Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Proposed color changes

We had this similar discussion on the NBA page with Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan and the consensus was it was too close to definitively label either player the Greatest of all Time. Therefore to be fair is there a consensus agreement to keep this title for Babe Ruth? Currently it's labelled on his page at the moment Never17 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:The page says that Ruth "is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time," which is 1) not a definitive label and 2) true; I see no reason that language should be removed. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Just posing a question, i have no problem with it but lots of people i see argue for Bonds and Mays so i just wanted to see what people here stand on the subject Never17 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::The problem is that "considered by many" is often not sourced. Moreover, it's a weak statement; If 7 say he's the greatest, and 15 don't, that's still arguably "many". I'd argue that such a statement should be limited to cases where it's sourceable that someone is "widely considered the greatest", with the MOS:WEASEL guideline caveat on using "widely considered" and the like: {{tq2|Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, {{em|if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source}}. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies.}} It should also meet the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy: {{tq2|Any exceptional claim requires {{em|multiple}} high-quality sources ... Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources}} —Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:That's an overgeneralization. The Chamberlain discussion decided:

:# Wikivoice should not call him the greatest.

:# It's a dated opinion that he's considered the greatest.

:The more general RfC at {{section link|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Request_for_Comment_on_use_of_the_term_%22one_of_the_greatest%22_in_player_articles}} is still open. —Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• I can see "is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of his time," but not "all" time; or maybe "is considered by many to be one of the greatest baseball player of all time." This needs to go away on every page it is on, even if it is some SABR poll or whatever, or even if Bill James comes up with an equalizer. It's all relative and not transcending. IMO. Why don't we just instill already existing policies as quoted by Bagumba and actually enforce them? Do we really need an RfC? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association&diff=prev&oldid=1284570744 As I said] in the NBA project RfC, the video game project has a pertinent interpretation of WP:NPOV policy that has been authorized by broader community consensus as an official Manual of Style guideline. The second paragraph of WP:VG/POV reads: {{tq2|Avoid vague statements (weasel words) that sound authoritative but offer no substance. Rephrase {{!xt|Many think the game is great}} as a verifiable statement: {{xt|The game received five Game of the Year awards}} (only count reliable sources). When sources and interviews use flattering or promotional language, maintain your professional prose quality and instead provide more specific and referenced facts about the project so readers can decide for themselves. Rephrase puffery (peacock terms): {{!xt|The game is the console's best}} into {{xt|IGN and GameSpot listed the game as among the console's best}}.}} That guideline can be translated into a baseball context as needed. Left guide (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I'll assume it's something specific with the nature of video games, because MOS:WEASEL is less dogmatic: {{tq2|The examples above {{strong|are not automatically weasel words}}.}} Follow the sources. —Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Leave as is. Not only is Babe Ruth the greatest ballplayer of all time but is the most underrated baseball player of all time. Everyone here who hasn't read it, please read the book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs that highlights Ruth's dominance in the home run category. Nobody comes close, then or now. His career totals in RBI's, runs, batting average, slugging percentage, etc. etc. (not to mention his pitching career and where that could have led), in the era where less games were played yearly, were and are near or at the top of overall major league records. Again, read the book to understand Ruth's career and home run stats that were so far beyond anyone playing the game in his time (and after). Have any academic studies been done on why or how he was able to do what he did? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, or perhaps more, when a discussion takes place that mainly affects a single page, it might be helpful to leave a note on its talk page. That way you get more opinions, and don't get people saying, as I do now, that I was not aware of the discussion, that there was no good reason not to leave such a note, and that that should be the first venue for a discussion affecting mostly one article. Also that way you don't run the risk of people not privy to the outcome questioning the validity of consensus, which I do not here, but I point out the danger.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:This spun off from {{section link|Talk:Babe Ruth#Greatest of all time}}, so it seems the immediate participants there were at least aware. I have now left a general note there. —Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed a trend recently in which hits are being included among the infobox stats for players who are well short of 1,000 career hits (see Mike Yastrzemski for an example). My imperfect recollection is that we had drawn an informal line at 1,000 hits as the minimum for infobox inclusion. Has that line of thinking changed? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:For stats outside of the Triple Crown, WP:BASESTYLEPL says: {{tq2|If there is another statistic that is representative of the player's career, then it can be included as well. Examples: Rickey Henderson's total stolen bases, Mariano Rivera's total saves}} A thousand hits is insufficient to meet that crieteria. —Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Muboshgu}} appears to have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Player_style_advice&diff=prev&oldid=635965455 added] the Triple Crown standard to WP:BASESTYLEPL in 2014 without citing any policy or guideline; was there a discussion consensus informing it? If there's no connection to policy, guideline, or discussion consensus, it's just one person's opinion on how content should look. Left guide (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There was limited discussion in 2012 (see {{section link|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 33|Stats to include in info box}}; hi there, AutomaticStrikeout). When the change was made in 2014, I raised the topic for discussion (see {{section link|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 39|Stats in player infobox}}). As I said then, if someone wants to establish consensus for a different guideline, we can have that conversation. I thought it was a fair representation then, but we can see if opinions have changed in eleven years. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As Muboshgu noted in the 2014 discussion that you linked, he made the change boldly. IMHO, the lack of reversion over more than a decade implies a silent consensus. Now that I've opened this thread, I'll state that I agree with Muboshgu's decision and that I also think that anything less than 1,000 hits should not be listed in the infobox. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Bagumba}}If {{tq|a thousand hits is insufficient to meet that criteria}}, then roughly speaking, how many hits do you believe is sufficient to meet that criteria? Left guide (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I just added a short description to The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams and the fact that every single source was from the same website struck me as odd. I'm not in the baseball world in the slightest, so I don't know if this is okay or not, but you all may want take a look.
All the best,
I can do stuff! (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Icandostuff}} Thanks for flagging this; your concerns are valid. MiLB.com (the website of Minor League Baseball) isn't an independent source for this purpose. Just like any other topic, it needs independent sources to show notability; baseball isn't exempt from that. If none can be found, it may merit merging, redirection, or deletion. Meanwhile, I'll tag it with {{tl|Independent sources}} to encourage others more interested and willing to research. Left guide (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, thank you! I can do stuff! (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Pop Warner 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) 12:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

It's disturbing how poorly sourced this BLP about an otherwise famous person can be. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

: You have every opportunity to improve the article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

An editor is adding unsourced attendance figures to the Ottawa Titans article. Any assistance in maintaining the article is appreciated. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Isaacl}} That account is a sockpuppet of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaepertank as evidenced by the existing fr.wiki block shown in the global account log. Left guide (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Ian Kinsler 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) 16:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

: I've made some improvements to try to resolve the concerns but as a Royals fan I didn't follow Kinsler all that closely during his career. Any Rangers or Tigers fans who want to take a look at this as well? Hog Farm _Talk 23:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

A new user seems to have created a category for ":Category:MLB eventual champion elimination seasons" which seems really unnecessary. Be on the lookout. Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|Spanneraol}} …as well as ":Category:NBA eventual champion elimination seasons" and ":Category:NHL eventual champion elimination seasons". Left guide (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not a useful category. I can't think why anyone would need to know this. --Jameboy (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Nominated for deletion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 29#Eventual champion elimination seasons. Left guide (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)