This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Baseball and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Baseball Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject Baseball was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 April 2010. |
WikiProject Baseball was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 August 2014. |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have two proposals for removing 2021 MiLB names from Template:Infobox Minor League Baseball in team articles:
1) Remove the past league entries for the level/region-based league names. Since all of the current leagues are now considered continuations by the sources (the MiLB announcement seems to be used almost universally), and the 2022 name reversion has been extensively documented in league and team article prose, there's no reason to show the 2021 league name as a separate league in each team's infobox. After removal, a team's current league entry would then contain either the year they joined their current league or "2021", if they joined it under the corresponding 2021 league name. If a team has a past league entry for their current league name terminating in 2020, it would be removed as well.
2) Remove the past class level entry for "Low-A", since it was simply renamed "Single-A" in 2022. This has also been well documented in affected team article prose. Each current Single-A team's class level would be listed as, "Single-A (2021–present)".
Whatever is decided, let's hope something like this never happens again! Waz8: T- C- E 02:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
At the 2023 Japan Series article, User:Fred Zepelin keeps removing the event's official title "SMBC Nippon Series 2023" in the lead claiming WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR, all three of which do not apply in my opinion for various reasons. COMMONNAME doesnt apply beacause we aren't discussion the articles title, UNDUE doesn't apply because thsi is a very small part of a rather large article, and OR doesn't apply because it's referenced and obvious.
While in American media, the name "2023 Japan Series" is used almost exclusively, Japanese primary and secondary sources often refer to the event by its official title, the "SMBC日本シリーズ2023 (SMBC Nippon Series 2023)". Additionally, the event's logo shows this title as well. I believe these reasons are enough to warrant mentioning this name in the lead, not only as it is undeniably the event's official title, but to also help with any confusion about the discrepancy between the English title and the logo. Below are just a few secondary Japanese sources that use the official name:
What are people's thoughts on this? -- Torsodog Talk 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
To clear this up, I do not have a "personal distaste for the concept of sponsors". I do have a distaste for blind devotion to putting a sponsor's name in the first sentence without a good reason for it. The title of the event is actually the article title - so that part of your statement I do disagree with. Yes, a handful of sources use the sponsored name. Most secondary sources do not use the sponsored name. That is why I believe it doesn't belong in the first sentence. A branded name isn't the "official name", it isn't the "legal name" - it's just a made-up extended name of the event. I doubt you could have an MOS:LEGALNAME for something like a World Series or Home Run Derby, but if you did, I'm pretty sure it would just be the WP:COMMONNAME. No one would suggest that the Bulls rugby team changed their name to the "Vodacom Bulls" in any legal sense, and if anyone does suggest that, I'd like to see a reliable secondary source proving it. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
How should non-AL & NL leagues (namely late 19th century major leagues, 1914–1915 Federal League, and seven 1920–1948 Negro Major Leagues) be integrated ( as previously agreed, in regards to the Federal League) into MLB season page infoboxes? Is my attempt a good solution or should it be different? Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Should the League leaders tables be formatted differently? Some users have suggested changing the tables to be more compact, so I have four different ideas as to how they could be formatted. ( 1, 2, 3, 4). Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Should a list of teams appear in table format be included on each season page? These tables would include the league or division, the team name, city, stadium, stadium capacity, and manager. I have an idea for pre-1969 seasons so location maps fit side-by-side with the table and an idea for 1969–present seasons, so that maps will fit in both. Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 15:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
There was a recent change to several ballpark articles changing the word "ballpark" to "home field" by Fred Zepelin. This editor unilaterally moved Ballpark to Baseball Stadium a couple of years ago, but it was never discussed further. [6]. This is being discussed at Truist Park| since I noticed the change there, but generally speaking isn't home ballpark/stadium preferable to "home field" when describing ballparks? There was discussion about baseball stadiums vs. ballparks a while back the loose consensus lead to most ballpark articles opening with "baseball stadium" and then using ballpark later on in the lead article as another word for baseball stadium. Nemov ( talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think "home field" is fine, especially because some stadiums are used for more than one sport, like Yankee Stadium, which is how I just stumbled into this. Really I don't see the problem with "home field". I've always thought of ballparks as smaller venues. Yankee Stadium isn't a "ballpark". JimKaatFan ( talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I am fine with saying "the home of". Disagree that Home (sports) is unhelpful - it's a perfect definition. But I need to clear up two falsehoods about me that have been repeated multiple times:
"it is the ballpark of" MLB
"it is the home of" MLB
The first result is literally just these Wikipedia articles and mirrors/copy-pastes of these Wikipedia article (check the surrounding verbiage, it's exact). The second result is millions of hits, from all kinds of different sources. It's very clear that "it is the ballpark of" is not a common phrase, and "it is the home of" is.
