Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Managerial ejections

Anyone know where I can find a list of managers by their number of ejections? Preferably something that's updated frequently and reliable. Need it for an article I'm prepping. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • As with above, I believe the SABR record book tracks it, but I don't think there's an updated online source for it. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Happen to have one? I just invested in a baseball book, can't afford another lol. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I brought it to UConn figuring it might be useful. In my March 2007 edition it lists:
  1. Bobby Cox (123)
  2. John McGraw (117)
  3. Earl Weaver (97)
  4. Leo Durocher (95)
  5. Frankie Frisch (82)
  6. Paul Richards (80)
  7. Tony La Russa (73)
  8. Clark Griffith (62)
  9. Joe Torre (58)
  10. Lou Piniella (57)
  11. Bill Rigney (52)
  12. Sparky Anderson (47)
  13. Mike Hargrove (46)
  14. Billy Martin (46)
  15. Ralph Houk (45)
  • OK, well, at least that verifies that Cox is the all-time leader, but I still haven't been able to verify his 159 ejections (supposedly). Mind dropping a reference in my sandbox? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Make sure it's clear which record he's at. He broke the all-time ejection record (John McGraw, 131) in 2007. McGraw had a handful as a player to go with the above list, which is purely as a manager. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know if Cox has any ejections as a player; his article just says he holds the record for ejections, but I don't know if that's managerial or all ejections. The article that it's cited to says he has 145 ejections, but it's from June. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • All of Cox's ejections are as a manager, the SABR ref confirms that. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrosheet does not appear to have a list, but it states that Cox has 151, updated through 2009.Neonblak talk - 20:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Phenomenal. You're the man! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Ben Paschal needs a good copyedit, and a review before I quickly place this in FAC, I'm going to see if I could make every key member of the 1927 Yankees as FAs by June. I started with Bob Meusel, and will do every other article. Maybe we could work as a group with Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. Thanks Secret account 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • FWIW this guy makes a cogent argument for why the 39 Yankees were > the 27 Yankees. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 18:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's easier to write about the 27 Yankees, with many newspapers in public domain. Secret account 21:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyone? Secret account 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I did a light copyedit. My changes mostly focused on punctuation, proper use of a/an, linking baseball terms, reducing overlinking, capitalization in headings, non-breaking spaces etc. I didn't really pay any attention to coherency or the informational content of the article. You might want to clarify the part about his playing for the SAL, since the next sentence calls it the Southern League. (Explain the name change.) -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Run support

Just a note, I noticed Luke Hochevar includes a mention of run support and I realized we should set a standard for this measure in case it becomes an issue. Which format of run support should we use on Wiki? There is the ESPN method which looks at run support while the pitcher is the pitcher of record, and then there is the Baseball-Reference way which is simply # of runs scored in pitcher's starts. The ESPN method misses any losses which a pitcher is saved because of runs scored after he leaves, but the B-Ref method misses wins that a pitcher can't get because the runs that he is supposedly "supported" by might not have been there whilst he was of record. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tug McGraw, USMC

I've searched the internet, and found no source at all that Tug McGraw was ever a marine. I will continue to look, but if I don't find anything, I'm removing it from his page.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the New York Times article in the citation? (I can confirm its existence from the New York Times site, but I don't have free access to the text.) I found his obituary in the Marine monthly publication, The Leatherneck (March 2004 issue) that mentions his enlistment in the reserves. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
More citations available: 1 and 2. There are also already four citations in that section to an offline source, which you should accept in good faith regardless. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't check the Times article yet. As far as the two articles Killervogel5 provided, one is actually talking about Seaver's USMC service. The other merely says "Every guy who ever played minor league baseball played with Tug McGraw. Every guy who ever served in the marines served with McGraw." That's not great. As far as "good faith" goes, then I should believe that Jack Daugherty's baseball card was used as currency in Irish pubs because the Irish edition of Baseball Weekly says so.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There's 100+ sources on his marine career here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
While the sources I provided may not have been great, one did at least verify the information that you were looking for. Bringing up the patent nonsense of the Daugherty incident is poor form, and I don't appreciate my work being compared to it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Greg Golson

Page already protected, but still traffic regarding a potential trade that's not yet confirmed or reliably sourced. Eyes appreciated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I realize the need to protect articles from unreliable sources, but the reporting industry of baseball has changed and wiki needs to be able to reflect this. Although listed as a "blog" TR Sullivan, who was referenced in previous Greg Golson versions, is a writer for MLB.com. His reporting never appears in print, he works for Major League Baseball, and links to his blog page are the most permanent link available. I realize blogs are not something we want to be using, but most reporters are now using some version be it tweets, blogs, or emails, to provide the newest info and these things need to be looked at and judged by who the provider of information is, not the method of providing the information. Red3biggs (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If it qualifies under WP:RS, no big deal. If it doesn't, it gets removed. We deal with a huge amount of BLPs in this project, so reliability is the primary concern. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
and accept for the word 'blog' coming from the source, the referenced material does meet the 3 qualifications of a reliable source: "the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times)" and after a short google for the trade, every article either references the report of TR, comes from another blog, or has no author listed on the report. (the only thing i'm hoping to get is a better solution so that there doesn't have to be a edit war on the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red3biggs (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The edit war should be over, as the Yankees put out a press release that was used to source the trade. It's done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Eyes on

Unconfirmed reports that Andre Dawson will be inducted into the HOF as an Expo: [1]. Dawson and the list of HOF members will be subject to lots of "see story, edit Wikipedia". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FLC reviews needed

If anyone has the time, the following baseball lists need reviews:

Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Sadly a bunch of those are mine, I'll give managers a fuller review right now. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I just reviewed two of the lists that aren't mine and to which I haven't yet given my input, but input from project members who don't normally review featured content would be great! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Tim Raines: lead section

I'd like to try again to reach consensus on the lead section of Tim Raines's article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Tim_Raines#Lead_section. Isaac Lin (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can a creative commons 3.0 pic be moved to Wikimedia Commons?

Recently User:Johnmaxmena came through big time for WP:Baseball and upload a free-use image of Ozzie Smith that shows Smith from his playing days, something that was sorely missing from the featured article before. However, User:Johnmaxmena chose to upload the file only on English Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia Commons. I have asked User:Johnmaxmena to upload to picture to Wikimedia Commons, but have received no response. I was wondering; can the picture be moved to Commons without the picture's ownwer/uploader moving it themselves? Cheers, Monowi (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help; much appreciated. Monowi (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball batting champions

A couple of editors have taken it upon themselves to remove the other 19th century leagues from this and other lists. "Major League" is a retrofitted description, essentially, following the agreement between the NL and the AL in 1903. But you will find many references that treat the AA, at least, as being on an essentially equal par with the NL. I don't think this deletion is appropriate. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Just copying what I said on BB's talk page: "They are indeed recognized as major leagues. The question is the difference between being recognized as a major league and being a member of Major League Baseball, an organization only in existence since 1901. Most of these leagues were no longer even in existence at that point, and the Federal League was very much not a part of MLB (they sued the AL and NL over this fact). I have no issue with their inclusion, bring it to WP:MLB if you like." Staxringold talkcontribs 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The National League is, however, a member of MLB. Like I said, happy to include them if others think they should be. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Not during 1876-1900, by that standard. I've notified KV5 to join in on this. We'll find out if anyone else still watches this page. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, the American League joined the National League in 1901 to officially form Major League Baseball. The National League is just one constituent part of what is currently a two-piece organization. I'm ok with the lists being 1901-present only, but I don't think it's right because MLB recognizes NL records back to 1876. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As I recall, the MLB individual historical stats also list NA, AA, UA, PL and possibly FL, but they don't list minor leagues and probably not Negro leagues (due to lack of info). So they are implicitly regarding those other leagues as major league (even though some historians don't consider the NA to be major). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • According to the MLB website, crossreferenced against Baseball-Reference, that's not the case. This shows the ERA leaders for the 1884 season. Denny Driscoll, who led the AA, isn't included in the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Just my two cents on this. The entity known as Major League Baseball is seperate from calling a league a "major". I agree with this, meaning that a league does not have be part of MLB to be a major league. The NL and AA had a "national agreement" declaring themselves as the two "major" leagues. The PL was officially declared a "major" league by the commish of baseball in the 1960s, and the UA and FL are considered "major" leagues by historians as well. I am sure I can find the references for these somewhere. Then when we have formed a consensus regarding these leagues, it can noted on the project page. The only top professional league not currently considered a "major" was the NA, although some historians are pushing for it, and we have been treating it as a major on WP for as long as I have been editing.Neonblak talk - 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That goes in the other direction as well, however. A "major league" is not necessarily a part of "Major League Baseball". The question is do we include them at these lists of Major League Baseball leaders, or not? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly what I was going to say. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that is issue could set off a much larger problem, most categorie trees, and list refer to any player playing from 1876 to present, in the NL, AL, AA, UA, PL, FL, as Major League Baseball players, even though they were merely "major league" players before 1903. In fact, I am sure I have seen references that even though the NA was not a "major" league, all the players are considered "major league" players. I tend to lean toward making it easy and just include everyone from those league starting in 1876, but I would other people input on whether this absolutely needs to differenciated.Neonblak talk - 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I give you Pete Browning, whose page on MLB.com states "MLB debut: May 2, 1882", which was with Louisville of the AA.[2] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, then, the league itself is not being consistent, which is a problem for us. In that case, the bright-line rule (1901-present) is probably the best solution. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I dunno if this is worth the hassle. Why not just return to the old standard? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you mean including everyone? If so, I'm ok with that too, but I think all the tiny tables should be combined into one and denote the league. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I dunno if that makes as much sense. Why not simply have subheaders for each league? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Because it's more compact. Having a one-row table for the UA, for example, doesn't make any sense to me, when the leagues can be rolled together into a simple "Other major leagues" table. Think of it, for example, like a bunch of stubs that could create a nice little article if they were merged. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's to be gained by that extra work, since the previous version already has it. However, the sequence is a little odd. After the NL, I think I would list them in reverse chronological sequence: FL, PL, UA, AA, NA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • We're going to be doing all of the work to make these featured; there's no reason not to make them look nice while we're at it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally KV5 I'm just going to rollback the three batting lists I'll be working on to their old style. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All-time roster discussion

