Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 18

Succession boxes

OK, ladies and gents, here's a question: Is being the last out of the World Series notable? It's certainly worth of a mention in article prose, but I don't believe it's something that needs a succession box in with the navboxes and so forth. If you really want to talk about template clutter, succession boxes are the place to look. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That should not be in a succession box. Wknight94 ^talk 12:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I started removing them, but I have no idea how far back they go... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also like see the "XYZ Team starting Second baseman" succession boxes go too. They take up MUCH more space than evil navboxes. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought those had all been eliminated already? If you find more of them, get rid of em. Spanneraol (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The navboxes were. I didn't realize there were ever succession boxes for that? --Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What I don't get is why you guys use both at once. Going back to my famous Derek Jeter example, there are both navboxes and succession boxes for AL ROY, ASG MVP, Gold Gloves, Babe Ruth Award, Hank Aaron Award and team captain. While I doubt I need to reiterate which I think is preferable - succession boxes provide high value links only: the award, when it was won, and who the immediate predecessor and successor was - such redundancy really only does add to the clutter that plagues many of these articles. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that sucession boxes for the last out of the World Series are fairly pointless. I also think having succession boxes and navboxes for the same award, position, etc. is highly redundant, and only one is necessary to keep. But I would argue it's the succession boxes that should go, as they provide so much less information in about the same amount of space. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another argument for the value of navboxes. I agree. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add that argument at the TfD for the next time someone tries this. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am going to have to disagree, but you knew that. Depending on the situation, winning a world series for example. It provides enough information without overwhelming, it links you to the season page of the world series champ so that then can do exactly what you say you want them to be able to do, go through each player. And it does this without having to have so many links in one spot that its clutter. Therefore it gives just as much information, if not more because they will have the whole champ season page at their fingertips. The whole problem people have with navboxes is that they are giving too many links in a small space, it has nothing to do with the litteral space they take up. So the fact a succession box is the same size as a navbox (although thats usually not true) has nothing to do with it. Its how they use the space that is the problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) At times, we get these trivial succession boxes at the Ice hockey articles. One that stuck out (IMHO) was the Edmonton Oilers top pts getter per season. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Navboxes are almost uniformly better than succession boxes, IMO, except perhaps in rare cases (the US Order of Succession, for example, fits nicely with a succession box). For example, the Rookie of the Year winners template transmits so much more information in the same (when compressed space) space as a succession box. But by using the template someone can learn more about Jeter and his fellow award winners or the award itself. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes link to the award, so you can learn about the award as well. Which has a list of all award winners, which from there the reader can learn about all those fellow award winners. Succession/Navboxes are not meant to inform by themselves, they are just supposed to link you to the most important links related to the subject of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that. But what I'm saying is that Succession boxes link to:

• Guy before
• Guy after
• The thing

• While navboxes link to those things PLUS TONS of other related links (other winners for an award, related articles for some topics, etc). Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right and that is the problem, they link to those tons of other articles, therefore making it harder to find the needle in the haystack. I'm not saying all navvboxes are bad by the way. I am saying championship team navboxes are. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not harder. The linking mechanism that allows the link to be bolded in the navbox shows the position of the current article, so you can very easily see the "before" and "after" links, while still providing navigation to many more related articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to look at it as a non-baseball fan. If you don't know what you are a looking for, then having 200+ links on the bottom of the page is more likely to confuse you rather than help you. Having a single (or few links) to pages that are relevant say the championship season page, where they can then see the links to the players in the proper context with additional information to help them continue on their journey is infinantly more helpful, than just throwing them 20 links at the bottom of the page with little or no context. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And now we're back to this again. Guess what? Everyone here is a baseball fan. No one here can "look at it as a non-baseball fan", because we all are. I'm kicking myself for getting involved in this discussion again. I'm not talking about it anymore. If anyone else wants to defend the navboxes, feel free. I will no longer participate in these discussions because they are unproductive and not helping to improve this encyclopedia. Period. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

When one argument doesn't stick, rotate back to the one before... wash, rinse, repeat (it's hard not to be sarcastic at this point). Huge assumptions are being made about the readers who are CHOOSING to read a baseball article. The phrase "needle in a haystack" has been thrown around a bunch in the disucssion, but it is nothing more than a strawman. Anyone can see in plain English what links exist, and it is not so startling a sight that a reader would throw up their hand. All they have to deal with is having more choices to access more relvant materials. In the end, all this is shaping up to be is a war of attrition that will keep going, it seems, until deletion is achieved. I haven't hit the point that KV5 is at yet, but I completely understand. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But you have to look at it that way (as a non-fan), every article is supposed to be written from the point of view of someone who does not know anything about the subject. Yes, many people will choose to read the articles that are baseball fans, of course this is a fact. However, we are supposed to write for the lowest common denominator. If you are not writing in that way you are doing a great disservice to the reader. A needle in a haystack is not a strawman as its a valid scenerio, that someone would read the article and know nothing about it to begin with. That is actually the point of an encyclopedia. So please stop waving stawman arguments around when its just plain not accurate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a strawman until it's demonstrated as an issue. So far it hasn't been. I've yet to see any presentation of how the navboxes are inaccessible to a "non-baseball fan," just assumptions and declarations. It's a line thrown out there a lot in this discussion along with "needle in a haystack" to see what sticks. But looking at a WS navbox, how the heck is that indesipherable, honestly? "New York Yankees 2009 World Series Champions"... nope, no idea what the subject of that navbox is. Again, I'm sorry about the sarcasm, but these arguments are verging on the ridiculous. Like a said, war of attrition... - Masonpatriot (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You simply dismiss the arguments as being a "strawman" because you can't actually overcome them. Ultimately, we are all just pissing in the wind though. Everyone knows that all of these trivial and low value links will continue to clutter these articles. C'est la vie. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 16:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Image note

We're always choked on images of actual trophies, so just for posterity here is another free image of the Commish trophy. Kanesue uploaded 3 shots from that guy's photostream, he has some nice free images (Kanesue found most of the good ones, though there is a pretty solid Swisher image also). Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I had to figure that with 3 million of us in the Canyon of Heroes, someone would get some good pictures and upload them with permissions to disseminate. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links To Baseball HOF

It seems that the Baseball Hall of Fame web site has been updated and all links to player profiles have been broken. I don't know if this is temporary or not.Orsoni (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to leave a message on the same topic. This is an extreme problem at List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, which just recently passed through a featured list removal candidacy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is at least the second time in recent memory that the HoF has pulled this shenanigan. Maybe it would be better just to link to their home page and let the reader do the navigation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They didn't just change URLs, they removed the pages, eh? Not much we can do about that. Wknight94 ^talk 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Anyways I proposed that idea before (to KV5 for sub-pages of Baseball-Reference for in-depth stats) but the refs really should point to the specific page. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the site is still being rolled out, so hopefully the profiles will return. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim Devlin

There are two articles, one for Jim Devlin and one for Jim Devlin (pitcher), except that "Jim Devlin" was a pitcher. I realize "Jim Devlin" was involved in the first big baseball gambling scandal, but since they were both pitchers, and since they both played a long time ago, isn't there a convention to more adequately name the above articles? I only discovered there was a second Jim Devlin because I clicked the random article link and got it.DandyDan2007 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:NC-BASE, the naming conventions guideline for baseball figures, the first possible disambiguator that applies in this case is "left-handed pitcher" and "right-handed pitcher". However, I don't think the original Jim Devlin article should be moved, because he is much more notable than the lefty or the catcher. Thus, I would move the stub Jim Devlin (pitcher) to Jim Devlin (left-handed pitcher), because the Devlin who threw games was a righty. I wouldn't have a problem if it was eventually decided to move the article currently at Jim Devlin to Jim Devlin (right-handed pitcher), but I just don't think it's necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I knew there had to be something. I'm leaving it as is, at least until we get actor Jim Devlin or something.DandyDan2007 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article for the lesser-known Devlin should be moved regardless, and hatnotes should be placed on both articles directing readers to the other player. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball awards

I realize most of you are already aware, but Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball awards/archive1 needs more reviewers, if anyone has the time. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Standings templates

Should we have the color red on the navbox on top of the AL standings templates. It was neutral the years before and I like having it the same. But BlueJaysFan32 put in the color (which could be bias cuz it could indicate preference to teams with the color red). He says because it looks better with his 2010 Blue Jays and that red it the AL's color (Which is true, but I am not an advocate of the NFC/AFC color indicating on MLB standings templates). Also most people don't know the AL/NL colors and/or their respective logo, which more people know in the NFL, which is acceptable for the color labeling. I don't mind the red on top but it is too dark and needs to be lighter like the NFL to not favor a team with a similier color and also needs to be done on the the NL roster as well if done at all. Ositadinma 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The color serves no purpose and is strictly decorative, which is discouraged per WP:ACCESS, WP:COLOR, and MOS:COLOR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

