Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Ryan Braun

Should be protected... lots of vandalism seems to be occurring due to his PED test. Spanneraol (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I just put in the request at WP:RPP. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Operation Infobox

I noticed that a rather large number of big league ballplayer articles do not have infoboxes. Infoboxes help streamline and improve the general appearance of articles.

From time to time, I add infoboxes to as many articles as possible that do not have them. I invite you to do this as well - the more help, the better! Alex (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I try to do it on many articles I come across. I recently created almost 100 new baseball articles to remove all the redlinks from Atlanta Braves all-time roster. I usually take it a few steps further, adding Template:baseballstats to the external links, including at least one reference, and putting in a lot of categories including all minor-league teams. An example for that is Al Piechota. Something I need to do more often is add images for players, but sometimes it's very difficult. Chet Ross had a baseball card produced by Goudey, which was a public domain image. I wish I could spend time adding infoboxes to every single article, but I just don't have that much free time.

However, while I was assessing a couple thousand new articles for WikiProject Baseball, there is a field that lets others know that the article is in need of an infobox. It automatically adds it to Category:Baseball articles needing infoboxes, which currently lists 566 articles needing them. The number of baseball articles in need of an infobox is far greater as the needs-infobox field isn't used that often, but it's certainly a good place to start. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Entries in infoboxes not mentioned in main text - OK, or not?

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. A discussion has ensued about a different info box where one editor believes that infoboxes can contain entries even if the fact is not mentioned in the article. The editor pointed out that some baseball articles indicate whether the player is left or right-handed, even when that information is missing from the article. An example is Don Aase. I'd be interested in some feedback from the regulars here; is this a subject that has come up in the past? Has it been discussed as an allowable exception to the guideline? Should it be an exception? (I can think of why it should be, but I'd like to learn whether this has been considered by others.)--SPhilbrick T 17:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a worthy exception because handedness is something people like to know about baseball players, but excluding pitchers there's no way of putting it in the text without it looking clunky. I don't think it's been brought up before but I could be wrong. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess it could go in the lead. I fit it into the lead of Curtis Granderson, which I plan on nominating for GA in the near future. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Awards in infoboxes

What's the general opinion of awards that should be included in infoboxes? I feel that if the award is notable it should be included, for instance the ESPYs and TSN awards. Notable meaning significant coverage within wikipedia. I don't think awards like the Turkey Leg Award(I know its football) or similar trophies should be included. Also what if Jose Reyes with a Grammy as a reggaeton artist should that be included?Racingstripes (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on the person. We dont need info boxes to be super long... If he only has a few awards then some of the lesser things can be included, but if he is a multiple all-star with mvp and home run titles we dont need to include every TSN award... I really dont think the ESPYs are all that notable myself though. Spanneraol (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the archived thread where it was discussed: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 26#Career highlights in infobox#Sample outline of player article. Myself, I think these are the ones that should be highlighted:

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

Other awards such as the Babe Ruth Award or Comeback Player of the Year Award can be fleshed out in prose.Orsoni (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ESPYs receive a significant news coverage, and there are over 50 articles in Wikipedia for the ESPYs. The news coverage is almost exclusively due to it being awarded by the biggest sports medium. But none the less it does receive more coverage than awards such as the silver slugger. As a fairly big baseball fan I don't remember reading a newspaper and seeing an article or seeing a televised sports segment listing the silver slugger awards. I know these articles exist, but I have to search for them. Unlike the ESPYs which are in my face, being promoted by ESPN and then followed by the news coverage, and the news coverage is not only on ESPN. Also I believe that if you ask the average person what the reason for the Hank Aaron award or who ever received one of them, they wouldn't be able to tell you. Unlike the ESPY's at least people know what they are.Racingstripes (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

All of that seems irrelevant - of course you've heard of the ESPY's. You obviously watch ESPN and the award show is the network's own. They are obviously going to promote the hell out of it. ESPY's seem pretty meaningless in comparison to officially recognized Major League Baseball awards. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Winning an ESPY is like winning an MTV award. Do they really receive any substantial coverage outside of ESPN? The newspapers had articles on the silver slugger winners.. but i didnt see any articles in the paper on the ESPYs. Spanneraol (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My satellite cable provider doesn't offer ESPN, so I'm in the dark about the ESPY award. I know it's an award, but that's the extent of my knowledge. I don't know what an ESPY signifies in relation to a player's statistics or if it's something like an MVP.Orsoni (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the real topic at hand: I would modify the above list to include the following:

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
season wins championships (if you include the component leaders for hitting triple crown, you need to do the same for pitchers)
season strikeouts championships (if you include the component leaders for hitting triple crown, you need to do the same for pitchers)
season wins championships (if you include the component leaders for hitting triple crown, you need to do the same for pitchers)
Triple Crowns
Gold Glove Awards
Silver Slugger Awards
Rolaids Relief Man or Delivery Man Awards (since relievers will rarely ever win Cy Young)
Prominent records (e.g. all-time home run leader)
Perfect games or no-hitters

Thoughts? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Any season stat champions should only be listed if the player's infobox isnt already full (e.g. doesnt already have > 5 entries). Infobox should be a quick summary and not an exhaustive list—that can be added in the article itself.—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Bagumba. Well said. Oh, and ixnay on the ESPYs. — KV5 • Talk • 00:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in the previous discussion, I would place more emphasis on say, a home run crown or a batting crown than an award such as a Babe Ruth Award. For instance, in the case of Tony Gwynn, is there really any argument that his 8 batting titles aren't the crowning glory of his baseball career? There is something wrong with our standards if that statistic gets bumped from an infobox section titled "Career Highlights."Orsoni (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The most recent discussion on career highlights in the infobox is present at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 27#Career highlights in infobox. An existing consensus for individual accomplishments was claimed, but there were some voices speaking out against it. isaacl (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 26#Career highlights in infobox#Sample outline of player article (the "Sample outline of player article" section is section #45). In that thread, a user notes that he created the following article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice. I just started the article's talk page with the following comment: "The Derek Jeter page is an exmaple. All of his awards are listed in the "Career highlights" section of the text, but only the major awards are listed in the infobox." Eagle4000 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping conversation to a central, more visible location, I suggested on the WP:BASEBALL style advice page that discussion be held on this talk page. (I guess I should should put a note on each of the talk pages for the various style advice pages.) isaacl (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"All-Star" vs "MLB All-Star"

An IP is changing multiple articles to have infobox read "MLB All-Star" instead of plain old "All-Star". Do we have a convention? Is "MLB" really needed to distinguish from minor leagues or foreign leagues?—Bagumba (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor league all-star is not something that is infobox-worthy. Since MLB confers notability, it can be assumed that "All-Star" means MLB All-Star (and therefore does not need the piping) unless the player has played in KBO, NPB, or one of the other major world leagues and been an All-Star there, in which case disambiguation would be needed. — KV5 • Talk • 11:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's more than a bit of a redundant thing to add. I don't like the unnecessary changes. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that it can be assumed that All-Star signifies the MLB version, perhaps we should consider being more specific as encyclopedia editors, especially with the growth of the Japanese leagues and the increasing popularity of baseball internationally. Also, the numerous American players who have played in Japan may increase the ambiguity. Just playing devil's advocate.Orsoni (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Even forgetting the international issues, the articles already define the guys as major league ballplayers, so saying "MLB All-Star" seems redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. Adding "MLB" is completely unnecessary. Looking at WP articles of players who have played in both Japan and the US (e.g. Ichiro and Hideki Matsui), they already differentiate MLB and NPB stats into different categories. Bloom6132 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think MLB All-Star make more sense then just typical All-star!!! When you go to Kobe Bryant profile it says NBA All-star not All-star!! That does not make sense just putting All-star on every MLB Players profile!! It's just unnecessary. If you ask me I think it's more appropriate to add MLB All-Star instead of plain All-star. Especially if a guy came from cuba to the Major Leagues. I want to know what all-star games played!! Puting All-star could be anything like the minor league, Japan, Cuba , It could be anything!! What I'm saying I think you need to be more specific and putting MLB All-star is being more specific!! 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting Just typical All-star now that's unnecessary!. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who comes up with all of this mess but MLB All-Star is the proper wording than All-Star that doesn't tell me much. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Darnell McDonald (dab?)

Is Darnell McDonald the Darnell McDonald who broke the Kansas State Wildcats football single-season receptions record formerly held by Kevin Lockett in 1998 (later broken by Jordy Nelson)? (also asked at WP:CFB)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No. That McDonald was born in 1976 according to Pro-Football Reference. The baseball player was born in 1978.--Yankees10 19:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Where was he really born? Your PFR link and NFL.com conflict.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

XFL Has him as Chicago too, but I'm finding stuff on him attending Fairfax High School, so he may have been born in Chi and moved to Virginia. That'll be something to find while writing it I guess. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to write him if he is not from Chicago. Too far from my wheelhouse unless he was consensus AA. Anyone interested? Not even sure I want to do him if he was just born here and raised in VA. My access to the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune are worthless if he was in VA for high school.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say check your Chi sources for 92-95, and if you don't find anything we'll know he was in Va for high school, unless there's a Fairfax High School in Chicago, which I doubt. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I got a blank. I will leave Darnell McDonald (American football) for another editor to create. I will mention it at WP:NFL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Tom Ferrick

I recently worked on Tom Ferrick (baseball)'s wikipedia article. In seeing that his son was a newspaper columnist, I decided to send him an e-mail and let him know I worked on his dad's wikipedia article and ask him what he thought of my work.

Well, he liked it. In fact, he liked it so much that he made a $50 donation to wikipedia and sent me an e-mail with additional information-- very good information I might add-- about his father.

The information he sent me is worth adding to the article, but there really isn't any way to reference it.

I don't think...

