Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

National Association boilerplate

Currently any of our lists referring to "Major Leagues" include a boilerplate notice of what this means, noting the various "official" major leagues. It doesn't list the National Association (properly so, it wasn't a ML) but doesn't explicitly say the NA isn't a ML. Would it be worth including this recent MLB.com article to solidify the no-NA status? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

John Gochnaur vs. John Gochnauer

I recently worked on John Gochnauer's wikipedia article. John Gochnaur redirects to John Gochnauer. From what I've seen in my research, I believe it should be the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.42.42 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, his headstone says Gochnaur:[1] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
DONE. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MLB roster navigation boxes

There is a discussion at Template talk:MLB roster#The_new_below regarding a recent addition to the bottom of the MLB team roster navigation boxes (e.g. Template:New York Yankees roster). Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've put it up at TfD - Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Template:MLB roster footer. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please respond to two TfD's?

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Clinton_LumberKings_roster_navbox and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Everett_AquaSox_roster_navbox have been at TfD for ten days with not a single comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wild card standings templtes

I just noticed that there is no template for the wild card standings, although there is one for all of the divisions. Thoughts on one being created? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the Wild Card standings are fairly meaningless after the season is over, so they have no particular lasting value. I don't think we need one created. Spanneraol (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Seating capacities

An IP address user has been editing all of the stadium articles, adding in a list of seating capacities that vary quite a bit from year to year. I'm aware of two cases where sources were cited: for the Rogers Centre and Fenway Park. I find it unusual, however, that the seating capacities would change so much. If any editors with access to say the media guides for your favourite team, or other definitive sources for the seating capacity of your team's venue, could review these changes, it would be appreciated. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A small project

75.60.6.70 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Forbes is complaining that we don't have an article on Gladys Gooding, the famous Brooklyn Dodgers organist. Looks like there are lots of sources. Kaldari (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of writing an article about how Wikipedia sucks cause it doesnt have an article on Gladys, that Forbes writer could have logged on to wiki and written such an article himself... but I suppose he wouldn't get paid for that one... hmmm... Spanneraol (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
He'd just gloat if we bothered. Does she warrant an article? Yes. Should we hurry to get it up to spite a whiny Forbes writer that can't make a one to two-sentence stub article himself if it's that important? I won't. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No point in shooting the messenger; even if the writer wrote an article on Gooding, there's always another one that can be used as an example of gaps in Wikipedia's coverage. On the other hand, the proposal about modifying Wikipedia's search engine ranking seems off-base: just because a site doesn't cover everything, doesn't mean it can't be a good source for some topics. isaacl (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I think the Forbes writer is full of hot air. I was just passing along the article suggestion since Gooding seems like a colorful character that would make for a nice DYK. Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I came here for the same reason, and I'm disappointed in Spanneraol and Vodello's answers. :-( Wouldn't it be more fun to just make Wikipedia better? If someone publicly complained about the area where I edit WP:PEER, I'd be thrilled for the attention and the help it's likely to bring!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Always glad to be a disappointment to Jimbo Wales. I'm still not going to drop everything I'm doing for this. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 18:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The important thing is that Nancy Faust (justly famous for Na-na-na-na, Na-na-na-na, Hey, hey, goodbye!) has an article, and has since October 2005. Chicago rules, Brooklyn...whatever. Ray Castoldi and Eddie Layton (both NY) have articles. See WP:Category:Stadium organists for more. imo Brandon Mendelson should start a Facebook page demanding that Google searches which can't find a relevant Wikipedia article should display Shame! Shame on you, you non-existent Wikipedians! Drop everything this instant and create an article on this person or subject! While we're waiting for that, Wikipedia could have a list of Stadium organists so volunteers would know what could use an article. (Same for other topics, obviously.) 76.192.43.111 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm busy writing an article on 1950s-60s outfielder Don Demeter that I've already dumped countless hours and 120+ references into with several more to go, I also recently expanded an article on catcher Hobie Landrith from 5KB and 0 references to 66KB and 121 references, and currently I'm assessing about 800 new articles for WP:BASEBALL, but that's apparently not making Wikipedia better in any way because some guy from Forbes has to dictate what I work on beacuse a Dodger organist is more important than a player from the actual team like Demeter, apparently. If that disappoints Jimbo Wales, then frankly that means I'm doing something right. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 02:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
AgentVodello, you are a example to us all. :-) 76.192.43.111 (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I am 51 years old and have been a baseball fan since I was nine years old. I've read a lot of baseball stories and have never heard of Gladys Gooding, although I have heard of Nancy Faust. Admittedly, I am not well versed in Brooklyn Dodgers' lore, although I read The Boys of Summer and I don't recall any mention of Gooding in that book.Orsoni (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What imo would be more useful is to add links such as these to baseball player articles. Statistics are important, but video is great, library materials are great, ongoing news is great. 75.60.6.70 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of term "tools of ignorance"

There is a discussion ongoing here as to whether the term "tools of ignorance" must be deleted from a particular catcher's bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of discussion. I thought it'd be an obvious delete, but I'm just going to steer clear of that instead of spending hours discussing it like some already have. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 04:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

FACs

Hey guys. We have two big names at FAC currently. First is Rogers Hornsby and the second is Happy Chandler. Both big time hall of famers who should be FAs, so if you have time to look through the articles and offer any comments, that would be greatly appreciated. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The death of Google News Archives

I am upset that Google has decided to discontinue their Google News Archives of old newspaper print articles, as it was a treasure trove of information that could be cited as a reliable source for articles. At the moment, I see that links to the old archives are still working as in the Hack Wilson article, but I wonder if those links will soon be dead, leaving many articles without sources. Does anyone know of any other similar services that can be used as reliable source for baseball articles?Orsoni (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Google's statement at the bottom of this article, the contents of the archives remain available, even though the home page for the news archive has been eliminated. isaacl (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The page you linked to shows a screen capture with an "archives" link at the bottom of the page, however I can't seem to find it, so maybe Google has discontinued it. As a test, their "advanced" search brought up a measly 5 articles on Manny Trillo, all from 2011 and none during his playing career.Orsoni (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I was decidedly pissed when I saw they had removed archive search. All of the newspapers are still there (http://news.google.com/newspapers), but they completely gutted the features that made the old archive search easy. You can still do it in a round about way, however, going to http://news.google.com/advanced_news_search and entering your search term AND a date range. i.e.: Manny Trillo articles from 1/1/75 to 31/12/77: [2] The graphical timeline and easy interface to drill down to specific time frames is gone, however. So much for "do no evil". At any rate, their newspaper scanning project actually died in May, and even in the unlikely event the papers themselves should ever go offline, as long as there are fully developed citations, we would need only to remove the deadlinks, leaving the remainder behind as a valid cite. Resolute 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well that sucks ass. I'm a member of SABR, and have free access to The Sporting News archives at [3], but this sucks. Looks like it's still there in some roundabout way. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw that too a couple days back, completely blew my lid. I can still get timelines and the like through some modifications on old searches, but it's way more painful than it should be. I have sporting news archives for about 10 players I can go through yet, but I still want to get to newspapers to supplement that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. I was just able to make a search of the Google News archives. What gives? — KV5 • Talk • 23:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The old news archive link was redirected to advanced news search. Since those posts above were made, Google added the "Return articles added to Google News Archive" link that does restore some lost functionality, but the actual search itself remains far more limited than it used to be. The stuff is still there, just harder to find. And the loss of the graphical timeline of news articles is still a considerable annoyance. It was so much easier to click on "1951" then "Jan-Mar" than it is to try and use their clunky "custom range" option. Resolute 23:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok. I've been using the custom range option for a long time so it didn't register to me that they changed anything. — KV5 • Talk • 23:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Half of articles are centered, help?

For some reason on 2009 Detroit Tigers season, 2010 Detroit Tigers season and 2011 Detroit Tigers season, everything after the game logs is centered. It must be a formatting error in the logs but I can't seem to find it. Can someone please take a look? TomCat4680 (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at 2011 and I think I've fixed it up, though not sure why it caused the problem in the first place. There was an extra ":" at the start of the first line for the two game log sections, the regular season and postseason. For some reason the indent that they caused (intentional or otherwise for the logs themselves) were retained for the rest of the article. I'm going to check the other two now for the same issue.  Afaber012  (talk)  06:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, same problem for the other two, now fixed.  Afaber012  (talk)  06:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Florida Marlins

Would a couple people care to watch the Marlins (and perhaps the Toronto Blue Jays) article(s)? A couple editors seem intent on edit warring over the infobox logos, trying to change them to the leaked and rumoured new logo for next season, despite the fact that they have neither been confirmed by the team nor are in use today. I'm at 3RR, so can't do much further at this point. Thanks, Resolute 01:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I know the Marlins don't rebrand themselves as the "Miami Marlins" until November 11, so nothing should be moved or changed until then. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Completely onboard with you on this one. Those logos should not be used until they are official.--JOJ Hutton 01:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we have an admin move-protect the page through November 11, the day of the rebranding? Someone just performed a page move without any discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now time to figure out how to boost their attendance. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps bring in a colorful character to manage. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
How about a colourful new logo? Resolute 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Perfect game

Based on the excellent job KV5 did with the cycle, discussed here, I'm thinking of doing the same thing for perfect game. As it is, it's all one article, but I think that like the cycle, it would benefit from being one article about the achievement, and another for the list of MLB occurrences. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. -Dewelar (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Third'd. In fact, I think doing this for a lot more articles is a great idea. As a Japanese baseball fan, I'm generally in favor of splitting out specific MLB achievements from general baseball articles. It makes the articles look much less biased and more balanced, IMO. If this particular article ever gets off the ground, let me know. I'd like to work up a section for the NPB like I did for hitting for the cycle. --TorsodogTalk 05:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeedy. — KV5 • Talk • 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I will get this off the ground tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
At the major league level, there have been a lot more cycles than perfect games. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it seems like even our articles on the rarest events in baseball (unassisted triple play, perfect game) are just lists of MLB players. The list of MLB players to homer four times in one game was properly named, and because these things can occur in other leagues, it is more appropriate to have a world-view article at the event's name, and an MLB list elsewhere. The cycle took a while, but even if it was just the 13 natural cycles, it should have been split, or at least some acknowledgement made that other baseball leagues exist. — KV5 • Talk • 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
MLB is world's highest level of baseball, hence any feats achieved in MLB have greater significance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Tie-breakers