So please, stop using those two fake claims about me in this discussion. It's very misleading.
Fred Zepelin (
talk)
15:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Executive Summary: Nobody gets to say that their "official" versions of historical events carry extra weight, baseball games and seasons are historical events, and using the term "official" in any of these discussions is not helpful and instead just muddies the issue. (And if there was a source of baseball history which we would consider "official" it's arguably the Hall of Fame rather than MLB.)
Detailed Exposition:
I'm not saying this about any particular case, I am not against the Negro Leagues being considered major leagues or anything like that (I haven't studied the matter). I just wanted to point out that what MLB says about that doesn't mean much of anything and should be pretty much ignored.
MBL is a business organization, run for profit (or the profit of its members). It makes the schedules, sets the rules, negotiates the labor contracts, and like that. It is not an academic institution, nor is it run by baseball experts, historians, enthusiasts, or, for all I know, people who even care all that much about baseball per se. It can say that its statistics are "official", but so could I or SABR or anybody.
MLB does employ the Elias Sports Bureau, which is also a for-profit company, which provides the statistics used on MLB's website. Elias does employ historians and statisticians, but their methods are entirely secret, and they are generally despised for various reasons including trying to claim ownership of historical facts (i.e., baseball statistics) and insisting that statistics other than their own should be discounted (I don't know if they still do this).
But, there is no such thing as "official" statistics for historical events, that we have to pay any mind to. If the Official History of the Napoleonic Wars published by the French Government says there were 25,000 French Casualties at Waterloo, we are not obligated to say "Welp, that's the official number, so we have to go with that regardless" or even not just blow it off, and so forth. Baseball history is history. We don't have to pay any attention to MLB or Exxon-Mobile or any other organization when reporting history, and in fact often look at information provided by interested parties with some skepticism.
And MLB is an interested party. Their actions are designed to put fannies in seats and in front of TVs. (This can include benign actions of course and actions to make them look good because they are good, and they are interested in the long-term viability of the business of baseball I'm sure. But they are an interested party,)
Case in point, MLB still says that Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average is .367. MLB holds by that number for political reasons (to gruntle the boomers pretty much) and basically said so. Elias is the actual provider of that number, and since their methods are secret, I assume that their method here was "Well, that is the number the client wants, so that is the number the client gets". This does not give me confidence in anything else they say.
I presume that MLB has said the Negro Leagues are major leagues for political reasons: for public relations in being nice and up-to-date and against racism. That doesn't mean their decision was wrong (it quite probably wasn't). It doesn't mean that the people at MLB aren't personally ethical and against racism.
But it was a business decision, not made because Elias studied the matter in great depth using advanced techniques or whatever, reported to MLB that Negro Leagues were of major-league quality, ans MLB said "Welp, whether or not this causes us hassles and controversies and maybe boycotts in the South or whatever, the truth is the truth and that comes before mere business".
What SABR and Baseball Reference and similar entities and the Hall of Fame (which is not an arm of MLB) and individual baseball experts and historians say, that is what matters. I think they are on the bandwagon for allowing the Negro Leagues as major leagues, and that is fine. We should go with what they say, yes, if there's a clear consensus among them. Herostratus ( talk) 06:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
We should go with what they say, yes, if there's a clear consensus among them: Even if they don't come to a consensus, their views should be reflected based on WP:WEIGHT. — Bagumba ( talk) 00:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah OK. WP:WEIGHT, "what I say is what matters", I hear you. So...
