is a waste of time. Just change it back to the batting champions on top. This is not a big enough deal that we need a poll or continue with a discussion. A user that has been here for this long (myself) and an admin don't need to be wasting time with things like this. The order of awards in an infobox is so minor in the scope of things, it's just silly.--Yankees10 02:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that discussion is a waste of time, when the project had no clear consensus on this before. If you want to self-revert and close this discussion as resolved, that is your prerogative too. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
      • But why do we need consensus on a minor issue like this? There's never been an issue before in the way the awards have been ordered. I generally don't think people care, and quite frankly I'm not sure you would either if not for Gwynn. I'm not gonna self-revert my edit, but you're welcome to as i'm really ready to move on from this.--Yankees10 06:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Spanneraol: "No need for them all to be exactly the same" Maybe not, but consistency would be nice. Lack of consistency is the reason why most current players infoboxes are a complete mess, with different awards scattered in random order wit no apparent reason for that order.--Yankees10 02:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you to some extent.. but I think there are exceptions. Spanneraol (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a strong preference as, both of Tony Gwynn's examples have their merits. I have a stronger desire that we strive to maintain uniformity among all info boxes.Orsoni (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball postseason teams to make a change

Moved to Talk:List of Major League Baseball postseason teams § List of Major League Baseball postseason teams to make a change

We need to make a change to ragmenting the charts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin1990813 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the revision history of List of Major League Baseball postseason teams correctly, you want to divide the last 20 years into separate tables for each time a team changes leagues? The article is already a long, complicated jumble with unexplained use of background shading and bolding. In my opinion, further fragmentation is not what is needed. But this discussion should happen at the article's talk page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeated edits to biography for Gary Carter

Regarding recent repeated edits to Gary Carter's biography, I have resumed a discussion on the content in question. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

World Series Champions in the infobox yet again

It seems nobody knows what qualifies a player to be listed as a champion on here anymore. For years I thought if a player made the postseason roster, they get to be included in the champions template. Now apparently you have to specifically make the World Series roster to be included. If Raúl A. Mondesí can make the list, why not Terrance Gore who appeared in the ALDS and ALCS? I'm starting to think other people were right. This is getting ridiculously unfair. The champions template was supposed to be the basis on whether a player was included in the infobox as a World Series champion, otherwise why else would they be added? I am honestly getting tired of enforcing something that no one knows is clear anymore. TL565 (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