MLB managers by team

Anyone willing to update all the managers by team lists? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Some are done; I know the Phillies are done, and I fixed the Nationals today since it was horrendously out of date. I can take care of the others on my watchlist, and I think there's a plan in the works to try to push the remaining non-featured lists to the top of the heap later on this offseason and into next year, so they should get updated eventually if not now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have of trying to get these managers/head coaches by team topics to be featured is the lack of a topic list. Any idea for the topic? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've had this going in my Sandbox. The discussion I got at WP:FT agreed that something along the lines of List of current Major League Baseball managers would be an appropriate list (exists for the NBA), and that could be slightly piped (as many topics are) for the topic list to simply Lists of Major League Baseball managers. Likely needs updating, haven't touched it per any new FLCs Staxringold _talk^contribs 08:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Major League Baseball managers

30 articles

Arizona Diamondbacks
Atlanta Braves
 Baltimore Orioles
 Boston Red Sox
 Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox
 Cincinnati Reds
Cleveland Indians
Colorado Rockies
Detroit Tigers

Florida Marlins
 Houston Astros
 Kansas City Royals
 Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Los Angeles Dodgers
 Milwaukee Brewers
 Minnesota Twins
 New York Mets
 New York Yankees
Oakland Athletics

 Philadelphia Phillies
 Pittsburgh Pirates
St. Louis Cardinals
 San Diego Padres
 San Francisco Giants
 Seattle Mariners
Tampa Bay Rays
 Texas Rangers
 Toronto Blue Jays
 Washington Nationals

And I've been developing the list of MLB managers in my sandbox: see here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yowza. That looks like a good base page. Maybe you should move it to the main space so we can all help work on it. I'll help to get those other lists up to FL status. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a general idea that we should have separate pages for field managers and for owners/executives, correct? --Muboshgu (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If a team has an extremely long, varied, or complicated ownership history, then it makes sense to have a separate article; if not, then it would probably be a content fork to separate them. As an aside, since Stax and I have been talking about this for a bit, I'll work on the A's list, since it's long and gives me some kind of Philly connection to work with. Haha. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to mix owners with managers, reagrdless of how long or complicated the ownership history is. An owner and a manager serve very different functions, and I don't think it makes much sense to mix them in a list. General managers and other team execs probably belong more with the owners than with the managers as well, although there are some featured lists that include the general managers with the managers. Rlendog (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I've given the Marlins a start, at least. Needs a bit more work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since my Yankees are good, and I'm very busy with work right now, I'll take an expansion team or two to start. I'll work on Colorado, maybe Tampa Bay and St. Louis. I say St. Louis because it seems close. I'm guessing that all the articles named "XXXX managers" should be moved to "List of XXX managers" for the sake of conformity. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the format they should all be using? I can try to convert the Dodgers page. Question.. why does each manager need to be sourced separately when you can source the whole list from one source usually.Spanneraol (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It is mostly because if the manager is a BHOF or something similar. Great idea by KV5; I'll suggest this to the NHL and NBA head coaches list topic too. The only thing worrying me is that some lists also have the team general managers and owners. Hope WP:FTC will allow it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

To deal with that, I propose doing for every team what I've done with List of New York Yankees owners and executives. This is more doable with teams that have been around a while, as opposed to your Colorado's and Arizona's. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is excellent. Every team has enough to say about the managers alone to support a featured list for the managers. And a separate list of owners and executives is an excellent way to deal with the team's front office personel. Rlendog (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that making a separate page for the executives will lessen the bytes on the managers pages, though with teams that haven't been here for a while should just list the executives on their own respective team pages. I still don't know why we put the owners and executives together with the managers... Also, if we are doing the main topic KV5's way, should we change the topic to "Major League Baseball managers by team", or just "Major League Baseball managers"?-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Every team has just one manager, so I think it amounts to the same. By keeping it general it remains all inclusive so it can be a list of CURRENT managers, but be the base article for lists of ALL managers by team. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I still have no idea what you mean, since I don't get what you mean by "it amounts the same", and "keeping it general it remains all inclusive so it can be a list of CURRENT managers". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• At least to me "Major League Baseball managers by team" doesn't seem as generalizable. It doesn't sound like you'll have historical lists. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "historical lists"? Sorry, but I really don't understand what you're trying to get to. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• So "Major League Baseball managers by team" or "Major League Baseball managers"? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't get what "by team" adds. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• All the lists are by team, for example List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim managers or List of Tampa Bay Rays managers, plus KV5's idea on his sandbox also lists the managers by team sections, for example Atlanta Braves and Arizona Diamondbacks. If it is just not by team, then we should be listing all the MLB managers, which is practically impossible (look here). -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's why the actual article would be at current managers. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• With the format I'm proposing for the lead article, the designator "current" isn't needed. It's a "List of Major League Baseball managers", and is simply an overview of the managerial history of each team. It does denote who the current manager is for each team, but also tells about the history, because I think a list of current managers only has the potential to be too unstable and doesn't present any information not available in the navbox. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the proposal in your sandbox, it seems odd if the list of lists has a summary paragraph for each list, but the actual list does not. It would seem redundant for the summary paragraph to be included in both lists, though, and more appropriate for it to be in the per-team list. Perhaps it can be dispensed with in the list of lists, and added to the per-team lists? Isaac Lin (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is only going to be one list. Each team list, when completed will have summary information, and in my estimation, giving a quick summary with franchise firsts, leaders, and current manager is a lot more valuable than a table than doesn't really show anything. The current format handles both the "List of lists" and the "List of current managers" at the same time, negating the possibility of a content fork. The leagues will be arranged in the same way, which is historically relevant: baseball developed in the East and spread westward, so the divisions are listed East, Central, West, and the National League is older, so it is listed before the American League. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your sandbox proposal has a link to each team list, and a summary paragraph for each list. If, as you say above, the team list article itself will have summary information, then is it necessary for there to be a summary paragraph in each section of your proposal? Isaac Lin (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think so, yes. See, for example, List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford and List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government. Both featured lists, the first a summary article which contains various types of alumni, including a summary section linking to the second list. This isn't separate from sports lists, however, it's also the style discussed at length in the FLC of the soon to be featured list List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the example, the summary paragraph in the first article is largely the same as the one in the second, so again, why is it necessary to duplicate information, thereby duplicating maintenance effort? Isaac Lin (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Right, what Rlendog said. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Huh? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Look at my inability to read... sorry... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been away a couple of days and just saw this. I think this is an excellent idea by Killervogel5. I'd actually been thinking something along these lines myself, but couldn't figure out what to do for a lead article. The other issue is what to do for managers of defunct teams. List of Louisville Colonels managers just got promoted to FL, but I think that is the only defunct team with enough managers to meet the FL requirements. Other defunct teams could go through PR as articles of limited scope, but there are a lot of those. On the other hand, many of those defunct teams had less than 4 managers, so separate articles may not be warranted for them, and only a handful would then need to be peer reviewed. Another approach would to have a big List of managers of defunct Major League Baseball teams. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think that's the more valid route. Doesn't really make sense to include non-MLB teams (currently) in an MLB list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know which is better. The teams I have in mind all were Major League teams, and all their managers were Major League managers. Obviously, there would not be any Louisville Colonels or Cleveland Spiders managers in the current, main list, but I was thinking of how to best incorporate them into a comprehensive FT. Rlendog (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but I dunno if once a Major League manager means they should always be included. For one thing every single Union Association team was a Major League team. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• True, but that is just 12 teams for 1 season. Obviously, there can't be a featured list of the managers of any of those teams. So maybe it is appropriate to ignore them for this purpose (or just put them into a big defunct team manager list). But it would be less appropriate to ignore the managers of a team like the 19th century Orioles. But that list could be peer reviewed, if not included in the master defunct team list. Rlendog (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• The more I think about it, the more I am warming to creating a List of managers of defunct Major League Baseball teams, which seems necessary if this topic is going to meet the comprehensiveness criteria. I am thinking that for teams that lasted at least 5 years, a separate sublist can be used. In many cases these could borrow from lists that already exist, although some, like the Buffalo Bisons, do not exist yet. For the rest, a grand list could be used, showing manager, team, league and record. This would cover the UA, the Federal League, and many other teams. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• That means that the lists of defunct teams topic would have to be completed before the main one is, as was done with the awards subtopics. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• It would just be one list of all the managers who managed defunct teams, showing the team, league and record. It would not be a topic - in fact it could not be a FT because I don't think any of the defunct teams besides Louisville had enough managers to qualify. But a single master list of the defunct team managers would have plenty of managers to qualify. And so it could just be included within the main topic so that the "Major League Managers" topic includes all the Major League managers, whether or not the team they managed is still around. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, I thought there was more than one. It could be a viable subtopic with only one more list; there's not one other team that qualifies? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I think you are correct. The NL Washington Senators lasted just 9 years but seem to have employed 12 managers. I doubt there are any other though. I didn't check every team, but once you get down to the teams that lasted 5 seasons or less, the chance of them having at least 10 managers dwindles. Rlendog (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, excellent. The other lists that are currently listed in the MLB managers navbox can also be peer-reviewed elements of the topic of limited subject matter, so they would also be part of the subtopic. The other teams that have five to six managers or less can easily be rolled into the hypothetical main article, and poof! We have another possible FT. I will certainly be willing to help in peer reviewing the other lists as they are put up for consideration at PR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Injured players on WS templates