--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY describes what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. You can post a question on the reliability of a source here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Orsoni (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.221.58 (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I found a loophole. I added the information Tom Ferrick gave me to his dad's bullpen article. What if I reference that as a source?--Johnny Spasm (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.221.58 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As described in WP:VERIFY, in the section "What counts as a reliable source", "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ... In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." From your description, it sounds like the "bullpen" you are referring to falls short on this count. (If you mean the Baseball Reference bullpen, the draft Wikiproject Baseball style advice has a note explicitly warning against use of this section of the Baseball Reference site, as it has no fact-checking.) I'm not an expert on this, but if the son would publish the information himself and it is non-controversial, unlikely to be challenged, and otherwise meets the conditions in "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves", then the primary source information might be useable. isaacl (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the e-mail from Ferrick's son to Tom Ferrick (baseball)'s talk section. I didn't think anyone would mind. If I've somehow done something I shouldn't, I'll remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.221.58 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

An unusual request

I'm looking for some input from some editors who are familiar with Wikipedia (particularly quality articles) and know nothing about cricket. The sport, not the insect. I thought this might be a good place to find some help... If you fit the criteria, please do visit this talk page discussion. Heck, even if you don't, you'll be most welcome. Thanking you muchly... and cheers from old Blighty, --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about Cricket, do I qualify?Neonblak ^talk - 21:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure! --Dweller (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Chen Wei-Yin - Should the article on the English WP be titled Chen Wei-Yin or Wei-Yin Chen. In China/Taiwan the surname comes first and of course in English the surname comes last altought he did pitch in Japan. Just wondering on the changes since when he playes for the Orioles he will have Chen on the back of his jersey. Ositadinma 19:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be the common name used in English sources. For example, there is Yao Ming with surname first, and Chien-Ming Wang with surname last.—Bagumba (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there are few English sources since he has not pitched in America. But most put him as Wei-Yin Chen. Ositadinma 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Giants fans/Bay Area residents?

Take a look at the San Francisco Giants article. As neat of a little article as it is, the history section is unbearably long. Some particular years had sections long enough to pass off as a health essay. As an OCD Giants fan, I recently went on an editing rampage to trim up the sections by removing unnecessary information and reorganize the whole article. Previously, the headings were very inconsistent, so I reorganized it to a simple system: Eras go on === headings, and individual years go on "====" headings.

The key issue here is recentism. Yes, it is neat to have little details on anything you can find, but in 25 years, will anyone care that the Giants played the Red Sox for the first time in 95 years on June 17, 2007? In my opinion, it is okay to pile facts on facts during the current year, but once the year is over, it would be nice to trim the section up and pretend that it happened 50 years ago, just to see it from a historical perspective. It is also acceptable to me that the World Champions section takes up a considerable chunk of the page; these things don't happen every year, but seasons do.

I was still a little dissatisfied about how lengthy the sections still were when I was done with it. Half the history section is made up by the past 15 years. Don't call me an occupy protester here (I don't even like those people), but we have work to do. This is just my judgement of the article. If you are willing to help clean up this article, then feel free to make yourself useful. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)}

I agree that the history section is too long. You can help by starting to move some of those details to the appropriate season articles. I may give it a look later. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The section is supposed to be a summary of History of the San Francisco Giants, which in turn should be a summary of the individual season articles. This is common issue with most team articles, (and not just baseball). Thanks for being bold and fixing.—Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I dont think even the current year should be summarized there... it should be on the season article. The team articles should just have historical overviews. Spanneraol (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup

I'm surprised that I'm the only primarily baseball editor in this year WikiCup. You could still sign up here, be a little fun against our fellow editors. What you say Secret ^account 06:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm signed up too. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV for Jon Weber (baseball)

I'm requesting a DRV on Jon Weber (baseball), AfD closed as delete in December 2010, because the AfD failed to consider the fact that he has played at the highest level of international competition. Link here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Minor league baseball players by team" categories

Out of curiousity, what is the reason that players are categorized by what minor league teams they played for? For the most part, players aren't inherently notable for being minor leaguers per WP:Notability (sports), so most players won't have articles until the reach the major leagues (the Bryce Harpers of the world a clear exception), and it certainly isn't a defining characteristic of any player what minor league teams he has played on. Playing for the Sacramento River Cats isn't a defining characteristic of Mike Piazza, and I would think that it's not even defining that Harper plays for the Harrisburg Senators. He's not notable for playing for them nor for what he has accomplished as a player for that team. Many of the articles themselves just gloss over or don't even mention a player's minor league career (see Joe Price, who is categorized in Category:Nashville Sounds players and Category:Tampa Tarpons players but one would have no clue that he played for those teams when reading his article). I'm fine with it if consensus has determined to do it this way, I was just wondering what the rationale was. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Playing for a team is definitely a defining characteristic of the players career and thus of them. One of the most important aspects of a player is the different teams he has played for. And one of the most common ways people are going to look for groups of players is by team. So it is a very important way of categorizing athletes in any sport. For example if I am reading an article about one player who played on X team and I think to myself I wonder who else played on that team I am going to want to be able to click on the category to do so. This is far from only a baseball thing, it is done in every sport on wikipedia I do believe. As for Joe Price, his article is a stub. If it was a "completed" article I would expect to find information about his time on both those teams in the playing career section of his article. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that at a Major League level, but not for minor leaguer players, who with some exceptions wouldn't even have an article until the reach the majors. Players aren't notable for being minor leaguers but who they played for while in the minors is a defining quality for them? Per WP:DEFINING, "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". How many major league players' articles have what minor league teams they played for mentioned in their lead? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you take a read through the section of defining that you link to it mentions those are rules of thumb but they aren't set in stone. To most people that follow sports not having all of the pro teams they played for categorized would end up making the articles in many ways worthless. Players are considered sure fire notable through making it to the majors but it isn't just the playing in the majors that makes them notable it is everything that led up to it. We assume that for a player to have made the majors what he has done throughout his career is notable or else he wouldn't have made it to the majors. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles like Joe Price, that fail to mention minor league teams in the prose, should be fixed to mention them. The problem is there are lots of instances like that, and Wikipedia is a work in progress. Minor league careers are an important part of the biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic in nature, and therefore, should offer comprehensive detail about the subject of the article. That would include minor league teams that the subject played for.Orsoni (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I was just curious. I'm not looking to see the categories go away or anything. Seems like from these comments you would have enough consensus here to have an article on every minor league player regardless of whether he made it the Bigs or not. Then those categories can be "complete". If you are in the pros, it should mean you are notable. Coverage on the draft of such players, baseball-reference.com and milb.com all would seem like reliable sources to really make it a worthwhile encyclopedia. Thanks for your time. I really appreciate your opinions on the matter. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well most minor league players at least those in the higher minor leagues could and probably should have articles. We just don't assume it by putting them on NSPORTS. They have to do it straight thought GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination (Shibe Park)

The article Shibe Park is currently a good article nominee. As a busy person, there is only so much I can do. The article is nice, though there is quite a bit to work on. The only major thing (the only thing that requires more than the bare minimum of cognitive functioning) is the tone of the article. The article has a poetic style to it (almost like a magazine article) which is okay, but there is a lot of unsourced opinion going on. Everything can be an easy fix. If you can help, it would be greatly appreciated. The nomination page is Talk:Shibe Park/GA1. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)}

I'm starting to fix it, though you may be understating the tone issues; it's likely I'll have to rewrite a big chunk of the article to get it to GA standards. Ideally more help would be appreciated. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin protection help?

The twitterz are blowing up about a Jesús Montero for Michael Pineda trade. Before my fandom can even wrap itself around this possibility, the IPs are making the changes. Is anyone here who can protect them now rather than waiting for enough of it to require RPP? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wham bam done. — KV5 • Talk • 01:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You da man. Is it too soon to request you protect Héctor Noesí too? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Whomped. — KV5 • Talk • 01:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we top that off with the Hiroki Kuroda cherry on my sundae? My bombers had a big day today. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge request

There are two articles for the same person - Sam Esposito, head baseball coach at NC State University and Sammy Esposito, major leaguer for the White Sox. They are, in fact, he same person. Can someone here take on merging the two articles? Rikster2 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I just simply redirected Sam Esposito into Sammy Esposito. If an admin wants to formally merge the two, I guess that would be ok too.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves, like this one, are bad. The articles should be technically merged to retain both edit histories but I don't have time to do it right now. — KV5 • Talk • 20:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a cut and paste move as far as I can tell. Just two pages that grew up organically on their own. A redirect to keep the edit histories separate is fine and in this case probably preferable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Featured topic - First round draft picks

(Restored from archive for more conversating) I was just compiling some ideas for possible featured topics, and noticed that we already on the cusp with the first-round draft pick topic. We need the lead article, which I just started. List of first overall Major League Baseball draft picks doesn't cover the topic. Also, I wonder about the name of the Expos/Nationals page, since that goes against all the other pages in the topic. Input appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I went and fixed the Nationals one; the recent move flies in the face of common sense, not sure how I never noticed that when I wrote it to begin with. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great. I hadn't noticed it was such a recent and un-consensus'd move. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I could've sworn we nom'd this before. Am I crazy? Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak to that (:P), but I don't see any record of a FT nomination for this subject, and I don't think the article about the first overall picks fits this topic well enough anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Stax, you are not crazy. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Major League Baseball Draft first-round picks/archive1. The topic was not promoted because the main article was only for first overall picks, hence not precisely matching the others. I will get the main article up to FL standards soon, and then we can repromote the topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

List of the last surviving members of the World Series

I spent some time making a page that I really think is useful. I hope it will be accepted amongst the baseball editors. The only problem I have is with the tables I used. Toward the bottom it gets a little sloppy and I was wondering if someone could possibly help with the appropriate formatting. Can this be added to the baseball records template? I was going to add it myself but held off since it's not exactly a record. Finally, I realize that there are no citations to the article as I'm not sure how to exactly cite a list like that, but I went through it all myself on Baseball Reference if anyone wants to verify. It's a good list and I just wanted to take a second to introduce it. RoadView (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with lists like these is that they are self-deleting. — KV5 • Talk • 05:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OR by your own admission. Should be deleted. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is precedent for deleting similar pages. I'm sorry, since you clearly did put some time and effort into this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox national baseball team

The "Logo" parameter of this infobox doesn't seem to be working, I tried to add the official logo of the Puerto Rico national baseball team in that page's infobox but nothing is being displayed. El Alternativo (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The image is here. El Alternativo (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the template so the "Logo" parameter works.Borgarde (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability of stats queries

There is a discussion of the notability of stats like "only two MLB pitchers in history to have a 10 season stretch with at least 180 wins, an ERA of 2.5 or lower, WHIP of 1.05 or lower and a Won/Loss percentage greater than .680" that are queried from a stats site. Please discuss at Talk:Greg_Maddux#statistics_notes.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Was this published pre-1923?

