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.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
What is the opinion of the above website? It is linked to 1,023 baseball pages. It doesn't appear to add any unique info, it doesn't reference any of their info to anything, it doesn't appear to have any significance to any reputable organization, it appears to be nothing more than an extension of a blog. On digging a bit deeper, I find it may have originally been baseballlibrary.com, which has 2,215 dead links in articles. I am of the mind that both of these links should be removed en mass by a bot. What are some other opinions? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given what I currently know, I support mass removal. If any editor can provide more insight/context and believes it should be retained... please add comment. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I just saw, prior discussions did not involve a lot of editors, but comments were negative about the site, except for one in 2010. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: Thanks for the previous discussion links. It appears that baseballlibrary.com has been usurped since maybe 2015 (according to the last crawl by wayback on a few random pages), but it does include a list of authors with their credentials and each players' blurb is credited with initials. Unfortunately, some authors are credentialed but some are nobodys. Those may be salvageable if InternetArchiveBot links the archived page, but are they really worth it?
Regarding baseballbiography.com, per Isaacl, I'm convinced that all links (external links and references) to it should be removed ASAP. If there are no objections in the coming days I'll see if a bot could do it. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember using baseballlibrary/baseballbiography way back in the day when there wasn't much else out there, but yeah I wouldn't consider it reliable personally. I keep meaning to one day go through my old DYKs and weed out those refs, might be easier to just semi-automatically replace them all with cn tags if we have a consensus that it's not reliable. Wizardman22:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency, also removing "www.pelotabinaria.com.ve (Venezualen Winter League)" and "www.thedeadballera.com" and "www.ultimatemets.com" and a few one-offs. But leaving "BaseballLibrary.com" alone for now. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawa Titans
Would someone like to improve the Ottawa Titans article? Copyright violations from the Titans' web site keep getting added. I rewrote a little bit of it this time, but I don't have enough interest/energy to do more. Any help would be appreciated! isaacl (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The copyrighted text was re-inserted again. If anyone would like to help with filling in more of the Titans' history, that would be great! isaacl (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding OPS and WHIP to League Leaders section in MLB seasonal articles?
Over the past few years, OPS has become a more preferred go-to offensive stat to batting average" measuring a hitter's offensive output, and many ballparks highlight a hitter's OPS over AVG, as per publications like The Sporting News, Chicago Sun-Times, and Yahoo! Sports. Wikipedia should catch up with the focus that the MLB world has for OPS over AVG by including it in their seasonal articles.
WHIP as a stat has been in mainstream baseball usage for a while now (as per The New York Times). As a means to have both the 'Hitting leaders' and 'Pitching leaders' with seven statistics, I think WHIP as a stat is the next-best stat that could be added to Pitching leaders.
I think OPS is used more than WHIP these days, though I'd like it so
Mets–Phillies rivalry has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even more reason to get this sorted out! This is the first Japanese overlap, but finding a solution to this would be beneficial for allof the other double Hall players.--TorsodogTalk04:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MLB, NPB, and KBO are the only current leagues that go in the infobox. So I'm not sure if Canadian, Mexican or similar Hall of Fames should even be in the infobox. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed players like Ichiro, Larry Walker, Luis Aparicio, etc should have the capability to have multiple HOF's displayed. Just seems odd that Justin Morneau has Canadian HOF in the infobox and Larry Walker has nothing about it in his.-- Yankees1002:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb is that the infobox should include key characteristics that are essential for a concise overview of the subject. I think membership in the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame continues to be a key characteristic for Ichiro Suzuki. isaacl (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does the infobox not let you put more than one HOF in it? If that's the case we need to get someone to fix the template. Spanneraol (talk)
I was thinking something along the same lines. I don't believe it needs to be as large as it is now. The infobox certainly doesn't need to specify the percentage vote or election method, that can be explained in prose. Also, I don't know if it's appropriate to use red, white, and blue along with stars anymore if the template is being used for multiple halls of different countries. --TorsodogTalk18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How common is it that there will be people with membership in multiple major HoFs? Thinking of the Canadian Hall - another that gets the banner treatment, of which you can see an example at Jimmy Key - there are a handful that are also members at Cooperstown like Ferguson Jenkins, whose infobox only shows the latter. But anyone with a career earning membership in multiple major halls will have a nice long article, so it's not like the longer infobox will overwhelm anything and I don't see the harm in having more than one hall banner. That said, if people want to trim the banners down to match what football and hockey use in their infoboxes I don't have a serious objection. Echoedmyron (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For linking baseball: "What's wrong is that there is no value to linking to a short article that lists the different levels of competition in baseball, when the reader is more likely to want to read about the sport in the first place. this is how every other sports' biography articles are written"[3]
