Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 08:37, 22 June 2024 (Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 50. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBaseball Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk
Special projects talk
Resource Library talk
Article Improvement Drive talk
Requested articles and todo talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Cleanup listing talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → Article alerts talk
Article assessment (Log) talk
 → Featured articles (62) talk
 → Featured lists (211) talk
 → Good articles (559) talk
Outreach talk
 → Newsletter talk
Portal talk
Notability guidelines talk
Style advice talk
 → Naming conventions talk
 → Player style advice talk
 → Season article format talk
Handling transactions talk
Popular pages talk
Active editors
Project organization
Participants talk
Large userbox talk
Project userbox talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Major League Baseball
Team specific
Atlanta Braves talk
Boston Red Sox talk
Chicago Cubs talk
Cincinnati Reds talk
Los Angeles Angels talk
Los Angeles Dodgers talk
Minnesota Twins talk
New York Mets talk
New York Yankees talk
Philadelphia Phillies talk
San Diego Padres talk
Seattle Mariners talk
St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects
Players talk
College baseball talk
Leagues and teams talk
Little League talk
Old-time Base Ball talk
Negro league baseball talk
Hall of Fame talk
Umpires talk
Geographical
Australia talk
Japan talk
Korea talk
Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Federal League and the 7 Negro Major Leagues in the MLB seasons pages (+4 19th century leagues?)

So I've jumped the gun in separating the Federal League from the 1914 & 1915 seasons when I should have discussed it here first. When I split the pages before, I made separate Federal League 1914 & 1915 pages, so the information hasn't been lost.

Previous format before my edits:

  • Major League Baseball season pages (only 1901–present) contained:
  • Major leagues not considered for season pages:

Sites such as baseball-reference.com consider the Federal League and 7 Negro Major Leagues as major league (as well as the several 1876–1900 leagues), as this is what MLB considers true. It should be noted that there is a distinction between leagues being considered major league, and the organization known as "Major League Baseball". To add to the confusion, MLB includes Federal League stats on its stat pages, but the Federal League is not listed on the standings nor schedule pages. However, (assumingly due to incomplete records), the 1920–1948 Negro Major League stats are nowhere to be found. I tend to believe that the Federal League stats are on MLB's website because many of their players were of the AL or NL before and after the Federal League's existence.

There's the fact that MLB as a North American league has a unique history compared to say, professional football or basketball. With football, the NFL and AFL were always completely separate entities until 1970, when they merged and saw the formation of the NFC and AFC, under the umbrella of NFL. The lines between Major League Baseball were always blurred to some degree from the 1903 National Agreement until the legal merger of the NL & AL into one organization in 2000.

Jhn31 and I had been talking on my talk page (thanks to Jhn31, I was made aware of previous discussion), and I'm going to copy/paste my thoughts (and expand a little) on the matter (Jhn31, I don't want to copy/paste your words, so if you want to reiterate here that'd be great!).

I'm personally of the belief that we should follow one of the two extremes:
  • MLB season pages should strictly be for the NL and AL (and in fact, the 1901 & 1902 pages should be separate NL & AL pages à la AFL & NFL 1967–1969 seasons even though Super Bowl I-III took place these seasons), as any proper cooperation between the AL and NL didn't begin until 1903 with the National Agreement. "Major League Baseball" as an organization did not exist in any sense before 1903.
  • All leagues 1876–present that are considered major league should be included on season pages à la baseball-reference.com. Granted, I'd be tempted to make a distinction where any pre-1903 seasons are "1### Major league baseball season", where only the first word is capitalized since the all-caps "Major League Baseball" refers to the proper organization.
To make things even more confusing, MLB celebrates 1869 as the inaugural Major League season (even though its website is only dedicated to go back to 1901), a year that pre-dates even the 1871–1875 NA, which has its major league status in question (though I guess this is really just referencing the Cincinnati Red Stockings as the first professional baseball team). I personally like the first extreme much more than the second, as it has season pages dedicated to leagues as they existed at the time. It feels the most proper.

Separate from the Federal League issue, all of the major leagues from 1876 to present should, in my opinion be contained in some form of season pages, instead of just being redirects to "1### in baseball" pages. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 04:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To echo my comments from 2022, the Federal League is a definite Yes, as MLB considers it a "major" league, counts statistics as part of player's MLB career records, the Hall of Fame includes Federal League teams played on (but not minor or international leagues), and reference sites include it in the statistics. I think the Federal League standings and stats leaders umabiguously belong on the 1914 and 1915 season articles. I prefer taking it a step further and including all "major" leagues on the respective season pages, since that aligns with MLB's preferences and sites like Baseball Reference, which is going to be the source of much of the standings, awards, and statistical information found on the pages anyway. Perhaps there could be a standard paragraph on each page from 1920 to 1948 stating that MLB has only considered the Negro leagues to be "major" since 2020. Jhn31 (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add one thing to my comment by referencing something I said in the past: These MLB Hall of Fame plaques don't mention non-MLB accomplishments, but all 3 of which mention the Federal League: Eddie Plank Edd Roush Joe Tinker. Or the Baseball Reference pages for 1914 or 1915 which list the Federal League as part of the "Major Leagues." Or the ESPN pages for 1914 and 1915. Or Fangraphs. If MLB says so, the Hall of Fame says so, media sources say so, trusted references that drive so many MLB articles on Wikipedia say so... then Wikipedia should reflect that. I feel like it's outside the mission of Wikipedia for editors to decide that despite the primary and secondary source material saying one thing, that we feel like it should actually go in a different direction. Jhn31 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed as I noted in 2022 & note again, the Federal League should be excluded from the 1914 & 1915 MLB season pages, because the Federal League champion didn't participate in the World Series. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And whether it's 2022 or 2024, that's a completely arbitrary distinction that you made up. As Wikipedia editors, we must follow the sources and not inject our own opinions about how things "should" be here. Jhn31 (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the authority to delete the FL records from the 1914 & 1915 MLB seasons pages. Merely re-stating that I support their deletion from those two pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again this topic just doesn't get any real discussion here. I believe it's appropriate to go back to the pre-existing consensus and restore the 1914 and 1915 articles back to how they were, with the Federal League shown. I also think the 1920 through 1948 seasons should have the various Negro Leagues shown, as that's how MLB and the secondary references show it, but I don't think there's even been a consensus here for that, so we can hold off until we do. Jhn31 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If more input is needed, I believe that the 1914-15 MLB season pages should include the Federal League because it is widely considered to be a major league by baseball historians. Hatman31 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of discussion, I'll try leaving a notice on Major League Baseball's talk page to get some eyes over here. The more I've thought about this, the more my opinion that the FL & other major-league-tier leagues should be separate strengthens (this includes separating AL & NL into their own pages for 1901 & 1902). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an unnecessary complication to split of 1901 and 1902 into separate articles. Neither MLB nor any of the secondary sources or historians do anything like that. Jhn31 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create (if not already in existence) new season pages for the Federal League & the Negro Major Leagues. MLB season pages are for only the National League & American League. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the FL on the 1914 & 1915 MLB pages. MLB recognizes it as a major league, as do all other reliable sources, and we have no good reason to remove it as such. The Negro Leagues are more complicated, because the records there are still incomplete, though their recognition as major league caliber should be noted. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the Federal League teams never competed in the World Series. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So? Spanneraol (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm against re-adding FL clubs into the 1914 & 1915 MLB season pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's a standard that you just made up. Should Wikipedia reflect what the primary and secondary sources say, or just stuff that one random user made up? Can you point to any baseball historian or secondary reference that backs up your idea that "the Federal League actually wasn't major because its champion did not compete in the World Series" ? Jhn31 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the decider on this matter. I merely state my position on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm asking you to back up your position. I'm willing to change my mind if you make a well-supported argument, but you're not willing to make an argument at all. Jhn31 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to change your mind. If you want more input on this topic? I'd recommend mentioning this discussion at WP:SPORTS. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between recognizing a league to be at the major league level and being in the organization known as "Major League Baseball", no? It's easy to conflate, but I don't see MLB recognizing the Federal League as having been in "Major League Baseball", but rather a league, that while rivaling the NL & AL (members of MLB), was in fact a league of major league caliber. Simultaneously, MLB will recognize the stats of players that were a part of the FL in overall player stats in the history of MLB because the FL was of major league quality, and not including those stats are a disservice to those players.
Unless someone can point to otherwise, I haven't seen MLB recognize the Federal League, itself as an organization, as being a part of the organizational history of MLB, which is different than recognizing the FL (as well as the AA, UA, PL, NNL1, ECL, ANL, EWL, NSL, NNL2, & NAL) as being a part of the organizational history of MLB.
Maybe it's just me, but there's a conflation occurring in this discussion between being in MLB, and being a major league. There's a difference. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 00:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're needlessly splitting hairs. You yourself linked to MLB.com's 1914 stats page, where the Federal League is included. If MLB itself says the Federal League should be included, reference sites like BaseballReference, ESPN, and Fangraphs say the Federal League should be included, players' Hall of Fame plaques include the Federal League, baseball historians unanimously say the Federal League should be included, then who are we as measly Wikipedia editors to say "well, actually..." ?
There was "no such thing" as "MLB" (the organization) in 1914 for the Federal League to be "part of" anyway. As detailed in the Wikipedia article here, the organization called Major League Baseball didn't actually become a thing until 2000. The entire history of MLB for the 18th and 19th centuries is based on the concept of who was and was not a "major league," not the literal membership in an organized called Major League Baseball. It's all historians looking back to decide if and when a particular league as "major" or not at the time, and I think the rules of Wikipedia would strongly support aligning the articles to match the consensus of the historians, references, and the primary source itself (which you yourself linked for us). Jhn31 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

