BeanieFan11 (talk | contribs) →Mass draftification proposal on Olympians: new section Tag: New topic |
BeanieFan11 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
== Mass draftification proposal on Olympians == |
== Mass draftification proposal on Olympians == |
||
You may be interested in [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs|this village pump discussion]] on draftifiying |
You may be interested in [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs|this village pump discussion]] on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 14:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:03, 2 March 2023
Baseball Project‑class | |||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Y'all may want to take a look at the recent changes to this article made by a new editor. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- There seems to be some persistent disruption on the article, with content that casts Joe West in a negative light being removed continually. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Amusingly, Joe West himself admitted on the Effectively Wild podcast episode 1967 that he himself was behind these edits. [1]https://blogs.fangraphs.com/effectively-wild-episode-1967-season-preview-series-angels-and-red-sox-plus-joe-west/ TomFitz77 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Barry Bonds
Barry Bonds 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. Steelkamp (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Park#Requested move 21 February 2023
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton Park#Requested move 21 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Notability issues for use of MLB.com player profiles as cited source for a nickname
I have been stumbling across a lot of player articles that include what seems to me to be an extremely obscure nickname as a parenthetical in the opening sentence, with the cited source being their MLB.com player profile. The example I just found (and corrected) was Taylor Rogers, supposedly known as "Lefty Piece", but I have seen several others in the past. The cited source was his MLB.com player profile but the nickname (IMO) obviously does not meet notability criteria to be included as their parenthetical nickname. A search on google for "'Taylor Rogers' 'Lefty Piece'" yields no actual examples of the name being used to refer to him - only results about his Player's Weekend jersey, which is the crux of the problem. MLB.com includes the names worn on these jerseys as "nicknames" in the official player bio. The problem with this as it applies to Wikipedia is that these names are always chosen by the player to wear on their jersey for a single weekend for an event the MLB only held 3 times and not since 2019. Almost always these are not names that the media or baseball community ever actually use to refer to the player. I feel that for a player to be introduced in their article as "Player Name, (nicknamed 'X')", that nickname should be one that is widely used to refer to that player by people throughout the baseball world.
As such I feel that MLB.com should never be used as a source for a player's nickname and nicknames listed on Wikipedia which are only cited by MLB.com should be removed from the article. How do others feel about this? Has anybody else noticed this problem? TomFitz77 (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- IMO we should largely avoid using these Player's Weekend nicknames, as they're often not in common use, and instead rely on general sports reporting for what players' nicknames are. Hog Farm Talk 23:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should avoid any nicknames for players unless it is something that is widely used in reliable sources. Spanneraol (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Per MOS:NICKCRUFT:
Boldface is not needed for obscure ones or a long list, and those that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all.
- —Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ah I wasn't familiar with that section of MOS. MOS:BADNICK is highly relevant here.
Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject. For example, a sports journalist's one-off reference to a player as "the Atlanta panther" in purple prose does not constitute a nickname, and treating it as one is original research.
- Jake McGee (baseball) is still protected because of that "Uncle Jake" nickname nonsense. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ah I wasn't familiar with that section of MOS. MOS:BADNICK is highly relevant here.
2017 World Series "aftermath"
I noticed a recent edit and revert at 2017 World Series regarding whether future WS titles by a player should be mentioned. Also, its "Impact and aftermath" section seems to conflict with prior discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48 § Aftermath sections and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 48 § Aftermath sections (continued).
Finally, is aftermath even an appropriate term here? A dictionary shows
the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event: food prices soared in the aftermath of the drought.
That doesn't apply to the winning team.
(It's a GA page, so courtesy ping to nominator Muboshgu) —Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- It didn't occur to me that "aftermath" means "bad things", but you're right. Will brainstorm a better heading. And offseason transactions are not "aftermath" of the World Series, they're part of the new season. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Although I agree off-season transactions shouldn't automatically be considered a direct consequence of the team's playoff results, there can be some occasions when they are. However I think this ought to be treated as much more of an exception than a rule. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I raised the issue regarding the terminology in the previous discussion. I had suggested "Aftereffects" in that discussion. "Off-season consequences" might be another possibility, which would help limit the scope to direct consequences. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- In my view, the discussion in that article about what happened later to the two teams involved are a better fit for the team / team history articles. It's part of their story, and not that of the 2017 World Series. I appreciate some readers like to know how the teams progressed later on; the team infoboxes on the page do provide the bare facts on all playoff appearances. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- My opinion is that these aftermath sections should be very limited to things directly related to that particular series... such as the sign stealing controversy is definitely relevant.. and maybe what happened to the teams the next year could be mentioned... but players showing up in later world series for other teams is completely irrelevant. Spanneraol (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- If a team wins the World Series again, or this is the last of two or more consecutive victories, then I think it may be warranted to mention this as a signpost along the way of their championship streak. Otherwise, I think as a general rule the future results of the teams is better discussed in the corresponding team articles. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying all future results.. but a "the team got back to the series the next year" or "the team fell off and failed to make the post season next year" is possibly something worth noting... not anything related to further seasons. Spanneraol (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Even for the next year's results, I think they're generally not a direct consequence of the World Series appearance. Obviously it plays a role, just as the levels of playoff success influence the other post-season competitors, and how not making the playoffs affect the other teams. Thus I think most of the time it's better covered holistically within the team article. I agree there may be times when I think it may be worth noting, but I struggle at trying to articulate when this is the case in a way that will provide useful guidance to those who want to put all next season results into every World Series article. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying all future results.. but a "the team got back to the series the next year" or "the team fell off and failed to make the post season next year" is possibly something worth noting... not anything related to further seasons. Spanneraol (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- If a team wins the World Series again, or this is the last of two or more consecutive victories, then I think it may be warranted to mention this as a signpost along the way of their championship streak. Otherwise, I think as a general rule the future results of the teams is better discussed in the corresponding team articles. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- My opinion is that these aftermath sections should be very limited to things directly related to that particular series... such as the sign stealing controversy is definitely relevant.. and maybe what happened to the teams the next year could be mentioned... but players showing up in later world series for other teams is completely irrelevant. Spanneraol (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Related to the previous discussions I had started, more watchers for 1981 National League Championship Series are welcome. isaacl (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Tony Gwynn's lead
In the lead of Tony Gwynn, Stormplatter and I are in disagreement over inclusion of his career batting average ranking. They added his #22 ranking, sourced from baseball-reference.com.[2] First of all, MLB.com shows him at #16.[3] Even if we resolve that discrepancy, the ranking seems WP:UNDUE for the lead, when little of Gwynn's legacy per reliable sources is tied to his specific ranking.
Per MOS:LEADREL:
According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources
—Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with omitting this ranking from the lead section per LEADREL. I actually reverted the editor's change before I saw this talk page discussion. I think the other editor misunderstood your use of "lead" in the edit summary. He appears to have thought you were talking about Gwynn being in first place. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the equivalent positions on the homerun chart, the rankings for that stat isn't mentioned there either including in one GA Ernie Banks so I agree with the the4 conclusions above that once you get outside the top few such a rank isn't worth including. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that Gwynn's career batting average ranking has relatively lower significance compared with his other career achievements currently listed in the lead section, and so doesn't need to be included in the lead section. isaacl (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The conflict arose with an extra redundant word, so I added that section to make the irrelevant word unnecessary.
Does this mean the redundancy will stay away for the time being?
Gwynn is one of the best of all time, not possibly considered one. Stormplatter (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Your removal of "widely considered" didn't require the addition of an obscure ranking pulled from a database. —Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Mass draftification proposal on Olympians
You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)