Baseball: College Redirect‑class | ||||||||||
|
A general thought that didn't fit elsewhere: I've always felt the northern tilt of Wikipedia's editor base has given our project undue problems. The fact that a disproportionate group of influential Wikipedians comes from DC north and Ohio east (i.e.- states where the sport receives less coverage) means that our project's arguments get short-shrifted in a way they wouldn't be if the country were more equally represented. A near-exclusively northern sport like college hockey, even though it's a smaller sport than ours by nearly every metric, has comprehensive coverage of programs, coaches, venues, etc. Articles that deal with the worst of the worst that play in high school rinks don't have their notability questioned, whereas we [often| https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bulldog_Park&action=edit&redlink=1] get flak. I know it's not a perfect comparison, and I'm not trying to discredit any argument against our pages' notability, but I've always felt this was the case. I'm happy to explain/defend this more if anyone disagrees. Kithira ( talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The project has thus far been seemingly operating under the presumption that all NCAA Division I baseball teams are notable. I don't really see any reason to expand that beyond Division I. If anything, there's probably a stronger argument that only major conference teams and some more prominent teams from minor conferences are the ones one's notable. That said, my vote would be that all NCAA Division I baseball teams are notable. Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus that National Championship teams are notable ( Talk:2003_Rice_Owls_baseball_team#Notability).
After that, the line gets a little blurry. Are all College World Series teams notable?
There was a prior discussion that even resulted in a conclusion that all major conference championship teams are notable ( Talk:Missouri_Tigers_baseball#Merger_proposal) but there wasn't a ton of discussion there.
What about a single-season of a prominent program that failed to win its conference or advance to the College World Series, such as 2014 South Carolina Gamecocks baseball team?
Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that members of the National College Baseball Hall of Fame.
I think there is also a clear consensus that any player who wins a national player of the year award, such as the Dick Howser Trophy or Golden Spikes Award is notable. What about the Brooks Wallace Award, which used to be a player of the year award but is now limited to shortstops?
I think we also previously came to a consensus, though there was a great deal of dissension as I recall, that Consensus All-Americans are notable. Is that where we draw the line?
Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The College Football project has decided that all head coaches at notable programs are themselves notable. Were we to do the same, all current or former coaches of NCAA Division I teams would be considered notable. I'm not sure if college baseball gets quite enough coverage for every coach at minor programs in minor conferences to be notable but perhaps it does. Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable that the current venue for every NCAA Division I team is notable. For former venues, probably not except for the most notable programs or venues that are historical for some other reason. Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Baseball: College Redirect‑class | ||||||||||
|
A general thought that didn't fit elsewhere: I've always felt the northern tilt of Wikipedia's editor base has given our project undue problems. The fact that a disproportionate group of influential Wikipedians comes from DC north and Ohio east (i.e.- states where the sport receives less coverage) means that our project's arguments get short-shrifted in a way they wouldn't be if the country were more equally represented. A near-exclusively northern sport like college hockey, even though it's a smaller sport than ours by nearly every metric, has comprehensive coverage of programs, coaches, venues, etc. Articles that deal with the worst of the worst that play in high school rinks don't have their notability questioned, whereas we [often| https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bulldog_Park&action=edit&redlink=1] get flak. I know it's not a perfect comparison, and I'm not trying to discredit any argument against our pages' notability, but I've always felt this was the case. I'm happy to explain/defend this more if anyone disagrees. Kithira ( talk) 22:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The project has thus far been seemingly operating under the presumption that all NCAA Division I baseball teams are notable. I don't really see any reason to expand that beyond Division I. If anything, there's probably a stronger argument that only major conference teams and some more prominent teams from minor conferences are the ones one's notable. That said, my vote would be that all NCAA Division I baseball teams are notable. Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus that National Championship teams are notable ( Talk:2003_Rice_Owls_baseball_team#Notability).
After that, the line gets a little blurry. Are all College World Series teams notable?
There was a prior discussion that even resulted in a conclusion that all major conference championship teams are notable ( Talk:Missouri_Tigers_baseball#Merger_proposal) but there wasn't a ton of discussion there.
What about a single-season of a prominent program that failed to win its conference or advance to the College World Series, such as 2014 South Carolina Gamecocks baseball team?
Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that members of the National College Baseball Hall of Fame.
I think there is also a clear consensus that any player who wins a national player of the year award, such as the Dick Howser Trophy or Golden Spikes Award is notable. What about the Brooks Wallace Award, which used to be a player of the year award but is now limited to shortstops?
I think we also previously came to a consensus, though there was a great deal of dissension as I recall, that Consensus All-Americans are notable. Is that where we draw the line?
Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The College Football project has decided that all head coaches at notable programs are themselves notable. Were we to do the same, all current or former coaches of NCAA Division I teams would be considered notable. I'm not sure if college baseball gets quite enough coverage for every coach at minor programs in minor conferences to be notable but perhaps it does. Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable that the current venue for every NCAA Division I team is notable. For former venues, probably not except for the most notable programs or venues that are historical for some other reason. Mizzou415 ( talk) 06:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)