Right now, we give Ty Cobb's batting average as .366. At time editors have written that it is .367. but we don't go with that.
But MLB gives Ty Cobb's batting average as .367. It's discussed at length -- essentially by me; that's me all over, oh well -- at Talk:Ty Cobb#It's time and past time to fix the batting average thing and Talk:Ty Cobb#RfC: What should we give as Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average?. I'm not asking anyone to read all that. It's there if you like. So, if MBL has some WP:WEIGHT, or maybe a lot if you consider them official, should we revisit this? There's a number of ways we could present the info, like say:
If you say #1, that'd be an exception to giving any WP:WEIGHT to MLB. Is it impossible that there could be other exceptions to giving them any weight? Just saying. Herostratus ( talk) 03:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the MLB pages are the only major sport on Wikipedia to not include season-by-season statistics for the players. If we can do it for football, soccer, hockey, and basketball, there's no good reason why MLB should be special and excluded. All the data for those sports are pulled from other sources, so "baseballreference.com" has it isn't an explanation. People don't come to an encyclopedia because they want to be directed to other sources. That's what a search engine is for, not an encyclopedia. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
So it seems Wikipedia is updating their default formatting again, this time by increasing the font size. Now, even less content fits horizontally. This text size increase has lead to all instances of the Template:MLB standings to be twice as tall, due to the Home and Road columns taking up two lines now. The best example of this can be seen with the current season.
This is only in regards to the current table format. There's many other formats built into this template via Module:MLB standings that would need adjusting:
There's a few ways we can go about this. We could shrink the font in the table by adding "font-size: 90%;" in the style header. We could do some minor adjustments to the columns: decrease the width for the team names (and let that be the column that may end up on two lines *cough* Los Angels Angels of Anaheim *cough*), rendering the percentage somehow so there is no leading 0 before the decimal. To avoid the two-line team, we may want to slightly increase the width of the table. Here's two examples with the 2021 NL West with the division winning 2014 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (it's with these teams that we see 3 digit wins and losses, a long name as a division winner, and a games back stat with "½").
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there's other ways to remedy this but I at least want to get this discussion going. Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
<div>
element that uses CSS flexbox layout so that the sections will be next to each other if there is space, and wrap below if there is not. I'll have to experiment a bit.
isaacl (
talk)
15:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I found a near-solution to the differing column widths. This will result in tables that are only 1 or 2 pixels off in Small or Standard text and up to 4 pixels off in Large text. The GB column will be the same, regardless of if there is "½" or not.
! width="245" | Team ! width="24" | [[Win (baseball)|W]] ! width="24" | [[Loss (baseball)|L]] ! width="35" | [[Winning percentage|Pct.]] ! width="27" | [[Games behind|GB]] ! width="39" | [[Home (sports)|Home]] ! width="39" | [[Road (sports)|Road]]
! width="245" | Team ! width="24" | [[Win (baseball)| W ]] ! width="24" | [[Loss (baseball)| L ]] ! width="35" | [[Winning percentage|Pct.]] ! width="27" | [[Games behind| GB ]] ! width="39" | [[Home (sports)|Home]] ! width="39" | [[Road (sports)|Road]]
Basically, the "W" and "GB" each have an instance of
before and after it, while "L" has  
, since "L" is narrower than "W".
Within the brackets, it would look like this: "Win (baseball)|
W
", "Loss (baseball)| 
L 
", and "Games behind|
GB
". (I hate trying to show examples of html text as it would look in an edit!)
Spesh531
(talk,
contrib.,
ext.)
17:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
<syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight>
is a good way to show code examples. For example: [[Win (baseball)| W ]]
(See
mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight for more details.)
isaacl (
talk)
18:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I've changed the sandbox module to use table captions and to put zero-width joiner characters around the en-dashes in order to prevent line breaks. You can see the results on the testcases page. isaacl ( talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I changed the testcase using flexbox layout to provide additional guidance on how the two blocks of tables can be expanded/shrunk to fit the available space (now that the table is no longer a fixed width). It now shows a side-by-side layout at narrow window widths than before. (Note increasing the font size effectively narrows the window; with the change, a side-by-side layout appears with the text size set to large and the width set to wide.) isaacl ( talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
To summarize, the following changes are being proposed:
Template:MLB standings/testcases § Testing sandbox template: standings on MLB season page using flexbox layout has an example of the MLB season page layout. Feedback is welcome! If there aren't any objections, I will update the MLB standings template, and Spesh531 has volunteered to update the MLB season pages. Template:MLB standings/testcases § Testing sandbox template: standings on MLB season page using columns shows how the tables will appear after the MLB standings template has been updated, but before a given MLB season page is modified as proposed. isaacl ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Was going to create and redirect "Low and away" to
Strike zone ('Strike Zone' probably should be uppercased, no?, which is
now taken by the name of a Star Trek novel and, come to think of it, I'm going to boldly go and change the name and redirect uppercase to the now lowercase
Strike zone to see if it sticks). A request, can someone here who is good at cropping images tackle the opening image at
Strike zone and
Base on balls and separate the strike zone data from the advertisement for Goodyear? Thanks. This would also enlarge the important page-pertinent details.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
02:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Just a heads up: there is a disruptive IP address editor who is reformatting pages of Hall of Famers in a way which is unhelpful at best. They give no explanation for their edits either and have been at it for a few weeks now. Just keep a lookout and report them if possible. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tony Kemp (baseball)#Requested move 8 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed that article Dalton Rogers be merged into Boston Red Sox minor league players. I initially made a WP:BOLD merger, but another editor objected. Editors are welcome to offer comment here. Dmoore5556 ( talk) 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:Major League Baseball rivalries#Relevance of head-to-head win-loss records regarding a recent set of changes that introduced the cumulative head-to-head win-loss records for pairs of rivals, over the entire history of the teams. Feedback is welcome. isaacl ( talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Baseball and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Baseball Project‑class | |||||||
|
WikiProject Baseball was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 April 2010. |
WikiProject Baseball was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 August 2014. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have two proposals for removing 2021 MiLB names from Template:Infobox Minor League Baseball in team articles:
1) Remove the past league entries for the level/region-based league names. Since all of the current leagues are now considered continuations by the sources (the MiLB announcement seems to be used almost universally), and the 2022 name reversion has been extensively documented in league and team article prose, there's no reason to show the 2021 league name as a separate league in each team's infobox. After removal, a team's current league entry would then contain either the year they joined their current league or "2021", if they joined it under the corresponding 2021 league name. If a team has a past league entry for their current league name terminating in 2020, it would be removed as well.
2) Remove the past class level entry for "Low-A", since it was simply renamed "Single-A" in 2022. This has also been well documented in affected team article prose. Each current Single-A team's class level would be listed as, "Single-A (2021–present)".
Whatever is decided, let's hope something like this never happens again! Waz8: T- C- E 02:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
At the 2023 Japan Series article, User:Fred Zepelin keeps removing the event's official title "SMBC Nippon Series 2023" in the lead claiming WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR, all three of which do not apply in my opinion for various reasons. COMMONNAME doesnt apply beacause we aren't discussion the articles title, UNDUE doesn't apply because thsi is a very small part of a rather large article, and OR doesn't apply because it's referenced and obvious.