I know I've been quiet lately (boo school, yay Wikipedia), but should the need arise for a tie-breaker article (or two!) tonight I will be sandboxing something basic and will put it up ASAP. In no way trying to suggest I own the topic, but it's something I've committed some time to, it's a fun day! I protected List of Major League Baseball tie-breakers, 2011 American League Wild Card tie-breaker game, and 2011 National League Wild Card tie-breaker game for 2 days against new/unregistered users to stave off those X-just-happened vandalism edits. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy for you to take the lead on those, should either of them happen. I don't imagine there would be any objection. I won't be able to edit anything tonight anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I just protected Jonathan Papelbon for six hours due to the expected vandalism following that loss. It will expire overnight. Carl Crawford is also a likely target, but hasn't seen much yet, if any of the regular baseball admins want to keep an eye out. Resolute 04:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sparky Anderson's number on Detroit Tigers Wall of Fame

The Detroit Tigers retired #11 for Sparky Anderson this year but the Tigers Wall of Fame graphic doesn't show his name or number. Can someone please add it? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone fix this? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Career highlights in infobox

This topic has been discussed a couple of times recently; given the discussion above, perhaps the time is right to discuss it again. Orsoni has previously suggested that the following career highlights be included in the infobox:

  • All-Star game appearances
  • MVP or Cy Young Awards
  • World Series or playoff MVP Awards
  • Rookie of the Year Awards
  • season home run crowns
  • season batting championships
  • season RBI championships
  • Gold Glove Awards
  • Silver Slugger Awards

The counter-argument is that this information is not required to provide a succinct summary of the player. Perhaps we can discuss if it seems reasonable for an infobox to give a very quick view if a player topped the league's leaderboards? Would another way of characterizing the player's performance be better and more concise? Or is it not necessary at all to give any indication of a player's performance level? isaacl (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think at an overall level, this is a great start. If I might add a few items to this list: I think World Series championships is vital to have (not just postseason awards), and I would also suggest adding the Triple Crown (both for hitters and pitchers). I think it would also be a good idea for relief pitchers to add the Delivery Man Award (since most won't ever win the Cy Young for their role). Something I'm undecided about is records - should Barry Bonds have a highlight of "all-time home run leader"? Should Mariano Rivera have a highlight of "all-time saves leader"? These are just as important to the player's legacy as the awards they have collected. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
For now, can we focus on individual accomplishments? There is a different counter-argument for team accomplishments, and so I think it would be easier to stick to individual achievements for now (team accomplishments can be discussed later). Also, rather than just listing more awards, since I don't think this will help bridge the gap with those who are against putting these achievements in the infobox, can supporters of adding information try to look at it from the other point of view, and explain how (in their opinion) a succinct summary would be incomplete without some description of the player's performance levels? isaacl (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the highlights are important for giving a synopsis of a player's career in a few bullet points, essentially how we would remember a player (e.g. Willie Mays - lots of All-Star selections and Gold Gloves, won 2 MVPs, won the World Series, a few occasions on which he led the league in certain stats). Without a highlights section, what in the infobox really tells us anything about what the player notable (excluding the prose)? What really distinguishes him from, say, Babe Ruth or Tony Gwynn, players who were very different and made their livings in baseball in very different ways? Again, the prose will tell us all of this, but I think the infobox can succinctly do the same thing, as well. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm still of the opinion that no awards/highlights should be in the infobox except hall of fame. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
My point would be that the final infobox category is Career Highlights, and for a player such as Tony Gwynn, his 8 batting championships are clearly his career highlight, yet some editors continually delete this data. The main purpose of the infobox is to give a reader a quick synopsis of a player's career. It boggles my mind that something called a Hutch Award is considered a greater career highlight than 8 batting crowns.Orsoni (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. I don't think you can say it any better. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Though discussion has been limited, so far in the past two threads and this one, there has only been one objection to the idea of including individual achievements in the infobox (leaving aside the question of which ones to include for the moment). Though I prefer not to base consensus on a nose count, unfortunately often that's as close as it gets in Wikipedia. So can anyone else who has objections please step forward and explain their reasoning? If no other objections emerge, I'm tempted to proceed with discussing what individual achievements ought to be included to strike a balance between conciseness, and providing a bit of insight into the player's key characteristics. isaacl (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the need for this discussion as those things are already included in infoboxes... a discussion would be necessary if we had a desire by people to change things but since these achievements are already included in most infoboxes I'm not sure why we need to haggle over it? Spanneraol (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Before closing the discussion, perhaps we should reach out to the talk pages of some of the project's most active members and ask them to contribute their thoughts. I have a feeling, like others have mentioned, that objections to the "Career Highlights" section will be minimal, but it's worth reconfirming that consensus before we move on to which highlights to consider in scope. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The previous discussion threads have said that this information has been reverted, and so the editors sought a consensus here. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There was a very looooong and drawn out discussion about what to include at Talk:Pete Rose, who is one of the game's most prolific award-winners and record holders. Perhaps that standard could be a jumping off point for this one? — KV5 • Talk • 23:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I notice that Gwynn's 8 batting crowns and Mike Schmidt's 8 home run titles have been included in their infoboxes, so maybe the editors who had previously deleted these statistics have relented or left Wikipedia.Orsoni (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Spanneraol, this has already been decided by consensus across Wikipedia, and per WP:PPP, it makes the most sense to describe the consensus, not try to redefine it here. 018 (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
By all means, please go ahead and summarize existing consensus, so it can reviewed for inclusion in the player style guidelines. isaacl (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Well all of the awards listed at the top of this section are included in the highlights field and have been without much debate.. the only arguments have been about World Series titles.. which seem to have narrow support for inclusion. Spanneraol (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
narrow support as in only a few support it or as in the the consensus is usually or their inclusion? 018 (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
What about other official MLB individual awards? Has any working consensus been established? isaacl (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
IMO there should not be a standard and each situation should be handled on a player-by-player basis. A player that leads the league in strikeouts one year (for example) and really did nothing else in his career should have that in the infobox, whereas it doesn't necessarily belong in a HOF player's infobox. What is included should be relative to the player's overall accomplishments. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with you. Spanneraol (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This is somewhat related to the discussion below on a contextual interpretation versus a performance-level one. I appreciate that one of the reasons for DJSasso's view is to avoid endless discussion on every player's personalized career highlights. For the purposes of this discussion, so that we can at least codify what is agreed upon, the proposed list of individual accomplishments is a default list of accepted notable events that are key to characterizing a player succinctly. It may be the case that for a particular player, a consensus can be reached on including another achievement. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This pretty much is exactly the reason I think they shouldn't be in the infobox. Because it becomes extremely POV to decide on a person by person basis what is important enough to be in their box and what isn't. Goes completely against our NPOV guidelines to do for some and not for others based on non-objective criteria. If there is a specific list of what can go in and what can't go in then I have less of an issue with them. But the way things are currently done its a huge case of POV with no objective criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we should be working towards coming up with a definitive list of items to include. I agree that on a case-by-case basis, there may be certain elements to include/exclude, but we should come to a consensus on a master list to make things easier on us and avoid so many case-by-case situations. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to think that, we, as knowledgeable baseball fans, would have an intrinsic feel for different types of careers and what should be considered a career highlight. For instance, César Gutiérrez played for only 3 seasons but tied an MLB record for most hits in a game with 7. Logically, that would be his career highlight. As for a player such as Pete Rose, I agree that an infobox can become overloaded. Perhaps limiting it to the stats listed above by Isaacl would help, with lesser awards such as the Hutch Award and Comeback Player of the Year Award listed in text within the article.Orsoni (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Team-level accomplishments in player infobox

From what I've observed, including team-level accomplishments (such as a World Series championship) depends on what one thinks should be included as a career highlight. Those who support including this info adopt a contextual view: in the context of a given player's career, this is one of the highlights of the career. Those against including this info adopt a performance-level view: team accomplishments are not reflective of a player's individual performance level, and so are not necessary in a succinct description of a given player's key characteristics. Both are defensible opinions; the crux of the matter is how wide a scope should the term career highlight encompass. As I believe Baseball Bugs said once, for many players, making the big show is their career highlight, but I don't think there is general support for including this in the infobox, so a pure contextual view is not currently supported. Let's start with double-checking the statement above: is there support for including World Series championships in the career highlights section? (For purposes of discussion, assume there is no consensus support to include any other team-level accomplishments.) isaacl (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes.Spanneraol (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the placing of team accomplishments in the player's infobox. A team winning a World Series is at best marginally reflective of a player's accomplishments, which is what the infobox should contain. However, I do understand the opposing POV as stated by Isaacl above, so I can live with it being there.
However, I vehemently oppose the phrasing that seems to be in current use -- on Derek Jeter, for instance, we have "5× World Series champion", which would imply to someone unfamiliar with baseball that the person himself won titles of some kind. If such items are ultimately deemed worthy of infobox inclusion, the above should read "Member of 5 World Series championship teams" or something similar. -Dewelar (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I can understand personal achievements in the box, but team achievements definitely should not be as it implies the player won them by himself. World championships are a team achievement and as such belong in the teams infobox but not individual players. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering how, right or wrong, players are defined partially by how many championships they've won (or by your wording, how many championship teams they have been a part of), it belongs in the infobox. I'm open to discussing a change to the way we word it to make it clear it is not an individual accomplishment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I completely disagree that World Series championships should not be in scope. It may not be an individual accomplishment the same way an MVP or Cy Young Award is, but to be a member of a championship-winning team is certainly, in my opinion, a career highlight. Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, and Jorge Posada will probably be remembered for their World Series championships as much as (or even more so than) they will be for any individual accomplishments. The infoboxes for NFL and NBA players currently list team championships as highlights, I see no reason why we should contrast with what they do. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I won't address the issue of what other sports do, because it's a red herring. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that. Yes, the three mentioned will be remembered for that, because they (along with Bernie Williams and Andy Pettitte) were the core of a dynastic team that won several titles. On the other hand, will people remember (to pick a couple people from the associated navboxes) Ricky Ledée, Allen Watson or Alfredo Aceves for being on those same teams? -Dewelar (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it may be the other way around: star players will be remembered for their performances; bench-warmers might (for the most part) only be remembered for their participation on a championship team. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, perhaps, but I'm not sure Wikipedia should be in the business of handing out the equivalent of awards for participation. By that I mean that they will be remembered only for being part of the team, not for their contributions to that team. -Dewelar (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes in discussions on what is notable, the question is asked, what would someone want to know about a subject in twenty years? If the most notable event for a given player from twenty years ago is being on a championship team, it's just a consequence of how the baseball community (and people generally) sum up historical events, regardless of what Wikipedia editors choose to put in a player's infobox. The key question (assuming that highlights of any kind will be included in the infobox) is whether or not a succinct summary of a player's career would be incomplete without referring to being part of a World Series championship team. isaacl (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem is that there's so much disagreement about what's notable in the context of a career. Is simply being on a championship team an accomplishment for an individual? It depends on your point of view. For someone like Mark Kiger, probably. For someone like Joe Ayrault, perhaps. For Mike Andrews...well, now we're stretching the definition of "highlight" :) . -Dewelar (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that it's up to us to decide, though. Most sources, when discussing the career accomplishments of MLB players, mention if they were members of championship teams or not. MLB Network, when profiling Mariano Rivera' chase for 600, frequently had a player profile graphic they showed on screen and/or career highlights that were on a mini-ticker on screen. The "5-time World Series champion" highlight was always among those listed. I don't know that it's our job to decide if World Series championships should be mentioned or not if external sources consistently list the information alongside the player's individual accomplishments. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean like height and weight are almost always listed on a players bio? ;) -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that the MLB network ticker included Rivera's height and weight. If you ask most baseball fans about him they'd mention his world series titles.. but how many people know his height off the top of their head? Spanneraol (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the ticker but to the more general reliable sources that he was referring to. I have yet to see a publication that has bios not have height and weight. I am sure there probably are some out there but they would be extremely rare. And who said people have to know everything in an infobox off the top of their head...the whole purpose of the infobox is to tell people what they don't know.... -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I do think that being a part of the championship team for the highest level of organized baseball in the world is a notable event for any player, regardless of other accomplishments, or days of service (and it certainly seems like a notable event for Mike Andrews). isaacl (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(sigh) I really need a macro for this...but "notable" is not the question. Putting something in an infobox must meet a higher level of importance than that. -Dewelar (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if I gave this impression; by no means am I asking for all notable information to be included in the infobox (I stated earlier what I felt the key question was regarding inclusion). I was simply replying to your statement regarding disagreement on what is notable in the context of a career. isaacl (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you think that the President of The United States was elected based on a solo performance? Should that appear in an info box? Did the men who walked on the moon build the craft? How substantial was Watt's contribution to the steam engine? Obviously being a world series champion is a much more modest accomplishment than these, but the points stands. 018 (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The point being...that there's no such thing as a truly solo performance? That no individual that accomplishes something does so without support from someone else? Yeah, sure, I'll buy that. However, in the end, it is the team that wins the World Series. Only one person is elected president at a time. Only certain members of the Apollo team walked on the moon. As for the Watt example...well, his infobox does read "improving the steam engine", which I think is exactly the tone to strike for that example. -Dewelar (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment All of this information should be relegated to the proper sections. An additional infobox could easily be placed within sections that deal with a persons playing career. Additionally, other information, such as the before mentioned height and weight could also go into this section.--JOJ Hutton 14:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That is a good idea. Sort of like how the Medals template is often put in the international play/amateur sections of some sports. In this case you could make an awards template or playing career template. -DJSasso (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't favor creating another separate infobox as the articles may become too cluttered. As per the Infobox Manual of Style, The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. We already have the bottom of the articles cluttered with succession boxes and team boxes. In order to make more room in the infobox, I would favor moving lesser awards such as the Hutch Award or the Babe Ruth Award into text sections of the articles.Orsoni (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edgar Martínez Award is now a FLC