It is the S.O.P. for us to only include players who made the postseason roster for the World Series championship templates, but I think an exception needs to be made for those who were injured. For example, I believe Template:2009 New York Yankees should include Xavier Nady and Chien-Ming Wang, though they were not able to play. Clearly, there is some reason to consider them among the other players, as those who saw the Yankees parade know that Wang and Nady were both present and awarded keys to the city along with everyone else on the postseason rosters (including your Ramiro Pena's and Freddy Guzman's). Of course someone left off the roster consciously (like Jonathan Albaladejo or Edwar Ramirez) should not be added, but those on the DL should not be treated the same way as those in AAA. Thoughts? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should allow ourselves the subjectivity of determining who is and who isn't worthy of the template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu. A player who ends the season on the DL and is thus not on the postseason roster is not subjective. That player is a member of the team and in many cases a key part of the reason the team made the postseason, and thus belongs on the template. Rlendog (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I still feel that the only players that should be listed on these templates are those that actually played in the World Series. It is subjective to determine how important the injured players were to the success of the team.. And in past years it is really nearly impossible. If they played in the series, they should be included.. Otherwise no. - Spanneraol (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case we take off Guzman, who was left off the WS roster, but played in the previous rounds? --Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The early rounds are part of the postseason, so Guzman was on the postseason roster. It would be ridiculous to take, for example, Reggie Jackson off the 1972 A's template just because he got hurt in the ALCS. Rlendog (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a World Series roster template, not a postseason roster template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a team template for the team that won the World Series. And it is impossible to make a credible argument that Jackson was not a key member of that team. And I am not sure he wasn't on the WS roster, since it was much more difficult to change the postseaon roster midstream than it is today (I'm thinking for example of the Manny Trillo/Mike Andrews fiasco from the following year, although in 1972 Jackson was unquestionably genuinely injured). Rlendog (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's for the team that won the World Series, then every player that appeared for the team that year should be included. Obviously that makes no sense. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If they got a ring, why doesn't it make sense to include them in the template? Rlendog (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See my response below. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it subjective? There is a defined roster. On it, on template. Not on it, not on template. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's subjective because it would be individual editors making subjective decisions on who is "worthy" of being included (as Muboshgu is doing above). Who is on the post-season and/or WS roster is verifiable and can be determined by reliable sources. Deciding that some players not on those rosters are worthy of inclusion and others aren't likely violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. A previous discussion had here at WP:Baseball can be found here. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• That's what I said... On the roster, on the template. Not, then not. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, Staxringold. That's what I get for not taking the time to read your entire response... a whole 19 words :) - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On the DL is different than being left off. And I'm not being subjective, I'm going by how the team chose to honor players at the parade. Wang and Nady were there, along with Cervelli and Guzman, while Albaladejo, Ramirez, etc. were not. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:RS says anything about parades, which is why I think we should stick to the official active roster. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Of course I could point out that he was in the clubhouse and dugout throughout the playoffs.[1] --Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, a lot of non-active players are in the dugouts of postseason teams. For example, Ricky Gutierrez and Royce Clayton were in the '04 and '07 Red Sox dugouts, respectively, during those postseasons, but they didn't sniff the postseason rosters and rightly aren't in a WS navbox. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As with Lou Marson in 2008 and Jamie Moyer in 2009 (had the Phillies won). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Those guys weren't hurt, were they? I'm pretty sure they were only left off the roster for performance issues, and so they're rightly left off the templates. Injury is another matter. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Moyer was indeed injured. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which demonstrates the exact problem of where you draw the line. You could argue that Moyer has a much better argument to be included in a WS navbox because he at least played most the year. Wang pitched in 12 games and Nady played in 7. Heck, you could argue that Ramirez has a better argument to be in the navbox because he at least appeared in 20 games. So why the differentiation between injured and "performance reasons" (which is also bogus, because we are subjectively determining why a person made a roster when there is no source from the team to back that up)? Which brings us back to the beginning... we have a way to make a black-and-white determination - on the postseason roster, on the navbox. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So Moyer would have belonged if the Phillies had won. Ramirez, though, was left off the postseason roster because he was pretty bad. Wang and Nady would have been there if healthy. It's clear that Ramirez didn't make the roster because he wasn't as good as Marte, Bruney, Robertson, etc. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective or unverifiable about the disabled list. Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Then is every player on the 15-day DL and the 60-day DL automatically included, whether they had a chance to play in the postseason or not? If it's not bright-line, then we shouldn't start messing with it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

What would cause someone on the DL not to have a chance to play in the postseason? If they are otherwise ineligible for the preseason (such as being acquired after the deadline) that would be an obvious exception that would be easy to apply in the rare circumstances it would come up. Otherwise, I am not sure what would cause any given player not to have a chance to make the post-season roster. Plenty of scrubs who spent most of the season in the minors have made postseason rosters for various reasons. Rlendog (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are getting all subjective again.. if he wasn't hurt he'd be on the roster... maybe... Wang sucked when he played... I doubt he'd have been on the roster even if healthy... lots of guys are on the DL at different times.. not all of them deserve to be on the postseason roster... again.. it's all a pov thing at this point.Spanneraol (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wang sucked because he hadn't recovered fully. If healthy, he would've likely pitched similarly to how he pitched before the injury, which would've put him on the postseason roster. But yeah this can get POVish, which is why I'd go by who the Yankees honored at the parade. That's objective. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It still is POV. The standard should apply to these templates generally, not one set of rules for the Yankees, one for the Phillies, etc. The keys (or whatever they are) are not recognized or sanctioned by MLB. Using the keys argument, it's Michael Bloomberg who determines who gets into the navbox... and we arrive back at POV issues. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming it was up to Bloomberg, don't get me started on that egotist. I would need to find a source to placate this but I'm sure it was the choice of the team, just as the Phillies could've chosen to honor whoever they felt they should honor. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) I'm gonna second the idea that only if they're on the postseason roster, they probably belong on the template. Looking at the template, as it says "WS Champions", then it should probably be restricted to the WS (only) roster. My one question is, if it's a template for the WS Champion team... why is it simply named "2009 New York Yankees"? I would think that that name is too broad for what's actually there currently. umrguy42 04:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why it's not restricted to people on the active WS roster, necessarily. It's broad and specific at the same time, which leaves som e of it open for interpretation. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The name of the template does not influence its content, unless it's blatantly the wrong thing. The template itself is entitled "2009 New York Yankees World Series Champions". World Series, not postseason, not league champions, not 2009 New York Yankees team. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Technically, anyone who gets a ring is a "World Champion", and teams usually are overly inclusive in who they give rings to. We shouldn't include all of them, why should we be as restrictive as possible, rather than including some but not all? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason not to include everyone who gets a ring. Then we could avoid the supposed "subjectivity" that some are complaining about. But in response to Killervogel5, part of becoming World Series champion is getting to the World Series. That involves the regular season and the pre-World Series postseason, not just the World Series itself. Reggie Jackson was a key reason the A's won the 1972 World Series, even if he injured himself getting them to the World Series. Same with Willie Randolph in 1978, and many others. To imply that they were not part of their respective World Championship teams is silly, and that is what leaving them off the templates would do. Now if this was an article entitled 2009 Yankees World Series roster, then it would be appropriate to include only those on the World Series roster (although even then, some of the players who were injured during the postseason prior to the WS in the 1970s would still belong, since they could not be removed from the roster). Rlendog (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So Nomar goes on the 2004 Red Sox champions template? Everyone in the front office who got a ring goes on the template? No. That makes absolutely no sense. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomar makes sense to me. He contributed to the championship. Although I would be fine with leaving him off too, since he was no longer on the team when they won the WS (as opposed to an injured player, who is still on the team). You're right about the front office though. I was thinking about field personel, not front office personel. Rlendog (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Their is no source that I know of that lists "everyone" who gets a ring... teams give rings out to scores of people... We really only have two options here for these: 1) WS Roster or 2) Everyone who played during the season. Anything inbetween is pure pov... I believe the majority still prefers option 1.Spanneraol (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• What Spanneraol said. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with (2), i.e., everyone who played during the season. Rlendog (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking all of those additional players is pushing us outside the limits of useful navigation... and I'm not partaking of that argument. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What is really useless is a 1972 A's template that excludes Reggie Jackson or a 1978 Yankees template that excludes Willie Randolph. Rlendog (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And I am not sure we need to include "all" those additional players (even though I am fine with that). We have templates for championship teams in years which no World Series was played. So those templates are clearly not based on a WS roster or a postseason roster. While those are relevant for teams that won a WS, the criteria for inclusion on templates for non-WS teams should also apply to WS teams. Rlendog (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(od again)Sorry, I'll try to re-iterate and clarify what I was saying above:

• The NAME of the template page is Template:2009 New York Yankees. I would think if I went to that page, or wanted to use that template, I wouldn't expect it to be restricted to the WS champions team.
• Since the Template is titled 2009 NYY WS Champions, I would say limiting it to those players only on the WS roster.

