Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

Template merger

Template:Infobox MLB player and Template:Infobox baseball biography were determined to be merged in a MfD that closed in late-February. We should get on this. Who wants to volunteer? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Muboshgu, what needs to be "merged?" It looks like "Template:Infobox baseball biography" already incorporates all of the options of "Infobox MLB player". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd have to check! I just remember that it was decided we only need one of these templates, with all parameters included. Nobody has done it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox guidelines

Is there a consensus on what statistics can be included in the MLB Player infobox? I have sometimes come across infoboxes with stats such as OPS, doubles and walks. I am curious to know if there has been a discussion on this somewhere. - Hoops gza (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on this. The consensus is only to include triple crown stats unless someone is known for something in particular, such as saves or steals. I believe someone wrote up a proper style guide that had all that but I can't seem to find it right now.Spanneraol (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussions I've seen weren't sufficiently broad in scope to establish a clear consensus; if anyone can point to a consensus on this topic, or if we can just reach one now, then Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice (linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice) can be updated accordingly. isaacl (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : September 28, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Thanks to this issue's contributors, and to everyone for their work on baseball-related articles!

Are you interested in writing something for The Inside Corner—perhaps a playoff recap, a season retrospective of your favourite team, or an account of a day at the ballpark? Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk, put it on your watchlist, and drop a note on the newsletter desk discussion page to let us know what you're interested in writing about. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

American League extra inning 6-hit games

There are apparently 19 6-hit games that have occurred in extra inning American League games. Since the record is 9, it is hard to find those with 6, 7 or 8. Does anyone know a source that I could use for the newly created List of Major League Baseball hitters with six hits in one game?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a subscription, the Baseball Reference play index will let you search for games matching the specified criteria. isaacl (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I will help you with this. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Detailed opponent breakdowns

Based on discussion above at #What should be in a season article?, do we want to remove tables like the one at 2014_Chicago_White_Sox_season#Detailed_records_and_runs_scored.2Fallowed, which break down the home and away record and run scored and allowed against each respective opponent. I see that it was removed on Sept 28 only to be added back on Sept 29. I think they are excessive.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Argument about Orel Hershiser main image

Feel free to join the discussion regarding the main image at Talk:Orel_Hershiser#Main_image if you are interested.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tony, did you take any photos of Alanna Rizzo while you were at that game? She's the dark haired girl sitting next to Orel at the Dodger broadcast table. Need a photo for her page. Spanneraol (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Just yesterday I finished my first pass through 3803 images from the game (A typical Kershaw pitch from the windup is about 25 images at 8 frames per second and many at bats were 5-10 images). I have cut my images down to under 1000 on the first pass. I did not notice her and don't think I tossed her either. I did not take a lot of broadcaster pictures. I have about 100 images of everybody running on to the field for postgame handshakes. If she was on the field then, I may have her. Otherwise, I likely don't. I have not sorted those out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Scott Elbert pitched in that game, need a photo of him as well.Spanneraol (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I will be adding pictures of all players who played in the game and do not have a picture as a Dodger. However, I was working with a new camera and did not make all of the proper adjustments. It was my first time shooting an outdoor sporting event with a higher end DSLR camera. My settings were off all game especially after the sun started to move behind the third base side upper deck and half the field was dark while half was well-lit. IIRC, his images are not so great, but I will be adding an image. Hopefully, someone can get something better or one of my scripts hits during playoff time and I am in LA to take more photos. You can follow along at Commons:Category:2014-09-19 Cubs v. Dodgers baseball game at Wrigley Field as I go through my images. P.S., you may notice that I got all three guys who homered in support of Kershaw on the pitch that they homered at 2014 Los Angeles Dodgers season. I also happened to get the MLB stolen base leader during his stolen base, but I had the camera set in the wrong continuous shooting focus mode so the focus remained at where he was leading off from during the whole steal. By the time he got to 2nd he was way out of focus. That mode works well in the batters box or on the pitchers mound because if my focus point slips off his body, I do not lose focus, but for baserunners it is crappy. P.S. fortunately, 228 of my pictures were with my backup camera, including the current main images for Hershiser and Yasiel Puig.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

List of requested images?

Is there a list of WP:BASEBALL articles that need images? I go to a fair number of games and player appearances. Sometimes I end up with seats near one of the dugouts, making for good photo opportunities even though I'm not that great at it. Before games I go to each team's WP page and use the roster templates to see which entries have missing/poor images. That can be tedious though. Is there an easier way to discern the active players or personnel that need images? The Hershiser thread above made me think about this. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 22:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. That would be a good idea -- perhaps this offseason when doing final stats or season summaries, editors could take note of the image situation of respective articles. Good thought, Eric. Go Phightins! 02:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
There's an 'image" parameter for Template:WikiProject Baseball that adds articles to Category:Baseball_articles_needing_images.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
True, although that is a massive category ... who knows how often it is updated -- certainly it would be of little help for an editor going to a game trying to decide which players to target. Go Phightins! 10:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Image identification for Los Angeles Dodgers coaches and players

Are there people who might be able to help me identify players on the Los Angeles Dodgers September 19 roster and coaches. I have pictures of a lot of people dressed like coaches that need to be identified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Post them somewhere and we'll do the best we can. Spanneraol will probably be the best at it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd be glad to give it a shot as well, though the Dodgers aren't my team. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 16:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I took 3803 images at Clayton Kershaw's 20th victory. It was a learning experience for me because it was my first action sports photography event with a higher end camera as well as my first outdoor photography event with dynamic lighting conditions with a higher end camera (I took 3575 pictures with my Canon EOS 7D and the rest with my Canon Rebel T4i). The combination of changing lighting conditions and moving subjects was quite a challenge for me. The photo quality varies quite a bit by time of day as the shadows of the upper deck moved over various portions of the field. I have been paring the 3803 images down to a few decent pictures for each player or coach that I can identify and figuring out which ones I need help identifying (you can see my contributions on commons or look at Commons:Category:2014-09-19 Cubs v. Dodgers baseball game at Wrigley Field to see what I am up to so far). I have six images in which there are one or two subjects that I need help with so far. Spanneraol has seen these and given me his guesses, which I am not confident in. I also have over 100 images from the postgame celebratory handshakes after the dugout emptied. I don't think I should necessarily post all of the 100, but I suspect a lot of players and coaches who don't have images or don't have images with the Dodgers were on the field. I am probably going to try getting some feedback from Fanfeedback@LADodgers.com.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible project: Guidelines for early team nicknames?

This is sort of a minefield, I know, especially since as so often in Wiki you can find a lot of stuff in print and thus assert it as WP:RS. But the fact is, far too many articles all over the baseball section fall into the habit of using completely unofficial sportswriter epithets like "Chicago Orphans" or "Brooklyn Bridegrooms" in a manner indistinguishable from actual team names, perpetuating misconceptions inherited from erroneous or sloppy print sources. The fact is that although some teams adopted formal names well back in the 19th century, mostly ball clubs in cities with several of them like the early New York Knickerbocker, Gotham and Metropolitan Clubs, most teams did not have a name until the 1900s or 1910s (or even later, in the case of the Dodgers). The Brooklyn club was only the "Bridegrooms" or "Superbas" or "Robins" in the same sense as that in which in a later era they were the "Bums," or the Yankees the "Bronx Bombers." I think there ought to be a usage/format guideline here, even if it's simply the use of quotation marks for unofficial nicknames (e.g. Chicago "Orphans"). Solicitr (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we are mostly going by sources like Baseball Reference for the old team nick names. It will get awfully confusing if we deviate from what the other official sources are using. Spanneraol (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Spanneraol. This subject has been brought up many times, and we got Worcester Worcesters out of it, which isn't a correct team name construction either. Team nicknames were just that in those days, and the Chicago Cubs' nickname was the White Stockings, Orphans, and Cubs during different eras, the last two signifying the departure of Cap Anson. Later, nicknames became more permanent, but it's still a nickname. I think researching the name independent of the reliable resources is perfectly acceptable, so we can correct the likes of the Worcesters, who weren't predominately called the Ruby Legs as it turned out.Neonblak talk - 23:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not entirely sure I agree with the assertion Later, nicknames became more permanent, but it's still a nickname. That's not actually the case; there is a significant, and discernible, difference between the clever epithets concocted by the florid reporters of the day, and a team's front office formally declaring what its club would be called. It's not at all difficult to establish when a franchise adopted a new team name, or made a pre-existing informal one official: the season in which it appeared on uniforms, or ballpark signs, tickets, game programs, club letterhead and so on-- management expressing its team's identity in tangible and public form.
The fact that Baseball-Reference has made a hash of it is just the sort of thing I was referring to in my first sentence, the easy "RS" excuse for perpetuating existing sources that are sloppier or lazier than they should be.
I could, given a couple of days, write up a List article which could serve as a guideline reference, giving (with sources of course) the seasons in which each MLB club adopted a name officially. Solicitr (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Like anything else, nicknames have a history, and an evolution. This was how the the practice of putting a team nickname to a city began. Without the clever, informal (even funny), epithets given to sports team by their local sportswriters, we wouldn't have the permanent convention we have today. Many of the permanent names we have today, are directly related to these silly, informal names. The Dodgers, Giants, Cubs, Red Sox, and White Sox just to name a few of the top of my head. Baseball, if anything, lives and breathes its own history, and these are an important part of the story. Not just in baseball, but I suspect, in all sports who share the same naming convention, i.e. all team sports. To documents these is encyclopedic in my view, and notable.
Also, baseball-reference.com and retrosheet.org aren't put together by basement dwelling loners with too much time on their hands. They are serious, and well-documented, data centers put together by well-known historians (and organizations like SABR), data-mining engineers, newspaper researchers, professionals and amateurs alike. And, they are us; we have made corrections that have updated the permanent record. With these old teams, my suggestion is to use the RS until they are proven false, or incorrectly attributed, by the historical record.Neonblak talk - 04:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
You may be misunderstanding me-- I'm not for a moment suggesting that we cut out or remove or reject all those fascinating pieces of the kaleidoscope of baseball! They are, as you say, a part of its marvellously rich history and color and I wouldn't part with them for a minute. All I'm saying is that we should make a simple distinction between official names and the unofficial ones-- just like an editor could in an article refer to the "Bums" or the "Redbirds"-- provided it's clear that those are affectionate terms used as alternates to the Official Name (if any).
Following on from my last post, perhaps what's needed, both for interest in itself and as a link-to for other articles, is a list page on just that, the history of MLB team names. It could start with the NA or even the prominent semipro clubs of the 1860s, if their names (such as Athletic of Philadelphia) began a tradition. The very sources you cite provide, usually in detail, the first official adoption of a name, whether on uniforms or otherwise, as well as the actual citations (usually to newspaper articles) of the unofficial ones. I don't think it would have to go after WWII, since Official Names were well-established by the time of the movement/expansion era; IIRC the last club not to have taken a name officially was Brooklyn up to 1932. Solicitr (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe most of the team pages have sections that track the team nicknames.. Not sure what benefit there is to creating a list page.Spanneraol (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