I worked on Edgar Martínez Award last week and this morning. I believe I got it to the point where it can be a features list. Any feedback is appreciated: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Edgar Martínez Award/archive1. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Rolaids Relief still an award?

Please share your insights at Talk:Rolaids Relief Man Award#Still an official MLB award.—Bagumba (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to Mariano Rivera

After recently reviewing some Featured Articles from this project and looking at some of the ratings that the Mariano Rivera article had been getting (on the end of page widget), I decided to try and make some changes to improve the objectivity of the article, as well as cover some facts that previously did not receive any attention in the article. Accordingly, I've made some changes to the lead, as well as the "Player profile" and "Legacy" sections. I would appreciate it if a few editors could review these changes I've made and either provide some feedback or make adjustments where appropriate. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 12:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the introductory section should be shortened. In my opinion, the second paragraph detailing when he signed and when he made his major league debut, etc, should be moved to the main body of the article.Orsoni (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand... why would I move something out of the lead into the body if it's already in the body? Furthermore, the lead is intended to summarize the entire article, and for a 105 kb article, I thought the length of the lead was appropriate. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
If the contents of the second paragraph are already in the main body of the article, then that's all the more reason to remove it. As per the Manual of Style, the lead section should be a "concise overview", stating who, what and why he is important, including the most prominent part of his career, which would be that he is the all-time leader in saves. In my opinion, the part about when he started his career, is less prominent and doesn't belong in the intro. The lead section serves to introduce the reader to the subject and isn't meant to be a summary of the article.Orsoni (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The guideline says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." In my interpretation, that means that every section in the article should be touched on, however briefly, in some way so that the lead can indeed "stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Regardless, this part of the lead has already been like this for a while and I was more or less looking for feedback on the recent changes. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to be argumentative. I'm just stating my opinion that the part about when he started his career isn't prominent enough to merit having the reader read it twice. The most important part is that he is considered one of the best relief pitchers in the history of baseball.Orsoni (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not meaning to be argumentative either, I just thought that some mention of either his minor league career or origins with the team merited a mention, since they are covered in the body. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the mention in the lead right now is certainly appropriate given the size of the lead, the size of the article, and the contents of the article. — KV5 • Talk • 11:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I can see Orsoni's point that few of our bio articles have a second paragraph that is so thorough, but I also fall on the other side of the fence that what is there now is appropriate. It's a nice mini-summary preview of a long article. Wknight94 talk 11:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no big beef the way the lead is written, but this is a healthy conversation for future articles. In my opinion, the key words in the Manual of Style are "concise overview." Concise meaning short and to the point. I don't think the length of the article should have any bearing on the length of the lead section. I don't think the entire second paragraph should be removed, only the part about the beginning of his career, since the beginning of his career is detailed near the beginning of the main body, just a few paragraphs down. Nor do I think when he began his career bears significant impact on his importance as a player. It doesn't matter if he began playing in the 1920s or the 1960s, the most important point for the lead section should be that he is the all-time leader in saves, and one of the greatest relief pitchers in baseball history.Orsoni (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Another point about the last sentence of the lead section which mentions that he is expected to go into the Hall of Fame. Even though we all know he will likely be inducted, is conjecture appropriate in an encyclopedia article?Orsoni (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a lead section may and frequently should pass over some entire sections of a wikipedia article that has several substantive sections. Nor does that depart from "a concise version of the article".
This lead goes back and forth, to and fro Mariano's statistical achievements, more than it should. Perhaps those observations can be consolidated and shortened.
I would try stronger writing thruout, such as immediately established himself rather than in the following years; stoic(al) rather than reserved, in contrast to teammate enthusiasm and display; or Panamanian? Roman Catholic community rather than Christian. That sportswriters expect the Hall of Fame is exceptional understatement and so trite that it may distort; it weakens the overall assessment of Rivera. If we can't somehow convey that everyone takes the Hall of Fame for granted, then it isn't worth saying. --P64 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Afterthought: Is reference to the live-ball era a red herring, which cannot help but may hurt? For one, that article is flagged as needy. For two, it is narrowly focused on the 1910s and 1920s; that is, on a transition. Why not say he's the best ... after WWI, or since 1919, or from 1920, etc? --P64 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding you, but I'm not sure how some of your suggested synonym replacements improve the article. "Stoic" doesn't appear to be WP:NPOV, whereas "reserved" is neutral. As far as I can tell, Rivera isn't Roman Catholic, and most references to his work with the church are not denomination specific. Also, the quality of articles X and Y that are linked to from Z is not the concern of editors maintaining article Z. If Mariano Rivera links to 300 articles, it is not the job of the editors of the Mariano Rivera article to assess if all of the linked articles are good enough to be linked to or not. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying to get Hobie Landrith to Good Article status but can't likely do it alone. Slightly derailed by banned reviewer

Currently we have just over 100 articles promoted to Good Article status on WP:BASEBALL. I've improved several articles over the past year to potential GA+ nominees, but didn't pursue nominating them for it. Hobie Landrith was recently nominated for Good Article. User:Globalwheels reviewed it, but it had to be thrown out because he was a banned user. I'm not really good enough of a writer to get an article to GA+ status, so any help in fixing issues with the article's prose or lead would be much appreciated.

Other articles I've greatly expanded are Don Demeter and Stan Lopata, and I'm currently about 40% done with Al Worthington at User:Vodello/Al Worthington. The ones I've finished have not been nominated yet, but if they are sometime in the future I'd almost certainly need assistance in fixing prose issues there as well.

Someone has offered to start a new review for Landrith at Talk:Hobie Landrith/GA1. If I can't find some help on this, I'll likely decline the offer since there's still a lot of work to be done on Worthington. Haven't even gotten to the part where he's ostracized from baseball for three years for whistle-blowing on his team stealing signs thanks to a guy in the scoreboard with binoculars. That's going to be a weird one. I'm just looking to expand as many articles as possible so that the players are more than just small footnotes in history with one or two sentences, so I'm fine with having like 20 B-Class articles with 0 of them earning a green plus sign. But if anyone can help tidy up the 65KB mess I made on Landrith as I'm sure the banned user's review left out several major issues, it'd be very much appreciated. Thanks. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 16:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Good Article review has been marked as failed thanks to the banned reviewer. Didn't get a response here, so I won't pursue another review. GAN's seem to be more trouble than they're worth. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I put it back in the queue and made it so someone else will review, which is what is supposed to happen. Not sure why the hell it was marked to failed. Having said that, it's pretty much at GA already, don't be so defeatist on that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the process. Seems like everything that could go wrong did. Thanks for giving it another chance. I won't be able to do much except simple fixes. Not that good with prose and grammar, and I'm not sure how to write a proper lead. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The lead section looks fine to me, as it gives a concise who, what and when. Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat as yourself in that I don't have the writing skills to put it at the top level.Orsoni (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Live-ball era article

