Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 35

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 30

←

Archive 33

→

Navbars in standings templates

Okay, so I just created the Wild Card standings templates and...would anyone know how to get the navbar inside the header horizontally? As in, not floating above the table like {{2013 AL Wild Card standings}}, but not vertically inside the header row like {{2013 AL Central standings}}. Help would be appreciated. Thanks. T C N7JM 18:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it awfully early for that?Spanneraol (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Early? I think the Wild Card standings are a notable part of the team's season at any time of year. I don't see why time has anything to do with it. T C N7JM 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There are no standings yet...and why do you include the division leaders since those already have standings boxes?? It all takes up too much space on the season pages. Spanneraol (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason not to include the standings templates half a month early. I seriously don't see why I can't add them now instead of waiting like fifteen days. Also, the division leaders box is present to show that those three teams aren't included in the WC race, and no they do not already have standings boxes. T C N7JM 19:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Each division already has a standings box. You can see it right before where you put the WC standings. In fact you linked to one down below so you must be aware of them. Spanneraol (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not a "division leaders" box, as you stated already existed on the page. That's a division standings box. T C N7JM 20:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having the Wild Card standings this early. I look at the WC standings from day one so if the division standings can be there this early, why can't the WC?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Refocusing the question at hand, is there any way that navbar can go in the header row without screwing up the header? {{2013 NL West standings}} comes close, but the header is off-center. T C N7JM 20:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

fixed it for you. Spanneraol (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to fix it from being. It looks disorganized with the vertical navbar on the side. T C N7JM 20:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you want it to look like then. Where do you want it? Looks fine to me... matches all the other ones. Spanneraol (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks neat where it is in {{2013 NL West standings}} without the width:0em; in the div style, but that offsets the NL West header to the right. If it's possible to put the navbar where it is in that template, but without offsetting the header, that'd be cool. The fact that it looks like all the other ones doesn't stop it from looking extremely awkward and disorganized. T C N7JM 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The only difference between the NL West one and the AL West one was that the NL West title was not centered properly.. adding the width parameter fixes that... I can see no other difference. It doesn't look awkward to me. Putting it above like you did on the other ones looks worse because it doesn't seem connected to the box. Spanneraol (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Navbar}} doesn't play nicely with table cells. It looks just fine to have it outside of the table. If having it at the top is distracting, it should go below the table. –Fredddie ™ 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the navbars on all eight templates to the bottom of the table. It looks better than it does at the top and it doesn't fit anywhere in the table. T C N7JM 22:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but wildcard standings or anything requiring a daily update, would seem to fall under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:RECENT. I would think entering "wildcard race" into a search engine would get a lot of sites before listing a Wikipedia page, but that's just a guess on my part. Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, and if an editor is motivated enough to provide daily updates, then more power to them.Orsoni (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm up to it. I wouldn't have created the templates if I wasn't. T C N7JM 00:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

WBC Selection and Incorporation

I posted something earlier about this, but did not receive any consensus with my position so, in the spirit of consensus, I am asking for input again.

I feel WBC info should be included in a player's infobox for the following reasons: 1. Selection to the WBC is like selection to an All-Star game and ASG selections are notable. 2. Much like the FIFA World Cup, it signifies elite status from the country they represent. 3. We already list awards for players in multiple professional leagues (e.g. NPB-MLB), so saying it is only a MLB award infobox is incorrect. 4. We already make note of Olympic medals and similar amateur awards of notability on the international level.

I feel these reasons support inclusion of WBC selections into the infoboxes. Arnabdas (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The WBC status is already indicated by the navbox on the bottom... also in some cases such as the US team it really doesn't signify elite status... cause many of the top players did not participate. So i would be opposed to putting it in the info box. Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel that infoboxes should be the main source of information, whereas navboxes can be superfluous. That said, I believe it remains to be seen whether the WBC has staying power or is a flash-in-the-pan series. As per previous discussions here, infobox career highlights sections can become laden with numerous awards of dubious value.Orsoni (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Saying that one day the WBC may not exist seems silly. One day a lot of things may not exist. Right now, however, the WBC is indeed an important event supported by MLB. Much like selection to a national association football club is an honor, I don't see why this wouldn't be either ESPECIALLY when saying selection to an All-Star Game is an honor worthy of being included in the infobox. Only a fraction of players worldwide have been selected. I don't see why "Rolaids Relief Player" merits inclusion while the WBC selection does not. Arnabdas (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Rolaids Award is an MLB-sanctioned award. Making a WBC roster isn't an award. Many of the best players for each country don't participate, because of position battles in spring training or lack of interest. Making the All-Tournament Team could be worthy of including. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The WBC is a professional event and is sponsored by MLB on top of it. Your logic seems inconsistent to me. If you believe only trophies should be listed then why are All-Star game selections listed? Both the WBC and the ASG are meant for the best players for the constituency they select from (country for WBC selection, professional league for the ASG selection). If ASGs are listed then WBC selection only makes sense. Arnabdas (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding linked MLB seasons in player infoboxes

Please be aware of this discussion at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Years; reverts. This discussion grew out of a feature article review for an NBA basketball player Juwan Howard. Before jumping into the discussion, I suggest that you read the relevant MOS section, MOS:YEAR. As I'm sure you can see, this has the potential to significantly change the currently used year span conventions in the MLB player infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the way these infobox dates are handled by our WikiProject. Automatic Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Melky Cabrera

I am currently involved in a dispute with an editor at Melky Cabrera's page. Cabrera's infobox had listed two WS championships (2009 & 2012) before User:TL565 removed 2012. It had been previously added by an anon user which I reverted, before it was reliably sourced that Cabrera was to receive a WS ring and a full WS financial share, even though he did not make any appeaances in the postseason. Just for my own knowledge, do we list WS championships if a player receives a ring, or is inclusion based on something else? Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 01:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look in the archives, this was already discussed. A player should at least be on the postseason roster regardless if he gets a ring or not. Notice how he is not on the champions templateTL565 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you find the discussion(s) for us? Automatic Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 01:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Check out #Frank Thomas - 2005 White Sox. It's so recent it hasn't been archived yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_34#WS_champion_in_infobox TL565 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that this WikiProject has a problem sometimes with making the consensus crystal clear. I'm not sure that a clear consensus can be derived from the above. Perhaps we can accomplish that now. Automatic Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 01:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, it's obvious that you don't put a World Series title on the infobox if they weren't on the roster in the postseason. There are times where it may not feel as fair, such as the Frank Thomas situation, but that's how it is at times. If we made everything a case by case basis we'd be here all night. Wizardman 01:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Melky was also not on the 2012 WS roster. The team had the option of activating him and chose not to. I thought their decision to leave him off made sense at the time, and hindsight vindicates them as well. How can we add him to that template when the team purposefully kept him off? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, but how about a...

This is just a thought, but I was wondering what the level of interest would be in doing some sort of Baseball WikiProject Good Article Drive. This could either be done in a competitive format, or just as a collaborative "for the good of the encyclopedia" format, but either way, I think that now would be a good time to start devoting some attention to baseball player articles, especially current players who are entering their first few years of play as people will inevitably come looking to read more about them and if we put together some good articles, readers will be more satisfied. Therefore, I propose that we, as a project, do a good article drive of some kind. I looked at WP:BBAID which was evidently from about four years ago and there is some ground work there to look at if anyone is interested. Thoughts anyone? Go Phightins! 23:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be up for something like this. I had never seen WP:BBAID, but it sounds like a good idea. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 01:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User Muboshgu has created a Baseball Mountain list to try to promote Hall of Fame member articles to GA status. Currently, only a little more than 8% of Hall of Fame member articles have attained GA status.Orsoni (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of Baseball Mountain (and have been intermittently working on Pat Gillick) but I think that we, as a project, should strive to focus on some current players as when the season begins, there are inevitably breakout guys about whom casual fans know little and I think that having some information on this would be good for us as a project. In Go Phightins! world, I envision those working on this project identifying maybe two players from each team who are in their first, second, or third full season and, for the next two or three months, seeing how many we can get up to GA. Baseball Mountain is a great project, and that can be a focused collaboration of the project too. Especially the 2013 inductees like Hank O'Day. Go Phightins! 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just as an interesting side note, this WikiProject seems to have exactly 200 GAs at this time. Automatic Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have boldly created a project page here that gives my thoughts in more detail. Go Phightins! 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. I hope to have some free time to work on this in the near future. -Dewelar (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Now that we have a few people, why don't we start listing a few candidates on each team to be targeted for improvement. Go Phightins! 01:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be willing to jump in. I still have O'Day to finish up and my wikitime's extremely limited the next couple weeks, but I still have 15 or so Sporting News archive guys to plow through yet (no one especially notable else I'd offer them up). Wizardman 02:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Well, the project is now set up, so please jump right in and feel free to throw out some names from players in the other five divisions (I suggested some for NL East). Go Phightins! 02:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox field

The stat_year field included in {{Infobox baseball player}} would be less misleading if it was called the stat_date field instead. Is there any easy way to change it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 02:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Does an infobox stats update = a minor edit?