umrguy42 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The template is titled "2009 NYY WS Champions", not "2009 NYY World Series Roster." On what basis are Yankee players who were not on the roster not considered "World Series Champions"? Or, going back to a different example, who does not consider the 1972 A's all-star right fielder, who missed the WS due to an injury suffered on the play that put the A's in the WS, not to be a 1972 World Series champion, whether or not the A's were able to remove him from the WS roster. In order to win the world series, you have to get to the world series. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • So using your above argument, let's break down our options: A) we use a black and white standard that is supported by verifiable reliable sources, and is determined by a process that can be used uniformly from a WP:NPOV on all navboxes; or, B)We delve into each and every navbox determining who "really" contributed, who got "keys" from random city mayors and which will without doubt degenerate into edit warring and subjective arguments likely influenced by the rooting interest of each involved editor. How is this a debate? The whole root of this debate is a perceived need to "recognize" members of a particular team, when it is not our role to confer such things. Only option A (which is also the current prevailing consensus) can truly abide by NPOV, RS and can avoid becoming WP:OR. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
      • First of all, A) would also support A1) including all players who appeared with the team during the season, or A2) including all players who appeared with team during the team during the season and ended the season with the team (avoiding the Nomar issue raised by Killervogel5 above. Secondly, a policy that would leave Reggie Jackson off a 1972 Oakland A's template, even a 1972 Oakland A's World Championship template, is what would violate WP:OR and WP:RS (and I am not sure how WP:NPOV comes into play here). Every source I found that explicitly mentions Reggie Jackson's World Championship count, including such accepted reliable sources such as ESPN and BaseballLibrarym state that he won 5 World Series Championships, not 4, so they obviously include 1972. Similarly, sources that mention the number of Willie Randolph's World Series championships include 1978. So excluding Jackson from the 1972 template or Randolph from the 1978 template would violate WP:OR, not the other way around. And third what is really needed is some WP:COMMONSENSE. It would be very difficult to argue that Reggie Jackson was not a key member of the 1972 A's, and there are reliable sources backing up that he won a championship that season, and any reasonably knowledgable fan looking at a 1972 A's template would expect to see him there. So I hardly think that would create significant edit warring. And if we can agree to apply such a rule with a modicum of common sense (i.e., Jackson and Randolph in, even if Wang and Nady are out), I could support something like WS roster or postseason roster. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, what I am suggesting can be easily accomodated as a general rule without any WP:OR involved. Reliable sources such as Baseball-Reference clearly indicate who the regulars were in any season, so a rule that says "included on postseason (or WS roster), or was a regular on the team who was injured for the postseason (or ended the season with the team) would be included on the template. Fits perfectly well within (A), would not require any one off decisions (Even those supported by reliable sources, such as Jackson or Randolph), and would be more sensical than implying that all-star players who were injured for the World Series were somehow not part of the World Championship team. Rlendog (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • One more question - this is the 2nd time you've stated or implied that including only players on the WS (or maybe postseason) roster is the "current prevailing consensus". Where is that consensus documented? Rlendog (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(od)Ok, here is my semblance of a response... 1) Your A2 option brings us back to the issue of including players who saw minimal action andwere no where close to being on the postroster (call-ups and such). In perviosu discussions, there has been a collective deisre not to include these players, using the WS/postseason roster as a bright line rule. We also run into the problem of determining whethere players finished the year in that organization, especially for past years. 2) Despite your claiming the opposite, determining "regulars" is completely subjective. What are the thresholds? Are they different for each position? It is just a gut call? I mean, look at the two players that started this discussion, Wang and Nady. Obviously there are some editors what want them included, but to call them regulars in the 2009 season (when looking objectively at their playing time) is bogus (and the case for Nady is laughable.... 7 games, 29 ABs, last played on April 14). This is just one example of the many debates that would drag on determining "regulars." And what about a regular who was hurt for the whole season? They would have been there if not for injury (just like the claims being made for Wang and Nady). 3) The previous discussion I mentioned was linked to earlier in this thread, but here it is again. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK on (1) and (3), despite my personal preferences. On (2), determining "regulars" is NOT completely subjective. I doubt anyone would call Wang and Nady regulars for the 2009 season (not even me, despite the fact that I think they should be included because I take a more expansive view on the subject). But for Jackson-1972 and Randolph-1978, there is no credible case that they weren't regulars. And there are reliable sources to back them up, and to support the fact that they won World Series championships in the respective years in which they were injured for the WS. So no subjectivity at all is needed there - just follow the reliable sources. There may be some closer situations, but those will be few, and can be discussed if someone objects to their inclusion/exclusion. But in most situations, if someone adds player X who played just 20 games and missed the postseason to a template, that can be easily deleted with lots of support, just like now. And if someone adds player Y, who missed the postseason but played 140 games, that can just be left alone, whether based on explicit rules, WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE or whatever, and if someone objects, it should be pretty obvious that that player was an integral part of the championship. But a better approach would be to use the same criteria we use for templates for champions in non-WS years (e.g., 1904 New York Giants) and add anyone else who was on the postseason roster. That would provide internal consistency and useful, rational definitions of the templates. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

While I don't like the templates at all, if you are going to use them you need a bright line division. Its too bad the MLB isn't like the NHL which has a set of rules for who can be inscribed on the Stanley Cup (need to play so many playoff games or play in the final series and some others). If mlb did something similar it would be easy to just go with that. The best brightlines are any player who played throughout the entire year, any player who played in the post season, and any player who played in the actual world series. Since I am a fan of less links is better I would go with the last option. Injured players that didn't play in my opinion are SOL. (which is how the NHL would treat them...not sure if MLB would or wouldn't since they don't have the same sort of rules.) -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You know how you could solve this problem completely? (sorry just had to add some leveity as y'all are getting fairly heated). -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't resist, huh? I look forward to our next week-long, "no consensus" battle :) - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Honor Rolls of Baseball

I just put my finishing touches on this list, and published it. If anyone has any ideas on how to better this, especially someone who has resources for baseball writer biographies, I welcome it. I would like to eventually bring this up the FL status.Neonblak ^talk - 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I have to bring it up, but that fair-use image has got to go. Because there are other free-use images illustrating the article, and because it's not integral to the understanding of the article's subject, no proper fair-use rationale can be provided. It also needs to be categorized, the header should be removed from the key table, and the Hall of Fame is overlinked in all of the image captions. The prose needs a copyedit; I saw punctuation errors, fragmented sentences and others where the grammar did not make sense, and spelling mistakes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, I know there needs to be a copy edit. Let me just re-phrase the "finishing touches", I didn't actually mean that it was beyond help, I was meaning more toward the structure of the list itself. If there were any ideas on how to make this better. Which picture are you referring to? If you mean the hall of fame photo, I chose it because this is a Baseball Hall of Fame related article.Neonblak ^talk - 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I do mean the logo of the Hall of Fame. Whether the article is related to the BBHOF or not, this image is used under a claim of fair use. That means that it cannot be used without an adequate fair-use rationale. With other free images illustrating the article, no adequate rationale can be provided. It will not pass FLC with that image; I guarantee it. As to the structure of the list, it looks good to me. The lead is of an appropriate length, and the tables are well-constructed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you KV5, I will find an appropriate replacement for the pic. I will copyedit this article myself, then have someone else do it as well, it is not my strong suit.Neonblak ^talk - 00:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Providence Grays all-time roster

I just overhauled this list and published it. Again, if anyone wants to contribute to this in my attempt to bring it up to the FL level, please do.Neonblak ^talk - 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added this to the peer review list here if would like to look it over.Neonblak ^talk - 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bowman Trading Cards and Gum, Inc.

In two articles on Bowman trading cards, it is stated that card production was halted during the second world war, from 1942 to 1948. This information appears in trustworthy Baseball card references, however, it is not quite true. Gum, Inc. continued to print non-sports trading cards which were distributed to soldiers. You can search for Gum Inc on ebay and see examples of non-sports trading cards, including cards with war themes and girl-themed pin-up cards, printed in WW2 in standard trading card formats. I can provide images of some of the pin-up cards, if necessary. I am new to the Wiki project, and hesitate to edit the articles in question, until I know better what I am doing. I am asking if someone will help me get started, and do this right. Thanks. Tjallen (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Following advice of Secret, clarified "sports-related" in Bowman article. Tjallen (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Contracts

Is the amount of a contract notable? I don't mean an A-Rod, $290-odd million deal, I mean the amount of the contract that Joe Blow Ballplayer gets just because he chose free agency. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Judgment call. But generally I think yes. If the question is does it have to be reflected, I would say no. But I would not delete a reference in an article that does reflect it.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the context. A raise in salary amounts can demonstrate an increase in value, if you will, but just giving an amount by itself probably won't mean much to the reader. But like Epeefleche said above, I wouldn't go out of my way to delete it. Mm40 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are several users going out of their way to add it at the moment, in an article that has a lot of other issues to begin with. Just figured I would get input here so I know where others stand. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's certainly a source-able fact. As Mm said, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to delete it. I don't like those "Career earnings" tables some articles have/had, but the contract amount is at least worth mentioning if the contract negotiations/signings are in the article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 World Series ratings

I've been working on 2009 World Series towards the eventual goal of an FA. I've had to slow down a bit due to the end of school term approaching in real life, but in a couple weeks I'll be on break for a while and want to finish off the article and get it to FAC. One big issue, however, is the ratings section. Media Life Magazine, while a nice source, has not put out a similar month summary article as they did in 2004 to maintain their data tables that sourced the ratings info (as such the current source no longer works). Archive.org doesn't have this page saved. I do, however, have these 2 pages of official Nielsen data hosted on TVbytheNumbers.com. 1 and 2. This is exactly the data that Media Life had, and it's sourced to Nielsen. FLC allowed similarly hosted data as a reliable source in my FLC for 30 Rock (season 3), think those sources would be acceptable? Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox MLB player}} should be merged into {{Infobox baseball biography}}