List of setup pitchers

You are invited to help form a consensus at Talk:Setup pitcher#Notable setup pitchers about whether a list of setup pitchers should be in the article.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Updating "free agent"s

I have another project that could be worth tackling. As we all know, a big problem is players who just never get picked up, and their articles are perpetually listed as free agents. Before the wave of 2014 free agents comes roaring through, we should try updating articles of players who are no longer active. A decent list is here. Yes, some of those are clearly free agents, but others we can safely say are not playing anymore. If you're borderline on one, just go ahead and update; on the off chance a player returns it'll always be quickly updated, it's the opposite side that falls through. Wizardman 16:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, i didn't know the best way to search for that... I'll start going through that list shortly. If someone hasn't played professionally in over a year I usually say they are retired, even if they havent officially announced anything. Spanneraol (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you are planning, but I'd also hold off on guys that were signed last offseason but were released before the season (Mark Teahen for example).--Yankees10 21:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Standings template

I was curious to see what the consensus was to possibly add w,x,y and z to the seed code? Would make understanding which team clinched what leading into the playoffs and then add a legend on the bottom of the template explaining:
w - clinched wild card
x - clinched playoff berth
y - clinched division
z - clinched division and best record in league

Would this be favorable? –B2Project(Talk) 12:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Those letters arent easily identifiable so I don't think they work very well in this context. The season articles should make it clear what position the teams finished in through prose.Spanneraol (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That is the exact format MLB.com uses so I would find it to be identifiable. –B2Project(Talk) 16:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You might... but think about someone who doesnt follow baseball that closely and is unfamiliar with mlb.com... they would look at it and wonder "what the heck does the w mean?" We'd have to include a legend on every page and that would just add to the clutter. If you look at last years standings templates, the position was added by a small number next to the team name... that method is probably preferable and we should try to stay consistent.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Looking at 2012 Major League Baseball season and 2013 Major League Baseball season, I see that the "seeds" parameter is being used differently than I had intended, which was based on how the seeds were highlighted in 2011. The idea was to use the "seeds" parameter as an argument when transcluding the individual division templates in the MLB season article, so they would only appear in the season article, and the playoff teams would only be highlighted in the season article. The way it is now, where the "seeds" parameter is used within the division standings template (currently also with the "highlight" parameter, which is redundant since the "seeds" parameter will already highlight the team), the playoff teams are highlighted in all the team season articles as well.
    • What does everyone think about changing the 2012 and 2013 articles to follow the model of previous seasons, such as 2011 Major League Baseball season, where the MLB season article is the only place where the seed information shown and the playoff teams highlighted? I think this is preferable, since the seed information lacks context on individual team pages. isaacl (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, that would be the better way to deal with it.Spanneraol (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will proceed with the changes. If anyone has any issues, please feel free to post a reply. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:VG comments subpages cleanup

Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Baseball articles that would be affected by this action are these:

If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Baseball's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested page move of O.co Coliseum

A recent requested page move of O.co Coliseum to Oakland Coliseum, which invokes WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA concerns, may be of possible interest to participants of this WikiProject. Please discuss at Talk:O.co Coliseum#Requested move 2. Thank you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliever of the Year Awards

MLB handed out the first Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera awards yesterday. The press release says "The new Awards replace MLB's 'Delivery Man of the Year Award,' which was presented to one winner in all of Major League Baseball from 2005-2013, and continue a longstanding baseball tradition of honoring the game's top relief pitchers."[3] Based on the last discussion in April, a short blurb was written at the old Major League Baseball Delivery Man Award, which was redirected to Major League Baseball Reliever of the Year Award. At the time, consensus was to not create a standalone article for an award that was not issued yet, and there was no consensus whether it would need a new article if the award was potentially a rebrand of the Delivery Man award. Since the PR said it was replacing the old award, I propose a new standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on a quick look at the sources, they all seem to be referring to it as a new award, suggesting that the Delivery Man award is indeed discontinued and that this should be treated separately. Would one page work or two? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking to combine the AL & NL, like other MLB awards. Perhaps current content of current Major League Baseball Reliever of the Year Award should be moved back to Major League Baseball Delivery Man Award, and a new "Major League Baseball Reliever of the Year Award" should be started which has both Trevor Hoffman National League Reliever of the Year Award and Mariano Rivera American League Reliever of the Year Award.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It's still essentially the same thing with a different name... I see no reason to create a whole new article for it.Spanneraol (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a major difference: the "DHL / Delivery Man / whatever" award went to one pitcher for all of MLB, while now there's an AL and an NL version. While this did happen back in the day for the Cy Young Award, they were pretty clear that it was the same award. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
While single vs new article merits are discussed further, I've updated the current article with the 2014 winners and reorganized some of the Delivery Man info from the lead. If we do go with a standalone Delivery Man article, the November 20, 2013 version is the last version before info on the new awards were added.—Bagumba (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Baseball players from Louisville, Kentucky

You are invited to take part in a discussion about this category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 24#Sport players from Louisville, Kentucky. Rikster2 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Premature Comeback Player of the Year Award

I have now twice reverted the infobox inclusion of Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award in Chris Young (pitcher)'s article. I just want to make sure I am not confused. I think he has won the The Sporting News Comeback Player of the Year Award, which is a different award. The MLB awards will be named in November, as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. MLB doesn't give out awards while the World Series is ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo help

This photo (File:Wes Ferrell-1937.jpg) is extremely useful, but currently being categorized as fair use. It is unknown who holds the copyright, if there is one held at all. I cannot find a suitable copy anywhere. This photo appears to have been posted on baseballlibrary.com, but the site may be down, so I cannot ask them where they got the picture. As much as it pains me to say, but if the tag cannot be resolved, the photo will probably need to be deleted.Neonblak talk - 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the page on Wes Ferrell from the Internet Archive, but there's no sign of the photo or any information on it. You could try one of the contacts listed on the archived contact page; since the site itself is no longer working, though, unfortunately I wouldn't be too hopeful. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. I sent off an email to one the webmasters listed, nothing returned as of yet.Neonblak talk - 13:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

List of baseball deaths

This page could use work, not only with adding more entries, but also with incoming wikilinks. Possibly a new name as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, this page needs a massive reworking. If its baseball related deaths, why are Roberto Clemente, Thurman, Munson, and Taveras on the list? They're deaths were spectacular like the article's description says? Other players have died in aviation and automotive accidents. One player got beaten with a fire extinguisher while in the air and he died.
Honestly anyone who's death wasn't directly related to his playing shouldn't be on the list. Spectacular is undefinable....William 17:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It does need a major reworking. Clemente, Munson, and Taveras were active players when they died, which could form the basis for inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There's lots of other active MLB players who have died. From the well documented Harry Agganis to the almost totally forgotten Paul Edmondson. How do you draw up the criteria for who to list and who not to?...William 17:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a huge list of them (including Agganis and Edmondson) on Talk:List of baseball deaths. As always, inclusion criteria is up to community consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This list currently reminds me of the old "List of baseball controversies" article that was deleted, and I'm not sure this one is any better at the moment. The inclusion criteria seems random and POV, the organization is poor, and that lead image is not only irrelevant, it violates WP:NFCC. I think you need to figure out what this list is meant to be. Players who died during a game would be one good basis. Or players who died while actively playing (hockey's equivalent), or something. Resolute 20:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

I added a couple nominations to the Article Improvement Drive page - Jesse Winters and Dooley Womack. Alex (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : November 3, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Thanks to everyone for their contributions, and to all editors for their work with baseball-related articles. It's been a pretty interesting post-season, and already some fresh intrigue has arisen, with Epstein signing Maddon. Will the Cubs finally break through? In the meantime, with the excitement of the playoffs over, here's your chance to restart your pet projects, and polish up some articles. Happy writing, and if you are interested in contributing to the newsletter, don't forget to watchlist the newsletter desk and join in the conversation! isaacl (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Japanese players to the Majors

Now that the season has finished, it has been announced that the two Japanese players most likely to move this off season are Takashi Toritani and Chihiro Kaneko. Looking at their articles, Toritani stops in 2009 and Kaneko is less than a stub. I will do my best to update them as best I can. But once the bidding process starts I assume their pages will get some traffic, so it would be nice if they can be expanded as much as possible. There is a wealth of information in Japanese text of course, so maybe not many people can do it, but I'll give it a go and would appreciate anyone pointing out my mistakes. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability of rumours

I have started a discussion on the notability of rumours of a team being established in a new city; in the case of this discussion, Montreal. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

B-R.com Bullpen

There is a template, Template:Bullpen, that leaves a note in articles that text has been borrowed from baseball-reference's Bullpen. As Bullpen is itself another wiki, which seemingly anyone can edit, why would a Wikipedia article use it as a source, when we don't even allow Wikipedia to be used as a source?—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It can't be used as a reliable source but as long as there are no copyright/licensing issues, the text itself can be used within the terms of all applicable licenses. The information would have to be referenced as needed with citations from reliable sources. isaacl (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
You actually cant use the text because of different licenses. It even says as much in the documentation for that template. If the copy was done after 2008 it is a copyvio. Spanneraol (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I read the template, which I why I qualified my response. Sorry, I should have made it more clear that I was trying to craft an answer that covers the general case. isaacl (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated - major issue

I stumbled on something that could be a significant problem (or maybe I'm making it a bigger deal then it is). Recently, CNN and Sports Illustrated split ties, so any sportsillustrated.cnn.com links just redirect to a Bleacher Report note rather than the article (or even the SI home page). As a result every one of those links is broken, and not only that, but the new links have completely different syntax, so I can't bother a bot with a simple fix. So what am i asking us to do? Well, if you've used SI in your articles in the past, can you replace those links with the updated ones? I'm doing a sweep of my own articles and finding a lot, and given that SI's vault in particular contains a lot of info, I'm sure you all have at last one article that will need fixing now. Wizardman 00:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll confirm the problem, but this is not the first time in the last five years that links for SI's Vault article archives have been broken. SI has a nasty habit of coming up with a new archive system for its old articles every year or so -- it's enough for me to start delinking SI articles in my footnotes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • For any bare urls, http://archive.org can be used as a last resort. As link rot is a fact of life with any source, I usually do on-demand archiving with http://webcitation.org. —Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