MLB is not saying that. MLB as the primary source itself isn't even consistent. It has player stats for FL players, but if I try to lookup the standings for FL teams in 1914 & 1915, they're nowhere to be found on MLB's website. It shows the AL & NL standings from 1901–present. It doesn't show the NL standings 1876–1900 (or any other 19th century league), and well, the AL didn't exist as a major league before 1901. There was a degree of cooperation between the AL & NL from 1903 with the National Agreement. There was never any sense of cooperation between the FL and AL/NL apparatus under the National Agreement. If we’re to use the primary source (MLB.com), it would tell us that the teams that were in MLB number to 31 franchises (with the 1901–1902 Baltimore Orioles being the only inactive franchise).
Wikipedia itself plays a bit hard and loose with facts as well. National Association of Professional Base Ball Players has in its lead “…to form Major League Baseball (MLB) in 1903.” Major League Baseball has in its own page in the Organizational structure section, “There were several challenges to MLB's primacy in the sport, with notable attempts to establish competing leagues occurring during the late 1800s, from 1913 to 1915 with the short-lived Federal League, and in 1960 with the aborted Continental League.” This certainly implies they are separate, no? (Obviously, we cannot source Wikipedia for anything to put on Wikipedia, but this is emblematic that the consistency on Wikipedia regarding the aforementioned needs to be addressed).
Could I be splitting hairs? Perhaps. The more research I’ve done looking into the history, the more I’m for one of two schools of thought. If I were creating these articles from scratch, I’d do the following:
  • Have unified MLB pages, only from 2000–present (with independent NL and AL pages pre-2000), or
  • Don’t use the proper noun “Major League Baseball” until 2000 but using the improper “major league baseball” for all pre-2000 seasons.
    • A sub-option of this, inspired from Baseball-Reference, (which may be a good compromise position), would be the status quo, but for where it says “League” in the infobox, for all pre-2000 seasons, it should say “National League”, “American League” (see exampled below for infobox changes).
But “Major League Baseball” the organization (again, as you said, and which is true), did not exist pre-2000. Baseball-reference, in my opinion, gets this partially right. There is the 2000 season page titled 2000 Major League Baseball Team Statistics. If you click “previous season”, the 1999 page is titled 1999 Major League Team Statistics, where “Baseball” is missing.
As an example, here's what the top of 1999 & 2000 infoboxes look like now:
Here's what the top of 1999 & 2000 infoboxes could look like with the keep-combined-but-more-factual revision. There's a case to be made whether the league's should be listed alphabetical or chronological-by-founding-date:
Following that trend, the 1914 infobox could look like:
Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 03:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can change sports on you, the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, and then 3 years later, a new Browns team was added as an expansion team. But instead of that, the NFL recognizes both Browns as a single franchise that was inactive for 3 seasons and returned. That's not "really" what happened, but that's how the NFL records are structured, and Wikipedia defers to the NFL on that. The page List of Cleveland Browns seasons shows all of them from both iterations. List of Baltimore Ravens seasons doesn't include the years in Cleveland, even though the continuous Modell-owned franchise did play there. Wikipedia defers to what the NFL now recognizes, and not what is technically true, even though both the Browns and Ravens pages note this.
Similarly, I believe that Wikipedia should follow what MLB now recognizes, that even though technically "Major League Baseball" as a formal organization didn't exist until 2000, and before that it was more of a concept of a league being "major," MLB now recognizes these leagues from the 1800s and 1900s (primarily the National League and American League, but also a long list of other leagues) as part of "Major League Baseball" for the purposes of record keeping. I think it aligns with MLB's current stance and serves the readers well to have 1 article for each year from 1876 to 1999 (and also through present) for all leagues recognized as major, and for 1920 through 1948 have a note that the Negro leagues weren't recognized as "major" until 2020, but are now. Maybe there could even be a note in every article up to 1999 that the organization "Major League Baseball" didn't actually exist yet then.
I hold no strong preference on the whether "Major League Baseball" should be capitalized, but unless there is a secondary source out there that lowercases it, I lean against it because I don't think Wikipedia should be inventing conventions like that. Jhn31 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL Coyotes situation could also be used with this example as well, though Arizona currently has no team (yet?)
The fact that MLB didn't exist until 2000 is why, if anything, we keep the pages as Major League Baseball, but just change the infobox to not explicitly mention "Major League Baseball", but rather list each individual league, like I have in the 1999 & 1914 infobox examples. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that back in August 2022 this community reached the consensus that the Federal League SHOULD be included in the 1914 and 1915 pages (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48#Federal League records in the 1914 & 1915 Major League Baseball season pages) and nothing here has indicated any change to that consensus, I think it would appropriate to restore those pages immediately, and redirect 1914 Federal League season and 1915 Federal League season to the MLB season articles. Since User:Spesh531 has added additional content since removing the Federal League information, I'd like to give him the opportunity to add the Federal League information back with his additional content, rather than just a straight revert. There are still two outstanding questions where I don't think we've reached a consensus yet:

  • Whether the 7 Negro Leagues that are now recognized as having "major league" status should be similarly included on the 1920 through 1948 pages. I don't think this is as clear cut as the Federal League, since for example MLB.com doesn't list those teams as "major" in the same way it does for the Federal League, but MLB's official stance is that they should count, and reference sites like Baseball Reference and Fangraphs do count them as major league teams. There was concern that stats aren't fully complete as not every game's box score is available, but I think there is enough to at least show teams, standings, and league leaders on the pages. It would be appropriate to include a note in every one of those articles that the Negro leagues were recognized by MLB as "major leagues" starting in 2020.
  • Whether there should be articles for 1876 through 1899 seasons. I also would say yes for these, as the National League is recognized as a major league going back to 1876 (not just 1901), and there would be other leagues in some of those years as well. I'm really not sure what the argument against this is, other than it's been this way for 15 years and no one has been interested enough to change it.