While in American media, the name "2023 Japan Series" is used almost exclusively, Japanese primary and secondary sources often refer to the event by its official title, the "SMBC日本シリーズ2023 (SMBC Nippon Series 2023)". Additionally, the event's logo shows this title as well. I believe these reasons are enough to warrant mentioning this name in the lead, not only as it is undeniably the event's official title, but to also help with any confusion about the discrepancy between the English title and the logo. Below are just a few secondary Japanese sources that use the official name:
What are people's thoughts on this? -- Torsodog Talk 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
To clear this up, I do not have a "personal distaste for the concept of sponsors". I do have a distaste for blind devotion to putting a sponsor's name in the first sentence without a good reason for it. The title of the event is actually the article title - so that part of your statement I do disagree with. Yes, a handful of sources use the sponsored name. Most secondary sources do not use the sponsored name. That is why I believe it doesn't belong in the first sentence. A branded name isn't the "official name", it isn't the "legal name" - it's just a made-up extended name of the event. I doubt you could have an MOS:LEGALNAME for something like a World Series or Home Run Derby, but if you did, I'm pretty sure it would just be the WP:COMMONNAME. No one would suggest that the Bulls rugby team changed their name to the "Vodacom Bulls" in any legal sense, and if anyone does suggest that, I'd like to see a reliable secondary source proving it. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 23:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
How should non-AL & NL leagues (namely late 19th century major leagues, 1914–1915 Federal League, and seven 1920–1948 Negro Major Leagues) be integrated ( as previously agreed, in regards to the Federal League) into MLB season page infoboxes? Is my attempt a good solution or should it be different? Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Should the League leaders tables be formatted differently? Some users have suggested changing the tables to be more compact, so I have four different ideas as to how they could be formatted. ( 1, 2, 3, 4). Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Should a list of teams appear in table format be included on each season page? These tables would include the league or division, the team name, city, stadium, stadium capacity, and manager. I have an idea for pre-1969 seasons so location maps fit side-by-side with the table and an idea for 1969–present seasons, so that maps will fit in both. Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 15:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
There was a recent change to several ballpark articles changing the word "ballpark" to "home field" by Fred Zepelin. This editor unilaterally moved Ballpark to Baseball Stadium a couple of years ago, but it was never discussed further. [6]. This is being discussed at Truist Park| since I noticed the change there, but generally speaking isn't home ballpark/stadium preferable to "home field" when describing ballparks? There was discussion about baseball stadiums vs. ballparks a while back the loose consensus lead to most ballpark articles opening with "baseball stadium" and then using ballpark later on in the lead article as another word for baseball stadium. Nemov ( talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think "home field" is fine, especially because some stadiums are used for more than one sport, like Yankee Stadium, which is how I just stumbled into this. Really I don't see the problem with "home field". I've always thought of ballparks as smaller venues. Yankee Stadium isn't a "ballpark". JimKaatFan ( talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I am fine with saying "the home of". Disagree that Home (sports) is unhelpful - it's a perfect definition. But I need to clear up two falsehoods about me that have been repeated multiple times:
"it is the ballpark of" MLB
"it is the home of" MLB
The first result is literally just these Wikipedia articles and mirrors/copy-pastes of these Wikipedia article (check the surrounding verbiage, it's exact). The second result is millions of hits, from all kinds of different sources. It's very clear that "it is the ballpark of" is not a common phrase, and "it is the home of" is.
So please, stop using those two fake claims about me in this discussion. It's very misleading.
Fred Zepelin (
talk)
15:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Executive Summary: Nobody gets to say that their "official" versions of historical events carry extra weight, baseball games and seasons are historical events, and using the term "official" in any of these discussions is not helpful and instead just muddies the issue. (And if there was a source of baseball history which we would consider "official" it's arguably the Hall of Fame rather than MLB.)
Detailed Exposition:
I'm not saying this about any particular case, I am not against the Negro Leagues being considered major leagues or anything like that (I haven't studied the matter). I just wanted to point out that what MLB says about that doesn't mean much of anything and should be pretty much ignored.
MBL is a business organization, run for profit (or the profit of its members). It makes the schedules, sets the rules, negotiates the labor contracts, and like that. It is not an academic institution, nor is it run by baseball experts, historians, enthusiasts, or, for all I know, people who even care all that much about baseball per se. It can say that its statistics are "official", but so could I or SABR or anybody.
MLB does employ the Elias Sports Bureau, which is also a for-profit company, which provides the statistics used on MLB's website. Elias does employ historians and statisticians, but their methods are entirely secret, and they are generally despised for various reasons including trying to claim ownership of historical facts (i.e., baseball statistics) and insisting that statistics other than their own should be discounted (I don't know if they still do this).