well its an unusual case that someone is on the roster for the championship series and not the WS... but for me it was always being on the WS roster that mattered. Spanneraol (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There was no clear consensus on this at the last discussion in July.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
And to think someone thought I was silly when I said that these kind of arguments would keep happening if you have accomplishments in the infobox. :P -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
For better or worse, building a consensus takes time and patience. Yes, it would be a lot easier if there were greater unanimity of opinion. But if everyone doesn't agree on excluding or including X, then with Wikipedia's current system, there isn't any option other than to discuss the matter. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Or you know, implement a solution that avoids the constant over discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You need to have that discussion first to avoid more discussion :-) —Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
lol that is why I tried to get that change to happen way back when we had that massive discussion about what to go in the box. So that it would stop the many that happened since. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Removing the highlights does nothing to benefit the reader. Removing something to avoid discussions and edi warring is not a logical reasoning in this case.--Yankees10 19:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
That isn't the only reason I have suggested removing it. I believing having them there and in many cases over crowding the infobox harms the readers experience. It can both increase and decrease the relative importance of various achievements. That is why I have always said they should be left to the article body so that they can be put into proper context and perspective. A spammy list in an infobox does not help the reader. It can often do the opposite for players with many achievements. But to counter what you have commented, making editorial decisions to stop edit warring and to stop drawing editors time away from other more important tasks is a very logical reason as well. The time these discussions take could be used to improve other areas of need in the subject area. -DJSasso (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of players, though, have a very short list, if anything at all. (Which is why even though I have a personal preference on the order, it doesn't really matter that much.) Regarding ending endless discussions, I have a lot of sympathy for this, but with Wikpedia's current unmoderated, consensus-rules environment, you can't stop people from discussing whatever they want to discuss. isaacl (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course we can't, you don't need to keep repeating that. But we can set up an environment where they don't feel the need to. But as for the other things you mention, just because the majority don't have the problem doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the problem for the ones that do. Even if the list on a player is short it doesn't mean you aren't drawing undue weight to a given award by listing it in an infobox without any context. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you can you provide an example or two? It's not like we are putting team MVP awards to prop up a player on a mediocre team.—Bagumba (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, since consensus is well-established against dropping the career highlights, there isn't much point in continuing to pursue the potential advantages of this. Regarding the list including unimportant achievements, it's been winnowed down a lot, so I don't see a real issue at present. isaacl (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There's also no consensus on how to apply "World Series champs", so prior consensus (or lack thereof) ideally needs to change somewhere.—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Not really, each time a disagreement comes up that could be solved by dropping them it would be foolish not to bring it up again as you well know consensus can change. -DJSasso (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
In that case, you shouldn't be surprised when you raise a point multiple times in a discussion that the same response will be made. Additionally, unless there is a reason to expect consensus to have changed, there isn't really any need to re-test the waters so quickly (you and I both know editors who like to do this, and how counterproductive it ends up being). isaacl (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, sure, it would be nice if everyone agreed on removing X, but since they don't, we have to discuss it. (Of course this applies for everything, not just career highlights.) isaacl (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete the Career highlights and awards from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Seems a disservice to readers wanting a quick summary. It's not like it's full of incorrect or out-of-date info, and there's past consensus of what to include. One option is to get rid of WS (seems extreme to me), but what would be your rationale to removing all of the highlights?—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Shortens the infobox, removes potential for dispute over entries. Check out the infoboxes of ice hockey players. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And the byproduct is that someone who knows little about hockey that just skims the lead and looks at the infobox of Joe Thornton might wonder if he's a bust who had just one good season.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
We create articles for those to read & learn. We don't want them to merely skim the lead. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
A bit optimistic. MOS:LEAD: "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read, and for many, it may be the only section read."—Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Not really, since using the very example of Joe Thornton that you used, we instead list the most important awards right in the lead. His MVP and Scoring titles so they get that info without all the cruft and cramming of it into an infobox. Anyone who wanted more detail or to see more awards can easily click in the table of contents on the Awards section and then see all the awards. It just seems to me in a few cases subjects (not just baseball or sports) try to cram far too much of the article into an infobox making it infinitely less useful. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The hockey infoboxes are useless to me. I'm not a hockey fan in the least and rarely visit pages but when I do it would be nice to get a quick glance on how many all-stars or awards a player has made. The infobox does just that. I mean why do I have to go digging through the article to find these? I have another question that his is not really related at all but just out of curiosity, i've been wondering for years about what the deal is with no navboxes on the bottom for MVP's and other awards? Why succession boxes over navboxes?--Yankees10 01:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll let my WP:HOCKEY colleagues, answer those questions. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well I am not making the argument that we should do it cause hockey does. But frankly, because most awards are relatively unimportant to be in an infobox and end up being undue weight. There are obviously some biggies that an argument could be made for having there, but the vast majority that are currently in there are really not important enough to be in the most prominent place on the page, which is why I usually suggest just listing players who made the hall of fame. All-star appearances are the worst of the bunch, everyone knows that being an all-star in pretty much any sport is a joke and doesn't mean much, they are the first thing I would chop if I could. As for the succession boxes and not navboxes it is because there are guidlines WP:NAVBOX and Wikipedia:Embedded list list which indicate that you should not use navboxes for things like awards or job titles and that you should not use navboxes for lists of only tangentially related articles. That you should only have them when all the links in them would in a perfect article already be included in that article. So to use MVP as an example, you would not expect the MVP from 1930 to be linked in the text of an article for the MVP in 2015. These guidelines have been somewhat ignored by baseball for awhile. There was a move awhile back slowly moving all the sports over to removing them, but it stalled out in a few sports. The reason succession boxes are suggested for awards/titles, is that they give the context of who their contemporaries were while cutting out the unnecessary links to people from years or decades ago. And for those that want to see all the winners they can click on the list article which is usually at the top of succession boxes. Basically the idea is that we are supposed to use the least links possible so that highly relevant links don't get lost in a sea of irrelevant ones, in other words to avoid this which makes the the navboxes basically useless because it would be easier for a reader just to use the search box than try to navigate through that mess to find the one link they want. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Re: WP:NAVBOX: Without getting into what is the "right" way to handle succession vs nav (or neither), it's clear that the guideline does not reflect current practice (which in itself might not have any clear consensus). Per WP:PROPOSAL: a guideline "simply documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to them." Guidelines that preach what "should" be done, as opposed to what is actually being done, are the weakest ones.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
"being an all-star in pretty much any sport is a joke": While this might be somewhat true from a quantitative perspective, it downplays the prominent role popularity has in most walks of society. AS is not the end-all, but it is highly notable nonetheless.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Statistics tables on player articles