It seems that my all-time rosters are not sitting well with a particular user, see Talk:Philadelphia Athletics (1890–1891) all-time roster. I am finding it difficult understanding this person's viewpoint on this, in that he/she believes that their should be no lead section or table encompassing the players? Does this person have a point? I have been following WP:LIST faithfully, and I would think that this would have been brought up at an earlier point by the FL administrators. What do you think?Neonblak talk - 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Ben Paschal is on FAC. Comment Secret account 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone could copyedit it for me? Please Secret account 15:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Something for you all to do

Instead of the article/list debate, how about we all go through the active all-time rosters and actually make sure every MLB player is listed in them? I know the Indians one is missing some 2009 players due to a huge team turnover, and the same is likely for other teams. I'll go through them but I dunno if I could do it by March myself. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The all-time roster articles scare me for modern, long time active teams. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. I would love to get the LA Dodgers all-time roster put together nicely, but look how long it took me to do the Providence Grays. Yeesh.Neonblak talk - 06:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, that would take forever. I'm just talking making sure all the names are added in, nothing more. Making tables for the 100-year ones would end up with pages far too big to load. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 07:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The tables that have been done for the short term teams are not practical for the older teams. As Wizardman said, the pages would be way too long.. The lists are fine the way they are for the most part. Updating to have all the players is probably the better step. Spanneraol (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

MLB Awards FT (3)

Ok folks, starting another new thread on this so the old and outdated discussions can age into the archive. (and to keep things clear) This project is really rolling nicely, we're nearly complete. Muboshgu, will you be nominating the general List of Major League Baseball awards article at your next chance (this backlog nomination choke is slowing us down a bit)? I think the text for the awards could use some fixes, but you can grab that from the full articles easily enough. Meanwhile I've finished up Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award and I'll nominate it once 30 Rock (season 3) is all done. Really the only thing left is the MVP, yes?Staxringold talkcontribs 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on finding references for List of Major League Baseball awards; I've got it at peer review right now. I'll take care of it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Will do, once the DHL page passes. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Current topic box status

edit | discuss
 Major League Baseball awards
18 articles
File:2004 WorldSeries Trophy.jpg

 Commissioner's Trophy
 World Series champions
 Most Valuable Player (MVP)
 Cy Young Award
 Manager of the Year
 Rookie of the Year

 Gold Glove Award subtopic
 Silver Slugger Award subtopic
 Hank Aaron Award
 Roberto Clemente Award
 Rolaids Relief Man of the Year
 DHL Delivery Man Award

 Comeback Player of the Year
 World Series MVP
 League Championship Series MVP
 All-Star Game MVP
 Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award

Current co-nominators for FTC

I agree that the World Series champions list should be included, as the List of Stanley Cup champions and the List of NBA champions are both on their respective league awards FTs. Since User:Scorpion0422 did most of the work on that article, we should ask him to clean up the article, and to nominate it, though he may be busy with his real life. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If he doesn't mind, anyone can bring it to FLC.—Chris!c/t 05:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If someone other than Scorpion nominates, he should at least get credit for his job well done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ooooh! Very good catch. That definitely would've come up at the FTC. So who wants to take that bull by the horns? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Final push

  • KV5 just got the main list article to FL status and I'm working on List of World Series champs along with others. Who will take up the final challenge of MVP? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I only wish I had the time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry for coming along so late, but I think I can handle to MVP list. I assume I can borrow the format of NBA Most Valuable Player Award to some extent (at least for the lead)? Mm40 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Certainly can. There is a lot more prose in this one, though, because of the broken history of the MVP including the Chalmers Awards and so forth. Welcome aboard! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • OK; I've finished the lead and the section on the Chalmers Award. I'm wondering if you guys could comment on both the content (having never heard about Chalmers, it was tricky but interesting) and the format (the current Chalmers Award table format will be used for the other tables). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks pretty good to me; just a couple of things:
I wouldn't link the years in the prose, but if you say "yyyy season", then link to the MLB season instead of the "year in baseball".
I don't think we need the "selected statistics" in the tables for 1922 to 1929 if we aren't going to have them in the other tables. Those two tables, in fact, can probably be combined. Make sure the years are sortable in all the tables, though; I just noticed that they aren't in the first one. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Post again to keep this alive. Looks like things are progressing nicely. Hopefully can wrap up List of WS champs and ya'll are doing great with MVP. Staxringold talkcontribs 08:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, MVP is going along fine. I've been busier than I've expected, but I'll definitely have it at FLC in 2 weeks max. Mm40 (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • So close guys. Mm40's done a great job with MVP, sorry I haven't really touched WS Champs lately, but that's our last piece! Staxringold talkcontribs 21:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If you're busy with the WikiCup, do you mind if I go through WS champs with a fine-toothed comb and nominate once MVP passes? Of course I'll give you credit, and from what I saw, it isn't far off. Mm40 (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please do give it a once over, but it's practically ready to nominate right now. I actually gave it a thorough work-over yesterday so I'll likely nominate it pretty soon. I'll wait for you to say go, though. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok everybody, the last 2 articles are at FLC! Great job, stop by and review if you have the time and get ready for FTC! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Bumping this thread so it stays active through when the last FLCs close. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is it!

WS champs and MVP were just promoted, I'm going to list the topic nomination now and inform everyone listed above as a part of the project. I'll post the link in a second. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Career Fielding Stats

Might anyone know where on-line and free I could find career fielding stats leaders (e.g., where Ivan R stands in career putouts by a catcher relative to all other major league catchers)? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Tx, both of you. Question -- is this problem just mine, on my pc? When I try to limit it to catchers for fielding stats, it doesn't work -- I get all players. The dot doesn't even appear in the circle, as it does in the other categories. I tried this back when you first posted, and again now, and still have the problem. Tx much.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Might be a browser issue: it works fine for me using Vista and Firefox. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason Grilli

Someone might want to take a look at this. There is an assertion here that relief pitcher Jason Grilli is editing his own page (not clear to me that that is the case). An editor then deleted info such as his child's name, and other info here. I think this might benefit from a fresh pair of eyes, but since I've found one of those editors to be an edit warrior, I figure it is better off if I leave it to one of you to address (or not) as you see fit. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding news

A major US cultural institution is opening its doors to us. They've offered to supply high resolution image files for restoration upon request. Posting here to solicit suggestions. This is a wonderful opportunity if you're looking for a potential featured picture to complement a featured article drive. The initial request will be five images; if you do restorations yourself we could expand that number. Can't announce the name of the institution onsite yet, so please follow up by email. Cheers! Durova408 18:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Wewt. I would say the #1 best target for images (which I'd be happy to restore) would be HoF greats from the 40s, 50s, and 60s who fall outside of the easily 1923 public domain but before we have any real user created images. I would say Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Jackie Robinson, Warren Spahn, Sandy Koufax (actually have a decent image of Koufax) are some good names to start with. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That would be awesome. Ernie Banks and other Cubs come to mind. And Harmon Killebrew, since I did some work on his article with Wknight94 awhile back. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • All great suggestions, but even a lot of players from the 70s, 80s, and early 90s don't have images yet, so any of those would be absolutely fantastic too! I know we went a long time without having any images of Ozzie Smith besides the one in the suit (though we have one now). So this is huge. Really. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Before and after composite on a restoration of a 1911 portrait of baseball player Ed Walsh.