But, there is no such thing as "official" statistics for historical events, that we have to pay any mind to. If the Official History of the Napoleonic Wars published by the French Government says there were 25,000 French Casualties at Waterloo, we are not obligated to say "Welp, that's the official number, so we have to go with that regardless" or even not just blow it off, and so forth. Baseball history is history. We don't have to pay any attention to MLB or Exxon-Mobile or any other organization when reporting history, and in fact often look at information provided by interested parties with some skepticism.
And MLB is an interested party. Their actions are designed to put fannies in seats and in front of TVs. (This can include benign actions of course and actions to make them look good because they are good, and they are interested in the long-term viability of the business of baseball I'm sure. But they are an interested party,)
Case in point, MLB still says that Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average is .367. MLB holds by that number for political reasons (to gruntle the boomers pretty much) and basically said so. Elias is the actual provider of that number, and since their methods are secret, I assume that their method here was "Well, that is the number the client wants, so that is the number the client gets". This does not give me confidence in anything else they say.
I presume that MLB has said the Negro Leagues are major leagues for political reasons: for public relations in being nice and up-to-date and against racism. That doesn't mean their decision was wrong (it quite probably wasn't). It doesn't mean that the people at MLB aren't personally ethical and against racism.
But it was a business decision, not made because Elias studied the matter in great depth using advanced techniques or whatever, reported to MLB that Negro Leagues were of major-league quality, ans MLB said "Welp, whether or not this causes us hassles and controversies and maybe boycotts in the South or whatever, the truth is the truth and that comes before mere business".
What SABR and Baseball Reference and similar entities and the Hall of Fame (which is not an arm of MLB) and individual baseball experts and historians say, that is what matters. I think they are on the bandwagon for allowing the Negro Leagues as major leagues, and that is fine. We should go with what they say, yes, if there's a clear consensus among them. Herostratus ( talk) 06:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
We should go with what they say, yes, if there's a clear consensus among them: Even if they don't come to a consensus, their views should be reflected based on WP:WEIGHT. — Bagumba ( talk) 00:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah OK. WP:WEIGHT, "what I say is what matters", I hear you. So...
Right now, we give Ty Cobb's batting average as .366. At time editors have written that it is .367. but we don't go with that.
But MLB gives Ty Cobb's batting average as .367. It's discussed at length -- essentially by me; that's me all over, oh well -- at Talk:Ty Cobb#It's time and past time to fix the batting average thing and Talk:Ty Cobb#RfC: What should we give as Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average?. I'm not asking anyone to read all that. It's there if you like. So, if MBL has some WP:WEIGHT, or maybe a lot if you consider them official, should we revisit this? There's a number of ways we could present the info, like say:
If you say #1, that'd be an exception to giving any WP:WEIGHT to MLB. Is it impossible that there could be other exceptions to giving them any weight? Just saying. Herostratus ( talk) 03:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the MLB pages are the only major sport on Wikipedia to not include season-by-season statistics for the players. If we can do it for football, soccer, hockey, and basketball, there's no good reason why MLB should be special and excluded. All the data for those sports are pulled from other sources, so "baseballreference.com" has it isn't an explanation. People don't come to an encyclopedia because they want to be directed to other sources. That's what a search engine is for, not an encyclopedia. Angryapathy ( talk) 19:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
So it seems Wikipedia is updating their default formatting again, this time by increasing the font size. Now, even less content fits horizontally. This text size increase has lead to all instances of the Template:MLB standings to be twice as tall, due to the Home and Road columns taking up two lines now. The best example of this can be seen with the current season.