A cropped version of File:New_York_Knickerbockers_Baseball_Club,_circa_1847.jpg was added to an article I've been working on, but the problem is that I've yet to find any evidence that the photo was publisher in a book/newspaper/magazine prior to 1923, which is required for it to be PD. The image description unfortunately didn't provide any evidence indicating this. The people working on this project undoubtedly have much more in the way of older resources collectively than I could ever find by myself. Have any of you ever seen the linked image in a pre-1923 publication? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Josh Bell

The article Josh Bell (baseball, born 1992) was just created and I question the notability but the user who created it disagrees. I figured it would be a good idea to see what others think so please see the talk page--Yankees10 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to meet WP:GNG, which always has precedence over WP:BASEBALL/N. You might argue WP:Run-of-the-mill—another minor league player, big deal—but I've never seen much support for that when sources exist.—Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the record holder for the largest signing bonus after the first round is run of the mill. Nick Castellanos' record (beaten by Bell) just served as a DYK hook. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

YahwehSaves

YahwehSaves (talk · contribs) has been making a lot of "improvements" on baseball bio articles which in my opinion are not improvements at all, in general. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of them. Some are "improvements", others are questionable. I was thinking of dropping that user a line to suggest using more descriptive edit summaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Be prepared for a prickly response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the state of some of these articles was prior to his edits, but I'm trying to clean up the leads for some of them now. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

His edits seem to lack consistency. As previously mentioned, some edits aren't too bad, while others appear to be handled with a pick ax and a sledge hammer. He's all over the board. From reading his Talk page, he not willing to abide any criticism of his editing style. Unfortunately, he seems to have chosen to edit only the highest profile players in baseball history.Orsoni (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The good news there is that between all of us, we probably have all of those pages he'll edit watched. That just means we have to review the edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

First Round pick templates

Anybody have any interest in creating the rest of the first-round draft pick templates? Theres only like 4 more.--Yankees10 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I just created {{St. Louis Cardinals first-round draft picks}} – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

There's a user who insists on re-posting a lengthy fringe theory about Gehrig's illness, and who refuses to discuss it. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a no-brainer. Besides the fact that edit warring and article ownership aren't acceptable Wikipedia behavior, the peer-reviewed article has little to do with Gehrig and belongs in a medical related article than in a Gehrig bio.Orsoni (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So it amounts to "original synthesis", i.e. an editor drawing specific conclusions based on a general discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There's some discussion on the talk page about the issue; I had thought about adding it in a more appropriate manner than this user. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, discussions about the illness should be Wikilinked to the appropriate medical article and allow the Gehrig article to focus on the man's career and his life. Wikilinks are what make Wikipedia a great resource by linking related articles.Orsoni (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Info on Gehrig's beanings might be notable enough to include on his article, depending on the significance to him and his career. I agree, though, that one peer reviewed article about head trauma possibly being misdiagnosed as ALS belongs on the ALS page, not Gehrig's. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to the Lou Gerhig 'experts'

I am the user who re-posted a SHORT passage about a POSSIBLE alternate theory regarding Mr. Gehrig's demise. Why so hostile??? Do you have access to Mr Gerhig's Mayo clinic files? (I didn't think so.) The alternative diagnosis is not some 'fringe theory' but comes from a peer-reviewed article, from a leading medical journal (which is cited).

Subsequently, it deserves to be mentioned in the article, not relegated to some other medical article. Don't worry his legacy as a player will not be diminished in the least

A small passage (one or two sentences) discussing a possible different diagnosis (Mr. Gerhig suffered from repeated head trauma and did not rest or refrain from an activity...this is FACT), most certainly deserves to be mentioned. After all it IS part of his career and life.

I will continue to edit until we have a serious discussion, not some opinion from a self-anointed 'expert'.

Produce Mr. Gerhig's Mayo clinic medical records that refute a alternative theory and I will gladly refrain from any further postings on the subject. Until then please to not censor information that is relevant to the subject at hand.

thank you.The Rakish Fellow (talk)

First of all, please accept my apologies if my comments appeared hostile. That was not my intent. One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith among editors. However, the peer reviewed study was not about Gehrig, who died 70 years before the study, but of the disease itself. Any connection to Gehrig is conjecture and in my non-hostile opinion, encyclopedia articles shouldn't delve into conjecture.Orsoni (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What Orsoni said. A study that says (generally) X may relate to Y is not a way to cite that this particular guy's Y over here was caused by some X. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing help

Can someone show me the fix to get the Index Box to appear in the Shanty Hogan article?Orsoni (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Index box? I'm not sure what you mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant the Content Box that lists the article sections, but I see that someone has already fixed it. Thanks!Orsoni (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks

Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks has been nominated for deletion. This may be related to this project as it involves first round draft picks of a sports team. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that there is no List of Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks, while all 30 of our first round draft pick lists are FL's, I'd say this decision shouldn't affect us. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a rebuttal to your position.—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category problem for MLB pitchers vs Nippon Professional Baseball

The way these categories are set up, the Japanese baseball pitcher stubs are a sub-subset of Major League Baseball pitchers. However, the Nippon league players are not in the National League or the American League. Based on this wacky setup, I added a bunch of the Nippon league players to Category:Major League Baseball players from Japan, then saw the error and corrected it by removing them.

Category:Major League Baseball players by position

Category: Major League Baseball pitchers

Category:Baseball pitcher stubs

Category:Dominican Republic baseball pitcher stubs

Category:Japanese baseball pitcher stubs

Category:American baseball pitcher stubs

Category:Venezuelan baseball pitcher stubs

Category:Canadian baseball pitcher stubs

However, the articles in the Dominican, American, Venezuelan and Canadian stub categories are overwhelmingly for MLB players. Does anyone have a better scheme? Chris the speller ^yack 22:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the purpose of your third level category there. It appears to me that Category:Baseball pitcher stubs should be a top level category, at least as named. If it is intended to reflect MLB only (and I can't imagine how that is useful), then it should be Category:Major League Baseball pitcher stubs. The nationality subcats would have to be renamed as well, but there is no elegant way of doing so that I can see. I think it is better off as a top level category that works independent of league. Reso lute 16:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It makes no sense to categorize players by league and position. A pitcher in MLB is playing the same game when he plays in the International League, Nippon League and any other league. The league is a non-defining characteristic. To sort all of this out, we should simply sort by nationality and position.--TM 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing question

This MLB.com piece references Cot's Baseball Contracts for it's table's data. Given a citation like this, and given that it's now under the more official umbrella of Baseball Prospectus, does Cot's qualify as a reliable source? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It gets referenced from other reliable sources in Google News, so it too seems reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Baseball biography up for AfD

Can other editors please review the AfD for Frank Penale. It has been relisted after only four editors have commented on whether the subject is notable are not. Disclosure; I am the originator of the AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I proposed a merge of JetBlue Park at Fenway South and Fenway South. Please join the discussion here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Complete

As of earlier today, barring any stragglers that haven't been caught, every Major League Baseball player now has an article on here. Now let's get to expanding them :) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also take this opportunity to point out the numerous Hall of Fame member articles that are woefully incomplete.Orsoni (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wizardman, Does this mark the recent completion of a long slog to create about 20,000 MLB player pages --the first time wikipedia is up to date "barring any stragglers that haven't been caught"? Or does it mark the completion of a cross-check of a long slog essentially complete years ago? Anyway, some congratulations to group or person must be in order.

Congratulations!

If the latter, is there a date for the Master record, eg all players recognized by SABR as of December 31, 2011? --P64 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wild card playoff round

See #One-game wild card playoffs; formerly "Question"

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, if it has feel free to enlighten me. Anyway, how are we gonna document the one game playoff round between the 2 wild card winners in a given league? I don't think there's enough to make an entire article for each league like we do for the ALDS, NLDS, ALCS, NLCS. A couple ideas that come to mind are: Just keep it on the MLB season article or we can make an article titled 2012 MLB Wild Card playoffs to cover both games. But as I said I don't think they're big enough or long enough (i.e. more than one game) to create separate articles. What does the project think? Keep in mind there's still 6 months or so to decide this. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 08:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We were discussing this like 2 titles up right here. There's almost certainly enough information for an article, the same as tie-breaker articles. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of changing that heading.

See #One-game wild card playoffs; formerly "Question" --P64 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One-game wild card playoffs

Section renamed 2012-03-09 -P64; formerly "Question"

According to Tom Tango the one-game-let's-find-a-Wildcard game is a game 163 and not a playoff game, much like the tie-breaker pieces I've worked on (I'll jump on these too, I like writing single-game articles). Does anyone have another source as to whether this is true or not? Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

He clarifies in the comments that this is just a personal view; he has no official source for this opinion. isaacl (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The wording of this writeup on mlb.com[1] indicates the one game is part of the post-season. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Has the wild card play-in game been given an official name, like the LDS or LCS? I'd consider it a notable game, much like tie-breakers to make the playoffs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That's another excellent question. It's certainly notable enough for an article, whether it's play-off or a game 163. I imagine that by later in the season we'll have an official name. I'm putting my money on "[insert league] Wild Card Game". Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The "important dates" page of the MLB website[2] states that the regular season ends on October 3. A quick check of regular season schedules indicates that the 3rd is indeed the last day of the 162-game season. There's no "update date" on that page, and there's nothing I'm seeing (other than the statements in the March 2 press release) about exactly when the post-season starts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

1884 World Series

We need some input on that article. An editor insists on declaring that the 1884 Series games "were exhibitions". They may be now, but at the time they were considered to be the championship. To assert that they were considered exhibitions at that time is historical revisionism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have always been under the impression that since the AA and NL were virtually at war, the Leagues wouldn't agree to such series so it was up to the team owners to organize them. Since there was no consistency nor reliability in the set-up, the players and fans considered them mere exhibitions that only produced "braggin' rights" between the Leagues, players and fans. I was also under the impression that such "play-offs" didn't enter the American sports culture until the true World Series began. Up until then, I thought the 19th-century American considered the season and the Pennant to be the true "play-off". But I don't have any refs at my finger tips. Do you have any refs available saying otherwise? I am curious to see how this turns out. --64.85.220.144 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor that Baseball Bugs is referring to. He is 100% wrong in his assertion that the games played after the 1884 season were considered to be for a 'championship'. While contemporary newspaper articles may have called it a 'World's Series', it was in fact an exhibition arranged by the managers of both the Providence and New York clubs respectively.

Baseball Reference, correctly, calls the 1884 world series (along with any other prior to 1903) as exhibitions. Unfortunately, Baseball Bugs repeatedly deletes the link that cites this. To assert that these games were officially a 'championship' at that, or any time, is historical revisionism and the pushing of ones own agenda. Baseball Bugs needs to stop deleting legitimate references and, when making edits, supply references that back his claims ←The Rakish Fellow ^{The truth and only the truth} —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC).

Well, I found my Total Baseball 6th ed. (1999), and ch. 12 "Postseason Play" (p. 306) states "...but no one in 1882 saw them as more than exhibition games. In fact, because the NL didn't yet recognize the legitimacy of the AA and forbade its clubs to play those of the new league, the NL champion Chicago White Stockings had to release their players from their season contracts so they could face AA champion Cincinnati as technically independent players."

