Talk:2006 in baseball

Baseball High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

MLB Standings

You need to put in some MLB standings here...

I don't think it's ideal to put in standings that would need to be changed every day; but it occurred to me that posting the standings, updated through the end of each month, would be appropriate. MisfitToys 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Date VS The Date in Baseball

The links for the day-to-day events are mixed. Some link to the date (i.e. September 21) and others link to the date "in baseball." Of course, none of these links lead to actual articles. Is there a point to that? Will we ever have a complete list of "dates in baseball?" --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 00:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 93 articles already created of this type, which is enough to give me hope that the entire year will be done. See March 28 in baseball for an example, as well as a calendar showing what has been done. I think this is a good project, because it's not appropriate to put things like Fernando Tatis's two grand slams on the main April 23 page, but it would be quite reasonable for April 23 in baseball (and indeed, this has already been done). Matchups 02:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Series

I have noticed the Holland Series come and go from this page in the past few days. Does it belong on this page? I know the person adding it thinks so, pointing out that this is baseball in 2006 and not MLB in 2006. However, we are not including the Eastern League (AA) Playoff games with game-by-game accounts. Or the Pacific Coast League with game-by-game accounts. These are professional leagues too!

In fact, in previous years, not even every MLB World Series game is included. Just the notable ones and clinching games.

My feeling is that we should include the Holland Series in one entry when it is clinched, the final game. The other ones are not notable enough for this page. If you want though, I would suggest creating a 2006 Holland Series page and detailing the Series game-by-game as specifically as you want. Then put the clincher on here and link to the other page. I think that would be best for everyone.Ags412 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see the 2006 Holland Series page already exists for a while. I'm the one who added the results in the first place and restored them once today. I'm aware not every single result should be added to this page, but I thought the main series from the main European country would be at it's place. Now that I read not even all World Series matches will be included I see the point and I will no longer add them as single comments day by day. Cheers, SportsAddicted 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the best set-up. I completely agree that the Holland Series clinching game should be included on this page. But yes, not every World Series game is listed. For example, last year they have no mention of Game 1 or 2 and only mention Game 3 (which went 15 innings, the longest WS game in history) and Game 4, the clincher.Ags412 01:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK sounds fair to me indeed. I can remember me watching that match going into 15 innings last year as it happened yesterday. I was totally shocked and enjoying it. SportsAddicted 03:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Propose to merge 2006 Major League Baseball postseason into this page. Currently 2005 Major League Baseball Postseason redirects to 2005 in baseball. There is nothing in the postseason article that isn't in this article. --Holderca1 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, as each series has its own article; there's no need to have three articles covering the same subject to varying degrees. MisfitToys 19:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely merge this. There's no need for a separate article here when it's already covered in 2006 in baseball. --Nishkid64 21:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nothing is on the 2006 postseason page that is not already included on this page--DaveOinSF 23:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago, I just redirected the article because almost all of the content is redundant. However, you might want to actually put the 2006 Major League Baseball postseason redirect on your watchlist because new users, or those who do not know about this content organization, might revert it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There really should be a seperate page on this. I think it needs to be given publicity instead of being hidden in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.83.75 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff Bracket

I think it is misleading that you put the Division/WC status of the teams in the playoff bracket. To me, as arranged it suggests (to someone who doesn't know how it works) that the WC always plays the East Champion, etc. I would rather put the seeds in; if people want to know what Division or whatnot the teams came from, it's right down the page in the standings, instead of clicking to at least a different article to find the playoff format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.16.135 (talk • contribs) .

I've modified the postseason reporting slightly. Let me know how you like it - just an experiment. Theirishpianist 16:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.16.135 (talk • contribs) .

Ooh, look at the pretty colors!!

I like. :) Although for all my baseball wisdom, I never understood why the American League was arbitrarily associated with the color red, while the National League got assigned blue...--Theirishpianist 06:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the AL's annual guide was the Red Book, while the NL's guide was the Green Book. I don't know why they chose those colors, but they did. MisfitToys 23:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split

After some discussion surrounding the formatting of these articles at this afd and at Talk:List of MLB seasons, I would propose breaking this article into three: 2006 in baseball, 2006 MLB season and 2006 events in baseball. The rationale and example articles can be found at Talk:List of MLB seasons. I am also proposing this eventually be applied to all xxxx in baseball articles as a means of better organizing the articles as well as reducing their sizes into blocks that have a better defined scope and are easier to manage. Resolute 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support creating one new article called 2006 MLB season or whatnot, as the central repository for things like the final standings, MLB awards, final statistics, a description of the pennant races, playoffs, etc. Not sure a second "events" page is really needed, as I don't think the one here is of unruly length. Actually, I'd like this page to be cleaned up a bit with some of that MLB stuff removed to the other page and then this one can maybe even be nominated as a Featured List.--DaveOinSF 19:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, certantly. As far as turning this into a Featured List, it would require a lot of citations - but not anything impossible to do. Resolute 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with my proposal above--DaveOinSF 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at my proposals at Talk:List of MLB seasons? I'd leave the MLB standings and awards in place at the 2006 article, even if you're also adding them to the MLB article; the use of templates makes page space a non-issue. MisfitToys 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that before, and I'll give a more thorough look later. However, you are mistaken about the impact templates have on article length. While it is true that using such templates reduces the amount of memory the page takes up, the proper metric for measuring an article's length is not kB of memory but "readable prose" (WP:Article size). So whether or not you are using templates, the amount of words that the reader encounters will be the same.--DaveOinSF 21:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your proposal, the only real difference between what I did and what you propsed was my deleting of the final standings from the 2006 in baseball page. I did remove some awards from this page, but your proposal suggests keeping "major awards". I kept MVP, Cy Young, Rookie and Manager awards here, moved the Gold Gloves, Rolaids Relief, Roberto Clemnte and a couple others. The postseaons stuff here can probably be condensed a bit too.--DaveOinSF 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my primary concern with page space was on the technical side; standings charts don't constitute prose, anyway - very little on these pages does, although the proposed summaries of pennant races & playoffs would certainly qualify. MisfitToys 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spink Award

So we're going to go by the date that they are inducted into the Hall, as opposed to the date that they are elected into the Hall? If we're doing that, we need to reword a little bit.--DaveOinSF 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the Spink and Frick winners are neither elected nor inducted into the Hall; but I think it's a bit awkward to have separate years' honorees listed together. MisfitToys 03:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]