Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   2021 MiLB names in team infoboxes 

message: FYI regarding Template:Infobox baseball team season; I have added a new field named presbo_title, which is optional. Nothing changes with existing infoboxes. The field can be used to display text different than "President of baseball operations", such as "Chief baseball officer", when appropriate. An example of presbo_title being used is 2021 Boston Red Sox season, when Chaim Bloom held the title of Chief baseball officer. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever I see that "presbo" parameter, it makes me think of Mr. Prezbo from The Wire. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox baseball team season 

message: Can we get some eyes at Juiced (book)? "One of Juiced's central precepts is that steroid use is not in and of itself a bad thing, as long as the person is being monitored by a physician and the dosages are small" vaguely gives me a feeling this violates something about WP:FRINGE. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be giving a fringe theory undue prominence if placed in other articles on steroids or performance-enhancing drugs. But in an article about a book, statements about key messages of the book are apt. The statements should be sourced, of course, to verify that they are indeed key messages. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Juiced (book)]] 

message: An editor has requested that :Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball) be moved to :Registration of players under control, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You  are invited to participate in the move discussion. Graham (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move discussion at [[Talk:Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball)]] 

message: Deletion discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders that may interest you. Please share your input if you would like. Thank you, - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a center fielder leaders]]

message: 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:
* Mainichi Shimbun 
* The Asahi Shimbun 
* TBS Television (Japan) 
* Yomiuri Shimbun 
* The Nikkei 
What are people's thoughts on this? --TorsodogTalk 22:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Japan Series sponsored name 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Danville Otterbots#Requested move 20 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Danville Otterbots#Requested move 20 May 2024]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC on integrating non-AL & NL leagues into MLB season page infoboxes 

message: * This is far too open ended. This question assumes that the information should be integrated. Why should they be integrated? What's the harm in the status quo? How will this change serve as an improvement? Nemov (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC on league leaders tables 

message: * I recommend withdrawing this RFC until there's something more concrete for editors to comment on... should they be formatted differently? I don't know. If you have two examples to compare against that would be easier to digest than searching through 4 examples. Nemov (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The discussion above was all over the place. The main thing I believe we can find a quick consensus on is updating List of Major League Baseball career batting average leaders. Perhaps the discussion should take place on that article to work out the specific changes. I would recommend the table in that article be modified to include the specific major league for which the player played. For Batting_average_(baseball) it might be cleaner just to remove the table and explain how MLB counts players from multiple leagues. Nemov (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This project is the wrong place to form consensus on that article and so I have started a talk page discussion for that article for interested editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Batting average tables

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just to point out, there is no such thing as "official" baseball history