Does anyone have further thoughts on these two questions? Do we need a separate header? Jhn31 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the community reached a consensus in 2022. I'd say opinion was evenly split between the "FL-separate" and "FL-in-MLB-page", but the discussion died out. The status quo pre-2020 did not include any information for the FL except for the managers (which I think is due in part to the likely little traffic these season pages receive). Mid-2020 saw the FL information added, but as far as I'm aware, no discussions really happened until 2022, when the mid-2020 status quo of including the Federal League into MLB season pages was confirmed (again, only because discussions seemed to die out). I'd be willing to concede to the current format but only with what I said above, where the infobox League section should not mention "Major League Baseball" pre-2000.
I also think the capitalization discussion should be furthered. I like a Baseball-Reference-based approach, where only "Major League" is capitalized, so, for example, the 1999 page would say "1999 Major League baseball season".
If we follow the approach of combining all major leagues into one season article, if MLB's notice of major-league recognition of Negro leagues in 2020 is to be stated, it would be worth it to add notes for the AA/UA/PL/FL, dated 1969. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 05:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we create pre-1901 season pages until a firm consensus has been reached for the current pages, so extra work isn't made. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 05:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's labeled at the top of the box "Consensus is to include the Federal League records in the respective MLB season articles," and if you count up the number of individual names on each side of the debate, there were quite a bit more in favor of including them, just like in this box. I think Wikipedia rules would very clearly favor restoring them, because at the very least there is no consensus now in 2024 to override the consensus from 2022. I would agree with your point to add a note in the 1914 and 1915 season pages that the Federal League has been considered to be a "major" league since 1969, and also have a comment at the top of the article linking any potential editors to the 2022 discussion and this one, and telling them not to remove the Federal League from the article. Jhn31 (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go figure, I read the entirety of that discussion except the very top mentioning User:Nableezy's consensus comment 😅. Since this discussion had no consensus I'll revert the changes and re-merge the FL into the 1914 & 1915 pages (as well as merging and organizing the 1920–1948 pages to include the seven Negro Major Leagues, as these leagues were the catalyst as to why I brought this discussion up in the first place). But two issues I see still remain:
What of the League section of the infobox and capitalization? It wouldn't be accurate to have "Major League Baseball" pre-2000 in the infobox (this is especially the case pre-1966 as the term itself had not been used until the creation of the "Major League Baseball Promotion Corporation", or pre-1969 before MLB's logo mentioning "MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL" (which should be noted, doesn't tell us anything about capitalization since the entire label is) came into being). It would be historically accurate to mention both the American League and National League separately in the infobox for all pre-2000 seasons, but keep Major League Baseball in the lead.
Regarding capitalization, I think this article at Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) is worth a read. While this part of the discussion is splitting hairs a bit, the "Major League Baseball" capitalization for any pre-1903 season and arguably the same for any pre-2000 should also be ironed out. Like I mentioned above, I think Wikipedia following Baseball-Reference's lead of keeping "Major League" capitalized and make "baseball" lowercase for all pre-2000 seasons would be a good idea. Arguably, SABR's self-imposed rules of continuing to refer to the lowercase "major leagues" for all things not post-1999 may be a better reference. "Major League baseball", as in titling the pages "19## Major League baseball season" at least to me, is a categorical or descriptive term, including all major leagues (whether they interacted with each other or not). However, "19## major league baseball season" may be more a more accurate title if we follow SABR's policy. Even the Associated Press had not used the full capitalization consistently until 2000.
I'm trying to think of this as if we hadn't lived through the legal merger yet. Let's say its 1987 and these pages are being created. The legal merger of the NL and AL had not occurred yet. How would these season articles—before said merger occurs—have been titled? This line of thinking is the (IMO) correct way to title the pre-2000 season pages. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend just making 1 article in Draft form for a season between 1920 and 1948 (probably one with two Negro major leagues) before editing all of them, because there are a lot of conventions we'll have to establish. 50.86.55.67 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 19:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spesh531/sandbox/1923 Major League Baseball season
Here is an attempt for the 1923 season page. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend leaving the MLB season pages, as they are. Let's not crowd the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree (and would actually prefer to separate out the "MLB" season pages (which includes Federal League) but apparently, we're in the minority here (at least in regard to the Federal League, and by extension the Negro Major Leagues). Given the current consensus is to merge the Federal League into the MLB season pages, the logical conclusion is that every other league considered "major league" should be included in the "MLB" pages as well, for the sake of consistency.
Unless, of course, consensus for the Federal League changes... Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 02:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you changing the dates in the infoboxes? Just leave them as they were, with one beginning & one ending date. We don't need to list separate leagues, pre-2000. You're making changes too quickly, with limited input. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to list champions AND runners up for every league in the infobox? Why not just the champions? I also think we should streamline and standardize how we show the statistical leaders for each season page. Jhn31 (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding stat leaders would need to start with the contemporary seasons, as the way they currently are has been the case for every season page since 2010 (and the ones that I have updated from 1901 to 1931).
Stat leaders: I recommend a much more compact table, such as the one found here: 1927 in baseball. We could have a discussion on whether additional stats should be included or not. Jhn31 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the league runner up, I'm inclined to agree that all runner-ups that did not involve some sort of playoff (so every NL & AL season before 1969) should be removed, as they're just a happenstance of that season's standings. However, I don't think this should be the case for say, the 1927 NNL season, since there was a championship series between Chicago and Birmingham (especially considering that these were the 1st and 2nd half leaders. The overall season would show Birmingham in 4th, so that's not immediately obvious from the standings). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree with ever putting the league runner-up in the table, even in recent years. If someone wants to know who lost the NLCS, it will be easy to find in the article, and it will keep it compact. Aren't these sufficient? Jhn31 (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a proposal I made: User:Jhn31/sandbox/1923 Major League Baseball season. It's the same information, but organized a bit more compactly. Streamline infobox, managers listed with the teams rather than in a separate table, the maps are connected to the standings, the league leaders table is more small (we should discuss what stats are and aren't important to include here). I considered moving the attendance to the top box as well (is attendance more important than capacity anyway?). Any thoughts? Jhn31 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like most of it! Especially the line breaks in the infobox, instead of a straight list (though I still think the runners up should be there for playoff seasons, or at the very least, the World Series runner up should be there, but that's just my opinion and admittedly status quo bias here), as well as the managers in the list of teams table. My only issue with managers in the table is, if we follow my idea where the maps are under the infobox, the size of the maps becomes an issue.
We could do the maps with the standings, though my idea with the maps is taken from the NFL season and MLS season pages as a means of consistency across multiple sports (the latter is also the inspiration for the list of teams and stadiums at the top of the page). Maybe we want to keep that consistency with the other US/Canada sports season pages? I'm not sure what other non-North American sports leagues have in terms of a maps on season pages.
Speaking of! I've finished making independent AL & NL map templates for all seasons, so we're not locked in using the MLB template if we decide to have horizontally-placed maps (though since the template maps are narrower than the standings, they don't look as good above the standings).
I've since added the "managerial changes" to my sandbox, as well as three different teams list sections with maps (one as yours is, one with leagues removed and teams shaded, and one with managers removed). Regarding the changes, a good amount of research will need to be done to find each reason for managerial changes, so maybe that's something that's added later.
For the stats, I followed your idea of using the 1927 in baseball format, but I have two versions, since there are twice the amount of stats on the MLB season pages as there are on the #### in baseball pages; one has batting and pitching in separate sections, one has them together, but still sectioned off within one table. I personally like the 2nd table (or something similar) where they're all in one table. It keeps the width for both batting/hitting and pitching the same. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1923 MLB season
LeagueAmerican League, National League, Negro National League, Eastern Colored League
SportBaseball
DurationApril 17 – October 15, 1923
Number of games154 (AL, NL), 53–86 (NNL), 33–59 (ECL)
Number of teams8 (AL), 8 (NL), 8 (NNL), 6 (ECL)
Regular Season
Season MVPAL: Babe Ruth (NYY)
AL championsNew York Yankees
NL championsNew York Giants
NNL championsKansas City Monarchs
ECL championsHilldale Club
World Series
ChampionsNew York Yankees
MLB seasons
Although I will point out that including the Negro Leagues in the 1920 through 1948 articles would that the champions of the Negro World Series in the years it existed should be listed alongside the World Series winners, and I'm not sure if the infobox template can accommodate two separate championships. I'm sure we can figure it out. Jhn31 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think too much is happening too fast & changes are being implemented rather quickly. Therefore, I've sought more input from WP:SPORTS, as these proposed/implemented changes, may also affect other sports season pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More input would be appreciated! Having not even a dozen users discussing the greater topic of the Federal League, Negro Major Leagues, etc., leads to these discussions dying out into status quo consensuses and nothing happens, which is partially why I've been so WP:BOLD with the changes I've been making. They'll bring greater discussion.
Though admittedly, my desire to improve the season pages—what was initially just increasing the quality of the MLB season pages to match the contemporary ones as much as possible (i.e. stat leaders & manager tables) as well as adding locator maps—has been slowly spiraling out since I started in mid-March. For every new concern or issue I've found (including improving the "#### in baseball" pages), I've backtracked to 1901 and made the changes... but the further along I've gotten, the more dramatic each change becomes (which as of now, is about 32 seasons).
I think for now I'll shrink the scope of what I'm changing in the immediate closer to what I had initially intended (i.e. rule changes, table of teams & their stadiums, stat tables, and increasing the quality of Negro League standings tables in the "#### in baseball") until more input occurs. I'm hoping a firm, logically consistent consensus eventually takes place regarding how Wikipedia eventually organizes these baseball pages, as it would be nice to start building out dedicated season pages for 1876–1900 seasons without many lingering questions, as well as creating season pages for the dozens of Negro League teams of 1920–1948 to match the quality of the NL & AL team season pages of those times (depending on available information, with at the very least, detailed player stats and rosters).
It would also be nice to see the #### in baseball pages expand their scope to also feature minor leagues (like in 1903 in baseball) or maybe adding standings for other international leagues, namely the Nippon league (or, perhaps removing the standings since they exist in the dedicated league pages (like in 2012 in baseball) so the scope of these articles aren't so American major league-centric). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 02:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spesh531:, your latest proposed changes to MLB season infoboxes, makes it look like the NNL & ECL champions played in the World Series, against the NL & AL champions. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean in my sandbox infobox? I'm not sure what you mean. It says NY Yankees & runner-up NY Giants under "World Series". The infobox right above these immediate comments in this talk page that excludes all runner ups was created by @Jhn31. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your sandbox infobox. BTW - I think (when you're ready) you should open up an RFC, on whether or not to implement any changes to MLB season pages infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest so it doesn't look like the NNL & ECL teams played in the World Series? I made a change (though I don't really like it saying "World Series AL vs. NL"). Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 22:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would exclude the NNL & the ECL from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we include the NNL & ECL in this page (which goes back to the "do we separate each league into their own seasons" question), they must be in the infobox. They're equally as important as the National and American Leagues. All four were major leagues with pennant winners/champions in their own right. It makes as much sense to keep the NNL and ECL and remove the AL, NL, and World Series as to excluding the NNL & ECL. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 23:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you're pushing for should be brought to an RFC, as they effect multiple pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's too many variables right now (I think) to call an RFC. I don't want to call an RFC with many different versions from different users being thrown around. I'm not even sure which version of changes I'd like to push, specifically regarding the format of the list of teams table (I have one idea, Jhn31 has another (paired with having maps in the standings section), and the status quo) and the stats table (v.1 & v.2). Also, I've made adjustments to the infobox. While it (Colored World Series) wouldn't go into the 1923 infobox (it would for the 1924 season), how does the infobox look now? Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have three RfC's below, each addressing specific changes to be discussed. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it? A user could scroll down to the Postseason section and see that that's not the case pretty easily. Jhn31 (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 MiLB names in team infoboxes