I was just wondering, are there any principles or rules regarding having tables of statistics on the articles for current or former players? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is the last discussion held on this topic; note it contains a link to the previous conversation, which was quite lengthy. In those discussions there was a consensus against including statistics tables. We can see if opinions have changed. isaacl (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears the last formal !vote was in September 2011. While I was against stats tables back then as being redundant to external stats sites, I've since changed my stance and would support them. Consensus can change if you are interested in adding them.—Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

For those interested in navboxes, there is an RfC about the use of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL that you may want to participate in at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL_navbox_requirements.—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hillsboro Hops

The Hops article contained history going back to 1977 even though the franchise only started in Hillsboro in 2013. Prior to 2013, there were teams in Salem and Yakima.

I removed all mentions of prior to 2013. There are articles on the

All of which were being presented as part of Hillsboro's history. The Hillsboro Hops website makes no mention of its Salem history but Yakima Bears feats are listed in their franchise records[4] part.

Based on that all mentions of Salem should be excluded IMHO. Should there be a merge of Yakima Bears and Hillsboro Hops article, the Bears article made into a redirect, or the Hops article left as it is now? I hope to hear some responses. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on how far back the timeline should go or what origin date should be used, but note that Hillsboro Hops was originally created via a possibly out-of-process page move of Yakima Bears, which I made a mostly adequate attempt to sort out with some histmerge work, and which may account for some confusion. Valfontis (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not a new franchise, they relocated. See New York Yankees#History and Los Angeles Dodgers#Team history in how such relocated franchise history is covered, which is how it this article was. The article should be restored to the way it was, as the sources clearly showed the moves. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The Salem teams aren't considered part of the team's history by the team's own webpage. If the Yakima Bears are to be considered part, then that team only needs to be merged into the Hillsboro Hops article and the Bears article made into a redirect. Like the Kansas City Athletics redirects to the Oakland Athletics. Plus a new article, Yakima Braves, would have to be created for Yakima teams prior to 1990. Actually there was a Bears team in the 1960's the proper redirect might be Yakima Bears (1990-2012)....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You do not know if the team considers it that way or not. The franchise records do not say how far they go back, you are just making an assumption that since the oldest records are from 1990, that they exclude the Salem days. According to the https://web.archive.org/web/20120502173343/http://www.milb.com/team4/page.jsp?ymd=20060130&content_id=39718&vkey=team4_t419&fext=.jsp&sid=t419 old website] it notes the relocation from Salem. As in, not a new franchise. See also WP:OWN (which while usually only used against editors does apply) sort of covers that we do not really care that much what the subject of an article says. RS says the franchise started in Salem, so Wikipedia needs to reflect that. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What's everyone's opinions on linking to old baseball teams? By "old" I mean teams prior to relocation. For example:

  • St Louis Browns – When referencing, should we use [[Baltimore Orioles|St Louis Browns]] or [[St Louis Browns]]?
  • New York Giants – Use [[San Francisco Giants|New York Giants]] or [[New York Giants (NL)|]]?
  • Milwaukee Braves – [[Atlanta Braves|Milwaukee Braves]] or [[Milwaukee Braves (1953–69)|Milwaukee Braves]]?

There are probably many others, but these are just a few examples. IMO, we should wlink to the original (old) team names as opposed to the relocated (new) team name. My rationale is that it gives us the most flexibility. Whether the old team is just a redirect to the new team name or if it links to a "history of <franchise>" article, per WP:NOTBROKEN: "Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links." It's also cleaner to the editor to see just [[St Louis Browns]] instead of [[Baltimore Orioles|St Louis Browns]] I recognize my two other examples are piped, but that's to disambiguate, not to change the target.