Is there any reason that this hasn't happened yet? It just creates unnecessary work when a player moves from one league to another. I don't think there are any changes to the Infobox baseball biography needed, from the looks of it. --Torsodog^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The only change I think should be made to Infobox baseball biography is the Professional debut and Last professional appearance should be changed to MLB debut and Last MLB appearance for players who only played in MLB.--Yankees10 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that merge, as long as there's a bot to migrate all of the current usages into the new usage. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Would this be for both current and former players? (i.e. both the player and retired infobox) It's okay to do but they HAVE to be bot-moved to avoid issues further down the line if we're doing this. Wizardman 17:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dee Gordon

Following a discussion on the talk page of the above article, Yankees10 and I are bringing the article Dee Gordon up for discussion. My concern with the article is that the sources do not establish "signficant independent coverage" of the article's subject, as only one source addresses the player in detail, and another piggybacks off of his father's notability. We are seeking further comment from the project before considering the next step. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he's notable enough to merge into the player list, but definitely not notable enough for his own article. Wizardman 17:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Definitional merge. Completely fails WP:ATHLETE (not even a notable level draft choice) and the sourcing hardly establishes notability beyond that. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a kind of off topic a bit, but the User:Halvorsen brian for the past couple of months or so has created a bunch of minor league players, mainly in the Mariners organization. Hes done a good job with these articles but my only question is whether these players are notable enough to have their own articles. Examples include: Kyle Parker, James Jones (baseball), Rich Poythress, Colt Hynes, Austin Bibens-Dirkx, etc.--Yankees10 17:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I do see a few in there that probably don't pass muster either: Bibens-Dirkx only uses one website as a source and its reliability is questionable; Parker and Hynes don't have significant coverage in reliable sources that focus on them either. Poythress qualifies under the general notability guideline, I think, and Jones is borderline. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Before anyone noms any of these for AfD, I would suggest doing more than just looking at the refs in the articles; at minimum doing a google search (web, news, and books). For example, just checking on Bibens-Dirkx the first hit I got was this article, and there appear to be other sources. The fact that nobody has put the sources in the article yet isn't enough for deletion if articles exist. Best, --Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of the article or the discussion... but Gordon was the Midwest League player of the year (and a member of the All-Star team) and prospect of the year and the Dodgers minor league player of the year.[2][3]. I think I can fix up the article with more refs to make it work as a standalone. Spanneraol (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Midwest League MVP and coverage in several sources seem to establish adequate notability to warrant an separate article. Rlendog (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Minnie Rojas

He was a California Angels reliever in the late 1960's. Then he was paralyzed in a automobile accident. In the wake of the death of Nick Adenhart, Rojas was mentioned many times as one of the tragedies that have befallen Angels players. Rojas, who pitched his last MLB game in 1968, died in 2001.

A minor league team that always interested me was the Hawaii Islanders. While assembling a list of players who played for them, I came across Rojas. Rojas was in an Islander uniform in 1969. The Wikipedia article said- "His major league career was abruptly ended after the 1968 season when he was paralyzed in an automobile accident."

How could Rojas pitch in 1969 if he was paralyzed. Many articles, blog posts, etc written after the Adenhart tragedy set the time of Rojas motor vehicle in 1968. Could dozens of entries that can be found with the words 'Minnie Rojas paralyzed' be wrong?

The answer is yes. Google has old newspapers archived. The St. Petersburg Times is one, the Eugene Register-Guard is another. I found this Associate Press article dated April 2, 1970 that the Register-Guard published.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=w-QQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=POEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3998,456341&dq=minnie+rojas+accident&hl=en

It said Rojas "was still in critical condition today from a Wednesday auto accident that killed his two daughters.

So the accident was actually in 1970. You could say this date discrepancy traces back to a Baseball Digest dated in 1979 that placed the accident in 1968. Ever since the date has been wrongly reported more often than it has been correct.

Who was killed in the accident has been wrongly reported too. Some combination of Rojas wife and daughters. Rojas wife did survive.

I'm just bringing this up so that article writers weigh what they find on the internet about ballplayers and games played long ago. There is a great deal of wrong information out there on not just baseball, but other sports like golf. Do a google news archive search is my recommendation if you're writing or editing wikipedia articles.William 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Sox In Australia?

Hey guys, I read this today from one of Sydney's biggest newspapers, The Daily Telegraph. It suggests that Boston will be playing one of their March fixtures in Australia? Interesting. Can anyone else find stuff on this? JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 01:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Though i think it would be interesting, it's not so. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I know Jon Deeble has a big say on Australian baseball, so perhaps that's the Sox connection. Or perhaps mixed up with this quote from Deeble yesterday:

Here's the great news from MLB and it is all due to those who came out or bought tickets last night. MLB loved the night and there is a good POSSIBILTY i repeat POSSIBILTY that the 1st round of the 2012 World Baseball Classic will be played in Australia at Etihad Stadium. Also there is a push and a chance that the MLB All Stars will come to Australia next year to play the Australian All Stars. There is alot of water that needs to go under the bridge and a lot of hoops to jump through but MLB want this to happen. So thanks to all of you, the night was well worth it, Statleine was there also they really liked it too.

JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 03:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

I think given all the anonymous edits that come with something like the rumors surrounding Curtis Granderson, we should make more efforts to get 24-hr page protections. It wastes too much timre to revert every single edit. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's running rampant, an admin at WP:RFPP should be able to help out with at least a semi-protection for a short time, especially since they are BLPs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Austin Jackson and Ian Kennedy have seen some jumping of the gun as well. Be sure to keep an eye on Edwin Jackson, Max Scherzer, Phil Coke and Daniel Schlereth.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I put in a WP:RFPP on Granderson. I'll watch the others as well, but it's usually the biggest name in the trade that gets it the most. I just think we should use WP:RFPP as S.O.P. whenever a big free agent signing or trade is announced, but not yet finalized. That Mark Teixeira thing went on forever last year. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Chone Figgins is getting the royal treatment this year too... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we should get it protected as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody other than me be reverting on Hideki Matsui, not enough for page protection...yet.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll watch it and PP after one or two more. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any left to write?!

Hi there. I'm an active participant of the cricket WikiProject, and baseball has always struck me as an interesting sport. I've been looking to write a nice article on a baseball player for a while now, but you seem to have done them all already! In cricket, there are bits and pieces one or two game wonders from 1850 onwards that always need making. The project compiles them together in a to-do list, but I can't find such a similar list here! Is there a nice redlink'd player I can create somewhere? :( SGGH ^ping! 15:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful that there are any redlinks, but we have oodles and oodles of stubs that aren't much more than redlinks that could use a good expansion - over 15,000 right now! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you felt like doing a bit of research (the books are out there) the Negro Leagues are rife with material waiting for creation/expansion. A lot of the notable player articles have been made, but plenty are there for expansion. Look at Walter Johnson, arguably the greatest pitcher of all time, doesn't even have a B-Class article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I shall try Dick Padden for no apparent reason. Cheers, SGGH ^ping! 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Heh, go for it. Be warned though, non-HoFers/super-notable guys will be harder to find non-statistical info on. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco Giants all-time roster, among a few others, has loads of redlinks for you to take a stab at. We are getting near the end of the tunnel though, I think, not too many to make. Wizardman 16:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dick Padden, I could use someone putting those last two stats in the infobox! I don't know which ones they are from baseball-refernece.com. There also appears to be a period between 1899 till 1901 where he either didn't play or did something that wasn't recorded. And yes, it is mostly statistics. SGGH ^ping! 17:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, you should be proud, that's a solid little stub expansion right there. I honestly would suggest trying your hand at a bigger name, given your success there. Maybe one of the odder early HoFers. I'm working on King Kelly for example (or at least I was for a while). As for those 2 stats, they are for pitchers, that's why B-Ref doesn't have them. I'll fix the infobox. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just found this. Are they one and the same? Because if so, Padden seems to have had some White Socks involvement. If that's true, then another source which suggests he was arrested for a punch up with a Detroit played might also be true... SGGH ^ping! 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's weird... His B-ref page lists no managerial work, yet 1900 is missing (suggesting he was doing something else or in the minors) from his record. And additional weirdness, the White Sox were founded in 1901, so how could he manage them/play 2B in 1900? For reference, their manager in 1901 was Clark Griffith and their 2B Sam Mertes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Chicago White Sox reads: "In 1900, the Western League changed its name to the American League. It was still officially a minor league, subject to the governing National Agreement and an underling of the National League. The NL actually gave permission to the AL to put a team in Chicago, provided he not use the city name in the team's branding. Comiskey moved his St. Paul club to the Near South Side and renamed it the White Stockings, grabbing a nickname that had once been used by the Chicago Cubs. The White Stockings won the 1900 American League pennant, the final WL/AL championship season as a minor league.[1] After the season, the AL declined to renew its membership in the National Agreement and declared itself a major league." So I guess he was in the minors, as a player-manager, for the 1900 season. In fact, look at his minor league B-Ref page. Under teams played for, 1900: Chicago White Stockings. So there you go, he was a minor league player-manager that season. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Lol, got edit conflicted and you beat me to it :) Wizardman 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Heh. I'm really digging SGGH's random editing decision, unearthed an interesting little mystery of a player. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I think I've mis-read it. I swear it said "1909" on my screen, my eyesight must be going! I'll change it to make more sense. SGGH ^ping! 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on the article as well, lots of edit conflicts :). But I did some reference work, added some categories, persondata, infobox, and some lead work. I am bored here at work, yet not wanting to do any huge daunting task, so building up this player seems like a nice relaxing things to do !Neonblak ^talk - 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added quite a bit of content, cleaned it up a bit, but I'm not done with my work though. It will most likely be a C level article, but I will compare with the B critera. Interesting day, working with this completely random baseball player.Neonblak ^talk - 23:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to see if the expansion becomes enough to qualify for DYKs... we could rack up a lot for the project this way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will tonight when I am finished with the article, should be something interesting to post for the DYK.Neonblak ^talk - 01:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Like it was said above, although there are a few redlinks in all-time rosters, not much can be found on them (although the articles should be created). One area that does need some attention is Hall of Famers. I looked at a random one earlier today, Dave Bancroft. Three short paragraphs on him doesn't do the subject justice, especially with all the easily-accessible material about him. Expansion forthcoming. Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, how come there isn't an infobox slot for number of games? Would have thought it was a fairly critical statistic (though the number of matches a baseball player plays is rediculous, in cricket you've had a pretty exceptional career if you've played 100 Test matches, and England's most capped ODI player has 171!) SGGH ^ping! 09:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have expanded this article as much as I reasonable could, copyedited it, and believe it meets the B-critera, and have upgraded it to that. I really don't think there is too terribly much to do to shoot for a GA assessment, but I have two projects that I am trying to get promoted to FL.Neonblak ^talk - 22:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm working on an FLC and FPC as well, but I've stuck this at DYK at least to start. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The first annual signing war

