Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Baseball (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Player Archives

1 2 3

Names for lists based on single-game stats[edit]

OK I've renamed most of the lists based on the naming convention at #Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions.

Recapping, list names for stat leaders are now of the form: List of <league> <type_of_listing> <stat> leaders

where <type_of_listing> includes:

What's left are some lists based on stats for a single game:

Should we convert these following to the general format, like "List of Major League Baseball single-game <stat> leaders", or should some/all be exceptions?

Also, in light of possible "single-game" lists, maybe we should change "seasonal" to "single-season" too?—Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of changing "seasonal" to "single-season". As for the single game lists, this is an interesting topic. I'm all for following the format but at the same time these to seem to be special accomplishment lists and a strong argument could be made for not changing the names. Hopefully more people will join this disscussion as I'd like to here some more opinions on this subject. Taffe316 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
"Seasonal" should absolutely be renamed to "single-season", as "seasonal", in my opinion, is interchangeable with "annual" or "yearly" (which is a completely separate category from what is intended here). As for single game lists, I suppose if we wanted to be consistent, we could rename them as recommended, but I am neutral on this. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 21:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I semi-boldly renamed it to "single-season", there are only two pages, so no big to undo if there is real objection.—Bagumba (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I've also moved List of Major League Baseball hitters with most runs in one game to List of Major League Baseball single-game runs scored leaders for consistency, since the original name was generic to begin with.—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Poll for handling single-game lists[edit]

Following is an overview of single-game stats lists, showing existing names, whether it is currently an FL, and it's generic name using current naming conventions for stats lists:

Existing name FL Generic name
List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game Yes List of Major League Baseball single-game home run leaders
List of Major League Baseball hitters with two grand slams in one game Yes List of Major League Baseball single-game grand slam leaders
List of Major League Baseball hitters who have batted in 10 runs in one game Yes List of Major League Baseball single-game runs-batted-in leaders
List of Major League Baseball hitters with six hits in one game No List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders
List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 18 strikeouts in one game Yes List of Major League Baseball single-game strikeout leaders
List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning Yes List of Major League Baseball single-inning strikeout leaders

Some options are to move to the generic name to be consistent, or leave the name as is, but have a redirect from the generic name for consistency. Add other options as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Option 1 - Move to generic name
  1. Prefer not having specific cutoff criteria within the article name. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. Initially went with status quo name in Option 2, but moving here in the interest of trying to form a consensus, and the name being in a consistent format with the other lists is definitely a plus. In truth, I can go with way on the names.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Option 2 - Keep existing name, create redirect from generic name
(move my !vote to Option 1) These all seem to be specific, semi-recognizable achievements, as opposed to being a generic cutoff for a leaderboard as in the career and annual lists. Most are FLs as well. I'm inclined to leave the achievement as the name, but have the generic name as a redirect for those familiar with the generic naming convention who are searching for a specific single game list.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Option 3 - Do nothing

I've gone ahead and made the moves as described above.—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Template merger[edit]