I tried to find old discussion about this, but could not. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Just don't get me started on the Montreal Expos and Seattle Pilots ;) GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I follow NOTBROKEN when I add new text, but I don't bother enforcing it when someone invariably changes it to a pipe. Unfortunately, I'm convinced it's among the least followed guidelines on WP.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, your first link should be to the History of the St. Louis Browns. I think that it would be problematic to link to the Baltimore Orioles for something concerning the first half of the 20th century. I have no problems with piped links, and no convincing argument to avoid them, just as long as the reader ends up at the most appropriate article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that St Louis Browns redirects to History of the St. Louis Browns. If one does choose to pipe, it should ideally be to the same target as the existing redirect, as in Cullen328's example. If the redirect is incorrect, then it should be changed.—Bagumba (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree that we should be using redirects, not piping for historic teams, and piping only for disambiguation. There are thousands of articles where piping takes the reader to a less helpful destination than would have been achieved by just leaving it to redirect (another very common example, in addition to the ones given above, is [[Los Angeles Dodgers|Brooklyn Dodgers]]). But care is needed - sometimes the appropriate piping is not obvious - [[Minnesota Twins|Washington Senators]] needs to be piped instead to [[Washington Senators (1901–60)]], which will then redirect the reader to History of the Washington Senators (1901–60), whereas [[Texas Rangers (baseball)|Washington Senators]] needs piped to [[Washington Senators (1961–71)]] which is a redirect to Texas Rangers (baseball) - the same destination, but reached by a much more flexible method, as User:X96lee15 pointed out. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't pipe unless the redirect doesn't take you to the right place, which should be rare and probably fixed if it doesn't. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Consider WP:EGG as well. If I saw a link to St. Louis Browns, then I would expect to be taken to an article about the Browns. If you pipe the link to the Baltimore Orioles article, I end up at a page with literally no content related to the Browns. If you allow the redirect to do its job, then I am currently taken to History of the St. Louis Browns, which has the content I expect to find. Also, in the even that "St. Louis Browns" ends up retargeted for some reason, you can easily find what pages (if any) need to be fixed or changed. If you use pipe links, then that task becomes dramatically more difficult. Resolute 20:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice on handling long article

I've worked History of the New York Yankees up to GA status, and am interested in making a push for FA status in the near-future. Unfortunately, I've run into a significant problem: the article is probably too long for the FAC reviewers. It is about 12,000 words right now, well over the prescribed maximum for articles, and will only grow as more seasons are played. At the same time, FAs need to be comprehensive and I fear cutting too much will interfere with the ability for the article to meet FA criterion 1b, especially for an article on this team's history. I could use the project's input in deciding between multiple options. I could try to cut the article by about 2,000 words, which would about leave it at the maximum recommended size of 10,000 words. Or I could move the current article with the aim of creating a split into two articles, leaving either a greatly reduced article or a disambiguation page at the current History page. I want to make sure the baseball project is on board with how the article/articles will ultimately be structured. What do the editors here recommend? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The current prose size is 68 kB. According to WP:SIZERULE, it's borderline: "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". The exception could apply here. On the other hand, a quick skim looks like maybe every season is discussed in the article. It's possible that less notable stretches could be summarized into one period, without going into much if any details of specific seasons. WP:BALASPS suggests that an article should "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject". I haven't read the full article, and don't know enough detail about Yankee history to give specific comments. A dab page would be undesirable. Even if a split is in order, there should be one article that summarizes the history for those that don't want to read a bunch of period articles.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Bagumba about reducing discussion on single seasons and shift the emphasis to a recap of eras. In my opinion, I would break it down to three eras; Pre-World War II, Post-World War II to the Free Agent Era, and the Free Agent Era to the present.Orsoni (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure the length of this article would be much of an issue at FA. But it is true that the less notable stretches could probably be summarized a bit more. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Based on your comments here, I guess I'll try to shrink the article by condensing some of the content on less notable seasons, along with modifying some of the article's structure. Thanks for the feedback. It's sometimes hard to see how an article works as a whole when you're focusing on specific sections. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