But then it continues, "That winter the two major leagues made their peace, and although a proposed series between the 1883 titlists was called off, the 1884 [NL and AA league champs] played three games 'for the championship of the United States.' The winning Grays were acclaimed in the press a 'champions of the world,' ...." It states that the 1884 series set the stage for "more elaborate World Series to follow."

So, I don't know if you would necessarily call the 1884 affair a true World Series, but it definitely wasn't an exhibition. I would lean to calling it more of a "precursor" or something. --64.85.220.144 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Way to go IP-guy. You should register a username if you're going to do that kinda work. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Series played during 1884-1890 were arranged by the individual teams, but they were played with permission of the two leagues. That's in contrast to 1882, which was not sanctioned by the leagues (or at least not the NL). And the breakdown of cooperation between the AA and the NL is the reason the 1890 Series was never finished and the 1891 Series never happened. And the 1903 Series was not governed by the leagues either - it was arranged between the teams just like in the 1880s. One can make a good case that the 1905 Series was the first "true" World Series. But the editor needs to find a copy of Glory Fades Away, to learn all about the 1880s World Series and the 1890s Temple Cup Series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments: Formatting of infobox honors

Here's one of those dumb questions: Why are we formatting 95% of all infobox honors with a description of the championship, honor or award, followed by a parenthetical with the year of the award, but some editors insist on a different format for World Series and league championship series MVPs and the like? This results in the following:

2× World Series Champion (1997, 2010)
2010 World Series MVP
3× Silver Slugger Award winner (2000, 2002, 2003)
2× Gold Glove Award winner (2002, 2003)
5× All-Star (1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2006)

One of these things is out of step with the others (i.e. the World Series MVP with the date preceding the description), and the inconsistency in formatting of the honors looks goofy. I request that other WP:BASEBALL editors weigh in on this, and provide some logic, if any, for the inconsistency. FWIW, WP:NFL and WP:NBA both consistently format all honors with the year of the award in a parenthetical following the description. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As should we. I just changed the article in question to be the same format. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are some of the years linked and some not in this example? Looks odd. Spanneraol (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Spanneraol, I simply cut and pasted these examples from the Edgar Renteria article for discussion purposes. There appears to be some logic to linking the years of the particular World Series to the years of the World Series MVP awards, but, personally, I think liking the year in baseball articles to the award years for other awards is a waste of a link. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the All-Star years should link to the respective All-Star Games, and WS years should link to specific WS's, while the rest should be linked to the MLB season articles. That would make linking the years for the Gold Glove award redundant. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's the project consensus, that works for me. It would probably be beneficial if Template:Infobox MLB player included more examples of the proper formatting of infobox honors per consensus. That would permit editors to simply refer to the template (or its talk page) for guidance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest to me these sections seem more trouble than they are worth. This discussion or one similar to it comes up every few months and goes around and around before slowly dying off. And then we go through it again. I still think the awards should be removed from the infobox and discussed in the prose in the appropriate section. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Who cares, these changes won't even be made anyway. There is always discussions on here about changing things in the infoboxes, but when the discussion is over none of these changes are actually even made. I'm usually the only one making the changes and i'm rarely even in agreement with them. it would be nice if others could also help out. So Dirtlawyer1 do you actually plan on making these changes or did you just bring this up because you wanted to make the change on a few articles. Because that is exactly what others have done.--Yankees10 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I make changes when I see them (fixing years, removing "1&times" or "selection", and non-notable awards). I don't go around spending days doing nothing but searching infoboxes though. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I just checked to see who started this anomalous date-first formatting of the LCS and WS honors: it was an IP. Previously, the WS and LCS MVP awards were consistently formatted as the others, with the years of the awards following the description in a parenthetical.

DJ, if the project consensus were to eliminate infobox MLB honors, and only recount them in text, then I certainly wouldn't fight it. It's a hell of a lot easier to just delete the mess. But if we're going to include honors in the infobox, I think that they should be consistently formatted and not left to the whim of some random drive-by IP user.

Yankees, for someone who is suggesting that these standard date-last formatting changes will never be made, you sure were gung-ho 90 minutes ago to enforce the date-first trend that was started by an IP. Not trying to pick on you, but it does seem rather inconsistent on your part. If it will make you feel better about consistently formatting all MLB infobox honors going forward, then I will gladly volunteer to edit the infoboxes of all 57 World Series MVPs and all 64 of the LCS MVPs to eliminate this inconsistency started by the IP. If others, like Muboshgu, simply fix the formatting as they find it, that works, too.

Does anyone have any objection if I create an example infobox honors for the Template:Infobox MLB player page, to be pre-approved by project editors, of course? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is also this page which hasn't gotten much use: Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style guidelines. Personally, I think the Career Highlights serves the purpose stated in the Wikipedia Style Guidelines that, Infoboxes should provide a quick overview of the subject. While most of us may know that Stan Musial won 7 batting titles, someone learning about the sport may not know that.Orsoni (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Orsoni. If no one objects, I'll use the unfinished and apparently forgotten Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style guidelines as the place to build an example of a fully completed Template:Infobox MLB player including formatted infobox honors. Since the page does not appear to be in present use (or, in fact, was ever finished in the first instance), it looks to be a good place to do the mark-up and get the input of any project editors who care to participate. After everyone has had their say, we can have a point-by-point !vote on any bones of contention to determine project consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We get a sort of consensus on this talk page from time to time regarding Infobox standards, but they seem to be forgotten or ignored after a few months. It would be nice to reach a consensus and have the result posted on the Baseball Project's front page in order to create a standard.Orsoni (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not forgotten; just no consensus has been reached for additions. I considered raising this page, but thought adding to the existing examples on Template:Infobox MLB player would probably get higher visibility, and just planned to update the style advice page after you had gotten consensus. isaacl (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Templates for Pennant Winning Teams

I was curious as to the reaction of what people thought about having templates for pennant winning teams? The AL and NL were separate entities for decades who only "agreed" to meet in the World Series. Only recently have both leagues come under direct control of an over-arching MLB apparatus. Prior to the AL, the NL pennant winning teams have templates and the 1904 season has them with separate templates as well due to no WS being played that year.

My reasoning for this is that I view the World Series as a sort of "champions league" when compared to association football or soccer. Manchester United for example has won the most English Premier League titles, but the winners of the EPL went on to play in the Champions League who have separate titles. Furthermore, the AL/NL didn't play each other in regular season play prior to interleague anyway, so contact was limited much like how contact would be limited between AC Milan and Liverpool FC.

In order to reduce clutter, a team that would win the World Series would only have one template as the same team obviously won the pennant and there would be practically no circumstances where someone would be apart of the pennant team, get credit for it (playoff roster in the LCS era) and not be on the World Series team or vice versa. If that situation did occur, we could always just add the person to the template and expand it as an exception.

An argument against this would be people bringing up the NBA or NHL, but those arguments don't hold as they are still one league. The closest comparison would be the NFL prior to the NFL-AFL merger.

Baseball has a uniqueness in its organization due to the history and I think recognition of pennant winning teams should be noted. Arnabdas (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to come right out and say I'm opposed to that. World Series templates I can understand, but we don't need to be making three a year in place of one a year. To your last argument, the NL and AL are no longer separate leagues (they merged years ago). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I know they merged, I even said that earlier on. I was just noting that they weren't for a very long time and thus an argument could be made. I also stated that I wasn't suggesting 3 per year, but rather 2. The WS champion is automatically the ALorNL champion. Arnabdas (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Meeting in the World Series has been compulsory since 1905. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Free HighBeam accounts

Hello all – free HighBeam 1-year accounts are being given out at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. This might come in useful for this WikiProject's devoted editors. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Individual games that appear questionable

Yesterday, Game Six of the 2011 World Series was created, and I nominated it for deletion. Upon the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument of an editor, I nominated 1992 National League Championship Series Game 7 for deletion as well. From there, I noticed Grand Slam Single, which I'm unsure about. There's also 1994 Cleveland Indians corked bat incident. The first two I believe fail WP:SPORTSEVENT as part of a notable series, but not notable in and of themselves, despite the interesting endings. Grand Slam Single seems to me to have more of a case to stay, as it's somewhat memorable. The corked bat seems questionable to me, possibly worthy of keeping because of the FBI involvement. What say you? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your deletion request for Game Six of the 2011 World Series, and have outlined why the game is notable in and of itself in my response on the deletion discussion here[3]. WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals will never submit to or agree with deletions of referenced material, created in good faith, that contribute to the completion of our project! Monowi (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The St. Louis Cardinals subproject doesn't get to create whichever articles it wants. They have to conform with Wikipeida policies, which I argue this does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Monowi, it's just an article, you don't have to be completely emotional overthis. Canvassing for people to vote keep in the article, like what you did in the Cardinals Wikiproject subpage and the battlefield comments aren't acceptable and will look bad on you. Just calm down and relax, and discuss it in WP:NSPORTS, not here. Your comments are welcome there especially that there been some comments on the notability of games (american football mostly) lately. Secret ^account 03:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why can't that entire Game 6 article just be merged into the World Series article? It's just a game summary. And a very basic description of the aftermath of the game. Nothing worth making an entirely separate article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This stuff is kind of a tough call, but your approach is the direction I'm leaning now. Individual game references could be redirects or disambiguations. For example, there are at least 3 famous Game Sixes that come to mind: 1975, 1986 and 2011. And maybe 1991 and 2002. And all those are just "recent". I'm sure there are others as well. Now, I can kind of see Game Sevens, as those are actually Series deciders, though I wouldn't be married to that either. There's an entire article on the 1954 catch, but it's worth keeping in mind that Arnold Hano actually wrote a book about 1954 Game 1, with an entire chapter about "The Catch". It really comes down to how much detail is needed in some individual article vs. accommodating it within the Series article and simply having a redirect. One thing special about 2011 Game 6 is the link to 1991 Game 6, in that Joe Buck consciously imitated his father Jack (and not for the first time by any means, but in this case it was the same game situation) when calling the winning home run. Technically, that has nothing to do with the actual games, but it was considered notable enough to make the national news. I recall from 2006 where some Mets fans tried to make a big thing about another "The Catch" in the final game of the 2006 NLCS. Problem was, the Cardinals won the game, so that "The Catch" had no bearing on the outcome of the series. So we have to beware of recentism, and see some perspective as to whether a specific game is widely and deeply discussed some years after the fact, which we're not there yet with this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I could go either way, I think single games could be merged with the main article in most cases, with the exception of truly historic games such as Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) or the Homer in the Gloamin' games.Orsoni (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw the article about The Catch, and also the Homer in the Gloamin' and Shot Heard Round the World, but didn't mention them since to me, those games are iconic, and moreso because of a single event, not the entire game. We're not relying on an inning-by-inning recap there. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

