Talk:List of Major League Baseball seasons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-12-28. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. |
 |
List of Major League Baseball seasons is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Baseball:
|
|||
[edit] Split the YYYY in baseball articles?
This is a continuation of discussions that have been held at various times regarding splitting YYYY in baseball articles into multiple articles. There's other discussion on the subject at:
(Anyone can add more above as they find them...) In short, what do people think should be done with these articles? Some want to split the MLB part of YYYY in baseball into a separate article. Others like the YYYY in baseball articles just the way they are. There are probably compromises available like splitting the larger sections of YYYY in baseball into separate articles as opposed to the MLB part which, today, make up most of the YYYY in baseball articles.
I'll post messages at a few places about this discussion. Everyone is free to do the same. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- My preference, since MLB is the major league, is to give it its own article. That would naturally lead to much of the current xxxx in baseball series moving to that article. The xxxx in baseball can then be expanded to include minor and foreign leagues while retaining an overview of the MLB season. This would be something along the lines of what I have tried with 2006 in ice hockey, while several leagues have their own articles: NHL, AHL, WHL, OHL, etc. My main reasoning behind this suggestion is that the use of "xxxx in baseball" suggests a far more inclusive article than currently exists, as for the most part everything outside of MLB is being ignored. We should be aiming for a far more complete series of articles. Resolute 05:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a lot of content ready for foreign and minor leagues? I'm not aware of anyone doing a lot of work in those areas. My concern is that the resulting YYYY in baseball articles would forever be stubs while the new YYYY MLB season articles would remain as huge as the YYYY in baseball articles are today. How about if we made a few YYYY in minor league baseball and YYYY in Latin American baseball articles, for example, and see how much is accumulated? Another idea is to split off other sections of the current YYYY in baseball articles like YYYY events in baseball, YYYY births and deaths in baseball, etc. That may address the actual perceived problem at hand which is that the YYYY in baseball articles are too large. I'm not saying I agree with that assertion but if others do, this may go further to fixing it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Taking a quick look at splitting 2006 in baseball, I came up with this: User:Resolute/2006 MLB season as the MLB season article, User:Resolute/Sandbox as 2006 in baseball, while the events pages could be broken out into a third article. All three form into nicely managable articles, while there is still room for expansion of all three (ie convert the gold glove winners to chart form, and add player of the month awards as editors of 2005 MLB season had.) Personally I believe that three such articles are all of sufficient length to be quite useful. Resolute 17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not half bad. Template:MLB seasons would need to be fixed somehow. For some of the older seasons, I wonder how available the non-MLB data is. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. as far as the template goes, I suppose it could be converted to match the template currently in use for the years in baseball series, as that is a really well done format for a template with so many entries. At any rate, I have proposed a split at 2006 in baseball in the hopes that others will come in and comment on this. Resolute 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's not half bad. Template:MLB seasons would need to be fixed somehow. For some of the older seasons, I wonder how available the non-MLB data is. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Taking a quick look at splitting 2006 in baseball, I came up with this: User:Resolute/2006 MLB season as the MLB season article, User:Resolute/Sandbox as 2006 in baseball, while the events pages could be broken out into a third article. All three form into nicely managable articles, while there is still room for expansion of all three (ie convert the gold glove winners to chart form, and add player of the month awards as editors of 2005 MLB season had.) Personally I believe that three such articles are all of sufficient length to be quite useful. Resolute 17:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a lot of content ready for foreign and minor leagues? I'm not aware of anyone doing a lot of work in those areas. My concern is that the resulting YYYY in baseball articles would forever be stubs while the new YYYY MLB season articles would remain as huge as the YYYY in baseball articles are today. How about if we made a few YYYY in minor league baseball and YYYY in Latin American baseball articles, for example, and see how much is accumulated? Another idea is to split off other sections of the current YYYY in baseball articles like YYYY events in baseball, YYYY births and deaths in baseball, etc. That may address the actual perceived problem at hand which is that the YYYY in baseball articles are too large. I'm not saying I agree with that assertion but if others do, this may go further to fixing it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I realized some time ago that this debate would come up repeatedly, as a few contributors are apparently somewhat determined to establish separate articles. Having commented quite a bit before, I didn't post anything when the debates came up again. It seems to me that if it is decided that there should be separate articles for the year in baseball and the MLB season for that year, then there will first need to be very clear and specific guidelines about what should go in one article, what should go in the other, and (perhaps most importantly) what should go in both. I put together some short lists of potential guidelines:
- Both articles - Final major league standings; MLB playoff bracket; major league awards. These generally feature things which can be displayed in a chart, and the charts can be generated by templates (such as Template:MLB2006final) which can be inserted at both pages to reduce the amount of space used.
- Year in baseball only - Births and deaths; baseball books and films; daily highlights (this will be one of the principal things users look for at the year in baseball article, I think, and given its size there's a strong reason to not duplicate it); records set, with the possible exception of single-season records (which might go in both).
- MLB season only - Sections which list all managerial changes, all franchise sales, and stadiums opening/closing; more extensive coverage of voting for MVP and other awards; a section covering the pennant races in more detail, noting dates of clinching, etc.; brief (1-2 paragraph) reviews of each team's season; a recap of the All-Star Game (less necessary when full articles are created for each game), and a brief recap of the playoffs; a section discussing labor issues for the year, contract news, major trades; listing of statistical leaders, including top 3-5 players in hitting and pitching categories as well as leaders in fielding categories. Perhaps the managers of all teams would be noted. Perhaps.
- Our primary goal should be making sure that there is enough substantial material in both articles to warrant separation, but with a minimum of duplication. Yes, I'd like to see better coverage of non-MLB subjects, but until we start to see more of it we should recognize that the current situation doesn't merit moving very much of the existing material to a different page (or telling users to go to a different page to find what should naturally be on the one they're at now). MisfitToys 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
