Talk:Baseball-Reference.com

Baseball Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Notability[edit]

Please don't delete this page; it's notable, and the page asserts the notability (I see it's already been speedied twice). Don't be fooled by the low-quality site design: Google news has dozens of articles on it just right now: [1]. The Evil Spartan 02:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, not only have major media outlets written about this website, this website is used as a reference for nearly every Major League Baseball player article and World Series article on Wikipedia. There has even been created a template {{baseball-reference|id=g/gehrilo01}} that is used extensive. There are nearly 5000 pages that link to Template:Baseballstats already. Kingturtle (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball-reference is either notable or 95% baseball related articles site a non-notable website. I also disagree with the statement that baseball reference has low quality site design, simple is better. --User:SelfStudyBuddy ^TALK-- 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Smith & Street's Sports Business Journal that announced the purchase of a minority interest in Baseball-Reference (and related services) also stated: "The Sports Reference sites combine to generate more than 1 million unique users per month, according to internal analytics. Company president and former college math professor Sean Forman has become something of a folk hero to baseball fans for the massive depth of data stretching to the 19th century and for the ease of navigation within Baseball-Reference.com." Note the reference to the ease of navigation of the site.--Mack2 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parent page, moving and/or redirect?[edit]

Hello. Has it ever been considered to create an article about Baseball-Reference.com's parent site, Sports-Reference.com, and redirecting, merging or somehow connecting this page do that? The same would be done for the article on Pro-Football-Reference.com, Additionally, should the similar articles and/or for professional basketball, hockey, college football, college basketball and Olympic statistics run by Sports-Reference.com be created, and how? This all would be a bit complex, which is why I opened it for discussion. (A link to this discussion is on the talk page to the Pro-Football-Reference,com, hoping to keep all of the talk in one place.) — Michael J 10:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The site Baseball-Reference itself has been determined to be notable as a separate entity, so there's no reason for a merge. Sports Reference LLC would be an article about the parent company and would discuss the daughter sites that are not separately notable, and link to the sites that are with a short summary about them, per WP:Summary style. — KV5 • Talk • 12:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the article on Sports Reference would have a paragraph or so on Baseball-Reference, with a note "For full article, see..." at the top. Am I correct? ... Also, is Sports Reference LLC as a whole notable enough to merit an article of its own? — Michael J 14:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct; the paragraph would usually be preceded by {{main}} or some such. As for Sports-Reference, I can't really speak to that without seeing sources. Don't really have the energy right now to go seek them out myself. — KV5 • Talk • 03:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason the parent site would not be notable. As said above, Baseball-Reference itself has been determined to be notable as a separate entity. What is the specific reason why just this is notable? And are the sister sites done somehow differently or what? If not, the same reasoning could be used to all of them. 82.141.94.239 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball-Reference as a distinct entity has received significant coverage from reliable sources, making it notable. If Sports Reference LLC (primarily a holding company although some statistics are hosted at that domain) has received similar coverage, then absolutely it deserves an article. If not, then it is not considered notable and a created article would be deleted. Existence is not equal to notability. — KV5 • Talk • 11:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone still cares about this discussion, but I just wanted to provide an update. The article Sports Reference has recently been created to cover the parent company. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baseball-Reference.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=53311244
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719223040/http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Main_Page to http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Main_Page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]