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)[reply]

I support both proposals for the sake of brevity in the infobox. I also think that mentions of these leagues and classes in other areas (lede, prose, standings tables, player articles, etc.) should remain. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed – I will only be removing them from infoboxes and will ensure that each affected article mentions the name change(s). I'm not aware of any that currently do not, but I haven't checked all affiliated team articles. I will start this task soon and eventually change them all, though assistance is welcome. Waz8:T-C-E 03:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Series sponsored name

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? --TorsodogTalk 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no discussion at the talk page at all. It's probably a better idea to start this discussion there and ask for people to join in. Either way, maybe use similar articles as models, such as the Capital One Orange Bowl. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the discussion being here. The thing is, there are corporate sponsored names which are significant and documented in reliable secondary sources. Even then, I prefer to see that stuff mentioned in the body and not the lead, as those names shift often, they aren't useful to the reader, and the role of an encyclopedia shouldn't be providing extra advertising to a company just because they paid a league or a team a bunch of money. In this case, it's even less significant - the only source that talks about the bank sponsorship of the Japan Series is the primary source - a press release from the league. It's called the Japan Series. Almost all secondary sources call it that. Once in a while, the sponsored name shows up in a secondary source (Torsodog found all 5 of them above), but even those sources, in different article, call it just the Japan Series. That's the name, that's it. I'm okay with the mention of SMBC Bank later in the body (even though that's still just a primary source) but I cannot fathom why we should have it in the first sentence. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cause it's still the official name of the event. and the name of the 2023 Japan Series will not change often.. it shouldn't even change at all now that the event is over.. the 2024 Japan Series might have a different sponsor but that is something that can be mentioned on that page. Other pages, such as College Bowl games that have sponsors that change ever year do list the sponsor name in the header such as 2023 Rose Bowl or 2023 Orange Bowl. Spanneraol (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "official name of the event" mean? The SMBC is just an add-on to the actual name. It's a commercial. Nothing more. We use the name of the event in this encyclopedia. The Bowl Games that are sponsored have the same problem. Secondary sources that report on the game just use "Rose Bowl" or "Orange Bowl". The primary sources use the sponsor in the title because they've been paid to. Who's paying Wikipedia to feature a commercial that prominently? A mention in the body is already way more than is warranted, but fine, if there's a secondary source, throw it in the body. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are so opposed to mentioning the full title in the lead? The sponsorship name is notable in that it gets a lot of coverage... the television broadcasts certainly use it. That wasn't an excuse for you to go and make unilateral changes while this is being discussed just based on your own point of view. Spanneraol (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it isn't "the full title". The full title is the Japan Series. The name of the bank is a commercial. Yes, television broadcasts use it - because they're paid to use it! Those are primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources here, and per WP:SPONSORED, we have no obligation to use sponsored content, like a TV broadcast. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're just plain wrong, it is the full title and I've provided good secondary sources showing it used as the full title. No one is arguing that it should be the title of the article, simply that it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead because it is more than relevant to the subject matter. And, again, you are using another Wikipedia policy incorrectly. WP:SPONSORED does not apply here. --TorsodogTalk 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sponsored content" in the context of that policy seems to be about information or content added to Wikipedia thru paid means, rather than referring to subjects by names that were sponsored. I fail to see how commercial sponsorship disqualifies the name from being mentioned in the lead. Countless buildings, like stadiums and arenas, have corporate sponsor names, but we don't unilaterally decide they shouldn't be the names we use on Wikipedia. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about buildings, like stadiums and arenas, with corporate sponsor names. There's plenty of reliable secondary sourced material on the Citi Field naming rights deal, and it's the actual name of the stadium, so that's completely different. I'm talking about things like the Home Run Derby presented by (whatever sponsor) which is just an advertisement. Few people know or care who sponsored the Home Run Derby in a given year, and if reliable secondary sources don't report on it, neither should we - especially in the first sentence of the article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if it was not in the lead sentence, but later in the lead e.g. 2023 Orange Bowl? —Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems a little more reasonable. In the case of the 2023 Orange Bowl, there is some reliable secondary source documentation about Capital One's deal with bowl game organizers, so late in the lead seems appropriate for that one. To be clear, I'm not looking to install some blanket site-wide policy, because I do think it's dependent on each topic. Maybe more like a guideline - when there is some secondary RS documentation on the naming rights deal, like that Orange Bowl, late in the lead is a good place. When there isn't any, and it's mostly primary sources (ie people who are paid, and effectively forced, to mention the sponsor's name), we should leave that to a short mention in the body. How does that sound? Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, it'd be based on WP:WEIGHT, as you suggest. However, a lot of times, that subtlety is lost and a "blanket policy" might be more manageable with drive-by, copycat editors. YMMV. —Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I actually think the drive-by, copycat editors are mostly responsible for these ephemeral corporate sponsorships appearing in so many first sentences unsourced. A position in the middle is likely doable - guidelines that form a sort of "blanket policy" would be great, but there could be exceptions based on individual articles having subjects where the WP:WEIGHT of coverage of sponsorships comes into play. How do you feel about that? Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it doesnt need to be in the opening sentence if it doesnt match the page title. I think some people apply MOS:LEGALNAME for bios onto other subject areas. AFAIK, there is no guideline as such for non-bios. Also in sports articles (North America at least), there seems to be overuse and undue weight on the word "official" in articles. While we shy away from anonymous sources, I don't see the need to say official. Perhaps just mention the sponsor without needing to state whatever the contractual phrase is. —Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining the sponsorship in a more eloquent way in the lead or simply mentioning the sponsor in the lead could work. I wasn't in love with the way it written in the first place, but I am against the unilateral removal of any mention of the sponsored name because of some personal distaste for the concept of sponsors. Like it or not, that is the title of the event and it is used in both reliable primary and secondary sources, as I've shown. I'm honestly very surprised that this seems to be such a controversial thing. Having a guideline like MOS:LEGALNAME for non-bios would certainly be nice to help to resolve situations like this, especially with more and more things these days being named with sponsors. --TorsodogTalk 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you're accusing me of "blindly" doing something, then I obviously take offense to that as I've explained my reasons quite clearly. And you say a "handful of sources" as if you took any time to actually take a look at the sources. The fact is that this is a Japanese event, yet you seem to simply disregard all Japanese-language sources on the matter. I quickly pulled those 5 sources with almost no effort or searching. Japanese sources DO call this the SMBC Japan Series. I've demonstrated that, yet you continue to ignore it. And I'm not sure what you're on about with "made-up" extended names, but all names are "made up". Sources call it the SMBC Japan Series. That's all that matters, not that you deem that to be "made-up". And as for the rugby bit, I have no idea what you're talking about nor how it is relevant. It's also not really been addressed that the event is called something different in Japan at a very basic level, "Nippon Series" vs "Japan Series". This is being completely lost with the removal of the full title. My compromise is to add the Template:Nihongo in the first sentence (as is done in almost all articles about a topic with a specific Japanese name) to call out this difference in name between regions and then leave the full title of the event in the body of the article where the sponsorship is discussed and cited. --TorsodogTalk 03:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest keep the Japan Series/Nippon Series names due COMMON NAME, but add redirects and mention in article that the SMBC is there due corporative rights? - Meganinja202 (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Danville Otterbots#Requested move 20 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Danville Otterbots#Requested move 20 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on integrating non-AL & NL leagues into MLB season page infoboxes