Re: Wizardman, this opportunity is about high resolution uncompressed TIFF files of around 25 MB for careful restoration such as the Ed Walsh portrait at right, which took 20 hours of labor. View that at 200% resolution to see the work. A massive set of edits on low resolution files could only be performed with automated settings that don't really merit the word "restoration". In the long run those mass edits would backfire: we're gaining access to new collections because our restoration work is done with craftsmanship. We approached the Baseball Hall of Fame a few months ago; their response was not yet but come back next year. Our best chance of opening that door would be to continue on the current course: a handful of showcase examples whose edits are superbly documented. When it comes time to scale up the work we'll be partnering with art schools and getting this into the curriculum of advanced classes. Durova409 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Very cool.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The first image that springs to mind for that would be the Ty Cobb and Joe Jackson pic (left), which currently has some frayed edges and probably could be featured if improved upon. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
That image is 55 KB. Serious restoration work begins with files of 10 MB. I don't call a file large if it's under 100 MB. There just isn't enough data in tiny web-optimized media to be worth the trouble of working on. In the larger picture one of the things we seek to do is to encourage institutions to digitize their collections at high resolution so that irreparable cultural loss doesn't result from disasters such as the Haitian earthquake or last year's collapse of the municipal archives at Cologne, Germany. If the only surviving photograph of Ty Cobb were hosted at Commons would you want that to be 55 KB? or 15 MB? Durova409 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Parc Labatt Montreal.JPG

File:Parc Labatt Montreal.JPG has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles

Instead of focusing on lists or even baseball players who didn't do much for a couple of seasons, or backups and, such, we should focus on Hall of Fame articles and other key baseball biographies. Seriously many of our key biographies are either little more than stubs (Home Run Baker, Al Simmons, Eddie Collins), poorly sourced (Yogi Berra) long blobs of text with no sourcing Casey Stengel, or wasn't even created until now Paul Krichell. Lets work it up Secret account 21:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Current MLB topic ideas

With the Awards topic pretty much wrapped up except the cleanup (finishing the newly asked for FLCs for pennant winners), KV5 and I have been discussing various topic ideas (some we had explored earlier). As they currently stand, here are our three ideas:

edit | discuss
Major League Baseball Triple Crown
7 articles
Batting average champions
Home run champions
Runs batted in champions
Earned run average champions
Strikeout champions
Wins champions
edit | discuss
 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

edit | discuss
Major League Baseball draft picks?
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

Title is unclear for that third one. KV5 and I are pretty well situated on the Triple Crown topic, but any help would be appreciated on the rest!!!! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead article should either be the list of number one picks overall or the article on the draft proper. Either way, not sure. Both of those should probably be included in the topic in some way, actually. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If we made a topic just on the draft proper itself that would require far different articles. I just dunno what the "lead" article would be for first-round picks. First-overall is clearly the most evident, but I dunno. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we've saturated FLC enough for now, imo. Maybe concentrate on articles for a bit. If I'm in the minority on that though (I probably am) then I'd say let's do the managers because we already have good progress on that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not a great article-writer. That's why I work on lists. Structure = good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)We might make an article, similar to List of Major League Baseball managers, summarizing all the specific articles. Eventually, though, it may be a good idea to focus on expanding some of our 15,361 stubs, or have an assessment drive. On an related note, though, anyone want to update the main project page? As this topic shows, we're focusing on more than managers ("Article Improvement Drive") and we're missing some content in "Featured lists". If not, I'll get around to it eventually. Mm40 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, a lot of that FLC saturation is near completion. The pennant winners are pretty clear cut and were called for during the FTC, my Red Sox draft picks, .400 OBPers, and 3000 K club are all near completion, etc. As to your point, MM40, I wouldn't mind an assessment drive or work on stubs (I still love what happened with Dick Padden). It's just I'm like KV5, lists provide a nice structure to work within. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sidenote: KV5 has a Phillies season and I have the 09 World Series up at GAN. I'd review KV5's, but I have little experience with the modern GA review process. However, if anyone has the time, that could be a small help. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you all who prefer lists use them to segue (if you will) into regular articles; for every baseball list you work up to FL status, take one of the player/managers from that list and improve their article substantially (e.g. stub a redlink, expand a stub, or add references to an unsourced BLP). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Another potential topic is starting pitchers by team; see the category here. (Just noticed the category is misnamed, see CfD here).Mm40 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, I don't see why we can't make one in the style of List of MLB managers, summarizing all the other lists. But still, let's give FLC a break ;) Mm40 (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
When my current list has completed the FL process, I will also move on from these for awhile. I have expanded Amos Rusie quite a bit, and there is a ton of material on this player, that I may, if time permits, would like to attempt my first FA. Ambitious for a 19th century player, I know.Neonblak talk - 14:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Statistics

Hey. Quick question. Do you think that http://baseballguru.com/jalbright/stats.html qualifies as a reliable source for Japanese statistics? matt91486 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about Japanese baseball, but my understanding is that Jim Albright is well respected for his work on the subject. He has published work, for example, in SABR's Baseball Research Journal. So my opinion is yes, it qualifies as a reliable source. BRMo (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, seriously, we can use this site as a reliable source? I've been trying to find a reliable English language source for NPB stats for a long time now assuming that this site was NOT reliable. --TorsodogTalk 23:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Morgan Ensberg picture

Anybody else get the feeling that the picture on Morgan Ensberg is fake?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure looked like it... replaced, and getting another nice image from Flickr as we speak. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Listing all of the unreferenced biographies of living people and Larry Himes, Rich Garcia

Larry Himes and Rich Garcia have been tagged as an unreferenced Biography of a Living Person since 2007. I am no baseball fan or expert, can someone reference the article then delete the BLP tag at the top? Otherwise this article will be deleted.

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.

It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions

A list of examples is here

Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I note these baseball articles are still unreferenced, I hope referencing living people is something your project is interested in, thanks! Okip (formerly Ikip) 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

MLB all-time rosters

Ok, I got a question that could further muddle the "what should or should not be included in the Major League Baseball bubble" conversation. I plan on creating all-time rosters for all the National Association clubs (1871-1875), such as Philadelphia White Stockings all-time roster, but should these teams be included in the Template:MLB All-Time rosters? If so, a new section in the defunct teams area would have to be created. Or, should a new template be created for just these teams?Neonblak talk - 15:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

With fly-by-night organizations like the NA and the UA, you've got kind of a dilemma, as their lesser teams came and went like with the World Football League. More to the point, are they reliably considered to be major leagues? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess it's really time to settle the question, but without a defined MLB stance on what "it" is, we just gotta define it here. The UA is considered a "major league", although I have no source for that, and I would hope historians and baseball would just say it's not. The NA probably should not be promoted to that level, although it has a better case for "major" status because they at least had all the top players, where the UA has a couple of decent players, and a boat-load of scrubs.Neonblak talk - 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Project importance assessments of team articles

I've been exploring the project's assessment table and happened upon an oddity. I was fairly sure that there was prior consensus that determined that all MLB teams are of equal importance to the project, and that they are all to be denoted as "High"-importance. If that's changed, can someone point me at a discussion? If not, does anyone know why the Yankees and Red Sox are currently listed as "Top"-importance to the project? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion Is Needed

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB InfoboxesBeast from da East (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seating tier

Surely 500 Level isn't a notable topic? Isaac Lin (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of stadiums with "nosebleed sections", I don't know what's so special about this one. Now, rooftop bleachers at Wrigley Field, that's different. But I don't see why that 500 level article couldn't be simply a section in the Rogers Centre article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if considered as a section within the Rogers Centre article, most of the content is not specific to a particular tier. People hit home runs into lots of tiers and there are rowdy people in many locations. Isaac Lin (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of the sources seem to be youtubes. The text could be trimmed and added to the main article as a point of interest. I remember that Canseco homer in 1989. It was a monster shot (fueled by steroids, as we know now). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yup .. agree w/BB.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with the deletion process—would someone like to initiate it? The article seems to fail the notability criteria; in particular, a lack of reliable sources covering the topic. Isaac Lin (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I WP:PRODded it. If it gets removed, an AfD is likely in order. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't believe redirection to Rogers Centre is appropriate in this case, though, as many stadiums have 500 levels. I think deletion is sufficient. Isaac Lin (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

I had a thought this morning (scary). When I undertook an FAC for 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season, there wasn't much left to be changed save for the format of the game logs. The major beef was that they are collapsible and thus violate WP:ACCESS. I removed most of the collapsible boxes and forced the others to show, but that still wasn't enough, and the FAC failed. My thought this morning was: for the more well-developed season articles that have more prose and information than simply a game log plus a few snippets, what's to stop us from breaking the game logs and the player statistics out into their own lists? We could even turn the statistics lists and game logs into FLs, and if the main season article passes FA, we could have more featured topics.