I have doubts about the viability of the Live-ball era article as a point of reference. For one thing, while I've heard of the dead-ball era, I've never heard of the time afterwards referred to as the live-ball era. Baseball offensive statistics fluctuate over time, most notably in the late 1960s, when Carl Yastrzemski was the only American League hitter to hit above .300 in 1968.Orsoni (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about you, but I've heard the term quite often, both in baseball articles and by announcers themselves. Google "live ball era" + baseball and you'll get back 197,000 hits. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I drew attention to the article "Live-ball era" at #Recent changes to Mariano Rivera.
Probably the hyphen is a figment of Wikipedia style and any form (liveball era, live ball era) is a neologism, by recent analogy to deadball. Historically, baseball writers noted the "lively ball".
The article does not currently feature any period in baseball history (era, epoch, eon, ...), after the first sentence which gives one endpoint 1920. About one-third is about 1920/1921 in particular. One-third is about the deadball era in contrast to 1920/1921, or the 1920s. The other one-third includes two indications that the 1920s were special, rather than the start of one era extending to the present (single season batting records set in 1927 and 1920 survived until 1961 and 2004).
Some novice readers must suppose that Dizzy Dean played during the so-called liveball era. Some may guess that Dean, Denny McLain, and Ichiro Suzuki all played during that period. --P64 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion,it's hard to claim the entire period from 1920 to 2011 is the live-ball era when Major League Baseball had to reduce the height of the pitching mound in the late 1960s due to the dominance of the pitchers of that era. Also, the official balls vary from time to time. Before the 1930 season, the National League introduced a heavier ball to curtail the prodigious offensive numbers of the previous season.Orsoni (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of how accurate a moniker or all-encompassing we as editors consider "live-ball era" to be, the baseball media are the ones that have conceived and continue to use the term, and our responsibility is merely to report on that. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
As it is now, without any inline citations, the article reads as original research. At the very least, the article should specify the length of the era. One Googled website claims the live-ball era lasted from 1922 to 1950. That sounds more reasonable to me. I would be hesitant to label the entire period from 1920 to 2011, with all the aforementioned changes plus integration and league expansion, as a single era.Orsoni (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I've heard live-ball era referenced many times on MLB Network and ESPN, and they all seemed to speak of it as though we're still in the live-ball era today. 1950 just doesn't sound right, and I wouldn't think MLB Network would be wrong. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the need to differentiate the dead-ball era and its lower offensive statistics from the era that followed, but the term is a bit sloppy and misleading. How would we explain to a neophyte to the sport as to why Major League Baseball had to lower the pitching mounds in the late 1960s if they were in the midst of a live-ball era?Orsoni (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
There have been various attempts at tinkering with things to try to maintain the balance of pitching and hitting. That's why the pitching position was moved from 55.5 feet to 60.5 feet in 1893. It's also why the pitching rubber was restricted to a maximum height in 1969. That was merely tinkering. The switch from the dead ball era to the lively ball era (and the consequent shift from the small-ball game to the power game) was a revolutionary, fundamental change that continues to this day. And it's not OR, as there are endless sources that discuss it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there was a revolutionary change. Just playing the devil's advocate, today's game is substantially different from the way it was played in the 1950s. Dom DiMaggio led the American League with 15 stolen bases, as most teams waited for the three-run home run. Then Paul Richards reintroduced small ball with the Go-Go White Sox. That's why I'm hesitant to use one era to describe the period from 1920 to 2011.Orsoni (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a case of overloading the term: I believe the explosion in offense in the nineties has been referred to as a live-ball era (for those choosing to not attribute it solely to performance-enhancing drugs and so are not calling it the steroid era). There have been articles that have broken down periods of baseball by trends in average numbers of runs scored per game (if I get the chance I'll try to track some down); there have definitely been periods of pitching dominance between the 1920s and now. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The surest way to see the difference in the two eras is to look at the home run totals in each season. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The runs per game graphs are in the Major League Baseball and Dead-ball era articles, and the Dead-ball era article also has a slugging percentage graph. From the runs per game graph, the period after the dead-ball era and prior to the war years has a higher level of offense. The dip in the late 1960s/early 1970s is also visible, and until the late 1990s, offense levels were below the pre-war/post dead-ball period. Without more specific references to what period comprises the so-called live-ball era, I believe it to be inaccurate to refer to this entire period by one name. isaacl (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm falling on Orsoni's side of the fence. If we can't agree on what "live-ball era" refers to, and can't find much commonality in reliable sources, then it should be redirected or turned into a disambiguation page or deleted outright. Wknight94 talk 21:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Where I've seen it most often is in reference or contrast to the dead-ball era. Conversely, talking about today as the lively-ball era really only makes sense in comparing it with the dead-ball era. The live-ball "era" has now lasted over 90 years, with no signs of stopping. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Lack of commonality in RS is not reason to delete. We would just present all viewpoints. The first concern would be to identify if sufficient sources exist on the topic, as there is only one in the article and it's been tagged since Feb 2008. Sources should explain the era and not just use the term.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
      • The article already explains, in detail, why there is a dead-ball era and a lively-ball era. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
        • So perhaps all we need are some footnotes to alleviate concerns about OR, neutrality, and whether we are still in live-ball era.—Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
          • We undoubtedly are still in that era, in the sense that we've not been in the dead-ball era since about 1920. Whether that's useful information or not is a bit murky. It's not like anyone thinks we're going back to it. The stats, however, suggest sub-eras within the big era. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
            • If live-ball era is nothing but "everything after the dead ball era", then I'd prefer to see them combined into one article. The real subject is what caused the ball to be "dead" before 1920 and then "live" afterwards. We don't need two articles for that. Wknight94 talk 12:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added an inline citation for the article The Evolution of the Ball which has a lot of good information on the construction of the ball and the changes made by MLB.Orsoni (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

The article gives the impression that baseball hasn't changed since 1920. An argument could be made that the integration of black players moved the game to another level. In 1956, Willie Mays became the first player in 34 years to hit 30 home runs and steal 30 bases. Add to that, the aforementioned reintroduction of small ball by Paul Richards. Also, stealing home plate seemed to occur more often up until the 1970s, with even relatively slow-footed catchers such as Randy Hundley having stolen home. Maybe the article should touch upon the changes the game has gone through in the last 91 years. Another possibility would be for the article to focus on the period of transition, rather than the blanket statement that everything since 1920 is considered the live-ball era. As it is now, the article is vague as to what time frame the era encompasses.Orsoni (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Squirrels ran onto the field at Busch Stadium, so naturally there's a Wikipedia article about it

Someone created the Rally Squirrel article, which I don't believe meets any notability requirements. Please weigh in on the deletion nomination. Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to lighten the AFD workload through CSD, prods, or other?

User:Alexsautographs has fallen into the habit of creating articles that fail WP:BASEBALL/N, then bringing them to AFD 1 to 12 months later. He's been asked to stop creating articles that clearly fail notability standards, but refuses. There's been nearly 100 baseball AFDs brought forth by Alex over the past year, many of them clear deletes that should've never been made in the first place about career minor leaguers or someone that was a minor league manager for a few years, both of which fail WP:BASEBALL/N unless reliable sources are prevented to satisfy WP:GNG, which he also refuses to provide and insists that the articles are brought to AFD for us to find the references and expand the article to satisfy Wikipedia's standards for notable articles, not him. Is there a way to delete these articles without wasting further time at AFD, whether it be through a prod or a criteria for speedy deletion such as Template:db-person for articles like Jethro McIntyre? He's resorted to personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Latshaw, so I've given up on offering him solutions and instead must ask others for input on how to put this odd cycle to an end. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider, let me advise that you use PROD if anything. Criterion A7 of speedy deletion will fail for most of those articles because any indication of importance whatsoever (like playing to a notable team) satisfies its requirements and the question of notability is irrelevant for speedy deletion. If you feel there is a problem with that editor though, I think dispute resolution is the way to go as well. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree with SoWhy that A7 won't fly and PROD seems like the way to go. Tangentially, creating articles and then AfDing them a few months later is a really bizarre use of one's time. It is disruptive, though, and my suggestion would be to take it to ANI. Get an admin to tell him to knock it off and stop wasting everyone's time and if he doesn't a block will probably be in order. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping to avoid administrative involvement, but it may be inevitable at this point. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I always use Prod first in such cases. Then take it to afd. More often than not the prod will succeed and won't waste much editor time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought prod would be the best way to go as well, but he insists that my adding it violates WP:POINT. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest based on his edit summary that his removal is actually a violation of POINT. I would probably agree that administrative involvement is probably inevitable if he keeps removing them saying you haven't left a reason when you clearly have. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I had always thought these were old articles he created before the development of WP:BASE/N made inclusion of minor leaguers more restrictive, and that he's responded by taking them to AfD. However, looking through his list of recent contributions, I see a whole lot more of these stubs being created as he's nominating others that are exactly the same for deletion. It baffles me and detracts from our work on notable articles. I've just PROD'd a whole bunch he's created in 2011. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I would've prodded them myself, but he's already taken this issue far too personally. That's also why I'd prefer to not be the one to bring this to WP:ANI if he tears down all the prods or continues creating articles and AFDing them a month later. He had an excuse last year when he said they were created before WP:BASE/N was solidified, but now there's just no excuse. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 15:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
We shall see if that's necessary. To be fair to Alex, he has also been a constructive member of the community by creating pages for MLB players, updating stats, proposing merges and not objecting to PROD's. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That's why I'd prefer to avoid ANI. Hopefully it ends here. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 17:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I see a tendency (not limited to Alex) with some sports biographies being synthesized based off of references to stats sites. I'd imagine a lot of writer's remorse from creating articles could be mitigated by following WP:GNG and ensuring that multiple sources of significant coverage (excluding stats) exists before creating an article.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
For career minor leaguers or other players that don't clearly pass WP:BASEBALL/N, that's definitely a must. For example, I found out today that Alex had created the article on Jack Mealey. It was in terrible shape when he first nominated it for deletion in December of 2009. It was kept, but he made no improvements to the article's need for sourcing and instead brought it to AFD again in July of 2011, to which at that point I ended up finding a ton of sources, several of which could be found through google, to satisfy WP:GNG according to consensus at the 2nd AFD. Had he added one or two of the sources over that two year period, the long discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Mealey (2nd nomination) could've been easily avoided. I've tried to assume good faith on the matter as well, but he has refused requests made in at least 2010 and yesterday to provide sourcing for these articles to satisfy WP:GNG during article creation or not make the article and I had to give up asking him to do so after the personal attacks. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 22:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I did notify Alex in March 2011 regarding an AfD he opened that he could use CSD G7 for articles where he was the sole editor. It was curious that he did not use it even after being informed, and the AfD had to be relisted twice before an admin closed it. While its understandable to occasionally rethink borderline articles that one creates, the sheer number is alarming. It seems that the community has offered advice and assistance to improve his article creation criteria and empowered him to be more bold when he does choose to delete an article. Not many other choices on how to proceed if it continues to be greeted with incivility or inaction.—Bagumba (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
After we prodded some of his articles, he responded by immediately prodding articles created by others. Once I nominated two articles for deletion that he deprodded with Richard Klaus and Buck Elliott, he responded by immediately nominating Tom Kotchman and Barney Lutz for deletion, articles again created by others. I don't really get his motive in doing this. I'm required to assume good faith and not think this is some bizarre "eye for an eye" strategy designed to completely and spectacularly derail everything we were trying to accomplish in this thread, but it seems like the more we try to lighten the AFD workload through prods, the more resistance he gives, deprodding many of his articles and prod/afding many articles that he didn't make, many of which do in fact properly assert notability. All in all, it looks like nothing productive is going to get done in this matter at all and he's going to get his way yet again. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 04:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