The heading is pretty self-explanatory. I'm not completely sure if I should or should not mark those edits as minor and with Opening Day close, now is a pretty good time to get that cleared up once and for all (hopefully). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 03:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd still prefer if those were only updated at the end of the season. In any event, I would't mark them as minor cause some update them wrong or forget to put the date and minor edits tend to not show up on watch lists. Spanneraol (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I myself wouldn't mark them as minor, as they are fairly substantial edits in my opinion. An update could also be incorrect, for instance; as Spanneraol stated. TB randley 21:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them minor either. I don't think any kind of edit to the infobox should be considered minor, as it's easily visible, but that's just me. T C N7JM 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I won't mark them as minor (although I may occasionally forget not to). Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 22:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ellis Valentine

I'm currently editing Ellis Valentine's article. There is no picture of him on this article, and I'd like to add the picture of him from his 1981 Topps baseball card. It shows him wearing the batting helmet with the half football face mask that he started wearing after suffering his fractured cheekbone. Anyway, how do I do it without pissing off the wiki-gods? --71.54.241.179 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC) J.S.

You can't. It's a copyrighted image and Valentine is still alive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Some eyes needed

This IP's contributions should probably be monitored. There is a lot of OR coming from there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted all three edits to Joey Votto and left a note on his talk. Probably just a newbie. T C N7JM 20:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will be all that is necessary. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 20:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fenway Frank.jpg

file:Fenway Frank.jpg has been nominated for deletion. Is there anything distinctive about Fenway Park hot dogs? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Twitter" parameter on Template:Infobox MLB player

I'd like to know, from whoever put this parameter on the infobox, where they gained a consensus for the move. I searched the archives here and couldn't find a thread. I must have missed the conversation. Albacore (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that the documentation for the infobox has been changed, but the actual infobox itself was not changed at that time, so I'm not sure if the parameter is supported. Do you know of any examples where this parameter has been used in an MLB player infobox for a specific article? isaacl (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be. I tested it here but it didn't work. I can remove this from the infobox until a consensus is gained, correct? Albacore (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, since it isn't actually a supported parameter, go ahead and revert the change to the documentation. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Albacore (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Play ball!

Kudos to everyone who kept that (2013-present) BS out of the infobox during the offseason. That was far less of a problem the 2012-13 offseason than any I remember here. Go Yankees! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Stat updaters, take your mark, get set, GO!!!! Actually we are short two stat updaters that we had last year, AutomaticStrikeout and Zepppep, so we may want to find a different strategy for that. If anyone still wants to join, the good article drive for younger active players has identified 60 articles that we would like to see improved, ideally up to GA, and only 6 people signed up so far to help, so feel free to jump right in. I know the drive page says that the time for improvement does not start until April 15, but there's nothing wrong with getting a head start. Go Phillies, and thanks as always to those of you who keep the drama away from this project. Go Phightins! 17:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm back now. Plenty of stats-updating to do! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 03:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1920 Chicago Cubs logo at WP:FFD

file:1920 cub logo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_5#File:1920_cub_logo.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

A file question

Suppose we have a picture of a minor league baseball player. In the picture, the subject is playing for a team affiliated with the Anaheim Angels (their real name). Specifically I am talking about this file: File:Sean Rodriguez - Salt Lake Bees Aug 2009.jpg. Would it be considered under the scope of the Angels task force, since he was in their organization at the time the file was taken, or should it not be tagged as such because the picture does not show him in an Angels uniform? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In a similar vein to your previous question on photos of Hall of Famers, if the Angels task force would like to do something with this file, then it is within its scope. If not, then there is no need. It's up to the task force to define what files are in its scope. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

True. However, I'm probably more likely to get a reply here than by asking at a task force talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 04:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, I imagined the HOF task force to include images of HOFers. I'm not involved in the Angels' task force, so I don't know what they have in mind. You can make an argument that it should include them, since those Salt Lake players are under contract with the Angels organization, but that's a judgment call. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Bots to auto-tag files

I've opened a bot request for approval here for a bot to automatically add {{WikiProject Baseball}} to talk pages of files that are included on pages in baseball-related categories. Your comments are welcome, and any help in assembling a list of categories to prowl through would be great as well! —Theopolisme (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

That would helpful. I try to do that from time to time with AWB, but that takes some manual effort. I would hope the bot can also recognize our subprojects/task forces and tag them, too, as appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

College Baseball All-Americans

In general, are College Baseball All-Americans considered worthy enough for an article? At one point, a user went through and added College All-American templates that have a lot of red links. I would like to try to get rid of some of those red links, but I'd rather not create articles if they aren't generally going to pass muster. Alex (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Only if they meet WP:GNG. I proposed adding them to WP:NSPORTS last year as presumed notable, and that proposal was shot down. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I imagine the vast majority of them would pass GNG. I'd consider them notable personally, knowing my track record that should count for something. Wizardman 03:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have always presumed they fall under WP:NCOLLATH #3, because they have "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team."--TM 11:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

While a POY would be presumed notable, I don't even think football presumes an All-American is notable. Though I agree a majority would be notable, GNG would need to be demonstrated on a per case basis unless there is consensus at NSPORTS.—Bagumba (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Being included on a list is not itself evidence that an individual "gained national media attention". I suspect many All-Americans may become notable over time as they turn pro, but the presumption of notability would require that we can believe the coverage of all-Americans is high enough to be able to make the assumption. The apparent number of redlinks in the template is not a good sign though. (And that, incidentally, is a good example of why I absolutely hate navbox templates for such fantasy teams). Reso lute 13:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

College baseball in general doesn't get that much media coverage.. Out here in Los Angeles, the UCLA & USC baseball teams only get covered in the L.A. Times during the College World Series and even then it's just small articles. I know someone awhile back was saying that even second team all-americans should be notable.. but I think most of the first team guys dont even have the coverage... definitely stick to GNG on these guys. Spanneraol (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the previous discussion at NSPORTS is here.—Bagumba (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

List error

Can somebody please take a look here and see if you can fix the error that is causing some of the information for Bobby Wallace not to be centered? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The parameter read "align center" instead of "align=center". T C N7JM 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We need core templates

Hey guys. I've noticed that a lot of stuff in this project is hardcoded when it could quite easily be otherwise. I propose we create core templates for things such as game logs and standings tables. What I mean by this, if you're not sure, is that we should have one set of templates that we can just add some parameters to and come out with a table. This would reduce the amount of data on a page, which in turn reduces load times, as well as make it much easier to create tables for things that appear everywhere in baseball season articles.

For an example of how this can be done well, look at {{jctint}}. With this set of templates, you just type the parameters in and you have an easy list of junctions in a legibly-formatted table for highway articles.

If anyone has time and is experienced in creating templates, I think taking the time to create core templates could be a great benefit to the project. Tell me what you guys think. T C N7JM 03:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. We do have some core templates already, such as {{Linescore}}, {{MLB roster}}, and {{MiLB roster}}. We could use one for game logs and standings. I'll work on the standings one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So, I just created {{MLB standings}}, but I'm having an issue with the "if" statements to get the optional parameters (beyond the minimum of four teams of the AL West before 2013). I tried it out at {{2012 AL East standings}} and it works other than that Boston disappears (though I wouldn't necessarily mind that actually happening...). Can anyone proof my work? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to be really fancy, then I wonder if you just enter team, gb, home_w, home_l, road_w and road_l and let the template compute everything else (overall wins, losses, winning pct). — X96lee15 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to create an abbreviation-defining template. That way, for {{MLB standings}}, you could specify |team1=HOU and it would output "Houston Astros", etc. –Fredddie ™ 23:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought about that, but it's a bit more complicated to code and I'm no coding expert. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Using {{MLB standings}} as a starting point, I created a sandbox Lua module to generate an MLB standings table that will automatically calculate winning percentage and games behind, and can support any number of teams. The syntax I chose is perhaps too concise, so any suggestions for a different syntax is welcome. Here is an example:

{{User:Isaacl/MLB standings
|division=American League East
|year=2012
|New York Yankees
|51|30
|44|37
|Baltimore Orioles
|47|34
|46|35
|Tampa Bay Rays
|46|35
|44|37
|Toronto Blue Jays
|41|40
|32|49
|Boston Red Sox
|34|47
|35|46
}}

generates

v t e American League East	W	L	Pct.	GB	Home	Road
New York Yankees	95	67	0.586	—	51–30	44–37
Baltimore Orioles	93	69	0.574	2	47–34	46–35
Tampa Bay Rays	90	72	0.556	5	46–35	44–37
Toronto Blue Jays	73	89	0.451	22	41–40	32–49
Boston Red Sox	69	93	0.426	26	34–47	35–46

