This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Baseball This template 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

I have made over 200 edits to this template and this is the first issue anyone has had with it. I personally feel that the fraction should not be bigger than the whole number. Ex. 5½ vs 51⁄2 I also read the section you recommended WP:ACCESS and there is no mention of this issue in that article. I am simply using the easiest method available to me to expedite the update time of this template. If you would like to further discuss this issue leave a message on my talk page. Mattrob82 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I was the one who first introduced the Unicode fractions to the template instead of the decimals, but that doesn't matter. Number of contributions has no bearing on how much your opinion matters. How is the use of a barely legible Unicode character easier than something can quickly and easily be typed from the keyboard? The "Resolution" section is the section of WP:ACCESS to which I am referring. No, there are no specific mentions of Unicode versus templates, but it says that "Wikipedia articles should be accessible to readers using devices with small screens, or to readers using monitors with a low resolution." With the smaller, less legible Unicode characters, it causes issues at both low and high resolution. I was not aware of the fraction template until recently, and I think that it is a boon for the project to have something more legible than Unicode, which is ancient. If you check out MOS:NUM#Fractions, it makes no mention of the Unicode characters; it prefers the ((frac)) template to the point where Unicode is ignored. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that previous discussions from the MOS:NUM archives also refer to the current consensus, which is to use the ((frac)) template and not Unicode fractions. From oldest to most recent: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. This is why the option of using Unicode symbols doesn't even appear in MOS:NUM in regards to fractions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fraction is to large for the template, does not fit properly. Unicodes is much simpler. Period. Ositadinma (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fraction is NOT too large for the template; I am viewing it without an issue. Unicodes are not simpler, because they can't be typed directly from the keyboard, and the "Period" was not necessarily, and may be uncivil depending on how it's read. The fact stands that it's contrary to MOS. Sometimes we have to make a difficult workaround to something that seems simple because the MOS says so. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about the MOS. From my computer screen and the default screen size the fraction template is too big t0 fit the the standings template. The 2 in the fraction runs into the next box and you were even talking about screen resolutions, etc. Either use the unicode (all you have to do is go symbols in the help box below and hit the ½) or you decimals. The frac template is stupid and I have never seen it before and you MOS people are trying to undue what has been ther for the longest. I think this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. Ositadinma (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. The MOS is a style guideline that the entire encyclopedia is supposed to follow. Additionally, the fraction templates are better in following WP:ACCESS because Unicode symbols are not read by speech browsers. I know how to use Unicode symbols; as I said, I was the one who introduced them last year. That's as long as they've been used... it hasn't been around that long. Please don't lump "MOS people" into a category either; I'm an editor first, which means I'm dealing with the general concerns of building an encyclopedia. The MOS is part of that. You can bring it up at WT:MLB if you want, but I'll be there too, because I'm relatively involved with the baseball project in general. That being said, please don't disparage the work of other editors by calling templates "stupid". It's uncivil. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I cannot see the template properly on my computer with the frac template. The fraction is spilling over to the next box. Ositadinma (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am using the special characters under the help box. And as far as this particular template, if you see a fraction after the number there is only one option for it. Your either going to have a whole number or a ½ of a game. Period. And the only reason I mentioned how many edits I've done is to signify that I've never had this issue come up as I feel anyone reading this template knows that it is ½ of a game. Mattrob82 (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even assume that everyone looking at this knows what a half of a game means... this encyclopedia is written for everyone. We cannot, and should not, write this as baseball fans. We need to write as objective writers who are working for everyone, because we are. This isn't a matter of what the possibilities are, whether there are quarter-games or sixteenth-games or whatever; it's a matter of accessibility and common style. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look Killervogel5, I am sorry for affending you, if I did. All that I am saying is that the ((frac)) does not look properly on my defualt screen. The 1⁄2 is carring below the next games back box. I understand the MOS:NUM#Fractions and WP:ACCESS, but the unicode is much simpler to use in the stadings template for inexpierenced users that don't know that such template exists. Also you would not have to delete and write the frac template over again ever time a team gaines or loses a half a game. I say use unicode or the decimal system, because it is the easiest and most simple way. Also people can read it. Ositadinma (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a note for other editors to give their input, but in cases where consensus cannot be had over issues of style, the MOS is the end of the line. We'll find out what editors think. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ositadinma as to the fraction template not displaying correctly. On my screen (IE8/1280x1024) the bottom of the denominator is cut off. However, the unicode fraction displays fine. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least somebody agrees with me. The denominator is being cut off. The unicode and decimal work fine. That also acounts in the WP:ACCESS. Ositadinma (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've named the problem there: IE. I'm guessing that's the same problem Ositadinma is likely having. Of course Microsoft is built to support Unicode because it's ancient. There are a lot of things in WP that don't display properly in IE because, well, it's IE. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I use AOL 9.1 on a Windows computer, but is likely the same problem since alot of people use Windows. Ositadinma (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MOSNUM: "Avoid the Unicode characters "²" and "³". They are harder to read on small displays". Even though this is a fraction, the same rule applies. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that not all screen readers can even read unicode, thus failing WP:ACCESS. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, DB87. Although screen readers aren't perfect when it comes to the fractions, most will at least read the digits, while the Unicode characters are just ignored. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that pages were using Unicode fractions now. Both Unicode fractions and the ((frac)) template are violations of WP:ACCESS (the template less so). This needs to be a decimal "x.5". -Dewelar (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then we run into a consistency issue with the use of decimals in statistical tables and things like innings pitched in prose. Why is the template a violation of WP:ACCESS? Is ((frac2)) any better? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe it's worse. The frac template is certainly the best non-decimal option, because at least the numbers are spoken by screen readers rather than the entire thing being skipped, as it is with the Unicode fractions. The solidus, on the other hand...since it's also Unicode and also gets skipped, how does the person listening to the screen reader know there's a fraction there at all?

I agree that prose is a trickier issue, but since it's a separate one, let's leave that aside until this one is settled. -Dewelar (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A correction to this. After some experimenting, at least ZoomText does, in fact, interpret the solidus and reads it as "slash", so one-half will read as "one-slash-two", which is probably borderline acceptable. Not sure how JAWS handles it, though. -Dewelar (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for including magic numbers on this chart. I looked for them on ESPN, but I guess they don't start showing them until later in the year, and I was curious if the Nationals still had even a theoretical shot. Now, I see that they do (although they still may not, in that the magic number formula doesn't account for the scheduling that makes all the other NL East teams' losing at the same time impossible.) Thanks for your hard work in keeping this updated. Coemgenus 14:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They actually aren't supposed to be included until one team in the league is mathematically eliminated, but someone put them in and I guess we all just ran with it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]