Chris Coste is the first one. Of course it's the Mets fans... As much as I don't like the policy on waiting on the physicals, it's a bright-line rule, so we need another reverter. I know Coste isn't on many watchlists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can help, I'm usually online while North America isn't. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Shoppach needs more eyes; [4] (a highly malicious BLP issue) and [5] both stayed up for almost an hour and a half. Mm40 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF is up with the backup catchers!? Eyes on. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey ... watch your language, or as one of our fellow editors will tell you it could come up in your ongoing RfA.  :) --Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, watch it. ;) I'm now watching both to make sure there's no more vandalism/unsourced statements.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Placido Polanco is getting IP users adding unverifiable info too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Chone Figgins as well.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Feliz alert. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rodrigo Lopez (baseball). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD on Punchball

FYI, there is an deletion discussion (AfD) now on the sport of punchball here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Roster question

I'm looking to spruce up the Federal League all-time rosters and make them all FLs. However, I noticed that three of them had separate names in 1914 and 1915. As a result, I'm not sure what to name the lists. Chicago Whales all-time roster is the only one in existence, while the Buffalo Buffeds/Blues and Indy Hoosiers/Newark Pepper are still redlinked, so I thought I'd ask before creation. Should they be created under their 1915 name, or the name most familiar, which may be subjective? Wizardman 18:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think if there's a clearly more familiar name (like New York Yankees as opposed to New York Highlanders, to use a current example) that's ok, but barring that I'd just use their most "recent" name (the Montreal Expos are at Washington Nationals, the original Senators are at Minnesota Twins, etc). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Weird, the Expos have their own article but the Senators don't? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's because the Expos fans demanded that their team's articles be kept separate from the Nats. That is all a very sore subject. Regarding the Federals, the safest is "[city] Federal League" or "[city] FL" or some such. The Chicago club had no official nickname in 1914, being dubbed the Federals or Feds or "ChiFeds". They adopted "Whales" for 1915. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't realize the Expos had fans. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't either, until they filibustered on this topic, in 2005 and also recently. If the Expos had known they had so many fans, maybe they would have stayed in Montreal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Washington/Montreal approach actually makes more sense to me, in that we have separate categories for players who played with a franchise in different cities. Which is itself pretty necessary, since otherwise you'd have nonsensical outcomes like Babe Ruth listed under Category:Atlanta Braves players when in reality he had been dead for 20 years before Atlanta had a team, and probably never even set foot in the city. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let's not do this again. Please. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, for Buffalo I'll pick the last name, the Blues, per above. Only reason I'm not sold on Newark Pepper all-time rosterjust yet is because they won the federal league championship as the hoosiers that only season. For consistency though I'll likely just choose the latter to make it easier. Wizardman 17:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "All-time" roster for a 2-year league. Yep. :) Create the Indy/Newark roster as one article under whichever city name, and create the other name as a redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Japanese baseball video games

Category:Japanese baseball video games was nominated for renaming to Category:Video games about Japanese baseball, at CfD November 29.

However, the discussion fizzled out, so I have relisted it at CfD December 18, where your input would be appreciated.

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

New project-related AfD

Travis D'Arnaud is up for deletion; he's one of the names involved in the Halladay/Lee trade and doesn't pass WP:N. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis D'Arnaud. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking in infobox

I've been having a mini edit war with a user over the linking in infobox in the Hideo Nomo article. The other user claims that EVERY instance of a team name, stat or year needs to be linked in the infobox because "that's how its done". This leaves us at 46 TOTAL links in the box, with a few things being linked 3 different times, and many things being linked twice, including all of the stats. If that is true, then that needs to be changed. If he is just making things up, then I need help because I'm pretty sure I've reached my reverting limit. Comments? --Torsodog^Talk 20:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It was agreed to in the past that every team link in the infobox should be linked. I am not "making things up".--Yankees10 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While some of the stuff can be linked and some delinked, I can't remember back as far as the issue may have come up, so maybe it's time to actually figure out consensus on the issue (i've seen boxes with everything linked, most things delinked, etc.) Wizardman 22:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned birth/death location, team, position, and statistics should be linked because those provide actually useful information (birth/death location least so). As for dates, particularly the upper dates that just link to years and not "XXXX in baseball", there's absolutely no need for those links. As per WP:DATE, "Dates should not be linked purely for the purpose of autoformatting (even though linking was previously recommended).[1] Dates should only be linked when they are germane and topical to the subject, as discussed at Wikipedia:Linking#Chronological items." Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too crazy about dates either. Linking to "xxxx in baseball" almost never furthers a reader's knowledge of the player in question. As for linking to teams, I'm all for it. However, I think the team should only be linked in the infobox once, and that should be in the lists of teams section. I also think stats should only be linked in the first instance they appear, and delinked in every subsequent appearance. --Torsodog^Talk 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed on the "only link once" rule, but links in the infobox should not cancel out linking at least once in the article's main text. Derek Jeter, for example, should link to New York Yankees both in his infobox (once) and then in the lead in (I'm not looking at the article so I'm just guessing) a sentence reading "Derek Jeter is the shortstop for the New York Yankees." Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. What happens in the infobox, stays in the infobox... so to speak. --Torsodog^Talk 00:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Teams in the list of teams in the info box should be linked each time... If someone played for the Cubs twice during their career, the team should be linked both times... It just looks better.Spanneraol (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats my main reason for wanting them both linked, it looks better.--Yankees10 01:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think things should be linked for aesthetic concerns. Plus a delinked second instance of a team name could help readers note that it isn't a completely new team quicker. Another option is that the team is only listed once but and two different year spans are included in the parentheses. Either way, I don't mind too much if all the teams are linked in the teams section, but I would prefer if they were only linked once. What do you guys think about the years? --Torsodog^Talk 01:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no on listing the team with different year spans... I like the way it's been done in the past... listing the teams chronologically and linking every time. I don't care much about the years... if you want to delink those I'm fine with that.. Spanneraol (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Torsodog about listing teams only once in the team list, and utilizing multiple year spans. That section of the infobox is labled "Teams" not "Chronological Career History". Ken Griffey, Jr. has played for the Mariners during two, non-consecutive periods, but the Seattle Mariners still constitute only one of the teams he's played for. This woud also eliminate the duplicate linking issue that Torsodog referred to (and eliminate the necessity of arguing aesthetics). - Masonpatriot (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Torsodog, why does it bother you so much that they are linked more then once?--Yankees10 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't "bother me so much". It is simply redundant and unnecessary, therefore why not remove them? Anyways, what do you think about the year issue? --Torsodog^Talk 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the years should be linked, if not what would be the point of the Template:Baseball Year.--Yankees10 02:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• For individual years where it applies. Read WP:OVERLINKING. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that both teams and years should be linked, but only linked once in the infobox.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In an infobox, years are not being given within the context of a specific season or year in baseball, and so I do not believe it is appropriate to link them. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The template {{mlby}}, for the most part, provides a lot more context than the baseball years, which are mostly lists of champions in worldwide baseball. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/the sentiment that teams, dates (and other info in infobox that is linked) should only be linked once. That's the rule as well in the article, and I believe the same arguments hold in the infobox. There is no greater aesthetic argument in the infobox -- in fact, it is less strong in the infobox, as the prior link is closer generally. Also agree that infobox and article can each have a one-time-only link to the same article.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Epeefleche. I can take or leave the year linking. Wknight94 ^talk 11:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Just to move this along a bit, here is a proposal based on what has been discussed here so far:

• Teams will only be linked once, always in the teams section
• Stats will only be linked once, their first occurrence
• Years will only be linked once (or not at all?) --Torsodog^Talk 20:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories and Infobox

I have noticed that lately when a player is signed or traded the team they are with is added to the infobox of categories (example: Milton Bradley (baseball) infobox). Since they haven't played with the team but most likely will play with them do we add it? Does it violate WP:CRYSTAL or is it almost certain to happen? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL because that's their team, if they're released or traded then we remove it (unless they played for them).--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But isn't what constitutes a player, playing for the team? Playing for a team is not "scheduled or expected" as crystal says so it becomes speculation. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Usually as far as categories for sports players go, they aren't added to the team player category until they play a game. Infoboxes however they are usually listed with which ever team they are actually playing for or signed to in the case of free agent signings. -DJSasso (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My argument becomes "player" means two different things. They are a "player" now but playing in a game officially makes them a "player" for that team. They may have played on other teams but the team they are with now doesn't count as one of their teams they have played for because they haven't recorded a game with their current team. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, that sort of what I was trying to explain. Players aren't added to the player category because those categories are meant for people who have actually played games with the team. However infoboxes don't have that restriction and list whomever holds their rights. So to use the example you provided above you would list he belongs to the Mariners in the infobox. But you would not add him to Category:Seattle Mariners players. -DJSasso (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding the team to the team name part of the infobox is fine.. but adding them to the list of teams with the (2010-present) designation is inappropriate because that implies they played for that team, which they have not yet. I have never understood why we jump ahead of ourselves on that matter. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brian, DJSasso and Spanneraol on this. Whatever we do, we should avoid the NFL Project's practice, where pretty much anyone who plays on a practice squad gets included as a "player". - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the category but what I do disagree with is the infobox. It's insane to not list it when they're on the 40-man if they never play then fine remove it. But add it even if it says 2010.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Mason. The NFL way is very screwed up and the NBA way of separating the current team with the former team doesn't make any sense to me. Whenever I add a 2010 when it's 2009 seems very wrong, but it's definitely the best of the three. There's definitely something wrong with having to remove something if it never happens. That seems to me exactly what WP:CRYSTAL is trying to avoid. What does hockey do? — X96lee15 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the categories, no reason to put them in until they've played a game; agree with others. Wizardman 16:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hockey adds the team as soon as they sign. However, we don't list dates next to teams like you do in baseball so it doesn't look as out of place as it does for yours. -DJSasso (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What I dont understand is why all of the sudden do people not want to add the categories. It has been done this way since I have been here without any problems. In the past users such as JustSomeRandomGuy32, Jackal4 and I used to update pages with adding categories and there was no problem. Now there is a bunch of people who dont even update pages changing everyting.--Yankees10 16:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never wanted to add the info till they've played a game.. It's just silly to have to remove something if it doesn't happen. We should wait till it does happen to add the info. Lots could happen before the season starts, the guy could get injured, he could be traded, he could suck and be sent to the minors.. assuming he will make the team isn't our job.. Spanneraol (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there's something to adding it now as they are on the 40 man roster, and that does mean something, but since they could be traded/released or worse, I can see the other side of it. I don't think it's such a big deal either way. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Using the 40-man isn't a good metric, though, as plenty of players appear on the 40-man and never actually play for the team (especially during the off-season, when so many moves occur). - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Then I'd say no to putting them in categories, but yes to listing them as members of the team in the infobox, as that is transient. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanneraol, you made my point perfectly. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yankees10, the reason you don't add them to the categories until they play is because most categories have (and those that don't should) a line at the top of them stating the criteria of the category which says something like "This is a list of players who, at one point, played for Major League Baseball's Seattle Mariners." So just being signed does not fit the criteria of the category in that they have not played. The infobox on the other hand just states "teams" which can be interpreted as any team they belonged to. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And on a similar note, they don't get added to the all-time roster lists until they play in a regular season game for the new team. At one time all the lists had that notation at the top, but I haven't checked them all lately to make sure they still have it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

DJSasso is right, this isn't like soccer where you just add the cats after they sign with the team anyway or they have a page created. This is baseball where the player has to make an appearance in order for the category to be added. You get what I'm saying "Yankees"? – Michael (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The next edit war has begun

We've gotta keep an eye on Javier Vázquez, Melky Cabrera, Michael Dunn (baseball), and Boone Logan, but I have a meeting in twenty minutes. I've put in WP:RFPP requests for all but Logan as that one is untouched so far. (Oh and on a side note, great trade for my Yankees if it's true!) --Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh...wouldn't call it an edit war just yet. What's standard procedure on trades that have been announced but aren't "official" yet? I figured it being reported in the news made it official enough, but if we generally wait until the teams announce it, then I'll back off until they do. Ferrantino (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Until the deal is official, it's not verifiable. That means that the team has to announce it. It can go in prose that a deal has been "reported" (and only with reliable sources), but not in the infobox, the lead, etc. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I said it's begun, not that it's in full force yet. But Vazquez is getting it now. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll keep watch on the articles then until the teams themselves announce it. Sorry for the confusion. Ferrantino (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rfc concerning how your project handles naming

There is a request for comments active at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Should naming conventions for people apply regardless of topic/project?, which is likely to be of interest to regular participants here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players)

FYI: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Wknight94 ^talk 15:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jason Bay

Just now, Mike Francesca on WFAN says Bay has agreed to a deal pending his physical, and he expects this will be officially announced on Monday or Tuesday next week. Prepare for the onslaught of anonymous IP vandalism. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Table w/column breaks

Ok, I think I have exhausted WP:COLUMN, WP:TABLES, and much trial and error, and now I am stuck. I am creating a table that lists the birth date and player name, but there is 110 of them, so instead of one long column of 110 players, I want to break it off into 4 columns of 28 (4th row would only have 26), so that they appear flush with each other. If someone could look here, and possibly give me an easy solution, or point me in the right direction, I would be extremely appreciative.Neonblak ^talk - 21:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You can make four tables and then float them to the left; that should probably do it. See List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 runs for how to do it. If you can't do 4 columns (i.e., if it won't fit), then three columns of 37/37/36 would work too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the example, although the columns don't appear flush, that is the answer I was looking for. Thank you, I will be trying this out right now to see it looks.Neonblak ^talk - 21:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things

Thanks to everyone who helped the article for Dick Padden reach GA status ! Also, Wizardman, has Ed Blake up for GA nom, and I've put Stan Benjamin in the peer review, in an effort to get that article to GA status as well. If anyone would like to assist in the improvement of these articles, please do so !Neonblak ^talk - 18:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr Pepper Ballpark

Dr Pepper Ballpark is now a Featured article. but, I found many dead links. I can't find substitutes for dead links. Please improve article if you can.--KANESUE 13:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be ironic if the ballpark had one of those little signs warning the players: "NO PEPPER". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You deserve a prize for that one, Bugs... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

At least I restrained myself from commenting on the ballpark's exterior design. Now I'll comment: UGH! However, I'll look at the article and see if I can improve anything. Meanwhile, I knew it reminded me of something. They looked more similar when the bandshell complex was gray. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Separated at birth"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Project peer review

While looking at WP:BASEBALL's navigation template, I came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Peer review. I was going to tag it inactive as requests from 20, 11, 6, and 4 months ago still haven't received comments, but I figure I'd bring it up here. Another solution is simply removing the old requests (as the editors are probably not very interested in those articles) and monitor it better from now on. Thoughts? Mm40 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

One of those came from me, and has since gone past the need requested there - the Australia national baseball team article has gone to GA status now.  Afaber012  (talk)  08:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Several of those are now FLs or GAs, so I think those requests can be cleared at this point. I don't know if us having a project peer review is worth it unless we are going to start doing A-class reviews. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hall of Fame balloting pages

I was copying some information from the various Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, x pages, and I noticed a few things that seemed wrong or improper. The first thing I've that the links to the vote totals at baseballhalloffame.org, are now invalid because they have undergone a site redesign and no longer include that information. There doesn't appear to be an archive.org copy of it either. I also can't find the information that was there anywhere else on the internet. Does anyone have a print source that would have that? Leaving them unsourced hardly seems appropriate.