The other major issue with the current format is that the articles are extremely lengthy with all of the tables included. WP:SIZE says that articles over 100KB "should almost certainly be divided", and the 2008 season article, at the time of this writing, is 118KB. The 2009 Phillies season is a whopping 167KB. I know that these guidelines usually apply to "readable prose", but it still concerns me. With the amount of information in these articles, the lists that could be split out certainly wouldn't be considered content forks.

The basic format I'm proposing would be split thus: 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season would retain all of the prose of the current article, along with the roster and the transcluded standings. To replace the game log in the main article, I would create a month-by-month splits table using info from Baseball-Reference, and the game log would become its {{main}} article. Two new articles would be created: 2008 Philadelphia Phillies statistics, a list which could potentially become featured, as it would have over 50 entries, well over the 10-item informal minimum limit at FLC; and 2008 Philadelphia Phillies game log, which would have 162 entries, and possibly the addition of the postseason games in a table as well. The format of the log would be altered to comply with the standards of WP:ACCESS (removal of colors without indicators, compliance with MOS:BOLD, removing piped links that aren't explained, etc.); the new format would provide easy linking to months of the season as well.

Note that I'm not bringing this up to start the "delete the game log" argument, because I like them and think they are valuable resources that a non-paper encyclopedia can and should provide. I'm just saying that with a few tweaks to the format, we could have a whole bunch of new information at our hands and get some more featured articles for the project, since it seems like that's something many of us desire.

Thoughts and comments appreciated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look at either Retrosheet or Baseball-Reference, in this case for the 2008 Phillies team, as a comparison to see which one has more information, accessibility, etc. I have no real opinion on which one, just offering another reference option.Neonblak talk - 14:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Very true; I usually end up using both anyway. Good thought. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why we replicate game logs for seasons that are 162 games long, when external sources will provide the same info. Also, why do we need so much detail in an article when we're constantly being berated in other articles for having too much detail? Compare that with when editors are forced to move quotes to wikiquotes and song lyrics to wikisource, and to cut down the plot summaries of movies and books, for articles that are much smaller than a ball team's one-season game log. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Baseball Bugs about the Game Log as well, I feel it's unneeded and sets a bad president, a external link should be fine. Secret account 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keeping in mind that I said "I'm not bringing this up to start the 'delete the game log' argument", how does it set a bad precedent? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Every team from every sport, from every season would have game log articles, we have WP:NOT#STATS for a reason. Secret account 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      • That's simply not the truth. Not every sport has enough games in a season to warrant a separate article. An NFL season's maximum of 19 games is nowhere near the amount of 162 in a baseball season. I'm also not talking about those becoming articles; they would be stand-alone lists, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you take a look at NOT#STATS, it says "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." The game logs within articles do this. "In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." If the game logs are separated from the article but still linked and an explanatory lead is provided, the context becomes much clearer. Also, please note that I said this would only apply to articles that are fully developed in prose and format without the game logs. I am certainly not proposing that every game log for every team season in every sport have its own article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Football is kind of a special case. I wouldn't make the same argument for football that I do for baseball. When you've got 162 games, each game is just a tick mark in the season. In contrast, there are so few games in a football season that each game becomes an "event". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Bugs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't see what the difference would be between having the game logs on separate pages, and many of the other featured lists we've already got in the project. Maybe I'm just not looking at it the right way, but to me a lot of those featured lists are essentially a record of a sequence of related events, the only difference between say the List of World Series champions and a potential {year}-{team}-game log article is that one is a sequence of events that occurs once a year over many years, while the other is a sequence that occurs almost every day over the course of six to seven months, depending on how good the team was.
Lets assume for a moment that the game logs are appropriate to have somewhere on Wikipedia. They're on the season pages at the moment. Some, if not all of these season pages are either too big or getting close according to WP:SIZE. It would seem the solution to that would be to follow WP:SUMMARY and split out the largest sections into individual articles, and replace them with summary paragraphs in the main season article. Given that the game logs would be among the larger sections, it would make sense to me for these to be split out. These could then be treated as any other list page, and as KV5 said, maybe get them to featured status, and increase the number of good/featured topics we have.  Afaber012  (talk)  21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That summarizes my rather verbose point exactly. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the difference is List of World Series champions clearly satisfies the requirements for a stand-alone list. I don't quite see how you separate the game log of a season from a season without undercutting at least one of those article's claim at existing. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It's exactly like removing the list of World Series champions from World Series. Same difference, if the amount of prose in the article is comparable to these long articles like the 2008 and 2009 Phillies seasons. I don't see how a game log wouldn't meet the requirements, as it falls directly into one of the explicitly-named types of SALs: "Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places" (emphasis mine). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Detailed coverage of who won each World Series is notable. Not so much for who won some May 7th battle between the Pirates and Reds. That's purely my opinion, obviously baseball is heavily covered enough basically any game will get ESPN/AP/etc coverage to make the lists pass GNG, but they just aren't the same IMO. Similar to Bugs point about football games, World Series are an event. Random games are not. As such discussion of World Series winners is worthy of being pulled out into a separate discussion from it's parent article, World Series. The 2008 Phillies gamelog, however, basically is the 2008 Phillies season (plus trades and possibly, but not always, postseason). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And that is why the World Series have their own articles and summaries of each individual games, while the 162-game season is condensed into several paragraphs. I don't know, I guess I just thought it should be possible to have a team season featured article, but the only ways to do this are removing the game log or changing its format. By changing the format to featured quality, it will be much too long for this page, so I guess I will be content with good articles and be done with it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I have a feeling you could get these through the featured process, but GA is definitely simpler. Speaking of GA, wanna review 2009 World Series? <3 Staxringold talkcontribs 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes for minor league players

A dispute has come at the article Minnesota Twins minor league players and we'd like more input. Apparently some time ago the WikiProject decided that the infoboxes should not include minor league teams. For players with MLB experience, that standard serves the purpose of avoiding clutter in the infoboxes and focusing on information that most readers find significant. However, is that rule still appropriate for players with no major league experience?

My opinion is that readers come to articles about minor league players understanding that they haven't yet reached the majors and wanting to know about their minor league experience. Some of the most useful information about a minor league player is how long he's been playing and how rapidly he's been advancing through the system, which is information that can be conveyed by including the list of minor league teams in his infobox. I don't see how it improves the usefulness of Wikipedia to delete this information from the infoboxes, so I'm arguing to make an exception to the general rule for players with no major league experience. Comments? BRMo (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Formerly in the hockey world we used to list the teams of the level of hockey they were currently playing, so if they were in the minors we would list the minor league teams, if they were in the majors we would list the teams they played for at that level. However, we now list any pro teams a player played for, major or minor. But baseball players seem to touch alot more minor league teams so I realize thats probably not appropriate for baseball infoboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with BRMo's proposal, although I am not a member of the project. Powers T 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with BRMo as well. Rlendog (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The amount of detail on the various Twins minor league player individual players (and that full page) is ridiculous. WP:WPBB/N is violated regularly. Nowhere else are minor league teams listed in infoboxes, and User:Johnny Spasm does not seem to pay attention to the guidelines, and is having a serious ownership problem with these articles. Anyone care to assist? Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember that WP:WPBB/N is just an essay, its not possible to violate it because no one is required to follow it. -DJSasso (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Also note that there was plenty of discussion at Template talk:Infobox MLB player and here on the project page - and the consensus was to NOT include minor league teams. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Also see WP:Consensus can change. Currently in this section 4 people support adding them an no one objected. -DJSasso (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer they not be included because listing teams that would have to be deleted if they made the majors is silly. I think many people didnt see the discussion. Spanneraol (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's a big issue with listing the minor league teams. And I don't think that the minor league team(s) should be removed as soon as a player makes the majors. If a player is in the majors that he will lose rookie status for future seasons, that to me would be the point where he's established as a major leaguer, and so the minor league teams become less relevant.  Afaber012  (talk)  05:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about MLB player infobox

I have proposed a change that may be in your interest. It's about putting a players draft in the infobox. Link here.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New subproject on Negro league baseball

I propose a new subproject on Negro league baseball, an area of baseball history that unfortunately is somewhat neglected relative to other parts of the Baseball WikiProject. I've set up a Negro league baseball task force page and invite anyone who's interested in improving articles in this area to add your name to the task force, or at least add the page to your watch list. Thanks. BRMo (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC) I've decided to remove the proposed subproject due to an apparent lack of interest. BRMo (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there's interest in this task force after all. If you're interested in this fascinating part of baseball history, please join us. BRMo (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Kinston Indians

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Kinston Indians/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

edit hardhead

Hi, i've been doing some substantial work with the german baseball portal creating articles, especially on international leagues, in german and also some editing with english Baseball sites. Unfortunatly, as in all other wikis, articles in the german baseball portal are being scanned for mistakes by other users, which are often helpful, but in some cases, premature edits are being made without a discussion and sound research. This also happens on the english wiki.