AFD's

Just thought i'd let people know that there's a bunch of AFD's on baseball players that are currently ongoing. Would be nice to add more people to the discussions.--Yankees10 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Finished going through the minor league free agent lists which led to a lot of these afds... that and Alex not letting me prod anything. We should have a more formal policy on who gets added to these minor league pages so that we can avoid having all these minor league veterans added and then removed every year. I still feel the minor league pages should be just for top draft picks, 40 man roster guys and other top prospects, not just random dudes. Spanneraol (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup, no reason for guys like Nevin Ashley and Nick Additon to be on there.--Yankees10 00:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, let's continue this earlier discussion. To avoid an undue emphasis on recent events, I don't think the pages should exclude veterans. I'm not sure what criteria would work well, though. Perhaps for players above a certain threshold age, there could be a cutoff based on number of minor league games played, plus some degree of non-routine coverage in independent, non-promotional, reliable sources? (Former MLB players would be assumed to have sufficient non-routine coverage, in accordance with the baseball-specific notability guidelines.)
Once criteria are set, I think the introductions of the articles should be expanded explain that the topic of the article is the entire farm system, with selected players highlighted. isaacl (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you can use number of games played cause that will tend towards guys that have played a lot but have no real chance to make the majors, the longtime minor league veterans.. By virtue of the nature of these pages you cant really avoid the trend towards current events... as these are current prospects. Yes, the article intro should probably be changed to emphasize that these pages are about the entire farm system and that we are highlighting players that are considered the top prospects (using Baseball America's rankings probably). Spanneraol (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
These pages should be treated as placeholders for guys that just fall short (short 2 sources or so) of passing GNG imo. So along with being top prospects there should be at least some sources on them before adding. At least that's how I look at it.--Yankees10 01:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The question is the intent for these pages to only highlight players who have a good chance of making the major leagues for the first time? Or is it intended to highlight notable players in the farm system? If the latter, I'd suspect long-time minor leaguers will have garnered some notable coverage. If the former,(*) then maybe the cutoff should be players within their first X games in the minors who are ranked in the top Y positions by notable scouting organizations.
(*) Although I appreciate the generally MLB-centric nature of Wikipedia baseball articles, it does seem a shame to only highlight minor leaguers based on their potential to play in MLB, rather than their own accomplishments. And if the pages are really only intended to hold a list of prospects rather than be about the entire system, then maybe they should be named accordingly. isaacl (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
To me, the minor league pages should be predominantly for the borderline cases, players that could make the majors, but there's no way of knowing, and while they have some sourcing, it's not particularly great "clear GNG" sourcing. As for first-rounders, that may end up being ones to merge, though it seems most of them do pass GNG. Wizardman 01:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm probably in the minority, but I'd rather see less effort in prospecting for currently non-notable players who might be future stars, and more effort on notable topics that will not result in as much throw-away effort of players that never make it, and the endless creation and deletion of redirects. Perhaps maintain a list of an organization's top-rated prospects, say at 2014_Los_Angeles_Dodgers_season#Farm_system, that will be retained and provide historical information.—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well top draft picks can probably be covered in draft sections of the season articles or by expanding the information on the first round draft picks page but I'd hesitate doing full prospect lists on every season article.Spanneraol (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

MLB-Japan All-Star Series

Anyone have any opinion on if this series is a significant enough event that we should have an article on it? None currently exists but there seems to be enough sources to establish notability, it's certainly a big event in Japan. Spanneraol (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's already at Major League Baseball Japan All-Star Series. Maybe you can make redirects out of whatever search terms you used to help others find this better.—Bagumba (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.. I was surprised that i couldnt find it.. should probably be linked from somewhere to make it easier to find. Spanneraol (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@Spanneraol: I guess you forgot about this. I was going to start adding linescores to the 2014 page, but perhaps we should focus first on making more links. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Philadelphia Phillies season

The season is over, and I finally caught up getting the season notes finished and importing stats. I have started to hack a little bit at the preseason section, and at this point, am ready for another set of eyes to do some copyediting in the season notes, and suggest what else could be pared/cut. Even if you just can take a look at one section, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Go Phightins! 19:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • The lead should not have Philadelphia Phillies linked per WP:BOLDTITLE. The "visual aid depicting the Phillies' 2013–14 offseason transactions" is far too small to be of any use at its current resolution. Why not just replace with a wikitable? Seattle (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Just from a real quick cursory look (all I have time for): No wikilinks in bold titles, date formats in "Players becoming free agents", lack of a key or spelled out position names in that section, rubber match should link instead to wikt:rubber match, inconsistent use of spelling out single digit numbers and listing numerals (e.g. "Domonic Brown had a home run and five RBIs, Asche had 3 RBIs"), watch the colloquialisms (e.g. "on May 21, they fell 14–5" when you mean they "lost"), some paragraphs appear dense and with 76kb prose and 347 references, it might be overly detailed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Former minor league players article

People may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Milwaukee Brewers minor league players.. Do we want these types of articles? Spanneraol (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if users from this project not named Yankees10, Muboshgu, Spanneraol, Alexsautographs, Wizardman actually participated in some of these AFD's once in a while.--Yankees10 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes that would be helpful.. We may wind up having to discuss what to do with this article if it gets kept as now seems possible. Spanneraol (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

All-time roster updates

Hey guys, being that its the offseason and all... is anyone interested in a project to bring all the all-time roster pages up to date? I know i've kept the Dodgers page updated but many of the other teams havent been updated, some of them for several seasons... and the overall List of Major League Baseball players probably needs updating too. If we split up the list it probably wouldn't be as tough an obstacle as it looks at first glance. Any takers? Spanneraol (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: I've reworked the format of List of Major League Baseball players (A) with Aardsma as an example (from [4] to [5], the "Team(s)" section would narrow when the teams are broken). Does that format seem appropriate for transfer? I'm happy to take (A). Seattle (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks a bit better with everything centered in the first example.... but the team list is probably better in the second version... Dont know if transferring this to the individual team lists makes sense cause its probably a lot of work. Hopefully we can get more people to help with this. Spanneraol (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Most of them should be relatively quick fixes, since it'd only be one to three years of names to add. A couple, however, are going to be a pain. i took a look at the Baltimore Orioles one, and it's... pretty much impossible to update as is. Wizardman 02:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Potentially WP:POV edits to Barry Bonds

I would like a second opinion on whether these edits to Barry Bonds were WP:POV.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand some of the edits, they seem to be concerned with promoting fangraphs and adding more sabermetric stuff. They got rid of his intentional walks record and added a link to isolated power. I do think you need to qualify the "greatest baseball player" remark, considering his numbers are tainted by the steroid stuff. Spanneraol (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Spanneraol, I was thinking of just reverting. Do you find some merits in the changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
On second look, none of the changes is really necessary, so i'm fine with you reverting. Spanneraol (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not wild about his contributions to this and several other articles.. he tends to condense too much and lean too much on sabermetrics, which 90% of the general readership will not know or care about. Spanneraol (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization – "major league" or "Major League"

Should the generic term "major league" (without "Baseball" at the end) be capitalized or not when referring to MLB? In my opinion, it's a general term that should be lower cased. However, a user who disagrees keeps badgering me about it, so I'd like to settle it here once and for all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some specific examples in mind? It's hard to give guidance without seeing the specific sentences in question. In general I agree the term is generic and should be in lower case, but understanding the context would be helpful. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The editor in question capitalized the term "major league" – here's my revert. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
What's even more ridiculous was he capitalized "the Major Leagues" – I think we can all agree that it's completely incorrect, right? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If he's referring to the organization known as MLB then it should be capitalized. If its just a general comment, then no.Spanneraol (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Spanneraol – sorry, but I didn't fully understand your point, could you elaborate? Would "major league" need to be capitalized in the sentence, "Kershaw has played in the major leagues since 2008" (from your GA)? Or are you saying only when the full name ("Major League Baseball") is used does it need to be capitalized? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If I understand the history correctly, the career of the player in question predates the formal association of the National League and the American League as "Major League Baseball". As such it seems appropriate to only refer to the major leagues in its generic form in this article. On the broader note of usage, because of the historical ambiguities with the term, personally I prefer to use "MLB" (after defining it on first use) when specifically referring to the organization. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
IIRC, the Dickson baseball dictionary refers to "major league" as either the AL or NL. The organization would be "Major League Baseball".—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What Isaac and Bagumba said. Furthermore, if you are going to use the abbreviation/acronym/initialism "MLB" in the body text of an article, it should be linked and defined on its first usage with a parenthetical (e.g., "Reggie Jackson is an American former baseball right fielder who played 21 seasons in Major League Baseball (MLB).") In space-limited infoboxes and tables, it is not necessary to define "MLB" if it is defined in the main body text of the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting timing. This just happened to me when a DYK of mine was published a few days ago. The entry was that of a player who was around in the era of leagues like the FL. My point was that there has been more than one major baseball league, especially at that time. I do notice that we use "Major League Baseball" in the leads of many players of all eras (even early, early guys like Pete Browning) - which I think complicates the argument for lowercase. Whether or not "Major League" makes sense syntax-wise, I just can't get used to it based on common usage; same thing for placing a hyphen in "major league debut" or "minor league game". EricEnfermero HOWDY! 04:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • It's related to the historical ambiguity: my understanding is that the term was used generically even following the start of the National and American Leagues' cooperation, and only after some time the term became a proper noun in its own right to officially designate their partnership. I also believe grammar rules were not so formal then, and accordingly capitalization was more haphazard than it is today, so sources from the time may well use initial upper case for generic terms. Thus the reason why I personally prefer to define the abbreviation MLB on first use and then stick with the abbreviation when specifically referring to the organization. isaacl (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Bagumba; one thing I've long been interested in knowing is when Major League Baseball formally incorporated as a an entity. I'm certain it wasn't before WWII, and I suspect it was probably in the '50s or even '60s, when national TV broadcasting contracts came into play; before that, virtually everything was handled by the two league offices, and the Commissioner's office (the only real joint effort) was jointly funded. MisfitToys (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been no "badgering" about this, but rather a disagreement. It happens on Wikipedia. So, is there a consensus at this point? I ask because my changes are being reverted by the OP. I recognize there are cases when this is murky, but it would seem if we're referring to the modern MLB, then "Major League" makes sense. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Major League Baseball" should be capitalized when it is used as a proper name, and only then. If it is capitalized in any other usage, it is done so improperly. "Major league" by itself is not a proper name (it's not a name at all, it's an adjective), therefore should not be capitalized (unless we're discussing the movie or something like that). -Dewelar (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
So, it doesn't depend upon the context? If you're talking about a player in Major League Baseball, and you're talking about their Major League career or Major League debut, "Major League", which is referring to "Major League Baseball" isn't capitalized? I admit that some of the changes I made to the generic use of the term "major league" were incorrect, but grammatically, I don't see an issue with capitalizing in the contextual manner I just described. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, as I mentioned, I prefer to use MLB. I feel using "Major League" by itself is a bit too subtle for a global readership who may not be familiar with the term's history. isaacl (talk)
I've struggled with this same question and have been inconsistent. What I think I've settled on is that if you could substitute "Major League Baseball" with "Major League/major league", then it should be capitalized. For example, I think, "...made his Major League debut" is appropriate. It gives an author more freedom without having to use "MLB" in every case. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The term "major league" doesn't just refer to baseball. Would you do the same for someone making their Major League Soccer debut? Would you also do it for someone who has come over from NPB? -Dewelar (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball newsletter: post winter meetings edition