He has countered the AFDs and prods for his articles by nominating 7 more articles for deletion. I have given up. Alex has 'won' again, as he likes to say. I'm not going to bother to take this to WP:ANI even though it seems like this is where it must go. But just forget it. I have other things to do. I'm sick of putting out his fires with dubious AFD arguments like an article he created is notable because a scout won a regional award one year that has no reliable coverage but an article someone else created is not notable because the scout is in a national scout hall of fame that has received coverage from numerous sources including MLB. What? How does this make any sense? If that's not proof of being disruptive and simply nominating articles out of some bizarre act of revenge, I don't know what is. Objectivity is no longer a requirement on AFD anymore according to this experience. He's not going to stop, and nobody seems inclined to make him stop. I'm done with this. I'm on break. Alex gets what Alex wants, even if it means completely derailing WikiProject Baseball. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 18:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should. He's started contesting PROD's I put on earlier this week, specifically for Harold Kollar, Mike Verdi, and Jethro McIntyre, despite adding only routine sources or no sources at all. Tomorrow, I may start my first ANI. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it's about that time. — KV5 • Talk • 18:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct might be more suitable, though I've never initiated either.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I have. RFC/U is a little less drama-tastic, and may indeed be a better forum to begin, since this really doesn't require sysop intervention. — KV5 • Talk • 11:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need to continue this afd war? I didn't like when Alex nominated a ton of articles at once, and its not really much better when others do the same thing.. lets calm down on this. It isnt eye for an eye type stuff. Spanneraol (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
A war requires two sides engaging in hostilities, but here, it's mostly just Alex bombarding AfD and PROD with baseball articles. As far as I can tell, no one is retaliating; we just want Alex's incoming fire to stop, so we can use our time more productively. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I would say a majority of the AfDs he opens are justifiable (havent looked at the ones recently though) even if they are not all snowball deletes (not that there is any requirement that they be). What I would like to see improved is the fact that a lot of the articles he nominates are the ones he originally created. He hasnt been receptive to suggestions to improve his article creation criteria and he doesnt just speedy delete ones where he was the only editor. Unless that improves, it might be best if he contributes to existing articles instead of creating them.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That as a whole seems to be the general issue, not the AfDs as a single entity. — KV5 • Talk • 11:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, the problem is that Alex is acting like an insolent child. He creates dozens of pages with no sources and then, when someone PRODs or AfDs one of them, he reacts with outrage, and starts mass-PROD'ing or AfD'ing other people's pages. He also doesn't show the slightest bit of consistency when voting on AfDs. He wanted Tom Kotchman deleted because he claimed the national Scouts Hall of Fame was non-notable, but then, on the same day, voted to keep Richard Klaus, a page Alex created, with a claim that a regional scout award was notable. Where's the sense in that? I don't understand why this has been allowed to go on this long. The guy obviously either doesn't understand WP:GNG or doesn't care about WP:GNG, since he creates pages first and then only looks for sources if someone PRODs or AfDs the page. Putting that issue aside, yesterday's absurd Matt Harrington AfD alone should have been enough to warrant action against Alex, since it was bad faith through and through. — NY-13021 (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

2001 NL Central Division champs

There is a a discussion regarding two teams that finished with the same record, and one was seeded in the playoffs as division winner while the other was seeded as the wildcard. Should both be called co-champions of the division?

Feel free to join at Talk:St. Louis Cardinals#Co-Championship.—Bagumba (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 08:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, looks like my weekend is gone. Got two baseball people on there now, that's two too many. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alexsautographs

Please join in the discussion here. And help me fill it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he just violated 3RR on Bruce Andrew (baseball). Can someone please reinsert the PROD, as I am now at the 3RR limit? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, its allowed in the the rules to provide no reason.—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Crap. Seriously? He didn't address the reason for the PROD, and he's allowed to contest it regardless? Oh well. Bruce Andrew is at AfD now. I struck the 3RR complaint as irrelevant and partly due to my believing the rules in this case made intuitive sense. We can go forward with the RfC/U. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC
Thanks for taking the initiative. I cant certify as I didnt discuss the specific issue as written with him (inside AfD doesnt count ... I think). Stmt is quite narrow and maybe not main issue. Can you expand the fact that he often AfDs the same articles, which I think is the biggest problem: he's not knowledgeable enough yet on what to create, burns AfD resources deleting them, and does not accept advice on how to improve the cycle ... and then contests deletion attempts by others. In general, WP:DISRUPT is the prob.—Bagumba (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe how much time and energy is spent on this guy. It appears any worthy contributions he is making are outweighed by his disruptive and negative influence, so he should be shown the door.Orsoni (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather this RFC improves things and he keeps contributing. If not, then it will be easier to take more extreme action later.—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hoping that the guy sees the error of his ways is wishful thinking, in my opinion. You can't make a leopard change his spots.Orsoni (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Encourage you to join the RFC/U and share any info you have. Speak now or forever hold your peace :-) —Bagumba (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Atlanta Braves

The Braves franchise dates back to 1871 and is the longest continuously-running franchise in MLB history. Having been around for such a long period of time, the team's scope on Wikipedia is extremely encompassing. Many of these articles could use some close attention from passionate editors. Given this apparent demand, I am about to launch the thirteenth MLB franchise-specific WikiProject, WikiProject Atlanta Braves. We have now entered the offseason and I hope to have this WikiProject fully-functional by Opening Day 2012. I have already created the main page and a few others in my userspace. I am now prepared to begin adding it to the mainspace immediately. Initially based from the template used on WP Cardinals, over time this group will evolve into a more unique WikiProject. I have posted this here to make everyone aware of this addition and to perhaps garner some feedback. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Also note that if I have any problems I will post them here. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Good luck. I'll tag any related pages with the "braves=yes" parameter. Speaking of which, you'll need an admin to edit {{WikiProject Baseball}} to add that parameter to the template. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that help. And I put in a request last night on that template's talk page for an admin to add it. Once that happens I'll finish setting up the WP 1.0 bot to start assessing pages. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The cycle

A question. The article hitting for the cycle is, for all intents and purposes, a list of MLB players who have hit for the cycle. I'm working on improving it in a sandbox, but I'm wondering if, when I am done with that project, something should be done about this problem. It's possible to hit for the cycle in any baseball league (or in softball for that matter), so I think that cycle (baseball), currently a redirect, should have an article about the cycle itself (and hitting for the cycle should redirect there), and a new List of Major League Baseball players who have hit for the cycle should be created. Thoughts? — KV5 • Talk • 23:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Want to make sure this doesn't get covered up. Tx. — KV5 • Talk • 00:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I would think that an article that's primarily a list should probably be titled "List of..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Cycle (baseball) can be an explanation of the cycle, while the MLB-specific page can hold all of the MLB occurrences, a la No-hitter and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Cool. The list of cycles is almost done, I should have it in mainspace by the end of the week. — KV5 • Talk • 01:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Note as discussed on Talk:Hitting for the cycle, there is no consensus to move the article to "Cycle (baseball)". isaacl (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes. The one redirects to the other, and "hit(ting) for the cycle" is the more common usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes; however, even though it may be the more common usage, it violates a lot of other naming conventions. It is not concise, it is not a noun, it is not similar to other articles within the Project on similar topics (for example, the article is not called "hitting a double", it is called double (baseball)). I think that moving the article to "cycle (baseball)" is the correct and most viable solution. — KV5 • Talk • 11:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm of two minds on this. Although "the cycle" (and perhaps that should be the article title rather than just "cycle") is used occasionally (as in "Joe Shlabotnik is just a triple away from the cycle"), and as KV5 says it's more in keeping with convention, the verb form is the much more common usage. I've never heard an announcer say "Joe Shlabotnik has hit for three cycles" - it's always "Joe Shlabotnik has hit for the cycle three times". I'd probably lean toward keeping it where it is on that basis. -Dewelar (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is the only policy that really applies however so we must follow the common name. To use your example of a double. The common use isn't "hitting a double". The common usage is "double". (ie "He got a double." or "He hit three doubles in the game.") Which is why that article is there. As for being concise it only has to be as concise as to get the point across while still conforming to common name. And there is no naming convention that requires titles to be nouns, the article title guideline just says that they are often nouns. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm ok with the current title for an article, but for the record, COMMONNAME is not the only policy that applies, the current name is still not concise, and WP:TITLEFORMAT, which is policy, does say "Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech". — KV5 • Talk • 21:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly it says preferred it does not say "must be". And it is concise. It says exactly what it needs to in as few words as is possible while still maintaining its common name. An non-concise version to show you the difference would be "Hitting for the cycle in baseball". -DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As always, we will continue to disagree. The name is whatever. I'm more concerned with splitting the list, and that appears to be well-supported, so I'll work on that with the remaining time I have this week. For the record, I'll be unavailable most of this weekend as I am traveling to the Wyoming Valley to help with flood relief. — KV5 • Talk • 01:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm also for keeping the name of the article per COMMONNAME. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no position on the precise name, but I'm 100% behind splitting off the MLB list from the general article. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree. Killervogal's suggestion and intentions are correct. Behind it as well. There is more baseball than just MLB.--JOJ Hutton 01:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Whatever title is used, I suggest the other format(s) be created as redirects.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
If some other people could add this article to their watchlist, there is a problem with the repeated addition of a non-cycle to the page after the occurrence of a "team cycle" recently in the playoffs. As per the scope of the article, team cycles are not included and are not even cycles. I did a lot of work to bring that up to article status, and so did Torsodog, and I certainly don't want to see it ruined by trivia. The page is protected but it's really not helping, and I'm probably in the 3R land by now. Tx. — KV5 • Talk • 01:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Watching. Resolute 01:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. For the record, I blame Joe Buck. — KV5 • Talk • 01:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Height and Weight

MLB.com, and other major baseball sites (e.g., Baseball-Reference, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, Fangraphs, ESPN, Yahoo, Rotoworld, CBS Sports, Fox Sports, and Sports Illustrated), list each player's height and weight on the relevant player page.

Similarly, wp's infobox templates for other major sports — football, basketball, ice hockey — list each player's height and weight as well.

With our baseball infobox template failing to do so, the information is sometimes tossed into the player's article. At times in the lede itself, as in Albert Pujols. But there seems to be no consistency in how it is reflected, if at all.