Template:Infobox MLB player and Template:Infobox baseball biography are finally being merged together. Babe Ruth is an example of what he new infobox looks like. It's essentially the same thing with the only noticeable difference being how the debut and final games are displayed (it's now "MLB:" instead of being "MLB debut" in the header). What do people think about the new way? Should it stay this way or go back to how it was displayed? Personally I think it should be in the header like it was previously and only be necessary if the player played in another league. It just looks odd if the player only played in MLB.--Yankees10 22:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you... it looks a bit weird if he only played in one league. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I think if someone has only played in one league, the header should state the league they played in for the debut/last played date (e.g. "Professional debut" becomes "MLB debut" and "Last professional appearance" becomes "Last MLB appearance"). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 23:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hiya. I'm the editor who's going to be completing the merge via bot, once we settle on appearance. I've edited {{Infobox baseball biography}} in its sandbox to display the league of the debut/final appearances in the header if they are supplied in situations where there are no more than one league. See Template:Infobox baseball biography/testcases. The left is what we have now, the right is my update. ~ RobTalk 00:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know if Ichiro is a good example to use since he did play in different leagues.. none of which was named TFL. Spanneraol (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Spanneraol: It's purely for test purposes to demonstrate the different headers; the information itself is irrelevant. I just typed in some stuff to fill the relevant fields. ~ RobTalk 05:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Any feedback on the proposed design? If not, I plan to implement it early next week. It's what matches most closely with the original {{Infobox MLB player}} template, and a couple of you described the change I made as desirable above. In the absence of any opposition, I'll consider this resolved. ~ RobTalk 06:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There was a small accessibility issue with adding links in the header. Given the color schemes used by some teams, having links in the header with a default link color would violate WP:COLOR. As a result, I'm implementing what was in the sandbox with the addition of a feature to de-link any parameters that are placed in a header. Keep in mind that these are always links to the leagues players played in, which are surely present in the article itself, probably in the lead. This trade-off is necessary to allow for the design you've asked for. Let me know if you'd like any other changes. ~ RobTalk 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Yankees10, Y2kcrazyjoker4, and Spanneraol: By the way, if we're putting MLB in the debut/final headers, it also makes sense to put that in the career statistics header as well, correct? That's been the past use of this template, such as in Dan Black (baseball). If we put the league in some headers and not others, it would look incredibly inconsistent. Any objections? ~ RobTalk 04:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. No objections here.--Yankees10 05:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile to merge Template:Infobox MLB player/testcases into Template:Infobox baseball biography/testcases, and in the interim having a side-by-side comparison of Template:Infobox MLB player to Template:Infobox baseball biography. I'm assuming it's expected to look pretty much the same?—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: {{Infobox MLB player}} appears to be split off from {{Infobox baseball biography}} (or vice versa). There may be minor differences in dimensions, but the headings and parameters are exactly identical with the exception that Infobox MLB player treats MLB as the default whereas Infobox baseball biography requires the league parameters, as it's more general. ~ RobTalk 06:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox baseball biography/testcases now has Infobox MLB player in a side-along comparison for the first testcase, which is the only one worth comparing as the other contain multiple leagues not supported by Infobox MLB player. Other than some minor dimensional differences (image size, for instance) and color configurations (the infoboxes seem to reverse the team colors in some areas, not a big deal), the content is presented in pretty much the same way, as should be the case. ~ RobTalk 06:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

New York Yankees official colors[edit]

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

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

Proposed color changes[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) @Charlesaaronthompson: No, we don't have to use a color set that's non-compliant. As per the WMF's non-discrimination policy, which cannot be "circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies", we cannot discriminate against users on the basis of their disability. Those with visual difficulties will have trouble seeing color combinations that are not AAA compliant, which falls afoul of the non-discrimination policy and WP:CONTRAST, which derives from it. If the worry is that using a slightly darker shade is not accurate, we can do away with that color combination entirely and use only the primary one. ~ RobTalk 01:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
By the way, you can see the difference between the color you claim is official and my AAA compliant alternative here: [1]. You'll notice that the difference is essentially undetectable. ~ RobTalk 01:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, the orange color schemes are not even AA compliant with white, and aren't AAA compliant with black. A darker (if we use white) or a lighter (if we use black) orange is needed. ~ RobTalk 01:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
All the colors in the table at the top of this section are compliant. I don't see why we can't go forward with implementing the color changes as I have outlined. I'm not trying to claim ownership; I'm just saying I've checked to see if they are compliant, and they are not only that, but should be as approximately official as possible (The Mariners' colors are official, and also WCAG 2.0 compliant, as seen here and here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That second link, which is the color combination I took issue with, says "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant: NO". That's the issue. They're not AAA compliant. ~ RobTalk 01:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the guidelines at WP:CONTRAST state that "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least WCAG 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible". The color combination seen here reaches the minimum of WCAG 2.0's AA level. That's the minimum required. Even though it doesn't reach WCAG 2.0's AAA level (but it does reach WCAG 2.0's AAA (18pt+) level), I still sincerely believe that the colors need to be official. I don't want to use inaccurate color information. I have official color information from the Mariners. I sincerely believe those colors need to represented at Module:Baseball color/data. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It is feasible to use a slightly different color that achieves AAA status. The color I proposed looks visually identical when not comparing the two side-by-side. Additionally, we've yet to see anything that verifies that your color codes are official. ~ RobTalk 02:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, since you don't believe that my colors are official, here is the .PDF file of the Seattle Mariners Style Guide: file:///C:/Users/Charles/Documents/Charles' Documents/2015_SEA_Style Guide.pdf#page=5 (I can't make it a link, so to view it, just copy and paste it into your browser). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified navboxes[edit]

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

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

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

Infobox: Regular season Division titles being linked to LDS.[edit]

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

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

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

Help with article for Pensacola Blue Wahoos owner[edit]

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

Template:MLB Playoff Summary[edit]

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

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

Montreal Expos partnership agreements[edit]

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

Ownership information in team articles[edit]

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

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

The rules have changed[edit]

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

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