For anyone who might have been anticipating the next newsletter: we have delayed the November edition and plan to combine it with the December edition, currently scheduled to be released on December 14, just after the winter meetings. If you are interested in contributing, please see the "Post 2014 winter meetings edition" thread at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Outreach/Newsletter desk discussion page, and please put the page on your watchlist in order to be kept aware of the newsletter's status. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Stats in player infobox

The style advice for baseball player articles was updated recently regarding stats to include in a player infobox. Although it's not something that was discussed recently on this discussion page, I believe it is probably a fair assessment of general consensus. If anyone would like to establish consensus for a different guideline, please feel free to discuss further in this thread. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

There was an incident on Scott Kazmir that lead me to boldly add that. I couldn't find a discussion thread on this talk page that confirmed this, but I do recall it being the basic agreement. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Player article style advice

Regarding this modification to the player article style advice: the previous guidance had the sections "Early life", "Career", and "Personal life" in that order as it was based on how most biographical articles cover the subject's life in chronological order first, and then proceed with sections discussing various themes about the subject. Accordingly, I suggest that the "Personal life" section should be restored to follow the "Career" section, and that "Player profile" follow the "Legacy" section. (I'm a bit wary of the "Player profile" section, but I'd like to first discuss the ordering before discussing player profiles.) isaacl (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would think personal life would be after all the stuff on their career... Not many articles have "legacy" sections as that would really only be useful for a select group of hall of famers. Spanneraol (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more that just a select group of hall of famers, as the "Legacy" section includes any community awards, team awards, and so forth, but I agree that it is an optional section. I'm a bit unclear; are you agreeing that the "Personal life" section should follow the "Career" section, and the "Player profile" section should come after "Personal life", with an optional "Legacy" section? The key point for me is that the article is a person's biography, not just a career biography, and so coverage of the person's life in chronological order is desirable to set a complete context for thematic sections. isaacl (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The personal life section wouldnt really follow the career in chronological order as it would feature events that happened all throughout their professional career and usually has information about their family... I'd probably put it after player profile as i believe that is how it is in most of the articles that contain these sections. Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I realize it isn't a perfect mapping, but it comes fairly close: pre-career information is in "Early life", main information about career is in "Career", and everything else is finished up in "Personal life". I think it is preferable to complete the overview of the subject's life before summarizing aspects of the subject. I had reviewed featured articles for players when devising the guidelines, but here's a new review. The following featured articles for players of top or high importance place post-baseball life before legacy information:
The following articles place legacy information before post-baseball life:
So it's a bit of a mixed bag, with a bit more articles placing post-baseball information immediately after career information. It can be a bit tricky trying to separate post-baseball from personal life, as the post-baseball section often includes family-related information. Perhaps the section following career can be "Post-baseball", and then after other thematic sections ("Legacy", "Player profile" if desired), there can be a "Family" section, which would be focused on family details? isaacl (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say it depends on the article and what makes sense (and what we already have). While general consistency is ideal, we need not make our articles look so templated that there are not nuanced variations. Go Phightins! 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we should never blindly follow rules.—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My edit to move the "Personal life" section down was based on Wikipedia:Summary style: "Sections that are less important for understanding the topic will tend to be lower in the article (this is news style applied to sections). Often this is difficult to do for articles on history or that are otherwise chronologically based, unless there is some type of analysis section. Organizing in this way is important because many readers will not finish reading the article." In most cases, a player is primarily notable for their career and not their personal life.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think for a biography, a chronological overview is important to be able to place the events of the person's life into appropriate context. Otherwise, it can be difficult to follow the threads in the text that jump back and forth between time periods. By the line of reasoning you put forth, it can be argued that the "Legacy" section should be placed first immediately after the lead. It is a defensible format, as obituaries do this, but I do not think Wikipedia needs to perfectly mimic the newspaper approach for its biographies. isaacl (talk)
To be clear, we wouldn't copy newspapers for the sake of mimicking them; we should follow points based on their merit. It seems logical to me that more people would be interested in a typical player's career, playing style, and legacy, over their personal life details about who they married, their hobbies, kids' names, etc. Incidently, those items wouldn't be chronological anyways, unless they somehow had an impact on their career. Again, there can be exceptions, and we can have a caveat in the style guide that provides guidance in such cases.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
There could be merit to moving the legacy section up, but I'd hesitate to add it to the style guide until it has been implemented in some articles first. Otherwise, a well-written lead would summarize key points in the legacy section, which is perhaps sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for being overly concise; I did not mean to imply that the newspaper approach was being mimicked without reason. Wikipedia's objectives, though, differ from that of a newspaper, and so while the inverted pyramid style has some relevance, it is not necessarily an overriding concern with respect to clarify of presentation. It's hard to know what each reader will find interesting, so I think we should be careful not to assume too much. I don't think it is unusual to present what a baseball player has done after their retirement from a playing career immediately following a description of their career. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the chronological approach, so I generally place legacy sections last and only use them for players who have died. We can certainly cover the most significant legacy information in the lead. I just can't wrap my head around placing legacy information early in the body (lead → legacy → early life → career → later life?). But I agree with the point that we should not create a rigid template for all entries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 16:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternate terms for full count

I have started a discussion on using "full house" to mean "full count". Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Managerial record

I would like to propose adding managerial records to the manager articles.

Here is an example of the type of table that I'm proposing.

Team From To Regular season record Post–season record Ref.
W L Win % W L Win %
Cincinnati Reds 1970 1978 863 586 .596 26 16 .619
Detroit Tigers 1979 1995 1331 1248 .516 8 5 .615
Total 2194 1834 .545 34 21 .618 —

If a manager has managed a team more than once, it would look more like this.

Team From To Regular season record Post–season record
W L Win % W L Win %
Minnesota Twins 1969 1969 97 65 .599 0 3 .000
Detroit Tigers 1971 1973 248 204 .549 2 3 .400
Texas Rangers 1973 1975 137 141 .493 0 0 –
New York Yankees 1975 1978 279 192 .592 10 10 .500
New York Yankees 1979 1979 55 40 .579 0 0 –
Oakland Athletics 1980 1982 215 218 .497 3 3 .500
New York Yankees 1983 1983 91 71 .562 0 0 –
New York Yankees 1985 1985 91 54 .628 0 0 –
New York Yankees 1988 1988 40 28 .588 0 0 –
Total 1253 1013 .553 15 19 .441
Reference:

It's smaller and more tidy than the season–by–season managerial record tables that have appeared in the past. Unlike the season–by–season managerial record tables, it clearly isn't an excessive listings of statistics and, with the addition of references in the table, it can reference the managerial record in the manager'sinfobox without cluttering the infobox with references. Kingjeff (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In the past we've had a consensus to not add large stat tables to player articles or these sort of managerial tables. Spanneraol (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I don`t really consider these table large. The second table, which is Billy Martin`s managerial record table, would be larger than normal because (in contrast to the first table shown), each time he was hired by the Yankees, a seperate entry was entered. However, if the WikiProject still feels it`s to big, it could still be condensed solely on a team–by–team basis instead of a job–by–job basis. The first table, which is Sparky Anderson's managerial record table, would be two rows for the heading, 27 rows to show a season–by–season record, and three more row to show club totals and a overall total. This is a total of 32 rows. This clearly can be called excessive. But it's condensed to Two rows for the header, two rows for the club totals, and a row for the overall total. This is a total of five rows. So, 27 rows have been eliminated and a table that has clearly been condesnsed. Kingjeff (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly better than the ones that go year-by-year. I'm still against it, though, because we have sites like B Ref that do it for us. I don't understand the need for us to create new work that's being done perfectly well on external sites that we link to. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
But why does Wikipedia exist at all if other sites does something well? The first thing this WikiProject should be concerned about is improving the baseball–related articles on this website. b ref doesn't do anything for us other than provide a good independent credible reference. I don't understand how other sports–related WikiProjects allow for such tables, but this one doesn't. Kingjeff (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
As I stated a couple years ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_30#Can_I_put_a_statistics_table_in_an_article.3F, I'd support tables of traditional stats (not the sabermetric ones) for each season (and by extension, any condensed form such as above). I was once against them, mainly wanting to see more focus from editors on "real prose" instead of gnomish stats work. However, as a reader, I think a GA/FA article is lacking if I am forced to go off-site to get some basic stats for a sportsperson. And who's to say those stats gnomes dont just stop editing WP altogether instead of producing text. Hopefully consensus changes on this.—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
For the record, FAs from other sports such as Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Thierry Henry, and Rex Ryan all have stats tables itemized by season.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
To be sure, each project should make its own decisions on these sorts of things. I disagree with the way the ice hockey project does things, which is why I stopped editing hockey articles years ago. (Well, that and I lost interest in the NHL after the last lockout.) We can decide whether or not consensus has changed. If we chose to use tables, we'd have to set standards, of course. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. That is why it's being brought up here. We definitely have a good reference in baseball reference website. Kingjeff (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We should analyze decisions on a case-by-case basis, and not automatically follow/dismiss ideas merely because of other project's decisions. Hence, I think it's good to re-examine the reasons why WP:BASEBALL has not included stats, and see if they still make sense.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, one of the reasons why it wasn't accepted was season–by–season managerial record tables were considered excessive. This is why I am suggesting the tables above. Kingjeff (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I would argue in some cases a table with season-by-season results is more succinct and presentable than text that sometimes monotonously rattles off the W-L records year by year. I think as a reader with some interest in baseball, these is an expectation to see basic stats tables. If the target audience are readers with little interest in baseball, I'd agree that it is excessive, but so would most of the stats mentioned in prose. Perhaps we should step back and decide the background of readers we are targeting.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Which readers are we targeting? Kingjeff (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
If we refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Assessment#Quality_scale, a B-class article "may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher", a GA is "Useful to nearly all readers", while an FA is a "definitive source for encyclopedic information." I can't imagine a "serious student or researcher" not needing the traditional stats for each season.—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a bit of a slippery slope to use this as a standard, since any serious researcher nowadays will be using more than traditional stats, and to be frank, will be going straight to the Baseball Reference site anyway. I appreciate there are those who like having the season statistics present within a person's article; my concerns are more from a practical perspective, since whenever a stat is included somewhere in an article, we tend to have endless discussions on what stats to include and when to update them. (Personally, I don't find it onerous at all to have to follow a link to reach the stats from an external site.) isaacl (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In this paticular case, there is no debate on which stats to include. We're talking about managers here. So, it's clearly wins, losses, and winning percentage. The only debates here is if it should be included or not, and if yes, should it be season–to–season or job–to–job like the above tables show. Kingjeff (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Serious researchers will want to know things like number of intentional walks given, number of pitchers used, number of lineups used, and so forth. Wins, losses, and winning percentage by themselves aren't that revealing for managerial studies. I'm not necessarily against including the basic stats for managers, but if you look at the history of this talk page, I think the longest debates are about including stats, and so I'm not eager to increase the opportunities for protracted discussions. isaacl (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Those stats are not just based on what the manager wants. The number of lineups used could be based on a high level of injuries. Same with the number pitchers used. When The Blue Jays had Rance Mulliniks and Garth Iorg platooning, that was set under multiple managers. So, it wasn't a case of one particular manager just deciding to use a platoon. Baseball is a sport with a lot of stats and many of them can be broken down any which way. There must be a line drawn to what is acceptable and what isn't. You would need to find sources for all those stats and, even if you did, I would think that it would be excessive for a manager's record table. I think those extra stats would be more appropriate for a team's season article. Kingjeff (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Isaac's point is valid though... if we start using stat tables for managers, then that will open the door for stat tables for players, which will definitely spawn much debate about which stats to include. Spanneraol (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
People randomly add player stats to the infobox, but there is no discussion to entirely remove those career stats. We have been throwing out the baby with the bath water by having no season stats because a few editors won't follow consensus. We are not doing readers a favor in a sport that emphasizes stats the most. To start the discussion, I'd propose the stats at the stat section in GA "2009 Philadelphia Phillies season"—Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't select those stats arbitrarily; analyses of managers have used them to form categories, and they are some of the key distinguishing characteristics between managers. As with all stats, they aren't a pure measure of a single ability, however raw win-loss record is more susceptible to other influences than these stats. I agree that the traditional records is what the casual reader will seek, but I think using the standard of trying to meet the needs of a serious researcher is problematic. isaacl (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The article will never meet all the needs of a serious researcher. However, neither should basic stats be stripped because a casual reader is unable to interpret them.—Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Spanneraol, I don't think it opens it up for any other stat. The only stats that would be allowed would be the stats that consensus allows. There are a lot of baseball statistics that can be split any which way. Therefore, there must be a line drawn for what stats are acceptable and which aren't. This is what discussions like this are for. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK clearly states that there is a line when it comes to listing statistics. It states "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." So, we can't just take "serious researchers" into account. But I think there is no problem with a manager's record with Wins–losses–Winning percentage for both regular season and post–season. Kingjeff (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we agree that the quality scale is referring to the whole article and not just a section of the article? I think since the topic is a managerial record table, it should remain about a table that includes wins–losses–winning percentage for both regular season and post–season. Those other stats I think are meant for another discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
W-L-% are standard and seems fine. If listing season-by-season, games behind might be added too, as well as playoff info.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Korean baseball and merging team categories

I dont know much about Korean baseball, and find the rules for categories confusing at times, but this is for those of you who are interested. Is this redirecting of team player categories the norm (I assume the team moved or changed sponsors)? I ran across this while investigating unrelated edits.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : December 16, 2014

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

May everyone enjoy a pleasant festive season, with Santa bringing that LOOGY your team has been looking for! Thanks to everyone for their work on baseball-related articles this year. If you'd like to contribute to the newsletter in 2015, please put the newsletter desk on your watchlist, and join in the conversation on its discussion page. Best wishes for 2015! isaacl (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Pitcher's position in infobox

Is there any consensus whether Relief pitcher and Starting pitcher should be listed as a player's position in their bio's infobox, or should the generic Pitcher be used? For example, Sandy Koufax and Lee Smith (baseball) are listed a pitcher, but Clayton Kershaw is shows as a starter and Mariano Rivera, reliever.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I support simply using pitcher. Pitcher is the position and starter/reliever/closer is the role.--TM 11:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont see any harm in using starter or reliever for those that worked exclusively in those roles through their careers. Its more specific than simply pitcher. Spanneraol (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
To my way of thinking, "pitcher" implies starting pitcher, but that's not a value judgment. After 1970 or so, great relievers became specialists, and threw harder with a higher percentage of strike-outs than starters. If a modern player is a career reliever, it's probably worth noting that. Most other categories of pitcher, including starters, do not require further differentiation in the article's infobox; that's what the main body text is for. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I prefer "Pitcher" for all. "Starter" vs. "reliever" might be okay. "Closer" or "setup" or "ace" are certainly not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Muboshgu. Plain "pitcher" is fine but if people want to get more specific "starting pitcher" vs. "relief pitcher" is acceptable (although for some pitchers who go back and forth plain "pitcher" would still be neeeded). Getting more specific than starter vs. reliever becomes too judgemental and unnecessary. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. It looks like there is no consensus on when to use the generic Pitcher vs more specific Relief pitcher or Starting pitcher. Pitcher might be more suitable than the the specific roles when a pitcher was not predominantly used in one role more than the other. However, more specific terms like Closer, Setup pitcher or Ace are discouraged.—Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

All hands on deck

If anyone isn't watching Kemp, Grandal, Porcello, Miley, Cespedes, Latos, etc., please do so. I've got other work to do, can't keep reverting all day. This is the one time I think I should become an admin, just so I could protect these pages. @Bagumba:, you around? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Dodgers are really frustrating me with all these moves... i cant sit in front of my computer all day... sad to see Kemp and Gordon go... two of my favorite players... Big roster makeover for the two time defending NL West champs who really were only one or two relievers away from making a real run last year. Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably for the best. Colleti collected too many outfielders for you, and you'll be getting a guy who can actually field the shortstop position, a second base upgrade, and the next Devin Mesoraco. I don't remember ever seeing this many trades all at once, these Winter Meetings are insane. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Would have preferred not to blow up the whole roster... they might be better defensively but they are weaker offensively at the moment.... I'm not real excited about Grandal. Spanneraol (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
For now, I've made an initial dent with some of the key figures re:Kemp.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I've made the rounds re: Cespedes too.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As of now, all the baseball related reports at WP:RPP have been protected.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Cespedes deal has been announced by the Red Sox. Spanneraol (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a url? I see this, but it seems like from MLB.com as opposed to Red Sox themselves.—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
[6] Red Sox official twitter has it. Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we get Ervin Santana, too? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
checkY Done—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


That was the most crazy few days of transactions I can remember. Shoutout to Garchy, Spanneraol, Bagumba, Trut-h-urts man, Bloom6132, and everyone else who made sense of the deluge! – Muboshgu (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys, keep an eye on all these players from the Padres/Rays trade as well.. gonna take awhile before that gets finalized with all the physicals and the fly-by editors are already striking.. Spanneraol (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, a reminder that there is a pre-canned template {{uw-sportstrans}} to inform editors on their talk page why their edits were removed even though it is in the news. Hopefully we can create a few new, long-term, productive editors in the process.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Player's new teams

I've seen where some bios have hidden text in the infobox with a player's new team in the team history section. Presumably, it is hidden because the player has not played a game with their new team yet. Irrespective of whether the team should be hidden or not, it seems that any hidden text should provide editors with an explanatory reason and guidance on when the text can be unhidden. Per WP:HIDDEN, "When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit." Seeing editors uncomment a "current" team, only to see it later reverted because a player has not played a game yet, seems like an endless edit war between now and April.—Bagumba (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for the hidden text.. some of these guys will never play for those teams and we have that text there that needs to be deleted. Spanneraol (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I think people have been adding it because it lessens the need for other editors to include it unhidden. The 2015 season hasn't started yet, and players like Andrew Heaney and Ryan Hanigan have been traded twice in the offseason, so this shouldn't be there at all for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
While some could argue "this shouldn't be there at all for the time being", there's probably more editors that are unaware of this "rule" that will keep adding the current team. Aside from edit warring, what should be done to make others aware of this rule? Or if it is a losing battle, why not just leave it there—is it just a technicality that most readers will not take as being erroneous? If the player moves again in the offseason, the team which he never player for would just be removed at that time.—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Spanneraol: Since it's hidden, it doesnt hurt much if we don't delete it. Besides, unless he never plays again and nobody ever edits the article, the more likely worst case is the hidden text would get updated the next time he changes teams. To be clear, when you say "don't really see the need for the hidden text", do you mean A) hidden yet such as "<!-- *[[Los Angeles Dodgers]] ({{by|2015}}–present) -->", or B) the proposed hidden text explanation for other editors on why the current team should remain hidden?—Bagumba (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Free baseball e-books available through Wikipedia Library

Hey baseball editors, just letting you all know that McFarland & Company has offered free e-book versions of its titles to experienced Wikipedians. The publisher has a large collection of titles on baseball. See Wikipedia:McFarland for instructions. Best, The Interior (Talk) 05:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay 2015 is already shaping up to be an excellent year with this news. I'll certainly be using this :). Can't get much better sourcing for Baseball than McFarland's stuff. Wizardman 05:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Color names in infoboxes again