User 71.54.245.144 is making a recent edits full of original research. He added useful information to the Phil Roof article, but wrote with the tone of a sports magazine article rather than the tone of an encyclopedia, as per WP:TONE. He also added unsubstantiated original research. When I edited the article to give it an encyclopedic tone, he reverted the edits. He then left a message on my TALK page that read like this: "I worked on Phil Roof's article after I met him and his wife and started talking to them. In case you care, he liked it better the way I had it." He then deleted the message. So, there you have it. The article has Phil Roof's blessing, so know one can edit it any further. This editor seems suspiciously similar to a previous editor who was banned.Orsoni (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at what I removed, I removed a Baseball-reference link after the sentence, "Roof debuted with the Braves at just nineteen years of age as a September call-up in 1960, but did not appear in a game." The reason I removed it is that this fact is not shown on his Baseball-reference site, and the only reason I know it is because Roof told me. If anything, it would need a "Citation needed" tag. I also removed it after the sentence, "Roof was born in Paducah, Kentucky, and is the cousin of Eddie Haas." The paragraph is referenced at the end by a newspaper article that also states that fact. Finally, I added a link to a newspaper article on the Jim Rittwage and Don Mincher trades. To me these were all reasonable edits that should never have been removed. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.141 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the citations back, as they do seem relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Offline reference help

I'd like to nominate List of New York Yankees owners and executives for FL, similar to how KV5 got List of Philadelphia Phillies owners and executives FL status. The only thing stopping me right now, aside from the fact that I already have an active nomination there, is that I can't find any sourcing on Calvin Chan through any Google news books or other searches. Can anyone help? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll nominate the article for deletion for failing WP:V, I couldn't prove that guy existence using some of my sources, and the Orioles had like 5 different owners in 1901 including John McGraw and Ban Johnson who had the franchise for the main reason to move it to New York. Secret ^account 20:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I have no idea where the idea of "Calvin Chan" came from, then. Any idea on the other Orioles owners before McGraw and Johnson? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

From Donald Dewey and Nicholas Acocella, Total Ballclubs (ink and paper), p. 36, "Then, in October of that year [1900], Johnson announced his intention of challenging the NL directly by rechristening his Western League and moving into several eastern cities, including Baltimore. McGraw, with the faithful Wilbert Robinson in tow, was the obvious choice to head the Baltimore franchise. The bulk of the $40,000 initial capital came from 29-year-old stockbroker Sydney S. Frank, with McGraw and Robinson among the minority investors." On the same page, "McGraw and his associates, who by the end of 1901 included a new president and majority stockholder, John K. Sonny Mahon, certainly knew that Baltimore's days in the AL were numbered. Johnson's grand design, going head to head with the NL in as many cities as possible, required a franchise in New York." p. 37 talks about McGraw getting out of his contract with the Orioles - "This he accomplished by reminding the board of directors that he had $7,000 coming for club expenses that he had paid out of his own pocket and by offering to cancel the debt if he were let go." Then, "Not content with his escape, McGraw set out to destroy the Baltimore franchise. On July 16, Joseph C. France, acting for Freedman, who had financial support from Cincinnati owner John T. Brush, bought 201 of the 400 shares in the Baltimore franchise from Mahon, Kelley, and Rev. John Bolling. The mastermind behind the deal, McGraw even traded his half interest in the Diamond Cafe, a combination saloon-bowling alley-billiard parlor he owned with Robinson, for his partner's share in the Orioles, then included those shares to Mahon in the sale. For one uncomfortable day for the AL, the owner of the NL New York Giants held a majority of the stock in the Baltimore Orioles. He used the 24 hours to release McGinnity, McGraw, Bresnahan, Dan McGann, and pitcher Jack Cronin, and sign them for New York. Cincinnati's share of the spoils was Kelley, who became player-manager, and Seymour. As part of the deal, Brush also sold the Reds to the Fleischman brothers, who were friends of Friedman. The next day, when only five players showed up at the ballpark, the Orioles lost by forfeit. Johnson negated Freedman's purchase of the Orioles, assumed control of the franchise in the name of safeguarding the interests of the other stockholders, appointed Robinson manager, and had the other AL clubs provide castoffs to play out Baltimore's schedule... For the 1903 season, Johnson found a New York backer, Frank Farrell, who bought out the remaining Baltimore stockholders and transferred the franchise to New York." BRMo (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW! Thanks alot, BRMo. I'll go about researching those individuals and rework the page with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Season page game logs

I have a few questions regarding certain portions of the game logs should be included on the season pages. 1) the TV and radio stations. 2) the start time of the game. 3) Probable pitchers for future games. I think that all of these could be removed to get rid of extra clutter and unnecessary information on all these pages. LAAngels21 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of these things is "standard" and all should be removed. Probable pitcher is especially heinous because it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. — KV5 • Talk • 18:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The majority of game logs only have the columns: "#" (Game number), "Date", "Opponent", "Score", "Winning Pitcher", "Losing Pitcher", "Save", "Attendance", and "Record," with a few having "Stadium"/"Location" and/or "GB" (games back) columns. Only those that separate future and past game logs have TV/radio/probable pitchers. Most teams amalgamate past and future games into one log.
Edit (03/11/2012, 05:45): Forgot, and some also have external link boxscore columns. These I believe are useful as a form of verification for every game, despite the fact that they are usually not listed as references.
RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 05:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at 2012_St._Louis_Cardinals_season#Cardinals_Record_When. Has this ever been included on a season page before, as the editor says in the edit summaries? I don't think it has been. Is it overkill? I think it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Also 2012_St._Louis_Cardinals_season#Scoring by inning. Do we need/want this? Is it going to provide any meaningful context? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Player article names

This is more of a heads up. At tennis project the guidelines and consensus is that we name our player articles based on English sourcing such as newspapers, ESPN, Wimbledon, ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals), and especially the ITF (International Tennis Federation) which is the governing body for tennis rules and such. This is under extreme duress right now by a group of editors determined to use birth-names and foreign spelling regardless of how the English sources and ITF spell their names. Our conversations are spilling into baseball and the fact that your guidelines state that "The title of an article for a baseball player should reflect the name they most commonly went by during their career. Informally, the name that appeared on a player's baseball cards should serve as the article's title." The name "commonly gone by in a career" or "player's baseball card" dies not sit well with some. If our guidelines fall, I'm not sure how long yours will last. Maybe it will have no bearing at all. We lost a brutal battle at Sasa Tuksar, held one off at Sofie Lefevre, and lost another at Sasa Hirszon. We have retained Novak Djokovic's ITF and sourced name thus far after several tries to move it. If you want to have your player articles changed to foreign spelled birth-names rather than baseball cards sourcing or career names that's fine too, I just wanted everyone here to be aware that changes could be coming and as a member of Project Tennis I though maybe you would at least want to know about what's going on with our project. Our guidelines (guidelines), recent talks at Player names and recent moves at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Thanks and happy editing to all. I hear the Dodgers finally have a new owner. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dodgers

Despite various people trying to change the numerous articles... the sale of the Dodgers has not gone through yet so all Ownership lists should still list Frank McCourt... and after it does Mark Walter of Guggenheim Partners is going to be the controlling owner, not Magic Johnson. Spanneraol (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed your reversions on my watchlist. Page protection is probably needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cy Young

An editor is making unsourced changes to Cy Young's number of career losses. Can others take a look? I'm offline for a couple of days. —Bagumba (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as FYI, the editor Nutsabout-whatever keeps changing Young's loss total from 316 to 313. According to Retrosheet, it's 316.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor league player sorting

Good day all. While going through some of my subpages for clean up, I found User:Kelapstick/Sandbox again. It was used to sort a mass creation of minor league players by Gjr rodriguez (talk · contribs) a few years back. The list was updated by by myself and Fabrictramp at the time, but others also updated it as discussions, deletions, and keeps took place. Personally I have no use for it any more as I have not done any serious work on it since 2009. Is it of any use to you folks any more? If so I can move it over to a baseball subpage, if not I can have it deleted. Cheers. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Montreal Expos

This seems like deja vu somehow... But what, pray tell, are they doing in "Category:Defunct Major League Baseball teams"? Looking through that list, every team there actually is defunct... except the Expos. There's no St. Louis Browns (now Baltimore Orioles); no Brooklyn (now L.A.) Dodgers, no N.Y. (now S.F.) Giants, no Washington Senators (now Minnesota Twins and Texas Rangers). Only the Expos (now Washington Nats). What's up with this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The other articles were redirects to other articles, in some cases the active franchise. Likely nobody thought to have an active team article categorized as defunct. I have added the category to the redirect pages, and they are now at Category:Defunct Major League Baseball teams (redirects are in italics).—Bagumba (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think his point was that they should be added to the other teams, but that the cat should not be on the Expos... None of these teams match the definition of "defunct" since they are all still in operation. Spanneraol (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso (talk · contribs)'s edit at Montreal Expos said "the team is defunct...the franchise is not...the category is defunct mlb teams...not defunct mlb franchises." If the consensus is that the category should not include franchises that moved, the category should be renamed or at least noted in the category's description. For what it's worth, Category:Defunct National Basketball Association teams has moved teams (either intentionally or not).—Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Then some sort of standard is needed. The Expos are no more "defunct" than are the St. Louis Browns. No less defunct, either. They're the exact same situation: a team/club/franchise/entity moves from one city to another and changes its name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the distinction between "team" and "franchise"... they are the same thing.Spanneraol (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it either, unless he's thinking a specific name means a "team". But the term "team" is used as a synonym for "club" or "franchise" or whatever. Keep in mind that the actual "team" changes frequently, as players come and go. When someone says something about a "team", typically they're referring to the entity as a whole. Based on his kind of thinking, the "Florida Marlins" would be defunct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion is thinking of one "team" being in CITY1 and the franchise can move and become another "team" in CITY2. Of course, another definition of team is the different rosters that are fielded each season. If some see "team" and "franchise" as being the same while others see them as different, perhaps the compromise is to simply change the category to Category:Defunct Major League Baseball franchises—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Which would be the same list except the Expos would drop off of it, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we want to distinguish between defunct franchises (i.e. not playing anywhere) versus relocated franchises.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a category for transferred clubs, if there isn't such already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, with all the parent categories that use "team", it might be best to just add the description to Category:Defunct Major League Baseball teams that relocated teams do not apply. "Transferred" could apply to ownership, so I'd still prefer "relocated" if a new additional category is created.—Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "relocated" is fairly unambiguous, given that it refers to cities or metro areas. That is to say, the Marlins "relocated" to a new park this year, but that doesn't really count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to provide descriptions in the category.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All of this discussion misses the main point: why do we treat Montreal Expos differently than New York Giants (NL), Brooklyn Dodgers, St. Louis Browns, Washington Senators (1901–1960), Washington Senators (1961–1971), Boston Braves, Milwaukee Braves, Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics, Baltimore Orioles (1901-1902), etc. Only the Seattle Pilots are treated similarly. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a long-term sore subject, frankly. As regards the Pilots, the poor schmos only lasted one season before moving to Milwaukee. Ball Four, while centered on a bio of Jim Bouton, also provides perhaps the only detailed look inside that ill-fated team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember. I still think that the status quo is not acceptable. That Seattle Pilots article I think deserves some looking into. It was only one season and one book. The article has no citations and one editor reversed a redirect on his own. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles like Montreal Expos could be warranted when they are WP:SPINOUTs with details that would otherwise be undue in a larger article.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