It strikes me that it might be worth polling the editors here, to see if there is support for reflecting height and weight in the infobox for baseball players. That would be in line with baseball sites, and with other major sport infoboxes on wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

My first inclination was to say no, because those numbers usually seem more important in sports in the draft combine, or for sports where measurements mean more than they mean in baseball. But you're right that it's listed on the stats sites, and that without it in the infobox, people stick it in the article in random places. I'm undecided. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
My first inclination was the same as yours. But the fact that mlb.com, and every other significant baseball site that I checked, listed it suggested to me that my initial inclination was not the best one. Also -- it probably is not that different from hockey, in "how important" the player's height and weight are. And, as you say, it ends up in random places in articles otherwise (lede, "personal", etc.). Plus, there is something to be said for uniformity across sports infoboxes, I suspect, where it does no harm and may do some good.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This has come up before and my opinion is still to not include it... primarily because the weight of players varies throughout their career and last time this came up it was discovered that the various sources that we use for stats often differ on weight stats for ballplayers so choosing a verified number that sources all agree on was difficult. Here is the previous discussion. Spanneraol (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
MLB.com is the official site for major league baseball, so that would seem the natural site to use in the event of discrepancies. (On this, as on all other statistics set forth on player pages on mlb.com). Whatever baseball's official site reflects should be the number we use -- the problem of "weight varies over a career" is obviously one that mlb.com has addressed in some manner (as has nfl.com, nhl.com, nba.com, and all other major sportsplayers' infoboxes on wp) ... by relying on mlb.com, we don't have any reason to struggle with discrepancies. Our job, of course, is to reflect what the RSs say -- not "truth" -- and we are fortunate enough here to have an "official RS".
Thanks for pointing us to that discussion -- while far from unanimous, and not at this page, there seems to have been a good deal of support among a number of the participants in that discussion for such a change. I've invited all to this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
MLB.COM lists Ruth as 6'2" and 215.[4] It would be interesting to find out what his weight was for each year he played and see where they might be getting the 215 from. He certainly wasn't that heavy when he began, but he was pretty fat when his career ended (just as Hank Aaron bloated out a bit in his later years on the diamond.) So it's hard to tell if that 215 is a mean, median or mode. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree it would be very interesting (though I believe he withered in his last years, actually, and 215 ... also the Baseball Reference and Baseball Almanac # for him, could well have been his last weight; he certainly looks it here in his last year). But for purposes of including the stats in the template, I would think that we could rely on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, with mlb.com as the official site. Same as the other sports seem to.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, he withered after his playing days when he had cancer, but at the end of his playing career, he must've weighed way more than 215 (although I had never seen that Braves pic before, maybe he was 215). WP:V works for this. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I agree that WP:V is the way to cut the Gordion Knot here. As to the Babe, he lost weight dramatically twice. Once was a year or two before the photo of him in his last year -- I believe he lost about 40 pounds prior to filming a movie (Pride of the Yankees; in 1942)--that, coupled with the photo, suggest to me that the 215 pounds figure reflects his weight in his last year in the majors. The second time was when he had cancer years later, at which point I believe he was slimmer still.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's important to include (I put it in the lead of every article I write or re-format), but I'm indifferent as to how it's done. I don't really like the idea of an infobox parameter. It's hard to include a "discussion" on it in the article, so just putting it in the lead seems fairly simple (I usually make it the last thing in the first paragraph). — KV5 • Talk • 10:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Having it in the infobox would not mean that, if discussion were appropriate (e.g., Prince Fielder), we could not have it in the text of the article. Much of the infobox is summary in nature, and duplicated in the text (same as the lede).--Epeefleche (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I dislike having it in the lead. It's not nearly that important that it needs to be discussed up front in the grand summary of the player. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Just playing devils advocate, but MLB.com is not the 'official site of baseball'. That is the IBAF surely? :) JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 12:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
For players playing in its league it would be the official site. As would the league site for any other league be the official site for its players. I must say though I find it amusing, for the amount of stuff that is crammed into the baseball infobox I find it pretty ironic that you would not have the one piece of information I would expect to see in an infobox. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
JRA -- point taken, and I've amended my above mention to refer to it as the official site for major league baseball.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why one would "expect" to see height and weight in an infobox of an MLB player. This isn't a sport where measurables matter much. Occasionally there's a Price Fielder, or Pablo Sandoval with the weight, or a shorty like David Eckstein, but in many cases it doesn't seem relevant to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Because on the equivalent of an infobox (bio summary box etc) on any page talking about a baseball player outside wikipedia you will find that information. Typically they always include height, weight, team, birth date, birthplace/hometown, position. Those to me are the 6 need to have things in an infobox about an athlete (atleast one in the big 4 sports). -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
A sensible explanation, thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
If the person's frame, either in height or weight, is notable that it bears mention in the article, it should be done in the prose ("Prince Fielder ballooned up to 700 pounds, 500 pounds heavier than when he first entered the league"). Otherwise, I feel like your average everyday player at 6 feet, 200 pounds does not need to have these details listed out in the lead or infobox. Furthermore, this information varies too widely to be accurate. Pablo Sandoval has supposedly put on dozens of pounds of weight over this season. If we rely on MLB.com for sourcing, what figure are they really giving us? His "listed as weight", which is just as reliable as WWE's numbers for its wrestlers? Is it an up-to-the-second weight taken from his last physical? What about for retired living players? Would height and weight represent them at their prime, or in their fat old geezer years? To me, there is nothing more sketchy than trying to accurately and reliably reference a player's weight. It's not worth the effort to me. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The typical baseball encyclopedia includes height and weight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/BB. This same issue could be used for baseball encyclopedias and other sports; yet they reflect it. Further to Y2k's point regarding relying on MLB.com, I think that the answer lies in Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
My opinion on this has not changed since the last discussion. Height and weight somewhere in the article (preferably tagged with "listed as" as opposed to stated as fact) is good, but it's not important enough to be in an infobox. -Dewelar (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Typical sources list it in their own "infobox", i.e. the summary at the top of the page. That does not necessarily mean that wikipedia needs to do so... but it's worth pointing out. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's because nearly all of those sources have no other place to put it, yes? Your typical baseball encyclopedia entry only has the top blurb and the stat block. However, my main issue with this is that I don't believe an infobox should contain a piece of information that is almost guaranteed to be of questionable accuracy at best. -Dewelar (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have always taken weight figures to be a case of "ballpark figure" to give you an idea of their size since its not something that can ever for anyone be accurate since the average person goes up and down about 2lbs or so in a day. I don't think anyone expects them to be deadly accurate. That being said wikipedia isn't concerned with the "truth" its concerned with verifiability which is where the mlb site comes in. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Known. However, isn't MLB.com a primary source here, since the information is coming from MLB? Also, who's going to check over a thousand player pages every year to see if the information has changed? Is this done by the other projects, and if not, why not? Additionally, I hope I don't need to have the whole "infobox > article" argument again, but I will if necessary :) . -Dewelar (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
We can use primary sources in circumstances such as this; we do for batting averages, and birth dates, and the like. That's not an issue, IMHO. As to "who's going to check" -- well, that could be said for every other piece of information on baseball bios. Who checks that every year? Actually, that extends to all of our wp information ... which can often include derogatory information that far exceeds the noteworthiness of being a few inches or pounds off. I don't see it as being especially of moment here, if we accept that lack of auditing across the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we don't use primary sources for batting averages and birth dates. Those generally come from tertiary sources such as Baseball-Reference or Retrosheet. The other information in the infoboxes is generally updated at least once a year, true, but all the tertiary sources (with rare exceptions) do not provide conflicting information on those items, where with height/weight data conflicting information is very nearly the norm rather than the exception. -Dewelar (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points. Some would say that mlb.com is not a primary source. That's because the definition of a primary source is "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event... An account of a traffic accident written by a witness... similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment..." So, some have taken the position that Babe Ruth's diary statement that he hit x home runs is a primary source, but mlb.com is not. Second, even when we have a primary source, policy is simply that: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Clearly, even if one were to believe that mlb.com were a primary source, use of it for height and weight (and batting average) falls comfortably within the usage that the guidance tells us is proper, as it is a "straightforward, descriptive statement that any educated person" can verify. I don't see any "primary source" problem here, myself, whether or not mlb.com is viewed as a primary source.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Primary sources are ok for statement of fact. They aren't ok for proving notability. People often assume all primary sources are bad when that isn't the case. Epeefleche has already quoted the policy about it above so I won't repeat it. :) -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, in this case, we're talking about "facts" rather than facts. I mean, nobody really watches MLB weigh their players, and it's in MLB's best interest to fudge the numbers -- and, indeed, it's pretty much been shown that they have done so. You can't really fudge a player's handedness, and it's pretty difficult to fudge a person's biographical data when it's in the public records (claims of invested third parties notwithstanding). However, due to limited access, it's not really possible for any person, educated or otherwise, to verify height/weight information per the guidelines. Unlike the other information I've listed, we're pretty much taking MLB's word for it, when it's almost certain that for this data, MLB's word isn't particularly trustworthy. -Dewelar (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dew -- I wonder whether your not getting caught up in the issues addressed in Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I think that what we strive for is verifiability as to factual matters. Weight is a factual matter. In any event, I don't expect that you are saying the sources you seem to prefer -- Baseball-Reference or Retrosheet -- are weighing the ballplayers. So why would you think they would be a better source? In any event, your suspicions about MLB lying as to how tall Pujols is and how heavy Jeter is may perhaps fall into OR, and I'm not aware that we have a rule that "mlb.com is the official website for major league baseball, but we don't rely on it for certain matters". I think relying on them is appropriate -- it is verifiable, it is the official website, and it is our best source. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
First of all, my "suspicions" that MLB is "lying" (your word, not mine) are, in fact, pretty well documented. Not to the degree that such data are fudged by, say, professional wrestling, but certainly measurably. As to whether some other site is a better source, I can't say for certain, but I would say that the sites I mentioned are at least as reliable. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no such thing as a reliable source on height/weight data unless a player has, say, military records establishing it. That's why I don't think it belongs in an infobox. There's too much discrepancy between the various sources we consider reliable. However, if we must choose a source for such data, I would pick Retrosheet, even over MLB, due to the depth of their research. -Dewelar (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be curious in seeing a poll result on this, not as a substitute of discussion of course, but as a way of evaluating where we're at in forming a consensus. Is that okay? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Great idea. Completely agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this question. On the one hand, those stats are much more important in basketball and football rather than in baseball, and weight tends to fluctuate quite a bit, especially with guys from the steroid era. Besides, on the rare instance where the height and weight is noteworthy (CC Sabathia, Sparky Adams) it works well in the prose. Having said that, many people are going to be curious about it, and it's a common thing to add in sports articles on general. I'd be for it if the weight didn't bounce around so much from year to year for many players, but that gives me pause. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, weight does fluctuate. But it does so in all sports, and mlb.com and the other sports on wp reflect it nevertheless. I agree that reflecting it works well in prose in those instances where it is especially noteworthy; but in such cases, we could still reflect it in prose.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I fall on the side of leaving them out. It's exactly the kind of thing that I would never use Wikipedia to look up. But I'm also on the side of removing most statistical tables from most articles where the "official" statistics are easily found and linked to. Such things are often tweaked by IP users and then re-tweaked a month later by another IP, and clearly no one is actually verifying the accuracy. Try watchlisting several geographical articles that include ethnicity percentages or populations or average temperatures. You will be amazed at how often the statistics are changed. Wknight94 talk 21:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi. We list the other info that mlb.com and (all?) the other wp infobox player pages list for major sports. Such as date of birth and place of birth; if that is of interest to readers of wp, I imagine height and weight may be as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
  • My opinion on this has not changed one bit. Wikipedia articles are not baseball cards or stat sheets. The articles are about a person who is notable for playing baseball, not about a baseball player. That may not seem like much of a difference, but these articles are biographies about a person's entire life, not just their playing career. Pre-baseball as well as post-baseball. Life outside of baseball can be 3 times longer than their life inside of baseball. Weight fluctuates and a person's height at 10 years old is different than when they are 30. (Remember this article is about the person's entire life, not just their playing career). I would be inclined (If I gave a rats ass), to not have these stats in other biographies about notable sports persons either. NFL, NHL, Soccer, NBA.....--JOJ Hutton 21:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That of course is a simple fix with labeling it as "playing weight" though I think that is implied already anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Well than, that may be more appropriate for the section on the players career, but not in the infobox describing his entire life. Then what if he is taller during his professional career, than during his college years? Its not uncommon for men to continue growing taller well into their 20's.--JOJ Hutton 23:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)--JOJ Hutton 23:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I wonder if we're not treating this as though it is more complex than it really is. Across this great world, across our many sports, across many baseball sites, and across other sport infoboxes on wp, we find the simple references "height" and "weight". In all those countries and sports, players also gain and lose weight, grow taller, and ultimately die and whither away to a presumably shorter and less heavy condition. Yet, somehow, elsewhere they have come to believe that it is both appropriate and even sufficient to list height and weight. Perhaps they have a point. I'm not sure there is anything about baseball infoboxes on wp that should drive us to treat them differently than other wp sport infoboxes. Or differently than mlb.com, baseball reference, and the other baseball sites. We are an outlier, at the moment, and I haven't seen a reason that compels me to think that it is appropriate or necessary for us to be out of step with the rest of wikipedia, and out of step with the other sites that list information on baseball players.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I considered this view convincing enough to vote yes. It's listed and verifiable. Saying what I said earlier, that it matters less for baseball than other sports, is based in some subjectivity. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • For active players it may make sense to show current height and weight. For retired players, I think the weight in particular fluctuates too much to generally be of value. For example, do we give the players rookie weight, as a young, wiry player, or their mature weight, fully grown into their body, or their end of career weight, when they may have put on a few extra pounds. Of course, there are players for whom a discussion of their weight (or weight trajectory) may be relevant and notable (a few I can think of off the top of my head, for various reasons, are Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Cecil Fielder and Johnny Evers) and for those a well referenced discussion is of course appropriate. But in the general case I don't think it is useful. Rlendog (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
We give their weight as it is verifiably reflected on mlb.com. Same as the other baseball sites generally seem to. And same as the other sports infoboxes seem to reflect weight. There is IMHO nothing novel here, that should lead to a different conclusion than that reached at other sports wikiprojects (where players also gain and lose weight), or a different conclusion than the one at mlb.com and other baseball sites. As to having a greater text discussion in those instances where common sense indicates we should do so, I completely agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Barring objection, I'll leave a completely neutral mention of this discussion on a few of the other wikiprojects. Perhaps they have faced the same issue, and have some interesting observations for us to consider. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
MLB.com is one reliable source, but there are many reliable sources for height and weight that may give different answers depending on what point within the player's career the weight is taken. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose that one way to investigate that is for someone to pick some players (current and past) and examine their MLB, BR, Fangraphs, Cube, etc. pages to see if the height and weight numbers match. If there are discrepancies, I could change my vote to "no". If there aren't, maybe some people on the fence will be convinced to vote "yes". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I checked Pujols, on MLB, ESPN, Baseball-Reference, Fangraphs, The Baseball Cube as suggested. His height and weight info is identical on all of them.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Babe Ruth had an identical weight of 215 on both Baseball Reference and Baseball Cube (I didn't check the others). But Reggie Jackson had a weight of 195 on Baseball Reference] but 200 on Baseball Cube. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have thoroughly read through this discussion, and considered all points made. However, I still believe H/W info is relevant and interesting, and should be added to the infobox. I brought this up awhile back; my arguments in favor are documented through that discussion.Neonblak talk - 04:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Placing Height/Weight statistics in the infobox will create a clear, concise, and uniform listing for this often referred to stat. If our readers are interested in this information, it will save them from hunting through the article's text to find it; and if they are not interested, they will not be forced to confront the sporadically placed run-on sentence (as is now too often the case) that contains that information. Dolovis (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
    • If you feel that this information is somehow relevant to a players career, then put it in the section that covers the playing career. Not in the infobox, that covers the persons entire life.--JOJ Hutton 12:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm amazed heighth and weight gets so much discussion, yet my suggestion to include home run crowns and batting titles into the infoboxes garnered nary a blip on the radar.Orsoni (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Aren't those already included in the info boxes? Spanneraol (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about that myself. If not, I'd say it's pretty much a no-brainer that those should be included (unless the player has so many awards that it would just be overkill). -Dewelar (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment on my edit summary comment that we are not baseball reference on the straw poll. I agree with above that a player height and weight in baseball really don't have much involvement on a player skill with a few exceptions (Randy Johnson and such) unlike football and basketball players. Adding height and weight is something that you could search baseball reference for, not wikipedia. Secret account 18:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll: should we include height and weight in infoboxes