I decided to bring up the issue here, in hope of becoming some useful hints on how to procede, since a don't have much experience with these kinds of conflicts.

The content of the issue are the round robin modes after regular season play e.g.: Venezuelan Professional Baseball League. I wrote the german article by using information from the englisch site: both sites, german and english, were then both edited by changing the round robin modes, to a second half of season play. The edits were made by the Anaxagoras13 and I though the edits could be right and the other 2 wrong: i did the research on the official league site and, ...found out I was right. Also the original edit on the english site.

The problem is, that, the user Anaxagoras13 is pretty harheaded on the issue. I gave him the source of me research, i'm not sure if he looked at it, anyway, the point is that: a second half season is something different than a round robin. Now before we get into a revert XTC, i'd like this issue being solved. Any comments or help? Thanks for reading, cu, -- Hoffmansk 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)

Anaxagoras13 is absolutely right, obviously you don't know, what round robin means. You should have look up it.--93.242.246.180 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's impossible, that you're found out, that you are right, cause you are wrong, and what has a second half season to do with this, and why could a second half season not be a round robin?--93.242.201.158 (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball players from Greece renaming suggestion

For anyone interested, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28 and comment. Flibirigit (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A category with one entry? I think they forgot Greece E. Neale. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Boston Red Sox all-time roster and User:Doc Quintana

Doc Quintana (talk · contribs) started a rather strange revamping of Boston Red Sox all-time roster (diff). I have reverted the changes pending discussion because a) some of the changes are rather questionable (hometown? separating first and last name?); b) they essentially break the page pending completion; c) they look like they will take forever to complete; and d) I didn't see any attempt to build consensus for these changes. I have encouraged the editor to, if he so chooses, to continue to work on his new format in his userspace to minimize disruption to the article while we discuss the issue.

Having done a fair amount of work on the all-time team rosters, I find it odd that we have several different formats for what should be a pretty standard set of pages. For instance, compare Baltimore Orioles all-time roster to Kansas City Royals all-time roster to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim all-time roster. Personally, I prefer the minimalist look, but that's just me.

I know the subject has come up before, but shouldn't we put some thought to establishing a standard format for our roster pages?

Thoughts? caknuck ° needs to be running more often 05:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was inspired by Philadelphia Athletics (1890–1891) all-time roster, which seems to be on the verge of Featured List status. Quite frankly, i'd like to be even more in depth than that article, but the Red Sox have a much longer history than a team that was existence for two years in the 1890s, so it'll be tough for certain.
I've started a test incubator for this project at User:Doc Quintana/Boston Red Sox all-time roster if anyone wants to help, I'd welcome their input. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
While I like the idea in theory, in practice the list would be massive. Most of these all-time rosters being featured have roughly 50 players or so. The Red Sox have, well, a lot more. Might as well see how it looks in the userspace. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I would again stress the point that we should not use an argument that a user should not take on the project just because it is so vast. I have no objections to the editors actions, however, I agree with the point on the flags mentioned below. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The first draft of my proposed replacement is up and ready to go, i'll keep tinkering. In the end, it's the same as the original, except the flagicons are standardized, and there are first names as well. And the Sox all time have had 1,599 players (probably a good DYK).The old version is 61k, and the new version is 65k. I think I could get another column in there and still keep it under 100. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought we had determined not to use flags for these sorts of lists... None of our other baseball pages use flags as identifiers.. This one shouldn't either. Spanneraol (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree on the flags; I also don't think that first names and last names should be separated. Combine the columns and use {{sortname}}. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Second Draft

Ok, i'll take what I have at User:Doc Quintana/Boston Red Sox all-time roster and...

For phase three i'd like to see

  • A column for years played with the team
  • What position they played
  • Possibly different colorings for awards (MVP winners, Cy Young Winners, Red Sox Hall of Fame members, Baseball Hall of Fame members, etc.)
  • Possibly managers as well (since they wear player uniforms in their role as manager unlike in other sports)

I'll get to work and when i'm done i'll report back. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Managers have their own lists so they shouldn't be included unless they were player-managers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. No managers. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Norm Bass and Norm Bass (baseball)

Norm Bass (baseball) has been suggested that this article be merged with Norm Bass. Discussion page is here.--KANESUE 20:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved
 – KANESUE 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Grote & the Colt 45s

I got into quite the debate on Jerry Grote's talk page and I thought I would bring the debate here. I reedited the article, as I have with several New York Mets players, and added the following line under the section discussing his early career with the Colt 45s:

On September 27, 1963, Grote was behind the plate when the "Baby Colts," a starting line-up with an average age of nineteen years old, took the field against the New York Mets.

That sentence raised quite the debate on his talk page. You're welcome to read the debate there if you would like, but I thought I would bring it up here, and let the baseball gods decide. Anyone have a problem with me adding it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs)

  • It's worded very oddly. Why not just "Grote was the catcher for the so-called "Baby Colts" on September 27, 1963 when the Colt .45s fielded a line-up with an average age of nineteen."? And that's assuming things like the name "Baby Colts" are cited (looking at the links in that debate quickly I don't see it). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I dug out my 1964 Sporting News Baseball Guide. It does not use the term "Baby Colts". It does say the 1963 Colts emphasized youth, and it sees fit to show a picture of the 9 from that 9/27/63 game (which they lost 10-3 to the Mets), pointing out average age of 19 years and 4 months: Jay Dahl, Jerry Grote, Glenn Vaughan, Sonny Jackson, Joe Morgan, Rusty Staub, Brock Davis, Aaron Pointer, Jim Wynn. Vaughan's entire career[3] covered about 10 days, wrapped around the 9/27 game, which is probably why he doesn't have an article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I have a problem with adding it back and it's tendentious to bring the issue here after pretending to have had enough of the discussion there. Anyway, the problem - as stated there - is that it's not a noteworthy event in Grote's career. Even if it can be established to be noteworthy at all, it merely deserves a brief mention in a Colts history or season article, not in the article of every player in the game. Wknight94 talk 02:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree with you calling it tendentious. I debated with you and Orsoni on Grote's talk page. I thought this debate deserved a bigger audience and solicited one. I think the two of you are wrong, and I don't feel that the wrong decision should be made simply because I am out numbered.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can think it's not tendentious. (But then again, that's probably part of why it's happening in the first place.) There were four people who disagreed with you over many different aspects of the article, one of whom appears to have left the discussion through exhaustion, rather than through agreement or acceptance. The suggestion to bring the discussion here was aimed at the people who disagreed with you, to try and avoid an edit war with you. Then when you brought the discussion here, you also went to several people's talk pages (I'm assuming several because mine was included, and I don't think of myself as any sort of grand pooh-bar around here, and doubt anyone else would either) to invite them to the discussion here. Assuming others were invited and were in similar situations to me, there would have been no evidence apart from participation in WP:BASEBALL to suggest we had any interest in the article in question. And I don't think it's really necessary to say something like "I think the two of you are wrong, and I don't feel that the wrong decision should be made simply because I am out numbered." We can safely assume you think you're right and that therefore you think anyone who disagrees with you is wrong - hence this extended argument.
At this stage I think the line should go. I think if there was more to go along with it, mentioning how unusual it was and how many contemporary sources questioned/commented/ridiculed/applauded/etc it at the time, and had sources that could verify that situation, then it could stay. As others have said here, maybe it could stay in the season article for the team, but not for the players while it's in its current state.  Afaber012  (talk)  06:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The argument only ever included me, Orsoni and Wknight94. Bugs threw in the occasional comment, but didn't really participate. It came down to a two against one argument, and I wanted to bring it to a broader audience. In fairness to Orsoni, Wknight94 and Bugs, I sent them messages saying I was bringing the argument here. I figured while I was at it, I would solicit opinions from other baseball heads. Don't read any further than that into it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be worthy of mention in the article on the manager who wrote out the line up card, or the General Manager who dreamed up the stunt. In my opinion, it has very little to do with Grote's development as a baseball player. The best location for it would be in the 1963 Houston Colt .45s season article.Orsoni (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have with this thing is undue weight and notability. The game itself is a somewhat interesting microcosm of MLB, as it ranges from cup-of-coffee big leaguers to one Hall of Famer, who isn't Grote, it's Joe Morgan - whose article does not mention this game. Also, the one reference to "Baby Colts" I found on the internet[4] doesn't refer to this game, it refers to an instructional league squad in the fall of 1961 and doesn't say who the players were, as the article is about another topic. I could easily imagine the term "so-called" being immediately tagged with a "by who?" and then you'd be stuck with the one oblique internet reference that doesn't fit this particular game. The 1963 game was probably a stunt. Did it set some kind of record? Does anyone even know? I was thinking of similar stunts, like having Bert Campaneris or Cesar Tovar play all 9 positions in a game. If Grote had played all 9 positions, maybe that could have been worth making a bigger deal about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point about the publicity stunt. The fact of the matter is that it was definitely a publicity stunt. Does that make it any less notable? I haven't looked, but I'm guessing both Bert Campaneris' and Cesar Tovar's entries mention their respective publicity stunts. Grote played 3 games his rookie season. One of them was him participating in a publicity stunt. Sounds to me like it is notable.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Campaneris and Tovar were the 100% focus of very notable events. Grote was just one of a dozen or so unwitting participants in an event barely notable enough to make local newspapers. Sounds to me like it is one of the least relevant events I've seen. Wknight94 talk 04:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, "Baby Colts" has to go, unless someone can find a source linking that term to this specific game. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you would call it "Barely notable?" We found two different pictures taken of the squad from that game. Given the fact that people didn't just randomly photograph the starting line-ups of major league games, especially 40 years ago, someone must have found this event notable. There are no pictures from Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game. That a notable event?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Chamberlain's feat was an NBA record. Did the 9/27/63 game set a record? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe it did, but I'm not certain. The point I was trying to make, though, is that the media back then wasn't like it is now. There are no photographs of several historic sports events. Someone thought enough of this event to take two pictures.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Nobody knew ahead of time that The Stilt was going to score 100 points. And if you read Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game, you'll understand why the game was so poorly covered. I google-imaged [hershey arena chamberlain], and a couple of photos connected with the game turned up, including this one.[5]
The photo in the TSN 1964 Baseball Guide was a posed indoor shot against a blank background, and was included in the writeup about the various clubs, although oddly enough it was on page 33 opposite the writeup for the Cubs, while the Colts writeup starts on 35 and their full team photo is on 36. The writeup starts with the positive note that although the Colts slipped to 9th place, their overall record was 2 wins better than in 1962. Then they talk about Paul Richards' youth movement, which really didn't work out that well in the short run, as per this summing up comment, "It quickly became apparent that the Colt .45s were not going anywhere." And I assure you, you don't want to know what they had to say about the Mets, although they mentioned snapping a mid-summer loss string by "lambasting" the Colts 14-5 on July 15. Maybe if the Mets could have played the Colts more often, they would have finished closer than 15 games behind. Behind the Colts, that is. But there's no mention of "baby" Colts, and no specific mention of the 9-27 thing anywhere in the book except for the photo. There is no claim that it was a record. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I find the "Lovable Loser" Mets of the early 60's, well... lovable. I'm sure nothing in the TSN 1964 Baseball Guide would surprise nor upset me. I am more disgusted by the "Worst team money could buy" Mets of the 90's and the team we had on the field last year. Anyway, regardless of whether or not Chamberlain knew he was gonna score 100 points, the point is that it wasn't covered. Sports weren't nearly covered as well as they are today, and some monumental events went unphotographed. Meanwhile, someone thought what the Colts were doing that day was important enough to photograph the starting line-up. I fail to see the difference what color the background was. "He played three games his rookie season, one of which was this one" was basically all I said. I don't see why that sentence is so disagreeable.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The NBA was not as well-covered in those days as it is now, and they don't play in rinky-dink arenas like the Hershey facility nowadays either. As far as I know, the game was not televised, although I would assume it was covered on the Warriors and Knicks radio stations. The question about the all-rookie game is whether it's "notable" or not, and whether it's notable about Grote himself, or about Joe Morgan, or the guy whose MLB career consisted of 10 games total; or whether it's more about the Colts themselves, as a focal point of their youth movement of 1963 which resulted in a ninth-place finish. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