They are also warranted because the team has a high relevance to WP:CANADA and its history. This project doesn't have exclusive ownership of articles, and we've fought this battle a dozen times before. It is time you just accept what is, Muboshgu. Reso lute 01:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a unique situation, if you consider the importance of the Dodgers to Brooklyn. If their article is titled "History of", I don't see why we don't simply rename it History of the Montreal Expos for consistency. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a terrible naming convention? Why don't you just rename the others Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants, etc? Or better yet, why don't we just leave well enough alone? Reso lute 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's so terrible then those team articles should all be redirected to the current team names. If a company changes it's name and relocates, it's still the same company. Same owners, same workers, same management. Why have two articles on the same company?JOJ ^Hutton 13:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you've got the stomach for looking through the archives (and I certainly don't), I think you'll find that the "History of..." previous city+name articles were written as spinoffs of the "History of..." current city+name... presumably because the articles were getting too large. In the case of the Seattle Pilots, there was not much history to write about. The Expos were kept as a main article, as a compromise with the Canada project folks, and the "History of..." redirects to it instead of the other way around as with the other teams. I see the Expos are in a category called "Defunct sports teams in Canada", and I could argue that that's fair, as they are no longer a team in Canada. But they are not a defunct major league team, any more than the Washington Senators are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Expos. The Pilots situation is confusing though. There are about 4 separate articles all about the Pilots alone. It makes no sense. JOJ ^Hutton 13:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is titled "Montreal Expos" instead of "History of Montreal Expos" as a nod to the Canadian fans. That does not justify lumping them in with actual defunct ball clubs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That I do tend to agree with. I think something like category:Relocated baseball teams would take care of the issue. There are plenty of relocated teams at all levels that have articles. Reso lute 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I really didn't want to resurrect the issue of the name of the Expos article. But I go along with that category. I'd like to hear what others have to say before I go creating it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And we could do likewise with other sports teams. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Seattle Pilots issue was discussed here, some months back. It was decided to redirect the article and it was redirected, but another user restored the article and Djsasso commented as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm done talking about the Expos, other than to say it should be uniform, and in that case maybe History of the Brooklyn Dodgers should be moved to Brooklyn Dodgers, and all the other ones likewise. Regarding the Pilots, should we reredirect it? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISE, prepending articles with "History of" seems unneeded.—Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Go back into the archives a year or two or three, and you'll see how that was arrived at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed when Bagumba added a similar talk section to WP:NBA that there are still articles for Seattle SuperSonics and Vancouver Grizzlies. WP:HOCKEY still has Quebec Nordiques, but also US-relocated teams like Minnesota North Stars, Colorado Rockies (NHL)], Atlanta Thrashers and Atlanta Flames, so that's not just a compromise with WP:CANADA. WP:NFL does the "History of" thing for relocated teams. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well in the Dodgers case I wanted to get all the long history stuff off the main page so I split it out into two articles on the History of Brooklyn and the History of LA... Would prefer they keep the history of to stay consistent with one another.Spanneraol (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wanna fix those problems? Treat the bleeping Expos & Pilots, the same way you're treating the other re-located franchise/team's past incarnations. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I get why the Expos are treated differently. In addition to the WP:CANADA excuse and the fact they act as a "History of" section without actually having "History of" in the article header, they were also the only MLB team moved in the Wiki era to date. That said, why are the Pilots treated as a separate article or even history article? I mean they only existed for one inglorious season where the only history they made was playing in the stadium with the wrost plumbing in MLB history... they should be folded into the Brewers as they're barely notable. Gateman1997 (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Pilots are of minor consequence to the Brewers, and should rightfully not get much mention in the Brewers article per WP:UNDUE. However, if enough sources and text can be written to justify a standalone article per WP:GNG that are not contrary to WP:AVOIDSPLIT, I see no harm in having the separate article.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, though as others have noted, there are probably too many articles. Certainly I see no reason why 1969 Seattle Pilots season couldn't be merged into Seattle Pilots. Reso lute 23:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Because then it would be the only Major League season in history to not have a season page. Makes more sense to merge the other way.Spanneraol (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

To those above not understanding the different between franchise and team as has come up in many discussions in the past. A franchise is just the "slot" or the legal right to have a team in a league. The Expos and the Nationals are two different teams that used the same franchise to take part in MLB competition. That many people often confuse the two to mean the same thing does not make them so. That being said its ridiculous that you would try and cram 50 years worth of history into a single article on the Nationals instead of using Summary Style and splitting them out. The only reason the old teams are stuck that way is because they moved before there was a wikipedia. Pretty much all of the teams that have moved since wikipedia existed in all the big 4 sports have separate articles because it is commonsense to do so. In doing so you get more information on each era of the history of the franchise and you make the experience better for the readers. It always baffles me that there is such a resistance among baseball editors to make things easier for readers and to provide more information instead of less. -DJSasso (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with that interpretation of "team" vs. "franchise". I think the Expos and the Nationals are the same team, just in different locations at different times. Same for the New York/San Francisco Giants, Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers, etc. They didn't fold the team and start it anew, they just moved it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

But if a reader enters the old name, it is likely they are only interested in the era that the team was in a given city. If not, the lead will direct them to the current article. When there is enough information, I have no problem with an article that only deals with a franchise's time in a prior city.—Bagumba (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that. If a person wants info on the old team, they should get it. I'm not even suggesting merging the Expos page into the Nationals page. I'm just saying that we should standardize things somehow, I'm not even suggesting how at this moment. I still find Djsasso's distinction between "team" and "franchise" to be his opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge the Expos with the Nationals, as it's the same team. Let's put Baseball ahead of countries, PLEASE. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

While some might be motivated by nationalism, I think it is just consistent with WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOUT.—Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's inconsistent & down right annoying, when compared to the other MLB team articles. We should also merge the Seattle Pilots & Milwaukee Brewers. The only other alternative would be to divide all the other MLB team articles, which went through re-locations. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso: You may be technically correct on teams vs franchises, but would you support a new category Category:Relocated Major League Baseball teams that most will intuitively understand and is consistent with most existing categories that refer to teams and not franchises. Either way, would like to gain (unanimous) consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I understand the distinction that Djsasso was trying draw between teams and franchises, I certainly agree that they are different concepts. A franchise is defined as a right or license granted to an individual or group, such as the right to operate a team in a sports league. A team that switches leagues, such as when the Pittsburgh Alleghenys moved from the American Association to the National League to become the Pirates, loses its franchise in one league and gains it in the other.

"Team" seems trickier to define. The common meaning refers to the players. Since the Nationals retained all of the Expos players except those who were traded or became free agents, I think it's reasonable to say that the Expos and the Nationals were the same team in a different location. On the other hand, "team" is sometimes used to refer to the company or entity that owns and runs the team (for example, when we refer to "team versus player"). In that sense, the Washington Nationals Baseball Club, LLC is clearly a different entity than the company that ran the Expos. On the other hand, unless team is organized as a corporation, according to this definition the "team" would change every time there's a change in ownership, which I don't think would be a very useful definition. Finally, I think it's possible to define a "team" in a cultural sense as the institutional identity adopted by the organization, including things like location, nickname, uniforms, logos and trademarks, and communication by the team about its history and identity in such forms as media guides, retired numbers, historical information shown on the team website, etc. When baseball teams have moved, some have clearly chosen to retain their historical identities (for example, the Dodgers, Giants, and Braves), while others have chosen to dissociate themselves with their previous identities (for example, the Nationals, Orioles, and Brewers). Maybe this is what Djsasso means when he says the Expos and Nationals are two different teams.

Also, I very much agree with Djsasso that it would make sense to split out articles about earlier versions of teams, and to name those articles with their common names, rather than "History of..." That's the way the rest of Wikipedia operates. For example, there are separate articles about Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul, rather than one huge article or separate articles with "pointy" names (such as History of Istanbul when it was known as Constantinople). I can remember, before I became an editor and was still just a reader here, feeling frustrated when I would click on a wikilink for St. Louis Browns and be taken to the article for Baltimore Orioles. It's just putting up a barrier for the reader in getting to the information that he or she wants to read. I think we'd be doing a service for our readers if we created separate articles like Boston Braves or St. Louis Browns, which each tie into the main team article. BRMo (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically the last part of your comment is what my opinion on the situation is. I know I would be very frustrated typing in St. Louis Browns and being sent to the Orioles page when what I wanted was information on the Browns. I certainly agree they are indeed the same franchise or team or whatever you want to call it. It just seems to me that the baseball project is out of step with the rest of wikipedia in this regards. The Istanbul example is a perfect example of how its handled elsewhere on the wiki per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. In other words all the teams that have moved should be spun out to their own articles without the pointy titles for consistency. After all it is done with many if not most minor league baseball teams already, it seems its just the handful of major league teams that don't do it yet. As for the alternate category name as suggested above, that would work for me. -DJSasso (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with you... typing in the St. Louis Browns should take you to the Browns section on the Orioles page.... then you quickly find out they are the same team. Separating the teams makes no sense... cause they are the same team and pretending that they dont have continuity is silly. I remain in disagreement with you over this. Spanneraol (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This in no way pretends there is no continuity, you state right in the lead that the team moved to Baltimore and continued as the Orioles. Having to squish information into one page which in the end results in cutting information. And making the reader have to look through an entire page of information that might not be relevant to what they are interested in makes things unnecessarily harder for the reader. That this somehow makes people think there is no continuity is ridiculous when it will say so right in the lead that it does have continuity. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

game details

I've noticed that User:Gibberish77 is adding lots of unnecessary game details into player articles... how various players did on opening day this year doesn't necessary need to be in their articles unless it was their first game or they did something really notable. Ian Desmond and David Wright may have had good games, but is it worth noting in the scope of their careers? Spanneraol (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed whoever's edit that Jose Bautista hit a home run on Opening Day. Good for him, but so what? WP:RECENTISM trumps daily updates. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And the additions are made with the always-terrible "On date x, y happened" style.