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)[reply]

Discussion

RfC on league leaders tables

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)[reply]

Discussion

RfC on List-of-teams table, one format for pre-1969 and one for 1969–present

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)[reply]

Where is the WP:RFCBEFORE? You should be seeking input before starting RfCs. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above section was the WP:RFCBEFORE. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot up there that I hadn't noticed. But I agree with Bagumba that I'm not clear on what the perceived issue is or what this would solve. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a question of (potentially) increasing the quality and content of the page. I was previously boldy making additions/changes to the season pages, but discussions broke out because of all the changes I was making. There were several different ideas as to how to format this list-of-teams table. It was suggested that the changes I'm proposing (including the other two RfCs) be submitted as an RfC before making any additional changes. So I'm heeding that suggestion. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best to slow down. We don't need to make changes, just for the sake of making changes. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just for the sake of making changes. There's already a manager section on (most) season pages, and adding stadium content to the pages is relevant information. However, instead of having multiple sections across multiple tables, if they can be consolidated into a single table, it's useful information in a smaller, more compact space. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think either table format is fine (I'm not sure that the shading is necessary), and I would put the maps above the standings tables, since narrower screens might not be able to show these tables and maps side-by-side correctly. Jhn31 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shading probably isn't necessary. The idea for it is that, given it's a sortable table, once a column is being sorted, it'll be easier/quicker to identify what league a team is in.
Also, I'm hesitant to agree with maps-over-standings, as this is not consistent with other Sports-League season pages, which, when containing maps in their page, are almost universal in having the maps under the infobox. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a difference between the pre- and post-1969 formats? CurryCity (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for the sake of being able to fit the maps besides the table. The 1969–present format puts "American League" and "National League" in a small legend above the table. "Division" takes the place of "League" (as it would be pre-1969). Also, the shading besides the leftmost column won't necessarily be there if most feel it is unnecessary. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MLB officially recognizing Negro Leagues (1920 - 1948) in its stat books

Negro Leagues statistics to be officially integrated into MLB historical record Since this has been the subject of spirited debate here since 2020, as MLB said it would do this, and sources like Baseball Reference and Fangraphs followed suit, but the fact that MLB.com didn't show the Negro League stats led some to argue that the situation was ambiguous and maybe we should hold off from including these teams in our 1920 through 1948 season pages, and the various statistical tables. It looks like that argument is formally being taken away.