...and the answer to those is "no, it's not notable". Hanging your hat on the fact that someone took a still photo is pretty weak. I have a picture of my father who shot a deer from around that time frame - does that make him and his successful hunt a notable event? I'm not hearing anything here that wasn't said at the Talk: page. It's sounding like argument for argument's sake - WP:TE. Wknight94 talk 14:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

From the statistical standpoint, Retrosheet notes that it was an all-rookie lineup[6] From the publicity standpoint, it might have worked, as it more than doubled their previous night's paid attendance at Colt Stadium - from 2,700 to 5,800. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You know the deer analogy is asinine, right? As far as arguing for argument's sake, look at Grote's talk page. Look who was trying to leave it alone and move on. Then look at who started it all up again after a week went by. So don't give me this WP:TE crap.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You're equating two photos with notability - asinine indeed. "Look at who started it all up again" - yes, the signature at the top of this section is quite clear. Wknight94 talk 00:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Great spin there. I still think it is notable enough to get a one sentence mention.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of this wording: "Grote was one of many rookies on the Colts in 1963, including a game where every starter was a rookie." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a start. The reason I brought the debate here was to reach a compromise with a broader audience. How's this: He appeared in three games in 1963, including on September 27, when Manager Harry Craft fielded an all rookie starting line-up with an average age of nineteen years old against the New York Mets.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Bugs's version sounds good. Gets the game mentioned while keeping the subject at focus. The rest is inconsequential to Grote - who the manager was, the average age, the opponent, and frankly, even the date. Wknight94 talk 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Grote's rookie season was 1964. The way he phrased it is technically inaccurate.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hang on... Surely if his rookie year was 1964 - as in he was eligible for Rookie of the Year/etc because he hadn't had enough appearances in previous seasons - then while 1963 was still happening he would have been considered a rookie. Given that, I would have thought that it would be entirely appropriate and accurate as Bugs phrased it, both generally and technically.
Its starting to sound to me like your trying to find things to argue about. Johnny, I think its time this section was allowed to be picked up by the archiving bots, and time you found another battle to fight. No one's flocked to your banner on this one, in fact you've managed to convince others to join the other camp. If at some point in the future someone else voices an opinion similar to your's on this topic, then that might be a time to reconsider this debate. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of seeing this section appearing in my watchlist.  Afaber012  (talk)  11:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I was merely looking to make certain the wording was correct. Let's not be argumentative and accuse others of being, shall we?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
If you're splitting hairs saying Grote wasn't a rookie, then it wasn't an all-rookie game anyway! That would make the whole discussion even more pointless than I thought. Wknight94 talk 22:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) There's a difference to being involved in an argument (I'm no language expert, but I would guess that participating in argument could be automatically seen as being argumentative, irrespective of the circumstances of said participation.) and seeking one out or acting to prolong an existing one. You're the one who called us the "baseball gods" when you asked for help here. Just remember that gods have tendencies to work in mysterious ways, and they might do things like answer your prayers just not in the way you expect or hope.  Afaber012  (talk)  22:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The biggest criticism of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the articles and say whatever they want. In the process, inaccurate information gets written. I was simply doing my best to be certain that this collective didn't do that. By the way, if you're sick of seeing this section in your watchlist, by all means, unwatch it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That's what we're all trying to do, Johnny, and that's why we're here. That's also the point of discussion. We also can't unwatch this section without unwatching this entire page, and I'm sure that most of the people watching this page do so for a reason. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Therefore, you understand that I was simply seeking to make certain that there is nothing technically inaccurate with the phrasing.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article assessment - question on article importance

I've got a question for the editors who've been involved in assessing articles. I've started assessing the articles within the scope of the Negro league baseball task force and am wondering about the criteria for article importance, specifically for articles on players. Do you use statistical criteria to split "Mid" importance from "Low" importance players, or do you just eyeball it and guess? If you use statistical criteria, what are they? (The criteria for "High" and "Top" importance articles seem relatively clear to me; it's the split between "mid" and "low" that I'm struggling with.) Of course, with Negro league players we don't have very good statistics, but we may at least have information on how many years they played. Thanks for any guidance you can give me. BRMo (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For modern players i typically look for all-star appearances/awards, though for deadball and negro league players this can't really be used. For those you'd have to use your best judgment. I would just go based on career. A nice 15-year career with decent stats would be mid, while some guy who played two seasons as a backup would of course be low. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That's really helpful. While the Negro leagues didn't have MVP or Cy Young awards, they did have an annual East-West All-Star Game starting in 1933. I can look through the rosters of those games to get some idea who the "Mid" importance players were. BRMo (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Game Summaries

Would it be too much to have a game by game summary... I dont want someone to take it down for being "too much information"...

For Example...

Game 7 (Home Opener)

Team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R H E
TEAM A 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 9 1
TEAM B 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 x 6 11 0
WP : PITCHER A (2-0) LP : PITCHER B (1-1)

HRs: TMA Player A, Player B, TMB Player C

(A game story (paragraph) would go under the linescore, then a link to the box score on mlb.com will be posted as a refrence.)

Kind of like a football game summary on wikipedia.

I just want to know if anyone approves this, I think you can never have too much info, but users like it their way or they delete it even if non users (readers) approve, so I want to know now if anyone does not approve.