This is only in regards to the current table format. There's many other formats built into this template via Module:MLB standings that would need adjusting:
There's a few ways we can go about this. We could shrink the font in the table by adding "font-size: 90%;" in the style header. We could do some minor adjustments to the columns: decrease the width for the team names (and let that be the column that may end up on two lines *cough* Los Angels Angels of Anaheim *cough*), rendering the percentage somehow so there is no leading 0 before the decimal. To avoid the two-line team, we may want to slightly increase the width of the table. Here's two examples with the 2021 NL West with the division winning 2014 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (it's with these teams that we see 3 digit wins and losses, a long name as a division winner, and a games back stat with "½").
|
|
|
|
I'm sure there's other ways to remedy this but I at least want to get this discussion going. Spesh531 (talk, contrib., ext.) 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
<div>
element that uses CSS flexbox layout so that the sections will be next to each other if there is space, and wrap below if there is not. I'll have to experiment a bit.
isaacl (
talk)
15:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I found a near-solution to the differing column widths. This will result in tables that are only 1 or 2 pixels off in Small or Standard text and up to 4 pixels off in Large text. The GB column will be the same, regardless of if there is "½" or not.
! width="245" | Team ! width="24" | [[Win (baseball)|W]] ! width="24" | [[Loss (baseball)|L]] ! width="35" | [[Winning percentage|Pct.]] ! width="27" | [[Games behind|GB]] ! width="39" | [[Home (sports)|Home]] ! width="39" | [[Road (sports)|Road]]
! width="245" | Team ! width="24" | [[Win (baseball)| W ]] ! width="24" | [[Loss (baseball)| L ]] ! width="35" | [[Winning percentage|Pct.]] ! width="27" | [[Games behind| GB ]] ! width="39" | [[Home (sports)|Home]] ! width="39" | [[Road (sports)|Road]]
Basically, the "W" and "GB" each have an instance of
before and after it, while "L" has  
, since "L" is narrower than "W".
Within the brackets, it would look like this: "Win (baseball)|
W
", "Loss (baseball)| 
L 
", and "Games behind|
GB
". (I hate trying to show examples of html text as it would look in an edit!)
Spesh531
(talk,
contrib.,
ext.)
17:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
<syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight>
is a good way to show code examples. For example: [[Win (baseball)| W ]]
(See
mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight for more details.)
isaacl (
talk)
18:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I've changed the sandbox module to use table captions and to put zero-width joiner characters around the en-dashes in order to prevent line breaks. You can see the results on the testcases page. isaacl ( talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I changed the testcase using flexbox layout to provide additional guidance on how the two blocks of tables can be expanded/shrunk to fit the available space (now that the table is no longer a fixed width). It now shows a side-by-side layout at narrow window widths than before. (Note increasing the font size effectively narrows the window; with the change, a side-by-side layout appears with the text size set to large and the width set to wide.) isaacl ( talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
To summarize, the following changes are being proposed:
Template:MLB standings/testcases § Testing sandbox template: standings on MLB season page using flexbox layout has an example of the MLB season page layout. Feedback is welcome! If there aren't any objections, I will update the MLB standings template, and Spesh531 has volunteered to update the MLB season pages. Template:MLB standings/testcases § Testing sandbox template: standings on MLB season page using columns shows how the tables will appear after the MLB standings template has been updated, but before a given MLB season page is modified as proposed. isaacl ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Was going to create and redirect "Low and away" to
Strike zone ('Strike Zone' probably should be uppercased, no?, which is
now taken by the name of a Star Trek novel and, come to think of it, I'm going to boldly go and change the name and redirect uppercase to the now lowercase
Strike zone to see if it sticks). A request, can someone here who is good at cropping images tackle the opening image at
Strike zone and
Base on balls and separate the strike zone data from the advertisement for Goodyear? Thanks. This would also enlarge the important page-pertinent details.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
02:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Just a heads up: there is a disruptive IP address editor who is reformatting pages of Hall of Famers in a way which is unhelpful at best. They give no explanation for their edits either and have been at it for a few weeks now. Just keep a lookout and report them if possible. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 12:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tony Kemp (baseball)#Requested move 8 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 20:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed that article Dalton Rogers be merged into Boston Red Sox minor league players. I initially made a WP:BOLD merger, but another editor objected. Editors are welcome to offer comment here. Dmoore5556 ( talk) 21:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:Major League Baseball rivalries#Relevance of head-to-head win-loss records regarding a recent set of changes that introduced the cumulative head-to-head win-loss records for pairs of rivals, over the entire history of the teams. Feedback is welcome. isaacl ( talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)