A lot of lists and player articles have already incorporated the Negro Leagues players, but we might want to edit, for example Batting average (baseball) to explicitly mention that Tetelo Vargas holds the single season record. And there's now no reason not to include these teams and standings on the 1920 through 1948 season pages. Jhn31 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose such additions to the MLB season pages. We should stick with including only the American League & National League stats. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do Wikipedia rules allow for editors to overrule primary and secondary sources, and just go with vibes from the editors' personal axes to grind? Seems like an NPOV issue. Jhn31 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't heard from others yet. A consensus to make the changes you want, must be obtained. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's awesome that MLB recognizes these accomplishments, but just jamming multiple leagues into seasons pages makes the information more difficult to consume. I'd oppose simply because it's less useful. Nemov (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If every non-Wikipedia source says the 1943 MLB batting average leader was Tetelo Vargas, it is more or less useful for Wikipedia to say it was someone else? Jhn31 (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Negro Leagues were not actually part of Major League Baseball during those years. I am not sure that this is a fact that can be retroactively overturned without misrepresenting history as it occurred. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in great detail up the page some. The favored solution was to note in the text of the article that these leagues were considered "major" starting in 2020. Jhn31 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When was this discussion? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Top of this page and a few other times going back to 2020 in the archives. The biggest concern has always been the incompleteness of the records, but now that the MLB database is including them too (as opposed to just BR, Fangraphs, etc.), there's an extra bit of legitimacy. I think all of the arguments to recognize the Federal League would also apply to these leagues now. Jhn31 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how statistical data of dubious reliability suddenly becomes more accurate because Major League Baseball is trying to get some good PR. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a personal opinion though, which we have to stay away from on Wikipedia. The secondary sources have included these leagues for years as "major" and starting tomorrow the primary sources will too. Regardless of any our our personal opinions, I think Wikipedia rules are pretty clear that the content should align to the sources. As stated, noting that these leagues weren't considered "major" until years later is probably appropriate. Jhn31 (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's tons of sources that establish that each of these leagues is a separate entity. They all can be considered major by MLB and that can be noted, but these are historical leagues that have a unique individual history. Nemov (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The National League and American League were separate entities throughout most of the 20th century, yet we combine each of their seasons into a single article under the "Major League" umbrella for convenience. We follow convention for an additional retroactively recognized major league in 1914 and 1915. Why should 1920 through 1948 be any different? Why would we not defer to primary and secondary sources for those years when we do for every other year? Jhn31 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a spurious argument. The American League was separate from the National League, but was still recognized as a Major League back in 1901. There is no retroactive element to the recognition of American League stats as Major League stats from 1901 on (and I am pretty sure that American League stats from 1900 are still not recognized as Major League stats). They were not combined under a "Major League umbrella" for convenience, they were combined because they were considered Major League stats at the time. Rlendog (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns regarding the reliability of historical information cannot be waved away as mere opinion. Neither can you so carelessly dismiss my objection that the Negro Leagues were not, in fact, functioning as a part of Major League Baseball during their years of operation. MLB, for whatever motives it may have (and I suspect we all have our own theories on that), does not have the authority to change the past, nor are we obligated to aid them in their efforts to do so. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is "changing the past" - you're sounding a little conspiratorial there. Any season page would include proper context about how MLB has since recognized certain 1920-1948 Negro Leagues as having "major league" status. However, Wikipedia does not need to be misaligned from both primary and major secondary sources about which leagues, players, and teams qualify as "major" due to political objections from some editors. If Baseball Reference, Fangraphs, ESPN, the Baseball Hall of Fame, etc., and MLB itself say there are leagues beyond just the National and American Leagues whose records count as "major league" records, we should not (and as I understand Wikipedia rules, cannot) overrule all of them and present history as we want it to be. Jhn31 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several times in this discussion you have questioned the motives of the editors with whom you disagree. Can you please stop? Nemov (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just said the quiet part out loud. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is should we include Negro League standings and statistics on pages like the 1925 Major League Baseball season article, I don't see why not.. we list the AL and NL stats separately on that page.. what's the problem with adding additional leagues in a similar fashion? List of Major League Baseball batting champions already includes the Negro Leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to ask on this page about this. We should change our statistics pages at the very least. For example, List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders needs to be changed to indicate that Josh Gibson is now recognized as the career batting average leader (.372 vs. Ty Cobb's .366). Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made an update to the article, and I'd love to hear feedback from everyone, including the skeptics. I put both Gibson and Cobb in the photos at the top as a potential compromise. We'll probably need additional detail for Gibson once the official records are updated. Also the NYT article says that MLB will recognize Gibson as the single-season leader because Vargas in 1943 didn't have enough plate appearances, so further explanation may be necessary. Jhn31 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody believes that you actually wanted to hear feedback from the so-called 'skeptics', but I think you should have waited to see how consensus develops in this thread before making a unilateral change. I'm not going to revert you, but I wouldn't object if somebody else did. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has included Oscar Charleston and other Negro Leaguers for over 3 years. The edit today was simply a proposal of how to address how MLB's recognized leader has now changed. Jhn31 (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your unilateral change. We must be careful about implementing revisional history on MLB related-pages. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you removed Josh Gibson out of the article by ... reverting to a version that still has Oscar Charleston and Jud Wilson (among others) and has for since 2021? How does that make any sense? Jhn31 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay reverted a controversial edit pending further discussion. It's a perfectly sensible thing to do. You said your edit was a proposal, but proposals belong on talk pages. Now that your edit has been reverted, your best bet is to present the edit as a proposal either here or at the article talk page. This will allow us all to gauge the community's consensus, and if it goes against my position, so be it. Wouldn't be the first time, that's for sure. Also, for goodness sake, please quit arguing with everyone who disagrees with you. It's getting quite tiresome. Let us talk to each other. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my proposal was to state that MLB recognized Josh Gibson as the career leader in batting average in May 2024, and to include his picture along Cobb's at the top. I didn't see it as "controversial" or "unilateral" because the article has included Negro Leaguers since June 2021, and didn't see any debate about it from then or since then. I saw the edit as a clarification that MLB recognizes Gibson now, when previously he wasn't included in the article because he didn't have enough plate appearances using Baseball Reference's numbers. (I don't know if that will change in the near future or not.)
As far as being "tiresome," the point of these discussion threads is to discuss and debate back and forth. I don't mind you replying multiple times to me (though I don't think questioning my character was really necessary, but whatever), and I won't stop replying multiple times to others if it's part of a natural discussion. Jhn31 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could stop trying to explain how Wikipedia works to people who already know. I don't recall questioning your character, but I do recall that you've made snide remarks about the motives of at least two of us in this thread. Continue to treat this discussion like a battleground if you wish, but don't be surprised if it backfires on you eventually. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in a separate question, what source do you propose using that will not include these leagues for 1920 through 1948? Please don't dodge this question, I'm not being a smartass, I honestly want to know - if you get your way, and we strike Gibson, Charleston, Wilson, Stearnes, etc., from the article, what will we list as the source? What reference site out there doesn't include them? Jhn31 (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's official now. Wikipedia is out of alignment with all accepted sources, primary and secondary. [https://www.mlb.com/stats/batting-average/all-time-totals Jhn31 (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia will move at the speed of consensus. It might move faster without WP:BLUDGEONING. Nemov (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through the 30-odd comments so far, the discussion here reignites the concerns I had in the above section. Keep in mind, the current consensus for merging non-NL & AL leagues into MLB season pages is that "Consensus is to include the Federal League records in the respective MLB season articles". 1914 & 1915 Federal League standings and stats are currently merged into the 1914 & 1915 MLB season pages, respectively.
Also, keep in mind, the Federal League (as well as the AA, UA, & PL) were only considered "major league" retroactively, in 1969, the same way MLB now considers the NNL, ECL, ANL, EWL, NSL, NNL2, & NAL "major league", retroactively as of 2020. Given this context, the seven Negro Major leagues should be treated the same as the AA, UA, PL, & FL. It should be noted that the organization known as "Major League Baseball" has only existed since 2000. Any references to the combined NL/AL previously used the lowercase descriptor of "major league baseball". In addition, the term "major league baseball" has only existed since the 1960s. One could say that the top major leagues in the US in 1969 were: the NL, AL, NFL, AFL, NBA, ABA, & NHL.
There's several ways to move forward here, though I am of two schools of thought:
  • We combine all major league baseball leagues into each season page, so that, for example, the 1925 MLB season would include the NL, AL, NNL, & ECL. This option is logically consistent with Major League Baseball retroactively intermixing non-NL/AL stats into the NL/AL stats, to have overall MLB stats. However, these pages should not be capitalized until the 2000 season (for example, the 1925 page would be "1925 major league baseball season") as Major League Baseball did not exist until 2000.
  • We have season pages dedicated to each major league entity, where for example, there would be four 1925 season pages, one each for the NL, AL, NNL, & ECL. If the internet and Wikipedia existed in 1925, this would be the only option. There would be no combined "major league baseball" page, as that exact term did not even exist yet. The first MLB season page would eventually be in 2000, since this is when "Major League Baseball" (in its proper noun, legal form) came into existence. The 1903–1999 seasons of NL & AL, with the World Series, a championship between the winners of two leagues, would be analogous to the 1966–1969 seasons of the NFL & AFL of American football, which featured the Super Bowl, initially a championship between the winners of two leagues, later two conferences once the AFL & NFL merged.
  • A theoretical third option is to have both individual and combined league season pages... but this would be, in my opinion (and probably the opinion of most), an obnoxious duplication of data and content.
I think most of anything else is honestly flimsy logic, with (what I believe is) recency bias in keeping NL & AL combined as "Major League Baseball" for 1901–1999 seasons, but keeping the 11 other leagues separate (as in the AA, UA, PL, FL, NNL, ECL, ANL, EWL, NSL, NNL2, & NAL), as "MLB", consisting of the NL & AL, is how we've all thought of American baseball for the past quarter century. One doesn't think of the National League today without thinking of the overarching Major League Baseball, but this wasn't the case 30 years ago. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 16:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batting average tables