I would like this for ONLY my teams 2010 article. I will not edit this for all 30 atricles, but if you wnnat this for your team, go ahead. I want this to happen so I can remember about what happened in what games. Thanks, BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS)

I dont think its necessary to do a game by game summary on the season pages.. the Blue Jays page is already extremely long and the season hasnt even started yet.. Most of that info is already in the regular game log and is readily available on many sources.Spanneraol (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. I do have two concerns though: 1) it might look "bad" aesthetically if not all the games have summaries. I don't think it's a problem if some games aren't summarized, as long as there isn't a bunch of empty box scores and 2) I think you need text summaries for the games that are listed. If it's just the line scores w/o a summary, then I don't think it's worth it. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's way too much information per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The game logs are more than sufficient to provide the relevant info in a summary style for an encyclopedia, and the box scores for each game are easily accessible on Baseball-Reference, Yahoo! Sports, FOX Sports, ESPN, and others. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
If its way too much how about I do it for Just important games (ie opening night, home opener). If I get a green light, I will make sure theres no empty boxes, but if not, would it be good enough to just write a summary of the game without a box score? and not a 2 paragraph essay on the games, just an explination of how the game happened. It would be in a "timeline" style (see here for what I mean). the bold letters will have the game # and score, and maybe 10 sentences MAX about the game will be the summary.BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS) 02:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Example

Game 45- TMA 3 TMB 2 - Team A snapped a 2 game slide in style. Pitcher A went 7⅓ innings giving up 1 earned run in the third inning when Batter A hit a solo home run into left center field, and left the game tied thanks to an RBI single by Batter B allowing Runner A to score from third base. But Team B rallied back with 2 walks and a hit off Pitcher B to take the lead, as Batter B hit an RBI single up the middle to tie the game in the 8th. It took until closer Pitcher C entered the game and gave up back to back doubles allowing Team A to tie the game. After and intentional walk and a strike out, Batter C hit a line drive into left feild driver Runner B home from second to win it for Team A. Picther C got the win, as Pitcher B got tagged with the BS and the loss.

Is that OK? BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS) 02:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I say be bold. Don't take the small voice of this WikiProject. If anyone has any objections when it is on the page, it can be handled then. I think it's a fine idea. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Since this article is within the scope of this project's "small voice", consensus at this page does matter and shouldn't simply be dismissed or ignored. A major issue with this proposed style is the size of the article. An article with monthly summaries, the standard game log, and linescores with single game summaries in the postseason like the 2008 and 2009 Phillies seasons are well upwards of 100KB already. An article using the linescore template for each game would be interminably large, and for no good reason. Prose that would be used to summarize each game can be combined into paragraphs that summarize the season as a whole. Just doing linescores for "important games" would be an WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE violation, as who's to say what is important and what isn't? That's not for us to determine as the writers of an encyclopedia. This would also qualify (at least in my opinion) as "long and sprawling lists of statistics" as prohibited by WP:NOT#STATS. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 03:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Others don't agree. Plain and simple, this project is not all of Wikipedia and a consensus can't be built without input from everyone who choses, even if they are not involved in our project. Also, please stop criticizing the article worked on by BlueJaysFan32 by saying it is too long. If it is a problem, change it, and if it has been for some time, bring it up with the user. BlueJaysFan32 is obviously exercising be bold, if there is an issue, bring it up elsewhere. I think the point of this is for the line scores. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
NFL teams can get away with that sort of list of scorelines better than MLB teams, because they play so many fewer games in a season, even counting playoff games. I think in the context of major league games/seasons, it'd be a bit tough to do all of that for 162 games; both as an editor (or group thereof) and as a reader going through it. If the season article is of sufficient size to warrant being split per WP:SUMMARY, and one of the sections being turned into a new article covered a period of the season - like an intra-divisional series that allowed a team to clinch, or a series where a player closed in on then achieved a record of some kind, or any other series of games that warranted attention based on greater than usual coverage and notability - then it might be appropriate to use have the boxscores for each game. Otherwise I just don't think it'd be appropriate.  Afaber012  (talk)  04:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is interesting. KV5 mentioned something about a new article for game logs, is this not a possibility for line scores? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion is, instead of having articles with statistics of the season (proposal by KV5), we could expand that into line scores. It offers the same information, and also allows us to write a summary (or not) on things that happened in the game (like records or what not). I would say that the argument of WP:NOT#STATS is better placed on a bare statistics article rather than a summary article with line scores (what I am now proposing). --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The sheer number of games in the season makes this proposal simply unwieldy. Not only will this clog the individual season pages with hundreds of kb of text and tables (see WP:SIZE), but there are 2430 games in the MLB season. And we're writing all of these up? I think out limited resources are best allocated elsewhere. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 08:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I definitely wasn't suggesting an article for all MLB games, I was talking about team articles (i.e. 2010 Seattle Mariners game logs). As you can see, there are some lists (like first-round drat picks) that some teams have, and others don't. I don't believe we should discourage a user from undertaking a project just because it's vast, and they would be creating it for only one team. If that is what the user wants to do, I have no objections. Others can create articles if they choose, or not. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we should be attempting to make all things the same for all teams (which is a long and slow process) because otherwise we create systemic bias. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It's no where near what WP:BIAS talks about. That is a large stretch for an argument. A systemic bias is created through other means (and is much more vast), not one user creating an article that no one else has created yet (for any team). If the article is created, it might motivate other users to create articles for other teams, or the article could go through the deletion process, possibly creating another discussion on this, and maybe even consensus. My argument was that the user should exercise their boldness, and others at this project can object or follow after the article is created. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine. Please don't disparage my opinion, as I haven't disparaged yours. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I in no way mean't for it to be, please assume good faith. I was just stating how I felt your reading of WP:BIAS was misplaced in this situation. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have continued to assume good faith with you, Brian, regardless of past interactions, but saying that my opinion is "a large stretch" wasn't necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I do, however, think that we should attempt to spread all the valuable resources that have been allocated to one team to the teams that have not had the benefit yet. I was not suggesting we simply ignore it, I was suggesting we take a wait and see approach and measure the encyclopedic value after the fact. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of a separate article for game summaries. (EG 2010 Toronto Blue Jays game log) if linescores are to be used. and this is not bias... there are teams with no game logs up until 2006 other have a game log for every season.If someone doesnt want to contribute to thier team's season, thats thier problem. A Mets fan shouldnt do the Royals game log, you know what i mean. I rep the Jays, and I really dont care about WP:RULES, WP:DONTDOTHISSTUFF, WP:FHOY, ect. I am a fan who is doing this for the history books, becuase after all, this is an encyclopedia right? And if an "encyclopedia" can't have "too much" information, then this is something to be discussed beyond baseball. And the real meaning of too much info is having stuff like "On December 13 This Pitcher went to a charity event where he made a speech and donated $100,000 to the so&so foundation...and blah blah blah" thats what too much info is, and if you make a paragraph about something that is not worthy of being in a encyclopedia, then its too much info. A summary is not that. Thats genuine info. So my proposal is a Linescore and a summary for important/historical games (Opening day,team records, No-Nos, a game that will be remembered), then a timeline style short summary of each game that is ordinary. THAT is worth being in an encyclopedia. BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS) 04:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • First off, an encyclopedia can absolutely have too much info. That's why things like WP:GNG and WP:NOT exist. Beyond that, any selective game summaries would almost certainly violate WP:OR in deciding what's important enough to get extra coverage (other than something like a tie-breaker game that is notable enough to get it's own article). Staxringold talkcontribs 04:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
ANYTHING can have too much info, including an "encyclopedia". but nothing can have too much good info. BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it can have too much "good info", because too much information gives way too much intimate detail. You have to find a balance, and that article in its current form certainly doesn't have balance. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Explain how it has no "Balance"... It has all the info a Jays fan should know about (in the 2010 season). Dont be mad because Theres more info in the Jays season than your Phillies season, Thats just the truth. your starting to get competitive on here (thats the way I see it). You bite newcomers, and act as a total power tripper on here, but your not right all the time, so you should lay off the "Im always right, Iam the king of WikiProject Baseball" philosphy. Im getting tired of it, and I have done my best to please you (ie Toronto Blue Jays First-round draft picks, and other stuff you deleted that I did my best to make), so give some love back. Anyways, It wouldnt be 2 paragrphs per 1 game summary, I will keep it short and useful (in a timeline style). I can understand that you meant this would be "too much info" If I wrote 2 paragraphs per game. Have a nice day.(PS click here. Thats how I roll.)BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS) 05:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • BlueJaysFan, I will remind you of our policy on civility in reference to the above comments. I'm not mad, and there is no reason for me to be mad on such a small issue. I'm not the king of anything, and have never said that I was. I also didn't delete your work, but I did propose some of it for deletion because it wasn't in line with Wikipedia policy. If you're holding a grudge for something as small as that, I don't foresee much more productive discussion happening here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't have grudge against you, I just want to have the freedom to post a 5-7 sentence summary per game, and the "no balance" comment was not correct. It has some balance, but nowhere close to absolutley zero balance. I will do my best and contiue to do my best, and summaries are a good thing for this article. just my 2 cents. BLUEJAYSFAN32 (TALK|JAYS) 18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In your view, the article has balance. I, and several other editors, have commented that the attention to detail in this article, while impressive, constitutes undue weight. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The Blue Jays article as it exists now is AWESOME. It is infinitely better than the other MLB season articles that just transcribe stats and game logs. We should be pushing all MLB articles to be like this one, not vice versa. — X96lee15 (talk) 05:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't awesome. It may have breadth of information, but it doesn't respect Wikipedia's Manual of style in a number of areas, and has a number of POV and OR issues. I tried to rephrase some sentences to remove glaring problems, such as this one to replace a countdown clock (contrary to WP:MOSDATE) to spring training with a phrase that contains a fixed date, per MOSDATE, and other links to relevant articles, but it was quickly reverted. The article has received many edits since then, almost all of them to update the countdown clock on a daily basis (though a few days were missed, which is why we have a fixed-date policy). Now, the article has a countdown clock to the start of the regular season. As for other content, there are dozens of statements such as "The Blue Jays have quietly made some moves with potential on the waiverwire" which are clearly OR and POV, and the article lacks sources for many statements. Clearly, a lot of effort has gone into creating this article, but it should also adhere to the community policies and guidelines, which this article currently fails to do. Mindmatrix 15:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I didn't read the entire article because I don't care that much about the BJs, but the level of information is AWESOME. Sounds like it could use some cleanup though. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The countdown is not a big issue, and it shows how your using 1 sentence (from a month ago) against an entire article. and to say all the edits are daily countdown edits... do you even have this article on your watchlist? transactions, game log edits, spring training summaries, I doit all, and for you to say a majority of edits are countdowns is just an excuse in my mind (to try to prove this article is not how you want it). This is also not news as once the game is done, it "goes in the books" meaning its history. Please write on my talk page what sections need cleanup, and I'll do my best. As I said, Im a fan and I have no idea what should/shouldnt be cleaned up. Your help is aprecciated.
PS. I WILL NOT POST LINESCORES UNLESS THE ONE IN A MILLION EVENT OF THE PLAYOFFS. I WANT THE TIMELINE STYLE SUMMARY. NO MORE "LINESCORES ARE NOT SUITABLE" TALK, ITS FINAL, THATS NOT HAPPENING.'BLUEJAYSFAN32' (TALK|JAYS) 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I was using the countdown as an example of the problems in the article. There is still a countdown clock, but now it's for the start of the regular season (it should simply state that the regular season starts on April 4, not that there are 28 days until its start). Anyway, this is tangential to the primary discussion here, so I'll take other this and concerns to your talk page. Mindmatrix 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would be fine with limiting it to a few significant games over the course of the season, but not going further than that. Where would we put them if we added many? The 09 Phillies season article was already 150kb+, and the 10 Blue Jays article is 110kb and the season hasn't even started yet. We have to make sure our articles are readable at least. As for having separate game log articles where we have 162 of those boxes, I'm opposed for reasons already stated. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We should define significant. Opening day, last game, records set should be included. Also, maybe when a team surpasses their wins or losses from the past season. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I would only be in favor of this as long as we keep a pretty tight definition of "significant": Opening Day, no-hitters, cycles (even that's a stretch) and major records/statistical oddities (like if the Rays score 6 runs in every odd-numbered inning, for example). I'm against including the last game because it's pretty anticlimactic for roughly two-thirds of the teams. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not favour game summaries, as it places undue weight on each game, and Wikipedia is not a place for news. However, if summaries were to be given for significant games, statistical oddities is far too loose to be an effective criterion, as it is easy to find them if you are looking for them. The overall game summary is not directly relevant to a player hitting a cycle within the game, and so I do not feel this is a good criterion, either. For no-hitters, only the performance of the pitcher and defense seems relevant, rather than a full game summary. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Being bold is not a license to do whatever you want, especially when there are guidelines and policies that go against the action. It's long been established by consensus that the various team articles should - where possible and reasonable - follow the same basic structure. Obviously there are going to be differences: some teams get more coverage than others, and some teams are involved in more things than others, all of which is going to mean that the respective articles are going to have different amounts of info. The sort of change that you're proposing - ignoring for the moments the arguments that have been made about readability, size, etc - would all but require the same be done not just for the other teams this season, but going back to previous seasons. If it was done just for the Blue Jays and just for 2010 as you seem to be suggesting you might/would do, it would not only suggest a bias towards the Blue Jays over other teams, or a bias towards the 2010 Blue Jays over other Blue Jays teams of the past, but a bias towards the 2010 Blue Jays over all other teams ever in the Major Leagues.
  • The sort of thing you're proposing, having the linescores for all games, whether it be with or without some form of text based summary (per game/series/week/month/whatever), would be tough to manage as an editor for one team let alone all 30. But it would also be tough to manage as a reader: with 162 games listed sequentially there'd just be an overload of information, and to break it down to more manageable chucks there be a huge number of sections that would themselves be tough to keep track of. That sort of presentation can be done for things like the WBC and other relatively short tournaments like it, because there are much fewer games to report on, and those that are there already have a structure in place for breaking them down into manageable groups. It's just no feasible for the scale you're proposing.  Afaber012  (talk)  07:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree wholeheartedly with Afaber. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As do I, we can't even keep the scores updated as they are. blackngold29 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the game summaries too (previously noted in this response before I directed the discussion to this page), simply because Wikipedia is not a sport reporting agency. If you're interested in this kind of work, perhaps you should create sports reports after each game on WikiNews, and then link to it from the single-line entry for each game in the game summary section of each season article. This would improve WikiNews, and give Wikipedia a valuable resource to link to for each game. Mindmatrix 15:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the game-by-game summaries, if for no other reason than they would be really boring. Sorry, but there are many really boring baseball games - where the home team scores 6 runs in the bottom of the 1st and their pitcher struggles through 5 innings and gives up 2 runs and the home team wins 6-3. *YAWN*. Even what I just wrote was boring. A summary of important events during the season is sufficient, and giving game-by-game summaries would force me to weed through all the boring stuff to find the important events. Wknight94 talk 18:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Barry Bonds and List of Major League Baseball home run champions