Facepalm Reso lute 17:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Proseline is the worst. What really kills me is that we have all these stubs that need expanding, and crucial articles needing work, yet we have people who only care about these silly little stat updates. They update pages like List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters‎ and it provides nothing that isn't already done by MLB.com, ESPN, BR, etc. ad nauseam already do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A numerically-named editor has taken it upon himself to update the won-loss record of new Cardinals manager, Mike Matheny's article, on a daily basis. Good luck with that.Orsoni (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anybody have a Newsbank subscription?

I'd like to know why Craig Heyer was ruled ineligible in his sophomore year at the Community College of Southern Nevada.[5] Could be a good DYK hook. Does anyone have full access? I can only read a cutoff blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's available free at http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Apr-01-Sat-2006/sports/6657394.html. Whenever I find paid sources on Google News, it never hurts to do a search on a snippet of the preview in general Google to see if a free version exists.—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's genius. I'll be sure to do that in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

OMG that's hilarious. They go Craig Hower was.... Then want to you to sign in to find out. What a cliffhanger. JOJ ^Hutton 19:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Atlanta Braves season#Game summaries

I'm attempting to write detailed game summaries for the 2012 Atlanta Braves season article. After using the first series as a test of what I want to do, I'd like some feedback. I feel that I may have written too much. Extrapolated over the entire season, writing that much detail might be way too excessive. Should I cut down on how much is written in the future or would the current level of detail be okay? Also, should I break the prose into a series-by-series basis like such? Thanks for any replies. BBQ (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Usually we are against game by game summaries in prose here, unless the game is notable for a particular reason like an no-hitter. We are dealing with 162 games, which makes each page unmaintainable. Not a good idea. Secret ^account 22:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a bit much. Noting a couple sentences about a series is entirely fine, but keep in mind the article's already 22kb of prose; if we have pieces that size for each series over the course of a season, we're easily talking about a 80-90kb article not even counting the tables. Detail's good but let's not go overboard. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There is some discussion in this thread, and a pointer there to another discussion. Some people like having a summary of every game; others don't. (Personally, I believe season summaries from reliable sources should be used to determine the notable events for a season, just as reliable sources that summarize an election campaign are used to determine the notable events for an article on the campaign (every single campaign event, though individually covered in reliable sources, isn't notable in the context of the overall campaign).)

I tend to cover all of the regular season games in the Dodgers season articles, but you should try to keep it to 1-2 sentences per game otherwise it will be way too large by the end of the season.Spanneraol (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Hall of Fame task force


	Hello, WikiProject Baseball/Archive 29 members. Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Baseball's Hall of Fame task force. We are dedicated to improving articles relating to baseball Halls of Fame around the world, including their inductees. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to our members page. Happy editing!

The Hall of Fame task force is up and running! Those of you with Hall of Famers on your watch list might notice that I've been tagging articles, starting with the National Baseball Hall of Fame and it's members. Please think about joining the task force. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Spring Training Game logs

I'm not a big fan of game logs at all.. but the spring training ones really serve no purpose since the game stats are not notable and no one really cares after the season starts. The 2012 Braves & Cardinals pages are using these already.. not sure about other teams, but can we get a consensus on the notability of these things. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm wholly against them. Preseason baseball isn't about the results, it's about the process, and watching baseball for the first time in months, played in sunny and warm locales while most of us are still in the cold. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's part of the scope of a "season article." These Spring Training box scores and records are kept officially on MLB.com back to at least 2006. If the editor (in my case with the Braves) wishes to spend their time to incorporate this information into the season article, then it should be allowed. It should by no means, however, be a required part of a season article. I use the same argument for regular season game logs. If there is an editor who is able and willing to add this information, then it shouldn't be prohibited to add it. Certainly not every season article will be exactly the same and trying to standardize them when a different editor does each page (oftentimes a fan of that team) would be impractical and likely impossible. I find an Atlanta Braves Spring Training game log useful as a fan of the Braves and I'm perfectly willing to utilize my time to add it into the article for future reference.BBQ (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There should be uniformity across all team season articles, though, and this likely won't be added to the other 28. Plus, even though these box scores and records are in reliable sources, I'm feeling a bit of WP:NOT#STATS with all of these game logs, especially the ones for games that don't count for anything, as there is no context for W-L records in spring training. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For sake of discussion, the following articles are using Spring Training game logs this year: Red Sox, Angels, White Sox, Braves, and Cardinals. Other articles have used a ST game log in the past. In terms of uniformity, I agree to a certain extent. Certainly there needs to be a uniform navbox and the same general content ought to be included, but standardizing other information will never be possible. Making every article like 2011 Dodgers is simply not possible. To reach uniformity on all 30 articles, much of the information on that article would have to be removed to reach uniformity with, say, 2011 Astros. Or, of course, we'd have to transform the Houston article into the Dodgers article. Again, not practical. I believe the addition of a Spring Training game log follows the same logic. Additionally, I do not feel that WP:NOT#STATS applies here. The information given is organized and, most importantly, concise in a table, exactly what NOTSTAT pushes for. As I link in the Braves ST game log, each game has the same box score as any regular season game and Spring Training standings are kept here. BBQ (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course not all season articles will be equal in terms of quality or depth, some teams and/or seasons are of greater importance to editors, but they should be equal in basic content. I find it interesting that you held up 2011 Los Angeles Dodgers season as an example of a good season article, as it doesn't have a game log for spring training. I also notice that 2012 Atlanta Braves season has a section for spring training that mentions dates, NRI's and such, all of which I agree is relevant to the season article, but no game information for the games played to this point. What I mean by citing NOTSTATS is in this sentence: "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. It's not simply about how the data is presented, but what the context is of that statistical information. Regarding the regular season, a table displaying the game-by-game results of the 162 game regular season, possibly excessive, at least benefits from the prose sections that discuss the season. Unless you're planning on writing paragraphs about the Braves' spring training results (which I think we all agree would be a waste of time), the spring training game log has no context in prose, and therefore fails NOTSTATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, you've convinced me. I see what you mean with NOTSTAT, and that does seem to be violated here now that I understand your reasoning. I have no desire to write about these Spring Training games and doing so would indeed be pointless. I find the information in a Spring Training game log useful as a fan, but I suppose it really isn't noteworthy enough if I (or anyone in their right mind) won't even write about them. I'll wait to see what other editors say before removing the game log on the Braves article. By the way, I cited the Dodgers article because the original editor that started this discussion wrote it. BBQ (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the application of NOTSTAT (and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for other articles not justifying this use). The spring training games hold no real particular notability, the results are meaningless, etc. The result of an individual game may be worth mentioning if it becomes relevant (a Spring Training record is set, someone gets injured, a brawl/rivalry starts up because of something, etc), but as a baseline matter it's just the kind of data that NOTSTAT says doesn't belong. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, BBQ, for having a reasonable discussion where other editors might've not been so cooperative. I went ahead and deleted the spring training game logs from the other season pages you listed above, as no other comment here in the last two days seems to imply consensus to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's no problem. I just took a step back and thought about it. In conjunction with NOTSTATS, there really is no place for that log in a season article. I suppose I hadn't thought about it that much before this discussion began. You'll likely receive significant backlash from editors from the other four articles, as has already occurred at 2012 White Sox. BBQ (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the same page here; I could not be more opposed to the addition of spring training game logs. If someone wants to add in a come sentences to the article about progress, position battles, then fine, but the logs are beyond pointless. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I could not disagree more with this "so-called" consensus. ST Game logs have been around for years and there is NO reason to stop now. You all may find the games meaningless and the inclusion of a ST game log pointless, but there are plenty of editors who disagree. Let's also not forget that EVERY major online sports service (including Major League Baseball) finds the ST information to be meaningful enough to include. I am of the persuasion that more information as long as it is factually correct and related to the article's topic is better. To be quite frank, I do not care what happens on other pages, but as long as I draw breath, my teams' pages will have as much information that I can possibly add and I will defend my ability to do so. --CASportsFan (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of the log though? Does anyone really care who gets the win or loss in a spring training game? The scores matter not one bit... and "plenty of editors"? Really... spring training logs didnt exist at all until a year or two ago and have only been on a couple of pages.. so I think thats an incorrect statement. They take up space that could be better used for prose. I think they should be removed. Spanneraol (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The point? The point is to inform on how the team did before the Regular Season in a nutshell. While I agree there needs to more prose on these pages (and I am trying to figure out a good way to do just that), not everyone has the time to go through and read every word on the page. The game log offers a quick visual on wins and losses and if there is something that interests the reader, then they can go up and read the corresponding section, or if there is not enough information on the page, they can click on the external link and read the MLB recap/box score. As for space, if a collapsable game log really taking up that much space where we cannot have more prose and a game log?? --CASportsFan (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You're describing the precise reason NOTSTAT exists. A reader's interest is not the test for notability or inclusion of information on Wikipedia. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I AM 100% IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THESE SPRING TRAINING LOGS. As a baseball fan they are important when it comes to position battles and for minor league prospects. There is a link to each game so you can see the stats which DO matter to the real baseball fans. Once the season starts the log is then collapsed so it does take up any space on the page. If a user wants to keep this log up to date on the page, what is the big deal? Again, I want to keep these logs as the are useful the the die-hard baseball fan and they do not disrupt the page. Thanks. --Carthage44 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The game logs give you ZERO information about position battles or minor league prospects.. information on that needs to be written about in prose.. the gamelogs only tell you who won the game and who the winning pitchers were, information that has no value in spring training. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The game logs are only a link click away and if you understand baseball, you can see who is or isn't playing well. Plus the logs also tell you who the winning, losing and save pitchers are. This logs is then collapsed once the season starts. If someone wants to update the spring training log, then let them. Simple as that. --Carthage44 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a potential compromise for those of you who wish to include this game log. To adhere to Wikipedia policy (NOTSTAT), if a Spring Training game log is included on a page, that page must also have prose that mentions each and every Spring Training game in that log. I find the thought of that tedious and completely unnecessary, but others may be willing to do it. If these games are important enough to include on Wikipedia, then you must also write complete prose about them. Without said prose, there should not be a game log. Does this seem reasonable? BBQ (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents: the project has two baseball season good articles that are specific to one team: the 2008 and 2009 Philadelphia Phillies seasons. I may be biased because I wrote and helped maintain much of the content in those articles, but since we have no team season FAs, these are probably our standard to follow. Neither of these articles contain game logs for spring training; rather, the pre-season is covered with prose in proportion to its importance to the season. Game logs for the pre-season are, IMO, undue weight. — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: I can understand the concerns that some may have about season articles not having enough prose and about some game logs not being continually updated. Believe me, I cringe when I see a game log that has been basically left to die as well. However, while I do believe this is an issue, I do not believe that the frustration arising from it should be spread around to those editors who do frequently and regularly update these logs, thus causing guilt by association. As for complaints about the lack of prose, I do agree that more prose could (and should) be incorporated into the average season article, but until a simple way to do that can be figured out, game logs are at the heart and soul of most of these pages, providing more information than exists in any other section. On many pages, stripping out game logs would leave them very small and invaluable, almost at a stub level. Personally, I take the more-is-better approach. If the information is, as has been previously stated, notable enough to be on every major online sports service and as long as it is verifiable, I see no problem in having spring training logs; as a matter of fact, exactly the opposite. If you can get a Spring Training score on your cell phone, why not on Wikipedia? Even more of the bottom line, however, is this: game logs, in one form or another, exist as a primary source of information on season pages across a smorgasbord of sports and a galaxy of different leagues, teams, and organizations. In addition, please, in future, do not assume that merely because no one has voiced opposition to a so-called "consensus" that the opposition does not exist. Clearly, it does. If this issue continues or ever reasserts itself, somebody could at least be kind to let us know so that we may voice our opinions BEFORE our logs are deleted, causing us to invoke more frustration and catharsis in these talk messages than would be there otherwise.