For professional baseball: "For some reason all MLB articles use this one"[4]
When I look at any biography articles for sportspeople of other sports, they all link to the article on the sport itself. In my opinion, as a reader (not just an editor), if I am clicking that link, it's because I want to learn about the sport itself. I've found myself reading featured articles on cricket and soccer players, and I wanted to learn more about those sports in general because I don't follow them. When starting at a player article, I would find little value in linking to an article (particularly a short, near-stub one) about the different levels of professional competition, the various leagues, etc., for a sport I don't know anything about. I would want to learn about the sport itself first. If this were the Major League Baseball article I were starting at, of course I'd want to learn about the way professional competition is organized and would consider it appropriate to link to professional baseball. But not for biography articles. As an aside, I think this would be an appropriate time to consider whether professional baseball should be moved to something more specific, like List of professional baseball leagues; it would certainly take some of the ambiguity out of which article to link to from biography articles. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the most expected link in the first sentence or two is to provide greater detail on the sport of baseball in general. The person is a baseball player who was paid to play. On a side note, I wrote the sample biography based on a very small sampling of featured articles, but off-hand I don't remember which ones. Regarding renaming professional baseball, I don't think whether or not it might get linked under specific circumstances should be a factor. isaacl (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be more specific linking with professional in baseball than with other sports' bios. But that seems to be a WP:SILENT consensus, so it's useful to formally discuss its merits. —Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually in favor of only linking to baseball. However, almost all the links I see are to professional baseball. On quality articles too, like for Shohei Ohtani, Aaron Judge, Derek Jeter, etc. If that is not a consensus to link professional baseball, then I have no further objection to only linking baseball, and would actually prefer all those articles were changed to it. Wamalotpark (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked leads to professional baseball rather than baseball pretty much out of habit for however many years I've been editing here. But, "baseball" is the superior article. We shouldn't do things just because that's how we've always done it. I can agree that it is the more useful link and we can change our silent consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought it should be just linking baseball and only recently linked professional baseball for consistency. I'm just gonna be honest tho I reverted Y2Kcrazyjoker4 edits mostly because they have somewhat of a chokehold on the Rivera article and sometimes doesn't allow others to make even minor changes to it. This was such a minor edit by Wamalotpark and was unnecessary to be reverted.-- Yankees1017:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing an edit you seemingly agree with because you believe the editor making the edit is showing ownership of the article is not a good reason to revert. That's making a point. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Winter Baseball
Does WP:BASEBALL have guidelines for how players on MLB contracts/farm systems playing in winter leagues should be handled? I feel strongly this is the kind of thing that deserves some coverage but I'm not totally sure what that might look like. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, a player could have something like this listed in an infobox
We don't list winter league teams in the info boxes as they aren't top level leagues. It may be included in prose if applicable but those leagues just arent really that notable. Spanneraol (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, if a winter league is the most important (in the real-world sense) league in which a player has played, then it could be listed. But I have difficulty imagining someone for whom being a baseball player is a significant part of what makes them meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article, thereby warranting baseball information in the infobox, yet didn't play anywhere more important than a winter league. isaacl (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.
For winter leagues, injuries that affect their upcoming MLB season, or a strong showing that carries over to their play in the majors would be notable. Sometimes editors unnecessarily feel the need to write about every team they played for. Even some stretches of multiple seasons may be best summarized as a span instead of getting into minutiae, if its otherwise uneventful or par for the course for said player. Just avoid WP:OR from a stats database, when possible. —Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