The home run champions list, which is at featured list candidates, is subject to discussion over whether Barry Bonds' name should have an asterisk or not. More opinions are needed. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I most certainly would say no asterisk belongs. I think the real question is whether any mention of performance enhancing drugs should be made in the lead, and not just for Bonds for for all those involved on the list (Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, ARod, Manny, Palmeiro, etc, etc). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    Unless MLB puts an asterisk on there, I don't think that we should either. And considering that pretty much every slugger from the 90's and early 00's who isn't named Griffey, Thomas or Thome has been implicated as having ties to PEDs, I doubt that MLB will take any action with the record books. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Steroids have been a part of the game as far back as the 60s. Attributing the sudden rise of offense ignores that fact. Offense these days is as much about the introduction of weight training in the 80s, smaller parks, and the legend of the juiced ball. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As much as I hate Barry Bonds, I'll still toss my hat into the "no asterisk" ring. I'd rather just brand a giant asterisk on the cheater's forehead, but until a reliable source marks the record as falsified/cheating/untrue/unofficial, we shouldn't either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that we should leave it without an asterisk because it is not how Major League Baseball sees it. I would also pledge my dislike for Bonds, but as it stands, he is the all-time career home run leader by MLB standards, and that is what the article is about. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, actually the article is about seasonal HR leaders, but yeah. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the case may be, it still applies. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If MLB does not have an asterisk, then we should not. The "quote" asterisk "unquote"has a very controversial, albeit specific history in MLB. It should not be thrown around lightly when denoting "special circumstances". LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
A non-existent history—the story of an asterisk on Maris's record is apocryphal. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
What makes you say that? The asterisk was very real for many years before baseball (I think a Bud Selig decision) removed it. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not clarifying that it is the story of a literal asterisk that is incorrect. MLB had no official record book until recently, and as far as I know, no publisher has ever published the record with an asterisk next to it. There has been a distinction made between record holders over a 154-game season and a 162-game season; Fay Vincent declared that no distinction should be made. See The myth of Maris' asterisk at Salon.com for more info. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(od) No asterisk until MLB uses one. Since this is a list article, also NO to discussion/mention of PEDs. Such discussions (properly sourced) would go in whatever article(s) we have on the "Steroids Era" and how that may have affected various stat totals. umrguy42 04:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with no asterisk as long as MLB doesn't use one. But properly sourced steroids discussion is very relevant to this list article and should be included. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_19&oldid=1142515336"