Just an FYI to everyone - a couple new/anon users are going around again and capitalizing the colors found in infoboxes. Colors are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized (previously discussed here). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 04:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Also, as a note to this, shouldn't the infobox for the Toronto Blue Jays use the Canadian spelling of "colour", seeing as how they're located in Canada? Canuck89 (talk to me) 02:18, January 6, 2015 (UTC)
    • Updated the MLB team template with a simple fix here, so that Canada-based teams can use Canadian spelling. Canuck89 (talk to me) 02:32, January 6, 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Depth of The Catch

According to The Catch, Vic Wertz's hit was caught by Willie Mays 420 feet away in center field. According to the Vic Wertz article, it was 450 feet. Could be either, based on the dimensions of the Polo Grounds. I would guess 450, based on the CF distance of 480 and the picture, but it would be better to find a conclusive answer in a reliable source. Any ideas? Matchups 01:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember it popping up in Feller's biography, and it said 440 feet. In fact, I checked about 10 different books over on google, and I saw 420, 440, 450, 475, and "450 to 480". Now, Wertz hit a 420-foot triple earlier in the game, which I believe it what is confusing the sources that use that number. Also, the ones saying 475 and 480 have the Polo Grounds being even further than 480 feet long in dead center. 450 is the one that seems to be the most frequent (and is the number used in the Mays biographies), so if I had to pick a number it would be that. All the sources having different numbers is, well.. a bit concerning. I mean, we have video footage of it, shouldn't the distance be at least somewhat clear? Wizardman 19:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : January 25, 2015

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Once again, my personal thanks to everyone who helps improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball-related articles!

The Inside Corner can only be published if you pitch in and help! Regular contributors are welcome, whether it is covering project news or general baseball news, writing blurbs for articles and photos to showcase in the newsletter, sharing fond memories of the sport, soliciting help for your favourite tasks (such as Baseball Mountain), or anything else you can think of. If you are interested, please put the newsletter desk page on your watchlist, and write a quick note on the newsletter desk talk page. isaacl (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

season articles - tv and umpires

An IP has been making a lot of edits to Blue Jays season articles, for example 1992 Toronto Blue Jays season.. he/she has been adding detailed lists of TV schedules and umpire teams which seems extremely trivial and unnecessary. Does anyone think this is information worth keeping? Spanneraol (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I dumped it from both, because it is trivial bloat and because the sections are empty. The editor behind these IPs has long been a nuisance on hockey articles doing the same thing - adding empty sections of trivia. They've been blocked numerous times for it too. Resolute 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah he does it to baseball and football articles too. It has been a case of wack a mole with blocking him. Atleast when he had a named account he was easier to keep track of . -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Position to list in infobox

You are invited to the discussion at Talk:Ichiro_Suzuki#Position_in_infobox to reach a consensus on which position(s) to list for his infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Retired number navbox clutter

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_14#Template:Houston_Astros_retired_numbers, it was decided that the retired number templates (i.e., {{New York Yankees retired numbers}}) should be kept, but the entries of retired numbers should be removed from the main navboxes (i.e., {{New York Yankees}}), to reduce redundancy and clutter. I will start on this task now, but would appreciate help from others, not only in editing the main team navboxes, but also taking the templates off player pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to do as many as I can right now.--Yankees10 18:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I got through to the LA Dodgers template (doing the Yankees first, because they're the best, and then continuing alphabetically from Arizona). I'm heading out now but will jump back in later. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Athletics and Brewers are done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
checkY Pads—Bagumba (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Got the Mets. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

On a related note from an earlier discussion about team HOFs, each member of a team's hall of fame probably doesnt belong on the main navbox either. I've moved them out from Template:San Diego Padres into Template:San Diego Padres Hall of Fame. @Muboshgu: That template for the "best" team is quite bloated with Monument Park members.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I did notice that, and wondered if it should have its own navbox, but there would be considerable overlap with the retired numbers template. Maybe the Monument Park people should be in the retired numbers template? Also, some templates, like {{Cleveland Indians}}, contain lists of hall of famers, and {{Philadelphia Phillies}} contains "franchise record holders". Should we keep them in there? {{Oakland Athletics}} also contains "wall of fame" members, which could be spun off into its own template. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree, guys. Including retired number and HOF players in team navboxes is problematic. When you include these all-in-one team navboxes on player articles, you wind up linking the player articles to articles that are tangentially related at best, e.g., historical stadiums they never played in, other players/coaches with whom they have little in common, historical articles about elements of team history in which the players had no part, etc. Team navboxes work best when they are not used on player pages, but are restricted to team pages. And, yes, I am in favor of separate navboxes for team HOFs and the like (e.g., the Yankees' Monument Park). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If team HOF were combined with retired numbers, there would still be two sections in the navbox, so I'm ambivalent.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
My take on those HOF lists is that every(?) team has their own HOF, and those would likely contain any National HOF members already, except for those that only stopped for a cup of tea. Ideally, just have a link to the team HOF in the main navbox.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
For record holders, a link to the team's record article, e.g. List of Philadelphia Phillies team records, should be sufficient. A dedicated navbox would seem to be clutter.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, the distinction between a player with a retired number and a player in the same team's HOF is pretty damn ambiguous. I'm sure the criteria for the two honors makes for interesting reading. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bob Smith (1920s/30s pitcher)

A move request has been made at Bob Smith (1920s/30s pitcher) on Feb. 5. I support the move, but in looking at list of Bob Smith's, Bobby Smith's, and Robert Smith's at Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference, there are more naming conventions errors when vetted against WP:NC-BASE. I would go ahead with these changes, but there will be one correction will need someone with a little more skill.Neonblak talk - 16:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

References for a "list of" article

I have re-opened a discussion on whether or not it is necessary for each player listed in a "list of" article to have a separate citation to the individual player page on the same web site. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Help dig for sources?

Hey, I was wondering if anyone could help find sources for the article Rosie Reds, which is related to the team Cincinnati Reds. It does appear to be notable, but I'm having slight trouble finding sources since there are so many fan pages and so on. Anyone want to help out? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  1. Rosie Reds to be honored with Hall of Fame exhibit
  2. Solid few pages on them from The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly: Cincinnati Reds by Mike Shannon.
  3. Cincinnati Magazine– from April 1983
  4. A bit about them from Riverfront Stadium: Home of the Big Red Machine, also by Mike Shannon
  5. Enquirer.com article from 2004, "Rosies took root in 1964"
  6. 100 Things Reds Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die by Joel Luckhaupt
  7. A few sentences from Cincinnati Magazine in February 1996
I found most of these by searching for "rosie reds" (including the quotation marks) in Google– the quotation marks mean the words "rosie" and "reds" *must* appear next to each other. This filters out hits that might say rosie and red but in different places, so they're probably irrelevant. Good luck! -Newyorkadam (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
It doesn't look particularly notable to me.. seems to be a local booster group... perhaps a merge to one of the other Reds pages. Spanneraol (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of season schedule tables

WP:Baseball members, please review these discussion threads: [7] and [8]. The changes proposed would affect the way we currently format all single-season NFL articles, and ultimately single-season articles for MLB and other major sports teams, too. Your feedback on the relevant talk pages is invited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Major League Baseball Draft: Other Notable Players

User:Nyu5765, someone I am not totally familiar with, decided to edit the Major League Baseball Draft pages for a few years, 2010, 2008, and 2009, and decided to add over 100 names to the "Other notable players" for each draft. Essentially, any player that has ever appeared in the major leagues. When I created those sections a while back, I meant for them to cover players who have made notable impact in the Major Leagues. I felt like so many players, which stretched out the page as well, was overkill, so I removed them. However, he just reverted my edits with no explanation. He hasn't made an edit summary ever, and I doubt he is going to respond to my message on his talk page. What do you think we should do? Does everyone agree that many players is overkill? I don't want to start an edit war so I'm leaving the pages as they are for now. Mpejkrm (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what is the desirable criteria for inclusion on this section. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is by calling the section "other notable players" you open it up to any player who has reached wikipedia's definition of notability.. i.e. anyone who has played in the Majors... I don't necessarily have a problem with listing all of them... but if you want to limit it, you should think of re-naming the section to something more specific.. or at least had some text explaining whatever criteria you are using there. Spanneraol (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree that any major league player would fit based on how it's written now. If we want to start limiting it, then that's a discussion that could be tricky. Would be limiting to All-Stars? Award recipients? Would significant people in other areas who happened to be drafted be worthy of inclusion, such as Russell Wilson in 2010? Wizardman 01:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
When I wrote our article on the 1987 Major League Baseball Draft, I included the first two rounds and then all other players, whether they signed or otherwise, that reached MLB status. I don't see a compelling reason to limit draft articles to "notable" players, as defined by criteria such as All-Star appearances or awards. The 1987 Draft was the largest since the 1967 draft, and its table doesn't seem too tedious to work. Seattle (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually like what you did there with a table rather than a long list. Does everyone agree that that might be the best way? Using a table like that? I can go ahead and do that if so. Mpejkrm (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
At a minimum, it needs explicit inclusion criteria, as "notable" is subjective and a virtual open invitation.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mpejkrm: WP:AGF. Barring a track record, it's presumptuous to assume someone will not cooperate.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, my apologies. I do always try to AGF, I just wrongfully jumped to a conclusion there. Mpejkrm (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Umpire media guide online!

I found the 2014 Umpire Media Guide online, with biographical information on all umpires, historical record of who worked what playoff games, and information on baseball rules, stadium-specific ground rules, and more. It's a great resource. Go Phightins! 20:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox NPB season

Template:Infobox NPB season has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Nippon Professional Baseball season. Given that these infobox templates are of likely interest to members of this WikiProject, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some eyes on the related articles to these infoboxes, as I'm not sure the articles meet WP:N or its SNGs. --Izno (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review please

Wikipedia:Peer review/2014 Philadelphia Phillies season/archive1 Would someone be willing to peer review this for me? I would QPQ if necessary ... Go Phightins! 18:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: Looks like that peer review was closed by a bot, are you planning on opening a new one? I might have some time to read through and suggest some changes, but I have a bunch of pictures of the stadium from 2014– do you want me to upload 'em? -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
There never was a peer review, yet the bot archived it, so I undid that edit ... perhaps I should have relisted a new one. Regardless, I would appreciate any feedback. Go Phightins! 19:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I don't see your undo. Today or this weekend I'll try to provide some feedback. -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
I just uploaded a few images that might be helpful– lemme know if you want any moar. File:Phillies Opening Pitch April 8 2014 Moyer Carlton.jpg, File:Phillies 2014 Opening Day Citizens Bank Park Panorama.jpg, File:Citizens Bank Park Before 2014 Opening Day.jpg. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

training camp templates

{{Cactus League}} and {{Grapefruit League}} have been nominated for deletion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

A proposed change to a cut-off has been proposed here. Anyone is free to weigh in. Thanks, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : March 15, 2015—spring training edition

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Many thanks to everyone who edits baseball-related articles!