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 35

isaacl (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Lua" means, but I like it. Wanna go ahead and copy your syntax over my start? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lua is a programming language; the Wikimedia software has an extension to support running Lua scripts, and just recently the extension was enabled in English Wikipedia. So if my version were used, changing the look of the standings table would involve changing code rather than a Wikipedia template, which might be a concern. The tradeoff is that the syntax for the template can be more flexible. See Module:Sandbox/isaacl/MLB standings for the current code, to get an idea of how hard it would be to change the table's appearance (note the module would be moved to Module:MLB standings if there is consensus to make use of it). isaacl (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Like AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I personally think the navbar looks better below the table, but the general idea is great. I don't think it'll matter much whether or not the templates are on Lua. As long as we can use them to easily create and update these tables, they'll be alright. Has anyone thought of what to do for game logs? T C N7JM 00:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added support for specifying seeds, as is done when the template is included in the season article, such as 2011 Major League Baseball season. This requires a "seeds" argument to be passed through to the helper template. I've also added support for a highlight parameter, to be used when the template is included on a team's season page, such as 2011 Toronto Blue Jays season. See the examples at the bottom of User:Isaacl/MLB standings/testcases. isaacl (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I updated the template (and the example above) to drop the overall wins and losses, as it can be calculated from the home and road records (sorry, missed seeing that suggestion earlier). isaacl (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. This isn't done anywhere else on the internet that standings are shown and, frankly, a reader shouldn't have to break out a calculator (not that it's hard math) to know the full record. T C N7JM 12:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said I dropped the overall wins and losses as parameters to the template. The output (as you can see above) continues to show this information. isaacl (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That was admittedly a stupid thought. I was probably a little groggy when I wrote that. Thanks for taking the time to work on this. T C N7JM 20:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've updated Template:MLB standings to use the Lua module Module:MLB standings, as well as the documentation to describe how to use the template in a division standings template, and how the division standings template is used in a team season article and the MLB season article. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to put the navbar below the table like it is on the 2013 templates? It looks good like it is there. It kind of looks awkward just sitting above the table. T C N7JM 03:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor moved the navbar from the table header to above the table with the comment that it made the table header row height bigger if the navbar was in the table. With Firefox, it did seem to make the header row height 1 pixel bigger. I have changed the code in Module:MLB standings to put the navbar back in the table header; if it makes any difference for any reason, it doesn't seem to have increased the height of the header row. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. It looks great now! T C N7JM 03:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've updated Template:MLB standings so it can be used to generate a division leaders table, as shown on the wild card standings template (such as Template:2012 AL Wild Card standings). See the documentation for details. I haven't figured out the best way to deal with the wild card race: the easy way out would be to require the "games behind" information to be entered in rather than automatically calculated. isaacl (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:MLB standings now supports displaying the wild card standings table, following the games behind format used on the MLB.com website. See the documentation for details and examples. isaacl (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to re-create the 2013 NL East standings template in my sandbox, but when I try to wikilink the name of the division, the navbar becomes an "Error: Page does not exist" message, and it's pretty easy to tell why. Is there someway you could fix this or make it so that the division name is automatically wikilinked? T C N7JM 01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The template has been changed so that division name is linked to the corresponding article. Note the documentation for the template lists the supported values for the division parameter. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. Do you guys think this is ready to be implemented throughout the project? T C N7JM 02:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are thinking of when you say "throughout": if you mean going back to previous seasons and changing their standings templates, I don't see a lot of value at the moment, so I suggest just changing the ones for the current season, and updating the team season articles to use the new "highlight" parameter (and down the road, changing the MLB season article to use the new "seeds" parameter as well). If the helper template is modified in future to introduce some new features that, for example, improve the accessibility of the standings table, then at that time it may be desirable to change the templates for previous seasons. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did mean only this season. I could fire up AWB and change all the templates to use the highlight parameter after I change the templates. T C N7JM 03:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The parameter could even be added before the standings templates are changed, and then after the standings templates are updated, the obsolete parameters can be removed from the team season articles. This would keep the highlighting in place during the transition. isaacl (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've already switched all the division standings (sorry) and am now working on the WC templates. I have one comment, though. The header "Wild card teams" should be all capitalized words (Wild Card Teams) like it is currently. T C N7JM 04:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I followed Wikipedia's guidance on section headings, which specifies that headings are capitalized like sentences. isaacl (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm pretty sure "Wild Card" is an official name, so at least those two should be capitalized. T C N7JM 04:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, |highlight=Baltimore Orioles isn't working for highlighting. Is this not what I'm supposed to use? T C N7JM 04:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed seeing that the wild card standings template is included in the team season articles with the team highlighted, and so in the documentation for Template: MLB standings I omitted the appropriate code to pass through the highlight parameter to the MLB standings template. I've updated the documentation and changed the Template:2013 AL Wild Card standings to support the parameter, to verify that it works with the 2013 Baltimore Orioles season article. isaacl (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright! It works. I'm going to go ahead and update all the season pages with the new and improved templates. T C N7JM 04:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! Go ahead and take a look. T C N7JM 05:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Error at the bottom of a season page

Hey. Could somebody check out what's up at this page? There's, like, a bulleted list in between the navboxes and...it looks weird. T C N7JM 04:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like something is messed up with the Indians navbox.... all that stuff should be in there but its floating outside. Spanneraol (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've discovered a similar error with the Colorado Rockies page. If somebody could find the source of the problem it would be greatly appreciated. T C N7JM 05:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

every Indians season from 2009 to today has the issue but not the earlier ones... and its the same Indians template that is on the earlier seasons so it makes no sense at all. Doesn't seem to be any difference between 2009 and 2008.. really weird. Spanneraol (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Our Good article drive

Hello everyone, To those of you signed up to help with the inaugural good article drive already, thank you. If you are not signed up, feel free to do so, or just to pitch in with one or five of the 60 identified articles from improvement which can be found on the drive page linked above. Please sign up for the articles you want to work on just so we can see who is collaborating where. Feel free to team up with others or to tackle them on your own. In any case, Wikipedia readers win by seeing good information on their team's new young players. We really could use your help, so please join us. Thank you very much.

Respectfully yours, Go Phightins! 02:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with Jeff Moorad

An editor claiming to be in contact with Moorad has been making some edits to the article. I've started some discussion threads at Talk:Jeff Moorad that could use other's input.—Bagumba (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I love the threat the editor left on your talk page. Consider it added to my watch list. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot to auto-tag files: your categories needed!

Hi all! About a week ago I filed a bot request for approval for a bot to auto-tag files that are included on baseball related pages (see #Bots_to_auto-tag_files, above). As the bot is going to be approved in the next few days, the next step is for me to get a list of baseball-related categories for the bot to go through -- since I'm not a member of the WikiProject, I thought it would be best to ask all of you for your thoughts. To clarify: I would like a list of categories that contain pages that embed baseball-related images. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping—any insight? —Theopolisme (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

TV/time

Hello!
I seem to be the primary editor of the 2013 Philadelphia Phillies season page. As you can see in this article, the schedule template has no place for TV and time.
Would you suggest that I use the colspan feature "spanning" across the Win, Loss, Save, and Attendance fields (as done on this page), or creating an entirely new column devoted to just this matter, or some other idea? Ben S. Henderson (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that we should be adding TV station or time of start. That info will become highly repetitive, and I don't see the encyclopedic value. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The info is also outdated and useless once the event occurs thus has no lasting value.Spanneraol (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If you use the colspan feature, then that information would only stay on the page before the game ends. Once the game ends, and the relative information is available from the box score, then that info would be removed, and the Win, Loss, Save and Attendance fields would be populated accordingly. Ben S. Henderson (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE seems relevant. I think WP is more suitable for updates that are likely to remain of permanent importance. Nobody will care anout tv/time once the game happens.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

With the time saved from these updates, more can be devoted to adding prose about the season like in 2012 Philadelphia Phillies season.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting... WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't cross my mind when I see the current structure here. I had created the page without tv/time info, and the editor who later put in this information is a seasoned editor with much experience in these types of articles. Perhaps I should discuss WP:NOTTVGUIDE in regard to that page on its talk? Ben S. Henderson (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion was more to get the most long-term benefit for your edits, and not to encourage new temporary TV listings that will only become obsolete. Trying to remove it, on the other hand, sometimes leads to ownership issues, and your mileage may vary.—Bagumba (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Listing saves leader in infobox

Regarding this edit at Heath Bell, do we:

Refer to a player as "NL saves leader" or "NL saves champion"?
Capitalize or not (i.e. "NL saves leader" or "NL Saves Leader"?