Thank you,
RedSoxFan274 _{(leave a message~contribs)} 00:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue isnt game logs in general (though I dispute your "heart and soul" analogy) but spring training ones... cause the win/loss records and game scores in spring training games have no lasting values. Winning the Cactus League championship means nothing... and giving those games prominent placement on these pages doesnt make since.Spanneraol (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

RedSoxFan274, I could not agree with you more. I am tired of people like Spanneraol deleting these logs with out a "consensus". I update the 2012 White Sox Spring Training log and keep it up to date. I can see if a log was created and by the end of Spring Training it was incomplete then sure delete it. If someone like me or you are putting the time and effort into updating these logs, then they should not be deleting them. There is a reason that MLB.com and other site keep track of the stats during Spring Training.... BEACUSE IT MATTERS! Carthage44 (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Carthage44, just because you or any other editor wants to put time and effort into something doesn't make it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Plenty of articles are written and deleted every day, sometimes many times, because someone wants to put time and effort into them, but they just don't meet the guidelines. In this case, game logs for pre-season games are minutiae that, in the grand scheme of things, really don't "MATTER", as you so eloquently yell, that much. Besides the potential for injury or position battles, which are easily expounded in proses, what effect, if any, do the games played in Spring Training, which don't always follow regular season rules anyway, have on the regular season's 162 contests? — KV5 • Talk • 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

After a quick read through this it doesn't appear there is consensus as it seems a lot of editors are still disagreeing on the subject. I Do agree that the season articles should be more than a collection of stats and game logs, but that doesn't mean that the pre-season and regular season logs and stats are not notable/useful. When supplemented with prose the game logs provide a comprehensive article. Also I see a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the arguments for and against game logs, but especially on the side against game logs, such as the few original comments using phrases such as, "I'm wholly against them." and "I'm not a big fan of game logs at all". Until a true consensus is reached the preseason game logs best be kept at the status quo than some being deleted and other editors undoing, then being deleted again- no matter what side of the argument you're on, that creates unstable articles. Spring training is pre-season and other sport Wikiprojects cover preseason events in season articles, there is no reason why WikiProject:Baseball should omit the preseason. Although the stats, wins, and losses don't count toward the overall records, the events of preseason affect the regular season and are part of the overall season. Preseason events in sports receive significant coverage by reliable media have a large interest among people. Events such as coaching changes, player injuries, trades, etc... that occur in the preseason also have direct implications in the regular season. All these type of events should be covered in the articles in prose form with the stats and game logs as supplementation. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not have to be unanimous, and my understanding of the discussion above is that, while there were some WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, there was considerably more WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Meanwhile, the fact that spring training results are legitimately meaningless, despite the fact that they get some coverage, means they are not appropriate per WP:NOTSTATS, as those tables present results as though they actually matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there are two sides to anything but as I pointed out I noticed more IDONTLIKEIT statements than ILIKEIT. Consensus does not have to be unanimous or even majority vote, but I don't see much compromise or consensus on this topic yet, and users on both sides of the subject seem to have strong opinions. WP:NOTSTATS really just explains what a lot have already said. The stats (preseason and during the season are fine if they support prose. The problem a lot of season articles have in many sports on Wikipedia is that there's just stats. The Argument for keeping the preseason/spring training stats, is that the preseason is a notable and important part of team's season and are useful in articles when they supplement prose. Personally, instead of worrying about the preseason game logs, all this debate would be best spent writing prose to support the stats for current and previous seasons and encouraging those who work on season articles to use more prose. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Having not commented earlier on this thread, it appears the main argument to keep is because the information is correct and some editors have the energy to support it. However, I haven't seen a reason why the information is notable.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable events occur in spring training and preseason, although game stats don't count, there's roster moves, staff and coaching changes, injuries (some season-ending), ect... that all have significant media coverage. In addition Spring Training games have broadcasts on Fox Sports, ESPN, MLB Network etc... Preseason is collectively notable as part of the teams' overall season. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes notable events occur in spring training but the game results themselves are not notable and thats all that is reflected in the log. Spanneraol (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's true, however there's very few cases in any sport where one game is notable, that's why the regular season, postseason and preseason game logs are gathered into one team season article. If the game logs and stats at any point during the season can supplement notable events, and can be useful than they should be allowed to be in the article. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing a key point here, though. While regular season games individually aren't notable enough for individual articles, unless something amazing happens, the win-loss results lead directly to postseason berths. Win-loss records in spring training mean absolutely nothing. You don't "win" anything for having the best record in the Grapefruit or Cactus Leagues. The statistics don't count to the individual players. The games are for tuneup and position battles, which can't be described in table form. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where are we on this? I want to see 2012_St._Louis_Cardinals_season#Spring_Training and any similar sections removed from this encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree but good luck convincing the guys that run the Cardinals page of anything. Spanneraol (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says we need to convince them? I know Katydidit is stubborn. Someone else should remove it from that page, because he automatically reverts any edit of mine he doesn't like. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

He does the same with mine... He has way too many stat boxes on that page too... but I'd settle for getting rid of the spring training stuff. Spanneraol (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposing the Hall of Fame task force

I believe we need a task force dedicated to baseball Hall of Famers. These are the most important players in MLB history, with the highest visibility. Many of them need serious work. I believe this can be achieved with a task force. It will be contained, as it won't incorporate a large number of articles, since membership will be mostly static and restricted. Considering Cooperstown, including inductees and balloting, this is less than 400 articles. Pages relating to the Halls of Fame in other nations will add a few more hundred.

Similarly, we should be showcasing the pages of HOFers that are in great shape. We have a number of HOF-related pages that are FA's, FL's, GA's and DYK's. Why not draw attention to that? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with an Hall of Fame taskforce, these should be the most important biographical articles we should work with. Count me in. Secret ^account 05:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, once you go back a couple decades, most HOF bios are as obscure as any other player from that era as the articles get very few hits, which is actually somewhat sad. That said, for an organizational suggestion, Leech44 put this list together for the hockey project: User:Leech44/Hockey Mountain. It would take some work for you guys to put together a similar list, but it does show at a glance which articles need the most attention. Reso lute 13:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I know you're right about HOFers of the olden days being obscure. Look at George Kelly (baseball) now, and before I started editing it. I can say the same for Jack Chesbro, Joe McGinnity, Roger Bresnahan, and Joe Kelley so far. Compiling that list will show us where we are. It'll take a little work, but I'll do it. Well, I'll create a similar list, I think I may take some short cuts. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I took your advice and created User:Muboshgu/Baseball Mountain. By all means, everybody go in there and edit it as you please. I've only stripped down the HOF table, added other important players, and added the statuses only for those I know off the top of my head. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we take it to mean that you've finished compiling the list? I ask because some of the "club" tables are not complete... is that because their names are in other sections of the page? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I finished compiling. Like the hockey page linked above, people aren't meant to be listed twice, so Hank Aaron, a HOFer with over 500 home runs and 3000 hits, is only meant to be listed once. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha - thanks for clarifying. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If for no other reason, compiling 'Baseball Mountain' is a success, because I found Travis Jackson, who I'd never heard of, and taken his article from a stub to a more than 5x expansion without breaking a sweat. A HoF task force would be a place for this sort of work to be centralized. One question though: should Frick and Spink awardees be included in this? I had totally forgotten about them until it just occurred to me. There are some awesome individuals on those lists, and a good deal need serious attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This at least gives me an incentive to start working on a couple more. Pushing Killebrew and Hornsby over showed me I can, even though those articles were already 80% set when I took them over. Only question is where to start; I have enough sources at home to do about eight or so different ones. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have almost every book source available for 75% of them. I really want to do Don Larsen, and I was also looking at Jackie Jensen, but a key article would be much better Connie Mack maybe? Ruth, Mantle? Secret ^account 17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruth and Gehrig are in fairly good shape, as is Mantle, so they shouldn't require too much work if you want to go to FA with those. Mack may take a bit longer. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been taking a mini-WikiBreak, but I can find a 19th-century HOF to work on. A while ago, I moved Dan Brouthers to GA, so I can find another. Sam Thompson could be a good start, and I could actually finish Amos Rusie. Anyway, good idea, hope people jump on board.Neonblak ^talk - 17:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I submitted the Hack Wilson article for GA status three weeks ago. If anyone has time to help review it, I'd appreciate it.Orsoni (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on this week's worth of discussion, and the help I've gotten in editing Baseball Mountain, it sure seems like there is unanimous support, or at least no objection, to the creation of a Hall of Fame subproject. I've drafted it here. So what's left to do before I go ahead and create it? Do we take a vote? Can I just say if anyone objects, speak now or forever hold your peace? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I been busy lately, but go ahead with the project, I will participate when I get the time, I been mostly editing watchlist from work. Secret ^account 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No objections in a day (well, eight days) sounds good enough to me. I'll get started on setting up the project page and requesting the edit to {{WikiProject Baseball}} today. We'll be up and running shortly. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We should move baseball mountain to wikiproject space, as it is a Wikiproject Baseball project of vital biography articles. I added Cy Young winners, about to add MVPs, and add a couple of players listed in top 100 all-time lists, and other players with significant milestone. Secret ^account 16:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, if anyone wants to try to get Barry Larkin or Ron Santo up to FA status before their induction so they can get on the main page that day, I'm willing to do a review fairly quickly once nominated. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)