Talk:MLB.com

This article was nominated for deletion on 12/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Baseball Mid‑importance 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.

There is an article for ESPN Gamecast, should there be one for GameDay on MLB.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxrock (talk • contribs) 25 July, 2006

There is: GameDay (software). VoL†ro/\/Force 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the trivia section regarding the history of MLB.COM. The origin of MLB.COM being owned by someone else is a valid item to be included in Wikipedia entry and it is not advertisement to any party.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgl168 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2006

• And I have DELETED it again, as the only purpose of such "trivia" is advertising. Since you have nothing on your user page explaining who you are, that just raises further suspicions. Wahkeenah 17:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the information. The information on MLB.COM is true hard facts that represents the history of MLB.COM. There is no advertising of any kind. Also I do not need to explain who I am - Wikipedia has no policies that indicate that a user must have a user page in order be qualify to submit articles or consider to be "legitimate" user. Rgl168 17:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's advertising, and it has to go. Wahkeenah 17:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your name has been reported to the administrator. Rgl168 18:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too fail to see the noteworthiness of the domain's history. ccwaters 18:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the domain is just that - history. I've restored the edit, and will note that Wahkeenah has a history of being personally abusive and unco-operative - see his comments at Talk: The Sting. Note that Wikipedia discourages trivia, so I retitled it "History" as per WP:TRIVIA. The item meets the standard of WP:VER and moreover is not indiscriminate information. It refers directly to the origin of the URL.Michael Dorosh^Talk 01:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the blatant advertising again, and it is YOU that is abusive and uncooperative. To put it another way, I treat you the way you treat me. Wahkeenah 01:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Put your spam back. I'll stop watching this page and you can win, again. I have had quite enough of you. Again. Wahkeenah 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Michael. Rgl168 13:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original edit had two problems. First it did read like an ad for Morgan, Lewis & Brockius - what does the fact that they were the "4th. largest law firm in the US" have to do with the transfer of the domain name? Second the reference was to a PDF and a primary source. I have removed the more ad-like wording and replaced the reference with one to Business Week. Gwernol 09:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the entire article changed. What was wrong with it. It was far more interesting and had references.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.117.44 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2006

Image:Logo mlb.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have visited the MLB.com site on numerous occasions in the past fortnight, from numerous different (British) Ip addresses and have found that, on each occasion, clicking at least one of the story links on the main page redirects to a site called 'mysurvey4u.com', which then throws up a malware pop-up. Most of these are of the 'fake spyware (SpyAxe, WinFixer etc) variety, but I have started to see some far more believable-looking ones in the past couple of days - see screenshot [1] for an example.

Note the popup in the system tray designed to ape Windows Security Centre warnings and the overlay on the main page looking for all the world like a warning from SysInternals ProcessExplorer or a real Anti-Spyware program

I've got other people on UK IPs to test and found that more than half of them are also having the same malware thrust at them. I'd expect this kind of crap from a site hosted on GeoCities or another free web host, but not mlb!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebulebu (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 October 2007

they have recently made a new mlb.com Home Page and the pic neeeds changing. i dont no how to do it . sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben10027 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the page says games starting before 1900 on Saturdays are blacked out starting with May 2006. Does anyone know the status for this yea regarding FOX conflict blackouts, and if so, could they please add it. I know it does not black out 1 PM games in the US as of today (April 12) but I'll have to wait until 3:55 to let you know about the actual FOX games. The Yankees-Red Sox will definently be black out for me as I am in the Yankees blackout region, but I will report on the Rockies-Diamondbacks. However, I have no idea what will happen in future weeks, so could someone who knows say so? Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Fox/MLBN saturday afternoon games are blacked out nationally, Games which are not being shown on your local fox affiliate, but are at that time slot will be unavailable.76.202.136.8 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two new sections and expanded upon the services of MLB.tv.

A couple of things I would like opinions on:

• Price list: Couldn't find anything against it on WP:AD, but would like some consensus
• Use of word yearly in that price list... should it be annually?
• Is there any POV here? I have written both these sections myself and have tried to remain un-biased, but i'm worried about it sounding like an advertisment.

Josh 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: check fair use on MLB mosaic image. I believe it is fair use, but again, would like consensus. Josh 11:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove this section since it is no longer an offered service. Perhaps replace it with the features which are available.76.202.136.8 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]