Let's have a straw poll. This is in no way a substitute for the discussion above, but is intended as a supplement to it, so we can see where we are in forming a consensus either way. Please sign your name with three tildes. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes
  1. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Eagle4000 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  3. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. – Neonblak talk - 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC) At any given time use the weight that best reflects primary source data.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  6. But Rlendogs option of only active players does interest me as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. --Dolovis (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  8. oknazevad (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  9. --Giants27(T|C) 13:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  10. ―cobaltcigs 08:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
No
  1. --Yankees10 00:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  2. --Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)*Note that although I voted "no," I would not have a problem if this was limited to active players.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs) 18:31, September 22, 2011
  3. ---JOJ Hutton 01:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  4. ---Spanneraol (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. --Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  6. Wknight94 talk 12:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. ---Dewelar (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  8. -- Michael Greiner 17:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
  9. Secret account 05:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  10. Orsoni (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Abstain/unsure
  1. Leaning no based on the above comments, but I don't care all that much about it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

FM parameter for {{WikiProject Baseball}}

I've lately been tagging baseball image talk pages with {{WikiProject Baseball}}, and I noticed at File talk:Babe Ruth2.jpg that there is a parameter to denote featured media files, but that our template doesn't recognize it. Can we get that parameter recognized? Let's give our project full credit for awesomeness. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

After a little digging around, this is done via the subpage /class -- so for the US one, it uses Template:WikiProject United States/class. You'll need to specify what extra ones you would like to include on the parallel baseball one at Template:WikiProject Baseball/class. Take a look at the documentation for {{Class mask}} for the options; you'd probably need to enable FQS to make sure no functionality is lost (otherwise you'd lose things like category class upon changing the quality scale), and can then add custom classes, such as FM, in the manner described here. You'd then need to request an edit to {{WikiProject Baseball}} to change the "QUALITY_SCALE" parameter from "extended" to "subpage". I think that's all it requires, anyway... Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 01:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I know who to ask to get that taken care of, but he's on wikibreak currently. On his return I can tackle this. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Good, because I took a stab at it last night and gave up pretty easily. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

MusiCitizen

An investigation into the edits of MusiCitizen (talk · contribs), a frequent contributor to baseball-related articles, has been launched at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/MusiCitizen. If project participants could help review MusiCitizen's contributions to determine whether more of them than the ones already identified have copyright problems (copying or close paraphrasing from other sources) that would be very helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/John Clapp (baseball)

I've expanded the article John Clapp (baseball) to a DYK nominee. A review of the hook would be nice since there is some discrepancy over the hook. Best, Albacore (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

200 FLs

We are currently at 183 featured lists with three more at FLC. Something that could be fun over the next couple months is to try and make a push to 200. It's a mark few, if any projects really have, and it'd give us something to work on during the offseason. Of course, if we were to team on this then we should be reviewing other FLCs too so we don't cause a logjam over there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've got Edgar Martínez Award likely to become #184 any day now, and I've been working on Babe Ruth Award. I was thinking we can get some of the other non-MLB awards and even MLB draft pages up to FL status without too much trouble. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The remainder of the Philadelphia Phillies roster lists will take four of those spots, counting the one that's currently nominated at FLC. — KV5 • Talk • 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe there are even 200 baseball lists never mind FLs. Wow good work. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Just re-discovered the Kansas City Cowboys (AA) all-time roster that I put on ice about a year and half ago, did some clean-up and re-worked the lead, will send it up soon.Neonblak talk - 03:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Chicago White Sox managers should be pretty close. Rlendog (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm also going to nominate Warren Spahn Award, once I put in more photos and get a better source for Kershaw being the 2011 awardee. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap Big Baseball Project

I wanted tell you baseball enthusiasts about a project I'm running over at OpenStreetMap. We're adding baseball fields to the map, and we need your help! Over the next few weeks (during the playoffs and the world series) this special project invites you to join in with editing the map to add any baseball fields near where you live, and anywhere you can spot them in aerial imagery. Find out more here:

OpenStreetMap's Big Baseball Project

Heard of OpenStreetMap before? Although it's not officially part of the wikimedia foundation set of projects, OpenStreetMap is can be regarded as a sister project. It is often described as the wikipedia of maps. The project is overseen by a not-for-profit foundation (Sound familiar?), and the mission is to create a free (open licensed) map of the world. Sign up on openstreetmap.org to get access to the 'edit' tab, and you'll soon find that contributing to the map is a lot of fun. It allows you to add all kinds of details: footpaths, restaurants, and anything which interests you in your local community, but right now we're particularly seeking out any missing baseball fields. To make this more fun we have baseball editing rankings. Will you be an OpenStreetMap baseball champion?