The discussion above was all over the place. The main thing I believe we can find a quick consensus on is updating List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders. Perhaps the discussion should take place on that article to work out the specific changes. I would recommend the table in that article be modified to include the specific major league for which the player played. For Batting_average_(baseball) it might be cleaner just to remove the table and explain how MLB counts players from multiple leagues. Nemov (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This project is the wrong place to form consensus on that article and so I have started a talk page discussion for that article for interested editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass change from ballpark to home field

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)[reply]

Home field is a common enough idiomatic phrase when describing which team is hosting the visiting team. However in the context of a stadium article, I agree it's more precise to use the term ballpark to describe the function of the stadium. Thus I feel "ballpark of (team X)" is a better summation of the role of the stadium. isaacl (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Home ballpark" is likely the best phrasing for what Fred was trying to accomplish. The real problem is once more removing the link to the specific ballpark article in favor of the more general stadium article. Yes, ballparks are a type of stadium, but why would one link only the broader article when the more-specific and specialized article exists? oknazevad (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we don't need "home" before ballpark... "ballpark of team x" is pretty self explanatory... it would clearly be the home stadium without needing to specifically say that. Spanneraol (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Zepelin just made more mass changes after they've been reverted. Nemov (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that... He mass reverted an IP that seemingly was making correct revisions based on current consensus. Spanneraol (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the IP got blocked for it. Drmies, I see that IP has been warned for disruptive behaviors, but FZ is the source of the disruptions on this and is ignoring discussion. I warned against edit warring yesterday and they reverted it and today they're right back at it. Nemov (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's self-explanatory but it's not idiomatic. Like seriously unidiomatic to the point it sounds awkward. At least to my ear. oknazevad (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not idiomatic? The ballpark of the atlanta braves sounds perfectly fine. .. adding home before ballpark doesnt make it sound any better. Spanneraol (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One might say "the team's ballpark",indicating ownership, but not "the ballpark of the team". The latter is awkward, because it doesn't indicate the specific relationship with regard to the team. A spring training ballpark could be said to be "the ballpark of the team" as well, but it's not their full-time home ballpark. It's much more common to include the word "home" than not in writing. See also the various other sports' stadia articles across Wikipedia. It's not just a baseball thing. But also look at he sources and how they phrase it. The "the ballpark of the [team]" construction is absent. oknazevad (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You took the words out of my mouth. "Home ballpark" or "home field" is the way I would expect any article on a baseball venue to read. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ballpark or home ballpark I understand, but making a mass change to "home field" to several parks under the claim "no one has ever said that" is weird. Nemov (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Home field" is sometimes used, but usually in terms of home field advantage instead of describing a team's home ballpark. oknazevad (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but that's not really being discussed in this context. Nemov (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's not wrong, per we, but it's not a specific term. And again, removing the ballpark link is unacceptable. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first inclination was to suggest that the phrase be written as "the home ballpark for (team X)", as I think that avoids implying an ownership relationship (though that would appropriate for some venues such as Dodger Stadium). But in deference to the possibility of regional variation, I think "ballpark of (team X)" is clear enough for all readers. isaacl (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the differences were regional, à la "soda" v. "pop," but an internet search turned up nothing. "Ballpark" is described by most dictionaries and wiktionary as baseball specific whereas home field is generic. I'd lean to using ballpark in the above context, with "home" being used sparingly dependent on the sentence structure. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Except baseball stadiums are rarely described as fields... while ballpark is the pretty much uniform designation for them. Yankee Stadium is absolutely a ballpark. Spanneraol (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... it's a stadium. But anyway, why not just say "It is the home of the (whatever team)" and have "home" link to Home (sports), avoiding this kind of silly argument? JimKaatFan (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't actually live there.... and they are ballparks. Spanneraol (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Home (sports), in this context, is a rather meaningless and unhelpful article. A better descriptive article would be ballpark. Just sayin'. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

  • 1. It has been said that I made unilateral mass changes to these articles, and that was pushed by an IP editor that claimed, while rapidly making mass reversions, that I was "the first person to rapidly edit every Major League Baseball stadium article to home field without reaching a consensus in talk." Not true. I was undoing the actual first mass reversion: these edits, done over a span of 2 days, changing the leads of every single MLB stadium to their preferred wording, unilaterally, without a discussion. I undid those and now this IP is pushing a false claim about me. The stable version, for years, of those articles was the one BEFORE those edits I just pointed out. So please stop saying that I was making some mass change on my own, when the actual mass changes were someone else.
  • 2. It has been said that I claimed no one uses the word "ballpark". That is absolutely not true, and I've pointed this out more that once. What I said was, no one uses the phrase "it is the ballpark of". Take a look at two Google searches:

"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)[reply]

Claiming that your undoing a mass change a year later is a bit much especially when those changes weren't all the same. You installed your preferred version again and again even when they had been challenged. Please stop changing these articles until there's consensus. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, you should wait and seek a consensus, sometimes can be tyiring wait to get a consensus but is the best for everyone, since it stopps edit wars.
That said, i think you people should try use "Home Ballpark of *The Team* " , field is more used for Gridion football, and as far i know, different sports use different terminollogies.
For exemple: a field in Soccer/Association football is called a Pitch - Meganinja202 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support ballpark. It is what virtually every piece of baseball media I have seen refers to these stadiums as. There is even a "MLB Ballpark" app. Seems as though Fred Zepelin has been changing a few articles back to his preferred wording without consensus again. 76.167.122.195 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Nemov that it is disingenuous for Fred Zepelin to claim that changing year old edits that went unchallenged until their own is fair. Please wait until we finish our discussion and reach consensus, before reverting "back". 76.167.122.195 (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there's a consensus here for any term, but there's significant enough support to justify using "ballpark." I'm noting this in case someone attempts to make a mass change again. This can be handled locally on each baseball park article. Nemov (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, there is no such thing as "official" baseball history

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)[reply]

ok Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 15:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided that what I say is what matters... to heck with all those people. lol. Spanneraol (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[[Dude, there's no need to laugh at me, sheesh. You could have said nothing. Herostratus (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BESTSOURCES policy says:

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and MLB is not independent, right? Technically, that would put into question whether we should use anything they say at all, at least without tagging. I'm not advocating that for practical reasons, but I don't think we should necessarily take everything they say at face value. Herostratus (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Before MLB.com was updated to include Negro Leagues stats, some people used the argument "why would we consider the Negro Leagues stats as part of MLB history when MLB.com itself doesn't even do that?" That argument is now gone. Taking it a step further, is there any major sources, primary or secondary (something that is continually updated, not a reference book from before 2020) that doesn't include the 7 major Negro Leaguers alongside the American, National, and other major leagues. Jhn31 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"MLB.com itself". That is argument from authority. We don't do that, and no Wikiproject is supposed to do that. We do not use "the Pope himself said so" when deciding whether or not to state as a fact that St Bernadette's body remains incorrrupt. Tho at least the Pope cares about the matter. So ideally we would just blow off people who use the argument from authority.
Of course many of the Negro Leagues were major-league quality. Why do I believe that? One strong reason is because SABR says so, on the basis of extensive research of pretty much academic quality. here, here etc.
Of course we are going to include them as major leagues now. The question is, what about the stats? The stats aren't complete. Baseball Register is including them it seems, and Baseball Register is a good source and that is an important data point. There is a good argument for not including them tho: they're incomplete. That matters. I want to see what SABR and the Hall of Fame have to say about that. Tetelo Vargas is reported to have hit .471 in 1943 which would be the new record. It's not so much that that is in only 30 games, 121 at bats. It's more that he didn't actually hit .471 because we don't have a complete record. Maybe in the missing games he hit better than .471, or maybe worse. Who knows? Nobody. Since he didn't actually hit .471, we should not state "he hit .471" to the reader. We could hedge that ("incomplete stats") and I guess we will, but really the Negro League stats -- not the Negro League teams and players themselves -- are just not in the same category as when we have complete stats.
It's a terrible shame. Of course the way America has treated African-American people from the slave trade forward is a world-historical crime, a terrible one and one of the worst in all history maybe. Of course we want to make up for that as much as we can. But we can't say things that aren't true. I would like to see what SABR has to say about all this. Not what Commissioner Rob Manfred, a businessman and lawyer whose remit is running an profitable enterprise and probably doesn't care all that much about baseball on the field or its history and certainly isn't going to study the matter. I don't care what he says about anything, and people just shouldn't. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Cobb -- change back to .367?