I would think it should be "saves leader" (don't hear "saves champion" used as much as "batting champion") and not caps since it's descriptive and not a proper noun. I didn't see any specific guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice. Also, I assume saves was not listed as an oversight, as looking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_32#List_of_honors_and_awards and seaching "AL/NL [statistic] champion", it appears most were OK with saves leader being listed in infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any specific precedent either, but I agree sith your rationales. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree the previous discussion expressed consensus support for including the save leader in the infobox, and have updated the player style advice page accordingly. I believe the term "save leader" would follow the pattern of the other achievements in the list. isaacl (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, singular "save leader" seems better than plural "saves leader" too.—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Input needed

I'm currently in the midst of cleaning up and adding refs to List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out three batters on nine pitches. I have several questions—Should I keep the game score in the table or should this be removed, since it is completely irrelevant to pitching an immaculate inning (i.e. one great inning does not determine the final score)? And should I include career strikeouts in the table? —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think both the final score and the career strikeouts numbers are superfluous. The first one has absolutely nothing to do with the feat the list describes, and the second seems needlessly complicated to update. T C N7JM 18:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Whenever a game is referred to, the score is usually of interest (even if it is mutually exclusive with the event). I would say keep it, especially since no work is involved. K/9 would be more relevant if something about K's is added, as some are relief pitchers with low total Ks. We could make it the K/9 for that season to limit updates.—Bagumba (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. Keeping the game score in the table actually will involve a bit more work. This is because Baseball Almanac does not include it, while Baseball Reference only starts covering scores from 1916 onwards. Does anyone know of any other reliable site that covers pre–1916 scores (e.g. Retrosheet, etc.)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspension

In the game log, how should a game suspension be recorded? (Phillies and Reds are currently suspended at 0–0 in the bottom of the ninth due to heavy rain; play is to be resumed today at 5:30 before tonight's scheduled game.) Should there be a footnote link in next to the score for that game showing that it was suspended until the next day? Ben S. Henderson (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Bot request

Could some project members stop by at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 3 to review a task affecting baseball articles? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Adam Wainwright

Looking for input regarding infobox stats - recently, I removed the stat ERA+ from Wainwright's infobox, which was re-added by User:Katydidit. I have never seen this stat in a player's infobox before (not even included in career leaders infoboxes Mariano Rivera, Pedro Martinez, Jim Devlin, etc.) though it is mentioned on some of their pages. Personally, I don't think ERA+ should be in any infobox, as it's confusing to the average reader to include traditional ERA and ERA+ in one box, in my opinion. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I like the advanced and sabermetric stats as much as the next Fangraphs reader, but your average baseball fan can be confused by this. Additionally, we shouldn't allow an infobox to fall victim to clutter. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of consensus, I'll state my agreement that ERA+ should be left out. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an edit summary might have made it clearer what your intent was. Anyways, I agree with the discussion, and have removed it.—Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Standings template

Hello, I've recently been updating the early Pittsburg Alleghenys seasons and wanted to update the season standings to the current template for using MLB Standings but I can't put alternate text for the link in the division field. I left it disambiguated on this template because I can't point the link for American Association to the correct century. Is there any correction to this or do I have to find a alternative way to display them? Thanks, B2Project^(Talk) 06:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a "division_link" parameter that can be used to specify a target article for the division heading in the standings table. See the American Association example at Template:MLB standings/testcases. isaacl (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, B2Project^(Talk) 10:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just a friendly suggestion: for consistency, you may want to modify the other team season pages that include the season standings templates that you changed, so that the "highlight" parameter is used to mark the relevant team. isaacl (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok will do, B2Project^(Talk) 02:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

gyroball

We really should get rid of this page or at very least edit it to make clear that the gyroball was a spoof that briefly blew up in the mid 2000s before petering out. If you read the article as it stands, you would believe its actually a real pitch. Py0alb (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Standings/stats update bot

Rather than having a bunch of editors update all of the various templates related to MLB, could a bot be written to do all of the work? Right now, Template:2013 AL Central standings is more updated than Template:2013 AL Wild Card standings and the section at 2013 Minnesota Twins season#Detailed records has no information. I feel like there are enough reliable sources out there that a bot could be written to find all of that information and update the various templates/articles. Ryan Vesey 03:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there similar bots out there that do daily updates?—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I was wondering how many of the project members here are interested in helping to start up a baseball task force at Wikidata? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not up to date on the latest Wikidata. Is is still limited to collecting interlanguage links? Ultimately, I wonder if it has any grand plans where something like baseball stats can be shared (overlap of team and indiv season stats, game logs, standings)—Bagumba (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Properties have been being added for a couple months now. I'm not sure about stats just yet. T C N7JM 17:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps some can say in a few sentences how WP:BASEBALL would benefit (admittedly being lazy and waiting for the sell job)?—Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BASEBALL would benefit because it would give Wikidata its own group of people working on improving items related to baseball. We could do stuff like update some of the items on players to use the "member of sports team" property and improve items about old seasons by adding the "home venue" and "team manager" properties. Stuff like that. I think Wikidata needs a baseball task force to do stuff like this. T C N7JM 18:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have created a Wikidata baseball task force. The main page for it is here. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested, but would need some guidance on what you're looking for — not really that familiar with Wikidata. Based on what you've posted there so far, is the value for "Main type (GND)" just supposed to be "person" (vs. sportsperson, baseball player or something else)? Which fields should be used on all players - examples of "correct" ones? Is there a list of incomplete players/topics to work through? I've added several fields/values to Tom Seaver if you want to take a look to see if I've done it right. Woodshed (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

We'd be glad to have your participation. I actually only started on Wikidata yesterday. I didn't know what I was doing at first, but I figured some of it out. I'll be happy to help you out on over on your Wikidata talk page. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way for Wikipedia to leverage the data from WikiData immediately i.e. can we get Wikidata now to put into Wikipedia. One example I'm thinking of is like how Mariano Rivera's career save total needs to be updated everywhere. Can we just update in Wikidata and everywhere else gets it?—Bagumba (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. As noted above, I just started on Wikidata yesterday. I don't really know how it is applied. I'd guess that TCN7JM might be a good person to ask. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball inaugural season team rosters templates

What is the purpose of these? Putting aside my personal hatred of these 'legacy roster' templates, I accept that the baseball project favours such navboxes for championship teams. But honestly, a roster navbox for an inaugural season seems to be neither useful nor desirable. Frankly, I don't see how a navbox for the 1977 Blue Jays is any less arbitrary than the 1982 or 1995 Jays. I'm inclined to TfD the lot, but wanted to gauge the project's viewpoints first. Reso lute 01:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Of any sport, I think I hear the inaugural season mentioned more in baseball, but that's probably because my team only dates back to 1969, doesnt have much history to talk about, and baseball is so slow that commentators fill the broadcast with tons of trivia. I can see how people might thinks it's important, but I dont think the need for a template is even comparable to a championship (no comment here on the need for those). No loss for me if they are deleted.—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is a non-notable grouping based on a trivial intersection—teams in their inaugural season. isaacl (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Resolute wanted to delete the templates, not just the categories.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No reason for these to exist at all.. anyone wanting to know who was on these teams can simply go to the appropriate team season page and look at the roster there. Spanneraol (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to duplicate the roster information. Although I understand why some people might feel more attached to the inaugural team roster, objectively if a navigation template is created for one season, then they ought to exist for all of them, and I think that this information would be too much for a player's article, and a duplication of the team season articles. isaacl (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if (once) the templates are deleted, the category becomes superfluous and will be tagged for speedy deletion. And based on the discussion here, I will TFD these templates, though probably not until tomorrow. Reso lute 22:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

TfD is up here. Reso lute 01:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

IRC

There is now an IRC channel for collaboration between editors in sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports ^connect. Cheers, T C N7JM 03:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

For those who are unfamilar with IRC, see the guideline on the chat process. Thanks Secret ^account 04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Notifications (aka Echo) is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

If you have questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Talk pages are being replaced by mw:Flow, not by Notifications/Echo. This may happen even sooner than the VisualEditor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox MLB player

To be grammatically correct, there should be commas after the years in the debut date and final date. You may have seen that that was the way it was for a while after I put in an edit request for that change to be made. However, recently another sysop has removed the commas. I would like to know whether or not you guys think we should have the commas after the years in those two dates. T C N7JM 22:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the exact debut and final dates are cluttery for the infobox, as they aren't core to a player's notability. I dont think any other WP is going to that detail in the infobox. I think the years in the career section is enough.—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is worth mentioning that debuts in MLB are probably more of a big deal than they are in other sports. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Though it is only tangential to this discussion, I disagree that debuts in MLB are a bigger deal than in other top-level professional sports leagues. Making the big show is a significant moment for pro players. isaacl (talk)

I kind of agree that, in my view, the debut and final dates aren't key characteristics essential for a concise summary of a player (as long as the player's teams are listed with the corresponding seasons), and so may not be warranted for inclusion in the infobox. isaacl (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

On a minor note, the edit didn't (appear to) account for only the year being provided for those dates, when no comma would be needed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the info box the way it is now... the comma just did not look right when it was in there.. and we need to keep those dates as players first appearances are very important. Spanneraol (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't clear this section of the infobox is being discussed here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion

I have opened a move request at Patrick Corbin's talk page. Any and all editor opinions would be appreciated. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to equally notify WikiProject Dance. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Brett Huber

This new BLP looks like a vandalism-magnet. If notable will need IP protection. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I took it to AfD. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Team minor league player articles and making individual articles

With respect to the MLB Team minor league players articles (i.e. Detroit Tigers minor league players), when we split out a player to his own individual article, I think we have to follow the split procedures (WP:PROSPLIT) in order to correctly attribute editor contributions per Wikipedia's licensing.