The Inside Corner needs you to contribute articles, project updates, baseball news, and blurbs on showcased articles and pictures. What's next for your favourite team: are they in the playoff hunt, if only for a wild card, or is the best thing you're expecting to see from them is a free bobblehead? What are your pre-season predictions? Who do you think will be the surprise of the season? What milestones are you looking forward to seeing? Excited to see one of the largest Hall of Fame classes get inducted? If you are interested in submitting something, put the newsletter desk on your watchlist, and join in on the discussion page, letting us know what you are planning. Thanks again to everyone for their efforts: it is much appreciated! isaacl (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability

The discussion summarized here (which in turn leads to 2 other discussions) may interest some followers of this page.

As I read it, it leads to major league baseball players (like former MVPs Al Rosen and Ernie Banks) being less likely to be considered notable than athletes in other sports, where the # 1 league includes non-English-speaking countries.

Because the notability test of that guideline is "how many non-English Wikipedias have articles on the fellow". --Epeefleche (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats a confusing guideline... it doesnt seem to be saying anything about him being notable just about if you can mention his birth... which makes no sense.. Since when is mention in wikipedia a grounds for any sort of notability?Spanneraol (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Editors, following the guideline, this month deleted the two MVPs Al Rosen and Ernie Banks from the "Deaths in 2015" section. Because they weren't in effect notable enough, per the guideline. Basketball people who are in the US suffer similarly -- Dean Smith was also deleted. --Epeefleche (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There are red links on Deaths in 2015, and people were deleting some of the most important American sportspeople? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I get that objective criteria are needed because with the way Wikipedia works, there's no way everybody is going to be an expert on every domain. However, judging notability on an English Wikipedia using non-English sources is beyond me. Geographically speaking, it inherently creates a European bias. What's the saying about a camel being a horse designed by committee? Well, credit should be given if the camel was the desired outcome.—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
"Notability" is the wrong term here.
At the moment Nick Koback (January) is listed, as well as Banks (Jan) and Rosen (Mar). The Koback and Rosen entries do hint any difference in notability, simply identify the sport and one ballclub. Banks is distinguished, thanks to the Hall of Fame; same for Dean Smith (Feb).
Not only does the list include numerous redlinks --which seems to me appropriate for people with pages in 10 other languages-- but the March 2015 currently includes these four redlink Americans: Jack Jurden, 88, American cartoonist; Jim Doherty (harness race driver), 71, American Hall of Fame harness racing driver and trainer; Joe McDonnell (American radio personality), 58, American radio sports commentator and talk show host (KNX); Brett Young (Canadian football), 47, American CFL football player (Ottawa Rough Riders), kidney failure. (Evidently there is a policy to delete redlinks after one month, with edit summary "no articles".) Which American baseball players are routinely listed? Does someone here do it systematically?
What such discussion needs (there, not here) is illustration. Advocates of rules in the "10 languages" family should show 10-language and 5-language versions of a selected months in the past. --P64 (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Central Texas Sports, etc.

Template:Central Texas Sports and several similar navbox templates have been nominated for deletion. Given that the subjects of these navboxes are within the scope of WikiProject baseball, you are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cardinals minor league page

Can someone help keep an eye on Cody Stanley's blurb at the Cardinals minor league page? An IP is removing factual info about his suspension. I've already reverted a few times, but i'm over the limit.--Yankees10 23:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it's vandalism, so 3RR dosen't apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and accessibility

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Accessibility_with_infoboxes that is related to Template:Infobox baseball biography having data inside a header, such as the current placement of the player's number and team.—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes in Mickey Mantle's all-star appearances by YahwehSaves

YahwehSaves has been changing how All-Star games are counted on the Mickey Mantle article, changing his all-star appearances from 20 to 16 based on counting the years where there were two all-star games as one appearance. The last time this was debated, the consensus was against him but he has apparently decided that since a couple of years have gone by he's gonna go ahead and implement these changes anyway. See here for the recent discussion on Mantle's talk page. EricEnfermero and I figured it should be brought here for wider debate on this. Spanneraol (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a firm opinion, except that we should discuss it here and make a firm decision that applies to each article across the project. By bringing it up on individual articles, the discussion is getting spread out too thin. MisfitToys made the point recently at Talk:Minnie Miñoso that position players were almost always the same during the two games in a given season. If that's the case, especially if that's verifiable, I could see that as an argument for using the 16 rather than the 20. With the current consensus, it looks like consensus is to use 20. I'm not sure why an editor would edit against consensus just because time has passed. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To me, the fact that his Hall of Fame plaque mentions 20 all-star teams should settle it. His mlb.com page also lists all 20... despite what Mr. Saves says.. Spanneraol (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like this has already been settled, but I would put my vote in for 20 as well. Garchy (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah it's 20.--Yankees10 17:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
20. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see citations from what the various biographical reference sources do; I think there is a good case to be made that the infobox ought to show the number of All-Star selections rather than games played, for better uniformity between players of different eras. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Mantle was a 1959 All-Star, 1960 All-Star, 1961 All-Star, and 1962 All-Star (4 time All-Star, not 8). He wasn't a 1959... All-Star Game. He was awarded 16 times for being selected as an All-Star 16 times, for the Mid-Summer Classic 16 times (1959-30th; 2015-86th). I think this is what you're refering to? YahwehSaves (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure if you're replying to me as the indentation level of your response doesn't correspond to my post. I'm asking specifically what is done by the standard baseball reference sources when providing a brief summary of players during that time period: do they show a count of the number of years in which the player was selected as an All-Star, or a count of all the games in which the player participated? I think providing a count of the number of years is better for comparison with players in all eras, but I understand if others feel otherwise based on what the standard references do. isaacl (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As you can see on the Hall of Fame site, Mantle's plaque in Cooperstown refers to him as a 20-time All-Star. The specific wording is "Named on 20 A.L. All-Star Teams". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems to settle the issue, as long as the HOF does that consistently with other players too. However, I see no problem pointing out in the article's main text that some of the All-Star games were played in the same year, and I'd even support a footnote in the infobox that does that also. - BilCat (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
A footnote in the infobox would probably be a good idea, as someone adding up the years would find that it doesn't equal 20. The prose should mention each and every ASG, including the times there were two in a season. As for the earlier comment by isaacl about "uniformity between players of different eras", I don't consider that possible, since the eras are so different due to rules that either favored hitters or pitchers, juiced or dead balls, steroids, and of course segregation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that what a Hall of Fame plaque displays necessitates that the infobox must list a count of All-Star teams; we can still elect to list number of All-Star years should we believe this is one of the key characteristics essential to a brief summary of a player. Hall of Fame plaques serve a slightly different purpose: they are at least in part promotional, to celebrate the inductee, and as such would naturally choose to include bigger numbers over smaller ones.
Regarding different rules and most other conditions, those are actually less of an issue regarding All-Star selections, since these are done more on a relative ranking basis, so the rules in effect at the time affect everyone equally. (Segregation is a notable exception.) The traditional stats are much more problematic. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I was replying to you Isaac and at the same time everyone so there would be fair and sensible consideration after I wrote. These aren't the original plaques. These plaques vary and some say, played in _ AS Games (Williams and Mays). Hank Aaron's for one don't mention AS. So, who's going to use that plaque for a reliable AS reference ? In the first place you have to be selected first to be an AS for that AS year to even play or sit the bench in an AS game. So how can 20 times be more important than 16 times? The info box incorrectly has, Career highlights and awards instead of Career awards and highlights. I would say MLB gives some type of recognition for being selected as an All-Star, Baseball-Reference.com has "Awards" by year as, AS, ROY, MVP... in this case the number is 16 "AS". That could mean there's a MLB award recognition of some type given to a player for being selected for All-Star playing rather than not. Thanks for your kind responses. No thanks for the unkindness or both at the same time shown to me here and elsewhere. YahwehSaves (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see at http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mantlmi01.shtml, there are 20 All-Star entries including the multiple ones in a single year e.g. "1959-1" and "1959-2". I don't understand the argument that plaques with All-Star appearances cannot be used as reliable sources, merely because not all plaques have the same information. The fact that they are not uniform, does not mean the information when available is not reliable. I do not understand your issue of " Career highlights and awards" vs "Career awards and highlights".—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a dispute about the Hall of Fame plaque being a reliable source for the number of games Mantle participated in (and there are ample reliable sources for this info in any case). The disagreement is whether or not what appears on the plaque should be used to determine what appears in the infobox: a count of yearly selections to the All-Star roster, or a count of All-Star games participated in. I understand why people gravitate towards a count of games; I just think it might be more useful, as a key characteristic of each All-Star player, to see the number of years, which gives a better indication of the breadth of the player's peak years (admittedly only a vague one). isaacl (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this source can help: All-Star History [9] - here it mentions "All-Star Team appearances", but haven't seen anything here about "__ time All-Star or All-Star __ times" > 1959 All-Star Game [10] - here it has Game 1 and 2 as an All-Star "doubleheader" and mentions Don Drysdale "making his first of eight All-Star appearances" (matches the "Awards"-8 yrs AS at Baseball-Reference.com). The Don Drysdale Wikipedia page info box has 9x All-Star. I added another section in Mantle Talk > Info box: Career highlights and awards (MM article section has "Awards and achievements"). In MM article, All-Star begins as an award (because Baseball reference does) (all mentions on list are yearly recognitions) where in the Info box it begins as a highlight. As an award in article, its credited 20 "# of times" instead of 16 (its not considered an award by deleter, so 16 was deleted; and also "# of years was deleted). YahwehSaves (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Some sources count AS by years, and others by number of games. To cherry-pick one set of references with one format and ignore the others is not very constructive; the other side can argue the opposite. Given that there is no consistency in sources, it's up to Wikipedia to choose how to present it. If it has been listed more-or-less consistently in WP as number of times (has it?), I'm not convinced so far that there is a strong reason to change it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you opposed to my suggestion of using footnotes to mention the multiple years? Or we could list both - "20 All-Star appearances in 16 years", or something like that. It doesn't have to be one way or the other - we can list both, as long as it doesn't get too confusing, which is why I like the idea of the footnote.- BilCat (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, buried and missed it. No problem with footnote of some sort.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
In regard to the Baseball-Almanac site I mentioned, it does have Minnie Minoso as a "seven time All-Star" as well as the Minoso site, Minoso should know, he played in those 59-62 AS games; Wikipedia "9xAll-Star". His site also straightened out his birtdate from Nov. 29, 25 to 1922. He could have impressed... people with 9 time All-Star but didn't. YahwehSaves (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
You're slicing and dicing info to fit your predetermined conclusion. For Minoso, Baseball Almanac says 7 years, 8 games, because he played in 8 All-Star Games across 7 years. He was named to the ninth but didn't appear in it. Does this mean you don't want to count All-Star appearances for the last guy on the bench who doesn't get into the game? Dellin Betances didn't appear in the 2014 game, but we still call him an All-Star. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
For Minoso: Minoso site > "Seven time major league All-Star" [11], Baseball-Almanac, bottom of page, "Seven-time All-Star" > [12], Baseball-Reference.com, 7 "Awards/Years" "AS" and 9 AS Games > [13], and Sports Data site, MLB rules for the 1959-62, 4 All-Star double games, 1 appearance credit per year, which would mean Minoso with 9 AS games got 7 appearance credits back then which had to be per year selected > [14]. For Willie Mays (Wikipedia 24xAll-Star): Hall of Fame site has 20-time All-Star, bottom of page > [15]. The Managers, Coaches, and Players selected the All-Star Team rosters in 1959-62 for each league. The players far as I know didn't select the All-Star Team lineups for game 2. YahwehSaves (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue. See the lead at Nellie Fox. I don't think consensus has changed based on this discussion. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