Second, some of the pages such as Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1983 say "The 23 candidates who received less than 5% of the vote, thus becoming ineligible for future BBWAA consideration, are indicated with a *." Then when you get down to the numbers, you see that Vada Pinson, Dick Allen, and Thurman Munson all received less than 5% of the vote, and all were part of the BBWAA voting in future years. So how can that sentence be written to explain that? Should they receive their own designation: "# under the current rules, these players would not be under consideration by the BBWAA in future years, but until year X the selection committee was allowed to re-submit them to the ballot." Or something to that effect. Not really a baseball guy, so just bringing it to your attention. - Zhinz (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

baseball-reference.com has stats on the Hall of Fame voting results in each year. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

During the 1980s the 5% rule was in effect, but some exceptions were made. For example, Pinson and Allen's names were dropped from the 1984 ballot, though Munson's name was included. In 1985 several players who had previously been dropped due to the 5% rule were given a second chance, including Santo, Pinson, and Allen. I don't know the details of how these decisions were made. BRMo (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's DYK

On today's Main Page as a DYK: Fred Brocklander, one-time NL ump.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Actually several MLB DYKs today. That one, one up now about the scout who found Jeff Bagwell, and my Boston draft picks list goes with the next update. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark McGwire

FYI, he finally admitted his steroid use today, so be prepared for some serious vandalism. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, big story of the day. Although it really shouldn't be. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I went ahead and 3-day protected it so at least the immediate "READ STORY. VANDALIZE WIKIPEDIA." vandals are stopped. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• In tomorrow's headline, the Pope will confirm that he's a Roman Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sporting News access

Hey. Not trying to spam, but letting you all know the WorldVitalRecords has free access for a couple days to everything (i don't know how much can be accessed on a trial membership). So if you've been holding off on an article waiting to find sources, now's your chance. Might as well get what you can now. Wizardman 04:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We should move all pre-1923 to Wikisource. I'm going to sign-up and try to download everything pre 1923 Sporting News.

Bleh credit card for the free access. Secret ^account 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

List of 19th century baseball players

Since another editor questioned the necessity of this list, since there is a Category:19th-century baseball players for the same thing. I had thought the same thing over the course of my time as an editor, and maintaining category is a pain enough, let alone the list. I figured I would bring it up here before moving forward to WP:AFD. Does the community have an opinion on this?Neonblak ^talk - 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely delete it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say delete as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLN says that categories and lists are supposed to complement one another, not be mutually exclusive, so I'd probably vote a weak keep, though the "19th century" is kind of an arbitrary delineator because it doesn't really mean anything to the game's history save that 1901 was the first year of the AL. There are plenty of players who were crossovers and played from one century into another; it's not like baseball just stopped in 1900 and then restarted from scratch in 1901. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a corresponding list and/or category of 20th century players? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at this time; however, that list would be size-prohibitive. The list of 19th century players is at least manageable. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the article/list add any new information that the category page does not have? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at this time; however, that's not to say that it couldn't. Articles/lists can contain a lot of information that categories by definition cannot. Additionally, the list obviously passes criteria of verifiability (see Baseball Reference) and notability (there are no redlinks on this list, though to be complete there probably should be). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the argument is that it requires more effort to maintain such a list than to simply add the category to the name. Either approach requires knowledge of the list/category's existence, and some effort, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just learned that we have an article called List of pigs. If we can have a list of supposedly notable pigs, I guess we could have a list of verifiably notable athletes. The concern about double-maintenance remains, though. The list and the category should be kept in sync. If the category and the list mention each other, that should help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Which they do; the list is the lead article for the category, and the category is on the list. They're both self- and circularly referential right now, so we should be good to go. There are probably a number of redlinks that need to be added to the list, though, as mentioned above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the comments here, I will not pursue deletion of this list. However, like it has been mentioned, the list should be fully populated with red links, which looks to be a significant task, but not impossible.Neonblak ^talk - 13:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Career "slash stat" lists question

In working on List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage (up at FLC, incidentally), I came across an oddity. The sort of benchmark for so-called "slash statistics" is a .300/.400/.500 hitter, that is a .300 batting average, .400 OBP, and .500 slugging. Most of our career stat lists follow this quite nicely. The aforementioned .400 OBP, .500 SLG, and even the two combined into .900 OPS. Yet for some reason our batting average article is at .325. I understand that a list of .300 hitters would have 208 entries while this only has to handle 41, but wouldn't that be a better benchmark for us to track? Currently it's like not having the 3000 hit club but instead the 3500 hit club for no apparent reason other than fewer members. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

wiki editors should set the standard

Take all cheats out of any records on wikipedia, put the rightful record holders in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdottawa (talk • contribs)

• Well lets see... Barry Bonds used steroids, Hank Aaron used amphetamines, and Babe Ruth corked his bat. So I guess the rightful HR king is Roger Connor? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't forget Sammy Sosa, who admitted that his power came from Flintstone Vitamins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, Ruth didn't cork his bat, but he did juice up with a lot of beer, which at the time was an illegal substance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Postponments in game logs

I just wanted to get some input on the formatting of postponed/tie games in the seasonal game logs. This seems to be done in two main ways, and I'd like to see what the preferred format is so we can standardize it. The main difference that I've seen is the inclusion of the opponent/team record in the row of the postponed/tie game. I prefer to only extend the "postponment note" over cells which have no value as a result of the postponment (ie score/pitchers/attendance) and not cells which we could fill with data (ie opponent/record). This issue also arises for tie games (back when those still existed), which have an official attendance/score, so the "postponment message" can't be extended across the final 5 cells.

Below, the first postponment is how it currently stands in 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season. My preferece is for the second and fourth postponed/tie games below, as they include important information (the opponent) and the team record, which is well defined in spite of the postponment. This obviously isn't a major issue, but it would be nice to get everything looking nice and uniform.

Danlaycock (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2008 Game Log

March # Date Opponent Score Win Loss Save Attendance Record 141 September 5 @ Mets 3–0 Myers (9–10) Pelfrey (13–9) Lidge (34) 48,302 77–64 — September 6 Postponed due to weather (September 7) 142 September 7 @ Mets (DH-1) 6–2 Moyer (13–7) Martinez (5–4) 55,797 78–64 141 September 5 @ Mets 3–0 Myers (9–10) Pelfrey (13–9) Lidge (34) 48,302 77–64 — September 6 @ Mets Postponed due to weather (September 7) 77–64 142 September 7 @ Mets (DH-1) 6–2 Moyer (13–7) Martinez (5–4) 55,797 78–64 141 September 5 @ Mets 3–0 Myers (9–10) Pelfrey (13–9) Lidge (34) 48,302 77–64 — September 6 6–6 (9) Postponed due to weather (September 7) 40,000 142 September 7 @ Mets (DH-1) 6–2 Moyer (13–7) Martinez (5–4) 55,797 78–64 141 September 5 @ Mets 3–0 Myers (9–10) Pelfrey (13–9) Lidge (34) 48,302 77–64 — September 6 @ Mets (DH-1) 6–6 (9) Postponed due to weather (September 7) 40,000 77–64 142 September 7 @ Mets (DH-1) 6–2 Moyer (13–7) Martinez (5–4) 55,797 78–64

Since I was the one who reverted the original changes, I'll provide my reasoning. I see no point in adding all of the extra (redundant) code when the game logs already make our pages so long to begin with. The page from which this is extracted, 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season is well over 100kb, and the 2009 version is even longer. I'm also going to ask that this not become a "Get rid of the gamelogs!" argument, because that's not what this is about, and it's not what it should become. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in reply to the point above about the article's size, we are talking about an additional 30-40 characters per postponment. That works out to about a 0.03% increase in the size of this specific article. Danlaycock (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is all well and good for an article that's complete, but for many articles that are not, you're talking about a much larger percentage. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Postponements are relatively small fraction of all games for a team, so I don't believe a size argument alone is compelling. Since a team's win-loss record doesn't change, perhaps it doesn't need to be included? I think opponent and score are pertinent facts, and attendance is also a matter of record. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no attendance or score for a postponed game, and the opposing team is easily seen by going to the rescheduled game, the date of which should be provided in that bar. The information is being unnecessarily duplicated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; from the example I thought that suspended games were being referred to. For postponed games, I think the opponent remains pertinent and would be useful to see without having to follow a link to a rescheduling (if it did indeed end up getting rescheduled). Isaac Lin (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Listing score and attendance from the future makes no sense to me. If it's a postponed game the only place it's score/attendance belongs is the game where that actually occurs. The formatting issue I do think needs discussing, however, are suspended games. For example 2007 New York Yankees season isn't very clear on the June 29th suspended game. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe my original post wasn't clear. I'm only proposing to include the score/attendance for tie games. (Games which were suspended while the score was tied used to be declared an official complete game and replayed in their entirety). However, I do think that we should list the opponent/record for games which get postponed. (Postponed games are grey in the above example while tie games are white). Also, I certainly agree with you that there needs to be a decision on how to handle suspended games. To KV5's comments, I don't think scrolling down 3 months to find out who the postponed game was against is "easy", especially when there is an empty cell right there that is otherwise unused. Also, not all games get made up later in the season if both teams are out of playoff contention. Danlaycock (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue including score for games that are suspended as tied. While I can see Danlaycock's point in including the opponent, even if the game isn't "3 months" away, repeating the record for absolutely no reason is, in my view, a pointless waste of time and resources. And I am aware of the tiebreaking procedures and MLB's policies on make-ups, so I don't need a reminder. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well clearly the game I illustrated above wasn't postponed 3 months, but it's certainly not unusual for that to be the case. (The first article I checked, 2008 New York Mets season, had a game postponed from April 28 to August 11). And no need to get defensive, my comments on tie games weren't directed at you, they were merely ment to clarify the two separate cases I had presented togther, as my original post wasn't entirely clear (as Isaacl admitted). Anyways, you've stated your position, as have I. Let's let others comment now. Danlaycock (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not defensive, but I don't appreciate you asking me essentially not to comment. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)