Also, I wouldn't be against eliminating the minor league player articles altogether. Either the player is notable and he has his own article or he isn't. But if we keep them, we should follow the split procedures. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite the same thing... as these players get merged from articles, moved to other team articles and then unmerged when the player gets released... It's not quite the same thing as a normal split. Having to attribute each page he might have been merged to would be quite unnecessary. Spanneraol (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If text is copied, the original editors need to be attributed. Per WP:COPYWITHIN, some ways to do this include a simple edit summary like "copied content from [[article name]]" or using {{copied}}—Bagumba (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah any time you move stuff from one page or another you have to at the very least put a comment in the edit summary of the page it was copied from. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As for deleting these articles, I would instead suggest moving them as WP:BASEBALL project pages. Its current format just doesnt seem very encyclopedic as a repository whose content is never really retained in the same article. It's more like news on the current prospects. Keeping a list of a franchise's annual top prospect(s), where the list grows over time and provides historic info, would be more suitable for a WP entry.—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

These pages serve as a quick overview of a teams current minor league system as they have all the rosters listed and brief bios of the more notable prospects. They were originally created after much discussion as a compromise between those who wanted all minor leaguers to have their own articles and those who didn't want any of them to. It has worked fairly well since then and I see no real need to change that. A list that incorporates all the top prospects from history would get a bit cumbersome.. if anything that info would be better on the season articles. Spanneraol (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Another move discussion

Over at Talk:Michael Morse. And yes, this time I have notified the other project. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 17:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

FLC review request

The List of Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out three batters on nine pitches FLC process is close to being completed and passed. However, since almost all of the comments have come from non-baseball users, I thought it would be great if a set of "expert" eyes from our community could give it a look. I want to ensure nothing is glaringly wrong from a baseball POV. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

AFD

Please check out this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Rapoport (2nd nomination)--Yankees10 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for input: Al Pawlowski AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Pawlowski. Please help generate discussion. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 19:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball umpires

Given this project's ability to produce Featured Lists, I'd like to see the List of Major League Baseball umpires be of a little more quality. I'd appreciate some help on this article. Some of the things to be done could include adding some pictures, expanding the prose (perhaps to DYK level) and making the list complete. AutomaticStrikeout ? 16:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

First thing I noticed is that this article needs a lot of work. There are a big number of umpires missing, and having the AL/NL/MLB split makes the list impossible to sort. Could be one that we all need to jump in on. Wizardman 17:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball League

I suppose this league is notable , but are the individual teams? I came on this from checking the article Baltimore Presstman Cardinals DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitting for the cycle

Mike Trout just did. In updating List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle, I edited the lede to update the number of cycles to 294. Previously it said 293. When going to make the coordinating edit on Hitting for the cycle, I saw that it already had the 294 figure. That article has not, as of this writing, been edited since 8 May. Which figure is correct? Is Trout's the 294th or the 295th? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but the Baseball Reference Play Index shows 239 cycles from 1916-2013. I counted the ones listed on the article page that occurred before 1916 and came up with 62, which would add to 301. Something's definitely off somewhere. -Dewelar (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the list itself should be numbered, the way List of Major League Baseball no-hitters is, to make this sort of thing rather blindingly obvious. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 15:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That 294/293 thing has been a problem at least since Aug. 18, 2012. And that talk comment is dated six days before Beltre's cycle. Oy. So we're at least two off.

Looking at the number we had two offseasons ago (cycles through the 2011 season) — as of Helpful Pixie Bot's edits in March 2012 [1] [2] — both articles said 293. This would suggest the right number is now 298.

Going by the list at Retrosheet [3] (which lists 301 w/o Trout), the new number would be 302. I've compared this list to the current version at List of... and it also has 302. Does anybody have a problem with me changing the number to 302 in both articles? Woodshed (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me if that's the case. -Dewelar (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, does this merit mention at all in Trout's article? The only other coverage I've seen is....Bleacher Report.... Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, unless and until the general media picks up on it and makes it a story. -Dewelar (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

One more while we're on the topic...should "roughly as common as a no-hitter" perhaps be revised to "slightly more common than a no-hitter" ? The two figures are about 8% different. That's not a tiny number. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I took a statistics course, so I could not tell you if such a difference is statistically significant, but I think that's probably the guideline to use. -Dewelar (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Same categories?

Are Category:Wilkes-Barre (minor league baseball) players and Category:Wilkes-Barre Barons (baseball) players referring to the same team? If yes, they need to be merged. If not, there should probably be hatnotes in each. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The categories already have hatnotes that refer to the years those teams played. They are different entities. Spanneraol (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead for Heath Bell

FYI

Could use some other opinions for the lead of Heath Bell at Talk:Heath_Bell#Miami_and_Arizona_in_the_lead.—Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some general consensus on whether or not the teams for which a person has played should be listed in the lead section. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice, I wrote the following, but it came from my survey of featured articles of baseball players, plus my own personal suggestions, rather than from any discussion:

If there are some particularly notable events or characteristics that epitomize this player, particularly if he is a veteran player, summarize them briefly in the first paragraph. If there are no particular highlights and the player has played for multiple teams, list the teams in the first paragraph, in chronological order.

Provide a brief overview of the notable events of the player's career (and any other events of historic interest). Describe the player's career in chronological order. Other events, such as the player's extensive involvement with a humanitarian agency, or other significant personal interests, generally can be noted after the career information. However, if the event relates to the player's career, such as raising funds for medical research after returning to play after an illness, it might be appropriate to include it within the career description.

isaacl (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems reasonable. However, I think a player with "no particular highlights" should just mention in the opening paragraph how many years he was in MLB, which (if any) team he spent the majority of his career with, perhaps the number of teams he played for, and whether he was generally a starter or a reserve. Listing every team in the opening paragraph, especially for a journeyman, makes for a bad read if the list is more than a few teams.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

How about adding the following:

If the list of teams is lengthy, limit the list to those of which the player was a member for a significant portion of his/her career, or with which the player is strongly associated.

Regarding providing an indication of the duration of a player's career, before I can make a suggestion, I'd have to do a bit more research into what existing articles do. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Tinker to Evers to Chance

In the past 60 days Tinker to Evers to Chance Baseball's Sad Lexicon set of WP:GAs has been completed. Hats off to Muboshgu (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to complete Baseball's Sad Lexicon next to make it a full Good Topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be cool if you undertook an effort to improve Harry Steinfeldt's article as well. He is the lesser-known, oft-unmentioned third baseman and fourth member of that popular infield. Alex (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking over those Cubs teams in the mid 00s again, it reminded me of how stacked they were. In addition to the four players above, there was Mordecai Brown, Orval Overall, Johnny Kling, Jimmy Sheckard, and many others. I may assist with Steinfeldt, or take on one of these others. Brown would be interesting.Neonblak ^talk - 02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If you guys check the Steinfeld article history, you'll notice I got it to DYK last year ;) I stopped at that, but may check it out again. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Another day, another content dispute

