Jump to content

Talk:World Baseball Classic

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

Parens versus footnote in the lead

[edit]

I suppose it's more of a personal stylistic preference, but overuse of parentheses really grate on me, especially in the lead. The lead is supposed to be the most essential information about the topic; sentences on digressions not directly related to the subject of the article aren't really the best use of precious lead space. But I do think footnotes are a good way to deal with digressions. So I made this edit about the Olympic baseball tournament now being defunct: [1]. Note that I removed a source for clarity, but the natural place to cite that source is at the article about the Olympic baseball tournament. Here it's just a tangent. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I planned to move the link to Baseball at the Summer Olympics, but apparently the link has since changed. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in world map

[edit]

On the world map indicating past and future WBC participants, Cuba is colored blue indicating that it is a 2013 qualifier, but should be colored red because Cuba reached the finals against Japan in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.87.213 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

I certainly am not opposed to criticizing the WBC, but neither of the articles cited in this edit is very strong. The Sports Business Daily article was published a few days before the first tournament, so it is based entirely on people's negative expectations and has little bearing on the tournaments as they have actually taken place. As for the journal article, while it appears in what seems to be a peer-reviewed sociology journal, it really reads more like an extended op-ed, it is written by a grad student in "Rhetoric and Writing" rather than a credentialed sociologist, and the vast majority of its references are online news articles. Furthermore, its focus on the WBC is inordinate; most of its criticisms could just as easily have been leveled at international competition more broadly (e.g., the Olympics), and much of it is about Japan-Korea relations and not about sports at all. I think it would be Undue Weight to have these in the article without a broader discussion of the tournament's reception, so I am reversing the edit. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Good move.--Cúchullain t/c 12:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the fact that the news article was published prior to the start of the tournament warrants its dismissal. Yes, probably the misgivings were based on certain biases or prejudices, but they aren't the opinions of random people blogging from their basements; they're the opinions of reputable sports authorities (Steinbrenner I’m sure knew more about baseball and its politics than most of us). Perhaps we can edit to say something along the lines of “Prior to the tournament, certain figures such as ... voiced criticisms (misgivings?) about the tournament’s intentions and legitimacy?” Something that merely notes that there was criticism, without suggesting one way or another as to their validity. Then, I think, we can maintain the necessary amount of neutraility.

In terms of the academic article in question, I think you raise valid points, but I don’t think we should dismiss it, because I think it meets the criteria of “reliable sources” for Wikipedia. I admit that it’s not the strongest piece of scholarship I’ve read, although I don’t know if it reads like an op-ed piece to me. But in my original edit, I was merely noting that the WBC has been criticized in academic scholarship; I never made indication that it was _good_ scholarship. I appreciate your efforts to determine the reliability of the article, but the fact that it was found in a peer-edited, indexed, print academic journal I think is sufficient. Shouldn’t the methodology and import of the individual article be left to the professional expertise of the editor, the consulting editorial board, and the blind peer-reviewers? There is a lot of “less than good” academic scholarship cited in Wikipedia, and a lot of sources cited in sources less-vigorously vetted than peer-reviewed journals. On the issue of its topical focus being “inordinate,” I think the author makes clear that the focus on the WBC is because the tournament is an overtly for-profit enterprise, unlike the Olympics (in theory, anyway). Also, the author notes that the focus on the colonial narrative was forcibly sensationalized in order to gain viewer interest/investment in a Korea/Japan matchup (something that wouldn't be necessary if it were two more "traditional" baseball countries). Maybe the real issue, then, is the article is more critical of reporting of the WBC rather than the WBC itself. Perhaps we need a separate section on the Media Coverage of the WBC (which the JSSI article happens to gloss over), and this could fit in as a subcategory there? --basically33

As I recall, George Steinbrenner was outspoken in 2006 about his dislike for the WBC, mainly because he didn't want to put Yankees players at risk of injury for any activity that did not directly benefit the Yankees. I would tend to view his other criticisms of the tournament as being subservient to that goal.
Peer review is not a magic wand that imparts quality or correctness. We still have to evaluate the quality even of peer-reviewed articles, and I don't think we should knowingly use anything that is (to use your phrase) "less than good."
Overall, it just seems that both of these topics are of rather minor importance. If we had a finely detailed article here, then including them might be fine. But with the article as barebones as it is, including them now would be WP:Undue weight. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you answered my initial question re: Steinbrenner's criticism of the WBC. It's commonly acknowledged that he was critical of the WBC because he didn't want his players to get hurt. But what is the problem with noting that there was criticism, irrespective of his intent?Basically33 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to be careful about WP:Undue weight, especially as (to my knowledge) Steinbrenner did not keep up his criticism after the event actually occurred. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting past appearance / past finish tables

[edit]

I've seen comparable tables in other competition-related articles that accurately sort non-numeric fields (i.e. best finish), so Champion, Runner-Up, Semi-Finalist, etc etc. I think there are some examples when you look at comparable soccer tournaments. I'd love to fix the formatting here, but I must admit, I'm not very comfortable with wikipedia's markup for tables, so I'd rather not ruin them by trying to improve them. Thanks! Rustyspatula (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"3rd/4th place"

[edit]

Bracket tournaments do not alone determine anything other than 1st place. You cannot infer second, third, fourth, etc place from bracket tournament results.

Consider: 

1
|--- Winner: 1
2            |
             |--- Winner: 1
3            |
|--- Winner: 3
4

While the first place was 1, the team they played in the finals was not the second best, but the third best. It just so happens that the second best team was eliminated in the semifinals.

This is why FIFA championships (iirc) have an extra matchup between the loser of the final and the loser of the winner's semifinal in order to determine second place.

- Keith D. Tyler 22:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is known as an "opinion." LordAtlas (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the loser of the final is obviously the 2nd place, but without a game for 3rd place, there is no 3rd or 4th place, just semifinal-losers.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2021 World Baseball Classic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Mis-Disinformation

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 24 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Theiceman919 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Theiceman919 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WBC actually not known as "the Classic"

[edit]

The assertion that the tournament is also known as "the Classic" is an exaggeration, at best, and pretty much not true. The evidence cited is a single YouTube page whose title happens to include the words "the Classic". There is probably not a single person who would think of the World Baseball Classic if you told them "the Classic". I'm tempted to delete the phrase. Other views? GauchoBear (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Baseball_Classic&oldid=1243703150"