Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

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


Archive

Player Archives


1 2 3

What Player Has Paid for Image Changing[edit]

According to this article there is a baseball player who has engaged an UPE to make sure there is a skinny image of him. Facts from the article, which I am going to presume magefor sake of the argument as true and fact checked by the author:

  • A one-time overweight player
  • An image that a newbie editor tried with-in the last three years to change that a more savvy editor later made stick
  • The player had high career earnings

I dismiss as somewhat ludicrous that 30-50 socks would be needed for this - that would draw too much attention. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Barkeep49. I have zero clue, but just wanted to add that while this type of edit is fairly unproblematic, from the company's website it's fairly clear that they have no qualms about using Wikipedia for promotion, and if we can find this article it will probably lead to others. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This is interesting. I have no idea of who it could be, or how we could narrow it down. Maybe we should elevate this to WP:AN. They might have ideas on what to do. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I have manually checked about 40 players who are all active or recently retired and haven't found anyone whose picture changed in the last 3 years that would fit this criteria. I also spent time I wouldn't have normally spent on Wikipedia doing this because I don't want to run down rabbit holes of things that may or may not be true when I could be doing things guarenteed to be productive (e.g. article creation or NPP). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if my half-joking suggestion has roped in some folks. I looks like a nearly impossible task and is also likely to come up with some false positives. I hadn't realized that "fat baseball players" was a thing until I googled it and got The Fattest Baseball Players To Appear In The Postseason. If there are this many fat, high-quality players, we're going to have to do a lot of checking, and then how can we be sure the player fits the article mentioned? In any case, I just checked one, David Ortiz. A photo of a younger, fairly slim, Ortiz was added to the article about 3 years ago after another photo was deleted as a copyright violation. I have no way of viewing the deleted photo, but am pretty sure that he would appear heavier than in this one. But how to verify that the change was made by paid editors?
If just the 1st article I checked could be the player (but is unlikely to be further confirmed), I've probably sent folks on a fool's errand. Sorry. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I had already checked Ortiz as he was an obvious candidate (I'm trying to avoid naming the players I've checked because I don't wish to perpetuate fat shaming). The editor who replaced the image has only edited Ortiz's article but those edits go back to 2007 and so I think it highly unlikely to be a case of UPE just SPA. I will also say I had done all this checking without having seen your message at the noticeboard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Wait.. you can get paid for editing wikipedia? How do i sign up? LOL.. Spanneraol (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
My first thought was actually CC Sabathia since he was skinny in 2014 before putting it back on. The current pic is from July 18 though so I don't even know if it's worth it bother checking the history on that. Of course, any regulars know you can't just post any random image on here, skinny or not. Can't think of too many others. Wizardman 14:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Dead links to The Baseball Cube[edit]

Earlier this year, The Baseball Cube web site changed its URL scheme, breaking somewhere around 2,000 to 3,000+ links from articles that use Template:Baseballstats. The template has been updated, but individual articles still have dead links. You can find the articles within Category:Pages using baseballstats with unknown parameters.

The way to fix each article is to go to The Baseball Cube site, find the player's page, and then edit the Baseballstats template in that player's WP article to replace the player's name with their new Baseball Cube ID, like this.

All interested editors are welcome to fix these articles. I will watch this page for a while in case there are any questions. For background, see this discussion. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Updating the Phillies' featured roster lists (is this the right place to ask for this?)[edit]

Hi. I've noticed something rather troubling recently regarding the all-time roster pages for the Phillies: It appears that the content featured in each list has not been updated in seven or eight years. Looking at this page, Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H), is particularly off-putting. Besides not including a guy like Rhys Hoskins, it suggests that the now-deceased, 2019 Hall of Fame ballot member Roy Halladay is still on the 25-man roster.

