Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (61) talk
 → Featured lists (210) talk
 → Good articles (545) 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

2021 MiLB names in team infoboxes[edit]

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[edit]

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]

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

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[edit]

RfC on league leaders tables[edit]

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[edit]

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

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]

Mass change from ballpark to home field[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]
My screen is 1080p (which is 1920 pixels wide). It seems anything that's at least 1440 pixels wide or smaller negates any use of the Standard or Wide widths. Formatting the standings to be side-by-side via flexbox would only benefit those with a higher screen resolution. I can't test for anything between 1440 pixels and 1600 pixels, but I know there's a difference at 1600. Regarding the current 535em tables, they'd only go side-by-side via flexbox with a display resolution of 1680 pixels or more.
I highly recommend that any instance of the endash "–" be replaced with the template {{nbnd}} ("‍–‍") immediately. This would prevent the Home and Road columns from populating multiple lines, in the same way "& n b s p ;" (with no spaces) does. (I now need to test the width % of each column again and adjust percentages... I wish I knew about this before!)
It may be that the side-by-side formatting just ends up being a luxury for those with wider monitors. Much depends on whether we want team names to strictly appear on one line, or allow for the team names to appear on multiple lines.
Regarding the V·T·E, what if we added a line above everything for the name of the division/league? An example of what I'm talking about can be seen here (an added bonus could be color coding American League and National League with red and blue, respectively, as well). The V·T·E would fill the box where the division/league name used to be. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perhaps we don't necessarily need the tables to be a defined em width? The tables could be formatted so instead of the table at large being defined, the columns themselves could be defined (as is the case with the NFL standings templates). That way, the changing text size doesn't create unnecessarily wide boxes. Basically, if the text is smaller, the box is narrower. If the text is larger, the box is wider. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the change I'm talking about, changing the table from table defined by an overall table-width to a table where columns define the width. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 15:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From an accessibility point of view, not specifying a width is best. I think it would mean forgoing a side-by-side display (I don't think it can be done with CSS alone unless a width is specified, and Javascript is overkill for this purpose and so wouldn't get approved). For that reason I hadn't floated that idea before (I didn't want to get into an argument with those who might prefer that layout). With the introduction of the readability tools to Wikipedia, though, I agree that getting rid of the fixed width should be considered. It would also mean that the division tables and the individual columns may have different overall widths when stacked on top of each other, unless the tables were set to fill the full available width. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sandbox module by removing the table widths, and added a test case without any columns or flexbox layout. The flexbox layout test case still allows for side-by-side layout, but there's no attempt to avoid line breaks within the cells, as the browser will squeeze the columns narrower as needed to try to fit the tables next to each other. And it seems the squeezing still happens even if the second block of tables has to overflow to below the first block. So I think the new testcase is the better approach if removing the table widths. isaacl (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we allow squeezing to happen, ideally, we only want it affecting the team name column (hence my desire to replace all instances of "–" with the template {{nbnd}}. The output is the same ("‍–‍") but it forces the "##‍–‍##" to stay on one line.
I'm in the middle of testing different column widths here to try and minimize table widths as much as possible without making the table needlessly wider.
Also! I know I wrote a lot in my previous comment but how do you feel about adding the header row on top of the table? That would resolve the V·T·E overlap. Alternatively (and I can't format it correctly), have the V·T·E in the top row with the division/league name, and have it so "Team" is the column header. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found a near-solution to the differing column widths. This will result in tables that are only 1 or 2 pixels off in Small or Standard text and up to 4 pixels off in Large text. The GB column will be the same, regardless of if there is "½" or not. 

  ! width="245" | Team
  ! width="24" | [[Win (baseball)|W]]
  ! width="24" | [[Loss (baseball)|L]]
  ! width="35" | [[Winning percentage|Pct.]]
  ! width="27" | [[Games behind|GB]]
  ! width="39" | [[Home (sports)|Home]]
  ! width="39" | [[Road (sports)|Road]]



  ! width="245" | Team
  ! width="24" | [[Win (baseball)| W ]]
  ! width="24" | [[Loss (baseball)| L ]]
  ! width="35" | [[Winning percentage|Pct.]]
  ! width="27" | [[Games behind| GB ]]
  ! width="39" | [[Home (sports)|Home]]
  ! width="39" | [[Road (sports)|Road]]

Basically, the "W" and "GB" each have an instance of &nbsp; before and after it, while "L" has &numsp;, since "L" is narrower than "W".