Over at Yan Gomes. I've been locked in a revert war with an anon who either does not speak/comprehend English or is choosing to ignore my warnings and discussion. Gomes, with relatively limited major league experience, has played 31 games at catcher, 21 at first base, 8 at third base, and 4 in the outfield (the last time I checked - the count may be off by one game). The anon insists that Gomes is a catcher only, where I have been re-adding the first base and third base positions to his infobox (s/he has now also taken to removing "infielder" from the lead). I blew 3RR probably 10 reverts ago so I would appreciate any editor input on the content dispute and assistance if available. Thanks. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well his MLB.com page lists him as a catcher and that is where he has almost exclusively played this season.. with only 1 game at first and none at third... I'd say he is primarily a catcher that has occasionally played other positions. Spanneraol (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup I would list him as MLB does for the reasons Spanneraol mentions. -DJSasso (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that Baseball Reference has Catcher/First baseman/Third baseman listed, and Fangraphs has C/1B. I know MLB has him listed exclusively as a catcher but I don't think that should be the final word on the subject. I think if the split size on positions were larger (e.g. 200 games catcher, 21 at first and so on) it would and should be catcher only, but since he has such a small amount of MLB service time, we should list the positions he has played frequently. Perhaps Catcher and First base, or Catcher and Infielder, at least for the time being. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 05:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Joe Mauer has played some games at first base this year, but he's primarily a catcher and always has been primarily a catcher. That's why it says that in Joe Mauer's infobox. This early in his career, if his primary position is catcher in the majors, which it is, then that's all that should be mentioned in the article. We don't need to list every position a player has ever played in the infobox/lead. T C N7JM 05:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Mauer has 879 games at catcher and 49 at first base (a split of almost 18 to 1) so obviously it should only say catcher. Gomes, on the other hand, has 31 games at catcher and 21 at his next most frequent position (1B) which is a split of roughly 1.5 to 1, which makes Mauer makes a poor comparison in this situation. I am fully aware that we do not list every position a player has ever appeared at in the infobox. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 05:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, though, Mauer isn't a poor comparison. Indians tried Gomes at first and realized they only needed him there in certain situations. Twins did the same with Mauer. The infobox for Yan Gomes should state that he is a catcher only since that is the position the Indians seem to have stuck with. T C N7JM 06:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think it's that cut-and-dry, but it doesn't look like I have much support so I won't get in the way anymore, but I do think the secondary position should be included somewhere in the article. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning that he's played different positions, just not in the lead or the infobox. T C N7JM 20:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Biogenesis of America

I created Biogenesis of America (surprise it didnt already exist), if anyone wants to expand and nominate it for DYK. I probably won't get to it. The bigger chore might be finding a non-negative hook for it. I imagine another article similar to BALCO scandal is soon to be created also.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

FLC review request (#2)

The Tip O'Neill Award FLC process is close to being finished and passed. One final look from our baseball community would be great. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Pythian Baseball Club.jpg

File:Pythian Baseball Club.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Standings Template Part 2

I am still updating the standing templates to the current format and have ran into another snag for Template:1890 Players' League standings. The issue is how do you disambiguate the the teams if a alternate link would be needed. I looked through the test cases and couldn't find anything. -B2Project^(Talk) 07:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can add a parameter to the template to allow a disambiguation target to be specified for a given team. However I'm not sure yet when I'll be able to get the time to do it. isaacl (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added support for a "team_links" parameter—see the revised documentation and the new test case I added. isaacl (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -B2Project^(Talk) 04:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Linking in the MLB Umpire template

I've discovered what looks to be a problem in the MLB Umpire template. In the Adrian Johnson (umpire) article, "Adrian Johnson" is linked to the dab page at the top of the infobox. I don't think this is supposed to be happening.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. I removed a piece of code from the template that caused those weird links to form. Essentially, if the umpire's name is undisambiguated (such as Fieldin Culbreth), there was no visible change, much like typing [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball]] on this page results in a link that looks like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. However, in the case you noted above, the code caused the template to assume his page was at the undisambiguated Adrian Johnson, and created a link to that page accordingly. However, now you can look at Fieldin Culbreth and Adrian Johnson (umpire), and notice the template doesn't make that erroneous assumption anymore. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 09:57, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Cap Anson's alleged Ku Klux Klan membership

The article about Tris Speaker says that Cap Anson was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, but I have found no historically accurate sources that say he was a Klansman. It says some suspect Ty Cobb as well, but this has not been proven. Is there any proof Anson was in the Klan? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia guidelines, all challenge able statements must be supported by cited sources. His SABR biography doesn't mention the Klan but, states that his segregationist views helped create the major league color line. Perhaps rewording the article to remove the Klan and replace it with segregationist.Orsoni (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It was Marvin Miller who made this claim. Did Miller hear anything from an accurate source? I looked at accurate biographies and found nothing. The only ones I have confirmed were members were Speaker and Rogers Hornsby. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Baseball's color line

Would the "color line", the unwritten rule that blacks and others with darker skin, not have existed without Cap Anson? I know about Anson's prejudices, but there were so many other racists as well. Anson was one of many who opposed integration in baseball and certainly wasn't the only one. Is it possible that some other prejudiced figures in baseball could have played a part in creating the color line as well as Anson? Are there any others who also deserve blame? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Rivera as the best closer

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Trevor_Hoffman#Comparison_to_Rivera. There is a discussion on whether it should be said that "most" hold this opinion —Bagumba (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There should be no question that both "many" and "most" are both weasel words.Orsoni (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo added to Bartlett Giamatti's article

I have started a discussion regarding a photo recently added to A. Bartlett Giamatti. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike Capel

Everyone is welcome to comment on Mike Capel, who I nominated for featured article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mike Capel/archive2. Thanks. Albacore (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Games on YouTube

MLB has an official channel on YouTube called "MLBClassics". There they have some games , like Game 7 of the 2008 ALCS and the Pine Tar Game for example, free to watch any time in full. How can, if we can, use this to better our articles? CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 09:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Hellweg

Can an admin please move John Hellweg to Johnny Hellweg. Thanks.--Yankees10 16:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Wizardman 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

score box

{{Softball Boxscore}} and {{Softballbox7}} have been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It would probably make sense to post that HERE rather than here. Kinston eagle (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Butch Hughes notable?

Seems non-notable to me but I don't know baseball thresholds of notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to qualify specifically under WP:BASE/N. He has been in the game long enough that there might be enough info on him to pass WP:GNG, but I wouldn't bet on it. Of course, it doesn't help that the entirety of the article is copied from an unreliable source. -Dewelar (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

He might meet criterion four regarding coaching at a top-league level. He joined the Rockies in September of last year as a pitching coach for a series against the Giants [4]. Albacore (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Presuming this quote from the linked article is true -- "...when the major league rosters expand every September, major league clubs routinely also promote their Triple-A staff" -- then I would say no. -Dewelar (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as despite the claim of the Baseball Reference Wiki under GNU, they are much more restrictive than Wikipedia, and under a completely different license than us (they have copyleft and we have sharealike). We can't import BR Wiki articles because of that. We have the same situation with Wikinews in which we can't import their articles because they got the same license and the other way around. Secret ^account 01:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is that something new? I've seen a number of articles copied from the bullpen wiki.. I don't see any restrictions on the use of their content. Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, what spanner said. We've always been able to use GNU licensed stuff, it counts as copyleft for our purposes. Plus Wikipedia was GFDL until only recently (I never realized they changed). I'm pretty well-versed in copyright and this is news to me. Wizardman 03:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

As described in WP:Compatible license, the GPL is not a compatible license with CC-BY-SA. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Copyright says, "...please note that you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL. In other words, you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license or (b) dual-licensed with the GFDL and another license with terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. If you are the sole author of the material, you must license it under both CC-BY-SA and GFDL." Also, straight from the FSF, CC BY-SA "... is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL." isaacl (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thats kindof nuts.. who wrote that policy? Free is free... Most people wont understand the minute differences between those difference licenses or why they were changed without notice. Spanneraol (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the FSF... GPL and GFDL impose specific restrictions in support of their goals. GFDL (which is the one used by the Baseball Reference bullpen) for example makes specific demands on specific sections in the text (such as "History", "Acknowledgements", "Dedications", and "Endorsements"). Since CC BY-SA doesn't have these restrictions, text only licensed by GFDL can't get reused in a work licensed CC BY-SA. isaacl (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the change to CC BY-SA, see m:Licensing update for the gory details. A site-wide notice was posted to solicit participation in a vote, as agreement had to be obtained to relicense all previous content (since CC BY-SA is not compatible with GFDL). (If I recall correctly, it is, to date, the only editor-specific notice that actually appeared in the header that is shown to all readers, rather than just being a global edit-notice as is the usual practice.) The "Questions and Answers" link in the infobox has a lot of good info. isaacl (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Per here, the text is under both CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Not sure why they only put one at the bottom, that's really confusing. Also since both are incompatible, that explains why both licenses are used here. Wizardman 15:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
From the point of view of contributors, they have to release their edits under both licences, and so the edit page has the following statement: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." From the point of view of re-users, since CC BY-SA is the less restrictive licence, it makes some sense to just highlight that one at the bottom of each page. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

KidGleason1919photo.jpg

image:KidGleason1919photo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Baserunners in Bailey's no-hitter