-- Harry Wood (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Statistics sections in bios

I had thought that the practice of including sections on statistics of ballplayers (either career, or annual plus career) in their bio, such as the one of Albert Pujols here and the one of Craig Counsell here, was a deprecated one. But I see that a number of bios still have them. Is my understanding wrong? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no justification for duplicating info (and introducing human error, human delays, etc) for stats the are maintained on other sites. Willing to reconsider if someone argues added value that WP can provide.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I dont like those stat lists on the player pages and would support getting rid of them. Spanneraol (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
And what about infoboxes that get updated without updating the date and sometimes only for a subset of the stats. If I had my way we would just update at end of season. Maybe its just me, but you're better of going to ESPN, B-R.com , etc if you want reliable in-season stats.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Infoboxes, IMO, should only be updated at a stable point (All-Star break, end of year, etc.). The career statistics sections are deprecated and should be removed (this includes managerial records, which are still rampant), but the one at Albert Pujols had a more in-depth discussion (see that article's talk archives) and you will have to go through Katydidit's constant updating and reversions to remove it. — KV5 • Talk • 11:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the infobox as well, but its impossible to prevent the constant barrage of IPs that usualy update those things randomly throughout the season. Spanneraol (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe y'all get more IPs editing than we do over at hockey but we prevent all statistic updates till the end of the season (except on season pages). And we don't end up doing alot of reverting of IPs. On the few pages that do get alot of IPs making the changes we just put an HTML comment that stats aren't updated till end of season and that usually stops the changes. But saying that baseball is very much more a stats driven sport so I could see how it would have more people wanting to update them. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Pure stat box sections are essentially a definitional violation of WP:STATS. If people want that information it's available elsewhere, but only the particular figures relevant to tell the encyclopedic summary of a subject should be included at Wikipedia. As for live vs. stable updating, I'm not nearly as against throughout-the-season updating, although that may be because I've written more "club" articles (3,000 hit club, 500 home run club, etc) where there are few active players to update and slight shifts can be big deals. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    Did you mean they are a violation of WP:NOTSTATS? If so, I disagree. Athletes are pretty much defined by their stats, and as such, there is nothing indiscriminate about including them. In fact, the baseball project might well be the only one on Wikipedia that seems to have an aversion to them on player articles. Which I find interesting, as I am not sure there is a sport nearly as obsessed with statistics as baseball is. Resolute 15:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah not stats only says to not use stats without context or indiscriminately. Listing a players career stats is neither as its in the context of their career and its not indiscriminate as it clearly defined to only be listing their statistics. I should note I don't care if you put them in or not, just that I find it odd that as Resolute mentioned the one sport that one would expect to see statistics on articles is the one sport that doesn't have them on wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • That being said, I do also get the "there are plenty of external sites we link to with those stats" argument too. I wonder if you guys would consider a hybrid solution. A stats table with two columns: The first a 162 game average, and the second career totals. If you worry about bloating the article, such a table would give a streamlined view of the player's career statistical performance. Resolute 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, yes, I meant NOTSTATS. But yes, their use in a pure statistics section is indiscriminate. Knowing how many DPs Albert Pujols grounded into in 2005 tells me nothing without context. Did he face a lot of groundballers? Where did this total rank in the league? How were his legs that year? What were the batters ahead of him like in terms of speed? Etc, etc. As I said, if a number is notable enough to be included in prose, awesome, that's a number with context. But a stats table by itself is precisely what NOTSTATS exists to prevent. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia had a Like button, I would click it for Stax' comment above. This is a perfect example of what NOTSTATS is designed for: to prevent lists from replacing prose where the latter can and should be used. — KV5 • Talk • 21:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
      • It amuses me that a project with nearly 200 featured lists, the majority of which are based on stat tables used by themselves, feels this way. Or if they are so bad, why an article like Barry Bonds has ELs to no less than six different sites all giving stats. I can only speak for myself, but when I am looking up hockey player articles, I use the stat tables as much as anything. I think they are a fine compliment to the prose of a fully developed article. But that is just my view, and I do respect the consensus of the baseball project's editors. Resolute 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
        • It doesn't amuse me that you are treating lists and articles like they are the same thing. A list has a purpose: to inform through listing. An article has a purpose: to inform through telling. They have separate purposes and are written in entirely different ways. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • But even prose isnt necessarily the answer. An edit indiscriminately notes in prose that a player led his position in errors by referencing a stat site, not that a source thought it notable to at least write about it. This player wins the Gold Glove the next year. But without context and just pulling a stat from a stat site, one might think Albert Pujols went from the worst first fielding 1B to the best in one year.—Bagumba (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Something to think about, people keep mentioning that they are redundant to external links. Everything in an article is redundant to external links. That is the point of an encyclopedia. To bring together the information that exists in other sources into one place and why wikipedia specially mentions being part almanac in its mission. While I understand some of the other reasons for not wanting them in the articles, saying they are redundant to other pages isn't really valid. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, everything must be traceable to a reliable source, but stats are a virtual carbon copy of what can be retrieved from any stats site, whereas prose is a representation of 10s if not 100s of sources and viewpoints. I can supports stats only in as much as it is supported by explanatory text (which also doesnt imply just reading off year-by-year stat lines)—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The counter to that is that stats are a straight out fact. Which don't need varying views. The reader can draw their own conclusions from them. A player is notable because of the stats they produce. To cut those out of a biography is arguably cutting out the most important bit of information about them. If anything it can be a good thing that there is no explanatory text in this sense because it allows the reader to draw their own conclusions from the hard facts. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You could be arguing that WP baseball bios are not NPOV and readers are better off just going to a stat site., and all articles might as well be delete. I dont agree though, as the main value of WP IMO is to put context into what factors influenced the players performance, and comparing the player to his contemporary and historical peers. Stats alone cannot provide this, especially for the non-hardcore reader.—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, in their playing career section you write about the things that happened to them and the injuries they had or whatever. And in a statistics section you put the statistics. Thus allowing the reader to make the connection on their own and think to themselves "they had an injury in 2010 and then their stats dropped in 2010. That might be the reason for it." You don't need to specifically say "Their stats dropped in 2010 due to an injury." Their playing career section should already be putting all the statistics that will appear in the stats section into context. If they aren't then the articles probably need some work because sports revolve around statistics and if you aren't addressing them at all you are missing out probably the most important information. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

!vote

  • So, is it OK to delete such sections from articles? I don't want to take such a step without clear consensus support. So perhaps an indication below (one way or another) would be helpful:
Yes (delete such sections)
  1. Yes (such sections can be deleted from baseball bios).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. Yes They are redundant to external links, produce clutter, and add little. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yes Same reasons as Muboshgu. -Dewelar (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. Yes Redundant and (usually) out-of-date.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  5. Yes. I'm okay with perhaps a career stats box at the end of a career section (i.e. Ted Williams' article), but anything beyond that is overkill. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  6. Yes I support removing information that is clearly redundant to other websites, such as baseball-reference. We are not a sports statistics website. I agree with Wizardman with a career stats box at the end of key articles only. Secret account 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
No (do not delete such sections)
  1. No They are very useful and common in other sports (see NBA articles)--TM 17:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep (or delete). Can you expand on what you find useful useful?—Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    Removing the statistics from a baseball player's article makes it harder to understand the story of the player's career. Prose has limits, especially when describing plain statistics. As for the argument that the information is found elsewhere and we'd just be repeating what is written at sports-reference, mlb.com etc: that is the point of an encyclopedia. We are repeating the information reported elsewhere. If I want to look up how Prince Fielder played last year, I should be able to read both the prose and see the plain statistics. I agree that going deep into sabermetrics (like including BaBIP etc) is not helpful, but OPS, home runs, hits, stolen bases etc simply make articles more user-friendly and helpful.--TM 02:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    I know me personally the first thing I look for on any athlete bio (in any sport) is their stats. Way before I go looking for some minor fact about a "random event in random year". Stats give a very straight forward account of their performance without having anyone's biased explanations applied to them yet. In other words no one has tried to explain them away to an injury or the pitching they faced or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    Stats are important, but the real discussion is whether it's worth duplicating to save a user from opening a new tab on their browser and going to an external link. I can see having stats if we did some combination of stats that didnt exist on one site already, but that doesnt seem to be the case unless we get into sabermetrics (but too much sabermetrics would be WP:UNDUE).—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. No Baseball players are notable because of their stats. As are most if not all athletes. To cut out what is arguably the most important bit of information about the players is a bit silly and short sighted in my view. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    Oh I assumed at the very least those would be kept. If we are talking about those being removed as well I am very against that. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Career stats

Let's use Derek Jeter as an example:

Yr. Team Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB OPS+
2011 New York Yankees AL 107 449 69 133 20 4 4 48 13 5 38 59 .296 .355 .385 .741 173 9 6 3 5 0 98
TOTALS  (17 yrs.) 2,402 9,771 1,754 3,059 488 65 238 1,183 336 90 986 1,631 .313 .383 .449 .833 4,391 244 158 82 52 37 118

I would support allowing career stats and not the current season, with everything to the right of OPS removed.—Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer full career stats but at the very least something like this should be kept. It already is on many players such as Babe Ruth, Ted Williams etc. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem I have is that while any sort of such stat box has been removed in the past from bios, on the basis of not being appropriate per the wikiproject, we are now inconsistent. Consistency in any form seems better to me than what we have now -- a few articles with stat boxes, the vast majority do not, and stat boxes have been removed from a good number of bios that I've seen. The inconsistency is what is jarring to me, and I'm hopeful that (one way or another) this discussion will lead to consensus and then a consistent approach that we can all apply.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Bagumba. Stats in baseball tell part of the story of a players career. They are not a replacement for prose, but they can compliment prose. I am somewhat indifferent about the full career stats, but at a minimum it should be appropriate to list the player's full career key stats as part of the article. Rlendog (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I should add that I think for someone like Jeter who has had a long career it is notable, esp since hes hit some "magic numbers" like 3000 hits, 1000 rbis, etc. For a player X who has played 3 years with 268 hits, 113 rbi and 28sb, there no added value or context most anyone would be able to gain. Maybe its better to in general say no stats, and individual articles can (and anyways will) decided to use common sense. As we find them, we reassess and place notice on this talk page to discuss at the specific talk page. Again, stats are important, but a more up-to-date and comprehensive set is just one click of an external link away.—Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_27&oldid=1140102940"