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:

  1. Ty Cobb's batting average was .366.
  2. Ty Cobb's batting average was .367.
  3. Some sources give give Ty Cobb's batting average as .366, some as .367.
  4. According to Major League Baseball, Ty Cobb's batting average was .367. Many non-official sources claim that it is .366. [N.B. I say "many" but not "all" because some books say .367. -ed]

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)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that the horse is dead, and a third bite at the apple will be fruitless. Feel free to reply with your own maxims/puns as you desire, but I doubt the community has any appetite for revisiting this matter yet again. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, as long as we are not going to be like "We give weight to MLB.com on historical matters, except when we don't want to" (like here). That's not excellent. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very weird that Wikipedia pages for MLB players are the only pages without a table of season-by-season stats

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)[reply]

Personally, I find it weird that anyone would spend so much time and effort creating and maintaining stats tables on Wikipedia when sites like the aforementioned baseballreference.com do that already and the strength of Wikipedia is narrative prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB standings look a bit broken now

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").

Increasing width from 535em to 550em, removing leading 0 from %, and adjusting width % for each column:
Status quo but simply applying 90% font size:

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)[reply]

I think the best approach to respect the readers' choices for font size/zoom level is to stop displaying two tables side-by-side and display them one below the other. The table can then be made a bit wider to better accommodate variation in font size. isaacl (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, it should be possible to wrap the American League and National League sections with a <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)[reply]
I added testcases for displaying the league standings next to each other. I made changes in the sandbox to increase the width of the division standings table and adjust the column width allocations, and used CSS flexbox layout at Template:MLB standings/testcases § Testing sandbox template: standings on MLB season page using flexbox layout. For me, though, they only go side-by-side with the settings set to small font, wide display, and a 100% zoom level.(Note it also depends on browser window width.) isaacl (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You guys would know better than I do, does the reduced font size version adhere to MOS:SMALLFONT? It looks less than 85% to my naked eye. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue on the size issue but we can probably remove the "of Anaheim" from the Angels since the season page doesn't use that name anymore and it was always kinda funky. Spanneraol (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still present on season pages when that name was in use by the franchise. I put it in the testcase so the longest name can be tested. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of widest or longest, you may also want to test the templates with the seeding indicator (1) or if a team is ½ a game back. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 05:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to add more testcases! I've made some updates. isaacl (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking of other options but I think the flexbox layout is the way to go! More specifically, almost exactly as you have it on this section of the testcase page. The minor adjustments I'd do are seen here in my sandbox page.
Those minor adjustments would involve either formatting the percentages without the leading 0 and/or widen the table just enough so "(2) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" fits on one line in the "Standard" text size. Wikipedia's "Standard" width will (at least on a 1080p monitor) always force the tables to not be side-by-side, but at least the "Small" & "Standard" text size with the "Wide" width will keep the standings side-by-side. I've made the Home and Away columns wider so that the Win/Loss doesn't wrap around into two lines when the text is set to "Large". It should be noted that, on a 1080p monitor, the widest these tables can be so that they are side-by-side in Wikipedia's "Wide" width is 614em. Admittedly, the Home and Road columns are awkwardly wide when the text is "Small" but it needs to be so that when text is "Large" it doesn't wrap around.
Also, any other side-by-side formatting (that involve the col-start/2/end templates) forces the tables to go past the designated "Standard" width and overlaps the Appearance sidebar. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's different on your sandbox page, so I'll walk through the changes I made to the sandbox template, and perhaps you can walkthrough what is different?
  • Division table:
    • increased width from 535em to 555em
    • reduced percentage allocated to team name from 50% to 48%
    • increased percentage allocated to home and road records from 10% to 11%
  • Win-loss only table (used for division leaders table):
    • increased width from 390em to 405em
  • Wild card table:
    • increased width from 390em to 405em
The "V·T·E" links bump up against the headings at larger font sizes, which is why I started testing width increases for all tables. They're still not wide enough at present; more tweaking or a different adjustment may be needed. It's possible to write code to strip the leading 0 from the percentage, but personally I'd prefer to get by without writing more code if possible.
Forcing a side-by-side display was always a bit of an accessibility issue (it creates left-right scrolling for me, as I browse at a slightly enlarged zoom level), so I think using flexbox layout is preferable. Changing all of the season pages, though, needs some willing volunteers (I think it should be feasible to use AWB to semi-automate the changes).
I'm not clear on your use case with "other side-by-side formatting". Can you add a testcase using the sandbox template with the flexbox layout to provide an example? isaacl (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "other side-by-side formatting", I'm not sure if there are other methods to have two tables side-by-side aside from the current (col-start/col-2/col-end) templates and flexbox, that's why I said "other"... so I guess ignore that.
I've only tested changes on the division table, not the win-loss or wild card table. I have two versions of proposed changes (which keeps percentage as "0.123"). One is so that, even in large text, everything fits on one line. The other allows team names in large text to be in two lines. Both versions resolve the issue of the Home and Road records taking up two lines.
  • Version that keeps everything on one line, even if text is set to Large:
    • increased width from 535em to 700em
    • increased percentage allocated to team name from 50% to 52%
    • decreased percentage allocated to Win, Loss, & Games Behind from 7% to 6%
    • decreased percentage allocated to Win% from 9% to 8%
    • increased percentage allocated to Home and Road records from 10% to 11%
  • Version that allows team names to fit on two lines when text is set to Large:
    • increased width from 535em to 614em
    • decreased percentage allocated to team name from 50% to 45%
    • decreased percentage allocated to Win & Loss from 7% to 6%
    • increased percentage allocated to Games Behind from 7% to 8%
    • increased percentage allocated to Home and Road records from 10% to 13%
In the context of Wikipedia's "Large" text appearance:
By making the table wide enough so everything in a row fits on one line, the table must be increased to at least 700em (this would eliminate the purpose of wrapping tables to be side-by-side, whether by flexbox or 2-column layout, even if the Width setting is set to "Wide", as the table is simply too wide to wrap).
By allowing the team name to be in two lines (while still being on one line when the text appearance is set to "Small" or "Standard"), the table must be increased to at most 614em to allow the table to wrap in the "Wide" width. (These tables will never fit in Wikipedia's "Standard" width side-by-side unless team names and home/road records take up multiple lines).
I'm focusing on the fact that if the table is only increased to 555em, the Home and Road records don't fit on one line and effectively double the height of the table. Also, making the tables as wide as I'm proposing should eliminate the V·T·E overlapping with the Division name.
Also, I've been (slowly) adding more information (schedule section/table of teams, stadiums, & managers/map showing team locations/etc.) to every MLB season page going back to 1901 (currently finished 1901–1936), so I'll gladly volunteer to apply the flexbox format (unless of course AWB can do the job!) I hope I've cleared any confusion! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the sandbox version of the module to specify a width of 614em for the division table and the column percentages you listed. There is still overlap with the template navbar for the American Association and Players' League standings tables. (There's overlap too when the full American/National League division names are used, but I believe none of the current MLB standings templates use the full names.) Thus a wider size would be needed to accommodate those uses. On a side note, I don't get a side-by-side layout with any combination of font size/page width settings; I'm guessing your screen width is larger than mine. isaacl (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball&oldid=1230363726"