What's the proper value for that field on List of Cincinnati Reds no-hitters? Is it 1, or 2? Strictly speaking, two Giants did reach base, but there were never two on at the same time and Bailey only faced one over the minimum. The latter is how I interpreted the field when I first made the update. Someone changed it to 2, and I changed it back, but I'm no longer quite so sure what the correct value is. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO, it should be two, even though he faced one over the minimum. In any case, it should be noted in the key exactly what the column means to avoid confusion in the future. — X96lee15 (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is number of baserunners particularly significant in that case, though? Batters over the minimum definitely is, to see how close the game was to a perfect game (though even then, that's a little muddy in this case, because the way Posey reached on a fielder's choice would only have been a hit if the bases were empty). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the significance of either, but regarding which metric better reveals how close a game is to perfect: batters not retired, which is equivalent to baserunners, is a better measure. isaacl (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Though in case, Posey counts as "retired" since his reaching first was scored as a fielder's choice. Which brings the number back to 1. You can perhaps see why this is confusing me a bit :) Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 03:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Frank Robinson GABP.jpg

file:Frank Robinson GABP.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

MLB Attendance Article

Attendance figures are closely followed by hardcore fans and Wikipedia only has the last 2 years in it's article. That's embarrassingly sparse. That definitely needs to be expanded. Maybe even to all time attendance and an attendance record page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citylife80 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

visual editor

I know this isn't the right place... but i wanted to vent... I really really really HATE the new visual editor thing.. it's a terrible design and makes editing more difficult. I know you can click on "edit source" and all but i keep clicking the edit button by mistake and get annoyed each time... maybe I'll get used to it but right now it is very frustrating. Spanneraol (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it's garbage. You can turn it off here: Preferences -> Gadgets -> Remove VisualEditor from the user interface — X96lee15 (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't like VE either and what is just as annoying, WP changes my preferences or activates something without notifying me....William 00:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I just came back from a long vacation to see it implemented... It's strange. But it seems to me one of those "fear of change" things to disapprove of it. I tried adding wiki markup through it and it came out in nowiki brackets, so clearly I'll have to read up on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose if you are just writing its ok... but if you are doing a lot of work with categories or info boxes or stuff like that it seems more difficult.. more steps. Spanneraol (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Perfect Game List & No Hitter List

I had a question. I was going to post this on the List of Major League Baseball perfect games page, but thought it might get more input here. After Tim Lincecum's recent no-hitter, I was bummed to see that the tables for no hitters doesn't list the pitch counts. And for perfect games, the pitch count and strikeouts are listed, but not in their own column. It would be nice to be able to sort them by number of pitches, number of strikeouts, etc. etc.. I am more than happy to do the work myself to redo the page. (I'm not one of those people sitting here saying "You should fix this...".) I just wanted to get input. I'm not a huge contributor so I want to make sure that I don't go against the consensus. What do people think? --Zackmann08 (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Pitch counts are generally considered trivia, which "should be avoided." Most baseball fans couldn't give a damn about how many pitches a pitcher throw; the final result is what counts. Best example is Armando Galarraga — threw just 88 pitches and still didn't end up with a perfect game. On the other hand, strikeouts are a different matter and can be included. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Uniform number changes

What is the reason for uniform numbers changing more often in baseball than other sports? Players have changed their numbers in other sports, but it seems to happen in baseball more often. In 2012, Stephen Fife originally wore 56 for the Dodgers, but changed to 59 later in the season; and Dylan Axelrod first wore 39 for the White Sox, but changed to 33. In 2011, Francisco Rodriguez changed from 75 to 57, which was the number of Mitch Stetter, who was still on the Major League roster when the Brewers acquired Rodriguez. Can anyone explain this? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A gentle reminder: as you are aware, any edits you make should be cited to reliable sources and be given an appropriate amount of due weight. Your recent edits did not cite any sources (I realize the previous text did not, either, but nonetheless, you shouldn't compound the problem). isaacl (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Many of the things I have seen are true and came from watching games and looking at rosters. I will cite sources to prove statements. I have cited the Benito Santiago source. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the big well known phrases that is used on Wikipedia is "Verefiability not truth." It doesn't matter if we know something to be true, we have to actually have sources to verify it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What about Benito Santiago wearing number 09? Can that stay? It is cited. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Most career hits list

I'm working on List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits and I'm trying to bring this to featured list status. The numbers at http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable.jsp#elem= mlb.com] give a number for quite a few players that is different than in our current article. Should I follow that list? MLB lists Wagner over Yastrzemski for instance and has Collins with one less hit than our article shows. Albacore (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Career stats

Usually, when I do an edit of a ballplayer who has had a respectable career, I throw a "Career stats" section in the article. A couple of time, they've been removed. Personally, I like having them there, and I was wondering why would they would be removed.

WP:NOTSTATS, and the table is unnecessary, as it's just a copy of the information found on Baseball Reference. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is what that page says: "Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, as in the main article United States presidential election, 2012, omit excess statistics altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely." That does not translate to "unnecessary" to me. I only add statistics to articles of ballplayers who've had respectable careers, and don't go overboard with the stats (batting average with runners in scoring position & things like that). I didn't add one to Rich Puig's article when I edited it; he played 4 games, so that would be unnecessary. I dunno; I'd like more opinions on this.

I agree with the editor who made the previous comment. I've done edits of ballplayers who've had 10 game careers. I don't put stat tables in their articles. Pete Falcone, Richie Hebner, the guys whose articles I've included them on all have had respectable careers. And like the guy who commented above, I don't go overboard with the stats, either. Prior to my edits on Pete Falcone's article, it had reference after reference about his batting average against with runners in scoring position. I removed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.51 (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Article drive idea

I had a thought come to mind, not sure if it's worth pursuing but here goes. I was reading Arthur Irwin and learning about his double life, and just thought about how crazy that was. There's thousands of ballplayers, and many have hidden stories like that. So I thought, let's all write a GA or FA, but try and find the most interesting one. I have a few I've found over the years already to provide examples. There's Eddie Waitkus, whose career was interrupted from being shot by a crazed stalker. There's Bill Henry, who was reported dead in 2007 due to identity theft. If one were to check people who served in WWII there's probably hundreds of stories there. If anyone's interested then we could give it a shot just for fun. If not no big deal. Wizardman 04:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to expand many of these interesting (I think) ball players in the past, many do not have enough known information to get above a start though. Examples: Marty Bergen, who killed his family then himself; players who died young like Al Thake; The four players who were expelled after the Louisville Grays scandal in 1877; Billy Earle, who supposedly had an "evil eye", and was apparently deemed too creepy to have on your team. These are a few, but I am sure there are many other "interesting" baseball players out there.Neonblak ^talk - 07:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Bergen I could probably get to GA with a little TLC; Earle's a new one to me, that's certainly interesting. Wizardman 15:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I also tend to focus on those articles, always find them interesting. I'll on a few when I have the time. Secret ^account 05:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My favorite "fun fact" I've ever added to an article was when Tito Francona hit a Spring training home run, and the guy who went to retrieve the ball found a dead body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.51 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Temporary managers

How many hairs does this project typically split? Tonight, the Mariners' manager Eric Wedge was taken to the hospital after dizzy spells in pre-game warmups, and the club were managed by Robby Thompson, the bench coach. Does this necessitate and edit to reflect a "managerial career" on Thompson's article? An edit to {{Seattle Mariners managers}}? Neither? Both? More? Other things? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 04:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Thats the same as a manager being suspended for a few games. The official manager is still the same guy. The manager that is listed on the official website is the manager of record. Spanneraol (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hunh, I could have sworn manager articles had statistical tables giving yearly wins and losses (like college sports coaches do, for instance Brad Stevens#Head coaching record) but I don't see them there now. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 05:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

How about now that he's going to be out for (at least) the better part of 2 weeks? Does this project in any capacity use manager career wins and losses? If so, this needs to be remembered. The Mariners' record for this season will not be the same as Eric Wedge's managerial record. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe MLB will still count the wins as Wedge's. Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples can be found at WP:NC-BASE. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCBASE. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A-class review and other ideas