An update on the colors from the previous discussion

So the purpose of this edit is to provide updated links and references to the official colors discussion (the original discussion can be found here for reference). TeamColors.Arc90.com has updated the colors according to this post, which says that "MLB colors have now all been extracted from official MLB RGB logo slicks. See the readme notes. Closing this for now." Here is the link for the readme notes from Arc90.com. As far as the HTML hex colors are concerned, they're not that far off from the URL link I provided from MLB.com (seen here). I am requesting that another editor implement these color changes, based on the updated colors at TeamColors.Arc90.com and MLB.com. However, I'm open to discussion here in order to reach consensus. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Affiliate navboxes

Is it just me or are the navboxes in Category:Minor league baseball affiliates navigational boxes completely redundant and incorrect? Redundant because the affiliates are all listed in the major league parent club's navbox. Incorrect because A Advanced, A and A Short Season are actually separate classifications and shouldn't be lumped together like they are. (See MiLB.com's standings page, for example.) As such, these are really not needed and should probably be done away with. This project could stand to trim out some of the excess navboxes in articles. ,oknazevad (talk)

If they are already listed in the team navbox then yeah I would definitely get rid of them as redundant. No need for the same links twice. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. See here. oknazevad (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Postseason numbers?

Should the infobox include these? The current format seems to neglect them unless there are additional tables, which are not present in all baseball biographies. 166.172.187.123 (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Spanneraol (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change for list color coding

On many, likely most, of the baseball stat lists (List of Major League Baseball career wins leaders, List of Major League Baseball career games started leaders, List of Major League Baseball career games finished leaders, etc) the colors used to show Active and HOF players are Blue for Active, Yellow for HOF, as seen below:

* Denotes elected to National Baseball Hall of Fame.
Bold Denotes active player.A player is considered inactive if he has announced his retirement or not played for a full season.

However I've noticed that on some lists, such as List of Major League Baseball career triples leaders, the color coding used is Yellow for Active and Purple for HOF:

° Member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame
* Active player

What I'm proposing is that we make the color coding for all baseball list articles, Blue for active and Yellow for HOF, for consistency reasons and to avoid confusion. Thoughts? Taffe316 (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft pick cats?

OK, I could be in trouble here. Just last night I started adding categories that contained draft picks by each team. Then another user asked me if I thought what I was doing was considered to be excessive. Didn't think it was excessive, so I added a few more teams. But then as I was about to create one for Toronto, I see that it was deleted a few years ago. So that leaves me to my question. Do these categories violate WP:NONDEFINING? – Michael (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about these. I don't think they are a terrible idea, but I can see how it can be considered overcategorizing.--Yankees10 22:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, my only concern was that unlike other sports, the majority of these players were drafted more than once. I'm still waiting to see what other people think though. – Michael (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's overcategorization. Their draft status isn't part of their notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with Mubo that this is overcategorization. I would also suggest merging the Mariners draft pick articles (such as List of 2009 Seattle Mariners draft picks) into their season articles (2009 Seattle Mariners season). They seem to be the only team with dedicated articles while several season pages contain this sort of info. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: semi-duplicate logos

Your input is requested regarding the semi-duplicate nature of the primary and cap logos of the Nashville Sounds at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 31. The discussion is about how either only one is needed, since they are nearly identical, or whether they could be changed to some free license. The images in question are File:NashvilleSoundsCapLogo.png and File:NashvilleSoundsLogo.png Thanks! NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User removing details

User:The5100AndCounting has been removing lots of detail from player pages and getting rid of the subsections on the teams they played for. He has not been leaving edit summaries so i'm not sure why they are doing this.. but it is something to keep an eye on. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think that sometimes we go overboard with level two or level three headings when a player has signed with numerous teams in a relatively short career. More concerning to me, there are examples where the amateur info, draft info or minor league info has been removed without explanation. At Juan Acevedo, all of the Mexican League info was removed. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes he does seem to be removing the info about players college and minor league performances which belongs in the record. Spanneraol (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed all of this too. I say we just mass revert their edits. If this user is going to just remove information without an explanation than this is disruptive editing and should be treated as such.--Yankees10 20:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Yankees10. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I was originally looking through his edits slowly, trying to assume good faith on edits (on current players things can get overdetailed sometimes), but once I saw edits like this or this, that went out the window, reverting the obvious stuff now and will sift through the minor edits to see if they need to be rv'd too. Wizardman 00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
And he responded to the reverts with more disruptive edits, so he's blocked. Wizardman 01:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah some of the edits weren't problematic, but too many of them are. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