All concerned: The Hall of Fame plaque for Nellie Fox says 12-Time All-Star (15x All-Star, Wikipedia info box)[All-Star-refs 1] See the Hank Greenberg article, it has "5x All-Star" in the info box instead of 4, the 5th X being for the 1945 Associated Press game (and AP selection) when no official MLB ALL-Star Game was played (and no official MLB All-Star selections). MLB does not count the 1945 season (2015, 86th All-Star Game). The HOF references will come across better when its realized that there was only one official AL and one NL All-Star team each and every season (except 1945) with the two teams playing two games in 59-62. YahwehSaves (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We may not have explained this well enough, but the point is that we have an established way of referring to the number of All-Star Games in baseball biographies. This discussion was an attempt to make sure that we don't want to change that method. It doesn't look like the discussion resulted in any changes. It's okay not to like something on WP; that happens to all of us. But we all agree to edit as a team and to respect consensus on well-discussed topics like this one. If I am overlooking something, someone let me know. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The issue I see is that the only rationale that has been given so far is "Mantle's Hall of Fame plaque says X, so list X", but since the infoboxes in other articles differ from what's shown on the plaque, the rationale does not accurately describe what is actually being done. Absent any line of reasoning, it's difficult to determine if there is in fact a consensus, or just inertia. isaacl (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
My understanding was that there has long been consensus to list it by number of games. Is that not right? EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
In the worst case, per WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
From what I recall of the previous discussions, they have established that there is essentially one selection made during the years of multiple All-Star games, but beyond that, no line of reasoning was agreed upon to decide what to display in the infobox. So the inertia of "this is the way it's been done up to now" keeps the current values in place. Although this is a consensus of practice, it basically relies on a "I like it" / fait accompli justification. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that consensus can change. "I like it" is probably the weakest argument for doing anything, but it represents some form of consensus, nonetheless. However, lacking a more convincing argument, it's not constructive to rehash an issue with no new arguments. There is no right or wrong, so let's pick one and move on.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, that's exactly why I've been trying to pursue this discussion. I have presented arguments, but unfortunately there has been very little response (hence why inertia keeps everything where it is). isaacl (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hard to say if people are ambivalent or it just got buried at this point. Perhaps start a new thread stating all the facts up front. It's too scattered. I started the #Expand_ASG_article_for_multiple_games_in_same_year thread in hopes of at least getting the facts straight for the MLB All-Star Game article (which I see you already commented).—Bagumba (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
(outdent) I see no reason why we wouldn't include the 45 players on the infoboxes, which we've been doing anyway. Not the players' fault they decided to cancel it. The double games however, the more I read on the subject the more I'm utterly confused on how exactly the rosters were determined. There were clearly different players for each game, but how much of that was due to injury and how much was due to new voting or changes in stats? Wizardman 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
From the 1962 Sporting News Official Baseball Guide:
Continuing a practice begun in 1958, the managers, coaches and players of the two leagues again selected their circuit's starting lineup, exclusive of the pitcher. The only restriction was that no player could vote for a member of his own club. . . .
The managers of the two teams picked the remaining players. Each was limited to a 25-man squad for the first game. For the second, both were permitted to add three additional performers and lso make any desired changes in their pitching staffs.
isaacl (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For more perspective, how do we handle players selected to one of the midseason official All-Star teams but replaced on the squad for injury, family obligation, etc? Infobox aside, is there any boilerplate prose explanation, or anyone who is comfortable with hir wording? --P64 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing that generally, anyone selected to the All-Star Game is considered an AS, whether they play or not. I'm not sure if there is any similar case in baseball as with the NFL's Pro Bowl, where a replacement who declines the invitation is not considered a Pro Bowler.—Bagumba (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Its any MLP player named or selected to the All-Star team not game that is considered an "All-Star" (selected as an All-Star player). Pitcher Wilmer (Vinegar Bend) Mizell [All-Star-refs 2] who was named to the NL All-Star team in 1959 had a back injury prior to the 1st game and was replaced [All-Star-refs 3] by pitcher Don Elston. This can be checked at Baseball-Reference.com - two 1959 All-Star games > both names appear as Reserve pitchers for both the 1st and 2nd games with Elston pitching 1 inning in 1st game and Mizell not pitching in any game (he just made the 1959 All-Star selection). Both would be considered by MLB HOF standards, a one-time All-Star that season meaning, a 1959 All-Star.
Roger Maris for one in 1959, didn't get named or make the AL All-Star team in 1959 until the 2nd game. Maris would be considered by HOF standards a one-time All-Star that season, meaning a 1959 All-Star. It appears being on the 1st game roster in 1959-62 meant you were automatically placed on the 2nd game's roster. YahwehSaves (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to further this discussion, do we have references for the HOF standards on how they count All-Star selections? I did not know that such refs/standards existed. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually its not automatic (?), Mizell is not named on the official 1959 2nd AS Game program's NL 25 player All-Star Squad (Baseball-Reference has Mizell on the 1959 2nd AS Game, NL All-Star Reserve Player listing; included as an injured player of a NL 27 player roster).
In 1963, Mantle though he had a broken foot in May, was selected June 29 as an All-Star for 1963-AL, CF.[1] Mantle is not on the official July 9, 1963 All-Star Program's AL 25 player All-Star Squad (Albie Pearson is on the 25-player AS squad and played CF) nor is pitcher Bill Monbouquette who replaced injured pitcher Steve Barber (injured after June 29) who is on the 25-player AS squad. Mantle, Barber, and Monbouquette didn't play in the 1963 AS game. Baseball-Reference gives an AL 27 All-Star player roster that includes Mantle, Barber, and Monbouquette. YahwehSaves (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
My impression was that we were trying to reach consensus before making changes to the All-Star assertions on this article. Given YS's latest edits, am I misunderstanding the process? Consensus seems unclear to me, but we're back in the same boat, with the article being changed to reflect a particular preference. The out-of-process edits are more concerning to me than the actual issue of "x-time All-Star". EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Expand ASG article for multiple games in same year

With the continued debate over the infobox display of multiple all-star games in the same year, I can't seem to find any sourced mention of these multiple games occurring, including the reasons behind it and the roster selection process. There's just a brief unsourced mention in the lead. Can someone in the know update MLB All-Star Game with verifiable information. The entire infobox debate threat is TLDR to determine the facts for these games.—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In this thread, Baseball Bugs cites the 1962 Sporting News Official Baseball Guide with information on the All-Star selection for that year. In this earlier discussion, Baseball Bugs cites the 1960 guide though without providing a quote. isaacl (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This NY Times article has background on the reason for two All-Star games. isaacl (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Text of the 1962 guide can be found at the Internet archive. Here is a scan of the relevant page. isaacl (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
All can see from above in 1962 Guide for 61, "1945" AS Game has under Results of Previous Games, "No game played". So why is "1945" in several MLB info boxes when the official 1945 AS Game was cancelled on February 8 before the 1945 season started (also no official AS selection ever occurred; Associated Press had a selection)? Only official MLB highlights are allowed in info box.
These 1959-62 "All-Star" players total "times an All-Star" are correctly shown in their MLB HOF Bios and Plaques when it says times an All-Star: Willie Mays "20-time All-Star", Nellie Fox "12-Time American League All-Star", Yogi Berra "fifteen time All-Star" [1] (18x All-Star, Wikipedia info box); total years selected an All-Star (player).
The 59-62 double AS games had two official programs those seasons (two "ALL Star Game" booklets, there was no "Game 1 and Game 2" booklets). MLB also counted the two games as one All-Star Game per season (26th, 27th, 28th, 29th). That was changed later to MLB counting these AS Games as 2 AS Games for 1959-62 (26-27, 28-29, 30-31, 32-33 ; 2015=86th AS Game instead of 82nd).
Mantle didn't play in the 1952, 1962 Game 2, 1963, and 1965 All-Star Games. He was selected an All-Star those seasons but did not make the 1963 and 1965 AL All-Star Teams (25-player AL AS squads) because of injuries. So, now you can see why HOF goes by AS year appearances ("times an All-Star") and not times games. YahwehSaves (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 01:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 'Yogi Berra', "fifteen time All-Star" [2]
I don't actually see any explanation from the HOF as to why they usually refer to years and not games. Am I not seeing something? EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=All-Star-refs> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=All-Star-refs}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_39&oldid=1142541304"