As we try to find a way to bring new sports editors to the project, and retraining those editors, I believe we need to expand the scope of the baseball project. We have a good number of baseball editors in Wikipedia, yet it's a extremely disorganized group. If we want our articles to be of high-quality, we need to collaborate as a team. There are plenty of high-class, and players currently on the news articles that is written poorly, while I noticed lately though my watchlist that there are more baseball editors, both as an IP and user, some of whom is trying to provide high-content (see Joey Jay as a recent example, and most of the editors who update current player stats are IPs). I believe a Project Baseball improvement drive, and a A-class review/assessment drive similar to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review, and maybe a project newsletter. Just about every article writer dream is to write featured content, and the extra feedback from the A-class assessment would help in that goal prior to WP:FAC. We can also attract the NFL (which is completely disorganized and disrepair), college football, ice hockey and basketball Wikiprojects as well to participate in the A-class review and help each other out. What do you think? Thanks Secret ^account 04:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. User:Muboshgu/Baseball Mountain is a part of our article improvement drive, and we can use a newsletter or other methods to expand on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm Go Phightins! and I approve this message. Excellent idea. Go Phightins! 16:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see A-class reviews with the catch that an A-class review must be for an article that's at least at GA class. Albacore (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't really see a point for A-class review. We don't have that many articles at GA where it would be particularly useful, but more importantly, the main roadblock I see at FAC whenever a baseball article is nominated is how it reads to non-baseball fans. An A-class review through us would not help this. Besides, for nearly any non-hall of famers, the jump from GA to FA is rather small. Wizardman 16:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly if a player played more than few seasons, the jump from GA to FA is possible, especially with all the baseball literature released the past few months, A-class review is a good set of extra eyes to make sure the article is polished enough prior to a GA or FA nomination. Secret ^account 00:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I do wonder how we would have enough reviewers for A-Class and GA-class, since they mostly are within our project and GA reviews, while they don't take a ton of time to find a reviewer, are hardly instantaneous. I will say that my one experience with an FAC (for Jim Thome, which I took from C-class to GA) was not reviewed by a single baseball editor, and as such the baseball stats and nomenclature were not understood. As such, I think an A-class review beforehand may have helped me understand the issues that were likely to come up. Go Phightins! 02:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, but baseball articles shouldn't be written for baseball fans. The articles shouldn't read like a Sports Illustrated article, but should adopt a dry, encyclopedic tone, so that readers from non-baseball-playing countries can read an article and get some sort of idea about the subject and not be inundated with baseball terminology. You can imagine what it must be like for an American to try to read an article about a cricket or rugby player and not comprehending obscure phrasing.Orsoni (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

GAR of Ryan Garko

Ryan Garko, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Albacore (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Retractable roof at SkyDome (Rogers Centre)

I have started a discussion on whether SkyDome should be described as the first North American arena, or first North American stadium with a retractable roof. Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Managerial record tables

As I understand it, tables such as the one currently in use at Terry Collins are against this project's consensus. Is there any reason why this case would be different (such as Collins having managed in Japan)? AutomaticStrikeout ? 16:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

None that I can think of. NPB player/manager pages are far more likely to contain statistics tables that have been (mostly) rooted out of MLB pages, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

AfD

AFD closed as kept. Let's move on. Albacore (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thought everyone here should know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Barker, which wasn't even set up properly. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to be neutral in my alerting of this WikiProject about this AfD, but now I'm not going to be. Please head over to it. The AfD is starting to become comical. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Note.. it appears that the troublesome editor who created that afd User:WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 is actually a new name for User:Ashbeckjonathan who is known to have had some afd related issues in the past. Spanneraol (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at WisconsinBoy's edits recently? He's clearly a 12-year old. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not a 12 year-old, I am 17! What makes you think that I am 12 years old? How childish that insult was! WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the age comment was not constructive. But, the AfD was totally unfounded. I improved the page with a few references in all of five minutes of work by using Google News. In the future, please do a search for articles before nominating an article for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to leave Wikipedia for good at the week as an autoconfirmed user but I'm still going to edit as an IP editor. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, after reading most of what WisconsinBoy has put on here recently, incluing the hilarious AfD, I wish him the best of luck, and thanks for the laughs. Penale52 (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This WikiProject appears semi-active

It was tempting to mark this WikiProject as semi-active. I came here thinking I would suggest work on Baseball-related food items, thinking a list, article or perhaps just Category:Baseball-related food might be a notable addition. I eventually discovered Category:Baseball foods already existed, so I added some articles to that category. In the meanwhile I ended up doing some minor repairs to portal-related items, including Portal:Baseball, Portal:Baseball/Categories, Portal:Baseball/Categories and Main topics. I also updated a January 2013(!) baseball portal item at WP:WikiProject Portals/MfD.

Check out my changes to see if they could be improved. And if you all are really semi-active, simplify your portal so its easier to maintain. 67.100.127.192 (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Pardon? We're not "semi-active". We have a core of editors who are working on articles every day. If the portal needs to be looked at, I can lend my eyes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

World Baseball Softball Confederation

Hi all! This article could do with a looking at. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Reference play index

Does anyone have a paid membership at Baseball Reference for their Play Index tool? I have a few queries I would like to run, but the free version of their tool omits some of the results. If so, please let me know. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 00:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hall of Fame balloting in the infobox

Regarding this edit: some Hall of Famers had the number of times they appeared upon the ballot in the infobox, while many did not. An editor has been adding this information to the infobox for a number of players. Is there a consensus view on whether or not this detail is sufficiently important for a summary of a player's key characteristics and so warrants inclusion in the infobox? isaacl (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you did this because I believe this issue needs to be addressed, while I believe that the number of times the Hall of Famer appeared on the ballot is important I want to know the consensus view on this to make things more clear. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that there's usually talk of whether or not a player was a "first ballot" HOFer, I think it's valid. It should certainly be mentioned in the body of the article regardless. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mobushgu, and I'll add that there is sort of a 15-year count down that written about every year for the players that get passed over. Seems notable to me.Neonblak ^talk - 01:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The number of Hall of Fame ballots on which the player appeared is sufficiently significant to warrant inclusion in the article itself. I'm not clear, though, that it is an essential piece of information in a summary of the key characteristics of the player, and thus if it warrants inclusion in the infobox. Typically, for example, Duke Snider would be referred to more simply as "Hall of Famer Duke Snider", and not "Eleventh-ballot Hall of Famer Duke Snider". Other than first-ballot / not first-ballot, I don't believe the specific number of ballots is a very strong distinction made by most people. isaacl (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from isaacl but it's honestly saying that the percentage of the vote shouldn't be in the infobox either, the percentage of the vote and the year on the ballot correlates with each other like you wouldn't believe. Going back to our buddy Duke Snider, he received 86.49% of the votes on his eleventh ballot, now there's a HUGE different between receiving 86.49% on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. ballots than the eleventh ballot. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have any reference to the actual correlation values, I'd be interested in seeing them. Whether or not it's correlated, though, doesn't seem to be an argument for or against the essential nature of the number of ballots in a player's summary. On a side note, you might consider putting further changes to the infoboxes on hold while this discussion is ongoing. isaacl (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Isaacl that it warrants inclusion into the text of the article, but not important enough to be included in the infobox as I wouldn't consider it a career highlight.Orsoni (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Orsoni Who says it's a career highlight? It's not under the career highlights section it's in the Baseball Hall of Fame section. And isaacl just look at the players that made the first ballot, they are what the voters would call top-tier, this is why (in my strong opinion and I guarantee that if you research what the voters say its true) Craig Biggio did not make the Hall of Fame the past year, he will make the Hall of Fame someday but not as a first ballot and they reserve the first ballot for top-tier players and it's so strict that they are willing to not induct anyone the past year. Just look at Roberto Alamor's votes year one in comparison with his second year, big difference. As there's a HUGE difference between a first ballot Hall of Famer than a fifteenth ballot Hall of Famer.

Going with my other argument that you didn't acknowledge, if you do not believe that the appearances on the ballot is important than why is the percentage of the vote? If Orsoni believes that the number of years it took them to be inducted into the Hall of Fame isn't a "career highlight" than I'm guessing the percentage of the votes isn't either. I honestly would like more opinions then two people (which one is confused where he's saying that the years on the ballot is under "career highlights") --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Like you, I'm letting other people comment; I think more opinions are encouraged when there isn't a back-and-forth over every point. But since you asked, I have no issue with opening up discussion on the percentage. As of yet, I'm not sure of how essential it is for a summary of a player's key characteristics. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, what it all boils down to is, what belongs in the infobox is whether the subject is in the Hall of Fame, or not. The fine minutae of their HOF induction is better explained in the text of the article. Wikipedia guidelines state that infoboxes are meant to be kept brief and concise. Personally, I am fine with the percentage being taken out. I hadn't noticed the percentage before, so an editor must have added that recently.Orsoni (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Orsoni no offense but you must be living under a rock if you think the voting percentage was added recently, unless you count two years ago recent, but maybe if you can make up a section about their Hall of Fame induction and add their year of ballot, votes and percentage and their induction speech that would seem great. Thanks ~ --Phbasketball6 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No offense taken. As I stated, I am fine with the percentage being removed. In my opinion, the details of the subjects HOF induction would be better served by being fleshed out in the main body of the article.Orsoni (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this but if you are gonna have the percentage then you need the number of times so you know what the percentage refers to as they would have gotten a different amount of votes each time.. A full accounting should be in the prose also. Spanneraol (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Major League Baseball controversies

Is back. A year ago it was deleted after this discussion[5]. I tagged it for speedy delete under G4. The same editor who created it the first time, did it this time also....William 21:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

split discussion reminder

I would just like to remind this project of a discussion still happening about re-splitting the section on Game 162. Please go share your opinion. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 23:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)