Within the brackets, it would look like this: "Win (baseball)|&nbsp;W&nbsp;", "Loss (baseball)|&numsp;L&numsp;", and "Games behind|&nbsp;GB&nbsp;". (I hate trying to show examples of html text as it would look in an edit!) Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 17:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With table markup, I think the only choices are to specify the cell width in some manner, or let the browser's layout algorithm do its work. (If something like grid or flexbox layout was used instead of the table, more control can be asserted on what is allowed to shrink/grow, but I think that would be too obscure to allow for easy maintenance.)
I'm not a fan of having a cell span the entire width of the table, due to semantics: it would essentially be a caption, and so I would prefer using a table caption for better accessibility. I can try mocking something up later with a table caption. (I do not like changing the default background colour, as it means viewability and colour contrast has to be considered across different skins and dark mode.) isaacl (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last example, if the table width is going to be allowed to expand as necessary, then we shouldn't specify fixed column widths. Pixel-perfect layout isn't a goal to strive for with a responsive design. isaacl (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is possible to set slight restrictions within the bounds of a responsive design, no? Here are two examples. One which features the NFL-division style header (here) and one which maintains the current MLB format (here). Regardless of the change in text size, each division table both grows with the text size, and also maintains a near-consistent column width. The cell-spanning-the-entire-width to me, is a decent solution to resolve the V·T·E overlap. Alternatively, in keeping the current table format, instead of spelling out "National League" or "American Association", their abbreviations "NL" or "AA" are simply used.
Also, regarding the visibility with the red and blue colored headers (not that I'm necessarily in favor of this either), the colors (as well as the colorless darker gray that outputs by using ! instead of | in the tables) don't change with dark mode. Regarding other skins? Outside of Custom CSS or Custom JavaScript skins, the color contrast remains consistent with the current Vector default skin and all other options that are selectable in Special:Preferences. However, I didn't check different browsers. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 18:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifying the width in (CSS) pixels for every column isn't a slight restriction. It locks down the widths just as much as specifying the width of the entire table and allocating percentages to each column. Using a font-related unit is also more amenable to handling changes in font size.
Regarding dealing with other skins and dark mode: the appearance of the cells against the main background should be considered. I'd rather just use the skin/dark mode defaults that have been tested. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> is a good way to show code examples. For example: [[Win (baseball)|&nbsp;W&nbsp;]] (See mw:Extension:SyntaxHighlight for more details.) isaacl (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was trying to get it to appear in the proofreading format I had above, but I lost my patience in trying to get it to work! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the sandbox module to use table captions and to put zero-width joiner characters around the en-dashes in order to prevent line breaks. You can see the results on the testcases page. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the testcase using flexbox layout to provide additional guidance on how the two blocks of tables can be expanded/shrunk to fit the available space (now that the table is no longer a fixed width). It now shows a side-by-side layout at narrow window widths than before. (Note increasing the font size effectively narrows the window; with the change, a side-by-side layout appears with the text size set to large and the width set to wide.) isaacl (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The headers as you have it are great, especially with the V·T·E no longer being able to overlap. I think the rest looks great, aside from Large text (at least on 1920 pixel width), but that's by virtue of teams taking multiple lines of space. It's unavoidable if the goal is to always have two columns. I adjusted the percentages slightly (the Home and Road are now 10% each and Teams 51%. Previously this was 13% each and 45%, numbers I had used before I knew there was a way to code the endash to restrict breaks).
Is there a way for there to be no breaks between the seeding # and team name? That's part of the problem with the large text. On 1080p at least, with Large text and Standard width, for example, the AL East looks like this (unlike here, it is centered in the table):
(1)
Baltimore
Orioles
(4)
Tampa
Bay
Rays
(6)
Toronto
Blue
Jays
If there were no break, the table could be a bit shorter and the AL & NL columns' hieght would be aligned a little better.
(Side note: I wish I knew what I was looking at with the module. I'd spend the extended amount of time to write the code myself to get rid of that leading 0 if it meant the Team text could have just a little more room! Maybe I'll spend some time to figure it out).
Aside from what I mentioned, I think this may be the way to go. Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 23:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the space to a non-breaking space, so the text should not break at that point.
Part of my not wanting to write more code than necessary is that I'm not sure if there are any other editors interested in baseball who know Lua, so I didn't want to make the code more complicated if it wasn't needed. However, I see I already convert the percentage to a string for formatting, so I guess what's a little more string manipulation... I've coded a change in the sandbox module. (The other part is that it doesn't seem like it should be necessary to strip out "0" to deal with a table layout that is much, much wider than a single character. :-) isaacl (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you beat me to it (by a lot... I was still trying to find what I was looking for here xD ) That's much better! I personally think this could be the version. Thanks for hearing out some of my ideas and allowing me to (basically) badger you to update the Module! Spesh531(talk, contrib., ext.) 01:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike zone and Base on balls opening image crop request[edit]

Was going to create and redirect "Low and away" to Strike zone ('Strike Zone' probably should be uppercased, no?, which is now taken by the name of a Star Trek novel and, come to think of it, I'm going to boldly go and change the name and redirect uppercase to the now lowercase Strike zone to see if it sticks). A request, can someone here who is good at cropping images tackle the opening image at Strike zone and Base on balls and separate the strike zone data from the advertisement for Goodyear? Thanks. This would also enlarge the important page-pertinent details. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also created 'High and inside' and redirected it to 'Strike zone'. Moved the uppercased page to Strike Zone (book) and redirected Strike Zone to Strike zone. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP[edit]

Just a heads up: there is a disruptive IP address editor who is reformatting pages of Hall of Famers in a way which is unhelpful at best. They give no explanation for their edits either and have been at it for a few weeks now. Just keep a lookout and report them if possible. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Tony Kemp (baseball)#Requested move 8 June 2024[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tony Kemp (baseball)#Requested move 8 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball&oldid=1232076803"