NSPORTS discussion implicating NBASE

Good morning. Recent AfD cases have given rise to concerns about the article notability guidelines in WP:NSPORTS with opponents of short sports biographies insisting that they fail the general notability guidelines (GNG) even though they meet the sport specific criteria (SSC) of NSPORTS, also known as the sports notability guidelines (SNG). Sports implicated to date are baseball (WP:NBASE), cricket (WP:CRIC) and football (WP:NFOOTY). I'm therefore writing to you to advise you of two discussions taking place. One of these is specific to cricket but its outcome will be relevant to NSPORTS overall. The other discussion is in NSPORTS itself and, though NCRIC is the point of issue, the scope of the discussion is much wider and has already activated a baseball AfD.

If you are interested in joining the NSPORTS discussion on behalf of your project, please go to disputed changes to NCRIC notability. You are also welcome to join the cricket project discussion re the NCRIC wording. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 08:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"winningest"

The propriety of using the word "winningest", and a related effort to excise the word from Wikipedia, is the subject of a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"winningest" in sports articles. As the word is used in articles falling within the scope of this project, editors of this project may wish to participate either for or against the proposed removal. Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Another word frequently used in baseball articles is, "Famer", as in Hall of Famer. Hall of Fame member would be more appropriate. Many editors appear to write sports articles as if they were meant to appear in a U.S. sports magazine whereas, I feel we should be writing encyclopedia style articles which are intended for a broader international audience where words such as famer would be unfamiliar. I also believe that other terms such as "walloped" or "blasted" in reference to home runs should similarly be avoided in deference to readers for whom English is not their primary language.Orsoni (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Highlights and awards sections in the body

I was looking into cleaning up Julio Franco and maybe trying to take it to GA. The entry has a section in the body for awards and highlights. That seems redundant to me, but I just wanted to make sure here. To me, we have plenty of places where career highlights will appear: the lead; the infobox; the year-by-year description of the player's career; and sometimes even the navigation boxes and categories suggest highlights.

I was thinking of taking the bullet points in this article (many of which contain the word "oldest") and just making sure that they are integrated elsewhere in the body. Am I thinking correctly that a separate awards and highlights section is almost never needed? I tried a search of WT:BASEBALL archives, but most of the content about highlights is discussing infobox issues only. Thanks. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it depends... for very accomplished players with a ton of career honors it helps to have one section to list all of them so you dont need to bog down the body of the article with a lot of "and then he won such and such award" type stuff... the info box only gets the biggest awards... for joe blow average player though a section mentioning some minor league awards or such thins probably isnt needed. Spanneraol (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Although I did write some advice in Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice/Sample biography, it was based on a survey of featured articles at the time and so subject to corresponding biases. Nonetheless, I believe this advice is generally applicable: I feel it is useful for readers to have a plain list of awards and honours in a player article, with details integrated with the sections describing the player's career and life outside of baseball. isaacl (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Players whose accomplishments go beyond what is listed in the infobox or a quality lead can benefit from a list in the body. See Mariano Rivera for a live example. However, the list should be limited to actual awards, not a list of trivia, which is better integrated into prose if it's truly significant (a lot that is currently in Franco is not). I also would be wary of having the list include minor stats and finishes on leaderboards outside of 1st. Once the cleanup is done, it should be clearer if the list is needed for Franco.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the comments on this. I can understand the difficulty of being too prescriptive on the issue. I can see where a section like that could be useful when there are a large number of significant accomplishments that don't go in the infobox. I'll start working on some expansion and cleanup of this article and see how many accomplishments we're left to work with. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps the article would be improved by having some of the bullet points integrated into the text. With some good prose added, I think it would help the readability of the article. As it stands now, I think there may be too many bullet points. At about 5 or 6 bullet points, the reader may be ready to move onto something else.Orsoni (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

napgate?

Anyone want to weigh in on the importance of "napgate" over at Talk:Ken Griffey Jr.? - Spanneraol (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for input

Please consiser sharing your input at Template talk:Cleveland Indians#Frank Robinson. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 15:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_41&oldid=1136417262"