I know this is something I could fix myself, but fixing every page is overwhelming. So, is it possible that we can get some people to upgrade these pages for 2018? I'm willing to be one of them, if I give myself enough time, but I'd need a lot of help. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is the right place to ask about this.
The editor responsible for getting those roster links to featured status retired from Wikipedia, sadly. The two options before us are eiter (a) us updating the lists as you suggested, or (b) having their featured status removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. Since I just returned from my own long hiatus from editing Wikipedia, which I had edited under a previous nickname, I don't really know the status of most past Wikipedians like that.
Anyway, I wanted to bring this up now because I didn't think immediately sending the articles to FL removal was a good idea. Again, I'm willing to fix, assuming I remember how to edit lists correctly. It actually may not be that hard, as I counted 53 players debuting for the Phillies between now and the 2010-11 vintage lists we have, and there may not really be that many existing players who need statistical updates, although I can't be sure. It still seems daunting to me, however. I'd continue about this, but I don't want to ramble on too much longer. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I have an updated version of the A list in my sandbox, but I haven't published this due to some fundamental issues I'm having with its format. However, if people like it...I guess I can add it to the mainspace. I don't like it for many reasons, reasons that I won't rage-dump on this talk page all at once. I can bring them up later if you'd like. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Nothing's really happening here. I really don't want to rage-dump the concerns I have with these lists, but I may have to soon. All I know for sure is that saving these eighteen lists is more overwhelming than I thought. That's why I need to take a break from them. There are more comforting things to do on Wikipedia than try to save lists that still look bad when you update them for 2018. It's looking like I may send these lists to Featured List Removal in four weeks. That's ample enough time for people to be prepared for it. I wish I didn't have to, but these lists are leaving me with no choice. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC) (Sorry about having to do this...)
It is a major undertaking, requiring constant upkeep. The editor had keep working on it for it to stay at FL standards, but they retired. I don't have the interest in doing it, and I don't blame you for not either. It's a shame, but so it goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Baseballstats template[edit]

Re: {{Baseballstats}} - My impression is that using this template to link multiple stats websites would violate WP:NOT and WP:EL, and it doesn't follow MOS. I've not looked around much, but my guess is that this is an external links template that was created without knowledge of the general consensus that more than one such link should not be added to articles in most situations. If there's been any discussion at all, could someone point to it? --Ronz (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ELYES: What can normally be linked: ... 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. (emphasis added) – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
So you're saying that each site has unique information that meets ELYES criteria? --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Spanneraol (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Could someone demonstrate with an example? --Ronz (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
They don't appear unique, even by the most cursory review, (the Baseball-Reference minor league stats link just goes to a subpage of the Baseball-Reference main page). --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
No it's not. Its a completely different link. This link was added to baseballstats for a reason. It's not just sitting there to not be used. What is your obsession here?-- Yankees10 02:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC.
Are you claiming that the Baseball-Reference minor league stats link doesn't go to the subpage (actually a tab on the page) of the Baseball-Reference main page? You may not be aware, but linking to sub-pages in an External links section in that manner is against general consensus. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Well for some players who havent played in the majors yet.. the minor league link is the only one available on BR... and it allows a quick reference for minor league stats even for the major leaguers. I don't think we particularly need the ESPN or baseball cube links.. but they arent used as often as BR or mlb anyway so i dont think its a concern. Spanneraol (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that those BR minor league pages also include stats from many foreign leagues -- including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Cuba, and various Caribbean winter leagues -- as well as Negro League statistics. The template should probably be updated to reflect this. -Dewelar (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Having the template is fine. The concern might be more of WP:NOTLINKFARM. I don't think ESPN provides added value for stats, and Baseball Cube and Retrosheet seem more like niche sites compared to more oft-cited Baseball-Reference and Fangraphs.—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Thinking about this, I think the Baseball Reference non-MLB pages cover most, if not all, of the same ground as Cube, but even more broadly, so I think Cube might be redundant now. I also don't know that Retrosheet offers anything additional beyond what the other included sites do. Agreed that ESPN is entirely unnecessary. On the other hand, I might suggest adding a link to Seamheads for Negro League-related stats, as I believe them to be more definitive than BR. -Dewelar (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Cube may not be redundant, as I'd forgotten that they also list coaching and front office positions on their player pages, which I don't believe any of the other sites do. -Dewelar (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the Retrosheet parameter was added about a week ago. Given LINKFARM concerns here, there might not be consensus for it.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

For Baseball Cube, given the thread above about the parameter being broken in about 3,000 articles, as well as Spanneraol and me thinking the link is overkill, perhaps it's all the more reason to delete this one too.—Bagumba (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

re Baseball Cube - d:Property talk:P4731. Cabayi (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

GA possibility?[edit]

Hello all--the best thing that came out of my Wikipedia class is Baseball in Germany. I'd love it if some of you could have a look at the article (and maybe do what you can, what you do best, to help it) to see how far it is removed from a possible GA nomination. I don't know if Germanboi87 is ready for it, but he's done a great job and I'm curious to see what you all think. Dr Aaij (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dr Aaij: My editing plate is full at the moment so I am not going to be the one to improve and take it through but I think your student did a good job. I am believe that with a willing editor basically any article which is not a quickfail can be brought up to GA standard during the process. Sometimes this takes more work than others. This would probably be on the more side as some section's writing would need to be revised, including the LEAD. I would say he has done a good job and is pretty much set with criteria 1a, 2, 4, and 5. While I have checked some sourcing I don't have current access to Chetwynd and have not done the complete source review I would do in a GA review. Hope that helps. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Barkeep49, I have seen you do much good work, and I appreciate your comment. Germanboi87, very impressive. Dr Aaij (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)